Health care in the United States has been a hotly contested issue for many years and apparently will be for many more. The fact that costs are exorbitant and something needs to be done is undeniable, but what? The reality that people cannot find medical service and go on living without it is deplorable, but what can be done? The idea that we have diseases that are epidemics, why? Should the government control a free market system? Should the free market be scrapped in favor of "another government boondoggle?" Or should we keep the current system using the mixture of Medicare for elderly and poor folks and insurance or "out of pocket" for the rest? There are a million questions like the ones above, but what it all boils down to is how much is it going to cost and who writes the check for what quality of care?

Many countries have tried a government conytrolled system that "should be adopted" say the proponents of National Health Care. Our problem is that we have 33% top tax rate, where England's, Sweden's, and Canada's is over 70%. Most European countries that have it are just emerging from Communism. In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and ZKuwait finance care from oil revenues. Sweden's is the only one that seems to work relatively well, probably because they have a higher degree of socialism that the people are happy with. All the European countries and Canada have hronic problems with waiting lines, cost overruns, and declining quality of care and labor problems.

Before any problem of health care can begin, it will be absolutely mandatory to regulate many of the hidden costs of the medical profession, such as malpractice insurance, by limiting settlelments and lawyers' fees and types of "injuries" that can be litigated. For example, mental anguish should be eliminated because it is not life-threatening or altering. Besides, money wil not make any physical changes to help the problem. The costs of equipment, tools, etc. must be kept reasonable.

Hosppitals would only be allowed to change a certain amount per day no matter what "suite" the guest occupies. Limited testing procedures would have to be enforced and their costs would have to be controlled. Doctors could only charge a certain amount for each type of procedure, office call, depressor stick, and lollipop!

Stop! Look what has happened. We now have the socialized medicine that does not work in the rest of the world. Al of Eastern Europe just overthrew that type of government, and the other countries with these controls are in trouble financially with the notable exceptiions of Sweden, Saudi Arabia,and Kuwait. So if it works in those three places, why can it not work here? To do so we would have to scrap our Constitution, government, capitalistic way of life, and everything else that makes us a free society. It will not happen in our lifetimes.

The State of California now has before the legislature a 63 billion dollar proposal for health care. If passed, that would mean every man, woman and child in the state would have an additioal $2,500 tax burden; $2,500 per person per year. Now, deduct the unemplooyed, non-working spouses, children, and those below any substantial income, and what does an individual's tab come to ---about $8,000 per taxpayer. Well, very few can afford this, so this will be partially alleviated by self-employment taxes, corporate taxes, business payroll taxes, as well as an increase in income taxes. California thinks it is in a recession now. If they pass this, watch the business flight double and triple in this state leaving nobody but recipients, a few struggling service industries, and government payrollees. That will leave this state in a depression.

We have some limited forms of centralized health care in both the public and private sections. The Veteran's Administration Hospital (V.A.) system, Medicare, Medi-Cal and workmen's compensation insurance, union benefit packages, charity owned hospitals (City of Hope) ad HMO's, such as Kaiser, just to name a few. Any type of centralized health care on a broad basis would have to come from the federal level. For the program to have any long-term viability would require much sacrifice and relinquishing of freedoms from the medical profession and related industries and supplies. Medi-Cal, Medicare, and many insurance programs limit charges and fees on manay items. The V.A. and county hospitals have salaried doctors and staff. Charity hospitals accept payment on a "can afford" basis.

If we must have national health care it should be a blend of the above by doing the following:

1. Set fees for office calls, equipment charges, tests and medicines. 2. Streamline--all pulbic hospitals, cllinics, etc. be made one entity incorporating Medicare, Medi-Cal, and workmen's compensation insurance. 3. Malpractice banned except for loss of life, limb, bodily function, and disfigurement due to negligence. 4. All administrative, nursing, and suport staff are not to be civil servants with a "fire at will" clause for insubordination, negligence, or rotten attitudes toward the public. 5. Limit non-essential care like physicals and check-ups. 6. Major private health care companies might be allowed to run sections on a bid basis to help save money. 7. Make payments by payroll deductions with possibly matching employer contributions. 8. All pay!! No exceptions for congressmen, postal workers, or those on government subsistence. 9. Social Security card and pictured identificatio card. No card, no care. Exceptions, however, may include legal visitors and aliens with papers. 10. Tax credits for those using private insurance, facilities, and physicians.

The above are just a few of the basics, but time and limits must bring this to an end.

There are 10 questions and 50 what-if's for anything proposed.

In my opinion, any socialized system will not work in this country. Can anyone name on e program of social nature in this country that has ever worked? No! Social Security is near bankruptcy and that is the best one we have ever had.

BACK