The Spirit Of Health Insurance.

I’ve been a bit delinquent in replying to comments, so I’m sorry for writing a new blog when I haven’t tied up the older ones.  But I wanted to say a few things that have been on my mind.

The title of this blog is borrowed from a song by the band Rush, titled The Spirit Of Radio.  I really love music, and the idea of the song is that radio is set up so that you can broadcast something so beautiful and meaningful, and all you have to do is listen to a few commercials to pay for it.  Or as the song puts it, “…bearing a gift beyond price, almost free.”

It’s a beautiful idea.

And the idea behind health insurance was once a beautiful idea too.  It went a little something like this.

Everyone gets sick, everyone gets old, everyone needs help sometimes.  But the cost is often just as dangerous as the solution.  So if everyone chips into a big pot, young, old, healthy, sick, everybody, then those payments (or premiums) will pay for the medical expenses of those that need help now.  Young peoples’ payments will pay for the elderly, healthy peoples’ payments will pay for the sick.  Because we all recognize that one day we too will get the same benefits.

A very smart, very nice idea.  For awhile.

Then some health insurance companies figured out they could make more money if they weeded out the policies of the elderly, who have the most health expenses.  And as a result seniors were committing suicide left and right because most of them couldn’t afford pain medication or treatments, or if they got those treatments, they couldn’t make their medical bills.

So medicare was invented, to take care of seniors who the insurance companies had abandoned.

It wasn’t long before people started to realize that health insurance was a necessity for everyone, and that the young and healthy needed to pay into it as well to make it work.  So they tried to make it more or less universal by making laws saying that if you worked a certain number of hours, your employer had to insure you.  This way even people on minimum wage could have health insurance.

So then businesses started hiring two people for 20 hours apiece instead of 1 person for 40, and forbidding their employees from working the requisite number of hours.  Everyone reading this blog probably knows someone who has two part-time jobs.

Health insurance companies, out of a desire for more profits, not out of necessity, began discriminating against more and more people, weeding out not only the sick but people whose families have health problems that might run in the family, and those that are too old, and those that have any health problems at all or “pre-existing conditions.”  More and more the reality of health insurance stopped being what it was originally meant to be.  A way to ensure the general health and security of entire communities, not let a CEO somewhere have his own private island by taking his insurees’ money and then letting them die.

Health insurance companies discriminate against the elderly so we have medicare.  They discriminate against the poor so we have medicaid.  But now they discriminate against the rich, poor, middle-class, able-bodied, sick, damn near every group of people.  It’s gotten so that only the healthy can get health insurance.

Which is why we need a public option to cover those that cannot get insurance any other way.

That is the only way we can fulfill the original ideal of health insurance, and actually give people peace of mind for their money.

And I see no moral or logical difference between paying for it with a premium and paying for it with taxes.  You might say “well I pay the premium and I pay the tax, so that’s not fair.”  But you’re paying more in your insurance premium than it would take to pay for everyone’s health insurance.  So who should you really be mad at?

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The Spirit Of Health Insurance.

  1. For fuck’s sake… it’s so obvious. Thanks for illustrating it though.Are we not men of conscience? Do we not have empathy and compassion for our brothers and sisters? How are there people that do not see this? I can not comprehend such a vapidly selfish and cruel state of mind, with more concern for personal gain than the well being, or very life of another living, breathing, feeling human. It is beyond my powers of imagination.

  2. agnophilo says:

    @ElliottStrange – Most people are decent enough, they’re just easily led by the nose.

  3. I enjoy reading these, but they make me sad. Amazingly, some just won’t get moved even with these posts…@ElliottStrange – And money is also beyond powers of most people’s imagination. It’s rampant. Looking at those people usually make me wish people are inherently evil, so that we’re the fortunate out of a bad lot than them being total disasters of what is good.

  4. @agnophilo – I disagree though; I think allowing oneself to be lead is a breech of conscience – a breech of sanity even. To relinquish free action and, worse yet, to do so unknowingly, is the ultimate expression of foolishness and ignorance. To allow yourself to be lead to the butcher’s block is as much a crime as walking there alone. @one_more_path – Any man of sanity will consider, however briefly, that his kind is inherently wicked.Personally, I believe we are a delicate balance (or perhaps, delicate imbalance) of all things and that life and our interactions are a constant swelling and diminishing of the existing extremes.

