[Rhodes22-list] Politiical- More Bad News About McCain Health Plan comment by Ugh

Wed Oct 29 06:59:10 EDT 2008

Ben,

As Ed pointed out, the New York Times, especially the editorial page,
is hardly an unbiased source for anything.  The AP is no better.  Take
the Iraq war for example - the AP coverage was so slanted and
misleading I quit paying attention to it other than out of curiosity
to see where others were getting their information.  The coverage from
independent reporters such as Michael Yon, both good and bad, was much
better.

That said, let's tackle the "health care" crisis.  First, a history
lesson.  The whole idea of employer provided health insurance started
during WW2 because wages were frozen and providing company sponsored
health insurance was a way to attract workers at the same wage other
companies were paying.  That still holds true but the costs of that
coverage has risen dramatically.  The old adage of "you don't get
something for nothing" still applies.  Any employee only has x amount
of economic value to any entity, and if you force companies to provide
health insurance, that economic benefit will flow to the employee in
lieu of cash wages. That is certainly true in my own personal
situation as a collectively bargained employee.  Near the end of every
negotiation cycle as both sides start sharpening knives, the company
throws down a final "this is the size of the pie" last proposal and
then we have to determine how we want it sliced, health care or cash?
Nothing in either of these candidates proposals will escape that basic
fundamental truth.

What gets lost in all this election cycle marketing bullshit (and
Obama is much better at marketing bullshit than McCain) is the real
nature of health insurance versus health care and the
inter-relationships of economic and social policies.  The reason most
of us get out of bed in the morning and go to work is because we like
to enjoy nice things, ie, housing, food, toys, etc.  When government
intervenes in the marketplace and provides those basic things,
especially housing and food, a large segment of the population is
happy to stay in bed.  This is fact and President Clinton recognized
this basic social principle and "reformed welfare" as a result.  To
add "free" health insurance to the mix without personal responsibility
only adds to the problem, so one needs to tread lightly when
government imposes itself in any fashion into the issue. We know (or
should know) that we don't want nationalized health care.  Find me a
country that has better health care than the United States (provided
you can afford access) and I'll consider changing my assessment.
Health insurance is no different than any other insurance, it is to
provide for losses that you cannot afford.  Part of the 45 million
Americans without health care we hear so much about are young people
who have the opportunity to purchase health insurance but don't want
to, some are temporarily un-employed or self employed, and some you
are never going to get to work.

Any government sponsored health care scheme is going to "break the
bank" if you don't solve the two ends of the tails of the health care
cost curve.  The individual must be responsible for the initial, minor
costs of "going to the doctor" or you get the kind of abuses that
TennCare discovered (Tennessee's attempt at health care).  The other
end of the tail is the vast sums of money spent on incredibly
expensive medical treatments that are often offered to extend life by
a few weeks or months.  I know this sounds harsh but it's economic
reality.

Both the Obama and McCain plans pose the risk of some employers
dropping health care because the government may provide lower cost
options.  The Obama campaign is lying (I know that's hard for you to
imagine) when it says their plan doesn't have the same inherent risks
associated with it.  I like the McCain plan better because it allows
more options and responsibility to the individual. The $2500 rebate
($5000 for families) applies to everyone regardless of income or even
employment.  It will in fact probably cost me money in higher taxes
(but then what doesn't?). Of the two, I see it as the most socially
responsible. Which plan will be the most expensive?  I don't know and
neither do they but I do know who is going to pay for it - the same
people who pay for everything else in this country, the "rich".

None of this applies to me (except for the paying part) because health
insurance is covered by my collective bargaining agreement.  I'll be
happy to give career advice to anyone looking for flying lessons if
you want in on this "gravy train".

This campaign has boiled down to "who is the better Santa Claus" in
the closing days.  Both McCain and Obama are being irresponsible to
some degree.

Brad

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
> The ERs are being used for this, but you're overlooking the nature of
> what's involved. You have to go and wait, typically for anywhere between
> 3-8 hours for "minor" issues. This discourages the "I don't feel good,
> let me go see the dr" stuff that Brad and Ed are talking about.
>
> Personally, I'm not happy with that either. My guess is that they could
> clear up about 70% of the backlog at ER's by having an INS office there
> as well.
>
>
> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>> Brad and Ed;
>>
>> Brad- you're forgetting something. We are already paying for healthcare for
>> the uninsured. It's illegal for ER's to turn people away, insured or not. We
>> are just paying more, getting lousy care (because ER's are not set up to be
>> primary care providers), more expensively (because ER's are overkill (pardon
>> the pun) in most situations, and we taxpayers are footing the bill anyway.
>>
>> Ed- the second post is from the AP, not NYTimes.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ben C.
>>
>> Tootle wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. Philadelphia Lawyer,  The New York Times has been taken over by
>>> Communists.  Your source material is too biased.  Find something with an
>>> American viewpoint.
>>>
>>> Consider an alternative local newspaper such as:
>>> http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.asp?brd=2737
>>>
>>> How is your retirement funded?  Or how was it funded?  See your local
>>> Philadelphia newspaper:
>>> http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20179546&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
>>>
>>> Or since you like Times in the heading, consider the:
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/
>>>
>>> Or just go to church on sunday and get their bulletin.  Read something
>>> other than that Communists Rag.
>>>
>>> Ed K
>>>  http://www.nabble.com/file/p20218848/Philadelphia%2BBulletin.gif
>>> Philadelphia+Bulletin.gif
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>