 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / April 2008Changing insurance carriers?
I am insured via Kaiser Permanente which, in my view, does some things fairly well and some others quite badly. They're also very expensive. We're paying over $13,000 a year for myself and my wife (we're both self-employed and so have no group plan). I made some phone calls recently to find out what my other options were, but two different insurance brokers told me to forget it, no insurance company would touch me after I've had prostate cancer. Kaiser is "stuck" with me, though in actual fact we have never used even half the services we have paid for in the 24 years we've been with Kaiser. My cancer treatment was given for free in a National Cancer Institute clinical trial and didn't cost Kaiser a penny except for the initial diagnosis and consultations. I'm not sure I want to change. As I said, Kaiser does do some things well. But I am interested in knowing the options. Has anyone else attempted to change insurance carriers? What was your experience? Are there some companies that you recommend? Thanks. Alan > I am insured via Kaiser Permanente which, in my view, does some > things fairly well and some others quite badly. They're also [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Alan The only answer I can think of is "vote Democrat". And I'm only barely being facetious there. But you weren't asking for a joke. I was on Kaiser for a while ($500/mo while unemployed), and finally switched over to AARP for a while. $150/mo, but definitely less coverage. I did not have any critical pre-existing conditions. I think AARP is higher now. United Health Care backs them up, from what I hear. You need to be at least 50 years old though. I now have United through my job. But I'm not self-employed. what happens with existing conditions.... new insurance company would not insure? I have Blue Cross of Calif. I pay 17,500 for myself and my wife.........and my 21 year old son......Family Plan. It sucks...also have high deductible...part pay.....what a scam. I am stuck........ If I could put a part of that toward a universal health plan I would be happy. Americans are having a tough time with medical and insurance....... jloomis >I am insured via Kaiser Permanente which, in my view, does some > things fairly well and some others quite badly. They're also [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Alan > ... I have Blue Cross of Calif. > I pay 17,500 for myself and my wife.........and my 21 year old > son......Family Plan. > It sucks...also have high deductible...part pay.....what a scam. > I am stuck........ That's a huge amount of money. And I bet your 21 year old son has no health problems. > If I could put a part of that toward a universal health plan I > would be happy. I'm with you on that one. Some people on this newsgroup have expressed what I think are highly justifiable fears about government managed health care. I know it's a problem. It would be easy to get wrong and hard to get right. Still, I think we need to do something. Right now it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost. And as you get older and face the problems of older age, you look over your shoulder and see that hindmost position creeping up on you. Watching your premiums climb through the roof while your income starts to fade towards a fixed number is very scary. I'm counting the years until I qualify for Medicare, but wondering how much Medicare will pay for by the time I do qualify. Thanks. Alan > It would be easy to get wrong and hard to > get right. Still, I think we need to do something. Right now > it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost. And as > you get older and face the problems of older age, you look over > your shoulder and see that hindmost position creeping up > on you. Some things could be changed. Like having group insurance available for the self-employed. Or the unemployed (for x amount of time, and when COBRA runs out). Take pre-existing conditions off the bargaining table, but don't let people free-load until they get diagnosed with something awful. (This is already in place or sorts) This could be imposed by law. And it would still be a private system. > Watching your premiums climb through the roof while your income > starts to fade towards a fixed number is very scary. I'm > counting the years until I qualify for Medicare, but wondering > how much Medicare will pay for by the time I do qualify. Yup. Me too. I'm 55, and for some reason I'm thinking I'm older than you. > Some things could be changed. Like having group insurance available for > the self-employed. Or the unemployed (for x amount of time, and when > COBRA runs out). My favorite solution is to mandate universal coverage across the country. That would create a huge pool for community rating. Government would require everyone to carry catastrophic coverage and provide an income based subsidy. This should also be coupled with outlawing employer provided healthcare insurance. This distorts the market for health insurance and employment. It is a vestige of a deal cut in WWII to prevent industrial unions from striking for more pay during the war. None of us should have to get or stay in a job soley for access to healthcare. > Take pre-existing conditions off the bargaining table, but don't let > people free-load until they get diagnosed with something awful. (This is > already in place or sorts) Right. Health insurance needs young, healthy payors to subsidize care of the older and sicker. Allowing the young, the un- and under- employed to opt out until they are older simply causes insurers to cut back on cost of services or increase the price to older payors. In a corporate plan, the young subsidize the old. The healthy subsidize the sick. We already have community rating on a company -by- company basis. We just need to apply this to the whole economy. > This could be imposed by law. And it would still be a private system. Private system, regulated by governments like a utility. It works for providing water, sewer and electricity, it can work for health care. OK, guys ... enough of the socialist crap. If ya don't want to see my diatribes on it, quit bringing it up. OH, YEAH ... we really need more big government in our everyday lives. Don't you socialist medicine guys realize how badly it works despite its huge cost? Haven't you seen the RATIONAL cost estimates of Hillarycare (hint: it's many times any estimate of the price of the Iraq war)? Didn't you notice how horribly it failed in the states that already tried it under Clinton tutelage? Don't you realize that a HUGE chunk of the uninsured CHOOSE TO BE UNINSURED, and that the vast majority of those who say they can't afford insurance have no problems affording big TVs, cell phones, and cigarettes? Can you COMPREHEND what health care will cost if it becomes FREE? How many of us will be refused terminal or advanced care if a bureaucrat determines his party's money is better spent on someone who still has a few dozen elections (i.e., VOTES) ahead of him? Why should a family that earns $73,000 a year expect the taxpayer to subsidize his health care? Don't answer those rhetorical questions; we've been there, done that. But do some homework before you vote for more big government and doubled taxes (and the promised forfeiture of the war on terrorism). Help those who really need it due to problems not of their own choosing (dropouts need not apply) and quit REWARDING irresponsibility by taking money by force from those who succeed. I.P. > OK, guys ... enough of the socialist crap. If ya don't want to see my > diatribes on it, quit bringing it up. > > OH, YEAH ... we really need more big government in our everyday lives. > Don't you socialist medicine guys realize how badly it works despite its > huge cost? > Haven't you seen the RATIONAL cost estimates of Hillarycare (hint: it's > many times any estimate of the price of the Iraq war)? > Didn't you notice how horribly it failed in the states that already > tried it under Clinton tutelage? It works fine in most countries that have implemented it. Of course, with your provincial perspective, you have no idea. > Don't you realize that a HUGE chunk of the uninsured CHOOSE TO BE > UNINSURED, Which is why in a rational system it's mandatory. and that the vast majority of those who say they can't afford > insurance have no problems affording big TVs, cell phones, and cigarettes? > Can you COMPREHEND what health care will cost if it becomes FREE? Not if you build in deductibles etc. > How many of us will be refused terminal or advanced care if a bureaucrat > determines his party's money is better spent on someone who still has a > few dozen elections (i.e., VOTES) ahead of him? In your case that would be a responsible decision. > Why should a family that earns $73,000 a year expect the taxpayer to > subsidize his health care? So limit eligibility to families earning $72,999 or less. > Don't answer those rhetorical questions; we've been there, done that. Apparently, you haven't. As usual in your case, prejudice makes it impossible to act rationally. > But do some homework before you vote for more big government and doubled > taxes (and the promised forfeiture of the war on terrorism). Help those > who really need it due to problems not of their own choosing (dropouts > need not apply) and quit REWARDING irresponsibility by taking money by > force from those who succeed. Interesting thoughts from one of the few Americans benefitting from socialized medicine (i.e. VA) in return killing innocent Vietnamese women and children. > I.P. > OK, guys ... enough of the socialist crap. If ya don't want to see my > diatribes on it, quit bringing it up. Fair enough. But for myself, I like reading your diatribes and wouldn't miss them. > OH, YEAH ... we really need more big government in our everyday > lives. Don't you socialist medicine guys realize how badly it > works despite its huge cost? I'm not an expert on this, but it is my understanding that those folks who attempt to make objective measurements of health care delivery and health care success (I know longevity is a component of that but don't know what else they measure), the U.S. doesn't rate that high. Many countries rate higher, including Britain, France and