Bruce wrote in :

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.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The copays are comparable to
paying for the oil change, while car or health insurance is for
accidents. However, it easily gets more complicated. Now when you buy a
car, there sometimes is free maintenance for x months. That would be
comparable to free checkups, inoculations, and, yes, free birth control
(getting an unplanned baby is much more expensive for parents and society
than a few free pills).

I have also said that compulsory health insurance should be some form of
basic coverage, and plans to add other stuff to be covered should be
standardized and available. Seems some of that exists for Medicare plans
and the much ballyhooed supplementals. If all that can be standardized
across the country, then things become much more easily comparable.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid