On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:32:36 GMT, Courageous <nospam@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>
>>People like to say the want socialized medicine...
>
>Not me. Except to observe that forced hospital coverage *is*
>a form of socialized medicine that we already have (you do
>realize, don't you, that it doesn't have to be an 'emergency'
>for you to get treated in the emergency room?).

Yes, I realize this. The current system sucks. From what I've heard
people with a cold show up looking for a handout of some sort. I was
without health insurance for a while a couple of years ago. I broke my
ankle. Luckily, it was a simple break. I had enough cash to pay for a
trip to the hospital but I didn't feel like wasting the cash so I had
an air cast and a set of crutches delivered to my place for 100 bucks.

I've done much the same (butterfly bandages instead of stitches)
several times in the past.  If more people were a bit more self
sufficient ...
>
>It's simply my allegation that such treatment should be paid
>for directly by public dollars, and not indirectly through
>distributed increased in cost.

I agree with you.
>
>>The quality of the medical care there is OK...
>
>I've had this poorly formed idea in my head for a while, that
>goes like this:
>
>1. Perhaps there could be a medical social safety net:
>2. It ought to be cheap.
>3. The quality doesn't have to be outstanding, just
>   enough to keep people from being unattended.
>4. One way to bring costs down would be to remove
>   liability expenses.
>5. If you use the program and your doctor fucks up,
>   too bad. You can't sue.

Sounds good to me.