At 11:01 PM 18/05/2000 -0400, Issodhos @aol.com wrote:

>    Well then, good for you guys, Alister.  If most of you are happy with your
>system that is your business.  Apparently most Americans are not interested
>in this type of program.  No skin off of your nose, Mate.

Doesn't seem that most Americans are not interested in this type of health
care system.  It does seem that most Americans *in Congress* aren't
interested, though.  Would the large wads of cash given to Congressmen and
Congresswomen by HMOs have anything to do with that?

>   One may have a right to spawn but one does not have a right to demand that
>one's neighbors provide for and raise one's spawn.  Perhaps you would explain
>the logic of placing the demand on your neighbor that she pay for your
>actions.

Sure.  It's called "society".  I don't use almost any of the roads in
Australia.  Why should I pay for them?  Why should I help pay for my
neighbour's actions?  Because in a fair society we would help people before
they starve to death.  Allowing a child to be brought up in poverty is a
less ideal situation than allowing a child to not grow up in
poverty.  Helping pay for childbirth is better than having people die
during home births for lack of competent medical carers.  What about this
don't you understand again?

>     Well,  if it makes you happy to claim your system is more efficient than
>the American system, that's okay.  Goodness knows there are many ways of
>doing things.  You asked what happened in a particular situation and I
>answered you.  Deal with the answer.:-)

I've dealt with it.  I'll do that by realising quite how evil your system
is, and doing my bit to make sure we never get that bad.  Happy?

> >  This would be that preventative routine health care that they can't
> afford?
>
>     Well Duh!  It wouldn't be an issue otherwise would it?

I'm amazed you even recognise it as a problem.  After all, if you can
afford the care, who cares about anyone else?

Alister