On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:38:20 GMT, MTV >
wrote:

>ikke wrote:
>>>America's health care the best in the world."
>>
>>
>> The US health care may rank among the best.
>> Unfortunately only those who can afford it have acces to it.
>> The others have to make do with far less or with nothing at all.
>>
>> Privatisation usualy has the following effects to the customer:
>> - rising cost
>> - less service
>> - less quality
>> - less safety
>> - less reliability
>>
>> Want examples?
>> Take a look at what happened to the infrastructure for electricity
>> distribution. (owned , but hardly cared for by the energy concerns)
>> Hightension lines have been neglected for decades, very little has to go
>> wrong in order to experience a major blackout - as happened only months ago.
>> Take a look at the brittish railroad network. Since the privatisations,
>> investments in maintenance and security plummeted.
>> It is now considered the most unsafe railroad network in all of Europe.
>>
>> A nation is healthy when it can support its citizens by providing them good
>> and affordable education, health care, social security,
>> public transportation etc.
>> A healthy nation is a more productive one.
>> The state has little control over, and even less influence on these services
>> if they are left to the corporate world.
>> Expensive education and health care result in a weaker and less productive
>> nation.
>> Fewer people will have acces to the basic needs.
>> Those left out will be unable to be part of the economy and be a burdon to
>> it.
>>
>> Any leader selling out to the industry clearly is not concerned with the
>> well-being of the nation he's been elected to represent.
>>
>> Just my two cents.
>> To stop the flaming before it starts: the above opinion does not intend to
>> pick on the US or its president in particular.
>> It's aim is to make the reader think about the problem, and is directed
>> against all leaders filling their pockets while making the man/woman in the
>> street pay for it.
>>
>> Ikke
>>
>
>Ah, but we're eternal optimists and believe in market forces and limited
>control by government. Our Medicaid is a safety net for the poorest of the
>poor; poor who don't qualify for that, like all the illegal immigrants,
>flood hospitals and get free treatment. It's still ingrained in our psyche
>that individuals are responsible for their own well being and have every
>opportunity to get ahead. That may be outdated, but it struck me last night
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that until the 1950's most people had no health insurance at all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^

So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health care needs
of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of during
that period?

>
>Just an observation on our differences. Who knows in the grand scheme of
>things whether any view is best.
>
>MTV
>
>