Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Unlike Clinton or Obama, Dr. Rocky White, an Evangelical from a conservative background, is promoting a single-payer health care system.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Evangelical Doctor Touts Better Health Care Plan Than Clinton, Obama

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted May 6, 2008.


Unlike Clinton or Obama, Dr. Rocky White, an Evangelical from a conservative background, is promoting a single-payer health care system.
Advertisement

While there are differences between the health care plans offered by Democratic presidential opponents Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, neither of them is proposing a single-payer system of national health care. That's despite the endorsement of precisely such a plan last December by the American College of Physicians, the largest medical specialty organization. We speak with Dr. Rocky White, a passionate, if unusual, advocate for a single-payer health insurance program. He describes himself as an evangelical from a conservative background and is on the Board of Directors of the nonprofit Health Care for All Colorado. He has revised and updated Dr. Robert LeBow's classic book advocating single-payer health care. It's called Health Care Meltdown: Confronting the Myths and Fixing Our Failing System.

Democratic presidential rivals, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, traded barbs over their health care proposals while campaigning in Pennsylvania this weekend. The rising cost of medical care has emerged as a key concern for voters, particularly as the economy continues to worsen. A new survey by the AFL-CIO found almost all of the respondents, most of whom were insured and employed, thought the current health care system is fundamentally broken and planned to vote for ways to change it in November.

This is an exchange between Clinton and Obama on health care from their debate in Los Angeles on January 31st that was hosted by CNN.

Sen. Hillary Clinton: We cannot get to universal health care, which I believe is both a core Democratic value and an imperative for our country, if we don't do one of three things. Either you can have a single-payer system, or -- which I know a lot of people favor, but for many reasons is difficult to achieve -- or you can mandate employers -- well, that's also very controversial -- or you can do what I am proposing, which is to have shared responsibility.

Now, in Barack's plan, he very clearly says he will mandate that parents get health insurance for their children. So it's not that he is against mandatory provisions; it's that he doesn't think it would be politically acceptable to require that for everyone. I just disagree with that. I think we, as Democrats, have to be willing to fight for universal health care.

Sen. Barack Obama: What they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so, I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is -- is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it. Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it, otherwise there will be a lot of people who don't get it. I don't see those folks. And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you're going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have health care fines or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance. That is a genuine difference.

Amy Goodman: There are important differences between the health care plans offered by the Democratic presidential opponents, but neither of them is proposing a single-payer system of national health care. That's despite the endorsement of precisely such a plan last December by the American College of Physicians, the largest medical specialty organization. The candidates' refusal to consider such a proposal also flies in the face of the latest study indicating a majority of physicians, 59 percent, now support government legislation to establish national health insurance.

We just drove through on our tour through New Mexico and Colorado -- Alamosa yesterday morning -- and were reminded of the problem with the water. Before we talk about health care, can you talk about what happened to Alamosa's water?

Dr. Rocky White: Well, several weeks ago, we started seeing sporadic outbreaks of salmonella in the community, and before too long, those sporadic outbreaks began to grow and grow. And it finally became clear that the salmonella was in the city water system. By the time it was all said and done, we've had about 300 -- I think I saw in the paper yesterday 385 cases now of salmonella. And just recently, we had one death. Thankfully, that's all that we've had. But that's basically what happened.

We really don't know the source. We don't know where the breach came from. We had a horrible winter. And so, it could have been just the freeze thaw from the exceedingly frozen ground, and then probably a breach somewhere with the high sublevels from the amount of snow that we've had. I suspect that's probably where it came from, but I'm not sure we'll ever know.

I had heard there was some pipe work that was being done and possibly a sewage pipe mixing with the water supply. Is that at all what could have happened?

There's a lot of theories out there. I'm not sure that we'll ever know for sure. But the city was intending on chlorinating the water at some time in the future, but that future is now. So we now have chlorinated water in Alamosa.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: insurance, clinton, obama, health care reform, single-payer health, dr. rocky white

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ralph Nader: America's Pay-or-Die Health Care System
Posted by: fanny666 on May 6, 2008 2:50 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on May 7, 2008 12:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Rocky White for President


Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Single payer gets attention but it is not THE answer, as it is often portrayed
Posted by: Rune on May 7, 2008 1:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a shame that the debate over our lack of an adequate health care scheme in the U.S. has been reduced to a sound bite dual between single payer advocates and those who inspire fear of "socialized medicine." The issue is much more complex than those simplistic, categorical frames indicate.

