From Michael Connelly - Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.
Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.htm
And another to the Bill of Rights:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Sen. Cornyn's Comments On Baucus Health-Care Proposal
Here is what Sen. Cornyn had to say concerning the Baucus health-care proposal. I am advising Sen. Cornyn that he is "right on the money" and will have my vote in the next election. I am also suggesting to Sen. Cornyn that he take the necessary steps to consolidate with other fiscally responsible Senators, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, in defeating the Baucus proposal, HR 3200, and anything similar.
ACS
"Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is bipartisan recognition that our health care system needs reform. Health care costs have more than doubled for American families over the last decade.
Seniors are counting on Medicare - but that program is underfunded by more than three times the national debt. Medicaid imposes huge costs on state taxpayers and delivers poor outcomes to patients.
Our current government health care programs are riddled with nearly $90 billion a year in waste, fraud, and abuse.
Fear of lawsuits encourages defensive medicine - which increases America's health care bills by up to 9 percent every year.
And millions of Americans lack health insurance.
We agree on the need to fix the system - and so we should focus on common-sense solutions that we can all support:
Making private coverage affordable to more people;
Realigning incentives for providers to focus on value instead of volume;
Creating incentives for patients to live healthier lives;
And cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in our current entitlement programs.
These areas of agreement should be the foundation of a bipartisan approach. Instead, a more partisan proposal is before us today. This proposal would make many of our current problems worse.
Here are my fundamental concerns:
Continues Washington's Spending Spree
This proposal would increase government spending by $1.6 trillion over 10 years. The $856 billion price tag is misleading. When you start the clock in 2013 - the first full year of implementation - the spending goes way up. The American people are tired of government spending - and Washington continues to ignore their voices.
Increases the Costs of Private Insurance
Several studies have shown that middle class families will see higher premiums because of the new taxes in this proposal. Premiums in the individual market would go up by 10%, according to one study. Small group insurance premiums would jump by up to 15% in Ohio - and up to 25% in California - according to another study.
Takes Money Out of Medicare
This proposal takes $409 billion out of the Medicare program - which is underfunded by $38 trillion. Any "savings" found in Medicare should be dedicated to making that program solvent.
This proposal also cuts $125 billion out of Medicare Advantage - which would break President Obama's promise that Americans can keep the health plans they have.
Expands Medicaid
Medicaid already imposes huge costs on state taxpayers - and crowds out education, law enforcement, etc.
The Texas Health and Human Service Commission estimates that this proposal would:
Increase Texas Medicaid costs by more than $20 billion over 10 years;
Expand the number of Texans on Medicaid by 2.5 million people.
Medicaid delivers poorer health outcomes than private insurance - and costs more than $30 billion a year in waste, fraud, and abuse.
New Taxes on Families and Businesses
This proposal includes nearly $350 billion in new taxes - not including the individual and employer mandates. Raising taxes is not the way to create jobs.
For individuals and families:
The proposal imposes a new tax on those who do not abide by the individual mandate. This new tax is as much as $950 per year for an individual - and $3,800 per family.
The White House says this isn't really a tax - but if it's not a tax, than why is the IRS empowered to collect it?
For businesses:
The employer "free rider" provision is a huge burden.
One grocery chain in Texas estimates that this provision would cost them $10 million in new taxes.
Most economists agree that employer mandates have the effect of reducing wages and crippling job growth. When you put all the taxes and mandates together, the total bill over the next 20 years is more than $2 trillion - according to the Senate Budget Committee.
Defers the Tough Choices
This proposal only includes a one-year fix for physicians' payments under the Medicare program. The cost of future fixes is not included. This proposal outsources the future of our seniors health care to an unelected government board. This board could reduce access to medical care with very limited Congressional review.
Not Serious About Tort Reform
On medical liability reform, this proposal includes only a "Sense of the Senate" resolution. And that resolution is only a suggestion to states that they consider taking action.
There is no enforceable language on tort reform in the proposal.
With respect, Mr. Chairman, this proposal has major flaws. I plan to offer several amendments that will address some of those flaws. But I should be honest: this proposal taxes too much and grows government too much - and I am not optimistic that a few amendments will be able to change that."
ACS
"Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is bipartisan recognition that our health care system needs reform. Health care costs have more than doubled for American families over the last decade.
Seniors are counting on Medicare - but that program is underfunded by more than three times the national debt. Medicaid imposes huge costs on state taxpayers and delivers poor outcomes to patients.
Our current government health care programs are riddled with nearly $90 billion a year in waste, fraud, and abuse.
Fear of lawsuits encourages defensive medicine - which increases America's health care bills by up to 9 percent every year.
And millions of Americans lack health insurance.
We agree on the need to fix the system - and so we should focus on common-sense solutions that we can all support:
Making private coverage affordable to more people;
Realigning incentives for providers to focus on value instead of volume;
Creating incentives for patients to live healthier lives;
And cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in our current entitlement programs.
These areas of agreement should be the foundation of a bipartisan approach. Instead, a more partisan proposal is before us today. This proposal would make many of our current problems worse.
Here are my fundamental concerns:
Continues Washington's Spending Spree
This proposal would increase government spending by $1.6 trillion over 10 years. The $856 billion price tag is misleading. When you start the clock in 2013 - the first full year of implementation - the spending goes way up. The American people are tired of government spending - and Washington continues to ignore their voices.
Increases the Costs of Private Insurance
Several studies have shown that middle class families will see higher premiums because of the new taxes in this proposal. Premiums in the individual market would go up by 10%, according to one study. Small group insurance premiums would jump by up to 15% in Ohio - and up to 25% in California - according to another study.
Takes Money Out of Medicare
This proposal takes $409 billion out of the Medicare program - which is underfunded by $38 trillion. Any "savings" found in Medicare should be dedicated to making that program solvent.
This proposal also cuts $125 billion out of Medicare Advantage - which would break President Obama's promise that Americans can keep the health plans they have.
Expands Medicaid
Medicaid already imposes huge costs on state taxpayers - and crowds out education, law enforcement, etc.
The Texas Health and Human Service Commission estimates that this proposal would:
Increase Texas Medicaid costs by more than $20 billion over 10 years;
Expand the number of Texans on Medicaid by 2.5 million people.
Medicaid delivers poorer health outcomes than private insurance - and costs more than $30 billion a year in waste, fraud, and abuse.