  5. Mugo60 says:

    If the writings of Jesus are true, He would have been the first ‘single payer provider’.

  6. Casbahmaniac says:

    No, Jesus clearly said, “Every man for himself.” along with other famous quotes like “Screw the poor”  and “Keep your government hands of my fucking medicare”

  7. Insurance serves is to spread the risk around to so it is minimised in numbers. Our system has been twisted to maximise profits. Simply immoral how our system works.@Mugo60 – Odd isn’t it that it is mostly proclaimed and the most self glossed “devout” followers of Jesus who are so adamantly opposed to taking care of the less fortunate.They love the verses about killing the homos….but despise the “Love thy Neighbor as thyself ” quotes. Xtians are a weird weird breed.

  8. So who should you really be mad at?Awesome question.

  9. I’ll be sure to tell this story around a campfire. I can see it now.”But Ian, this isn’t a scary story!””Ohohohohoho…the scary part is, THIS WAS ALL TRUE.”

  10. I was one of those people that had hours cut to prevent me from getting insurance once I had my child.  Its a super system tell ya what.

  11. The_ATM says:

    The problem is, people who pay more do not get more.  It just is not fair.  If everyone works just as hard as everyone else, that would be just dandy.  But I work super hard and make about as much as most people make, except I do this while I am going to school.So it is unfair that it will cause a redistribution of wealth.  It is also unfair because I stay healthy.  That will most likely reduce my health care costs significantly later in my life.   So I will also be getting screwed for people that smoke and over-eat!How can that possibly be fair?I came from a poor family and decided to work my ass off to better my position in life.  Why does the guy that plays video games all day deserve money I earned?If you wonder why people are so pissed off about it, that is why.Anyway, the logic here isn’t really complete. I might defer you to here.

  12. helvetebrann says:

    @The_ATM – Your argument is kind of ridiculous.  I work hard, I eat right, I exercise, I go to school, which I’ve paid for myself, etc.  Yet I’m staring down the barrel of a orthopedic hand surgery and a disc replacement surgery that has nothing to do with my efforts whatsoever.  And, of course, I have no insurance to pay for said surgeries because my mom lost her job and I cannot afford my own.You are saying that because some people will not work hard, those of us who do and cannot afford health care can’t have it?  Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?Also, I think you don’t realize that the reason we’re such an unhealthy country is because we do not focus on preventative health care.  In most countries, doctors are given bonuses or raises for how many clients they get to stop smoking, lower their cholesterol, or lose weight.I would also like to point out that your logic of having money should buy you health is ridiculous.  You are essentially saying that those who cannot rise above their circumstances there thereby doomed by them.  Again, how selfish of you.

  13. The_ATM says:

    @helvetebrann – What about food or a house?  If you cannot pay for a house or food, than you have to rely on social programs.  My problem is that people who cannot pay for it should not have access to the same health care that money can buy.It isn’t really ridiculous at all.  I don’t ask you to buy me stuff.. regardless of how much I need it.  Plus, you have to consider how much the current situation of health care has cause prices to rise… medicare fixes prices and does not allow for the market to regulate prices.  There are many places where Medicare pays more money than what doctors charge patients, thus a doctor is not able to charge the patient less.I think some people have this idea that it is evil rich people that will pay for your health care.  In reality it is everyone that will.  But that is optimistic at best.  The truth is that we already costs too much for America to pay for.I think in your situation there should be public programs to cover you ( I would imagine there is, but very possibly not ).  Your situation is not the same as the majority of people, yet it is that majority that will bankrupt the situation.The incentive for people to work hard so they can afford their own health care will eventually be gone if things go in the direction of socialized health care.

  14. helvetebrann says:

    @The_ATM – I’m not talking about that.  I’m talking about health which is a human right.  (According to the UN Agreements on Human Rights.)  I’m asking for a doctor to see when I’m sick, a therapist to help me recover when I have an injury, and someone to make sure that if an emergency happens, I can go to the ER.  I’m asking not to be made bankrupt because I had to be taken to the ER while I don’t have health insurance.  I’m asking to not have to be in constant, chronic pain because I don’t have health insurance.Money shouldn’t buy you better health care.  People should all receive the same health care.  Essentially you’re saying that the rich should receive the best treatments and that those who can’t afford the best treatments should settle for less.  How selfish.Everyone will pay for health care because everyone needs and uses the system; that’s the point of a public option.  And I am kind of offended that you assume that I’m not working hard.  You state that not receiving health care will be an incentive for some to work harder.  Guess what?  I am working my butt off and I do not have health care.  And for many, when the decision comes down to whether or not rent or food bills get paid or health care gets purchased, I guaranty you that rent and food will be placed at a higher priority.

