Re: Graduated National Health Plan Needed

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:27:21 -0400, "Karl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"Bettina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > Gretchen Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > > On 20 Oct 2003 08:10:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan
>> > > Smith) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bettina) wrote in message
>news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > > >> > "Karl" said: <>
>> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > If it was as cut and dried as you make it out
>JS this issue wouldn't have the political life to linger as long as it has.
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> And THAT is what this all boils down to. Data and tables and
>> > > >> statistics and links are not the only path to the truth
>> > > >
>> > > >Not the only - but it takes the emotion and the subjectivity out of
>> > > >it.  Do you really want decisions about your health care made based
>on
>> > > >good information or someones intuition?
>> > > >
>> > > >> and they
>> > > >> certainly do not inspire major political change. Like it or not,
>human
>> > > >> beings make choices based on not just their left brains but their
>> > > >> feelings and experiences,  which is why the issue of universal
>> > > >> coverage is not going to go away. (js, since you're obsessed with
>> > > >> definitions and subsets, single payer is a subset of UC, okay?)
>> > > >
>> > > >Absolutely - SP is a subset of UC - Just like  a Staff Model HMO
>> > > >(Kaiser)is a subset of managed care.  But we all know that a staff
>> > > >model HMO is UNIQUE (right Pixie?) - hence I claim the SP is also
>> > > >UNIQUE.
>> > > >
>> > > >If you want to suggest that all SP are UC - fine, but you need to
>also
>> > > >understand that not all UC is SP.  In fact, few UC are SP and neither
>> > > >you nor pixie has gotten to the holy grail - an SP that actually
>> > > >works.  Got a few great examples of UC that work - Kaiser,
>> > > >Germany...but not a one in the SP category.
>> > > >
>> > > >You two want SP but are having so much trouble defining it, makes one
>> > > >think you'd never even come close to implementing it.
>> > > >
>> > > >js
>> > >
>> > > I have absolutely no problems at all in 'defining' "SP", or "UC", for
>> > > that matter.
>> >
>> > Yes, you do Pixie.
>> >
>> > > The problem obviously arises from your inability to
>> > > understand those definitions.. or accept them.
>> >
>> > When your definitions move in the wind, it's tough for me to keep up.
>> >
>> > So, are UC and SP the same or differnt todfay?  What's the difference?
>> >
>> > js
>>
>> I suspect you're trying to get Pixie to pin down an ironclad
>> definition of  SP and UC so you can say "gotcha!"  about some fine
>> point in her definition. There is no ironclad definition of the
>> details, there is just the principle that health care should be
>> publicly financed (and privately delivered), and implementation will
>> be slowly developed and tweaked and tweaked again.
>> Bettina
>
>In his eyes there is only one SP system the  NHS. And that he is claiming is
>being abolished in favor of a totally private system.
>

Which is untrue, of course, but he won't accept that fact. 

pixie