More from Carol on Healthcare

My comments are in italics.

Carol starts by saying, "I could open it [my blog]. Since it is important to me that you and Bob both get
the facts, I will respond.
The guarantee of insurance for all is offered not mandated.

True. The Public Option will be competitive with existing private healthcare insurance companies. Will it always remain so? Or will Government apply so much economic pressure against private insurance companies, as to drive them out of business. The temporary answer lies in your basic trust of government. The final answer lies in the factual developments of the future.

There will
be individuals without coverage because they choose not to be insured.
This works until you need health care, unless you are well off.

There are two types of individuals who do not have health care. The first type includes an individual financially well-off, who prefers to pay for his health care out-of-pocket, as needed. The second type includes an individual unable to purchase health care when he needs it. We call these people wards of the state and have a welfare system to handle their problems in a humanitarian way. More simply put, they can go to any hospital or clinic emergency room and ask for any appropriate life sustaining measures needed.

For those in business with employees, the choices are existing private
insurance, public option, or subsidies. If none of the above, a
contribution to the health care pool is required. Remember, subsidies
allow even the least successful in business to offer coverage. This is
set up to ensure employees have access to health insurance benefits.

Let us always be sure to stick to our terms and not mix them up. Businesses do not have nor need healthcare. Many offer health care benefits to their employees but not healthcare per se. The benefits come in the form of insurance, which decreases the cost to the employee for any medical treatment. Some employers do not offer health care insurance. Employees have an option of not working for that company, or they can decide that there are other advantages in working there and handle the financial aspects of their own healthcare needs privately. Present Public Option considerations include a mandate that an employer must supply healthcare insurance to its employees. Not doing so would involve a severe financial penalty. I see no reference anywhere to a subsidy for such a company. All mention of subsidies that I have seen involve healthcare insurance directly to individuals. This is a form of welfare, which is justifiable in some instances.

To not have benefits offered in the work place may force employees to skip
preventative care and require emergency care, sometimes financed by the
rest of us. Or, worse yet, if everyone in the family is without
insurance, you can imagine what would happen in case of an accident,
diagnosis of a serious disease, complicated pregnancy, etc. Remember, I
came out of the health care community (UCLA) from the children's cancer
ward at UCLA Med Center. You probably don't want to know the price paid
by some parents that couldn't access care due to lack of funds/insurance
coverage. In our country there are limitations on the concept of "free"
health care.

Don't get emotional on me. Presenting anecdotal information to support a point is always subject to question. With millions of healthcare situations taking place, it will always be possible to find some cases of injustice. However, go back to what I said previously. A family in an automobile accident will be picked up by an Emergency Medical Vehicle and taken to the nearest hospital, where they will be given immediate life support and other necessary medical treatment to return them to society. The bill may be high, but if the family is unable to pay it, it will be paid by the public at large. This is a functioning of our already established socialistic system. We could speculate on other such situations, but they will result in the same fact that no one is denied life-saving health care. There could be some economic improvements in the system, and I don't believe anybody is objecting to that.


Personal liberties don't have anything to do with health care. If you
really need professional health care, it is not a choice. Someone will
step to the plate and treat you, and someone else may have to pay for
it. The subsidies are in Part 2 of H.R. 3200 (passed), Employer
Responsibilities, Subtitle C, Section 431. There is also pertinent
information in Subtitle B, Sec. 421. The Senate is working on a dynamic
document; thus, it is difficult to keep up to date with the fluidity of
changes. Possibly you have access to this document; I could not find it,
so I can't answer the questions regarding subsidies in the Senate version.
In my career and in the educational process, speculation counted for
little or nothing. We prove our data or wash out. We never
discussed the results of our personal actions as it wasn't relevant to
whatever project we were working on. We are talking pre-med and quantum
physics.
Everything we did research on was highly structured and
mathematically/statistically provable within definitive parameters, e.g.
correlation coefficients.

Personal liberties have everything to do with health care. If you force me to quit smoking in order to improve my health for what you perceive is my benefit, you are transgressing on my personal liberties in contrast to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. All present healthcare discussion involves that in one form or another. All persons will need professional healthcare some time in their lives. We are not talking about denying the availability of such healthcare. We are claiming that each person should have the right to pursue such healthcare or not. Do not let all the trees in the House bills confuse you. Look at the forest as a whole. Is it going to do more good than bad? Look at the very broad picture and do not be afraid to speculate on what unbridled power in Government can do to your personal life. Look at the history of those who have lived under totalitarian governments. Many persons are still alive. Try some Hungarians who lived under the despotism of the USSR.

I don't know what you are saying about public opinion and the public
option. I would never refer to public opinion in relation to the
description of the public option, as public opinion can be and is
manipulated. The simple statement of what the public option is suffices.

Few things can stand alone as sufficient unto themselves. A simple statement explaining the Public Option is that it is a government health insurance program, which will provide benefits to individual subscribers, who will pay a fee for those benefits. The benefits would include little or no financial payment by the subscriber for any performed medical service. There would be potential changes in the details of the program. For example, a modification already being discussed is the Trigger Option, which delays instituting the Public Option, until such time as Government feels it is appropriate. As you say, Public Opinion can be and is manipulated, but it is still an important consideration. With a Democratic Government and even with the Republic Government which we have, government's obligation is to listen to the people and take into consideration their desires and needs, rather than acting unilaterally. Kingdoms, dictatorships, and oligarchic governments have no obligation to consider Public Opinion.

President Obama is taking the history of the insurance companies'
collective performance, noted the rising costs, the unfair practices,
the outrageous salaries for CEOs, the spending of insurance premiums to
lobby Congress... If regulations exist to eliminate these problems, they
are certainly not being applied, nor is the insurance industry doing
much to police itself.

Most persons will agree that the practices of private healthcare insurance companies could and should be improved. It is also true that government is not now applying regulations for such improvement. I claim that they exist but that application by law enforcement is sorely lacking. If I am wrong, and inappropriate regulation does not now exist, Congress should address that point. However, this does not automatically require a complete upset of the whole system. Problems should be corrected when they exist. Correction need not destroy a properly functioning part of the system.

I see no evidence of government arranging to have monopolistic control
over insurance. Private companies continue on as before. Massive
insurance plans are in place and won't go anywhere. They will probably
be more fair in application of their treatment and costs after the
reform bill passes.

For evidence of government wanting monopolistic control over health care insurance, consider (speculate) what can happen if a Public Option is included in any healthcare bill provided by Congress and signed by the President. You said private companies will continue on as before, but you ignore the fact that government can and likely will destroy private companies within a few years. Look also at what government has recently done toward monopolistic control of banks and automotive production. Monopolistic control of these services and industries has already started.

It is nearly 3am; I'm hanging it up for the night. Hopefully, I can find
the time to continue later.
Carol