New Taxes on Families and Businesses
This proposal includes nearly $350 billion in new taxes - not including the individual and employer mandates. Raising taxes is not the way to create jobs.
For individuals and families:
The proposal imposes a new tax on those who do not abide by the individual mandate. This new tax is as much as $950 per year for an individual - and $3,800 per family.
The White House says this isn't really a tax - but if it's not a tax, than why is the IRS empowered to collect it?
For businesses:
The employer "free rider" provision is a huge burden.
One grocery chain in Texas estimates that this provision would cost them $10 million in new taxes.
Most economists agree that employer mandates have the effect of reducing wages and crippling job growth. When you put all the taxes and mandates together, the total bill over the next 20 years is more than $2 trillion - according to the Senate Budget Committee.
Defers the Tough Choices
This proposal only includes a one-year fix for physicians' payments under the Medicare program. The cost of future fixes is not included. This proposal outsources the future of our seniors health care to an unelected government board. This board could reduce access to medical care with very limited Congressional review.
Not Serious About Tort Reform
On medical liability reform, this proposal includes only a "Sense of the Senate" resolution. And that resolution is only a suggestion to states that they consider taking action.
There is no enforceable language on tort reform in the proposal.
With respect, Mr. Chairman, this proposal has major flaws. I plan to offer several amendments that will address some of those flaws. But I should be honest: this proposal taxes too much and grows government too much - and I am not optimistic that a few amendments will be able to change that."
Monday, September 21, 2009
Carol on Healthcare Insurance
This is part of my ongoing e-mail conversation with Marxist Carol. In this issue, she is ostensibly addressing healthcare insurance, but as you will note below she deviates considerably from the subject. My comments are in italics. This is what Carol has to say,
Well, I have no intention of turning the world upside down but am smart enough to know that if a problem exists on a wide scale, it needs to be addressed. As such, a high activity level is present here to help out.
I presume you are referring to healthcare insurance. On a more general scale, I agree that we should address problems large and small, with priority given to large problems. However, addressing problems is a societal function, which can involve individuals, families, local communities, municipalities, states, and very finally the federal government I also like to t think that is the proper order in which to consider resolution of problems. In my home will judgment, this is not the time for the federal government to consider resolving what it considers to be a healthcare insurance problem. If the federal government is uncertain or even has a reasonable respect for the rights of individuals, it might ask questions and make suggestions.
I have been on many government private industry committees tasked with writing legislation on such subjects as alternative energy, the failure of the missile defense system (budgetary input), climate change, clean air, clean water, endangered species...and have also testified before Congress on some of the preceding subjects.
Congratulations for your assistance to the federal government on your activities. You imply that private industries were part of the committees in which you operated. If you will think about it, the presence of those private industries was in a subservient capacity. That is, they were either looking for money in the form of grants or reduced government restrictions on activities. Therefore, the general tone of each meeting was that you and your government associates were in a power position, which tended to create in your minds a superior attitude that you had the answers and could impose those answers at your will. This is the usual psychological development of those in power.
As to it being hard to get an education, yes, it is. Never did I receive one penny of support for my higher education from the family. It was all paid for initially by myself and, later, by scholarships.
Due to an early divorce in my family, work for pay started at age 7
(because I needed money for school, a bike, clothing, entertainment, etc).
As a Civil Rights worker and later involved in helping to stamp out
discrimination, many personal experiences created involvement at the national level. The redistribution of wealth was an effect; new
opportunities were the cause.
Thank you, Carol for the background information. We are all persons with opinions based upon our previous experience and observing others. I can easily see now where you have obtained your Marxist philosophy. Your background is very similar to that of Pres. Obama. I presume from the early divorce that you were raised by a single parent, probably your mother. Such system is always an economic hardship, and the single parent mother indirectly contributes to development of a feminist mentality antagonistic to normal male components of the real world. The absence of a father deprives a child of fatherly advice and economic stability. Double parents (male and female) have been effective in family developments for thousands of years. As we have recently deviated from the system, we have created for ourselves many social problems and I suspect you may be one of the victims.
Well, I have no intention of turning the world upside down but am smart enough to know that if a problem exists on a wide scale, it needs to be addressed. As such, a high activity level is present here to help out.
I presume you are referring to healthcare insurance. On a more general scale, I agree that we should address problems large and small, with priority given to large problems. However, addressing problems is a societal function, which can involve individuals, families, local communities, municipalities, states, and very finally the federal government I also like to t think that is the proper order in which to consider resolution of problems. In my home will judgment, this is not the time for the federal government to consider resolving what it considers to be a healthcare insurance problem. If the federal government is uncertain or even has a reasonable respect for the rights of individuals, it might ask questions and make suggestions.
I have been on many government private industry committees tasked with writing legislation on such subjects as alternative energy, the failure of the missile defense system (budgetary input), climate change, clean air, clean water, endangered species...and have also testified before Congress on some of the preceding subjects.
Congratulations for your assistance to the federal government on your activities. You imply that private industries were part of the committees in which you operated. If you will think about it, the presence of those private industries was in a subservient capacity. That is, they were either looking for money in the form of grants or reduced government restrictions on activities. Therefore, the general tone of each meeting was that you and your government associates were in a power position, which tended to create in your minds a superior attitude that you had the answers and could impose those answers at your will. This is the usual psychological development of those in power.
As to it being hard to get an education, yes, it is. Never did I receive one penny of support for my higher education from the family. It was all paid for initially by myself and, later, by scholarships.
Due to an early divorce in my family, work for pay started at age 7
(because I needed money for school, a bike, clothing, entertainment, etc).
As a Civil Rights worker and later involved in helping to stamp out
discrimination, many personal experiences created involvement at the national level. The redistribution of wealth was an effect; new
opportunities were the cause.
Thank you, Carol for the background information. We are all persons with opinions based upon our previous experience and observing others. I can easily see now where you have obtained your Marxist philosophy. Your background is very similar to that of Pres. Obama. I presume from the early divorce that you were raised by a single parent, probably your mother. Such system is always an economic hardship, and the single parent mother indirectly contributes to development of a feminist mentality antagonistic to normal male components of the real world. The absence of a father deprives a child of fatherly advice and economic stability. Double parents (male and female) have been effective in family developments for thousands of years. As we have recently deviated from the system, we have created for ourselves many social problems and I suspect you may be one of the victims.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Carol says, "But---"
This is a continuation of my e-mail conversation with Marxist Carol. My remarks are in italics. Carol starts off this series with:
Preventative health care is what we all strive for.
