<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: McCain&#8217;s healthcare plan: Gut employer-based insurance (Part 1 of 2)</title>
	<link>http://www.isil.org/channels/archives/15788</link>
	<description>A project of the International Society for Individual Liberty</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: ISIL Channels &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Still missing the point on the “employee benefit” model?</title>
		<link>http://www.isil.org/channels/archives/15788#comment-532289</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.isil.org/channels/archives/15788#comment-532289</guid>
					<description>[...] I’ve made this point at least a couple dozen times over the course of this blog’s existence (it’ll be four years in October). But it apparently has not filtered out to enough thinking people; witness the commentary this week on AlterNet, by Trudy Lieberman of the Columbia Journalism Review. In her rather hysterical screed, Ms. Lieberman bemoans the healthcare reform plan by Presidential wannabe Sen. John McCain – not because it would focus (at least marginally) more on market solutions than on nationalizing the problem, but because his programs would endanger (she uses the word &amp;#8220;gut&amp;#8221;) the present model of “employer-paid health insurance.” [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] I’ve made this point at least a couple dozen times over the course of this blog’s existence (it’ll be four years in October). But it apparently has not filtered out to enough thinking people; witness the commentary this week on AlterNet, by Trudy Lieberman of the Columbia Journalism Review. In her rather hysterical screed, Ms. Lieberman bemoans the healthcare reform plan by Presidential wannabe Sen. John McCain – not because it would focus (at least marginally) more on market solutions than on nationalizing the problem, but because his programs would endanger (she uses the word &#8220;gut&#8221;) the present model of “employer-paid health insurance.” [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.isil.org/channels/archives/15788#comment-530418</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:53:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.isil.org/channels/archives/15788#comment-530418</guid>
					<description>Did you see the Bunk study stating 2/3 of doctors in America want National Health Care. The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in there 2nd question. I found this article,  &lt;a href=&quot;http://jaajoe.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;#38;task=view&amp;#38;id=39&amp;#38;Itemid=28&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;60% of Physicians Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan&lt;/a&gt;,  It's worth a read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Did you see the Bunk study stating 2/3 of doctors in America want National Health Care. The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in there 2nd question. I found this article,  <a href="http://jaajoe.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=39&amp;Itemid=28" rel="nofollow">60% of Physicians Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan</a>,  It&#8217;s worth a read.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