  15. The_ATM says:

    Health care is not a right.  Bearing arms IS a right, but I am not telling you to buy me a gun.  Health care in the same sense is a right.  A person has the right to not be deprived of it if they have the money or they should not be deprived of their money in such a way that they would not be able to afford it.  But see you said health… there is no way that being healthy could be a right.. it is simply impossible regardless of how much money is funneled into it.”Essentially you’re saying that the richshould receive the best treatments and that those who can’t afford thebest treatments should settle for less.”Yes, because treatment costs money.  That isn’t really complicated.  Its not selfish.  It is simply that treatment costs money and it is not just or fair to have other people pay for it.  I understand it is not just or fair that you have any sort of health condition.  Like I have said, people in your situation should be able to receive Medicare of some sort.  But really, most people have spent beyond their means.”You state that not receiving health care will be an incentive for some to work harder. “That is not what I said.  You could extrapolate and say I am implying that, so let me clarify.  The incentive to save and plan for unfair situations will be gone.  In fact, the government has been removing the incentive to save for quite a while now.  Health care would just be one more thing.

  16. agnophilo says:

    @Magniloquentia – You are a real tool.@The_ATM – We don’t have a right to life?  We spend tax dollars to protect our right to live by fighting fire, by fighting crime.  Why is using tax dollars to fight cancer any different?The rest of you I agree with.

  17. The_ATM says:

    @agnophilo – The Constitution states life as something it protects.”Why is using tax dollars to fight cancer any different?”Very insightful question.In many senses it is not different.  However, both crime and fire have their differences.  Fire spreads and deprives everyone it can touch of their life and/or property.  Fighting crime is part of governments purpose… that is ‘restraining our vices’.  I am not wholly opposed to a similar approach for health care.  An important difference is that police and fire services are provided at local and state levels.  This is an efficient approach.  What if the Congress wanted to propose a bill for a national police force?  Would you be opposed to that?  If a state government wanted to pass health care reform similar to Obama’s plan at the state level, I don’t think it would be such a bad idea.  Or at least, I would be much less opposed to it.  It is much easier to distribute that sort of thing at the local level.  Most states are much less bankrupt than the federal government.  They actually try to propose balanced budgets.  The federal government, on the other hand, has been driving it’s citizens bankrupt almost as explicit policy.The other difference between the ‘right to health’ and the ‘right to life’ is causality.  Good health is something citizens commonly deprive themselves of.  In fact, 11.6% of the total health care costs in 2002 were spent on obesity related illness.  It is also an upward trend.  Smoking is also a big deal.  Since so much of illness is caused by individuals there is no way for the government to arbitrate the costs in a just way.  Since there is no just way to do it, the people paying for it with their taxes are being deprived of their property ( money ) in an unjust manner.  Or at least that is my opinion.Story:  I went to see Obama speak when he visited Rapid City ( I voted for him, too… keep that in mind. ).  While he was taking questions, one lady… who was morbidly obese.. no way around it, got the microphone for a question.  The question she asked was related to how Obama was going to extend the disability payments for her and her husband so they could continue not working.  This was from my view the only question that Obama fumbled just a bit.  It was like the Achilles’s heal of his proposals.  There were so many people there who were obviously hardworking people with families that wanted to reap what they sowed for once.  The crowd was fairly hostile to her… not explicitly, but there was alot of head shaking and obvious disappointment.  For that woman, in no way could health be her right at all.  If anything, misfortunes with her health ( by laws of nature, sowing and reaping ) is her right ( not to say I do not empathize with her situation ).

