At 12:16 AM 18/05/2000 -0400, Issodhos @aol.com wrote:
>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.

That's why it's called universal health care.  It's universal.  We pay
based on capacity to pay, and we receive based on need to receive.  Sounds
fair to me, and to most others who live here.  Does it not seem illogical
to you to pay pensions and benefits to parents who need them, but not
assist them in paying for the birth of their child?

>     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.

Now I'm beginning to see why your system is so inefficient.  Half of your
hospital staff must be accountants and debt retrievers!  So, am I right in
assuming that the hospital has a direct interest in not treating those
without the capacity to pay?  Or at least, not giving them tests or
treatments that could prove expensive?  Even if this isn't true (and I
can't see how it couldn't be) your system must be worse than ours in terms
of putting a price on human life.  Private health insurance, like private
education, should be eliminated in the interests of creating an equitable
and fair society.

>   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.

This would be that preventative routine health care that they can't afford?

Alister