I read something in the Post this morning about some of President Obama’s upcoming broadcasts:
“…requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “ I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.”
I have all sorts of issues with this statement, surprise, huh?
First, “requiring” Americans to purchase something from a for-profit industry, like that of the insurance industry, is kind of like “requiring” Americans to purchase almost anything else – new cars, a home, any consumer product. How ridiculous.
Second, on that same premise, even if healthcare reform becomes a reality, the powers-that-be are promising that there will still be choice; choice in providers, choice of insurers.
Seems like “choice” is the key word here – are we a democracy or a dictatorship?
Finally, the President says he “absolutely rejects [the] notion” that this insurance purchase requirement is comparable to a tax.
Got news for him: he can “reject” all he wants, he’s wrong. Yup, the almighty Obama not only could be wrong, but in this instance he certainly is. And, of course, referring to this as a “notion” throws the ball right back and demonstrates the President’s consideration of any who disagree with him. Notion, indeed. I believe it’s pretty clear.
Regarding Afghanistan, the Post says, “He has no deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces and pledged there will not be an indefinite American occupation.”
Um, if there’s no deadline, doesn’t that, by default, mean that it’s indefinite? Let’s say, for example, that I have an article due by October 1st – that’s a deadline, and it must be finished by then. If there is no deadline, then I can submit my piece at any time – which means it’s indefinite, right?
Sheesh. I sure wish politicians would get it together. I know. Fat chance.
The problem is that, even if they don’t start out believing that they have all the answers and are infallible, they soon become that way – possibly they merely believe all the hype in the press.
Says a lot for our elected officials, doesn’t it? Seems like none of them are as bright and as concerned about our welfare as they try to show. Surprise. Again.
Robin Writes 
I absolutely disagree with you on the requirement to have health insurance. If I don’t own a car or a stereo or subscribe to cable or any other consumer product, it’s not going to impact you one bit, because you don’t have to contribute financially for me taking the bus or a taxi, or for me to go to a concert (the more expensive options).
However, if I don’t have health insurance and I get sick, you – the taxpayer – will pay for my treatment and care. I will not be left on the roadside to die – I will be taken to an emergency room and if necessary, admitted to a hospital. I will get surgery if required, and follow-up care.
There’s nothing different here than the state requiring you to have liability insurance on your car, or for the mortage company to require you to have home insurance. Except that you can choose if you have a car or a mortgage, of course – but I’m sure you have both and that you don’t find those requirements ridiculous.
LikeLike
There’s a huge difference – people DO need somewhere to live, whether they choose a box under the highway, an apartment, or a mortgage. People DO need transportation, most of them, whether they choose a bike, a car, or public transportation – or walking. Yes, people DO need healthcare, most of them, at some point – but why should they be forced to pay, for example, $10K a year in premiums and co-pays if they only have to see a doctor once or twice – which could cost them, sans insurance, a couple hundred dollars?
Besides, the impact to you or anyone else is slight and barely noticed in the cost of your premiums – those increases you see aren’t because of the uninsured, they’re due to the greed of pharmaceutical companies, medical professionals, and facilities. Among other things. Go ahead, compare a Big Pharm CEO’s salary with the average guy.
Car insurance, however, directly impacts those involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. Healthcare only directly affects the individual who can’t pay his bills.
LikeLike
And you know what else? The taxpayer will only be footing the bill IF health insurance is required and the government is picking up the tab. As it stands, the hospitals and doctors end up footing the bill if someone doesn’t/can’t pay.
Furthermore, yes, I do have two cars and a house – all paid for, by the way. And we do have health insurance, but only because now we can afford to. There were many, many years when we couldn’t afford the premiums. Are you seriously going to tell someone that his whopping $2K a month paycheck now MUST cover another $500 in premiums?? He’s already barely making it, barely feeding his family, but the US Government should now tell him – what? Too bad, so sad? Because I’ve been there, and there was no choice – eat and pay rent, healthcare wasn’t even a consideration.
LikeLike
You can choose whether to rent or own, you can choose to have a car or not. You can not choose to stay healthy or get sick – except if we are talking about typical life-style illnesses. And if you can’t afford health insurance, you shouldn’t be smoking, anyway.
Where do you get the $500/month from? According to the numbers estimated in HR3200 is less than $37 for a family of four making 24,000 a year.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/04/House-Bill-Premiums.aspx
LikeLike
True – you cannot choose if you stay well or become ill, but you should be able to choose when/if/how much you pay for anything. I had not heard the cost of $37, but I also know that government programs tend to cost 3-4 times as much as expected. Now, $37 a month is surely a good deal – but covers what? And really, even with the CHIP programs for kids, where parents had to pay X amount, many could not, literally, afford even that.
And you have to consider the stupidity factor – a couple sneezes will still warrant a doctor visit vs. an ER visit for some people, ditto for any minor illness. There are a lot of people who think hey, almost-free health care, let’s take advantage! Woohoo! The same ones who now hit the ER for every little thing will still be doing that, taking away from those who actually need the services.
LikeLike
My question is – why should a 21 year old girl with cancer have to depend on charity and churches to get treatment? This is a current situation here in our county.
Why should anyone end up bankrupt because they have to have emergency surgery? The problem with health services is that you never know if it’s going to cost $150 or $150,000… When my husband’s appendix ruptured in 2002, we would not have been able to pay the bill for that surgery. I would not have been able to convince him to go to the doctor if he knew we didn’t have health insurance. He would have died, he almost did as it was.
And this article from the LA Times quotes some figures for how much the uninsured cost the insured in form of higher premiums: $1,017 for family coverage and $368 for an individual.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/05/how-much-do-the-uninsured-cost-the-insured.html
LikeLike
Nope, you’re right about that – she shouldn’t have to depend on others, but in one or another, she is. As for the blog in the Times, basically it says that my family, for example, is paying an extra $1000 to the insurance company each year – that cannot be true. Why? Because an uninsured individual has ZERO connection to my, or any other, insurance company. Now, the hospital may be charging me “extra” to cover those costs which, ultimately, is billed to the insurance company. But I’m still not buying it – because I’ve been on both sides and here’s what happened: insurance is charged $150 for an office visit, an uninsured person is charged $100.
When my husband had heart surgery, the cost was $25K and we had no insurance. Been paying for that since – NOT skipping out on the bill. On the other hand, should I have let him die? Of course not. A person does what they have to do. At the same time, there were plenty of years when we HAD insurance and it cost us $5K for a year – we had maybe 4 doctor visits, so it completely was NOT worth it.
Good health or poor, often it’s just the luck of the draw. And you simply can’t expect our government to subsidize every thing, esp. when health is directly related to self-care – sometimes.
LikeLike
The cost will be limited to a percentage of the income. The percentage increases as your income is higher in relation to the poverty line. If you make 29,000/year, the percentage is max. 1.5.
With the waiting times at most ERs, I would be very surprised if a lot of people went there for nothing.
LikeLike
You should visit an ER more often – NOT! lol
I’ve seen people come in for: minor headache (they’re talking and laughing and carrying on), hangnails – sad but true, a bruise, a scrape, a tiny cut, etc. MOST ERs see people based on severity, sometimes they don’t. Regardless, eventually all must be seen, and this is a huge problem itself.
LikeLike