This is a personal, not government, responsibility.
Regular check-ups can go a long way towards that goal.
There is some question about this. TV just gave a report that it is not cost-effective. This is likely under present conditions where a number of unnecessary tests are performed in order to protect doctors and the medical profession in general from unreasonable lawsuits.
If you have not had an accident, emergency room care usually means some condition has become intolerable, which is more difficult to treat.
If the condition is intolerable, the patient has allowed it to become so.
Once treated, the patient is on his/her own again. Some treatments require follow-up or a maintenance program. For whatever reason, lack of insurance prevents those people from getting appropriate care. And, no, emergency room treatment saves lives but it may not restore health.
Maintaining or restoring personal health is a personal responsibility. It is not the function of government.
Does emotion bother you? I cannot write every sentence without feeling anything about this subject; especially, since I have worked in the health care industry. In life-threatening situations, most people do not worry about personal liberties. Emergency health care exists for just that purpose...emergencies.
No. Emotion is a good motivator, but it has to be controlled. The key word here is "abuse". Do not abuse in motion beyond the need for reasonable action. I agree that emergency healthcare exist for emergencies, but as I have said before from personal experience, no one is denied "emergency", even if it is a simple headache.
There is much more to health care than emergencies. The personal liberties part comes in when people have the time to make choices. Many just don't have the money.
Correct. Health care is a personal responsibility. Emergency room care should be reserved for accidents. No one has ever been denied emergency care, because of money.
I do not have the power to force anyone to accept anything, except for myself.
Great! Maintain that philosophy. You will have a better life in accepting personal responsibility. You can also offer help to those who are apparently unable to handle personal and financial problems in our complex society. You have no right to transgress on their personal choices.
Even if you are tired of the number, 45,000,000, whatever it truly is, a whole lot of people in this country do not have access to any health care on a regular basis.
False. People have access to health care by their own personal treatment, reference to the Internet for technical advice and available medical books, help from family members. Emergency rooms are always available for emergencies. The cities have free medical clinics. The only questionable and accessibility is for those who live in the remote areas without the companionship and support of family members. Those persons are usually very reliable their own personal treatment capabilities.
Neither one of us falls into this category, I can only imagine what it must feel like to have chronicconditions, that may not be life-threatening, but that the people are stuck trying to cure themselves. Yes, I am aware of the religious cults that reject health care. I have also assisted in treating these same believers when an emergency arose (only as a student, however).
Everybody has a chronic condition. It might be a weak left knee, a left shoulder ache, susceptibility to diverticulitis attacks, or a multitude of other things. The patient should try to fix them himself by local treatment or modification of lifestyle. If that is unsuccessful and no money is available, he should go to the free clinic for help. Chronic conditions are usually not life-threatening, and if reasonable attempts to cure are unsuccessful, one should learn to live with the chronic problem. Many times chronic conditions cure themselves, through the use of self curing mechanisms, which are part of the human body's structure.
Since the outcry for reform of the health care industry is a long-standing problem, at least a majority of the millions have spoken for reform. It is certainly not my position to say that reform is not needed.
Millions of people want health care reform, because it will remove them from responsibility of their own health care and because they anticipate that it will be free or at least significantly lower cost than what is now available. However, systems can be improved, and the health care system is no exception. We should address and correct problems within that system one of the time.
As to dropping seriously ill people, it happens. I have not experienced the lying about pre-existing conditions on the application to be the primary reason for being dropped. No, it is not supposed to happen.
Pres. Obama did his best to demonize the healthcare insurance people in a previous speech, by using gallstones and acne as excuses for health care insurance people denying treatment on more serious illnesses. I have shown separately that this is false. No one has brought to my attention a case where an insurance company has dropped a patient from healthcare insurance payments, without justification. The chances are that such cases essentially do not exist, because opportunistic lawyers would be all over the insurance companies like fleas on a dog.
Regarding the Public Option, I cannot anticipate nor speculate on how it will run and whether it will close the doors of private insurance companies. Based on the enormous size of most insurance companies, it does not seem possible that they would be run over by a Public Option program. Nor does it seem likely that the 85% insured would jump ship and go for the Public Option, especially if their employers were paying part of their coverage.
I have explained previously how unfair competition by a government insurance company can put private insurance companies out of business. You seem to have gotten part of that message. The size of a private insurance company has nothing to do with its continued existence in the face of unreasonable competition. AIG, Enron, and General Motors are examples of very large companies that have gone out of business because of their inability to compete through a combination of competition and their own ineptitude. My previous employer is paying part of my healthcare coverage. However, if a government insurance company offers better service at lower out-of-pocket cost, I would jump ship. Those who would not do so would be strong standers on principle or generally unknowledgeable. They would be few, and at least few enough to be unable to support the existence of the private health insurance industry.
Maybe the competition will motivate the private insurance companies to clean up the fraud and waste, which is helping to cause health care costs to rise exponentially.
Competition is generally good for the public, which is why we have anti-monopoly laws. However excessive competition, which drives all but one supplier out of business can be a monopoly creator. Again, watch the keyword "abuse". Market pressure on private insurance companies will usually aid in reducing fraud and waste. Government intervention should only be involved when it is obviously necessary. Government abuse will close the private industry. The cost of health care is rising exponentially, because of public demand for service. This is a normal market response, and the healthcare industry should not be criticized for supplying what the public wants. This is a large-scale temporary fad, which will eventually correct itself as individuals recognize some of the stupidities of their actions. However, you can be sure that intervention by government with a government health insurance program, will tend to stabilize the high cost demands.
Alan Greenspan went to College with my first cousin. Did you not know the Federal Reserve is a private corporation? Didn't you know how it came to be in 1913 and that Woodrow Wilson apologized for selling out his country? Did you know that today HR1207 passed, which authorized the investigation of how the interest money collected in the Federal Reserve is dispersed? View "The Creature of Jekyl Island" for the history.
Do not be confused by historical accounts. Remember that historians write about a historical situation from their own personal point of view, meaning they have at least a portion of their agenda in the writing. If you don't believe this, look at how some of the public school history books are now being written. The Federal Reserve is no more a private corporation than is the Lubbock Independent School District (LISD). No matter what the historians or current analysts may say, if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's a duck.
DOE is really part of the government. My position is that if you ask the government to bail you out of your failed business decisions, then you have to expect some input from the government on what might have gone wrong and how to fix it. Also, I see no problem with the Union being represented on the Board of GM. First of all, the workers may have some suggestions for improving the line operations since they work there every day; and, second, lack of communication exacerbates problems between the union and management. No, I have never been in a union...always in management.
Yes. If you ask anybody for a bailout, you are expected to give up some of your independence; usually part of the profit or control of the operation. Government should not be bailing out anybody, and nobody would be asking government for bailouts, if they know the request is futile. Workers and government being part of company operations has its precedents. It appeared in Tito's Yugoslavia in the late 50s and early 60s. I have first-hand experience with it. Notice that the country of Yugoslavia no longer exists. It was unable to sustain this worker-government control. Obviously workers and management must be in communication with each other. This is rather routinely done these days. Government need have no part in this.
Preventative health care is what we all strive for.
This is a personal, not government, responsibility.
Regular check-ups can go a long way towards that goal.
There is some question about this. TV just gave a report that it is not cost-effective. This is likely under present conditions where a number of unnecessary tests are performed in order to protect doctors and the medical profession in general from unreasonable lawsuits.
If you have not had an accident, emergency room care usually means some condition has become intolerable, which is more difficult to treat.
If the condition is intolerable, the patient has allowed it to become so.
Once treated, the patient is on his/her own again. Some treatments require follow-up or a maintenance program. For whatever reason, lack of insurance prevents those people from getting appropriate care. And, no, emergency room treatment saves lives but it may not restore health.
Maintaining or restoring personal health is a personal responsibility. It is not the function of government.
Does emotion bother you? I cannot write every sentence without feeling anything about this subject; especially, since I have worked in the health care industry. In life-threatening situations, most people do not worry about personal liberties. Emergency health care exists for just that purpose...emergencies.
No. Emotion is a good motivator, but it has to be controlled. The key word here is "abuse". Do not abuse in motion beyond the need for reasonable action. I agree that emergency healthcare exist for emergencies, but as I have said before from personal experience, no one is denied "emergency", even if it is a simple headache.
There is much more to health care than emergencies. The personal liberties part comes in when people have the time to make choices. Many just don't have the money.
Correct. Health care is a personal responsibility. Emergency room care should be reserved for accidents. No one has ever been denied emergency care, because of money.
I do not have the power to force anyone to accept anything, except for myself.
Great! Maintain that philosophy. You will have a better life in accepting personal responsibility. You can also offer help to those who are apparently unable to handle personal and financial problems in our complex society. You have no right to transgress on their personal choices.
Even if you are tired of the number, 45,000,000, whatever it truly is, a whole lot of people in this country do not have access to any health care on a regular basis.
False. People have access to health care by their own personal treatment, reference to the Internet for technical advice and available medical books, help from family members. Emergency rooms are always available for emergencies. The cities have free medical clinics. The only questionable and accessibility is for those who live in the remote areas without the companionship and support of family members. Those persons are usually very reliable their own personal treatment capabilities.
Neither one of us falls into this category, I can only imagine what it must feel like to have chronicconditions, that may not be life-threatening, but that the people are stuck trying to cure themselves. Yes, I am aware of the religious cults that reject health care. I have also assisted in treating these same believers when an emergency arose (only as a student, however).
Everybody has a chronic condition. It might be a weak left knee, a left shoulder ache, susceptibility to diverticulitis attacks, or a multitude of other things. The patient should try to fix them himself by local treatment or modification of lifestyle. If that is unsuccessful and no money is available, he should go to the free clinic for help. Chronic conditions are usually not life-threatening, and if reasonable attempts to cure are unsuccessful, one should learn to live with the chronic problem. Many times chronic conditions cure themselves, through the use of self curing mechanisms, which are part of the human body's structure.
Since the outcry for reform of the health care industry is a long-standing problem, at least a majority of the millions have spoken for reform. It is certainly not my position to say that reform is not needed.
Millions of people want health care reform, because it will remove them from responsibility of their own health care and because they anticipate that it will be free or at least significantly lower cost than what is now available. However, systems can be improved, and the health care system is no exception. We should address and correct problems within that system one of the time.
As to dropping seriously ill people, it happens. I have not experienced the lying about pre-existing conditions on the application to be the primary reason for being dropped. No, it is not supposed to happen.
Pres. Obama did his best to demonize the healthcare insurance people in a previous speech, by using gallstones and acne as excuses for health care insurance people denying treatment on more serious illnesses. I have shown separately that this is false. No one has brought to my attention a case where an insurance company has dropped a patient from healthcare insurance payments, without justification. The chances are that such cases essentially do not exist, because opportunistic lawyers would be all over the insurance companies like fleas on a dog.
Regarding the Public Option, I cannot anticipate nor speculate on how it will run and whether it will close the doors of private insurance companies. Based on the enormous size of most insurance companies, it does not seem possible that they would be run over by a Public Option program. Nor does it seem likely that the 85% insured would jump ship and go for the Public Option, especially if their employers were paying part of their coverage.
I have explained previously how unfair competition by a government insurance company can put private insurance companies out of business. You seem to have gotten part of that message. The size of a private insurance company has nothing to do with its continued existence in the face of unreasonable competition. AIG, Enron, and General Motors are examples of very large companies that have gone out of business because of their inability to compete through a combination of competition and their own ineptitude. My previous employer is paying part of my healthcare coverage. However, if a government insurance company offers better service at lower out-of-pocket cost, I would jump ship. Those who would not do so would be strong standers on principle or generally unknowledgeable. They would be few, and at least few enough to be unable to support the existence of the private health insurance industry.
Maybe the competition will motivate the private insurance companies to clean up the fraud and waste, which is helping to cause health care costs to rise exponentially.
Competition is generally good for the public, which is why we have anti-monopoly laws. However excessive competition, which drives all but one supplier out of business can be a monopoly creator. Again, watch the keyword "abuse". Market pressure on private insurance companies will usually aid in reducing fraud and waste. Government intervention should only be involved when it is obviously necessary. Government abuse will close the private industry. The cost of health care is rising exponentially, because of public demand for service. This is a normal market response, and the healthcare industry should not be criticized for supplying what the public wants. This is a large-scale temporary fad, which will eventually correct itself as individuals recognize some of the stupidities of their actions. However, you can be sure that intervention by government with a government health insurance program, will tend to stabilize the high cost demands.
