Chuck V - 6/2/2004 8:19 AM
Because someone does not have a healthcare plan does not mean that they do not have....coverage.
You've lost me on this one. If I don't have coverage (a heatlth care plan) how can I have coverage?
It was a long day. Excuse that incomprehension. My point, because someone does not have coverage does not mean that they do not have the ability to pay for coverage. Some (at the time myself included) choose not to have coverage.
From 19 to about 22 I did not have health coverage. I did not have a "right" to cheap health care, I chose not to purchase insurance. I would have then been part of your 40 million number, but by choice.
And had you required any type of major care, you would have been looking at a bill that would have far exceeded you ability to pay. Many of those who choose not to buy coverage end up in bankruptcy. My wife was just in admitted ot the hospital and held overnight. The bill from just the hospital: ~$5,000. Our medical expenses for 2003 totaled ~$50,000.
Thems the breaks. (I know this quote will be thrown back in my face in the future.) The problem you speak if is not from lack of coverage but because of the high cost of health care. Sure a portion of that cost is because of medical bills that never get paid, but an also very large portion is from frivolous lawsuits and outragous malpractice awards. In some states the number of OBGYNs is alarmingly low because of the huge cost of malpractice insurance that covers deliverys. I have come across tradgidy in my life. And sometimes things just happen. Not by anyones fault. Unfortunatly with billboards for lawyers on every corner many people feel that there's always someone to blame for misfortune.
There are plenty low-cost insurance programs out there that most people can afford.
If you are thinking back to the $40 per month policy that you were offered back in college, think again. What do you call low-cost? How much do you think that the most people can afford? How about a family of four living on say $30,000?
Being an employer who provides coverage for all of his employees (compasionate conservative) I see coverage plans on a yearly basis. There are HMO plans that provide coverage for a family for as little as $150 a month. Eliminate the marriage penalty for good and increase the per child tax credit to help pay for this added expense. There's your government coverage.
I'd be willing to bet that among the 40 million "uninsured" at least 10 million of those have cable.
Just what is this based upon? Do you have any statistics or is this just another hunch? More importantly, what is your point? Are you trying to say that health insurance is in the same price range as cable? Maybe if you are looking at a plan with a high co-pay and low limits. You do get what you pay for.
Actually this was the first "hunch" I've presented on this thread. My point, if it wasn't originally clear, is that if people put their priorities in order that number of uninsured would be much lower. I would not be opposed to suporting a national insurance plan that protected "children." Like I posted previously, here in Kalifornia we have Medi-Cal that does cover children for many things. On a national level I would suport this. I don't think children should be penalized for their parents choice of the Accord EX over the Civic. (Again, this is a personal observation. Here in southern Kalifornia I see the cars with the $3000 wheels rolling around and I'm guessing that Health Insurance is a bit lower on those parent's priorities. In fact, I've seen it first hand from previous potential hires.)
For the most part it's a matter of priorities.
No Mike, its a matter of cash.
See previous points.
That safety net you speek of doesn't breed desperation, it breeds dependency. We've had a Welfare system in place for over 40 years and not too much to show for it.
Once again, you get what you pay for. We have a welfare system that pays to little and keeps people living in poverty. Poverty breeds desperation.
So you think Welfare should pay a median income? Welfare should not be an occupation, but that appears to be what you want. Welfare should be "safety net" before welfare reform you had generations that were on welfare, even now you can collect for up to 2 years in some states. I know the economy has it's ups and downs, but there are jobs out there. Here in Kalifornia (I've grown up here, so this is where most of my opinions and observations have been made.) the schools that perform the lowest, get the most funds. The additional funds continually fail to improve performance. It all comes down to parents taking the responsibility to see to it that their children are utilizing the education that's being offered to them. Now how much is being spent.
Poverty does not breed despiration. My father was a first generation American, he was the oldest of 7 and grew up in poverty for much of his life. He did not hold up liquor stores or sell drugs, instead he got the most out of his education and saw to it that his children would not have to grow up in poverty. He took it upon himself to improve his circumstances and teach his children to take responsbility for their lives and not to "expect" society to take care of them.
I have a few good friends who are Canadians and they've expressed to me more than a few complaints about the quality of care, having to go to a hospital for seemingly routine things. Aside from poor overall care, it's not free.
I have more than a few friends to the north and in and from Europe I hear a few complaints, but all in all they seem to have a better system. You may not have noticed, but we are all being forced into HMOs here. Rationing of health care is here today in the U.S. I also am not suggesting that health care be free as I've already stated in my last post.
Many employers offer more traditional PPO's if the employees choose to pay a little more for them. An HMO is coverage. Do you think Nationalized Medice would be any better? I think not. At least we still have a choice. In Canada you can not buy more insurance if you do not want to be part of the nationalized system. There's not even a choice. If you equate a car to healthcare why should everyone be entitled to a Mercedes? You're an executive, you drive a Mercedes. Should everyone under you be entilted to one too? It's not much of a stretch. The Mercedes is a safer vehicle than say a Hyundai Elontra. You can afford to drive the Mercedes that just so happens to better your chances of survival in a head-on collission. Equate that to your PPO versus your employees HMO. ( I recognize this example may not exactly apply to you, but it's an example of "expensive" versus "cheap" health care coverage) So shouldn't all your employees be entitled to the Benz to better their chances of survival? Or maybe you should be forced to give up the Mercedes(PPO) and drive the Hyundai (HMO/Socialized Medicine)? Because you can afford better coverage I don't think you should be penilized by being forced to accept worse care (HMO/Canadian System). You can not tell me that a very good PPO is worse than the care that everyone gets in Canada.
Just as a side note: I advise all my employees to take the PPO that I offer instead of the HMO that is available to them. I offer the PPO as a reward for their hardwork, skill, and efforts.
Effectively putting a cap on incomes would mean medicine would no longer attract the best and brightest
Not sure that this is a true statement. I know that many are motivated by the $$$$$.