More Health Care from Carol

I had previously sent a response to Carol concerning our e-mail conversations on healthcare. She has now responded. I have broken down her responses into sentences and paragraphs, to which I then commented in italics, as shown below.
Carol starts.


Your response is very well thought out. The reason for the mandate is
the guarantee offered by President Obama of insurance for all.

Some don't want health insurance. A mandate forces them to take it and is an infraction of their personal liberties.

If some portion of the American population is still without insurance, then part
of the reform is a failure.

It would only be a failure in the judgment of some. It would be a victory in the eyes of those preferring personal liberties over health care.

It is unlikely any small business will not
accept the subsidies offered in lieu of paying a penalty.


Please quote me the part where subsidies to small business exist in the proposal. Please describe the nature of the subsidies, including the amount, how long they would exist, and what must be done in return for accepting a subsidy.

You know how professional researchers are, especially those that
suffered to get a PhD, we can't deal with speculation.

Good scientific PhDers always speculate on what the results of their actions are likely to be.

Based on the
percentages, (approximately 5), the Public Option could probably never
attain monopoly status.

If you are referring to public opinion, it has nothing to do with the Public Option attaining monopoly status. The Public Option is an incipient monopoly on its generation. It will only achieve full monopoly status after it has forced private insurance companies out of business, at the whim of government leaders.

The idea is the competition forces a clean up of
existing insurance companies' acts and ultimately makes them more
competitive.

It is not necessary to have a Public Option to "clean up existing insurance companies acts". We have plenty of antitrust laws and unfair trade practice acts, which can be applied to the group. Competition among individual insurance companies will lead to better benefits and rates, through more efficient operations.

Survival is a great motivator.

True.

Nowhere did I read that the government has been granted unlimited power.
Is this an interpretation of something specifically stated in the health
reform package?

Not an interpretation. No person or group can ever grant government unlimited power. Government can always take unlimited power, whenever it wishes. It controls the Military, Judicial and Justice Department. However in this case, we are talking about government arranging to have monopolistic control over insurance, by temporarily allowing private companies to exist. Will there ever be a disallowance? Who will have the power to resist it, if there is a disallowance?

My job wasn't cushy; it was hard. I had to submit scientific positions
to the President on such matters as whether or not to close Clark Air
Base due to the volatility of Mt. Pinatubu.

Sounds like a good project. I presume you came to a satisfactory conclusion.


Yes, private industry CAN handle pensions and health insurance, which is
precisely why many Americans are in a financial crisis today. Profits
come way before benefits.

I believe you have again painted with too broad a brush. Many Americans are in financial crisis today, but there are many reasons. At the encouragement of government, some persons have purchased homes, without the ability to make subsequent mortgage payments. Some persons have lost their health care and pension benefits, because of financial atrocities within the companies, and which government controllers chose to ignore. Others lost their healthcare benefits through collapse of companies caused by abusive demands of unions for higher wages, pensions, and healthcare benefits, which led to the companies' competitive collapse. Profits will always come before benefits. Profits are a reason for being. Benefits are part of the cost structure to make a profit.

No, I only know what President Obama says and
what he writes.

If you choose to believe what Pres. Obama now says and writes, that is your prerogative. Many of us do not. Even if what Pres. Obama says and writes is now true today, will he have the same opinion tomorrow or next year? If you give him the power to change his mind unilaterally, he will likely do it.

If I oppose a position, there has never been any
reluctance on my part to become active in the subject area. Grants
coexist with private foundation money. They both have their place;
especially the large Federal grants that may fund one or more of Bob's
pyrolysis and plasma arc assist systems.

Private grants come from individuals and organizations which supply money for projects and which they believe need initial support. Investment bankers do the same thing but on a more restrictive basis. In both those cases, the money is private and its disposition consistent with the owner's desires. In the case of government grants, the source of the money is taxpayer or public, however you may want to designate it. But, however you define it, most of the persons supplying the money usually do not agree with its disposition. This is a fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism.