Alan Greenspan went to College with my first cousin. Did you not know the Federal Reserve is a private corporation? Didn't you know how it came to be in 1913 and that Woodrow Wilson apologized for selling out his country? Did you know that today HR1207 passed, which authorized the investigation of how the interest money collected in the Federal Reserve is dispersed? View "The Creature of Jekyl Island" for the history.
Do not be confused by historical accounts. Remember that historians write about a historical situation from their own personal point of view, meaning they have at least a portion of their agenda in the writing. If you don't believe this, look at how some of the public school history books are now being written. The Federal Reserve is no more a private corporation than is the Lubbock Independent School District (LISD). No matter what the historians or current analysts may say, if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's a duck.
DOE is really part of the government. My position is that if you ask the government to bail you out of your failed business decisions, then you have to expect some input from the government on what might have gone wrong and how to fix it. Also, I see no problem with the Union being represented on the Board of GM. First of all, the workers may have some suggestions for improving the line operations since they work there every day; and, second, lack of communication exacerbates problems between the union and management. No, I have never been in a union...always in management.
Yes. If you ask anybody for a bailout, you are expected to give up some of your independence; usually part of the profit or control of the operation. Government should not be bailing out anybody, and nobody would be asking government for bailouts, if they know the request is futile. Workers and government being part of company operations has its precedents. It appeared in Tito's Yugoslavia in the late 50s and early 60s. I have first-hand experience with it. Notice that the country of Yugoslavia no longer exists. It was unable to sustain this worker-government control. Obviously workers and management must be in communication with each other. This is rather routinely done these days. Government need have no part in this.
False Claims in Healthcare
This was an e-mail to Carol:
Congratulations for your taking personal responsibility for paying your bills. Most Marxists believe that government would have this responsibility or see to it that there are no bills.
With respect to your attachment, this is the opinion of People for the American Way, in the same way that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck give their opinions. You have to be careful of opinions, and you can do that by inspecting relative data and the background of those giving the opinions.
Most people do not lie intentionally. They tend to distort the facts in order to support a previously held position.
There is a nice article by Scott Harrington, in the Monday, September 14, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal on page A15. Harrington cites that in a speech Pres. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy, because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that that he didn't even know about". The implication here is that the Illinois man lost his life because he didn't have health insurance. However, his sister later reported that the patient received a prescribed stem cell transplant within the desired 3 to 4 week window of opportunity from one of the most renowned doctors in the world on the specific routine, and that the procedure was extremely successful, and that it extended the patient's life nearly 3 1/2 years.
In the President's second example, he cited a Texas woman about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne, and that by the time she had her insurance reinstated her breast cancer more than doubled in size. The implication here is that the insurance company canceled coverage for required medical treatment, because of an unrelated condition. The woman later testified that the dermatologist had described her skin condition as precancerous. She also failed to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat and had underreported her weight on the application. Irregular heartbeat and obesity are serious impediments to successful treatment. She could have taken the personal responsibility of reducing her weight, with the likelihood that her heartbeat would become more regular. Instead, she chose to be deceptive in her application.
Congratulations for your taking personal responsibility for paying your bills. Most Marxists believe that government would have this responsibility or see to it that there are no bills.
With respect to your attachment, this is the opinion of People for the American Way, in the same way that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck give their opinions. You have to be careful of opinions, and you can do that by inspecting relative data and the background of those giving the opinions.
Most people do not lie intentionally. They tend to distort the facts in order to support a previously held position.
There is a nice article by Scott Harrington, in the Monday, September 14, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal on page A15. Harrington cites that in a speech Pres. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy, because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that that he didn't even know about". The implication here is that the Illinois man lost his life because he didn't have health insurance. However, his sister later reported that the patient received a prescribed stem cell transplant within the desired 3 to 4 week window of opportunity from one of the most renowned doctors in the world on the specific routine, and that the procedure was extremely successful, and that it extended the patient's life nearly 3 1/2 years.
In the President's second example, he cited a Texas woman about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne, and that by the time she had her insurance reinstated her breast cancer more than doubled in size. The implication here is that the insurance company canceled coverage for required medical treatment, because of an unrelated condition. The woman later testified that the dermatologist had described her skin condition as precancerous. She also failed to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat and had underreported her weight on the application. Irregular heartbeat and obesity are serious impediments to successful treatment. She could have taken the personal responsibility of reducing her weight, with the likelihood that her heartbeat would become more regular. Instead, she chose to be deceptive in her application.
Michelle Obama on Healthcare
I just heard on television Michelle Obama's heart wringing story concerning a previous situation wherein one of her daughters had required aid at an emergency room.
It is said that Michelle Obama is a Harvard trained lawyer. Harvard trained lawyers are innately astute and trained in such manner as to be able to choose situation reports and references to support their position.
In her TV presentation, Michelle likely with intention, tended to confuse healthcare availability with healthcare insurance. In her presentation, she mentioned that without healthcare insurance, the family would have been destitute after payment of the emergency room fees. There are a couple things wrong with this. First, the healthcare would have been provided, with or without insurance. If no insurance was available, the recipient (Michelle) would have been expected to pay the fee. If Michelle had been unable to pay at the time, the necessity of payment would have been postponed or possibly canceled. I have heard of no case where a hospital or clinic operator of an emergency room has forced a client into financial destitution.
Michelle also did not mention that the University of Chicago Medical Center hired her part-time in 2002
to run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity, and minority contracting."
In 2005, the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000. The increase was made at the same time that Barack Obama had just become a US Senator, after which he immediately requested a $1 million earmark for the medical center. Michelle has now resigned from that position, and the hospital says the position will remain unfilled (unnecessary?). This information is available on the top right hand corner of Page 17 of the New York Post of January 24th, 2009, with a short column entitled "Replacing Michelle" in the National Review.
It is not clear to me just when our daughter required emergency room treatment. It may have been a time before her appointment by the University of Chicago Medical Center, but after her appointment, she certainly would have been able to pay that back bill without healthcare insurance.
It is said that Michelle Obama is a Harvard trained lawyer. Harvard trained lawyers are innately astute and trained in such manner as to be able to choose situation reports and references to support their position.
In her TV presentation, Michelle likely with intention, tended to confuse healthcare availability with healthcare insurance. In her presentation, she mentioned that without healthcare insurance, the family would have been destitute after payment of the emergency room fees. There are a couple things wrong with this. First, the healthcare would have been provided, with or without insurance. If no insurance was available, the recipient (Michelle) would have been expected to pay the fee. If Michelle had been unable to pay at the time, the necessity of payment would have been postponed or possibly canceled. I have heard of no case where a hospital or clinic operator of an emergency room has forced a client into financial destitution.
