[Rhodes22-list] Coastal Living - Insurance

[Herb Parsons]

Surely you're not comparing what's available to vets now to what would 
happen under the libs views of  "universal health care"! Vets "depend" 
on the VA as a last resort, not because of quality of care, but because 
of availability of services. I think there's roughly 150 VA hospitals in 
the US. I think there are almost that many private hospitals in the DFW 
area. If you throw in doctor's offices, I'm sure the goes way up.

The current health care systems WILL pretty much go away because the 
vast majority of people are going to depend on their rich uncle to "take 
care of things." As they do so, those private companies will go away 
because, unlike the government, their business requires a profit, and a 
profit requires a steady stream of INCOME, which will have pretty much 
stopped (or been cut way back).  By the time the masses realize what 
they've lost, it'll be gone.


Michael D. Weisner wrote:
> Herb,
>
> You asked:
>     Once it's provided, the current health care systems are going to
>     pretty much go away (why would anyone PAY for the gubment
>     is giving away for "free"?)
>
> If this were true, no veteran would have health insurance.  Most vets
> use the VAMC only as a last resort, even though the system can save
> many quite a bit of money on drugs and DME (scooters, wheel chairs, etc.)
> Contrary to popular belief, the VAMC is providing quite a good level of
> care, much better than many private hospitals.  They have vastly improved
> their capabilities over the last 20 years.
>
> So why will the current health system go away?
>
> Mike
> s/v Shanghai'd Summer ('81)
> Nissequogue River, NY
>
>
> From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com> Monday, February 25, 2008 
> 12:12 PM
>   
>> Your last paragraph says a lot, for those that can read between the
>> lines. Here's one of my BIGGEST issues with "universal health care".
>> Once it's provided, the current health care systems are going to pretty
>> much go away (why would anyone PAY for the gubment is giving away for
>> "free"?)
>>
>> The employer I have now is the same employer I had 15 years ago (new
>> company, but same owner). He's a big believer in self-insurance. We (as
>> a company) pay our own insurance, and pay out or own benefits. One of
>> the big advantages to this is the amount of beauracracy that it avoids.
>> Several years ago (again, different company, but same employer), the
>> insurance administrative company was balking on paying a claim on one of
>> my many daughters' hospital bill. After a week of arguing with various
>> folks, I finally went to the owner of the company. He made one call (and
>> I got to listen to it) and said "It's a valid claim, please pay it
>> immediately". Ta-daaaa the claim was paid.
>>
>> That will go away with the government provided universal health care. It
>> will be run by beauracrats that are more interested in putting in the 8
>> hours than actually taking care of business. That's the downside to any
>> government "business".
>>
>>
>>
>> Brad Haslett wrote:
>>     
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> YES! Insure against the things you can't recover from without help!  When 
>>> I
>>> queried my insurance agent about his inability to insure me against
>>> earthquakes, his response was, "the odds are so small".  Well, that's 
>>> true,
>>> but my wife has an advanced degree in geophysics paid for by the 
>>> University
>>> of Memphis which lured her away from the Beijing Seismological Institute,
>>> but more importantly, if it ain't a risk, why wouldn't you just steal the
>>> money from me for something that ain't gonna happen? BS.  They looked at 
>>> the
>>> risk and passed.  Life is full of risks and if you have half-a-brain, you
>>> take the most risk you can afford and pocket the money.  The risk of 
>>> losing
>>> my home isn't the end of the world, but I'd like to have enough money to
>>> forget all about the old neighborhood and what if might become (post
>>> earthquake) and I'm willing to pay for that option.  They won't take the
>>> other side of the bet, so they obviously see some risk there.
>>>
>>> Health insurance for all is a different issue - the way the current 
>>> debate
>>> is being framed isn't about sharing risk, it is all about 'sharing'
>>> outcomes.  Here's a novel idea: ask for health insurance from your 
>>> employer
>>> instead of income!  Income is taxed, most benefits aren't (we are 
>>> assuming
>>> you have or are seeking an employer). Everyone loves a tax as long as the
>>> other guy has to pay for it.  If everyone who supports universal health 
>>> care
>>> would volunteer $300 per month to pay for the health care insurance of 
>>> one
>>> other person, the problem would be solved - overnight.  But no, they 
>>> don't
>>> want to pay for it, they want someone else to.  And you can put me in the
>>> category of "my family comes first!" BTW, that 'other' person is the 
>>> target
>>> of the current wave of populist candidates.  That would pretty much be 
>>> all
>>> of them!
>>>
>>> Brad
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Michael D. Weisner 
>>> <mweisner at ebsmed.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com> Monday, February 25, 2008
>>>> 12:25 AM
>>>> {clip}
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> As people discover that they, through the power of their vote, can
>>>>> require insurance companies to pay damages for coverage that they were
>>>>> not paid for, force them to do business where it is not economically
>>>>> viable, force you and I to pay for health care for those that are too
>>>>> unmotivated to find the means to do so themselves; I fear we are headed
>>>>> down that path.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> This is nothin' new.  Just take a look at the rules for airline
>>>> operations.
>>>> In order to serve the lucrative markets, they are forced to run 
>>>> scheduled
>>>> flights to markets that never earn money (not that I particularly agree
>>>> with
>>>> this regulation.)
>>>>
>>>> You know, it seems that when I learned 'bout insurance in school, the
>>>> concept was that the risk was spread over a large pool.  The definition 
>>>> of
>>>> insurance went something like this "Insurance - a system to protect
>>>> persons
>>>> against the risks of financial loss by transferring the risks to a large
>>>> group who share the financial losses."  Providing insurance where it is
>>>> "not
>>>> economically viable" was balanced by providing coverage to those whose
>>>> risk
>>>> was much lower but wanted insurance anyway.  That's why insurance needs 
>>>> to
>>>> be "sold" to folks.  Really good salesmen can sell coverages that most
>>>> consider uneeded (100 year floods in dry regions.)  If insurance was 
>>>> only
>>>> offered where there was very low risk, there would be no life insurance
>>>> coverage for anyone over 30!
>>>>
>>>> Many of us coasties never get flooded and rarely experience disasterous
>>>> wind
>>>> or storm damage.  We purchase full homeowner coverages, albeit with a 5%
>>>> deductible for storm related damage, at a reasonable rate.  We insure
>>>> against losing everything, not to file a claim for a window broken 
>>>> during
>>>> a
>>>> storm.  People need to rethink why they buy insurance in the first 
>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> s/v Shanghai'd Summer ('81)
>>>> Nissequogue River, NY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> -- 
>> Herb Parsons
>> S/V O'Jure - O'Day 25
>> S/V Reve de Pappa - Coronado 35
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>
>   

-- 
Herb Parsons
S/V O'Jure - O'Day 25
S/V Reve de Pappa - Coronado 35