E-mail to Congress:
I heard Pres. Obama's Ohio campaign speech on health care yesterday.
It is interesting how he can distort situations and easily convince a listening audience to his point of view.
I am particularly referring to his poster woman, who had been denied insurance. Obama had intended to have her present during his "lecture", but he explained that she was now back in the hospital diagnosed with leukemia. He used the latest woman's hospitalization to rant about the injustice of it all.
Perhaps you are also deceived by it. Since the woman is in the hospital, she is obviously not being denied health care. What is the injustice? Is it the fact that she now has leukemia? That is always going to happen to a small segment of the population no matter what government does in its present approach to healthcare. Is it the fact that she has no insurance and may be faced with a large hospital bill? She probably hasn't received the bill yet. Why then worry about it? She's getting the medical care she needs. If she is able to leave the hospital cured or uncured, will she be the first to be unable to pay her bill? Will the hospital keep her captive and continue to add to her bill? Do you hospitals make special arrangements for people who have insufficient funds?
There is a lot of logic in the above questions, which some may consider trash.
The key point is that health care is not the issue in this country. The issue is financing healthcare. Yet, Pres. Obama concentrates on health care rather than the financing aspect, because of the emotional thrust he can obtain in getting his Marxist bill passed. As an ancillary matter, may I suggest that all be aware of the potential destructive emotional force of anecdotal situations, such as the "poster woman". Clear heads should always prevail in making decisions on important matters, and an example which is not an example, can be destructive to this process.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Are Californians Being Denied Health Care?
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "24% of Californians lack health insurance".
So what? Are they being denied health care, or is it a matter of financial consideration involving how much they pay or are unable to pay for the healthcare they receive. The federal government is over its head in debt and is still operating. Few seem to be seriously concerned about that. Why then should we be concerned about someone who can't afford to pay his health care bill? He's getting the care he needs.
If we want to improve our health care financial situation, that's one consideration. If we parade this as an emotional matter of people being denied health care, that is a distortion and deception.
EIN News says, "24% of Californians lack health insurance".
So what? Are they being denied health care, or is it a matter of financial consideration involving how much they pay or are unable to pay for the healthcare they receive. The federal government is over its head in debt and is still operating. Few seem to be seriously concerned about that. Why then should we be concerned about someone who can't afford to pay his health care bill? He's getting the care he needs.
If we want to improve our health care financial situation, that's one consideration. If we parade this as an emotional matter of people being denied health care, that is a distortion and deception.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Healthcare Is Not the Issue. Marxism Is.
E-mail to Congress:
Pres. Obama has called for an open debate in the Senate tomorrow on healthcare.
Pres. Obama has been in office for a year. Prior to that, we knew little about him. And during his year in office, we've come to recognize his extraordinary capability as an orator, his ability to mesmerize an audience into forgetting about previous unfulfilled promises, and more importantly his ideologies.
Recognition of ideology can be very difficult, because it requires a thought projection concerning the mind of another person. If there is little experience in that area, the other person's ideology may remain a mystery. Pres. Obama has within the last year given us enough clues on his thought patterns for many of us to recognize that he is a Marxist. Many persons who have had no experience with observing Marxism firsthand may still not see that. Most of you in the house and in Congress are actually of such a tender age that you have no experience with Marxism. Others of us have seen the gyrations and manipulations of Marxism through Lenin and Stalin, and I believe have a much clearer recognition of what it actually is.
A Marxist is a person with a single ideology of obtaining absolute control of the population. He will use any mechanism at his disposal to obtain that power and expand it. He will be deceptive, claiming a desire for negotiation and cooperation, while in fact he has no intention of giving an inch. A Marxist will never give an outright concession. All concessions must come from the non-Marxist.
I have been a volunteer reader for the first and second grades in an elementary school. One of the standard books is on polar bears. The author portrays polar bears as cuddly creatures meaning no harm to anyone. More recently, we have seen pictures of a polar bear on a single ice floe, destined for starvation or drowning. Our compassionate hearts go out to these poor creatures.
However, I tell my kids that in actuality, if one confronts a polar bear in the wild, that bear has only one thing in mind. He wants to have you for lunch. Notwithstanding other aspects of a polar bear's life, which may be very interesting to study in the abstract, he is a dangerous, lethal antagonist. He is the same as a Marxist. A Marxist wants control of your life, no matter what it takes.
As the Senate engages in healthcare debate tomorrow, each member must remember that he is dealing with a Marxist. That Marxist has no interest in health care per se. His only interest in healthcare is as a mechanism by which to control the lives of the Senators and the people they represent. Any concession is a loss. Any defeat is lethal.
