E-mail 7/17/09 to Congress:
I respectfully ask you to vote AGAINST ANY presently proposed health-care bills and all products of reconciliation in committee.
We have now in the United States sufficient access to health care for all people, including illegal immigrants. Present political discussion does not really involve access to healthcare. It involves a mandatory insurance program controlled by government.
In a word about insurance theory, the intent is for a pool of subscribers, who will reimburse a member in the event of a calamitous situation. Some types of insurance are justifiably mandatory, because they directly affect innocent persons. For example, a justifiable mandatory insurance is automobile liability insurance, wherein an innocent third person may be damaged and should have justifiable compensation.
Conversely, many insurances should be optional. For example, if I don't wish to carry repair insurance on my household appliances, I should be permitted to do so. Any breakdown of equipment would involve only me and my costs for repair. No one else is physically jeopardized or susceptible to financial loss.
Health insurance should fall into that same latter category. If a person wishes to assume the risk (self-insurance) of not carrying health insurance, he should be permitted to do so. It should not be a government mandate, which would be a denial of First Amendment rights.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Socializing Healthcare
E-mail 7/20/09 to Congress:
This is in reference to your July 20 Newsletter.
The so-called Healthcare Bill is in reality a socialistic mandatory insurance program. Since we all recognize it as such, we want it killed beyond recognition. Please do your utmost to take a leadership position with your Republican/Democratic associates in the House and your effect on the Senate. This country stands on the brink of socialism, in which deceptive health care will push it over the edge.
Similarly on "Deficit Tops One Trillion Dollar", we don't need discussion of the dangers. We need action. Again, take a leadership position in the house with respect to your Republican/Democratic associates to not only stop spending bills, but also withdraw funding from spending bills already passed. What has been done can also be undone.
This is in reference to your July 20 Newsletter.
The so-called Healthcare Bill is in reality a socialistic mandatory insurance program. Since we all recognize it as such, we want it killed beyond recognition. Please do your utmost to take a leadership position with your Republican/Democratic associates in the House and your effect on the Senate. This country stands on the brink of socialism, in which deceptive health care will push it over the edge.
Similarly on "Deficit Tops One Trillion Dollar", we don't need discussion of the dangers. We need action. Again, take a leadership position in the house with respect to your Republican/Democratic associates to not only stop spending bills, but also withdraw funding from spending bills already passed. What has been done can also be undone.
Healthcare Costs
From 7/21/09 e-mail to Congress:
I just heard Pres. Obama's television speech on socialistic healthcare.
He wonderfully outlined all of the great benefits of the bills presently in Congress, including reducing costs.
Unfortunately, he did not specify how the cost reductions are to be attained. I suppose we have to fill in that blank based upon our own economic experience. Health-care costs are composed of payments to doctors, nurses, assistants and various other healthcare workers. A good rule of thumb is that 80% of operating costs in a service industry are for salaries and wages to employees. The remainder is usually amortization for buildings and capital equipment and hospitals, clinics and doctors offices. Another possible cost reduction might be in reducing profit. However, profit in the healthcare industry is generally minimal, which is why I have not personally invested in it.
With that background, it is clear that to reduce costs, Pres. Obama's health care program will have to clearly reduce payments to health care employees. These employees either will have to accept the reduction or change to another industries, if they can find one. The net result will be fewer employees being reimbursed less than they are now. This would not set a good tone for desiring to maximize service as they continue in their jobs.
With this decreased availability of service personnel, the only obvious answer to cost reduction is to balance it off with reduced market requirements. The market requirements are already fixed at a high level and would likely increase with the passage of socialized healthcare, because everybody likes free stuff. But, the supply won't be there. Consumers will have to be denied treatment or have it significantly postponed. Will this be a better healthcare system? I personally believe that the public presently abuses the existing healthcare system, because they are unwilling to take responsibility for their own health control, but that is somewhat immaterial because we are considering market requirements, whether morally legitimate or not.
It may be that rationing healthcare would be appropriate for the American public, but it is not the American way. American should have the opportunity to waste their money if they so choose. They can do it on gambling, drugs and alcohol, excessively lavish homes, or healthcare. It is a right of the First Amendment.
