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
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
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
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
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Public Option and Related
Reader Carol responded to one of my previous writings. The following is a subsequent exchange of comments.
Carol: I appreciate your thoughts and would like to respond. As to the
Salary-Bonus Packages, I agree totally.
As to the first part, I hope you will accept my comments. I listened to
President Obama's speech to Congress this evening and read his original
health care reform package. The Public Option is available to the
uninsured (about 5% of the population). It is not available to insured
Americans. Thus, it is not a choice. For those businesses that don't
offer insurance benefits to their employees, they have the choice of
traditional insurance plans or the Public Option. If they still can't
afford to provide benefits, subsidies are available.
Art: I am not sure that what you say here is the way it was presented. I don't accuse anybody, including the the President, of lying. Businesses who do not offer health insurance to their employees have the two options you mention; offer a traditional private insurance plan or a Public Option to their employees. Note that this is a mandate without an option to not offer anything. Pres. Obama said last night that if such companies take that third option of not offering anything, they will be required by Government to pay a penalty. It is difficult to conceive of paying a penalty and simultaneously receiving a subsidy. Note that nothing is mentioned about employees still having the option of purchasing their own private insurance or a Public Option, if such would be available. The net effect of the Government Plan is this would be another mandate on business, which increases costs and makes them less competitive in the worldwide market.
Carol: You then said, "The
government healthcare insurance company would ultimately be able to
drive private insurance companies out of business. This would leave the
consumer without any option..." This is an assumption, and this is
precisely how readers are led to "believe" in things that are not there,
nor are they intended to be there.
Art: I now have private health insurance (Aetna). If I hear that Public Option Government Insurance is available at better benefits and lower personal cost, I will cancel my private insurance (I will then be uninsured and qualify for Public Option), and apply for Public Option. A large number of economically savvy citizens, who now have private insurance, will do the same. True; this is all speculation, but we all try to predict the reactions to any actions we take. With insufficient customers, private insurance companies must go out of business. This leaves Public Option (Government) as a monopoly in health insurance. Monopolies always do what is in their best interest, usually to the disadvantage of the customer.
Carol: I know nothing of the trigger option,
as it must be an "add-on" to the original plan. Without understanding
it, I could not offer any comment. President Obama didn't mention it in
his speech. He did offer an open-door policy to proposals that would
improve the Health Care Reform Plan, without detracting from the basic
policy of providing an opportunity for insurance to all American
citizens.
Art: The Trigger Option is a recent addition based on the thought that if the public is adamantly opposed to a Public Option mandate, an alternative would be to replace it with a Trigger Option. This would allow Government to judge whether private insurance companies were offering satisfactory services at the established prices. Note that the decision of whether private insurance is performing satisfactorily would be made by a governmental interpretation of "satisfaction". We might (speculation) then be right back to the original mandated Public Option (Government monopoly).
Carol: President Obama repeatedly said that government does not want
to control health insurance, nor does his reform package address that
thought. This is also an assumption.
Art: That may be true for now, but if Government Leaders are granted unlimited power, are you sure that they will not take advantage of it for their own benefit at some future date? This is a projection possibility, rather than an assumption of fact.
Carol: Having worked on the research side
of governmental operations, it has not been my experience that this type
of administration is concerned with taking over private industry. It is
concerned with regulating certain industries to prevent what we are
currently going through economically and to provide services not easily
privatized...like FEMA, Government Grants, the National Guard and the
military, Social Security, Medicare, etc..
Art: Congratulations for your research work in government. Based on your verbal context here, I'm sure it was well done. However, are you sure of what the boss already has in mind as an agenda, compared to what he is willing to reveal? Are you willing to depart from the scene, when factual developments demonstrate positions to which you are opposed? There may be a circumstance where you may be legally bound to continue your work and operate in a new context, even though you oppose it. More than likely in the initial stages, you will adapt to new circumstances in order to retain a usually cushy position.