Senators will hear about recent increases an healthcare premiums and the need to control insurance companies. While these are all matters for concern, they should not be addressed in that forum. The need for the Obama Administration to control healthcare must be defeated. Dead, dead, dead. Once that is accomplished, we can get onto what is necessary to bring healthcare costs down for the average person and give some protection to the "poor and unfortunate". The American public has indicated no need for immediate resolution of healthcare problems. The Obama Administration is pushing for it now, now, now. Congress must make the point to the American public that the previous Senate bill and anything like it must not be considered, and Congress will promise that it will work on healthcare costs to the best advantage of the American public, while maintaining "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Pres. Obama has called for an open debate in the Senate tomorrow on healthcare.
Pres. Obama has been in office for a year. Prior to that, we knew little about him. And during his year in office, we've come to recognize his extraordinary capability as an orator, his ability to mesmerize an audience into forgetting about previous unfulfilled promises, and more importantly his ideologies.
Recognition of ideology can be very difficult, because it requires a thought projection concerning the mind of another person. If there is little experience in that area, the other person's ideology may remain a mystery. Pres. Obama has within the last year given us enough clues on his thought patterns for many of us to recognize that he is a Marxist. Many persons who have had no experience with observing Marxism firsthand may still not see that. Most of you in the house and in Congress are actually of such a tender age that you have no experience with Marxism. Others of us have seen the gyrations and manipulations of Marxism through Lenin and Stalin, and I believe have a much clearer recognition of what it actually is.
A Marxist is a person with a single ideology of obtaining absolute control of the population. He will use any mechanism at his disposal to obtain that power and expand it. He will be deceptive, claiming a desire for negotiation and cooperation, while in fact he has no intention of giving an inch. A Marxist will never give an outright concession. All concessions must come from the non-Marxist.
I have been a volunteer reader for the first and second grades in an elementary school. One of the standard books is on polar bears. The author portrays polar bears as cuddly creatures meaning no harm to anyone. More recently, we have seen pictures of a polar bear on a single ice floe, destined for starvation or drowning. Our compassionate hearts go out to these poor creatures.
However, I tell my kids that in actuality, if one confronts a polar bear in the wild, that bear has only one thing in mind. He wants to have you for lunch. Notwithstanding other aspects of a polar bear's life, which may be very interesting to study in the abstract, he is a dangerous, lethal antagonist. He is the same as a Marxist. A Marxist wants control of your life, no matter what it takes.
As the Senate engages in healthcare debate tomorrow, each member must remember that he is dealing with a Marxist. That Marxist has no interest in health care per se. His only interest in healthcare is as a mechanism by which to control the lives of the Senators and the people they represent. Any concession is a loss. Any defeat is lethal.
Senators will hear about recent increases an healthcare premiums and the need to control insurance companies. While these are all matters for concern, they should not be addressed in that forum. The need for the Obama Administration to control healthcare must be defeated. Dead, dead, dead. Once that is accomplished, we can get onto what is necessary to bring healthcare costs down for the average person and give some protection to the "poor and unfortunate". The American public has indicated no need for immediate resolution of healthcare problems. The Obama Administration is pushing for it now, now, now. Congress must make the point to the American public that the previous Senate bill and anything like it must not be considered, and Congress will promise that it will work on healthcare costs to the best advantage of the American public, while maintaining "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Friday, February 19, 2010
Bloated Medical Costs
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Fight Over Health-Care Premiums Heats Up; U.S. Government Report Highlights Steep Rate Increases, But Insurers Say Changes Are Necessary As Medical Costs Climb. Over the past week, Democrats and WellPoint Inc., the country's largest insurer by members, have sparred over a 39% premium increase for individual plans by Wellpoint's Anthem Blue Cross unit in the individual market in California. At a news conference Thursday, Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius cited more "extreme premium increases," including requests that insurers made to state regulators to raise rates by 56% in Michigan, 24% in Connecticut, 23% in Maine and 20% in Oregon. (wsj.com)".
Let's not get panicky. This was to be expected. It came about because the government previously told the public not to be concerned about medical costs. Such costs would be paid out of the public trough. To the average guy, this means free healthcare. He then goes to the doctor for a physical. The doctor says to himself, "This guy is in pretty good shape. It doesn't look like he needs anything special. On the other hand, why should I take the risk of having missed something and get sued for malpractice. I'll order some four or five special tests, involving MRIs, bone densities, adrenal functions, etc. I may also get a little cut on the costs of these tests, and in any event, I will be ingratiated to the testing community. The "patient" casually asks how much this testing will cost. The physician replies that it may run $8000-$10,000, but he also says, "not to worry", it will be covered by your insurance. The patient says to himself, "Yes. These insurance companies are fat cats, and they can certainly afford this. Also my government will make them pay, and if necessary government will pay for me".
