Text 35311, 61 rader
Skriven 2009-08-23 16:21:20 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 35301 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
Ärende: Universal health insurance
==================================
Bob Ackley wrote to Robert Bashe on Saturday August 22 2009 at 06:47:

RW>>> We could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by
RW>>> ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales
RW>>> across state lines.

RB>> I agree that's a very stupid law, and wonder what the reason was for
RB>> passing it.

BA> In the US different states have different rules for insurance.

And apparently people in various states vary in their health, since otherwise
there would be no need for different health insurance rules. It would be
interesting to investigate that.

BA> What happens here is that the feds pass a law that pre-empts the local
BA> state law(s) - whether it has any Constitutional authority to do so or
BA> not..

And which immediately initiates state resistence, whether that is in the
interest of the population or not. Power politics pure.

RB>> However, even if it were gone tomorrow, you'd still have a large
RB>> section of the population without health insurance because a) it
RB>> isn't compulsory and healthy people take the chance they will be
RB>> healthy tomorrow (and sometimes lose - What do you do then?

BA> My sister can no longer afford to keep her health insurance, which is
BA> something over $300/month for very bare bones coverage for one
BA> reasonably healthy female adult.  She will spend less (considerably
BA> less) than the cost of that insurance by simply paying cash to the
BA> doctor.

And if she becomes more ill, or falls down the stairs, or has a heart attack?
Then God help her, since the government and the people of the USA certainly
won't. The problem with such calculations (pay cash for doctor's visits instead
of health insurance) is that they always assume continued good health - or at
least no calamity. Unfortunately, life is not always so kind as to oblige.

RB>> Let them die? Or treat them at public expense, like now?) and b)
RB>> there are people who can't afford health insurance becase of low
RB>> income or previous health impairment.

BA> Charity care.

Soso... leave it to those stupid (sorry: generouus) enough to pay for health
care to others from their TAXED income? This reliance on charity seems to
contradict the claims of "self reliance" I see from defenders of the status
quo.

BA> Hospitals were doing that since long before the government got
BA> involved in health care.

Meaning that hospitals have more social conscience than the government or the
American people. Not a particularly positive situation for a country that terms
itself the "richest" of the world.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)