Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

Subject: Re: Policy - Medicare this time. Author: Mike Redmond [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 12:55:10 02/17/03 Mon Author Host/IP: NoHost/209.17.158.14 In reply to: Garnet Shoup 's message, "Policy - Medicare this time." on 16:13:51 02/15/03 Sat I don't know what Mr Mackay's full policies on health care are, no doubt they will be fully discussed during the course of this debate, but he is, of course, perfectly correct that much of our health care delivery system is already privately owned. Numbers vary, but certainly at least a third, and probably more, of the health care delivery systems, doctors offices, clinics, etc. are privately owned and operated. The issue of expanding that role is one worth discussing, but the real issue is surely not who runs the system, whether it is a privately owned diagnostic clinic, a religious hospital, or the government, so long as service is available to everyone who needs it, on the same terms and conditions. What we have supported as a party is the concept of universal access to health care. That does not mean that all delivery of the services must be through a government owned and operated system, nor that all those who deliver health care to the public must be government employees. It is entirely possible to combine a universal, government run health insurance plan, as we have now, with a variety of service delivery models, including the integration within the plan of private for-profit services, as we have now. There are concerns about whether such a development will lead to excess costs, although that is a matter more of budgeting and cost control than principle. And there are concerns about whether an increase in the role of the private sector in our health care will lead to two standards of care, one for the rich and one for the poor. But neither of these developments would automatically flow from an increase in the types of services provided by non-governmental entities under the umbrella of a publicly-funded insurance system. I don't think we should be afraid to debate the value of introducing more options under the current system, rather than simply assuming that spending more money on the current arrangements will automatically fix everything. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]