Universal government health care, housing, autos, and food supply is elimination of personal freedoms Re: Re: Hi, I'm new and have a question please

May 1, 2009

Gracia/all,

Regulation is the primary tool that companies and special interests use

to manipulate the public to their ends, which is usually not in the

benefit of the groups (i.e. socialism/communism style policies) and

certainly is not in the interest of individuals who take personal

responsibility for their own health, being knowledgeable, and taking

action. Any government health care system will limit choice, try to cut

costs by making value decisions that are individual choices, choices

will be eliminated (no Armour for you!). The choice of thyroid

treatment will most certainly be limited to those options that lobbied

with the regulators - T4 will be all you get and iodine will not be

available in desirable and effective doses, if you can get it at all.

Individuals and what they want will be cut out of the equation. You

will OBEY your doctor who will be a puppet to special interests.

The US post office is a public system. It and it alone has the right to

deliver first class mail in the USA. There used to be competing systems

that were much more effective in the past but the government put them

out of business. Overnight delivery systems are generally private.

Even a competitive bidding process would be better but having a pure

free market in first class mail delivery systems would produce much

better results for most people. Most people would probably get mail

delivery 7 days a week if they wanted and even multiple times a day in

an open market system and have the option of deliver to the door (we

have a " public " box system way down the street) BUT some people out in

the boon docks would get sub par service. The only way to give EVERYONE

first class mail delivery is to lower the quality of mail delivery for

the majority which is exactly how it is done in the USA. (The post

office tried to regulate email and was going to charge several cents per

email since it was competing with first class mail - add that cost up!)

Government health care will be no different. Yes, everyone will get

some degree of health care but ALL of us who currently have health care

will have a much lower quality of care, will have to wait longer for

that poor quality, and advances in health treatments will come to a craw

since financial returns on cutting edge options will dry up.

The only way I see to mitigate this and find a balance is to create a

voucher system, eliminate the FDA's ability to restrict medical care

(they could still certify drugs but the private certification market

would be more effective putting the FDA out of business) and require any

health care system taking government voucher to accept all applications

if they accept any without considering pre-existing conditions. This

would provide all Americans with healthy care while completely

preserving the free market and would eliminate restrictions on medical

advances. (Private vouchers in education produce much higher

educational results at half the cost but compete with current special

interests [teach unions] who use public money to fight this keeping

education standards low and poor results expensive.)

There are many people with cancer for example who WILL die while waiting

for FDA approval for many drugs and who would be willing to give

anything a try that has promise. These people instead of dying would

take their chance (if we get the FDA out of the way) and some would

succeed. Their success would propagate to others and advance the cause

of cancer cures and other cures at a greatly accelerated speed.

The only way to advance the science of health care and cure is to

eliminate almost all regulation, allow unlimited lawsuits for fraud and

injury (restricted by regulation now), and make companies fully

accountable for their products with instead of allowing " regulation " to

protect them from foolhardiness or their just plain evil actions. This

elimination of most regulation would expand the ranks of certified

doctors (private certification with annual testing perhaps), expand the

ranks of doctors who would treat you like a customer (not a patient they

practice on with mindless protocols), and decrease the cost of regular

medical care with competition among doctors and clinics for " customers "

and allow advertising of their success rates.

This would create a range of medical options from " small compact

clinics " to " expensive sports car clinics " and everything in between

producing price points that all could afford, especially considering

vouchers. The idea that everyone should have the same size house

(universal government housing), that everyone should have the same size

car (government car management), that everyone should have the same

retirement income (universal government retirement requirements), and

that everyone eat the same food (universal government nutrition

control), would make us all the worse.

Communism/Socialism is failing everywhere. If you know about how the

French system is working with the increased incursion into private

economic lives, you would certainly not want to go there as they are

much farther along this depersonalization road than we are.

The voucher system would be the only incursion into the taking of

private funds and with everyone insured, would keep government out of

the business (except for the courts to police fraud and injury issues

effectively) and would lower the cost of medical care overall

dramatically. I expect that the cost of the two current forms of

government heath care to drop and the 1.45% tax on income to drop for

these services while still fully funding a voucher system.

I don't want a government system BECAUSE it will be controlled by

special interests, lobbies, and groups with an ability to restrict any

access or research into new and advance methods of treatment and care

that would take away from current profits.

Steve

Gracia wrote:

> it's really OK and even possible to create a " healthcare " system that

> works. :just have to get over ignorance which prevents it from

> happening. what's really going on here is that many accepted medical

> practices and meds are worthless. then " guvmint " won't pay for them!

> gracia

>>

>> Tell that to the lady trying to get needed tests done under the

>> socialist system in the UK to whom I replied. Or to any of the

>> thousands of patients who come to the US from Canada every year to get

>> needed medical care that they cannot get at home. Or to any of the hypo

>> patients in the UK trying to get Armour. You _are_ aware of that

>> situation, are you not???

>>

>> .

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

May 1, 2009

Oversight was taken off the banks and deregulated

in the mortgage market, and the food care industry

and look where this has led us. The problem with

ALL idiologies is that the ideas are good, but the

people that administer and use them are not. If

you could change people, I don't think it would

matter much what system was used.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>