Germany, all of whom have government managed systems, and all of whom charge their citizens less than we pay for our private system. People who oppose socialism on general principles often look at the horrors that can result from it (Quebec and the Veterans Administration are cited as examples) but don't look at the successes. Some people think that anything the government does will be wrong. There are certainly examples of that like the FEMA / Katrina disaster, and many periods of VA Hospital management. Other people think that mixing private industry and health care can never work right. When doctors, hospitals, and drug companies are in it for the money, profit will always come before good health and savings for the patient. Personally, I think there is considerable force to arguments on both sides. So what's the solution? I don't know. But I do believe that other countries have done a better job than we have, and that some organizations in this country have done a better job than others. So I don't want my government to just say "hands off health care". I want my government to get involved, and to put smart, dedicated, and well informed people on the problem. Could Hillary do that? Could Barack do that? I actually think they can. ... > Don't you realize that a HUGE chunk of the uninsured CHOOSE TO > BE UNINSURED, and that the vast majority of those who say they > can't afford insurance have no problems affording big TVs, cell > phones, and cigarettes? I'd like to see statistics on that one. There are people who choose not to buy insurance because it would force them into near poverty, or actual poverty, or worse poverty than they're already in. I suppose that counts as "choosing". As for myself, I don't buy cigarettes (gave them up in 1974), but I can testify that if you add up the annual cost of our two cell phones ($35/month for two with limited service) and throw in the initial cost of all the TV's in my house (the newest one of which is about ten years old), it wouldn't come to the cost of one MONTH of our health insurance. > Can you COMPREHEND what health care will cost if it becomes > FREE? That's an excellent point. There are more than a few hypochondriacs out there who will consume as much health care as is offered. So we still need deductibles and copays in order to regulate usage. Now if we could only get the American people to suck up the free education they are offered in public schools and libraries, the way some people would suck up free health care, we'd be in really good shape :) > How many of us will be refused terminal or advanced care if a > bureaucrat determines his party's money is better spent on > someone who still has a few dozen elections (i.e., VOTES) ahead > of him? I don't think that's a serious concern. Even young people aren't just concerned about their own needs. They have parents and grandparents whose welfare is important to them. I don't think that cutting health care for the elderly is a popular idea. If it were, we'd have medicare for the young instead of for the elderly. > Why should a family that earns $73,000 a year expect the > taxpayer to subsidize his health care? I think what I'd like to see is general income tax revenues used in partially funding health care for all (with other funds coming from deductibles and copays). That means that both the millionaire and the Walmart cashier can get government subsidized health care, but because of his higher tax bracket, it would be the millionaire subsidizing the Walmart worker, not the other way around. > Don't answer those rhetorical questions; I wouldn't call them rhetorical. You've raised legitimate questions that do need to be answered. I think your objections to government sponsored health care are intelligent and founded in real facts. If a future health care system designer were to just blow off your objections and say, "We don't need to worry about any of that", then we'd certainly get a terrible system. But I do think there are ways to overcome the problems you point out. Can health care be perfect? No. Nothing done on a massive scale involving millions of patients, providers, rules, hospitals, bureaucrats, etc. can ever be perfect. There are going to be errors big and small. But I think we need to do much better than we are doing now, and the experience of other countries shows that we can. > we've been there, done that. We do discuss this from time to time, but I continue to learn from the discussion. > ... Help those who really need it due to problems not of their > own choosing (dropouts need not apply) and quit REWARDING > irresponsibility by taking money by force from those who > succeed. There was a time I would have dismissed that concern as just blaming the victim. But I've learned that there is some force to your argument. There are far too many people in our society who have little thought for the future and who are far too wrapped up in consumerism - something that every television, magazine, Internet, and other ad shouts at them to do, 24 hours a day. In addition to improving our health care, I think we need to seriously improve education in this country and teach people more about how to live better. Alan >> OK, guys ... enough of the socialist crap. If ya don't want to see my >> diatribes on it, quit bringing it up. > > Fair enough. > But for myself, I like reading your diatribes and wouldn't miss > them. I suspect you're in a small minority even in this group, let alone in other forums. >> OH, YEAH ... we really need more big government in our everyday >> lives. Don't you socialist medicine guys realize how badly it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of that but don't know what else they measure), the U.S. doesn't > rate that high. You're being deliberately deceived by our extremely liberal media. In fact, our health care is extremely good. The longevity figure -- especially the infamous infant mortality gap -- our media thumps is one of the more blatant distortions of fact. Most other countries do to things that extremely distort those figures: 1. They make little to no attempt to help preemies or babies -- including children several years old in some countries -- with serious handicaps survive. We, OTOH, pull out all the stops and lead the world in such efforts at virtually any expense; many of those attempts fail, and count against our "score". 2. Most other countries never acknowledge problem births. They never existed for statistical purposes, even until and unless they reach a productive age in some countries. It as though a cancer clinic got to quote survival and continence and potence rates based only on their patients who could pee in Morse code, onto the ceiling, from the day their catheter was removed until their death of hear failure 30 years later. In other words, those statistics are damned lies, just like the African AIDS epidemic we're about to pour $50B into. It turns out that Africa does not test for AIDS; anybody who complains of a symptom from the "AIDS list" is declared by definition to have AIDS and thus boost the world's guilt and, of course, cash donations. The AIDS symptom list include such horrors as a runny nose or a cough. As David Hannum said, "There's a sucker born every minute". (Betcha thought, as I did, that it is was P.T. Barnum.) Little did he know his government would be so willingly included, especially to the tune of $50B for "AIDS", $800B and climbing rapidly for Obama's campaign promises, ten figures for Hillarycare, and literally trillions -- with virtually no benefit -- to fight potentially the biggest boondoggle in history, global warming. > Many countries rate higher, including Britain, > France and Germany, all of whom have government managed systems, > and all of whom charge their citizens less than we pay for our > private system. Every authoritative figure I can find on the cost of national/ federal/ socialist health care systems says they cost far more than we pay and, in the vast majority of such nations such as Canada and Great Britain, is still going bankrupt. > People who oppose socialism on general principles often look at > the horrors ... but don't look at the successes. Such as? What socialist nation does well? By what standards? > When doctors, hospitals, and drug > companies are in it for the money, profit will always come before > good health and savings for the patient. Only as long as we let it. Competition drives costs down. That's not the whole solution to health costs, but it certainly helps. > Personally, I think there is considerable force to arguments on > both sides. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I actually think they can. I won't even go there. I cannot comprehend anyone wanting to vote for a party or a politician who promises to double or triple taxes, steal at gunpoint the legitimate modest profits of corporations, and forfeit the war against millions of rabid ideologues who vow to kill all non-Muslims, and who are being caught on camera spouting so many deliberate, proved, total lies (e.g., Bosnia, Chelsea's soccer, Chelsea's proximity to the WTC on 9/11, being fired for perjury, being named for Sir Hillary), and now Obama's emerging lies (e.g., the Kennedys brought him here, McCain said we may be a war for 100 years, he didn't know his mentor hated America and based his church on a book that espouses the elimination of white people). I ESPECIALLY can't comprehend anyone wanting to vote for a candidate who is *AFRAID* to be interviewed by or debate on Fox News. *How the hell are they going to stand up to Putin or Ahmadinejad or al Sadr or Kim Jong Il or Michael Moore if they're afraid of O'Reilly or Hume or Cavuto or Greta?