Re: Health insurance

["D. Citron" <dcitron -at- GATE -dot- NET>]

RoseRead -at- aol -dot- com wrote:
: I'm sorry, but I am taking strong, strong exception to your stated views on
: President Clinton.  For those of you who are now asking what this has to do
: with the techwriter's list, just ask yourself how secure you would feel
: striking out as a free lancer.  If this isnt an issue for you, go on to the
: next post.

I'm sorry to be abrupt, but I don't want to waste a lot of tiome on this
reply. The people have spoken in the November election. I am no longer
worried about the self-serving bureaucrats and politicians who want to take
over medical care to enlarge their turf and guarantee reelection,
respectively.

This year I am more concerned about the self-serving theocrats who want
to use their power to impose their religious dogma upon others -- in the
areas of abortion and school prayer.

So my posting is not nearly as long or as detailed as some of mine were
(in alt.politics.*)  when socialized medicine was a real threat.

: Just what the heck are you afraid of with Clinton?   That he wants people to
: be able to gain access to health care before they become catastrophic
: write-offs in private industry?  we *already* pay for that, in premiums and
: in converage denial.  The government has less of a stake in the greed machine
: (i.e. profit, and I see plenty of that machine) than the pharmaceuticals, the
: insurance industry, or private practitioners.  How close are you to the
: health care industry?

I am a patient patient. That's all.

: how close are you to government?

I am a victim of its stupidity and irresponsibility. Like ths Ponzi scam
known as Social Security, which will be bankrupt before I am old enough
to collect a cent.

: just how do you back up the statements you make against the President?

Read on...

Catastrophic, huh? I'm glad you brought that up. A few years ago, a
catastrophic health care bill was passed. But when AARP discovered that
additional premiums were required, public protest ensued and it was
very quickly repealed.

Let's face it, Clinton's constituency was not people who couldn't afford
insurance. They were largely greedy people who preferred to spend their
disposable income elsewhere -- beer, tobacco, lottery tickets, $100
sneakers, new cars, professional sports, whatever. And especially
government employees (including public hospital employees such as you)
who would be enriched, directly or indirectly, by the enlargement of
bureaucracy. Did you ever wonder why federal employees,among Slick
Willie's biggest backers, were to be exempted from the plan, if it is so
good?

People who truly can't afford health care are already covered by a
myriad of mismanaged federal, state, and local entitlement programs -- in
addition to charities and writeoffs by providers. And I refuse to take any
responsibility for people who refuse to take responsibility for their own
irresponsible activities. Please keep your liberal guilt to yourself, Rose.

There's a joke that was going around last year. Political party
registration was to be encoded into the HillaryCare Id Card. Democrats
get immediate appointments. Republicans are told to come back in six
months. Libertarians are all assigned to the same doctor -- Dr. Kervorkian.

When bureaucrats have the power to decide who gets priorities for
rationed health care and who doesn't, that's scary. Especially since one
provision of the plan would have made it a prosecutable crime (bribery)
to seek or offer care outside of the system. Would you want to depend for
health care on bureaucrats who have the power of life and death over you?

I know I wouldn't. My life and health are too important to be entrusted
to these scam artists.