To begin with, none of the presidential candidates are proposing health care at all. They are bickering about the degree to which they intend to mandate or subsidize health insurance--either of which has the effect of increasing demand for the insurance industry's product while the insurance industry continues to maximize its profits in part by cutting costs.

Insurance companies cut health care costs primarily by cutting the availability and coverage of health care and associated medications and services. At hospitals and doctors offices that deal with insurance companies, such cuts show up as caps on how much service can be provided for reimbursement and how much reimbursement is due for a covered service, leaving the health care administrators and providers to choose between donating their services and/or paychecks or under serving their patients.

Big institutions with lots of expensive equipment can't very well dump rooms, beds, and equipment when they are not in use, so they end up overloading doctors and nurses by sending some of their staff home as soon as the patient load seems to be a little low on a given shift. That results in poorer and potentially dangerous service for patients as well as lower paychecks and more stressful working conditions for health care professionals. Using a single payer system would not necessarily do anything to correct that problem. It could make it worse depending on how powerful and greedy the single payer (i.e., monopsony) institution was.

We need to be thinking in terms of what it takes to provide living wages and safe, well supported working conditions for the people we expect to keep us healthy in addition for looking for ways to bring the cost to health care consumers back in line with our paychecks and basic human needs. Right now, a lot of attention is placed on cutting out the profits and overhead of the insurance companies, and their is merit to that, but that can backfire if we don't have controls and services in place to see that we get the services we need and want.

We should be discussing just what services we do need and want, too. Right now, a surprising amount of health care expenses go into prolonging the last year or two of life, often at the expense of treatments that could add a lot more health and quality of life to many more people who are younger and better able to heal and enjoy considerable vitality if they could get medical care before their conditions become acute. There is a lot of room for making adjustments, there, but we need to shift our values and expectations if that is to happen, which in turn requires becoming informed and engaged in that issue. Nothing in the present political discussions about health insurance and health care even touches on that.

I think we would do well to remember that we are being played for fools by industry leaders and their highly lobbied representatives in government who, every election, pose as our representatives in government. We can almost guaranty ourselves another rip off if we simply sit back and choose between the canned alternatives that the corporate backed political machine hands us, because it always comes down to a heads-they-win-tails-we-lose sort of choice. Let's start thinking in terms of holistic solutions that include regulation, union representation, collective bargaining for consumers, and some reasonable level of detail as to which services we want everyone to have and which things we can live -- or die with dignity -- without.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember Humpty Dumpty?
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 7, 2008 1:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today's healthcare system is HD and he's not just sitting on the wall- he's teetering on the very ledge, the ground is quaking and the wind is blowing. Yes, it's really that bad.

I have spent over 20 years working in that system- from the military healthcare system to private not-for-profits to public hospitals and private for-profit hospitals. Most are in deep financial trouble, most especially rural hospitals, inner city safety net hospitals and public hospitals in small communities. Insurance reimbursement for all patients has been declining despite ever increasing costs for everything from labor and utilities to supplies, equipment and service contracts.

Wages have stagnated, staffs pared to the bone, services curtailed, maintenance delayed and capital investments postponed at most hospitals for a very long time and the cracks are showing. Things are getting critical for countless hospitals that we can ill afford to lose and if they go America will be faced with a monumental crisis. If things do not change soon I fear we will see many vital facilities go out of business, stranding millions without reasonable access to essential medical services.

It would cost far less to fix the problems than to later deal with the impact of such a meltdown. Unfortunately, the very facilities most in peril lack the political support to get the attention they need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

time to move past the debate
Posted by: DrXyzzy on May 7, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you ask Americans what they want, 64 percent of us say we want national health insurance. If you ask Canadians... would they like a U.S. system, 3 percent would prefer it, which is their illiteracy rate. - David Himmelstein, M.D.

