To: kumar who wrote (51838 ) 10/14/2002 5:58:03 AM From: Ilaine Respond to of 281500 Hi Kumar - sorry about your friend. It's a worthwhile topic, maybe not on such a sad personal level, but when we are debating the relative values of different government solutions to social problems, a real life example may be helpful. One of the answers to the high cost of medical care is better technology. Approximately one third of the cost of medical care is generating the paperwork that is involved in billing and getting paid. I handle medical malpractice cases and I am horrified at the antiquated information systems even the best hospitals use. The health care providers don't get the information they need because it's not presented to them in a way they can use. Another of the answers is risk-sharing. That's the point of insurance, that's the point of nationalized health care -- if we all pay a little, then none of us has to pay a lot. People who don't buy insurance, and then stiff the hospital when they do get sick, are what they call "free riders." The way the law is set up, you have the right to be a free rider but you'll have to file for bankruptcy if you have a catastrophic illness. So if you own your own home, health insurance is a must. In Louisiana, where I am from, there are charity hospitals where poor people can go and be treated for free. They were set up by Huey Long during the Great Depression. He was a populist who believed in sharing the wealth. Louisiana isn't a rich state but they can afford to treat poor people. When I was a kid and my dad was in college we went to free clinics. So government health care isn't anathema to me but I don't think it's a panacea, either. Different political systems handle the problems of risk-sharing and free riders in different ways. Anyway, it was a break from arguing about Iraq. Regards.