Climate change will change thing, not for the better

wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 5:20:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:20:26 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Then if it makes sense for the individual taxpayer to decide whether or
not to buy himself a new car each year, why would it not make sense
for the individual taxpayer to decide how much and what kind of
health insurance to buy from a private insurer, free of government
interference and taxation?

Health insurance doesn't work unless everybody is insured.

Incorrect.

The system
requires a large pool covering a range of risk.

Also incorrect. The premiums collected must be related to risk. If you
smoke, you pay more.

Everybody needs health
insurance during their lives,

Also incorrect. Some wish to self-insure and some never get seriously ill.

but removing the healthy from the pool
causes the system to fail.

Except that the "healthy" are not "removed" from the system (except of
course those who have had policies cancelled due to 0bummercare.) Tens
of millions of healthy adults and children are insured privately because
their families do not wish to go broke paying for serious/catastrophic illnesses.

(It would help if you understood the concept of insurance, but you don't.)

The bottom line is that private, optional health insurance does not
work.

It works perfectly well for those who participate in the system...by
buying insurance BEFORE they ever get sick. Children are/can be covered
by state systems, the very poor by Medicaid, the elderly by Medicare.
Pre-existing conditions from childhood can be allowed for easily. If
there are problems with those programs, fix THOSE programs and leave
private health insurance and health care alone.

This is evidenced by the U.S. system, which has poor quality
health care

The health CARE is the best, although some people in the US don't bother
to take very good care of themselves. That's ultimately THEIR choice.

at much higher prices than countries that simply pay for
public health out of taxes.

Incorrect. Premiums and deductibles are going way UP due to 0bummercare.
And there is no tax that one can fairly levy to pay for health care,
except perhaps "sin" taxes.

Personal comparison between USA and UK by an American expat:

http://potentialandexpectations.word...thcare-system/

On Monday, May 5, 2014 7:32:02 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2014 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On the one hand you talk of a well-constructed system and then you turn around and talk about "society charting its own course"....so, which is it?

They are one and the same.

No, they are not.

On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:15:47 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 5:03:57 PM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:

On Monday, May 5, 2014 5:20:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 5 May 2014 12:20:26 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

The bottom line is that private, optional health insurance does not
work.

It works perfectly well for those who participate in the system...by buying insurance BEFORE they ever get sick. Children are/can be covered by state systems, the very poor by Medicaid, the elderly by Medicare. Pre-existing conditions from childhood can be allowed for easily. If there are problems with those programs, fix THOSE programs and leave private health insurance and health care alone.

Medicare? Medicare .. mm .. lessee, isn't that Single Payer? Socialism, Government run health care? Works well for the elderly, who consume the majority of health costs, since they are the sickest demographic.

And of course Medicare has FAR exceeded its projected costs from day one. It is busting the US budget, and there is all sorts of fraud going on. The elderly might have more health problems, but they aren't THAT sick.

Now you want a single payer across the board. What was that definition of insanity, again?

Then why would it not work for the younger demographic who you said may not need health care because they are statistically not sick? It kinda leads one to believe that single payer medicare for all might be the answer, instead of a hodge-podge of individual and employer based health insurance.

Healthy people buy health insurance so that they won't go broke in the event of a catastrophic illness. They should not fall for "pre-paid" health plans which is all that single payer really is. (See: Sandra Fluck)

Actually, in other advanced nations employers are not in the health care providing business,

Most employers in the US are not in the "health care providing business" either, although they do often have group plans available, with hidden costs to all employees whether they choose the plan or not.

and as a result they have a distinct competitive advantage over US firms. In fact, in Vermont, they will have a single payer medicare system for all, since they have to compete with Quebec right on their northern border who is eating their lunch. Will be interesting how this all plays out.

States can attempt what they want, so long as it is Constitutional. Vermont is a small, homogenous state; what might be thought to work there would be a disaster in a more diverse state. A federal single-payer... no way.

Right now in the US we have all the world's systems side by side: individual, group health insurance, employer based insurance, government single payer (medicare, medicaid), AND government run health care (V.A. system) where the doctors are public servants like in Great Britain. WoW! makes me dizzy just thinkin' about it all.

Thinking makes you dizzy, period.

One of my younger family members has a rare (treatable) form of cancer that requires a drug that costs $30,000 per month to keep him alive. He cannot work any more, so his employer insurance will be gone after he leaves his position at the corporation.

Might not be a bad idea for people to pay for an individual plan, so as not to be dependent on employer group plans.

Pre-existing conditions would have doomed him, of course,

That was NOT a pre-existing condition... he had insurance at the time he got sick.

but happily for him he was a pilot for the Airforce years ago, so he qualifies for the V.A. insurance system. A little bit of government run health care saves the day!!!

