And the difference is.....?

    Why not?

    Wrong again!  There are alternatives, as with food aid they are often not
enough, but they are there.  You said yourself that Medical "IS IN PLACE" and
offers some benifits through some dentists.   Added to this there are dental
schools, free clinics, and whatever deal you can make with individual dentists.
I have even seen dental student in California ADVERTISE and PAY for the right
patient to get free treatment for their dental board exam.

Vaughn

I don't really know what that means??? Are you saying since dental care is
not life or death dentists should be more open to giving away their
services? I would think the opposite would be true. People can live without
teeth...no, I don't get this at all.

That figures. Well, hate to break it to you little doggy, but you are
barking up the wrong tree. Your original complaint is about a government run
program that is funded by taxpayers. Your complaint to the dental profession
makes no more sense then if you started protesting outside General Motors
because the public transit system is flawed. They make the bus, but don't
run the agency.

Interesting. I guess you are just a concept person. You come up with the
idea and then claim it is other peoples burden to do the hard work. That
says volumes about your stance on this subject! No, we dentists are all busy
going on vacations and shopping for new houses..better the initiative come
from someone like you who has a better understanding of the issues..

It IS the equivalent. Your suggestion is that it is the burden of the dental
profession to care for those who have no access to dental care. Then you
point to charitable groups and companies that ELECT to help. Do you want me
to show you evidence of the many dental organizations that ELECT to
help...or put you in touch with virtually every dentist I know who provides
charity in his own office, free from government regulations? There are many
dentists who ELECT to help. Your concept, however, is that there is some
ethical burden to do so. Your example of soup kitchens and charity from
Safeway is vastly different. Following YOUR logic, those organizations would
be MANDATED to feed the poor and Safeway would be forced to throw their
doors open to the hungry. See the difference?

And how is this little adventure you speak of going to clarify this issue? I
readily understand the concepts of charity, and forcing one group to bear
the burden of charitable giving ain't what it is all about. I do my
charitable deeds in the quiet of my office. I don't need or want any
government agency telling me who, how, and when I do so.

Your understanding of this issue is limited...you probably base too much on
assumption...just like you assume you are the only one here who understands
the plight and burdens of the poor. That smacks of arrogance. It also leaves
me with the impression that you feel that benefits the government provides
for the poor and sick is an entitlement instead of a privilege. Sadly, that
is just the attitude that turns many off to participating in government
sponsored healthcare programs. I can only speak for myself, but I found that
participating in public assistance dental programs was the least rewarding
work of my career. Most of the patients were unreliable, ungrateful, and
uncooperative and at the end of the day I felt like a fool for helping them.
Perhaps you could put on some scrubs, or a lab coat, and sit in a dental
office or clinic, talk to the dental staff and the patients. Listen and
watch. YOU might view things a lot differently...or, you could just continue
to be judgmental of others based on a very limited understanding of the
dynamics of the situation. Somehow, I think the latter scenario fits better
within your comfort zone.

T