<DIV>Ralph,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The reason that charity doesn't pay for medical care of the poor is because we charge outrageous rates for medical care.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, my band-aid example is grounded in reality, although exaggerated to make a point. Hospitals overcharge the uninsured, that is a fact. The reason they do this is because they know that they will only recover a certain percentage of the actual cost of providing them care. This strategy obviously hurts the poor more than those that are wealthier and can afford health insurance.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Health insurance companies enable doctors and health care providers to charge fees not otherwise affordable to 90% of the public, and putting the poor into medical bankruptcy. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You cannot apply the Canadian system of health care to that of the United States. It would not work. Greed is the simple reason for our health care system being
unaffordable to the average citizen, it is that simple. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>Ralph Nielsen <nielsen@uidaho.edu></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>Dear Donovan,<BR><BR>I don't know where you get these ideas, but they are not grounded on <BR>reality. If you imagine that charity will pay for the poor, why are <BR>over 40 million Americans without health care insurance of any kind? <BR>And why are millions more bankrupted by doctor and hospital bills <BR>that their insurance companies refuse to pay? I think your band-aid <BR>example is absurd.<BR><BR>For some first-hand information on how universal medicare works in <BR>the Province of British Columbia, please read the first two articles <BR>on this web site. They are written by an American citizen who lives <BR>in BC and is familiar with both systems.
And please note, Donovan, <BR>the Canadian system does not benefit the rich while hurting the poor, <BR>as you claim below. Please get your facts first.<BR><BR><WWW.AMERICANHEALTHCAREREFORM.ORG /><BR><BR>Ralph<BR><BR><BR>Ralph,<BR><BR>Universal Health Care, and Universal Health Coverage are two <BR>totally different things. Forcing people to buy health insurance <BR>doesn't cure anybody, it just makes doctors and insurance companies <BR>even wealthier than they are.<BR><BR>I am 100% against forced health insurance purchasing, because it <BR>will not help the poor and will just be another tax benefiting the <BR>rich while hurting the poor.<BR><BR>The problem is not how can we pay for a $60 band-aid, but rather, <BR>why we cannot reduce the cost of the band-aid to 60 cents, or even <BR>$6.00. If you bring down the cost of the band-aid, the middle class <BR>can afford health insurance and charity can afford to cover the poor.<BR><BR>Best Regards,<BR><BR>Donovan<BR><BR>Ralph
Nielsen <NIELSEN uidaho.edu at>wrote:<BR>I thought it was a very informative program in that it covered a<BR>variety of systems for universal coverage. Unfortunately, most<BR>Americans seem to have been indoctrinated with the idea the <BR>universal<BR>health insurance is "socialized medicine," and therefore to be<BR>avoided like poison A couple of months ago a repairman at my house<BR>used that term with an air of dislike. So I asked hem what he meant<BR>by that term. He replied that it means that all doctors will be<BR>working for the government.<BR><BR>So I told him about my Canadian brother, who is a self-made<BR>millionaire, and lives in the Okanagan Valley, just north of the<BR>Washington border. About a year ago he had a hip replacement. He <BR>had<BR>to wait less than a month because he was willing to go to a younger<BR>doctor instead of an older, more popular one. Most Canadian doctors<BR>do not work for the government, they work for themselves. Only
the<BR>insurance is paid by the government, like our Medicare, and ALL<BR>residents are covered, not just the rich, as down here. This is <BR>paid<BR>for by income taxes, which, of course, are based on ability to pay,<BR>and everybody is covered, regardless of income.<BR><BR>Last month there was a provincial election in Alberta, where the<BR>Conservative Party has been in power for 37 years. In February they<BR>called for a provincial election on March 3. I listened on my<BR>internet radio to a 2-hour debate between the party leaders:<BR>Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic (like the British Labour<BR>Party), and a small new party called the Alberta Wild Rose Party,<BR>which sounded like dogmatic libertarians. There were frequent<BR>questions about problems with health care but no one, not even the<BR>libertarian, proposed that their "socialized" medicine be scrapped<BR>and Alberta return to the old American-style system they had <BR>before.<BR>In fact, it was the
Conservatives who had set it up in the first <BR>place!<BR><BR>Later, on March 3, the Conservatives were not only returned to <BR>power;<BR>they gained 11 new seats! Wouldn't it be nice if our conservatives<BR>learned something from the Province of Alberta?<BR><BR>Ralph Nielsen<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ "> Try it now.</a>