Michelle also did not mention that the University of Chicago Medical Center hired her part-time in 2002
to run "programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity, and minority contracting."
In 2005, the hospital raised her salary from $120,000 to $317,000. The increase was made at the same time that Barack Obama had just become a US Senator, after which he immediately requested a $1 million earmark for the medical center. Michelle has now resigned from that position, and the hospital says the position will remain unfilled (unnecessary?). This information is available on the top right hand corner of Page 17 of the New York Post of January 24th, 2009, with a short column entitled "Replacing Michelle" in the National Review.
It is not clear to me just when our daughter required emergency room treatment. It may have been a time before her appointment by the University of Chicago Medical Center, but after her appointment, she certainly would have been able to pay that back bill without healthcare insurance.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
More from Carol
This is an ongoing discussion with Carol. It originated as a healthcare discussion, but tends to deviate somewhat into a more general political discussion. My comments are in italics.
ACS
Well, yes, for example, Clark Air Base was closed and the volcano did erupt. But, I wouldn't blow it off as a "project," as many lives and planes...were saved. Cushy is not the right word to explain this type of work.
In business terms, it was a "project". A cushy job has a high resistance to being fired, a high salary, and little absolute responsibility for results. I don't know whether your job was cushy or not.
Wall Street, read greed, originated the sub-prime market crisis; the
government's lack of regulatory prowess at that point in time,
influenced those decisions. It was like the S&L crisis in the 80s; same reason; same type of administration "believing" the market will police itself. Not where there's serious money to be made. Temporary profitsmay never come ahead of destroying the economy. Under the previous administration, the same executives that contributed to the crash were financially rewarded. I hope you don't hold those travesties on an equal footing with the average union worker. However, our whole economic base has changed with most manufacturing companies relocating in foreign
areas, with tax breaks, where the environmental laws and pay scales are less "challenging." The buck always stops at the top. Your statement about government controllers is unclear. Whom do you mean and what role did they play?
I generally agree with all you say here. Don't chastise greed too much. It is a motivator to progress. Government has a regulatory responsibility to control the excess, and it has shown itself to be very poor in this respect. No. The average union worker does not have the same control for his financial remuneration as corporate executives. He must do this through his union bosses, but his motivation is the same. It is human nature and an innate fundamental of capitalism. I don't remember what I said about government controllers, but it is the same as regulatory agencies. It's the same people who we have agreed have not done their job in the past, and will likely not doing well in the future.
Who is most of us that don't believe what President Obama says and writes?
Look at Glenn Beck and Huckabee on TV and listen to "talk radio".
Any person has to prove themselves untrustworthy, mostly by
actions. What has he done (or said) to garner that type of distrust?
He and Congress have put us into horrible debt. He has done the preliminary part of taking over private enterprise in banking and automotive manufacturer. He is now striving hard to take over private enterprise in healthcare insurance.
The majority of Americans elected him; the majority of Americans want health care reform to fix a very broken system.
The majority of Americans elected him for several reasons. He is an excellent speaker. His speeches give hope and promise to the masses for the new Shangri-La. People generally like fairy stories and many believe them. The previous administration was a bust. Bush did a few good things but most of what he did was foolish. Congress was equally inept. Many whites had guilty consciences for previous persecution of blacks in which to make restitution. Young whites generally wish to show their open-mindedness by favoring blackness. The total time was right for a black president, and Obama is it. Americans don't want health care reform. They want free stuff and many still believe Pres. Obama will give it to them.
If you analyze your comments thus far, there is an underlying...."government is bad; business is good." Hmmm, not always in my experience. And, no I don't know what my future opinions will be, but it will be based on actions taken by the government.
Yes. Business is generally good. It has provided for our superior standard of living. Plenty of food. Good housing. Nice automobiles to travel in. Money for comfortable living in retirement. And, a bunch of other things. Think about it. Government is generally restrictive. It tends to invade areas where restriction is not necessary, and it does not do a good job in areas where restriction is necessary. It does not provide transportation, food, housing, etc. It is not supposed to. Its function is to oversee so that businesses can run smoothly to supply the various goods and services.
Wow, the fundamental difference between private and public money is socialism?
I believe you may have missed the point here. Perhaps an example will explain it. If I have $10 and wish to contribute it to my church, that is my use of private money. If I have the same $10 and government says that they will now collect it so that it will be a part of paying off the national debt, welfare subsistence, health care for all, or whatever, my $10 then becomes public money. That is, I am forced to give it to the government. I have no choice in the matter of giving it, nor do I have a choice in how it is spent. That is socialism
Public money is being dispersed, including the bail-outs, as
economic survival money. I would much rather see Bob get funded than AIG executives. At least Bob will make a public impact for the good of all.
Economic survival money for whom? I have had no part in the collapse of anything, why should my money be confiscated to help the incompetent or the abusive? Neither Bob nor AIG are entitled to my money confiscated by government and distributed to them.
Your comment is laced with cynicism.
No. I am not a cynic. I am a pragmatist. I clearly understand what is going on. Who is suckering who. How it is being done. And, how people are brainwashed into being dupes.
As to government employees not agreeing on its disposition, the parameters of the grant preclude their opinions. And, since we write grants, we know the difference between foundation and public money.
Writing grants for public money is somewhat like stealing the gold teeth of the dead. It's there. Why not take it?
Political suicide=cutting off social security payments.
You confuse me on this one.
Unfortunately, some major insurance companies have gotten a lot of publicity lately for NOT paying in accordance with their contracts and for dropping the seriously ill. If these reports were not based in fact, I would expect the insurance companies to provide counter-arguments.
What happens? The spokespersons for the insurance companies cannot be reached for comment.My grandfather and his oldest son...eventually his oldest grandson, own Webster Insurance Agency, so the mechanisms were in our family to observe. The way the insurance business works is that risk is spread among all premium holders, not a single holder with a pre-existing condition as you imply. Many insurance holders rarely use their insurance, which helps pay for those that do.
Insurance companies must abide by the terms of their contracts and can be forced to do so by appropriately placed lawsuits. There are plenty of lawyers around who can force insurance companies to pay according to contract and also be granted damages by juries. I'm also quite familiar with the way insurance companies work. It is a pool operation to distribute the risk among a number of clients. The insurance companies profit is a fee for running the pool.
