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

Herb Parsons hparsons at parsonsys.com
Wed Oct 29 12:57:28 EDT 2008 

Ben,

The point that Ed and Brad and I are making that YOU seem to be missing 
is that under universal health care, we will also be picking up the tab 
for the NOT poor. And it will be a more inefficient system.

And, I also suspect that Brad's view of the "poor" is a first hand view. 
Yes, most of the poor are in that condition by choice.

No, they don't say "I want to be poor", but that doesn't mean they're 
not there by choice. They may say "I don't feel like going into work 
today" not thinking about how many times they've already done that at 
how many jobs, and the end result is that they are unemployed.

Or they may say (at 16) "I don't want to mess with HS any more" and 
spend the next 10 years paying for the choice, or at 17 they may say 
"but I love the guy so much, and he wants to have sex, and it's so much 
fun" and find themselves a single parent and paying the price. Or they 
may say "It's just pot, and i won't get hooked" and find themselves an 
unemployed unemployable drug addict. Or they may say "I can handle 5 
beers and drive" and find that the only jobs that will overlook their 3 
felony DWI's are substandard jobs.

Some of them remain on the list of poor by choice though. Brad's given 
you examples. I don't want to work unless it's cash payments, because I 
don't want my disability to be affected.

Pull off those rose-tinted glasses, and face some reality.


Ben Cittadino wrote:
> Brad;
>
> Singapore, Sweden, Japan, Hong Kong, Iceland, France, Finland, Anguilla,
> Norway, Malta, Czech Republic, Germany, Andorra, Switzerland, Spain, Israel,
> Macau, Slovenia, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Australia, Lichtenstein,
> Guernsey, Luxunbourg, Netherlands, Portugal,Gibraltar, United Kingdom, New
> Zealand, Jersey,Canada,Ireland, Monaco, Greece, San Marino, Taiwan, Italy,
> Isle of Man, Cuba, and South Korea ALL HAVE A LOWER INFANT MORTALITY RATE
> THAN THE USA. (Source, CIA World Factbook, Jan 1, 2008.)
> (Tootle, How about THAT source.)
>
> Do you think there is any more objective measure of the delivery of quality
> health care than the infant mortality rate? We can do some spectacular
> things in our specialty hospitals (I should know, I had my quadruple by-pass
> surgery at Cleveland Clinic, a wonderful major center, but my surgeon was a
> Swede, Gosta Pettersson, MD, who I highly recommend). 
>
> The major difference I think you and I have on this subject is that I
> understand WE ARE ALREADY PAYING for health care for the poor.  The
> taxpayers are picking up the tab for a very inefficient and ultimately
> sub-standard system.  If we include a lot more folks the economies of scale
> will cost us less.
>
> If you believe the poor and unemployed are in that condition by choice, and
> that the only way to get them to work is to set up the system so they starve
> to death if they don't get their fannies out of bed in the morning, then we
> probably can't get to common ground on this issue.
>
> I do agree about one thing. We do spend way too much on heroic "end-of-life"
> care. I read somewhere that fully 80% of all medicare money is spent on
> patients in the last three months of their lives. I sure hope if I end up
> like poor Terry Schiavo in Florida a few years ago someone has the good
> grace to give me the old .45 caliber craniotomy. (Herb, I think this is
> where you come in--I mean the pro-life argument, not the volunteer to
> perform the craniotomy).
>
> Ben C.
>
>
>
> Brad Haslett-2 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
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>     
>
>

More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list