I'm afraid in your list of services "not easily privatized", you have been a bit too generous in granting power to government. The military is intended to protect us from foreign physical aggression. The National Guard is intended to maintain legal order in the face of riots or general civilian destruction. FEMA is intended to supply human services in the face of disastrous natural events; e.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, etc.. The Constitution and I grant those powers to the Federal Government. Conversely, Government operations in Grants, Social Security, and Medicare should not exist. Government should not be allowed to confiscate the assets of any individual or group for subsequent redistribution of wealth. Private industry can well afford to handle pension plans, health care (including health insurance) without any competition or interference by Government. In some cases, where there is an obvious abuse of practice from a monopolistic point of view, it is government's obligation to level the playing field by prosecution under antitrust laws and other existing fair business regulations.
For a little better perspective on where I am coming from, this is what I have had to say after listening to Pres. Obama's speech to Congress last evening:
"Pres. Obama gave a wonderful speech on health care this evening! His plan was not significantly different than what we already had heard, but it was logical and addressed the emotional needs of people toward their fellow man by use of anecdotal material.
I was much satisfied with the value of the plan, even though it is socialistic in nature and generally in contrast to what I normally believe as an advocate for pursuit of opportunity and advancement.
My main problem still exists. I have an innate distrust of government and Pres. Obama specifically. I admit that, in this life, it is necessary to place trust in other people on many of our daily operations, but I tend to shy away from granting complete trust and power to those who could do me harm without any opportunity for my self protection.
It is government's responsibility to protect me as a citizen from foreign aggressors. I cede to government my trust in that area, because I have no alternative. Conversely, I have had the ability to control my own healthcare by good judgment, physical ability, and financial means. Therefore I have no motivation to voluntarily trust government to control my health. To do so would be to forgo my God-given responsibilities and my Constitutional liberties."
Carol: Although I don't know you, I welcome discourse on the facts. Assumptions
are always debatable; I am too busy helping Bob get his company off the
ground to engage in debates, with absolutely no offense intended.
Carol: I appreciate your thoughts and would like to respond. As to the
Salary-Bonus Packages, I agree totally.
As to the first part, I hope you will accept my comments. I listened to
President Obama's speech to Congress this evening and read his original
health care reform package. The Public Option is available to the
uninsured (about 5% of the population). It is not available to insured
Americans. Thus, it is not a choice. For those businesses that don't
offer insurance benefits to their employees, they have the choice of
traditional insurance plans or the Public Option. If they still can't
afford to provide benefits, subsidies are available.
Art: I am not sure that what you say here is the way it was presented. I don't accuse anybody, including the the President, of lying. Businesses who do not offer health insurance to their employees have the two options you mention; offer a traditional private insurance plan or a Public Option to their employees. Note that this is a mandate without an option to not offer anything. Pres. Obama said last night that if such companies take that third option of not offering anything, they will be required by Government to pay a penalty. It is difficult to conceive of paying a penalty and simultaneously receiving a subsidy. Note that nothing is mentioned about employees still having the option of purchasing their own private insurance or a Public Option, if such would be available. The net effect of the Government Plan is this would be another mandate on business, which increases costs and makes them less competitive in the worldwide market.
Carol: You then said, "The
government healthcare insurance company would ultimately be able to
drive private insurance companies out of business. This would leave the
consumer without any option..." This is an assumption, and this is
precisely how readers are led to "believe" in things that are not there,
nor are they intended to be there.
Art: I now have private health insurance (Aetna). If I hear that Public Option Government Insurance is available at better benefits and lower personal cost, I will cancel my private insurance (I will then be uninsured and qualify for Public Option), and apply for Public Option. A large number of economically savvy citizens, who now have private insurance, will do the same. True; this is all speculation, but we all try to predict the reactions to any actions we take. With insufficient customers, private insurance companies must go out of business. This leaves Public Option (Government) as a monopoly in health insurance. Monopolies always do what is in their best interest, usually to the disadvantage of the customer.
Carol: I know nothing of the trigger option,
as it must be an "add-on" to the original plan. Without understanding
it, I could not offer any comment. President Obama didn't mention it in
his speech. He did offer an open-door policy to proposals that would
improve the Health Care Reform Plan, without detracting from the basic
policy of providing an opportunity for insurance to all American
citizens.