  18. agnophilo says:

    @The_ATM – “The Constitution states life as something it protects.”Yes, it does.”Very insightful question.Inmany senses it is not different.  However, both crime and fire havetheir differences.  Fire spreads and deprives everyone it can touch oftheir life and/or property.”  So we should only treat contageous diseases with tax dollars?  Fires also start spontaneously, as does cancer and genetic disorders.  So even in keeping with your logic, we should treat them with public funds.”Fighting crime is part of governmentspurpose… that is ‘restraining our vices’.  I am not wholly opposed toa similar approach for health care.  An important difference is thatpolice and fire services are provided at local and state levels.  Thisis an efficient approach.  What if the Congress wanted to propose abill for a national police force?  Would you be opposed to that?” Um, we have local, state and federal law enforcement.  And we have all three for a reason, federal law enforcement can do things that local and state law enforcement can’t do, like deal with interstate crime, cross-country drug trafficking, centralized fingerprint and DNA databases etc.  Similarly a local or state insurance program would not be able to negotiate for lower costs the way a larger federal pool would, and it would take many, many years to lower our country’s medical costs going state by state.  If you want it to be a federal program but have the states organize it within federal guidelines, that would make more sense.  That is I believe how medicare works.”If astate government wanted to pass health care reform similar to Obama’splan at the state level, I don’t think it would be such a bad idea.  Orat least, I would be much less opposed to it.  It is much easier todistribute that sort of thing at the local level.”  I agree.  I think any program would be tied in with local government.”Most states are muchless bankrupt than the federal government.  They actually try topropose balanced budgets.  The federal government, on the other hand,has been driving it’s citizens bankrupt almost as explicit policy.”I agree that the government has been misspending money, but a big part of changing healthcare is actually a long overdue attempt at fiscal responsibility.  The 80 billion or so a year these programs would cost would save both the taxpayers and government much more money.  We spend about 1 and 1/2 times on healthcare what we should be per capita, which also puts a huge drain on programs like medicare/medicaid which, in addition to things like the wars we’re in, are the major causes of the deficit.”Theother difference between the ‘right to health’ and the ‘right to life’is causality.  Good health is something citizens commonly deprivethemselves of.  In fact, 11.6% of the totalhealth care costs in 2002 were spent on obesity related illness.  It isalso an upward trend.  Smoking is also a big deal.  Since so much ofillness is caused by individuals there is no way for the government toarbitrate the costs in a just way.  Since there is no just way to doit, the people paying for it with their taxes are being deprived oftheir property ( money ) in an unjust manner.  Or at least that is myopinion.”That’s where preventative medicine comes in.  In other countries like england and france, doctors make more money the more people they can get to lower cholesterol, quit smoking etc, because it saves everyone money.  Another problem is that we subsidize things like corn crops to keep things like high fructose corn syrup cheap and plentiful, and that crap is in almost everything you can buy in many stores.  Our health education in schools is also ridiculous and tells you to eat massive amounts of food.  I remember in like 5th grade we were reading from our “health” books the recommended daily requirements for things, and it gave an example of what you might eat in a day to fulfill all of your requirements and at that age we were making fun of it.  If we ate what they told us to in a day we’d explode.  It was 3 big meals and between meal snacks, lots of milk, cheese etc.  They push this shit on us when we’re little so we grow up thinking we’re not getting enough of this or that, or we’re not drinking enough milk or enough water.  When really we’re drinking too much.  It’s just hyper-capitalism, consume as much as possible (literally) to keep the economy going.”Story:  I went to see Obama speak when he visited RapidCity ( I voted for him, too… keep that in mind. ).  While he wastaking questions, one lady… who was morbidly obese.. no way aroundit, got the microphone for a question.  The question she asked wasrelated to how Obama was going to extend the disability payments forher and her husband so they could continue not working.  This was frommy view the only question that Obama fumbled just a bit.  It was likethe Achilles’s heal of his proposals.”  I would have to hear the question.  I should mention though that many actually obese people are naturally obese, and that studies have shown that weight does not actually determine health, and that thin people who do not exercise regularly are actually less healthy than overweight people who do.  It’s a problem with health education and exercise as well as diet.”There were so many people therewho were obviously hardworking people with families that wanted to reapwhat they sowed for once.  The crowd was fairly hostile to her… notexplicitly, but there was alot of head shaking and obviousdisappointment.”  I saw a townhall where they heckled a (thin) woman in a wheelchair because she said she had two incurable diseases.  That sort of stuff doesn’t really happen when the president is there though, with the exception of the congressman interrupting the president’s congressional address.”For that woman, in no way could health be her right atall.  If anything, misfortunes with her health ( by laws of nature,sowing and reaping ) is her right ( not to say I do not empathize withher situation ).”I don’t know why she is obese, or why she is on disability.  But I know that a) you can’t deny health insurance access to the majority who do not bring their health woes upon themselves, and b) the taxpayer pays for peoples’ health mistakes either way.  If she doesn’t have insurance then when she has a heart attack she’s going to have to go to the ER and she won’t be able to pay, which means it will come out of your inflated premiums.So you’re already paying for the problem, why not pay for the solution (preventative medicine)?

