On Oct 19, 3:16*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:02:51 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly
more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living
in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a family and
send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days are
long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try getting a
job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older
employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's
no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce

The real problem is the whole idea of health insurance. It makes
medical care "free" and nothing is as expensive as something that
people think is free.

Back when we paid the doctor ourselves doctors lived down the street
and they were not conglomerates,, they were small businesses that
people could afford.

If you pile up a couple billion dollars in an insurance company,
everyone will come for it and the insurance companies are happy to pay
it out because they simply raise their premiums to cover expenses.

Having the government be the insurer does not fix that problem, it
only makes it worse because they collect their premiums (taxes) at the
point of a gun.

Having the goverment operate as one of the insurers in a pool of many has
the potential to keep costs in line far better than anything short of going
back to having no insurance at all. *It would provide a baseline for
comparison and I believe would keep costs better in line. *I think that's
true primarily because of how the insurers squawked at the "public option.."
On one hand, they say the Federal government is incompetent in everything it
does, then, on the other hand they claim they would be seriously undercut by
the government's massive negotiating power. *Which is it, health insurers?

Perhaps insurance should be limited to true, bankrupting disasters and not
for routine office visits.

--
Bobby G.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The government has been doing just that for many years now and should
be proof enough for anyone that it isn't working.