Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
news:7556$4ff1c5ec :

Han wrote:


The true problem is that if you get sick or have an accident, we as
society have ordained that caring for that individual is paramount,
and worrying about the costs secondary. That is very well and
altruistic, but it leaves out the problem when there is no money
available to pay for that care. Currently, there is a surcharge for
hospital costs to help pay for those indigent. If you will, a tax
or penalty on people with the foresight to have insurance, or able
to pay without, so that the indigent can be cared for. I like the
proposed system where everyone is urged to be responsible and get
insurance much better.

And the difference is... what? The difference is in name only.

I don't think it is. Now everyone will pay insurance premiums. For
some they will go up (mine, I think), for others they will go down:
the individual not currently able to get group insurance, not being
able to pay those rates, and therefore going bareback. The premium
will go down so now he's able to afford, or else grin. I think the
system will (should) get more equitable.

The cynic in me says that nothing designed and managed by the US Government
will ever be more equitable. The point though is that both systems - that
of hospitals surcharging to cover the care of indigents, and more affluent
Americans covering the insurance costs of the less capable, boil down to the
same thing. Just because you can now call it insurance is simply a matter
of semantics. Nothing is going to change except for the cost of
adminsitering this nightmare.

--

-Mike-