  19. agnophilo says:

    @The_ATM – Okay?You agree with me?

  20. The_ATM says:

    No.  Not really.  I was just commenting to indicate I read your reply.I have been pretty busy with work today and will most likely stay pretty busy in the future.  I spent much of my evening tonight researching DSP processors for use on an unmanned helicopter.  I obviously think it is really cool stuff.I guess you did not do much to address one of my larger concerns about this sort of stuff.  How are we going to pay for it?According to the congressional budget office, the total cost of the bill [hr3200] would be 1,042 billion dollars, but would also add 239 billion dollars directly onto the federal deficit.  I have a feeling that this sort of spending in a bad economy might make our current recession much much worse.  To use a Peter Schiff metaphor, the government, Wall Street and the American people are like heroin addicts where debt is the heroin.  Saving instead of spending is the solution to our recession.  Instead, the government just wants to create more debt between the bailouts, economic stimulus and the health care plan which is like trying to cure a heroin addict by giving him the stuff to shoot up.We need a recession.  We need people to stop spending so much on health care and insurance that covers every health care cost so prices get a chance of going down.  You had made the point so many times of insurance being a business in which the incentive to make money is by denying people service.  I would agree that there is something wrong with the business model, but it is the fact that insurance is paying for nearly everything these days that I see is a big problem.  It means that for every dollar they invest into prescription drug co-pays or whatever, they are looking to make a profit.  To me I see this bill as just a way for the government to get in on the action… maybe it can lower prices some, but still it does not address most of the problem behind high medical prices… lack of competition… lack of capitalism ( public option is not capitalism and may not lower prices at all, though it has potential ).  I will once again point to the fact that in recent years the price of operations and medical products people pay for out-of-pocket has dropped in recent years.  If this was the over-arching trend for the medical field, we wouldn’t need reform… in fact, reform would be a horrible idea.Did you ever watch Rand Pauls video on health care?  I probably already linked it to you at some point.  ….But just in case…I also like Peter Schiff’s commentary on it despite the fact this clip was from Fox.But I really do not have time to continue this debate any more as I am taking on a lot of responsibilities with schooling and everything.  So I am sorry that I can not continue this debate.  ( maybe we have some stuff in common [ I did not read your profile until now] as my dad was recently diagnosed with MS this past year.  I anticipate I will be taking care of him at some point. )

  21. agnophilo says:

