Thread: O/T: Amazing
View Single Post
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
Bruce Bruce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 177
Default Amazing

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:59:01 -0600, Han wrote
(in article ):

Keith Nuttle wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 10:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/1/2012 8:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:43:29 -0600, Just Wondering
feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For
people who don't already have insurance because they can't afford
it, it amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going,
Barack Hussein.

And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
completely indigent.

Tax on the poor versus being completely indigent. That's some
choice!

Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
community handle problems where the family could not afford health
care.

Yeahbut social changes outside of the government are as responsible
for things as the government - or perhaps more so. People became
more "me" focused and less concerned for others around them. He who
dies with the most toys and all that crap. Attitudes like that
created competitive social environments as opposed to cooperative
social environments. The government had nothing to do with that.
Look right around your own surroundings to see that in action even
today. Maybe not the "most toys" thing, but certainly the distance
that has grown between memebers of a community. Today people are
proud of themselves for donating a few bucks to a cause. Doesn't
usually go any further than that.

The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
"me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around
him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last
resort is a government program.


This isn't a socialist or capitalist concept. In the stone ages, the
tribe was the insurance for the individual's well-being. If there was a
use for the sick, old or infirm, they'd keep them alive. If the
individual was a drag on society, I have been told the Eskimo would go
outside and freeze. In modern society, insurance has been invented to
help in case of rare occurances (sp?) where the individual might not have
the resources to correct what has gone wrong.

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.


I agree with an earlier poster that it is basically bookkeeping, we pay no
matter what (more taxes or higher premiums).
What really bugs me is calling all this crap 'insurance'. Insurance is
coverage for unexpected events (i.e. flood insurance, auto comprehensive,
etc.). No auto policy will cover oil changes and tune ups for free (like the
assortment of no-copay things in the AHA). Auto insurance also won't cover
(or at least charge a much higher premium) for drivers who have a terrible
driving record. Also, can anyone name an auto insurance that will accept
previous damage, i.e I'm uninsured and get into a wreck, then buy a policy
and get the damages paid for)?

How about making health insurance more like auto insurance. I choose the
coverage I want (I don't opt for the free birth control and breast
reconstruction coverage, thank you), and I can shop around. Can anybody name
a health insurance company with better customer service than an auto
insurance company?

If the government wants to meddle, they can subsidize some of the routine
stuff (mammograms, vaccines, etc.) directly to the doctors.
In God we trust, all others pay cash.

-BR