PS: regarding healthcare and profits. Medicare spends 3.5% approximately on overhead. And mind you, most of this overhead is paid to private companies who do all the claims processing. Insurance companies spend between 25% and 35% of healthcare dollars on overhead. And, the insurance companies have to pay their stockholders. Leaving out any dividends paid to stockholders, over 20% of our healthcare expenditures are wasted on unnecessary overhead. The record of Medicare and of the Insurance companies in reining in costs is about equal. In fact, where Health Systems Agencies were active, hospitalization stays were already down to limits that the Managed Care companies were aiming at, without the "prior approval" process which is part of the Insurance Co. overhead.

So it's not that profits are wrong. It's that the health insurance model we have sucks dollars out of the provision of services, with no additional benefit. The latest area where this has been demonstrated to be so is Medicare Managed Care: results are no different than traditional Medicare, even though the Managed Care companies were getting 10 to 15% additional fees.

Profits are good where they drive the market. In Health Insurance, the historical record shows they do not drive the market.

Hank

>Sorry to interrupt you, but every American is a stockholder in some company, so blaming corporations for caring too much about stockholders would be a bit hypocritical. It would be like blaming you or me for caring about our customers instead of caring for 'all people', especially those in needs.
>In regard to European healthcare being much better than American one, it is debatable, at least. In reality, an average person has real experience with one of the systems, not both. Moreover, political affiliations are just too visible when it comes to the issue, so healthcare statements just come in line with general political attitude. More specifically, many people judge healtcare unification by the lithmus test: does it increase size and scope of government control or not? Depending on the answer, the outcoming conclusion about healthcare comes out easily.
>It would be more responsible, imho, to assess the issue in economical terms, i.e. is it possible to afford the proposed system, For example, if system implementation requires couple trillions that neither exist now nor they will be ever materialize for repayment, then factual failure is warranted regardless to intentions. Systemic bankruptcy would not be nice for any country, regardless who would be blamed for that or how it is/was done in some other countries. So far, countrywide bankrupties got treated by international interference, i.e. big brother came outside and helped. In case, USA goes bankrupt, virtually assured by skyrocketed costs of new programs, no outside help will be available. As you probably know, the most enlightened Euro countries are not in financial shape that would afford them to release any help, even if they would be willing to do it.