    @The_ATM –  “No.  Not really.  I was just commenting to indicate I read your reply.”Oh well, it would be nice if you agreed with me, lol.”Ihave been pretty busy with work today and will most likely stay prettybusy in the future.  I spent much of my evening tonight researching DSPprocessors for use on an unmanned helicopter.  I obviously think it isreally cool stuff.”I know nothing about that.  But as a nerd I’m sure it’s fascinating : D”I guess you did not do much to address one of my larger concerns about this sort of stuff.  How are we going to pay for it?”You really should watch obama’s congressional address.  He talks about the hundreds of billions of dollars in spending cuts that come with the bill and the budget projections of lowered spending which if they are not met this legislation requires them to cut more spending.  The bill is designed to be deficit-neutral despite all the noise being generated by the republican party, which is predictably all about fiscal responsibility the second they’re out of power.  Check out the history of deficit spending before bush doubled it:http://www.mcadcafe.com/images/commentary/us_federal_budget_deficit_20040510.jpgBush spent 20% over the federal budget for a decade with their blessings, then the second a democrat is in office it’s an outrage.  Bush didn’t even include the iraq war in the budget, the republicans just gave him a blank check.  Then the economy collapsed and bush started the bailouts, and obama did the stimulus bill to try to keep demand up during the recession and prevent job loss, and those combined equaled about a trillion dollars over the 240 billion or so deficit spending bush was doing.  So that was spread out over the ’08 and ’09 budgets making them each a trillion dollars over budget.  This is not permanent yearly spending levels, it’s all the emergency money to deal with the economy.  After this year we just have to deal with the 20% over budget spending bush left us with, and start to pay down the deficit.  So obama is trying to cut uneccessary military spending, like spending 120 million dollars a pop for planes we’ve never used in combat for the 30 years we’ve been manufacturing them, and reducing spending in healthcare to get medicare/medicaid costs under control, which should dramatically reduce if not eliminate our over-budget spending over the next few years.  It’s just hard to cut too much spending in the middle of a recession because it can lengthen the recession.“According to the congressional budget office,the total cost of the bill would be 1,042 billion dollars, but wouldalso add 239 billion dollars directly onto the federal deficit.”  That is a preliminary analysis which admits itself to be incomplete and does not factor in the financial effect on other government spending, such as dramatically reducing the number of bankrupcies per year and keeping many people from having to go on welfare or seek public assistance.”I havea feeling that this sort of spending in a bad economy might make ourcurrent recession much much worse.”  Um, a recession is caused by not enough spending.  We got out of the depression with the New Deal, the largest government spending program of it’s day, and a world war.  Public spending may run up a tab in the short term, but it energizes an economy in the long term.”To use a Peter Schiff metaphor, thegovernment, Wall Street and the American people are like heroin addictswhere debt is the heroin.  Saving instead of spending is the solutionto our recession.  Instead, the government just wants to create moredebt between the bailouts, economic stimulus and the health care planwhich is like trying to cure a heroin addict by giving him the stuff toshoot up.”Okay here’s how this works.  What happened in america when the banks collapsed is that everyone stopped trading stocks, investing, buying shit etc, all at once.  Which means demand for most products was cut in half all at once.  Which means most industries got kicked in the nuts, all at once.  Which means they were making much less money and couldn’t afford to keep all of their workers, so they laid off a little less than a million people a month.  All of those people were then not spending money, so there was even less demand and less, and less.  This is what causes a great depression, a downward spiral of less and less demand for products and fewer people spending money.  The only way to stop this is to temporarily prop up the economy by injecting money into it to pick up the slack until the economy stabilizes and people start spending again.  Otherwise unemployment reaches insane levels and you’ve got yourself a depression.  The colorful junkie metaphor not withstanding, republicans were taking the anti-spending position because they’re playing the obama opposite game, not because it’s sound economic policy.”We need a recession.  We need people to stop spendingso much on health care and insurance that covers every health care costso prices get a chance of going down.”The price of insurance is higher than what it would cost to cover every illness and all preventative medicine.  The cost is out of control because they’re making huge profits and other areas of our system are screwed, not because we’re spending too much.”You had made the pointso many times of insurance being a business in which the incentive tomake money is by denying people service.  I would agree that there issomething wrong with the business model, but it is the fact thatinsurance is paying for nearly everything these days that I see is abig problem.  It means that for every dollar they invest intoprescription drug co-pays or whatever, they are looking to make aprofit.”  I agree that insurance companies shouldn’t take a cut out of every dollar spent on health insurance, but the idea that we just increase out-of-pocket costs and people will magically have more money to maintain their health isn’t realistic either.”To me I see this bill as just a way for the government to getin on the action… maybe lower prices, but still it does not addressmost of the problem behind high medical prices… lack of competition.”  Actually it addresses that problem in a number of different ways.  How is having to compete with a public option not competition?  How is having an insurance exchange where insurance companies have to compete for single non-employer insurance not competition?  So far as opening up the state border restrictions to increase competition, that would be like making it so that anyone with a law degree can practice law in any state.  The reason we don’t do that is because the law is complicated and varies dramatically from state to state.  This is why you have to have a license to practice law in each state you practice in, and have to pass their state bar exam.  The same goes for insurance companies, you can’t run an insurance firm in 5 states because the insurance laws are different in each state and it’s kind of complicated.”I will once again point to the fact that in recent years the price ofoperations and medical products people pay out-of-pocket for hasdropped in recent years.  If this was the over-arching trend for themedical field.”Yeah I don’t think over-priced contacts were the problem.  And contacts are a product, not insurance or medical treatment.“Did you ever watch Rand Pauls video on health care?  I probably already linked it to you at some point.”I watched it before, you linked to it on another blog.  He’s no ron paul.  He says that this bill would pay for illegal aliens to have health insurance because it would cover the 47 million uninsured when 10 million of them are illegal aliens.  Even your CBO report contradicts that, citing that only like 36m of the 47m (or something like that) would get insurance.  Ie everyone but illegal aliens.”I also like Peter Schiff’s commentary on it despite the fact this clip was from Fox.”It’s bogus, he’s repeating the talking point that “too much government” is what causes our health insurance to be too expensive and more capitalism is the solution, when basically every single country that has a 100% government run health insurance program spends far less than we do per capita and in terms of the % of the GDP and covers everything.  All illnesses, routine checkups, preventative medicine, you name it.  And it costs less.Again, the republicans are playing the opposite game.”ButI really do not have time to continue this debate any more as I amtaking on a lot of responsibilities with schooling and everything.  SoI am sorry that I can not continue this debate.  ( maybe we have somestuff in common [ I did not read your profile until now] as my dad wasrecently diagnosed with MS this past year.  I anticipate I will betaking care of him at some point. )”I’m sorry to hear that : (  I don’t know a lot about it but I know some forms aren’t degenerative.  I hope he’s got the best kind of MS.