With this kind of philosophy previously established by government and now rampant in the US, is it any wonder that private industries of testing and medical services will soak the highest possible fees that this sucker market is willing to pay? The medical industry is charging for services that are not necessary and at unreasonably high prices, because there is no customer control. That's free enterprise, and there's nothing wrong with it. Always pick the "low hanging fruit" first. Is it a waste? Yes. Who caused it? Government. It is a correctable? Yes. How? Have government remove itself from a God-like position of guaranteeing everything. Make people responsible for their own healthcare and payment thereof. If a person decides he needs 14 tests, he should pay for it. When he looks at the price, he may change his mind and cut it back to two. When this happens in total society, competition is in again in place and a reasonable supply/consumer arrangement is reestablished.
EIN News says, "Fight Over Health-Care Premiums Heats Up; U.S. Government Report Highlights Steep Rate Increases, But Insurers Say Changes Are Necessary As Medical Costs Climb. Over the past week, Democrats and WellPoint Inc., the country's largest insurer by members, have sparred over a 39% premium increase for individual plans by Wellpoint's Anthem Blue Cross unit in the individual market in California. At a news conference Thursday, Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius cited more "extreme premium increases," including requests that insurers made to state regulators to raise rates by 56% in Michigan, 24% in Connecticut, 23% in Maine and 20% in Oregon. (wsj.com)".
Let's not get panicky. This was to be expected. It came about because the government previously told the public not to be concerned about medical costs. Such costs would be paid out of the public trough. To the average guy, this means free healthcare. He then goes to the doctor for a physical. The doctor says to himself, "This guy is in pretty good shape. It doesn't look like he needs anything special. On the other hand, why should I take the risk of having missed something and get sued for malpractice. I'll order some four or five special tests, involving MRIs, bone densities, adrenal functions, etc. I may also get a little cut on the costs of these tests, and in any event, I will be ingratiated to the testing community. The "patient" casually asks how much this testing will cost. The physician replies that it may run $8000-$10,000, but he also says, "not to worry", it will be covered by your insurance. The patient says to himself, "Yes. These insurance companies are fat cats, and they can certainly afford this. Also my government will make them pay, and if necessary government will pay for me".
With this kind of philosophy previously established by government and now rampant in the US, is it any wonder that private industries of testing and medical services will soak the highest possible fees that this sucker market is willing to pay? The medical industry is charging for services that are not necessary and at unreasonably high prices, because there is no customer control. That's free enterprise, and there's nothing wrong with it. Always pick the "low hanging fruit" first. Is it a waste? Yes. Who caused it? Government. It is a correctable? Yes. How? Have government remove itself from a God-like position of guaranteeing everything. Make people responsible for their own healthcare and payment thereof. If a person decides he needs 14 tests, he should pay for it. When he looks at the price, he may change his mind and cut it back to two. When this happens in total society, competition is in again in place and a reasonable supply/consumer arrangement is reestablished.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Public Health Insurance Program
Exchange of e-mails:
Carol says:
"I read the health care reform plan and some of the amendments. It is basically a sound document that reforms what is wrong with out current system. The plan lets the private sector co-exist with a public health care option. This does not mean the government is taking over the health care system. Otherwise, why leave the private sector intact? The original documents are about all I study. If that's an emotional approach which clouds my judgment, then it does. However, what would you suggest should be reviewed?"
ACS says:
"Carol,
The Public insurance program, will initially compete with private insurance programs. The Public program is not obligated to make a profit to stay in business. It will offer better benefits than private insurance programs. In so doing, the Public Program will obtain most healthcare subscribers. Only a few will continue to purchase private insurance, and those insurance companies will shortly be forced out of business. This is a classical action of business and government and has many years ago been declared illegal by antitrust laws, which are now not enforced.
When the Public insurance program no longer has competition, it will deteriorate into incompetency. Service will decrease and insurance premiums will increase."
Carol says:
"I read the health care reform plan and some of the amendments. It is basically a sound document that reforms what is wrong with out current system. The plan lets the private sector co-exist with a public health care option. This does not mean the government is taking over the health care system. Otherwise, why leave the private sector intact? The original documents are about all I study. If that's an emotional approach which clouds my judgment, then it does. However, what would you suggest should be reviewed?"
ACS says:
"Carol,
The Public insurance program, will initially compete with private insurance programs. The Public program is not obligated to make a profit to stay in business. It will offer better benefits than private insurance programs. In so doing, the Public Program will obtain most healthcare subscribers. Only a few will continue to purchase private insurance, and those insurance companies will shortly be forced out of business. This is a classical action of business and government and has many years ago been declared illegal by antitrust laws, which are now not enforced.
When the Public insurance program no longer has competition, it will deteriorate into incompetency. Service will decrease and insurance premiums will increase."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