Art: The Trigger Option is a recent addition based on the thought that if the public is adamantly opposed to a Public Option mandate, an alternative would be to replace it with a Trigger Option. This would allow Government to judge whether private insurance companies were offering satisfactory services at the established prices. Note that the decision of whether private insurance is performing satisfactorily would be made by a governmental interpretation of "satisfaction". We might (speculation) then be right back to the original mandated Public Option (Government monopoly).
Carol: President Obama repeatedly said that government does not want
to control health insurance, nor does his reform package address that
thought. This is also an assumption.
Art: That may be true for now, but if Government Leaders are granted unlimited power, are you sure that they will not take advantage of it for their own benefit at some future date? This is a projection possibility, rather than an assumption of fact.
Carol: Having worked on the research side
of governmental operations, it has not been my experience that this type
of administration is concerned with taking over private industry. It is
concerned with regulating certain industries to prevent what we are
currently going through economically and to provide services not easily
privatized...like FEMA, Government Grants, the National Guard and the
military, Social Security, Medicare, etc..
Art: Congratulations for your research work in government. Based on your verbal context here, I'm sure it was well done. However, are you sure of what the boss already has in mind as an agenda, compared to what he is willing to reveal? Are you willing to depart from the scene, when factual developments demonstrate positions to which you are opposed? There may be a circumstance where you may be legally bound to continue your work and operate in a new context, even though you oppose it. More than likely in the initial stages, you will adapt to new circumstances in order to retain a usually cushy position.
I'm afraid in your list of services "not easily privatized", you have been a bit too generous in granting power to government. The military is intended to protect us from foreign physical aggression. The National Guard is intended to maintain legal order in the face of riots or general civilian destruction. FEMA is intended to supply human services in the face of disastrous natural events; e.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, etc.. The Constitution and I grant those powers to the Federal Government. Conversely, Government operations in Grants, Social Security, and Medicare should not exist. Government should not be allowed to confiscate the assets of any individual or group for subsequent redistribution of wealth. Private industry can well afford to handle pension plans, health care (including health insurance) without any competition or interference by Government. In some cases, where there is an obvious abuse of practice from a monopolistic point of view, it is government's obligation to level the playing field by prosecution under antitrust laws and other existing fair business regulations.
For a little better perspective on where I am coming from, this is what I have had to say after listening to Pres. Obama's speech to Congress last evening:
"Pres. Obama gave a wonderful speech on health care this evening! His plan was not significantly different than what we already had heard, but it was logical and addressed the emotional needs of people toward their fellow man by use of anecdotal material.
I was much satisfied with the value of the plan, even though it is socialistic in nature and generally in contrast to what I normally believe as an advocate for pursuit of opportunity and advancement.
My main problem still exists. I have an innate distrust of government and Pres. Obama specifically. I admit that, in this life, it is necessary to place trust in other people on many of our daily operations, but I tend to shy away from granting complete trust and power to those who could do me harm without any opportunity for my self protection.
It is government's responsibility to protect me as a citizen from foreign aggressors. I cede to government my trust in that area, because I have no alternative. Conversely, I have had the ability to control my own healthcare by good judgment, physical ability, and financial means. Therefore I have no motivation to voluntarily trust government to control my health. To do so would be to forgo my God-given responsibilities and my Constitutional liberties."
Carol: Although I don't know you, I welcome discourse on the facts. Assumptions
are always debatable; I am too busy helping Bob get his company off the
ground to engage in debates, with absolutely no offense intended.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Presidential Obama's Speech on Health Care
Pres. Obama gave a wonderful speech on health care this evening! His plan was not significantly different than what we already had heard, but it was logical and addressed the emotional needs of people toward their fellow man by use of anecdotal material.
I was much satisfied with the value of the plan, even though it is socialistic in nature and generally in contrast to what I normally believe as an advocate for pursuit of opportunity and advancement.
My main problem still exists. I have an innate distrust of government and Pres. Obama specifically. I admit that, in this life, it is necessary to place trust in other people on many of our daily operations, but I tend to shy away from granting complete trust and power to those who could do me harm without any opportunity for my self protection.