Some day we will have universal health care in the U.S. Then we will look back at the decades of debate over the issue and wonder that it went on so long. Imagine the discussions a century ago about whether women should vote, or two centuries ago about whether slavery should be abolished.

Single-payer, not-for-profit, universal health care makes sense. It allows the people more freedom in what work they will choose and what medical care they will have. It removes the burden of skyrocketing insurance plan costs and health plan negotiations from business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

High Tech Treatment Based "Disease Care" Systems....
Posted by: drricklippin on May 7, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....are not economically sustainable over the long term in any country.

Personally I am for single payer in the US with much more emphasis on individual and institutional prevention.

Here is my plan which I first published in 1995(Revised after Katrina)

GROW UP AMERICA-A HEALTH CARE PLAN FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS

-Stop prolonging death. It’s both expensive and dehumanizing at best, greedy and cruel at worst.

-Empower US citizens to assume increased individual responsibility for health and convince medical consumers that it is in their best interests not to assume the role of helpless, dependent victims/patients.

-Yet also recognize that we have medicalized America’s social problems. So we must provide healthy and safe jobs for all able citizens thereby reducing poverty and all its subsequent health impacts (possibly 1/3rd of Health Care Costs)

-Provide healthy environments including healthy air, water, soil and food.

-Rebuild America’s public health infrastructure to ensure we provide appropriate macro and individual interventions to especially low income citizens such as childhood and adult immunizations and response to man-made and natural catastrophes.

-Face the reality that a very large percentage of illnesses, injuries and hospitalizations are entirely preventable. Subsequently, the elimination of tobacco, alcohol, drug, medication and dietary abuse alone could immediately reduce medical costs by a factor of at least fifty percent.

-Incent and train physicians to maintain the health of patients and populations. Radical changes in provider re-imbursement and medical education strategies are necessary

-Recognize that early childhood preventive medical education can profoundly affect lifelong health behaviors.

*proposed in June of 1995
Revised January 2006/2007

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A MEDICAL MESSIAH ?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 7, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I don't trust this guy. Why is it so important that I know his religious beliefs and political stand BEFORE I know his medical credentials. He's vague about that. Where exactly did he go to school. He wants to make it 'all better'. He seems unaware of a small matter called Insurance Companies and countless other businesses supported by health care (?). Many of them are evangelical, conservative, etc. as he is. Sorry Rocky, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A MEDICAL MESSIAH ? Posted by: kenhymes
There are several different Single Payer type Systems..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 7, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many versions of Single Payer Health Care..!

Frontline PBS did a great show covering 5 or 6 of the best functioning Single Payer Systems from different nations some very easily convertible for our system, and they all serve their people better than Health Care in The United States..

We have to get the Insurance Company profit motive out of our system that alone will save 32% on the cost of Health Care..

Also with a Single Payer it is much easier to weed out the Fraud and corruption within our existing system..

It's a real shame Obama doesn't have the guts to endorse and support this because that would be Real Change not just some slogan..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The show referred to here is Posted by: rsmohio
A real People Movement is necessary for change
Posted by: Lector on May 7, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder who put the notion in people’s heads that single-payer insurance was social medicine to begin with. Those super patriots I suppose -- they can cut across all class, and even party, lines.

Getting rid of the profit motive in the financing of health care is the key. But difficult since democracy in America has come to mean the freedom to make as much as you want no matter who you con and walk over. So democracy in America has nothing to do with being humane towards others. So that’s what needs to be changed and religion hasn't contributed much either except "thin flocks" who tithe all their lives to support the life styles of the preachers. Dr. White seems an exception among Christians with ideas I respect.

The US should stop being so arrogant and learn from others -- from the Dutch model, for example, which has a dual-level system where it is 62% government funded and 38% privately funded. All insurance companies receive additional funding from the regulator's fund. The regulator has sight of the claims made by policyholders and therefore can redistribute the funds its holds on the basis of relative claims made by policy holders. Thus insurers with high payouts will receive more from the regulator than those with low payouts. Thus insurance companies have no incentive to deter high cost individuals from taking insurance and are compensated if they have to pay out more than might be expected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amy Goodman is pushing a very bad idea - and ignoring the good ones.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 7, 2008 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, here is a long-winded article on health care in the United States that absolutely ignores the role that pharmaceutical corporations and hospitals have played in driving up health care costs to absurd levels.