The analogy between Australia and New Zealand was drawn because you mentioned the US is headed for socialized medicine. It isn't, because the major insurance companies playing 95% of their role under health care reform are private. In Australia and New Zealand medicine is socialized.
The US is headed for socialized medicine, equivalent to Australia and New Zealand, with your support.
Individuals are not under an edict to take advantage of the choices
offered; but, technically, small businesses are.
In Australia and New Zealand, there is no way to pay for services. BTW,
I worked in both countries and paid their taxes. So, they were not
stupid in not sending a bill. In addition, I had health insurance from
an American company, which would have covered most of the expenses should a bill have been sent to the company. And, no, it did not make me feel like a leech. Do I detect some bitterness in your responses? Do you really understand that all situations have a multiplicity of variables that especially you, as a PhD, are required to analyze before drawing conclusions?
You did not receive the bill for your treatment in Australia, because the cost was paid by Australian citizens and you as a taxpayer . Perhaps you feel comfortable in letting Australian citizens pay part of your bill. I see people in the supermarkets buying exotic foods on food stamps, with apparently no remorse for having had other American citizens pay the cost of the food stamps. I'm not bitter about anything. I just said it's unfair for people to take an unreasonable advantage of others. I routinely look at all sides of the situation. Sometimes I miss something.
Well, having majored in pre-med and still having a lot of friends in the profession, they are not as unaware as you think. Most that I personally know understand quite a bit about the political process and how to handle their finances. Of course, there are exceptions. There is a great deal of deviousness in the political and financial arena that have ooled many sophisticated people. But, this deviousness is eventually discovered and becomes a learning experience.
This was a nice statement to which I generally agree.
You left the subsidies out of your discussion for small businesses.
Already, small businesses with employees deduct taxes, worker's comp., etc, so the idea of supporting (if you can afford it) a pool for the public option is miles ahead of taxing every American worker to support the system. Those business people without employees that pay for private insurance currently do not want to pay twice. Companies that currently offer health benefits probably don't have any employees that reject that option and pay high rates for private insurance. What is your suggestion?
There should be no government subsidies for small or large businesses. Business should be able to stand on its own feet of offering a satisfactory product or service for free which the consumer finds acceptable. When taxation is a completely different matter. Private companies owned by individuals. Corporations are owned by stockholders, who are individuals. In both cases, government taxes first the organization and then again taxes the owners of the organization. Does that double taxation seem reasonable to you? I have just you a separate e-mail explaining that in my nephew's company, he has many people who reject the offer of paying $35 every two weeks for health insurance. Based on their salaries they can well afford it. I suppose it is your opinion that my nephew should be paying the $35 as well as the much larger portion that he is already eating. This is not to say that I look with disdain upon those not willing to pay the $35. It should be their choice of freedom.
The President left the door open for viable solutions. If
you have one, contact your congressman/woman, and pass it on.
The number of private insurance holders that may leave their insurance companies for the Public Option would probably cause the present private insurance company to be more competitive rather closing its doors.
That's what usually happens when the private companies' monopoly is challenged.
Yes, I have some proposed solutions. Avoid establishing a Public Option. A Public Option will aid in propelling the US into its continued headlong spiral into complete socialism. Socialism/Communism establishes a public mindset of "gimme", with little incentive to take personal responsibility toward growth and development. Primary examples of recent failures were the USSR, Tito's Yugoslavia, the Laotian massacre, etc. I contact my Representative and Senators with suggestions almost daily. Use of a Public Option will cause private insurance companies to be more competitive, until competition becomes so extreme that they leave the business to only one remaining company, Government Health Insurance. At that point, Government Health Insurance has eliminated all competition, and will do whatever it wishes with respect to service and how it collects its operational funds.
Carol
ACS
Well, yes, for example, Clark Air Base was closed and the volcano did erupt. But, I wouldn't blow it off as a "project," as many lives and planes...were saved. Cushy is not the right word to explain this type of work.
In business terms, it was a "project". A cushy job has a high resistance to being fired, a high salary, and little absolute responsibility for results. I don't know whether your job was cushy or not.
Wall Street, read greed, originated the sub-prime market crisis; the
government's lack of regulatory prowess at that point in time,
influenced those decisions. It was like the S&L crisis in the 80s; same reason; same type of administration "believing" the market will police itself. Not where there's serious money to be made. Temporary profitsmay never come ahead of destroying the economy. Under the previous administration, the same executives that contributed to the crash were financially rewarded. I hope you don't hold those travesties on an equal footing with the average union worker. However, our whole economic base has changed with most manufacturing companies relocating in foreign
areas, with tax breaks, where the environmental laws and pay scales are less "challenging." The buck always stops at the top. Your statement about government controllers is unclear. Whom do you mean and what role did they play?
I generally agree with all you say here. Don't chastise greed too much. It is a motivator to progress. Government has a regulatory responsibility to control the excess, and it has shown itself to be very poor in this respect. No. The average union worker does not have the same control for his financial remuneration as corporate executives. He must do this through his union bosses, but his motivation is the same. It is human nature and an innate fundamental of capitalism. I don't remember what I said about government controllers, but it is the same as regulatory agencies. It's the same people who we have agreed have not done their job in the past, and will likely not doing well in the future.
Who is most of us that don't believe what President Obama says and writes?
Look at Glenn Beck and Huckabee on TV and listen to "talk radio".
Any person has to prove themselves untrustworthy, mostly by
actions. What has he done (or said) to garner that type of distrust?
He and Congress have put us into horrible debt. He has done the preliminary part of taking over private enterprise in banking and automotive manufacturer. He is now striving hard to take over private enterprise in healthcare insurance.
The majority of Americans elected him; the majority of Americans want health care reform to fix a very broken system.
The majority of Americans elected him for several reasons. He is an excellent speaker. His speeches give hope and promise to the masses for the new Shangri-La. People generally like fairy stories and many believe them. The previous administration was a bust. Bush did a few good things but most of what he did was foolish. Congress was equally inept. Many whites had guilty consciences for previous persecution of blacks in which to make restitution. Young whites generally wish to show their open-mindedness by favoring blackness. The total time was right for a black president, and Obama is it. Americans don't want health care reform. They want free stuff and many still believe Pres. Obama will give it to them.
If you analyze your comments thus far, there is an underlying...."government is bad; business is good." Hmmm, not always in my experience. And, no I don't know what my future opinions will be, but it will be based on actions taken by the government.