* And how can anyone who has seen fascism at work think that dictating economic policy from the White House, as Hillary has shouted she will do, will help the nation or the world? >> Don't you realize that a HUGE chunk of the uninsured CHOOSE TO >> BE UNINSURED, and that the vast majority of those who say they >> can't afford insurance have no problems affording big TVs, cell >> phones, and cigarettes? > > I'd like to see statistics on that one. They're out there by the thousands of pages in official documents. Hannity quotes 'em often, and the source documents are at our fingertips. These and much more like them have been discussed at great length all over balanced and conservative news, news analysis, and talk radio shows for over a year now. Their source is the U.S. Census Bureau, at http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf , especially page 29. > There are people who > choose not to buy insurance because it would force them into > near poverty, or actual poverty, or worse poverty than they're > already in. I suppose that counts as "choosing". The vast majority of "poor people", as defined by the census bureau, have two color TVs, cars, dishwashers, cell phones, microwaves, air conditioning, cigarettes, cable or satellite TV, and on and on and on. I just got cable a couple of years ago, got my first cell phone 2-3 years ago, bought my first VCR this century, and bought my first LCD TV last summer, for $200. Obama has promised to subsidize the health care of people whose income is under $73,000, using money taken at the threat of bodily harm from millions of people who earn less than that. > As for myself, I don't buy cigarettes (gave them up in 1974), but > I can testify that if you add up the annual cost of our two cell > phones ($35/month for two with limited service) and throw in the > initial cost of all the TV's in my house (the newest one of which > is about ten years old), it wouldn't come to the cost of one > MONTH of our health insurance. For an ordinary family of 4, per month: Weekly movies w/popcorn: $250. Cigarettes: $200. Two to four times my mortgage as a percent of income: $1,000 EASILY. Newer, more expensive cars, more often: $1,000. Restaurant meals: $300. Electronics (cell phones, fancy TVs, video games, CDs, etc.) $100 (if not many times that) Designer jeans, shoes, shades, watches ... BLING: hundreds of dollars. That buys one train-load of insurance. Didja know that people by the droves buy carts of soda pop on food stamps, pour it out in the parking lot, return the empties for dimes on the dollars, and buy bling and cigarettes on the taxpayer? I've seen people pay for their food with stamps and their TIVO accessories with cash. (I just got my first TIVO months ago, free when I switched from cable to satellite.) >> Can you COMPREHEND what health care will cost if it becomes >> FREE? > > That's an excellent point. There are more than a few > hypochondriacs out there who will consume as much health care as > is offered. I would bet you a PSA digit that number would push nine figures in the USA alone ... virtually everyone who isn't afraid of doctors. It isn't just hypochondriacs; all a person who wants a free ride from the burbs or boondocks into the city has to do is call 911 and complain of shortness of breath or chest pains. BANG! Private taxi service to their favorite hospital-by-the-mall at taxpayers' expense. Any idea what that red and white taxi ride, with lights and siren, costs these days? > Now if we could only get the American people to suck up the free > education they are offered in public schools and libraries, the > way some people would suck up free health care, we'd be in really > good shape. :) Uh, no comment on the public school system. I'd hate to offend anyone. ;-) >> How many of us will be refused terminal or advanced care if a >> bureaucrat determines his party's money is better spent on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it were, we'd have medicare for the young instead of for the > elderly. It's becoming more common in socialized medicine systems such as in Canada and the U.K. They're going broke and have no choice. >> Why should a family that earns $73,000 a year expect the >> taxpayer to subsidize his health care? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the millionaire subsidizing the Walmart worker, not the other way > around. High earners already pay almost the entire tax burden in the U.S. And realize that the vast majority of millionaires got that way by saving and investing, not by high earnings. The median income for millionaires, even though skewed by all the names we see in the headlines every day, is $131,000. > I do think there are ways to overcome the problems you point out. Sure, but I would guess part of the solution includes cutting freebies the same way Bill Clinton was forced to: dump the self-made freeloaders off the dole. Spend a few billion determining who really deserves handouts to save a few hundred billion in unearned handouts. Drive a $30k car? Buy your own damned insurance. Pay a grand a month mortgage? You're on your own. Smoke? Drink significantly? No exercise? Live on junk food? Your choice, but don't force me at gunpoint to pay for your self-inflicted suffering. Shop at the mall rather than Walmart? Screw you; if you pay more than eight bucks for jeans or $20 for shoes, how about you paying for MY health insurance? > We do discuss this from time to time, but I continue to learn > from the discussion. I hope all of us do. But since any one forum is small, the benefit is very seldom worth the resulting angst, and sometimes the angst turns to rage and retribution. I don't call myself I.P. Freely because I give a hoot who knows I have cancer; I do it to avoid the many insane, reprehensible, angry, irrational miscreants who can't stand the though of a non-liberal in their midst and who pounce and stay pounced once their prey is identified. > In addition to improving our health care, I think we need to > seriously improve education in this country and teach people more > about how to live better. Great ideal, but I get the strong impression that our education system is going down the toilet faster and further every day, thanks to two forces: teachers' unions and rampant liberal extremism (of course. I'm also thankful the conservative extreme has so little real influence; I wish it had less effect in just about anything short of the war on terrorism). I can't believe some people on both sides of the political fence criticize a candidate because he tries to "reach across the aisle". I.P. > > Many countries rate higher, including Britain, >> France and Germany, all of whom have government managed systems, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in the vast majority of such nations such as Canada and Great Britain, > is still going bankrupt. If Leaky doesn't bother to look, then Leaky won't find "authoritative figures". Less prejudiced people will immediately notice his gross distortions. Health care per capita in the U.S. is higher than in any other developed country per OECD figures. Three times as high as in the U.K. The only bankruptcy in sight is Leaky's: a moral bankruptcy. What a liar. http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm >> OK, guys ... enough of the socialist crap. If ya don't want to see my >> diatribes on it, quit bringing it up. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Administration are cited as examples) but don't look at the > successes. At one time the VA didn't do a very good job, but it did treat a lot of people who otherwise would not have access to comparable care. During the 90s it was beefed up by added expenditures and improved greatly. Its medical record system is the envy of the rest of the medical profession. I can't even count on physicians in my town on having access to my medical records, but if you use the VA, and start off in Atlanta, you can move to Seattle and they will ahve access to your records. Unfortunately, the VA has been neglected for the past 8 years, and it has not done as well. > Some people think that anything the government does will be > wrong. There are certainly examples of that like the FEMA / > Katrina disaster, and many periods of VA Hospital management. Again, FEMA did pretty well in the 90s. You can criticize Clinto for a lot of things, but he didn't appoint his old faternity buddies to run agencies like FEMA. he actually looked into qualification. If Americans keep electing people who see government as the problem and don't believe it can work, then they should not be surprised if it doesn't work very well. > Other people think that mixing private industry and health care > can never work right. When doctors, hospitals, and drug [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Personally, I think there is considerable force to arguments on > both sides. The fact that using "socialism" as an epthet to describe something just muddies the issue. No society can work without government. We don't privatize our armed forces (although apprently the Bush administration has been giving it a try which terrible results). Public, non-profit bodies, should do what they do well and private entities should do what they do well. We shouldn't make something public rather than private unless there is a clear need to do so. But when that happens, we have little choice. One should jduge each things on its merits without using emotion laden words. "Private" isn't always good and "public" isn't always bad, and vice versa. In addition the historical context is important. Most everyone agrees that our current method of delivering and paying for medical care is deficient in important ways. Many of us think that a single payer system is superior. It makes sure everyone can get medical care without having to worry about having to pay for it. Physicians are free to negotaite their prices with large entities representing a large number of patients instead of having to negotiate with each pateint separately. But they are still given considerable freedom about how to organize their practices. Some will be, as at present, private entrepreneurs, and others will work for a salary. Unfortunately, we have the messay hodge podge of payment systems that we have devleoped over the years for a multitude of reasons. The Canadians managed to convert such a system to their single payer system, but Americans are not Canadians. We are much more individualistic. So we have to modify what we have now with clear goals in mind. It can't be done by simply adopting another country's system, and it certainly can't be done simply by fiddling with our tax system. > So what's the solution? I don't know. But I do believe that > other countries have done a better job than we have, and that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Could Hillary do that? Could Barack do that? At least they want to try. But neither can do it alone. We need a national dialogue. Unfortunately, McCain doesn't seem to be interested even in trying. He wants to make a few changes around the edge, which at best will improve the situation in the long run. I don't know about you, but in the long run, I'll be dead. > I actually think they can. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > hypochondriacs out there who will consume as much health care as > is offered. I think that is a stupid argument. It says medical care is so scarce that we can't provide it for everyone so some will have to go without. So how do you decide which eople should get it and which shouldn't? Anyway, the evidence is that other countries, in which medical care is readily available, use less of the GNP for health care than we do. > So we still need deductibles and copays in order to regulate > usage. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > way some people would suck up free health care, we'd be in really > good shape :) Why do you think people would "suck up" free health care? There are lots of reasons not to seek medical care, even when you need it. The assumption that the country has a vast pool of untapped hypochondraics isn't supported by any evidence I've seen. The hypochondriacs I've know show up at their doctor's offices if they have insurance and in emergency rooms if they are uninsured. >> How many of us will be refused terminal or advanced care if a >> bureaucrat determines his party's money is better spent on [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > your objections and say, "We don't need to worry about any of > that", then we'd certainly get a terrible system. Of course we need to worry about potential problems in any porposed system and also for unanticipated problems. but not doing anything and dealing with what we know is already happening, doesn't seem a reasonable choice. > But I do think there are ways to overcome the problems you point > out. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Alan > At one time the VA didn't do a very good job, but it did treat a lot of > people who otherwise would not have access to comparable care. During [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Atlanta, you can move to Seattle and they will ahve access to your > records. As I said months ago, that's in theory. They lost my records, and it took me several scores of hours of research and documentation to recreate them. Then I had to drive to my regional VA records center, present my case to layers of management, and wait months to get reinstated. That happened again a year or two later, at which time I had to extend my appeal to the national level. Then it happened a third time. If I weren't an intelligent, articulate, organized, educated pit bull accustomed to dealing with powerful idiots, my VA coverage would be of little use to me. As it is, not even a several-paragraph personal e-mail from the very chief of the VA supporting coverage for one of my disabilities has enabled me to penetrate the bureaucracy enough to get coverage for it. Also, I've had to buy and use additional health insurance to cover treatment, including shoulder reconstruction, the VA was responsible for. > Unfortunately, the VA has been neglected for the past 8 years, and it > has not done as well. Again, that's a bald-faced lie the press and Senators Reid, Pelosi, and Murray love to spew. In fact, Bush raised the VA's budget by at least 40% per year, giving them every dollar they asked for in some, if not all, years. The VA's budget problem is the fundamental design of their internal budget system. Unique among major budget lines, the VA projects their budget out only one year, and little surprises like wars catch them with their crystal balls clouded. I.E., it's usually the VA's own damned fault when they run out of money. The 9-figure Star Wars research budgets I oversaw looked at least five years ahead, and my wife's 11-figure budgets looked up to 40 years ahead. The VA hasn't been neglected so much as mismanaged by its own. > Clinton ... didn't appoint his old faternity buddies to run > agencies like FEMA. he actually looked into qualification. One of Bush's major failings, and it bites him and his party in the butt almost monthly. Presidents all do it, but Bush did it particularly badly. > If Americans keep electing people who see government as the problem and > don't believe it can work, then they should not be surprised if it > doesn't work very well. I can think of very few things the government does that private industry, competition, freedom to act, and private initiative could not do almost infinitely better. Consider computerization: the IRS and the FBI have spent hundreds of millions on computerization with nothing to show for it. Bill Gates computerized the world starting from his garage on a few hundred dollars. > The fact that using "socialism" as an epthet to describe something just > muddies the issue. I don't use socialism or fascism as epithets. I look up their definitions and am not afraid to use them when they fit accurately. The very fact that so many liberals are offended when others use accurate words to describe their beliefs *should tell them something*, but it seldom does. > We don't > privatize our armed forces (although apprently the Bush administration > has been giving it a try which terrible results). Are you kidding? In one of the most confused, dangerous environments we have ever acted in, Blackwater didn't lose one single VIP they were assigned to protect. That some individuals went overboard doesn't belie their incredible bottom line success. Do people forget that we are a war for the future of the free world, that some bystanders will get killed by accident or by bad apples, or that one of our political parties repeatedly promises to *forfeit* that war? I'd be screaming at the top of my lungs if I had children abandoned to face an unopposed radical Islam. > We shouldn't make something public rather than private > unless there is a clear need to do so. But when that happens, we have > little choice. The heck we don't. It's called researching the facts, voting based on substance and qualifications rather than emotion, getting active in the political process, speaking out when one sees BS being propagated, harassing politicians who stray, and repeating the above when it fails. Bush has screwed up royally and inexcusably in such things as letting the government grow even larger and choosing some idiots to run important agencies, but ... tip ... *BUSH ISN'T RUNNING THIS TIME*. > At least they want to try. Hillarycare was tried, with laws and huge funding and close party scrutiny, in a few states, with 100% incredible failure. Think Hindenburg, Edsel, and the recent spate of anti-war movies all rolled into one colossally bad idea. > Unfortunately, McCain doesn't seem to be interested even in trying. What are you watching ... MSNBC? Even CNN says it:" John McCain is proposing an overhaul of the nation's health care system, aiming to give people more control and choice while encouraging greater competition" -- exactly the opposite of Hillarycare and very different from Obamacare. I.E., today's Democratic party leaders believe big government is the answer to virtually everything, while the Republican party respects competitive free will. >> There are more than a few >> hypochondriacs out there who will consume as much health care as >> is offered. > > I think that is a stupid argument. It says medical care is so scarce > that we can't provide it for everyone so some will have to go without. Man, you got to turn off MSNBC. It's going on as we speak as close by as Canada. > So how do you decide which eople should get it and which shouldn't? > Anyway, the evidence is that other countries, in which medical care is > readily available, use less of the GNP for health care than we do. Then why is the Prime Minister of Canada wailing that their health care system is completely broken, that it takes many months to see a specialist and many people are being told to just ... just ... fuhgheddaboutit, to the point some people are dying from rejected or unavailable care. Folks, you are being sold a huge bill of goods by the liberal media on virtually every issue. Watch it all you want, but also *Do your own research* just as you would if you were advised to drink your urine to cure your PC. You will just about as quickly realize you're being played like a violin by so-called "journalists" of whom four times as many call themselves "liberals" as call themslves "conservatives". I'm not suggesting that anyone take the word of centrist or right-wing TV, books, or talk show hosts -- I do not -- but the good ones usually provide solid sources we can Google up. > Why do you think people would "suck up" free health care? > The > assumption that the country has a vast pool of untapped hypochondraics > isn't supported by any evidence I've seen. One very small first-hand example: Military hospitals offered a list of 10-20 common OTC drugs such as foot powder and Neosporin for the asking, to cut down on doctor visits and promote better DIY health care. In only months even these highly conscientious military families took absolutely incredible -- literally -- quantities of the stuff, just in case they might need it some day and because it was FREE. Research would reveal many more such cases in everything from rats to primates, I am certain because I've heard it discussed relative to this specific issue. By 10:00 AM, we put out a big sign at our garage sales. Within 15 minutes the driveway is as clean as a whistle, and we never have to pay to take even the most odious stuff to the dump. My new dog hoarded kibble and ice cubes all over the house, at least until she became certain that both had an infinite supply and that she could never find the latter. > Of course we need to worry about potential problems in any porposed > system and also for unanticipated problems. but not doing anything and > dealing with what we know is already happening, doesn't seem a > reasonable choice. OTOH, some people -- heck, two leading candidates who want to buy votes with MY money -- want the government to bail out greedy home buyers and "Hey, it's not like it's MY money" lenders, rather than let both learn at Hard Knocks University that actions have consequences and MacDaddy won't always bail us out. If that's a valid approach, when can we expect our fellow taxpayers to refund the money people lose gambling, or in the stock market, or when their business fails because they didn't wanna work 12 hours a day? I.P. >OK, guys ... enough of the socialist crap. If ya don't want to see my >diatribes on it, quit bringing it up. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >I.P. It doesn't *have* to be gvt run. It would need to have some gvt mandates and it would need to mandate universal coverage. The fact is that we spend a HUGE amount of money for health care and there are ways to make that money accomplish more. Given that we ARE going to treat everyone walking into the ER it would make a lot more sense to just face the fact that we essentially already have a very very inefficient and expense form of universal health care. We may as well just bite the bullet, SAVE money where we can, and cover everyone with at least a bare bones coverage. > It doesn't *have* to be gvt run. It would need to have some gvt > mandates and it would need to mandate universal coverage. The fact is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > just bite the bullet, SAVE money where we can, and cover everyone with > at least a bare bones coverage. As you say, we have that right now. Hillary's oft-repeated tear-jerker about the lady turned away from the hospital because she didn't have insurance or $100 is pure fiction and she knows it. The lady was insured; she got good care, when sought, at two hospitals; and any hospital that turns away any patient due to lack of insurance or cash is in deep federal doo-doo. I just don't think the Dems' Utopian, mandated, grand scheme will solve much of anything if Hillarycare's failed model is any indication, and Obama's "Hillarycare Light" is only very vaguely specified at present. (Besides, I'll never trust anyone whose original health care plan made federal felons of both patient and doctor if a pt chooses his own doctor.) Realize that all the folks who want to pay for health care for slackers are welcome to do so, either directly or by adding a zero to their checks to the IRS. My objection is to forcing everyone to have insurance and to fund slackers' care. I.P. >> It doesn't *have* to be gvt run. It would need to have some gvt >> mandates and it would need to mandate universal coverage. The fact is [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >I.P. The problem is that you and I are funding it now anyway. Might as well fix the problem with a better solution that, if done right, won't cost any more. >> It doesn't *have* to be gvt run. It would need to have some gvt >> mandates and it would need to mandate universal coverage. The fact is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > hospital that turns away any patient due to lack of insurance or cash is > in deep federal doo-doo. I personally know of a woman who was not turned away by a hospital due to lack of ability to pay after she fell but she never got the right care. She developed bed sores and multitudes of other problems. She has been in and out of hospitals and nursing homes, and she has yet to recover. The care is being paid for by Medicaid, but she is in danger of losing that. She won't be abandoned by the medical system, but it is certainly true that if anything like that had happened to me, I would be out and about within days or at worst weeks. Don't try to argue that people without insurance get adequate care under our system. It is a myth. I just don't think the Dems' Utopian, mandated, > grand scheme will solve much of anything if Hillarycare's failed model > is any indication, and Obama's "Hillarycare Light" is only very vaguely > specified at present. (Besides, I'll never trust anyone whose original > health care plan made federal felons of both patient and doctor if a pt > chooses his own doctor.) Medicare works fine. It has paid for the bulk of my medical care, including my prostate cancer surgery and numerous other procedures. It paid for my wife's spinal fusion surgery which made the difference between spending the rest of her life in pain, not being able to do anything, and living a relatively normal life. It paid for the bulk of my mothers's medical care when she had a stroke. Medicare is a single payer national health insurance program. Despite deterioration under Bush, the VA system still treats hundreds of thousands of veterans each year and does it reasonably well. Of course if it is starved of funds, it won't do its job very well. Y(et another example of asking people who don't believe government can work to run the government.) The VA system is actually socialized medicine in the British mold, unlike Medicare or anything any Democrat has proposed. > Realize that all the folks who want to pay for health care for slackers > are welcome to do so, either directly or by adding a zero to their > checks to the IRS. My objection is to forcing everyone to have insurance > and to fund slackers' care. So you think people get sick because they are slackers? > I.P. > Medicare works fine. Until it goes broke, maybe in my lifetime. > Despite deterioration under Bush I've explained twice now that this nothing but left-wing rhetoric, disproved by the facts. >> Realize that all the folks who want to pay for health care for >> slackers are welcome to do so, either directly or by adding a zero to >> their checks to the IRS. My objection is to forcing everyone to have >> insurance and to fund slackers' care. > > So you think people get sick because they are slackers? I started to say, "Of course not", but if a slacker (one who chooses not to do his best to be self-sufficient) adds substance abuse, lack of exercise, and bad dietary choices to his lifestyle, then yes. But what my statements have so clearly said so often is that rewarding slackers by paying their way reinforces their behavior. I.P. Don't try to argue that > people without insurance get adequate care under our system. It is a myth. So true. Hospitals are only required to provide emergency care until the uninsured patient is stable enough to be discharged, meaning the patient will most likely not die. Niece's uninsured boyfriend who took the header off his bicycle and was airlifted to a trauma center spent nine days in the hospital, four in ICU. He was discharged with his head still wrapped (three skull fractures), a crushed eye orbit and an eye patch because of double vision - this eye didn't point in the same direction as the other, broken and displaced teeth that preclude him closing his jaw all the way, and a missing piece of flesh on his forehead that will ultimately require plastic surgery. Four months later he still has the eye patch, a shattered eye orbit and busted teeth. At least the head wrap is gone and the wound has closed though it's pretty ugly. Oh, I forgot, he was also discharged with instructions to see his private physician who would direct his further treatment. What "private physician?" He's applied for but not yet received Medicaid. On the other hand, he's applied for and is receiving Social Security Disability and apparently will continue to do so until he is fixed up which may never happen. I'd rather my tax dollars pay for his insurance than support him for the next fifty years. Dave Perry On Apr 8, 9:11 am, djperr...@sbcglobal.net wrote: > Don't try to argue that> people without insurance get adequate care under our system. It is a myth. > He's applied for but not yet received Medicaid. On the other hand, > he's applied for and is receiving Social Security Disability and > apparently will continue to do so until he is fixed up which may never > happen. I'd rather my tax dollars pay for his insurance than support > him for the next fifty years. > Dave Perry Just goes to show that we incur social costs anyway. I was driving home the other day and a motorcyclist without a helmet went by. If he falls off and suffers a traumatic brian injury, the costs of his "freedom to ride uncovered" are passed along to me in the form of higher insurance premiums (if he is insured) or higher hospital costs (if charity care) or higher taxes (if he is under Medicare). He looked like a productive, healthy guy making "good" lifestyle choices. My guess is he was a libertairian-republican, leave the government out of health-care type of guy. Or maybe he and his really hot young girlfried (on the back of the bike, without helmet) went home and opened a nice bottle of chardonnay and some camebert and watched the BBC on cable. Nah - what am I thinking. They got home, ripped open a Bud and some Doritos and had wild post-Harley sex....But I digress. > ... > I was driving home the other day and a motorcyclist without a helmet > went by. It has been said that, "If you don't have any brains, you don't need a helmet". Alan > Oh, I forgot, he was also discharged with > instructions to see his private physician who would direct his further [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > apparently will continue to do so until he is fixed up which may never > happen. If he was not mentally handicapped, why was he not self-sufficient and not insured? And why was he not wearing a helmet while engaged in such a risky sport? > I'd rather my tax dollars pay for his insurance than support > him for the next fifty years. Fine. Then send in enough taxes to support him by yourself. But what gives him the right to refuse insurance then expect the public to bail him out? We have a God-given right to be irresponsible, but no right to expect others to suffer the consequences of our irresponsibility. I feel sorry for him, but my consequences for his irresponsibility should be voluntary, not mandated at IRS gunpoint. Similarly, what gives the rest of us any right to demand at gunpoint that he insure himself? I buy a wide variety of insurances, including health insurance. Even though my one remaining sport is extremely safe (that's why I chose it), I wear full torso armor, a helmet with a face cage, eye protection, and extra flotation, just in case. I work my butt and mind off to stay healthy -- retiring to a recliner would *increase* my chances of health problems -- so I've done all I can to make sure I'm not a burden on the public. What did he do in that vein? I.P. First off, you jackass, he wasn't engaged in a risky sport, he was commuting on his bicycle to work. He doesn't have time to engage in any sport. Secondly, he was never offered insurance by anyone so he never had the opportunity to refuse it. Thirdly, he is 21 years old with two pissant jobs barely making enough money to support himself. He rents a room and can't afford a car- hence the bicycle. He certainly can't afford health insurance. Finally he had been going to community college taking as many classes as his work schedule and finances would allow. What more can he do "in that vein?" It's all too easy to look back on your own successful career and think "I did it, so can everybody else" but for many that's BS. And if you don't know it's BS, then you have your head wedged where the sun don't shine. Dave Perry > djperr...