On 3/20/2010 9:35 AM, Han wrote:

What we might not agree on is whether national affordable compulsory
health insurance and some more regulation of the health industry are good
things.

I most definitely agree with the goals, but not necessarily the means to
obtain them, particularly with the current situation.

IMO, this particular legislation is less interested in reforming health
care than it is in providing mechanisms that are no more than thinly
disguised wedges intended to crack the underlying system of government.

I have always been lucky with pretty good and affordable health
insurance coverage because of my employment over the years. But I have
also seen a colleague who was forced into COBRA and the expense that
entails.

Try being self-employed for the past 40 years, then ask me if I give a
rat's ass about COBRA.

It is not fair that my doctor has to take my insurance payment
(of 30% of his "billing") and the next guy has to pay the full amount (if
he doesn't feel like bargaining).

I can't argue with that, particularly since one of my daughters has a
severe "pre-existing condition".

However, in my estimation "insurance" is the problem. I lived in this
country before the advent of "health insurance" being a necessary
component of health care.

I'm not saying that it was an ideal situation, but the current mix of
"insurance" and "personal responsibility", (and the responsibility that
the latter entails), is now skewed heavily to the former ... it is
painfully obvious to any intelligent observation that it is this state
of affairs that is at the root of our current "health care" crisis.

In short ... partisan politics, with lawyer politicians bought and paid
for by special interests, will NEVER result in a solution that is in
keeping with the principles of the founding of this country.

We have lost our way ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)