Fine for him, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Feel free to trash anything I say above

No need to, it's already trash!

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:39:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:



Pre-existing conditions would have doomed him, of course,


That was NOT a pre-existing condition... he had insurance at the time he got sick.


When you leave a job, your job provided insurance is terminated. Now when you apply for a new insurance policy, and you are sick (as in this case), then you have a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies are not in business to lose money, so no insurance company would insure such an individual, who needs $30k worth of medicine per month for the rest of his life. It's just bad business.



but happily for him he was a pilot for the Airforce years ago, so he qualifies for the V.A. insurance system. A little bit of government run health care saves the day!!!


Fine for him, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion.


Yes, it was fine for him, and certainly relevant to this discussion. Who are you to set rules for what is relevant? Are you the final arbiter of everything? This "fine for him" shows that sometimes the government CAN do something right. They do not have to show a profit, the way a private insurance corporation does, there are no investors or stock prices to hold up, and no investor dividends to pay. They just have to do what's right, and they won't deny treatment and medicine.

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 1:35:03 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:39:10 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:


but happily for him he was a pilot for the Airforce years ago, so he qualifies for the V.A. insurance system. A little bit of government run health care saves the day!!!

Fine for him, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, it was fine for him, and certainly relevant to this discussion. Who are you to set rules for what is relevant?
Are you the final arbiter of everything?

In this case, definitely yes. The discussion is about health insurance, not VA benefits.

This "fine for him" shows that sometimes the government CAN do something right.

CAN but doesn't always, as in:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health...h-care-delays/

They do not have to show a profit, the way a private
insurance corporation does, there are no investors or stock prices to hold up, and no investor dividends to pay. They just have to do what's right, and they won't deny treatment and medicine.

Here it is again, in case you missed it the first time:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health...h-care-delays/

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:41:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 1:35:03 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:39:10 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:





but happily for him he was a pilot for the Airforce years ago, so he qualifies for the V.A. insurance system. A little bit of government run health care saves the day!!!



Fine for him, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion.



Yes, it was fine for him, and certainly relevant to this discussion. Who are you to set rules for what is relevant?

Are you the final arbiter of everything?



In this case, definitely yes. The discussion is about health insurance, not VA benefits.



This "fine for him" shows that sometimes the government CAN do something right.



CAN but doesn't always, as in:



http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health...h-care-delays/


Irrelevant!



They do not have to show a profit, the way a private

insurance corporation does, there are no investors or stock prices to hold up, and no investor dividends to pay. They just have to do what's right, and they won't deny treatment and medicine.



Here it is again, in case you missed it the first time:



http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health...h-care-delays/

Totally irrelevant, chortle

On Mon, 05 May 2014 17:32:02 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 5 May 2014 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On the one hand you talk of a well-constructed system and then you turn around and talk about "society charting its own course"....so, which is it?

They are one and the same.


I share many of wsnell's concerns, and resent paying taxes for those
whose ambitions peak at "living off the system"; but if I understand you
- you're not advocating for that either...

A well designed system, that does what it's citizens would ask of it
within the the scope/based on of something like our US Constitution
(something that would provide the individual some protections from his
own goernment); that would provide for its citizenry, and was able to
accomplish that in a sustainable and fiscally sound/responsible
manner... sounds like a great system to me.



--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:48:36 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: "....one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth..."

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 9:29:57 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2014 17:32:02 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 5 May 2014 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On the one hand you talk of a well-constructed system and then you turn around and talk about "society charting its own course"....so, which is it?

They are one and the same.

I share many of wsnell's concerns, and resent paying taxes for those
whose ambitions peak at "living off the system"; but if I understand you
- you're not advocating for that either...

peterson is not advocating against it ... he had written earlier:

"I believe it is the job of any government to provide what the people ask it to provide."

So if "the people" (however one might define that) decide they want government to provide them a free new car each year, or free housing, or free smart phones, etc.... you get the idea.

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:22:58 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:41:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 1:35:03 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:39:10 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:

but happily for him he was a pilot for the Airforce years ago, so he qualifies for the V.A. insurance system. A little bit of government run health care saves the day!!!

Fine for him, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, it was fine for him, and certainly relevant to this discussion.
Who are you to set rules for what is relevant?

Are you the final arbiter of everything?

In this case, definitely yes. The discussion is about health insurance, not VA benefits.

This "fine for him" shows that sometimes the government CAN do something right.

CAN but doesn't always, as in:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health...h-care-delays/

Irrelevant!

NO, completely relevant! You were trying to hold up the VA as example of govt doing something right, but we certainly don't want to use the VA as a model for health care, now do we?