Second, a National Health Care System, staffed and run by the government (just like public schools) is the real answer that the rest of the modern world has adopted.

What I think this really reveals, though, is the role that leftwing corporate press types like Amy Goodman, David Corn and Normon Solomon play - they divert public outrage into non-threatening channels and ensure that the really threatening ideas, such as National Health Care, are not brought up for discussion.

Seriously - this is the second article that Amy Goodman has written on single-payer health care than ignores the real causes of the crisis in health care - corporate monopolies, artificially inflated prices, and the very bad diets of Americans, which are due to the industrial food, tobacco and alcohol industries.

For the other one, see:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/83420/

P.S. Amy Goodman, noted critic of the corporate media, chose Hearst Communications to distribute her column:

King Features Syndicate, part of the Hearst Entertainment & Syndication Group, is the world's premier distributor of comics, columns, editorial cartoons, puzzles and games to newspapers. It is also a worldwide leader in merchandising and licensing.

WTF?

Hearst Entertainment & Syndication, one of the main operating units of The Hearst Corporation, includes Hearst's stakes in various cable TV networks, such as ESPN, Lifetime, A&E, and The History Channel. The unit also has television programming activities, producing documentary and reality shows such as The History Channel's Modern Marvels series. In addition, Hearst Entertainment & Syndication houses King Features Syndicate, a distributor of comics and columns to newspapers. Its Reed Brennan Media Associates subsidiary provides production support and editing services for newspapers.


My advice to readers is to start viewing all nonprofit 501(c) "news" corporations - including everyone from Democracy Now to Pacifica to Alternet, as well as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute on the right - as suspect sources of information that need independent verification.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Healthcare for All
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 7, 2008 12:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our current system of healthcare does not provide affordable care for those who don't have health insurance. Much of the cost for healthcare has fallen on businesses, who are reconsidering whether they can continue to support employee health plans. This whole for profit system benefits the health insuranace companies who have figured out how to beat the system by limiting care and containing costs and by making everything so difficult for patients and providers that they sometimes give up on the process of reimbursement. We have been dumped into a global society.Our employers and employees can be more competitive with other countries if healthcare were affordable and available. My physician advocates for single payer insurance and he says that other healthcare providers feel the same. We need to figure out how to make the system as we know it work, or adopt a single payer system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Insurance companies??
Posted by: carcinoid112 on May 7, 2008 12:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're supposed to give a rodent's rectum about the bean counters at the insurance companies who get PAID to DENY TREATMENT?? Let's em be unemployed. At least they'll still have health care coverage, which is a hell of a lot more than many of us ever had.

The insurance companies and the Big Pharmas got us here, let's take the insurance greedmongers out of the equation. Let 'em write auto policies or starve...or get an honest job!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Insurance companies?? Posted by: CatDad
The Doctor is right
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 7, 2008 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good rx for a bad condition.

Thanks, Doc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Other Countries Do It With Diversity
Posted by: Liberty G on May 7, 2008 5:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In other countries, single-payer plans cover a wide variety of health care choices - including less expensive herbal, naturopathic, homeopathic, etc. They also get far better health results because of the holistic smorgasbord of options.

In this country, "health care" - really disease treatment - is so expensive that no plan can actually be affordable. And to adopt "single payer" under the control of the government (synonomous with the pharmaceutical companies and high tech purveyors) would mean a simple monopoly.

As Hillary Clinton and others promoting mandatory health insurance fail to notice, since the present system is outrageously unaffordable, any plan proposed will be virtually useless to those who have the least money and most need - because of the co-pays and deductibles. After being robbed of money they can't afford for the premiums, those of modest means just won't go to the doctor - they won't have the money!

That's a problem with either single-payer or multiple insurance companies. The only difference is that with more than one source, there is the possibility of differences in what is covered. Washington state, for example, has required health insurance companies there to cover all certified practitioners - including acupuncturists, naturopaths, homeopaths, etc. If the federal government holds the power, they can and will deny you any say on what you want to do with your own body in the way of healing treatment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'SINGLE PAYER' DREAM WORLD
Posted by: gellero1 on May 7, 2008 6:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is NO country with socialized ( AKA 'single payer' ) that does not ration medical care to its citizens. Be careful what you wish for...you all may become 'medicaid' patients.

