Text 35339, 85 rader
Skriven 2009-08-24 06:30:50 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
  Kommentar till text 35311 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Universal health insurance
==================================
Replying to a message of Robert Bashe to Bob Ackley:

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

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

More due to each state having its own bureaucracy that develops its own 
rules.  The same is true for regulation of utilities and banks.  Some offers
and 'contests' run by nationally distributed products' manufacturers often
have a disclaimer "not valid in xx" where xx is one or more states.  In
the case of nationally distributed credit cards the very fine print in those
contracts specifies different policies in different states (or more likely,
exceptions for residents of those states).

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

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

Yep.  The US Department of Transportation is infamous for threatening to cut
off highway funds to states that don't toe the feds' line (whether it's a
federal
law or not).  The states usually roll over and spread their collective legs
when
that happens.

 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.

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

In her case she simply cannot afford to keep paying the $300/month.  She
makes less than $3,000/month (gross) and her mortgage interest alone is
$2,100/month.

 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.

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

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

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

Most hospitals in this coumtry are run by religious (primarily Catholic)
organizations.
It only became difficult for them to provide care for the poor after the
government got
involved in health care half a century ago.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)