Sorry to hear about your wife passing. These aren't easy things and
times, but I think that if prospects for a good life are diminishing,
thought needds to be given to what you call comfort care - a good phrase,
because comfort is what's needed for all concerned.
Good thoughts going your way ...
That is another "logically?" part of this mess. First place a tax on the
poorest people among us and then write 100 pages of code setting up a
system so they don't pay it.
Bottom line for obama, either except the fact that he has placed taxes
on the poor (he still claims its a penalty.) OR accept that his mess is
un constitutional, as he can not claim the commerce clause as a reason
for the tax. (The only other clause that Congress has is the ability to
tax. court not me)
I believe people are entitled to the insurance. If at all possible they
should pay for it. Ultimately I believe that quality of life will be
better, and cost less than when you let them muddle on. The only
alternative would be to a) provide work for all and b) pay wages to cover
life's expenses. Of course getting rid of the lawyers and bureaucrats
would help too ...
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
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'm a cynic too. However, it should be easier to smoke out collusion and
malfeasance in a single system. Unfortunately, the system is a mashup of
private companies doing the insuring and federal mandates for coverage.
That, I agree, is not a good recipe.
If the aggregate costs of healthcare are the same in 2 different ways of
administering it, it should boil down to the same thing - altogether, we
as the sum toal of all the insured (or uninsured) should be paying the
same grand total. But that assumes that bureacratic costs are the same.
Having experienced the clusterfuck that the billing is nowadays (I really
have had minimal trouble) and somehow understanding the thinking of the
clerks, I have no confidence in the current convoluted way of doing
things. Hopefully it will get smoother with Obamacare. I'm still
This morning, my haircutter girl at the neighborhood new Great Clips made
a mistake in entering data into the cash register. Now she had to pull
out the calculator to subtract $7.01 from $14.00. I'm just saying ...
Were from another era, I rattle their cages by usually telling them
the change owed before the cash register. They never learned to do it
in their head. I've held on to my slide ruler I'll be a genius if a
major solar storm wipes out the computers. LOL
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
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.
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:16:49 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
Just about anyone who makes a living from exorbitantly priced supplies,
pills, procedures, insurance policies, etc.. And let us never forget the
ambulance chasers and all the hospitals being converted from non-profit
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership
and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management
of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.
There is not a single politician in the United States that advocates the
above, nor is social security, safety nets, welfare, common defense,
or medicare 'socialism' in any sense of the word.
That's only one definition. Socialism is also a political system where
the government controls the means of production. Every step that
government takes to regulate or control any part of the economy is a
step in the direction of socialism. Obamacare is a great big fat step
toward socializing the U.S. health care system.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.