I'm unlikely to put this very well... never mind, I can rely on a little
charity from the rest of you.

Aotearoa-New Zealand led the world in electing itself to 3rd World status
through voluntarily submitting itself to various structural adjustment
policies. Why no one followed our lead is, of course, no mystery whatsoever.
Health reforms were to the fore during this period - we moved from a nice,
socialised system where, if nothing else, people felt that the system cared,
to a terrain most suited to financial opportunists who touted 'efficiency'
as their goal, rather than the health and well-being of the population. Yes,
there was great waste in the past and yes, there still is. Privatisation was
the central strategy of successive governments - the party of the left
effectively outflanking the party of the right in the race for a pure
neo-liberalism. Health insurance was marketed as a modern necessity,
reinforced by the rapidly growing private sector, rapidly growing waiting
lists in the public sector, and a proliferation of insurance and service
providers - mainly foreign owned. One part of the argument that I found
particularly interesting ran along the following lines: private insurance
appeals most, is most accessible to, the moderately to well-to-do... poor
people cannot pay the premiums, and yet were the poor to be forced into the
system, it would mean that premiums, rather than coming down, would rise
significantly, cutting many of the not-so-poor-but-not-so-wealthy out of
private health care. Premiums for a private health care system that tends in
the main to the ailments of the middle and upper classes cannot be sustained
in a system that tries to treat the poor too, for the simple reason that
poor health is part and parcel of poverty - the poor require more health
care. Were the poor (and inherently unhealthy) to take advantage of the
private system, the non-poor (and comparatively healthy) would have to
subsidise them. The only way around this, it would seem, would be to
discriminate on the basis of some means test, and this would dictate that
the poor would have to pay high premiums while the rich paid low premiums.
The consequences of this for the poor, and for private health care, are
obvious.

Garbled, I know, but does anyone have any thoughts on this Catch 22?

Regards

b

bruce sandford
Hamilton 2001
Aotearoa - New Zealand

ICQ: 20816964


> -----Original Message-----
> From: The philosophy, work & influences of Noam Chomsky
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Issodhos @aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 4:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Whose health care system is superior?
>
>
> In a message dated 5/16/00 1:07:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >
> >  What?  You get *bills* for childbirth?  What sort of
> third-world country do
> >  you live in?  What the hell is happening when the alleged
> richest country
> >  in the world makes its citizens pay out money for childbirth?
>
>      Actually, Alister, the philosophical question of why one's neighbors
> should be required to pay for the hospital costs of delivering one's baby
> aside, all economically productive citizens down under who pay
> taxes "pay out
> money for child birth" -- unless of course, Aussies have become
> so altruistic
> that they work as doctors, nurses, orderlies, hospital janitors, ambulance
> drivers, receptionists, equipment manufacturers, cooks, etc. without pay.
>
> <snip>
>
> >  But I don't think many of us realise here that you've got to
> pay out for
> >  childbirth.  What happens when, for example, someone's brought in to a
> >  hospital after a car accident?  Do they have to pay their bills for it
> >  regardless of capacity to pay?
>
>     If they do not have insurance, individually contracted or company
> provided, they get treated and the other paying customers make up the
> difference in higher costs.  If not, and they have the ability
> (the working
> middle class for all practical purposes), they will be put on a monthly
> payment plan structured to their income.  If they or the other
> party (if at
> fault) has automobile insurance, the insurance company pays.
>
>   Of course, none of this addresses the question of preventative routine
> health care which is where the real issue lies for the lower
> income working
> people in America.
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>
>
>  <snip>
> Yours,
> Issodhos
>