--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ruth wrote: > > So, you would rather have 47 million people uninsured? > > > No, I would rather have universal employment, so that > everyone could afford their own medical care.
Wouldn't that be nice! The problem is that even if you are employed, you might not be able to afford medical care and might not be able to purchase health insurance. Which is what I have said several times already. Every year more small employers drop health insurance. > > > And it isn't the old people that are uninsured, it a > > mix of people. > > > Old people are already insured through Medicare, Medicaid > and the drug prescription plan passed by Congress. Many old > people already have a medical plan carried over from the > previous employer when they retired. That is what I said. > > > For example, young people with jobs that don't offer > > insurance or the insurance costs too much. They feel > > bullet proof and go without. > > > That's my point - young people don't need medical care > because they're not sick and they hardly ever get hurt in > accidents. My question was, why should the young people > have to pay for medical care for old people? Are you > suggesting that the government force the young people to > pay? If so, that could cause a riot. Hillary Clinton > suggested that the government garnish the wages of those > young people who resist paying. Is that fair? Of course not all young people need medical care, but you cannot predict if you will need care. Rather than garnishing wages of those who won't buy insurance, I prefer either a national plan paid through income taxes on a progressive basis, or a plan like Senator Wyden's plan, that allows for insurance companies to stay in the mix, but the bill for your insurance is paid through your income taxes. Then no garnishing is necessary. I have paid for insurance my whole life. When I was young, I didn't need it, but it is insurance against the risk of something bad happening. If my premiums paid for someone else's illness, well that is the nature of the world we live in. Spread the risk and no one will have to pay so much that it breaks the bank. It is like people without children paying costs of education. Even though they do not directly benefit, the country as a whole benefits. If we all pay for heath care the country as a whole will benefit. Odds are it will increase employment because small employers won't have to worry about offering health insurance to compete. Employers will be less likely to hire people part time or only on a contract basis in order to save money on benefits. It is good for the country to have a healthy population. Interestingly, young people are more and more worried about having benefits at their job. They want insurance. They want a 401k. They are worried about security. A national health plan would remove one worry that just about everyone has. > > > Some will have accidents. Some will get cancer. They > > are screwed. > > > You want to see screwed? A government-run universal > health care system. The U.S. Goverment can't even secure > the nation's borders and you want the young people who > were born here to pay for the medical care of the illegal > aliens? The U.S. Government could't even prevent an attack > on the World Trade Center. It has already been established > that the government got us into a quagmire in Afghanistan > and Iraq. The U.S. Government can't even take care of it's > own wounded soldiers! The U.S. Government brought on a > crises in the present Medicare system; lost a war in > Vietnam; failed to prevent North Korea, Pakistan, India, > and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What makes you > think the U.S. Goverment could run a medical care system? As people on this forum love to say: non sequitur! What does Afghanistan and Iraq have to do with health care funding? Medicare is noted as a very good and efficient and most all people on Medicare love it. The crisis has to do with funding. If we simply had a national plan that everyone paid into, I have a hard time imagining the cost would increase. Already our costs are double or more than most industrialized countries. Ever read about the billions in insurance company profits? I am talking about government for funding, not government run hospitals or government employed doctors. > > > Some will get treated anyway, but because they are > > judgment proof the health care providers eat the cost > > and pass it along to everyone else. The problem is > > that people can't say they don't need health insurance > > because they are healthy. Health is not something that > > is a matter of personal control. Sure you can live a > > healthy life, but you still can get cancer, be born with > > diabetes or other chronic illness, or have an accident. > > I personally have seen far too many of those young healthy > > people who suddenly are not healthy any more and cannot > > get health insurance at any price. > > > Sure, there are going to be some people who need help - > that's where charity comes in. But you are going to have a > failed plan if you try to make all the young people pay to > take care of all the older people, many of whom failed to > take care of themselves. Yes, there are those who get sick > and we should not judge them, however there are many > respondents here who would agree that people don't eat > right, don't exercise, and refuse to work. Why should I > be forced to take care of them? You mention charity care. Well I am sorry, but charity care isn't working. Too many people are going without needed medical care because they can't afford it and charities are not able to care for the millions in need. You want stories, I can give you stories. And when the guy who didn't exercise has a heart attack, I am not going to judge him and say "no medical care for you, it is your own dang fault, you should have got your ass off the couch. " And when another guy gets colon cancer, I am not going to say "no medical care for you, you didn't eat your vegetables." To separate the deserving from the undeserving is impossible and heartless. > I've got a simple plan for young people: > > 1. Finish school and get a degree. > 2. Get a good job with benefits and save some money. > 3. Don't get married until at least 22 years old. > 4. Don't have any children until you're 35 years old. > 5. Have only 2 children, with at least 5 years between sibs. > > Country will grow! And, don't be born to parents that abuse you. And don't be born with a congenital illness. And don't be born with an IQ less than 100. And, don't drive, you might have an accident. And don't have children, they might have health problems. And only work for employers with more than 100 employees as odds are they will offer health insurance. And don't work for XXX because you are going to get downsized in 10 years. And don't work for an airline because odds are they will end up in bankruptcy. And. . . . . . . . . >
