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

[Herb Parsons]

I asked the question on here "Why should employers be required (by law) 
to provide health care insurance".

No one answered.

So now I understand.

It was offered as an incentive for a long time, and our entitlement 
society became so used to it that many now see it as a "right".

Will annual Christmas bonuses soon become the "law of the land"? (Of 
course, we'll have to be PC, and call them "annual end of the year pick 
a reason bonuses".


Brad Haslett wrote:
> 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
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>     
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>