Yes. Business is generally good. It has provided for our superior standard of living. Plenty of food. Good housing. Nice automobiles to travel in. Money for comfortable living in retirement. And, a bunch of other things. Think about it. Government is generally restrictive. It tends to invade areas where restriction is not necessary, and it does not do a good job in areas where restriction is necessary. It does not provide transportation, food, housing, etc. It is not supposed to. Its function is to oversee so that businesses can run smoothly to supply the various goods and services.
Wow, the fundamental difference between private and public money is socialism?
I believe you may have missed the point here. Perhaps an example will explain it. If I have $10 and wish to contribute it to my church, that is my use of private money. If I have the same $10 and government says that they will now collect it so that it will be a part of paying off the national debt, welfare subsistence, health care for all, or whatever, my $10 then becomes public money. That is, I am forced to give it to the government. I have no choice in the matter of giving it, nor do I have a choice in how it is spent. That is socialism
Public money is being dispersed, including the bail-outs, as
economic survival money. I would much rather see Bob get funded than AIG executives. At least Bob will make a public impact for the good of all.
Economic survival money for whom? I have had no part in the collapse of anything, why should my money be confiscated to help the incompetent or the abusive? Neither Bob nor AIG are entitled to my money confiscated by government and distributed to them.
Your comment is laced with cynicism.
No. I am not a cynic. I am a pragmatist. I clearly understand what is going on. Who is suckering who. How it is being done. And, how people are brainwashed into being dupes.
As to government employees not agreeing on its disposition, the parameters of the grant preclude their opinions. And, since we write grants, we know the difference between foundation and public money.
Writing grants for public money is somewhat like stealing the gold teeth of the dead. It's there. Why not take it?
Political suicide=cutting off social security payments.
You confuse me on this one.
Unfortunately, some major insurance companies have gotten a lot of publicity lately for NOT paying in accordance with their contracts and for dropping the seriously ill. If these reports were not based in fact, I would expect the insurance companies to provide counter-arguments.
What happens? The spokespersons for the insurance companies cannot be reached for comment.My grandfather and his oldest son...eventually his oldest grandson, own Webster Insurance Agency, so the mechanisms were in our family to observe. The way the insurance business works is that risk is spread among all premium holders, not a single holder with a pre-existing condition as you imply. Many insurance holders rarely use their insurance, which helps pay for those that do.
Insurance companies must abide by the terms of their contracts and can be forced to do so by appropriately placed lawsuits. There are plenty of lawyers around who can force insurance companies to pay according to contract and also be granted damages by juries. I'm also quite familiar with the way insurance companies work. It is a pool operation to distribute the risk among a number of clients. The insurance companies profit is a fee for running the pool.
The analogy between Australia and New Zealand was drawn because you mentioned the US is headed for socialized medicine. It isn't, because the major insurance companies playing 95% of their role under health care reform are private. In Australia and New Zealand medicine is socialized.
The US is headed for socialized medicine, equivalent to Australia and New Zealand, with your support.
Individuals are not under an edict to take advantage of the choices
offered; but, technically, small businesses are.
In Australia and New Zealand, there is no way to pay for services. BTW,
I worked in both countries and paid their taxes. So, they were not
stupid in not sending a bill. In addition, I had health insurance from
an American company, which would have covered most of the expenses should a bill have been sent to the company. And, no, it did not make me feel like a leech. Do I detect some bitterness in your responses? Do you really understand that all situations have a multiplicity of variables that especially you, as a PhD, are required to analyze before drawing conclusions?
You did not receive the bill for your treatment in Australia, because the cost was paid by Australian citizens and you as a taxpayer . Perhaps you feel comfortable in letting Australian citizens pay part of your bill. I see people in the supermarkets buying exotic foods on food stamps, with apparently no remorse for having had other American citizens pay the cost of the food stamps. I'm not bitter about anything. I just said it's unfair for people to take an unreasonable advantage of others. I routinely look at all sides of the situation. Sometimes I miss something.
Well, having majored in pre-med and still having a lot of friends in the profession, they are not as unaware as you think. Most that I personally know understand quite a bit about the political process and how to handle their finances. Of course, there are exceptions. There is a great deal of deviousness in the political and financial arena that have ooled many sophisticated people. But, this deviousness is eventually discovered and becomes a learning experience.
This was a nice statement to which I generally agree.
You left the subsidies out of your discussion for small businesses.
Already, small businesses with employees deduct taxes, worker's comp., etc, so the idea of supporting (if you can afford it) a pool for the public option is miles ahead of taxing every American worker to support the system. Those business people without employees that pay for private insurance currently do not want to pay twice. Companies that currently offer health benefits probably don't have any employees that reject that option and pay high rates for private insurance. What is your suggestion?
There should be no government subsidies for small or large businesses. Business should be able to stand on its own feet of offering a satisfactory product or service for free which the consumer finds acceptable. When taxation is a completely different matter. Private companies owned by individuals. Corporations are owned by stockholders, who are individuals. In both cases, government taxes first the organization and then again taxes the owners of the organization. Does that double taxation seem reasonable to you? I have just you a separate e-mail explaining that in my nephew's company, he has many people who reject the offer of paying $35 every two weeks for health insurance. Based on their salaries they can well afford it. I suppose it is your opinion that my nephew should be paying the $35 as well as the much larger portion that he is already eating. This is not to say that I look with disdain upon those not willing to pay the $35. It should be their choice of freedom.
The President left the door open for viable solutions. If
you have one, contact your congressman/woman, and pass it on.
The number of private insurance holders that may leave their insurance companies for the Public Option would probably cause the present private insurance company to be more competitive rather closing its doors.
That's what usually happens when the private companies' monopoly is challenged.
Yes, I have some proposed solutions. Avoid establishing a Public Option. A Public Option will aid in propelling the US into its continued headlong spiral into complete socialism. Socialism/Communism establishes a public mindset of "gimme", with little incentive to take personal responsibility toward growth and development. Primary examples of recent failures were the USSR, Tito's Yugoslavia, the Laotian massacre, etc. I contact my Representative and Senators with suggestions almost daily. Use of a Public Option will cause private insurance companies to be more competitive, until competition becomes so extreme that they leave the business to only one remaining company, Government Health Insurance. At that point, Government Health Insurance has eliminated all competition, and will do whatever it wishes with respect to service and how it collects its operational funds.
Carol
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