@sbcglobal.net wrote: > > Oh, I forgot, he was also discharged with [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I.P. > First off, you jackass, he wasn't engaged in a risky sport, he was > commuting on his bicycle to work. He doesn't have time to engage in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > shine. > Dave Perry This clearly demonstrates how inadequate the U.S. healthcare system is. Dave's niece's boyfriend would have gotten state-of-the-art health care until completely recovered in most if not all European countries if he had lived there, no questions asked. As posted earlier, those systems cost less than half the amount spent annually in the U.S. and deliver care that is at least as good - according to the Congressional Research Service. None of the "arguments" put forward by Leaky against universal health care makes any sense. Leaky is a hypocrite, having profiteered from "socialized medicine" (i.e the VA system) for 20 years. >> djperr...@sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> Oh, I forgot, he was also discharged with [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >> I.P. djperry wrote: > First off, you jackass, he wasn't engaged in a risky sport, he was > commuting on his bicycle to work. I'm a jackass for asking legitimate questions? We could debate individual cases until the cows come home, whereas I'm trying to make a broader point that choices have consequences. But his case does have some merit, so in answer to your questions: Bicycles are extremely dangerous, sport or no sport. A guy wants to ride one without a helmet? Fine, but why should the public be forced to pay the consequences? No one's ever offered, let alone been forced by law, to pay when any of my gambles failed. > Secondly, he was never offered insurance by anyone so he never had the > opportunity to refuse it. He is *hammered* by ads for insurance, and it's readily available from many sources; that's like saying he never had the chance to refuse Viagra or a credit card. > Thirdly, he is 21 years old with two pissant jobs barely making enough > money to support himself. Why has a 21-year-old not gotten better job skills yet? Even at minimum wage at, say, 60 hours a week he's earning over $7k per semester plus a LOT more in the summer. And what about student loans, student aid, the huge variety of scholarships available (none was large, but I had all of those and still had to drop out one year to fund the rest of grad school), credit cards (I owed a lot on mine when I graduated because I was also partially supporting my drunken father during my last year in college; I wrote my cardholder, explained my circumstances -- new grad finally earning some money -- and they agreed to a payment schedule and reduced interest I could afford.) > He rents a room and can't afford a car - hence the bicycle. > He certainly can't afford health insurance. Does he spend more than a dollar a week on dating? Have a stereo? Smoke? Drink beer? Buy CDs? Pay to eat outside the student cafeteria? Buy soda pop or candy or pizza? Go to movies? Buy clothes at the mall? I did none of those things at that stage of my life, but I did call up an insurance agent and buy insurance. After all, even adjusting for inflation, he's making on the order of half what I made with as an engineer with a graduate degree. > It's all too easy to look back on your own successful career and think > "I did it, so can everybody else" but for many that's BS. "Everybody"? No. But when the welfare rolls were pared dramatically in the '90s, the majority of pared welfare recipients suddenly found jobs and fared much better. I.P. > I'm a jackass for asking legitimate questions? No, I apologize for using such harsh language in a public forum though the thought often stands. > Bicycles are extremely dangerous, sport or no sport. A guy wants to ride > one without a helmet? Conceded, no helmet - stupid. > He is *hammered* by ads for insurance, and it's readily available from > many sources; that's like saying he never had the chance to refuse > Viagra or a credit card. Hammered or not, if there's no money there's no insurance nor Viagra nor anything else. > Why has a 21-year-old not gotten better job skills yet? At age 17 he was kicked out of his family's rented home to make it on his own because that's what everyone in that family has always done and apparently will continue to do. To date they all have low paying, dead-end jobs including his parents. Is it his fault he was born into this bunch? A bit tough to develop well paying job skills under those circumstances but at least he was taking college classes, probably the first of those loonies to do so. Even at minimum > wage at, say, 60 hours a week he's earning over $7k per semester plus a > LOT more in the summer. Wow, a LOT more during the summer. Cripes, you already have him working 60 hours a week while going to school. Besides he goes to summer school. I'd rather see him spend more time in school and get that higher paying job sooner rather than drag it out for years increasing the odds he'll never finish - a bicycle accident for instance. > Does he spend more than a dollar a week on dating? Have a stereo? Smoke? > Drink beer? Buy CDs? Pay to eat outside the student cafeteria? Buy soda > pop or candy or pizza? Go to movies? Buy clothes at the mall? No, no, no, no, no, yes since he has no kitchen privileges in his $400/ month room and the cafeteria isn't free, not often, rarely, no. He does mooch as many dinners as he can off girlfriend's immediate family, he has breakfast at McDonald's and everyone in girlfriend's family (including my wife) give him clothes for birthday/christmas. Niece says he gets his shoes at a second hand store. > "Everybody"? No. But when the welfare rolls were pared dramatically in > the '90s, the majority of pared welfare recipients suddenly found jobs > and fared much better. I agree, but what does welfare have to do with health insurance? What's now unfortunate for all of us is he is getting SS Disability which for him is like welfare since he paid very little into the system. And what's worse, it appears he may try to stay on it as long as he can since the hospital that treated him can't garnish his SS to pay his bill as they have threatened to do with any earned income. See how smart he's become with just a little schooling? By the way, didn't Bill Clinton sign that bill that pared the welfare recipients? Strange bedfellows. Dave Perry >> I'm a jackass for asking legitimate questions? > > No, I apologize for using such harsh language in a public forum though > the thought often stands. No big deal ... merely a rather mild expression of legitimate outrage. > At age 17 he was kicked out of his family's rented home to make it on > his own because that's what everyone in that family has always done [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > circumstances but at least he was taking college classes, probably the > first of those loonies to do so. Each new revelation present a case increasingly worthy of public assistance. This is what I would like to see more public dollars go to: determining who deserves assistance and who doesn't, preceded, of course, by a lot of research and definition of criteria. > I agree, but what does welfare have to do with health insurance? Welfare and mandatory health insurance are almost synonymous: Both obtain their funds from the taxpayer at gunpoint. Both are administered and/or regulated by the government. Both are ripe for and rife with abuse by many recipients and corruption at every level. Both, if not administered wisely and honestly, reward and thus promote a lackadaisical approach to personal responsibility and initiative. The U.S. offers and rewards individual effort and initiative like virtually no other nation on earth. The number of multimillionaires is booming, and anyone with ordinary mental ability can exceed to a level rare in the rest of the world. Similarly, any average Joe of any ethnicity, religion, origin, color, gender, sexual orientation, and/or accent can be far more successful here than almost anywhere. Deliberately living off the public teat without earning it and without trying to wean oneself from it is common, habitual, often carefully orchestrated, and self-perpetuating. Eliminating those slackers from benefits is proved to help them, and would go a long ways towards earning my support and belief in such programs. > What's now unfortunate for all of us is he is getting SS Disability > which for him is like welfare since he paid very little into the > system. And what's worse, it appears he may try to stay on it as long > as he can since the hospital that treated him can't garnish his SS to > pay his bill as they have threatened to do with any earned income. > See how smart he's become with just a little schooling? As sad as his case sounds, and as hard as he was trying, he's now discovered the easy way out. Assuming his health allows recovery, he's well on his way to becoming the lifelong slacker that makes social programs to suspect. > By the way, didn't Bill Clinton sign that bill that pared the welfare > recipients? Strange bedfellows. Yes, that were he. He, like almost every other pres, did some things right. Even Dubya has done some things right, and, IMO, he chose the most important swords to fall on: lower taxes and the war for the future of the free world. The other party has repeatedly vowed to destroy both of those efforts, to everyone's peril, so they can