>SNIP>>
>>
>>Right. I don't want a "system". I like having choices. As I get older my health care needs will change and I like having multiple options for dealing with those changes. I do not want a single, government-run health care plan that will limit my choices of doctors, hospitals, medications, procedures, etc. HMOs are bad enough.
>>
>SNIP
>
>Hi Jake,
>
>I don't know where you get your impressions of "government run health care plans" but it doesn't sound right to me.
>I *know* you're wrong when it comes to the Canadian one

Isn't Canada's system going through some changes? I read that Quebec passed a law allowing people to buy private insurance. There were numerous budget problems and complaints abuut extended wait times due to funding problems.

>, but I think you're also misinformed about U.S. (Federal) run health care.
>For example, I believe they pay top dollar by law (which seems a bit stupid).
>I believe they cannot restrict what doctors you see.

Right now I believe you are correct, however, if things change to a fully public system I believe there will be limits based on regional considerations. In fact the current public system really screws up the private practice doctors. They must charge a certain amount regardless of visit time because to vary the cost is considered medicare fraud.

>Not at all sure about medication, but if the difference is that they insist on "generic" when there is one I don't see that as bad.

I would agree unless the generic is not as good. HMOs do this also.

>Procedures-wise, I believe ALL of your PRIVATE health care insurers have far far more paperwork/approvals/restrictions/limits than any of your government plans.
>
>cheers

I've dealt with HMOs, Private Practice and Medicare (my gradfather). I vastly prefer private practice. If a single-payer system is enacted then I lose that choice.

Besides, fundamentally, I want less government in my life not more.