As to Social Security, I was
born in the 30s and was close to the depression-era horror stories,
particularly among seniors. We receive social security and appreciate
having it.

I also much appreciate receiving monthly social security payments. I am guessing that although I paid initially into the Social Security program during the years I was working and drawing a salary, I may be withdrawing more than I put into it. If that is true, I have a certain remorse, but most humans can rationalize about anything. I don't feel that I'm entitled to it. It's just that it's nice to receive it, because it's free stuff. I also recognize that in accepting it, I am becoming more dependent on government, which makes me somewhat uneasy. At Government's whim, it can cut off my supply at any time, without any recourse by me.

We, the insured, are putting up with, sometimes minor irritants from the
insurance company. Most of these irritants can be eliminated by reading
our policies and pointing out the coverage. However, the dropping of the
seriously ill or the denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions
could potentially happen to either one of us.

Insurance companies follow the rule of contract law in the preparation of their contracts with individuals and groups for healthcare services. They cannot drop the seriously ill from coverage, unless it is allowable under the contract which a person has accepted at inception for payment of a certain fee. I recently had a friend who suffered from breast cancer. Her insurance company paid out several hundred thousand dollars for many years of disease control, although my friend's initial premium was very small. Also look at the detail for "pre-existing conditions". Let's say that I have smoked for many years and now have lung cancer. This is a rather incurable disease but the medical profession continues to work on it, and they offer various treatments at high cost. Would you expect that I should be able to walk into an insurance company, lay $1000 on the line for premium, and demand that they cover all of my future medical expenses?

Whether or not the health
reform directly affects us or not remains to be seen. But the reform is
not specifically directed at us. It is directed at the non-and
underinsured. I have no problem with that. No one should suffer and/or
die because they can't afford to get medical help.

You can be sure that health care reform will directly affect you. It is specifically directed to the general public, of which you are part. It includes you, all insured, non-insured, and underinsured. I have a problem with mandating insurance on those who wish to be non-insured. No one suffers because medical help is unavailable to them. The whole conversation is on medical insurance, not medical help or healthcare. I or any other human being can walk into an emergency room at a hospital and request treatment. It is now illegal to deny healthcare to any person who requests it. This includes illegal immigrants.

I majored in pre-med
(neurosurgery) and saw a LOT of this situation...more than you know. I
have also lived in Australia and New Zealand.

We are considering what the law is now in the US. It doesn't concern Australia and New Zealand.

What President Obama is
proposing is not socialized medicine.

It's not important what you call Pres. Obama's proposal. In fact it is rather difficult to determine exactly what he is proposing, even after I heard his speech two nights ago, at which time it was said that he planned to be specific. Many changes to our health care system would likely be justifiable and helpful. However, beware of mandates were you MUST abide by a government edict, even though it infringes on your personal liberties as defined by the Constitution.

I used the socialized medicine in
both countries; in fact, my life was saved when I was diagnosed with
peritonitis in Australia. The socialized medicine doctors didn't charge
me a penny, although I was an American citizen. Well, I can't complain
about the quality of treatment!

That's fine. I would expect the Australians to try to save your life for humanitarian reasons. They were a little stupid in not charging you. It was your health problem, which they fixed, and presumably for which you could afford to pay. The actual cost of your healthcare was borne by Australian citizens. Nice to get free stuff, but doesn't that make you feel a little like a leech?


I stand with the 450,000 doctors supporting health care reform.

Your numbers might be right or they might be wrong. Whether it's 45 or 450,000, doctors are primarily well-trained mechanics to work on the human body. They are not well-trained in financial and political matters. Some others of us are also not well-trained in financial and political matters, but we have paid attention and self educated ourselves through the years. The doctors you speak about are still practicing medicine. They don't have time to understand the ramification of finance and politics. Most of them are so busy seeing patients to make money that they don't even do their own billing. Of the 450,000, we can likely say "they know not what they do".




Carol