buy votes and a permanent throne with social programs funded by taxpayers. I believe with all my heart and brain and research that Hillary gives not one solitary damn about the masses beyond their vote, and this is a major reason I fear her health care program and resent her promise of doubling or tripling many of our taxes. I.P. It's interesting I.P. that we arrive at more or less the same place even though we get there from entirely different directions. I too fear for this country and to quote a well-known comic strip philosopher, Pogo, "We have found the enemy and he is us." Very few politicians in my lifetime have had the courage to suggest we were outstripping our means. Those who did never made it out of the starting blocks or were promoted as laughing stocks - California governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown for one. Three republican administrations - Reagan and the two Bushes - are responsible for 70% of our national debt. Hell, we fought WWII, and everything else this country has done for well over 200 years with the remaining 30%. The social programs promoted most often by democrats will eventually bankrupt this country and every politician knows it but the slightest hint at retrenching and they're out of the race. That, of course, assumes we survive the more immediate credit crunch crisis brought on by unregulated greed from top to bottom. jIt's a might thin tightrope we're walking with voters tugging on one side and much of the rest of the world including China and the Middle East financing our debt. Dave Perry > djperr...@sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> I'm a jackass for asking legitimate questions? [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > I.P. > ... > Fine. Then send in enough taxes to support him by yourself. But > what gives him the right to refuse insurance then expect the > public to bail him out? I know you don't believe this I.P. however, as others have pointed out, insurance is just not an option for many people. It's too expensive. When they are struggling to pay their rent, where in the world can they come up with hundreds of extra dollars a month for insurance? If they are older or have a pre-existing condition, it may be closer to a thousand a month for insurance (it's about $1,100/month for myself and my wife) - money which they pay for nothing at all each month that they stay healthy, and insurance that they are at risk of losing if they miss one payment. They can pay $20,000 over five years, then miss a payment or two, and have no coverage and no "equity" for all the money they spent for nothing. A couple of days ago you posted the following link: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf calling attention to PDF page 29. I looked at that page. If I read it correctly, it said that, in 2006, 29.6% of uninsured people had *household* income under $25,000 per year, and another 32.6% had household income between $25,000 and $50,000 per year. 62.2% of uninsured had incomes under $50,000 for an entire household. Many were well below $50,000. I got these numbers by dividing the numbers of uninsured people in those categories by the total uninsured. If you're feeding and housing a family of, say, four, on a pre-tax income of, say $30,000 a year, just how much insurance can you afford to buy at $500 or $1,000 per month? Also, I believe that there are many ways in which enforced public expenditures are very much in the public interest. We don't say to people, you can buy police protection or not, fire protection or not, military protection against foreign powers or not. We require these things. Whether people like it or not, they have to pay their share of taxes for these things. They can't say, Don't send the fire department to my house and remit my share of the fire department's taxes to me. More analogously, we don't say that people can pay social security taxes or not, medicare taxes or not, school taxes or not. Whether or not they use these services, we require them to help fund them and, in return, give access to those services to them, which they are free not to use if they wish (within limits, they must send their children to some school.) A man may say that he doesn't care what happens to him when he gets old, he wants his social security taxes back right now. But when we think about it, do we really want our young people to opt out of supporting our old people? Do we really want a bunch of starving old folks begging for food and shelter on our streets? Because that's what happened before there was social security and it's what would happen again if people were allowed to opt out. Similarly, do we want bunches of people filling the waiting rooms in our hospitals for emergency care because they didn't get insurance for routine care? Do we want either to pay for their care without getting any tax money back from them, or on the other hand, just let them bleed to death on the street and refuse to take them to a hospital because they had no money or insurance? Alan > I know you don't believe this I.P. however, as others have > pointed out, insurance is just not an option for many people. > It's too expensive. When they are struggling to pay their rent, > where in the world can they come up with hundreds of extra > dollars a month for insurance? I don't doubt that at all. The issue is WHY their income is too low if they have adequate IQ and/or physical ability? > A couple of days ago you posted the following link: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 62.2% of uninsured had incomes under $50,000 for an entire > household. Many were well below $50,000. Again .... WHY are their incomes low? Those figures include huge numbers of college students with access to infirmaries, huge numbers of welfare slackers, millions of illegal aliens, tens of millions who ignored or dropped out of high school, and/or millions of substance abusers. All the above CHOSE their lot. > If you're feeding and housing a family of, say, four, on a > pre-tax income of, say $30,000 a year, just how much insurance > can you afford to buy at $500 or $1,000 per month? If you can't afford children, DON'T HAVE THEM. No one subsidizes MY heart's desire. > Also, I believe that there are many ways in which enforced public > expenditures are very much in the public interest. Of course. > More analogously, we don't say that people can pay social > security taxes or not, medicare taxes or not, school taxes or > not. I've not mentioned those. > Similarly, do we want bunches of people filling the waiting rooms > in our hospitals for emergency care because they didn't get > insurance for routine care? We're there now, for many reasons, several of which can be mitigated -- and in some cases have been -- without taking money at gunpoint from those who bootstrapped themselves into self-sufficiency. If we stop rewarding initiative, it will decline dramatically. That's how feedback systems operate whether it's in insects, man, or automotons. > Do we want either to pay for their care without getting any tax > money back from them Depends on why they pay no taxes. See above. > or just let them bleed to death on the street and refuse > to take them to a hospital because they had no money or > insurance? Of course not ... unless, of course, they're gang bangers, drug dealers, or violent criminals. I.P. > Again .... WHY are their incomes low? Those figures include huge numbers > of college students with access to infirmaries, huge numbers of welfare > slackers, millions of illegal aliens, tens of millions who ignored or > dropped out of high school, and/or millions of substance abusers. All > the above CHOSE their lot. I.P., I question your knowledge of mathematics. You apparently want everyone to have above average salaries and you don't mind paying $4 for a loaf of bread - oops, I meant $10, we're already paying $4. Dave Perry > I.P., I question your knowledge of mathematics. You apparently want > everyone to have above average salaries The average would increase if more people took life's serious matters -- education, sobriety, effort, responsibility -- seriously. There's plenty of time to have fun after the obligatory squares are filled. When more than half of high school kids drop out, that's self-inflicted poverty. I.P. >> OK, guys ... enough of the socialist crap. If ya don't want to see my >> diatribes on it, quit bringing it up. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > just bite the bullet, SAVE money where we can, and cover everyone with > at least a bare bones coverage. How foten do you think men get successively treated for prostate cancer during an emergency room visit. Any man who gets prostate cancer and relies on emergency rooms for his care is just out of luck. > ... > How often do you think men get successively treated for prostate cancer > during an emergency room visit. Any man who gets prostate cancer and > relies on emergency rooms for his care is just out of luck. That's an important point. To the best of my knowledge, people with cancer will get free emergency care only at the final stage, when they are ready to die. A man could get a free PSA test (Walmart offered them for a while) and find out he's got an elevated PSA. But without money or insurance, what are his chances of even getting a biopsy, much less surgery or radiation? On Apr 3, 1:46 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote: > Some things could be changed. Like having group insurance available for > the self-employed. Or the unemployed (for x amount of time, and when > COBRA runs out). My favorite solution is to mandate universal coverage across the country. That would create a huge pool for community rating. Government would require everyone to carry catastrophic coverage and provide an income based subsidy. ==> How does something so far from our county's origins come from so close to our country's origin? > On Apr 3, 1:46 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ==> How does something so far from our county's origins come from so close > to our country's origin? ???? I'm lost in the nested quotes, but ... Somebody wrote: >> My favorite solution is to mandate universal coverage across the >> country. That would create a huge pool for community rating. >> Government would require everyone to carry catastrophic coverage and >> provide an income based subsidy. to which somebody else responded: >> ==> How does something so far from our county's origins come from so close >> to our country's origin? and then somebody asked > ???? What "How does something so far from our county's origins come from so close to our country's origin?" means, I believe, is "How can such a socialist or fascist (depending on how it's implemented) idea come from a free, capitalist country?" I.P. > I'm lost in the nested quotes, but ... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > socialist or fascist (depending on how it's implemented) idea come from a > free, capitalist country?" More abrasive than I would have said, but it was from Philadelphia, our nation's origin. >> What "How does something so far from our county's origins come from so >> close to our country's origin?" means, I believe, is "How can such a >> socialist or fascist (depending on how it's implemented) idea come from a >> free, capitalist country?" > > More abrasive than I would have said I never cease to be amazed when people consider accurate, descriptive, applicable words right out of the dictionary to be "abrasive", or "epithets" or "insulting" or "degrading". If the correct word for a behavior or policy is offensive, *the behavior or policy is probably offensive*. If I don't want to be called a Gator or an illegal alien or a terrorist, *maybe I shouldn't attend the U of Florida or sneak into a country or target pizza parlors*. I.P. >> More abrasive than I would have said > > I never cease to be amazed when people consider accurate, descriptive, > applicable words right out of the dictionary to be "abrasive", or > "epithets" or "insulting" or "degrading". I didn't say you were wrong. I also didn't say "insulting" or "degrading." The truth can be abrasive without being insulting. > I never cease to be amazed when people consider accurate, descriptive, > applicable words right out of the dictionary to be "abrasive", or > "epithets" or "insulting" or "degrading". Never the less, they do :-) I have the same problem myself. I find people often take offense where none is intended. But over the years I have come to accept that that's the way things work and if you don't want to be misunderstood you have to make the effort to add the niceties which other people seem to be able to add effortlessly. In another age it was part of being a Gentleman, but the skill is no longer taught. I keep trying to teach myself but it's a little late in life to teach this old dog new tricks.  SignatureDedman ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > I find people > often take offense where none is intended. But over the years I have come to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > being a Gentleman, but the skill is no longer taught. I keep trying to teach > myself ... I seldom bother, for several reasons. 1. "Nicety" is very often a euphemism for "euphemism", and euphemisms conceal the issue. 2. Many niceties are irritating as hell because they're unrealistic. 3. Many more are downright harmful because they concern important issues and are not factual. e.g., "Just cut the tumor out. You'll be as dry and hard as a bone before you know it." Or as dry and hard as the Okefenokee Swamp ... your mileage may vary. 4. No matter how nice a post is, there's always someone it STILL offends even if interpreted correctly. 5. Three more people will misinterpret even the most carefully written post. 6. Once anyone comes out of the conservative (or libertarian) closet, half the observers gets angry and half of those attack, even ... no, ESPECIALLY ... in political forums. So if an issue relevant to a non-political forum also happens to be political -- like health care -- I'm only going to watch left wing rhetoric go unopposed only so long before submitting facts, logic, and my (hopefully) relevant opinions in the hopes of learning something (such as 007's comment) and/or countering the left-wing rhetoric no one complains about. 7. I'm becoming convinced that PC may prove to be one of the biggest threats of our time and to our nation, maybe even the free world. Of course, by "PC" I mean political correctness. I'm only going to read and try to make sense of a euphemistic post once -- twice in some individual cases -- before I just roll my eyes and move on. 8. And, of course, a large minority are offended more by a fact or studied opinion they don't like (e.g., side effects, national health care, political persuasion) than by vicious personal attacks. Those people aren't my problem to solve. I.P. >> I find people often take offense where none is intended. But over the >> years I have come to accept that that's the way things work and if you >> don't want to be misunderstood you have to make the effort to add the >> niceties which other people seem to be able to add effortlessly. In >> another age it was part of being a Gentleman, but the skill is no longer >> taught. I keep trying to teach myself ... > I seldom bother, for several reasons. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Or as dry and hard as the Okefenokee Swamp ... your mileage may vary. I agree with you that euphemisms often obfuscate the truth and wasn't advocating their use. I avoid them. What I mean by "niceties" are the verbal and nonverbal cues that you give to the other person that you respect them although you disagree with their views. I have made somewhat of a study of this because I am often described as an intimidating and abrasive person even though that is not my intent... well, not always anyway ;-) If I figure out the secret, I'll let you know. In the meantime, the best I can do is a couple of examples and rules of thumb I have come up with: - If you can add the phrase ", a.shole." to what you wrote without changing it's tone, you are probably not communicating respect for the other person. - Give the other man his point. Rarely is the other person completely wrong about everything. Acknowledging what you agree with before tearing into them establishes some common ground and communicates respect. - Don't bark back at dogs. When you walk down the street and a dog barks at you, do you get down on your knees and bark back? Some discussions are just not worth having. They diminish you. - What would Robert E. Lee or George Washington do? These two men for me epitomize the ideal of being a gentleman without compromising strength of principle or character. I can't imagine either becoming involved in a flame war. - Stop and think. I love the story of how Lincoln wrote McClellan a letter expressing disappointment in his performance and then set it aside until the morning. When the morning came, he thought better of it and put it in a drawer marked "unsent". I frequently file posts in an "outbox" rather than sending them immediately. It's funny how your perspective can change after you calm down :-) - Written communications are trickier than face to face communications. Saying something with a smile or using other body language establishes rapport. A "smiley" just doesn't have the same effect. Therefore you must be doubly careful what you write as opposed to what you say. - Choose your words carefully. In a wonderful book called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", Julian Jaynes introduced me to the concept of "paraphors" and "paraphrands". Words have both direct meanings and indirect associations. Most often it is the indirect, perhaps even subconscious associations that get you into trouble. - Consider the audience. Sometimes it's just satisfying and fun to tear into some jerk you find on Usenet. Probably has something to do with testosterone. I know I have done more than my fair share. However, at the same time you are dispatching your opponent whom you may not respect, you are making an impression on the other members of the group whom you may respect and want to respect you. The two objectives may be incompatible. - When your are wrong, admit it. When you have offended someone, apologize. When you admire something about someone, acknowledge it. - Accept that you may be wrong. I made a mistake once. I offer these observations to clarify what I meant by "niceties", not to preach. It also gave me an opportunity to think about and articulate to myself some ideas that I have and for that I thank you :-) I don't claim to live up to these precepts all of the time or even most of the time but at least they are goals. > 4. No matter how nice a post is, there's always someone it STILL offends > even if interpreted correctly. > > 5. Three more people will misinterpret even the most carefully written > post. That's certainly true and has been my experience. But at least if I have made the effort, I know I did the best I could. > 6. Once anyone comes out of the conservative (or libertarian) closet, > half the observers gets angry and half of those attack, even ... no, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the hopes of learning something (such as 007's comment) and/or > countering the left-wing rhetoric no one complains about. There are people on this group whose opinion of me I value and whose politics I am probably diametrically and passionately opposed to. I'm right, of course, but would rather not jeopardize them as a resource by pursuing the issue. > 7. I'm becoming convinced that PC may prove to be one of the biggest > threats of our time and to our nation, maybe even the free world. Of > course, by "PC" I mean political correctness. I'm only going to read and > try to make sense of a euphemistic post once -- twice in some individual > cases -- before I just roll my eyes and move on. We can agree on this and I hope that by this point I have convinced you that I wasn't advocating Political Correctness or the use of euphemisms. > 8. And, of course, a large minority are offended more by a fact or > studied opinion they don't like (e.g., side effects, national health > care, political persuasion) than by vicious personal attacks. Those > people aren't my problem to solve. Agreed. On the other hand, they present me with an opportunity for personal growth by giving me the opportunity to exercise restraint :-) It's like practicing your swing with a weighted bat. SignatureDedman ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message