Isn't this what Americans fear...

[j2k4]

Parse your basic misapprehension of the definitions/uses of the words "care" and "insurance" (as normally used following the other word in question, that being "health") and we can talk.

[mothis]

Well so, I think health care can be reasonably defined as 1) access to medical treatment 2)medical treatment. Health *insurance* is a contract undertaken between two parties in which the first party pays some premium to the second party and in exchange the second party agrees to pay on behalf of the first party some set of costs associated with health care.

[j2k4]

Mothis-

Perhaps you can help me with something...I don't have links, because I'm not so basically tight-assed about such things, but trust me when I tell you I remember this distinctly:

About a year ago, I remember a David Axelrod...oh, let's call it a presentation, about health care/health insurance (apparently the terms are interchangeable), wherein he asserted there were "47 million" people in the U.S. who had no insurance coverage/healthcare.

Leap ahead with me to yesterday, when I saw the same David Axelrod (he reminds me of Snidely Whiplash, you see) inform the audience that "there are 30 million people in the U.S. without insurance coverage/healthcare".

It seems to me that, if the Obama administration can reduce the number of health-oppressed people in this country by a factor exceeding one-third merely by blathering about the problem, someone ought to suggest they continue with this strategy.

Wouldn't you say.

[mothis]

This seems to be an attempt to bluster around the issue by trying to tie me to a less defensible position. You seem to have simply ignored my point.

[j2k4]

Well so, I think health care can be reasonably defined as 1) access to medical treatment 2)medical treatment. Health *insurance* is a contract undertaken between two parties in which the first party pays some premium to the second party and in exchange the second party agrees to pay on behalf of the first party some set of costs associated with health care.

An contract/agreement between "two parties", eh?

Reformulate that statement, and this time remember there are actually three parties involved, the third being the always-forgotten and growing-thinner-on-the-ground-daily taxpayer.

[j2k4]

I don't see how this is relevant. This seems to be an attempt to bluster around the issue by trying to tie me to a less defensible position.

Your position isn't really a position at all, but you're right, it is indefensible.

[mothis]

Wait, what? The taxpayer would in this formulation be the first party. In a nationalized system, no such contract exists because the costs associated with health care are distributed through taxation instead of charged directly (thus obviating the need for insurance).

[mothis]

This is an (accidental) double post. If you're a mod, please delete it.

[mothis]

I don't see how this is relevant. This seems to be an attempt to bluster around the issue by trying to tie me to a less defensible position.

Your position isn't really a position at all, but you're right, it is indefensible.

As I say, you have not actually attacked my point.

[j2k4]

Wait, what? The taxpayer would in this formulation be the first party. In a nationalized system, no such contract exists because the costs associated with health care are distributed through taxation instead of charged directly (thus obviating the need for insurance).

Why, your "formulation" is just silly.

You say, "National Health Care", and the taxpayer magically recedes into the far distance?

You really need to do better than that, sir/madam.