  22. The_ATM says:

    You obviously do not know republican positions.  They would have bailed out wall street all the same.  Giving money to failing industries and companies is not sound economic policy.  There are not republicans using these talking points…  If you do not know the history, the government has given money to companies like Chrysler before… the only thing that happened is that the companies spent it all while failing to compete and came back asking for more money.  Your whole kick in the nuts thing is kind of silly because of who suffers from the bailout.  The middle class is getting kicked in the nuts, not in the form of taxes so much as in the form of inflation.  The inflation from the bailouts have yet to hit the economy;  when the money they are printing starts circulating you will see prices every where from health care to groceries.  Our economy is like 70 or 80 % consumption; the average American is deeply in debt and getting deeper as housing prices fall to stabilize the market.  Obviously bailouts to create more spending, but that assumes spending is what we need.It is pretty obviously hypocritical for Republicans to oppose health care on a spending basis.  The total cost of the unnecessary war will be ~3 trillion where as health care will only be 1 trillion.  I was opposed to both.

  23. agnophilo says:

    @The_ATM –  “Youobviously do not know republican positions.  They would have bailed outwall street all the same.”  I’m not sure what this is in reference to.”Giving money to failing industries andcompanies is not sound economic policy.  There are not republicansusing these talking points…  If you do not know the history, thegovernment has given money to companies like Chrysler before… theonly thing that happened is that the companies spent it all whilefailing to compete and came back asking for more money.”  I agree it’s not generally sound policy.  With the banks this time however the system was in danger of a total collapse if companies like AIG went under.  The problem was letting them get that massive in the first place.”Your wholekick in the nuts thing is kind of silly because of who suffers from thebailout.  The middle class is getting kicked in the nuts,” I know.  That’s kind of what I said.”not in theform of taxes so much as in the form of inflation.  The inflation fromthe bailouts have yet to hit the economy;  when the money they areprinting starts circulating you will see prices every where from healthcare to groceries.”  The money is circulating, the FED is working to keeping inflation low (don’t ask me how, I honestly don’t understand it) because they don’t want their bailout money to depreciate.”Our economy is like 70 or 80 % consumption; theaverage American is deeply in debt and getting deeper as housing pricesfall to stabilize the market.  Obviously bailouts to create morespending, but that assumes spending is what we need.”It is.  Americans are spending much less and investing much less than they were.  And when they do invest it’s usually to take advantage of the rapid short-term ups and downs in the market, which lead to greater instability.”It is prettyobviously hypocritical for Republicans to oppose health care on aspending basis.  The total cost of the unnecessary war will be ~3trillion where as health care will only be 1 trillion.  I was opposedto both.”I respect that at least.  Though I support the healthcare reform.

  24. The_ATM says:

    @agnophilo – Creating money is basically the definition of inflation… since they have to create money for this sort of stuff inflation HAS to happen.

  25. agnophilo says:

    @The_ATM – And yet it’s not.As I said I don’t pretend to understand it.

  26. I suggest you watch this news special before claiming that “the young and healthy [need] to pay into it as well to make it work””:

    Everything I would like to say has been written in my essay about health care. I posted the link to it in the previous blog but judging from this post, I don’t think you read it. Otherwise I think you’d realize the flaws in this post.So here it is again: Link

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s