VTSL
President Obama laid out a Comprehensive Plan
for Health Insurance that had a minimum level
of coverage for all Americans with options to
allow people to have greater coverage and options
to allow people without means to obtain minimum
coverage.
MJ
That the Constitution provides ZERO authority for
such notwithstanding ....
ALL Americans may currently buy whatever coverage
they choose.
VTSL
This the President said would replace the high
deductible, catastrophic health insurance many
people have because it is the only insurance many
can afford. It will not cover routine medical bills
but will cover major illnesses that would force
people to sell their homes to afford medical care.
MJ
So we are NOT talking about insurance, but medical
payment plans.
Medical care is astronomical precisely BECAUSE of
the myriad of Government 'efforts to do exactly what
THIS measure claims ... and when costs are even
GREATER ... we will see the NEXT round of 'fixes'.
VTSL
The Plan would cost nominally more, at most 15%,
but the Insured could now afford preventative care
and not have to pay out of pocket for many routine
procedures. In the long run the preventative care would
save money by addressing illnesses when treating
them would be far less expensive then at later
stages of illness.
MJ
Preventative care is KNOWN. Insurance is to cover
the unanticipated.
Some actuary someplace determines it will cost $940
to cover X ... and there is a 1 in 100 chance that X will
occur in a particular group. XYZ Insurance company
sells a policy to those 100 people promising to cover
X for the term for $10. That 1 in 100 Individual who needs
coverage for X will have it paid for by XYZ.
Now you want to add 'preventative care'. That SAME 100
people will NOW have a guaranteed expenditure of Y
representing the 'preventative care' visit. The policy will
necessarily INCREASE by Y (plus administrative fees,
etc.)
Will these annual 'preventative care' efforts INCLUDE
more than what is now the 'basic check up'? How is it
they will 'find' all these maladies which money is supposedly
to be saved?
VTSL
Republicans focused on the additional cost,
not the positive reason for the cost, better care.
MJ
You have not identified this 'better care'.
Do we consider the BAD economics or simply ignore them?
VTSL
Republicans said this would hurt small business
because of the additional costs, not admitting
that most people would choose to work for
a company that offered REAL health insurance
and that the preventative care would keep workers
healthy and more productive.
MJ
Again ... what is going to make these workers more
healthy (or productive)?
HERE we stumble on one of the core problems with the
current system ... through the tax code and similar social
planning ... insurance is primarily TIED to one's job. Why
not ELIMINATE this planning and remove THOSE economic
problems?
VTSL
Republicans talked about free market, and that
this was Government run healthcare. The President
stated Government was merely regulating
a minimum level of care all Insurers must offer,
people were still able to shop for this anywhere they
wanted IF this was the standard for all Insurers.
MJ
Republicans have no interest in a free market -- which would
actually CORRECT these government created problems that
need more government intervention that will precede the
NEXT round of government intervention.
In reality, the government is FORCING a health care payment
program on its citizenry ... AND forcing any business that chooses
to provide such services to adhere to the governments whims.
HERE we stumble on ANOTHER of the problems that Insurance
is costly -- government mandates. The Government already
FORCES Insurance buyers AND the businesses that sell the
policies to cover a myriad of things that no one necessarily
wants ... not limited to hair plugs, substance abuse counseling,
etc ... just about *anything* this lobby or that lobby can 'buy' from
the various government yahoos. Why not ELIMINATE these
mandates and remove THOSE economic problems?
VTSL
It basically went on like this. Republicans misstated
a fact, the President corrected them, then the next
Republican would give a variation of the exact same issue.
MJ
A pity you could not LIST some actual examples.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Forcing one person to bear the burden of health care costs for
another is not only a moral question but a major threat to personal
liberty" -- economist Walter Williams.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