I urge you to make every effort to cooperate with your Republican/Democratic associates to defeat this proposed socialistic healthcare program, and to do so in such a way that it will be a very long time before the proposal again rears its ugly head.
I just heard Pres. Obama's television speech on socialistic healthcare.
He wonderfully outlined all of the great benefits of the bills presently in Congress, including reducing costs.
Unfortunately, he did not specify how the cost reductions are to be attained. I suppose we have to fill in that blank based upon our own economic experience. Health-care costs are composed of payments to doctors, nurses, assistants and various other healthcare workers. A good rule of thumb is that 80% of operating costs in a service industry are for salaries and wages to employees. The remainder is usually amortization for buildings and capital equipment and hospitals, clinics and doctors offices. Another possible cost reduction might be in reducing profit. However, profit in the healthcare industry is generally minimal, which is why I have not personally invested in it.
With that background, it is clear that to reduce costs, Pres. Obama's health care program will have to clearly reduce payments to health care employees. These employees either will have to accept the reduction or change to another industries, if they can find one. The net result will be fewer employees being reimbursed less than they are now. This would not set a good tone for desiring to maximize service as they continue in their jobs.
With this decreased availability of service personnel, the only obvious answer to cost reduction is to balance it off with reduced market requirements. The market requirements are already fixed at a high level and would likely increase with the passage of socialized healthcare, because everybody likes free stuff. But, the supply won't be there. Consumers will have to be denied treatment or have it significantly postponed. Will this be a better healthcare system? I personally believe that the public presently abuses the existing healthcare system, because they are unwilling to take responsibility for their own health control, but that is somewhat immaterial because we are considering market requirements, whether morally legitimate or not.
It may be that rationing healthcare would be appropriate for the American public, but it is not the American way. American should have the opportunity to waste their money if they so choose. They can do it on gambling, drugs and alcohol, excessively lavish homes, or healthcare. It is a right of the First Amendment.
I urge you to make every effort to cooperate with your Republican/Democratic associates to defeat this proposed socialistic healthcare program, and to do so in such a way that it will be a very long time before the proposal again rears its ugly head.
Public Lethargy
I will grant that the present health care system is not perfect, but then what is. I am concerned that the government should not be in the healthcare business any more than in the automobile business or the chemical business.
I think the basic problem is that the American public is now on a fad of letting government do all the hard work, while they do all the relaxing. This lethargy has been shown historically to lead to the rise of a dictator, who then says to his subjects that they must get off their butts.
Government's role is to establish rules for a level playing field. They have already done this with antitrust laws. Government has been deficient in not enforcing such laws in just about all areas of our society.
I think the basic problem is that the American public is now on a fad of letting government do all the hard work, while they do all the relaxing. This lethargy has been shown historically to lead to the rise of a dictator, who then says to his subjects that they must get off their butts.
Government's role is to establish rules for a level playing field. They have already done this with antitrust laws. Government has been deficient in not enforcing such laws in just about all areas of our society.
Euthanasia
7/24/09
The Socialized Health Care Plan contains aspects of euthanasia.
This was one of the Nazi principles we fought against during world war II. Our Constitution of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness allows God and individuals to decide when their lives should end. This is not a function of government.
Kill the present Socialized Health Care Plan. It is too complex and contains many undesirable hidden aspects, such as euthanasia.
> If you want to do some tinkering with healthcare, get the government out of the business of putting taxpayer money into it. Let it stand on its own 2 feet with the support of the public. Private enterprises will always respond to those who will support them with money. If it is government, private enterprise will respond to the government, whether justifiable or not. If it is the public, private enterprise will respond to the public. Look again at Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, and you will recognize that the complete statementr efers to the people, not to the government.
The Socialized Health Care Plan contains aspects of euthanasia.
This was one of the Nazi principles we fought against during world war II. Our Constitution of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness allows God and individuals to decide when their lives should end. This is not a function of government.
Kill the present Socialized Health Care Plan. It is too complex and contains many undesirable hidden aspects, such as euthanasia.
> If you want to do some tinkering with healthcare, get the government out of the business of putting taxpayer money into it. Let it stand on its own 2 feet with the support of the public. Private enterprises will always respond to those who will support them with money. If it is government, private enterprise will respond to the government, whether justifiable or not. If it is the public, private enterprise will respond to the public. Look again at Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, and you will recognize that the complete statementr efers to the people, not to the government.
Hiding the Ball
7/29/09
Pres. Obama just said on television that in his Health Care Plan there is no attempt to "hide the ball".
I am sure that you already know ANY 900-page Bill is an attempt to "hide the ball". I really have difficulty reading some 300 to 400-page novels. A politician's basic activity is to talk and listen. He would have to be a genius to also have the patience to read a 900-page bill line by line.
Bills should be no longer than several pages containing the basic elements of the subjects intent. We have a Supreme Court to judge Congressional laws. If a Supreme Court makes a subsequent incorrect judgment relative to Congress's intent, Congress can modify that law with an addendum. This would not be as cumbersome as it sounds, and would be much better than voting 900-page laws which few people understand.
Pres. Obama just said on television that in his Health Care Plan there is no attempt to "hide the ball".
I am sure that you already know ANY 900-page Bill is an attempt to "hide the ball". I really have difficulty reading some 300 to 400-page novels. A politician's basic activity is to talk and listen. He would have to be a genius to also have the patience to read a 900-page bill line by line.
Bills should be no longer than several pages containing the basic elements of the subjects intent. We have a Supreme Court to judge Congressional laws. If a Supreme Court makes a subsequent incorrect judgment relative to Congress's intent, Congress can modify that law with an addendum. This would not be as cumbersome as it sounds, and would be much better than voting 900-page laws which few people understand.
Reduction in Personal Liberties
A friend in Italy referred me to a New York Times article on healthcare.
The New York Times is correct. This is true not only for Americans but also Western Europeans.
Consider the "salami effect" and the "reverse salami effect". The "salami effect" is cutting off very thin slices, so that the decrease in the whole is not noticeable on a short-term basis, but the salami is consumed over a long period. The "reverse salami effect" is the periodic additions of small items, so that the individual addition's are temporarily unnoticed over the short-term. However, the total change to the whole becomes apparent and significant over a long period.
The "reverse salami effect" on healthcare involves individual addition's of small benefits, such as free mammograms, reduced pharmaceutical costs, etc. The corresponding "salami effects" are longer waiting times, inability to choose doctors, etc., which the average person can adapt to. However, all of these are a collective reduction in personal liberties, which become very significant in total.
Reduction in personal liberties is only justifiable in cases where non-control would result in direct damage to another individual or group. An example would be the requirement for an individual to stop his motor vehicle at a red light.
Reduction in personal personal liberties by government is usually based on government's desire for increasing power. The classic analogy for the voting public is the selling of one's soul to the Devil for some short-term benefit.
The New York Times is correct. This is true not only for Americans but also Western Europeans.
Consider the "salami effect" and the "reverse salami effect". The "salami effect" is cutting off very thin slices, so that the decrease in the whole is not noticeable on a short-term basis, but the salami is consumed over a long period. The "reverse salami effect" is the periodic additions of small items, so that the individual addition's are temporarily unnoticed over the short-term. However, the total change to the whole becomes apparent and significant over a long period.
The "reverse salami effect" on healthcare involves individual addition's of small benefits, such as free mammograms, reduced pharmaceutical costs, etc. The corresponding "salami effects" are longer waiting times, inability to choose doctors, etc., which the average person can adapt to. However, all of these are a collective reduction in personal liberties, which become very significant in total.
Reduction in personal liberties is only justifiable in cases where non-control would result in direct damage to another individual or group. An example would be the requirement for an individual to stop his motor vehicle at a red light.
Reduction in personal personal liberties by government is usually based on government's desire for increasing power. The classic analogy for the voting public is the selling of one's soul to the Devil for some short-term benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
