e8f3a77e   
   XPost: misc.health.alternative, alt.health, talk.politics.medicine   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats   
   From: pxhxz@cadence.com   
      
   In article <9cf33f58-1f3e-4752-a259-fb4edc57daa3@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>   
   Fred Oinka  writes:   
      
   >The government has no business in the health care business.   
   >It's that simple.   
      
   So if someone is sick and has no insurance and cannot afford treatment, we   
   should not treat them, correct?   
      
   So if someone is in an accident and breaks an arm and cannot afford the   
   emergency room care, he/she should self-treat?   
      
   And what about the situation where someone has a communicable disease?  In   
   that case not treating them is a danger to others who may get the disease.   
      
   Also, insufficient treatment can result (and has resulted) in mutations that   
   are resistant to treatment.  Not treating sufficiently then is also a danger   
   to others.   
      
   Note that government is there to provide for everyone, not just for those who   
   can afford it.  If you want government out, then you want toll roads, toll   
   sidewalks, no more guaranteed right-of-ways, etc.  If you happen to be   
   surrounded by private propery and cannot afford to pay tolls, you just sit   
   down and die.  Is that really the kind of country you want?   
      
   -Pete Zakel   
    (phz@seeheader.nospam)   
      
   "Repel them.  Repel them.  Induce them to relinquish the spheroid."   
      
   	-Indiana University fans' chant for their perennially bad football team   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)