READ ABOUT THE REALITY OF SINGLE PAYER =

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Truth, Lies, and Statistics Posted by: gellero1
oxheadone
Posted by: oxheadone on May 8, 2008 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything is rationed everywhere, except maybe the air we breathe outside. The point is how it is rationed. Historically, the rich and powerful (usually combined) get what they want and so forth down the scale. Societies where a sense of community and religious principles and 'noblesse oblige' are strong tend to ration basic things, like medical care availability, somewhat more equitably than societies like the US where sense of community is weak and competition and free enterprise are worshipped. Most developed countries have managed since the late 19th century to have a national health program which is also connected to a sense of public health. Medical insurance (it's sickness, not health insurance, that is being covered; generally,hospitals and doctors know and care as little about health as the general public) developed in the US during the 1930s depression as a way to prevent hospitals from bankruptcy. Initially, medical insurance was to help hospitals, not to help the public. Public medical insurance in the US developed after WWII, along with other 'fringe benefits' to attract scarce labor; that's why most of it is employer based. The reason that the US medical insurance system is such a mess is that it was never really thought out in the first place. Since it is now a multi-billion dollar industry with all sorts of parts, (ncluding a subindustry devoted to denying benefits and/or shifting responsibility for claims) and big financial stakes for many people, it's very difficult to rationalize it now. Most countries have either a national monopoly of medical insurance (the simplest and most efficient)or a system of regulated private insurance with incentives to insure everybody and to pay claims rather than deny them. The secret is to get medical insurance out of profit making. It's not comparable to other form of insurances; it doesn't really matter to the society whether you can afford auto or homeowner or life insurance, etc; that's a personal matter affecting the individual and those who care about him. A sick society is bad for every member of that society; a messed up medical care system can hurt even those who think they are well covered and can afford anything they want. The US ranks with poor underdeveloped countries in public health measures; that is not good for national defense. Also, having a monoply of medical insurance in the US would solve the medicare problem. The secret is to have the non-users pay for the users; in the end, most medical care is age related (non-users tend to be young,lucky,live sensibly, and chose their ancestors wisely) and all become users in the end. To separate the old and poor with government insurance and to encourage the young and healthy to opt out of paying is a guaranteed way to prove that government is inefficient and a burden; no insurance company would cover only the worst users.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't think of it as "Single Payer" but rather
Posted by: bthespoon on May 8, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
United Protection Pool. Uniting all Americans into one protective pool (instead of remaining divided and conquered in myriads of aptly-named apples, oranges and kumquat health insurer "risk groups") under one set of comprehensive, fair and non-discriminatory rules would save billions of dollars and millions of lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dotors' greed
Posted by: e rice on May 8, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
years ago, i read that medicare was nearly bankrupted in its infancy by fraudulent claims made by doctors and hospitals.

having worked for government funded projects at two universities, i am personally aware of a number of fraudulent claims for government money.

anyone who watched moore's 'sicko' may remember the london doctor who was perfectly happy with one very nice flat, a very nice car and one wife. not a luxury estate, or a luxury car.

very few american physicians are willing to work in rural areas. research the concentration of physicians in wealthy areas as opposed to small towns and rural areas.

as long as medicine is seen by a large number of professionals as a road to riches, no solution will cure the problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Euthanasia
Posted by: ciccio on May 14, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A very large part of this debate has centred on this subject, that alone shows how sick the system is. The very fact that the value of life at any stage enters a health care debate tells me I am dealing with a sick society. A society so sick that some states mandate motorcyle helmets only when the rider can produce health insurance. The rest of the civilised world has long since learned that helmets cut the death rate in case of accident and has mandated their use. I would like to rave and rant on this subject, but I have an appointment with my Canadian doctor, who will order whatever tests and procedures HE, and only He sees fit. He will most likely give me another prescription, this costs me the first$100 per year and then $4 per prescription. Were I poor and indigent, the $100 would be waived and my prescription cost would be $2, although pharmacies competing for business often offer to pay it themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]