It is government's responsibility to protect me as a citizen from foreign aggressors. I cede to government my trust in that area, because I have no alternative. Conversely, I have had the ability to control my own healthcare by good judgment, physical ability, and financial means. Therefore I have no motivation to voluntarily trust government to control my health. To do so would be to forgo my God-given responsibilities and my Constitutional liberties.
I was much satisfied with the value of the plan, even though it is socialistic in nature and generally in contrast to what I normally believe as an advocate for pursuit of opportunity and advancement.
My main problem still exists. I have an innate distrust of government and Pres. Obama specifically. I admit that, in this life, it is necessary to place trust in other people on many of our daily operations, but I tend to shy away from granting complete trust and power to those who could do me harm without any opportunity for my self protection.
It is government's responsibility to protect me as a citizen from foreign aggressors. I cede to government my trust in that area, because I have no alternative. Conversely, I have had the ability to control my own healthcare by good judgment, physical ability, and financial means. Therefore I have no motivation to voluntarily trust government to control my health. To do so would be to forgo my God-given responsibilities and my Constitutional liberties.
Health-Care Reformers Versus a Reading Public
Senator Cornyn,
Very nice article, "Do Health Care Reformers Fear A Reading Public?", which you co-authored with Benjamin E. Sasse and was posted on Forbes.
However I disagree with you and Pres. Obama on a major point. Healthcare reform is not absolutely necessary. A few changes could be made to improve the system, and that is always true of any operation. But, if we start with the idea of reform, we will have major changes, the consequences of which most will be not predictable.
Secondly, you raise a whole series of questions. Questions only arise when things are going wrong. Generally, each question applies to a particular problem. Let's concentrate on fixing the problems (without major reform), rather than on the questions themselves.
You have a powerful position in the Senate. Go to it! Check with the Blue Dogs. Perhaps they will help.
Very nice article, "Do Health Care Reformers Fear A Reading Public?", which you co-authored with Benjamin E. Sasse and was posted on Forbes.
However I disagree with you and Pres. Obama on a major point. Healthcare reform is not absolutely necessary. A few changes could be made to improve the system, and that is always true of any operation. But, if we start with the idea of reform, we will have major changes, the consequences of which most will be not predictable.
Secondly, you raise a whole series of questions. Questions only arise when things are going wrong. Generally, each question applies to a particular problem. Let's concentrate on fixing the problems (without major reform), rather than on the questions themselves.
You have a powerful position in the Senate. Go to it! Check with the Blue Dogs. Perhaps they will help.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Rep. Neugebauer's Position on Health Care
Randy,
I read your September 7th Roundup, which was devoted mostly to healthcare.
While I agree with most of what you say, I believe you are missing the main point. It seems very clear to me that there is very divided opinion among the population on the need for health care reform. When something is not clearly desired or advantageous, there should be no effort to pursue it. Conversely, projects which have a majority of support, should be pursued providing there is no apparent down the road disadvantage. This does not mean that it automatically becomes a problem for Congress. State and local governments can many times solve problems easier than the federal government.
Some examples of desirable problems to work on are:
1.) Tax reduction. This would result in smaller government, which is already bloated. It would encourage development of small and large business with increased employment.
2.) Enforcement of antitrust laws. This would eliminate exorbitant bonuses and salaries of corporate and government executives. This would establish in the mind of the general public a greater confidence in the fairness of business and government and encourage private development.
Some examples of problems to avoid are:
1.) Abortion. Emotional feelings are extremely strong on both sides of the question. Government is denied right by the First Constitutional Amendment to instigate controls,
2.) Stem cell research. There is strong public opposition to this on religious grounds. Any technological developments are not apparently unfavorable to society, but that is no reason for government to give its financial support, especially in these times of great debt and public opposition.
In general, choose carefully the subjects on which legislation should be considered. Operate similarly to the Supreme Court, which denies hearing many cases offered to them. In addition, start to concentrate on eliminating old legislation, rather than developing new legislation. This will lead to greater personal freedoms and better financial development for the country.
A good time to start is now, with the elimination of healthcare reform. As changes may be desirable, those changes can be made by municipal and state governments. I see no need for Congress to intervene at this time. You said, "It's not too late for us to create better solutions that will allow more accessible, affordable, quality health care for all Americans". All Americans do not desire what may be your definition of "accessible, affordable, quality health care". From my point of view we already have it.
I read your September 7th Roundup, which was devoted mostly to healthcare.
While I agree with most of what you say, I believe you are missing the main point. It seems very clear to me that there is very divided opinion among the population on the need for health care reform. When something is not clearly desired or advantageous, there should be no effort to pursue it. Conversely, projects which have a majority of support, should be pursued providing there is no apparent down the road disadvantage. This does not mean that it automatically becomes a problem for Congress. State and local governments can many times solve problems easier than the federal government.
Some examples of desirable problems to work on are:
1.) Tax reduction. This would result in smaller government, which is already bloated. It would encourage development of small and large business with increased employment.
2.) Enforcement of antitrust laws. This would eliminate exorbitant bonuses and salaries of corporate and government executives. This would establish in the mind of the general public a greater confidence in the fairness of business and government and encourage private development.
Some examples of problems to avoid are:
1.) Abortion. Emotional feelings are extremely strong on both sides of the question. Government is denied right by the First Constitutional Amendment to instigate controls,
2.) Stem cell research. There is strong public opposition to this on religious grounds. Any technological developments are not apparently unfavorable to society, but that is no reason for government to give its financial support, especially in these times of great debt and public opposition.
In general, choose carefully the subjects on which legislation should be considered. Operate similarly to the Supreme Court, which denies hearing many cases offered to them. In addition, start to concentrate on eliminating old legislation, rather than developing new legislation. This will lead to greater personal freedoms and better financial development for the country.
A good time to start is now, with the elimination of healthcare reform. As changes may be desirable, those changes can be made by municipal and state governments. I see no need for Congress to intervene at this time. You said, "It's not too late for us to create better solutions that will allow more accessible, affordable, quality health care for all Americans". All Americans do not desire what may be your definition of "accessible, affordable, quality health care". From my point of view we already have it.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Public Options
Let us be clear about what a public option really means.
As the Administration originally presented the idea, it involves a choice of insurance suppliers. A consumer would have the option of using a private healthcare insurance company, as they now operate, or a government healthcare insurance company, to be established. The consuming public is mostly jaundiced to the idea, because they can see that while there may be a semblance of competition in the beginning, the government healthcare insurance company would ultimately be able to drive private insurance companies out of business. This would leave the consumer without any option. Not only would he be forced to do business with the government insurance company, because there would be none other, but he would also be forced to use a government insurance company, whether he wanted insurance or not, because that was part of the original bill proposal.
We now have from the Administration and presumably with the support of the House, a tricky maneuver in which a "Trigger Option" replaces the "Public Option". The trigger option portion of the legislation would say that there would be no government health insurance company established, unless private insurance companies are not offering appropriate insurance. Who is to say whether private insurance companies are offering appropriate insurance? Government will make that decision and since it wants complete control of healthcare, it is bound to find private companies are ineffective. The government will then set up its government insurance company, and we will be right back to the original, wherein private insurance companies will be driven out of business and government will have complete control of all healthcare.
As the Administration originally presented the idea, it involves a choice of insurance suppliers. A consumer would have the option of using a private healthcare insurance company, as they now operate, or a government healthcare insurance company, to be established. The consuming public is mostly jaundiced to the idea, because they can see that while there may be a semblance of competition in the beginning, the government healthcare insurance company would ultimately be able to drive private insurance companies out of business. This would leave the consumer without any option. Not only would he be forced to do business with the government insurance company, because there would be none other, but he would also be forced to use a government insurance company, whether he wanted insurance or not, because that was part of the original bill proposal.
We now have from the Administration and presumably with the support of the House, a tricky maneuver in which a "Trigger Option" replaces the "Public Option". The trigger option portion of the legislation would say that there would be no government health insurance company established, unless private insurance companies are not offering appropriate insurance. Who is to say whether private insurance companies are offering appropriate insurance? Government will make that decision and since it wants complete control of healthcare, it is bound to find private companies are ineffective. The government will then set up its government insurance company, and we will be right back to the original, wherein private insurance companies will be driven out of business and government will have complete control of all healthcare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
