Hello Oscar,
Your numbers, not to mention your analysis, were bunk the first time you brought them up, and they are just as much bunk now.
“Bunk” is in the eye of the beholder.
Massage the numbers all you want, claim that this group or the other “choose” to forgo it, claim that they are all cretins and illegal immigrants. It makes no difference.
I didn’t claim they were ALL illegal immigrants, only a certain percentage.
I didn’t claim that any of them were cretins. I am well aware that only a small percentage of those without health insurance are likely to suffer from the condition known as congenital cretinism.
Unless you were using the term “cretin” a social slur, which I find incredibly insensitive.
It’s quixotic tilting at windmills.
:banghead:
Further I’m not sure you’ll bring anyone to tears over your woes with your local highway system, not to mention that I seriously doubt you know who it was that was carrying out the repairs.
Well, thanks for being sensitive to MY plight!
You’re right that I don’t know those road workers. If you know them, would you please ask them to be a bit more considerate of my needs, please?
Don’t they realize that 40 millions americans in this country are inconvenienced by road workers every day?
You can check my numbers with the National Council on Inconsiderate Road Workers, which is also a bipartisan council.
Now, on to your question…
- Do you believe that a healthy population is a basic necessity for the continued success of this country, as much as well regulated financial market and a good infrastructure is?
Yes, absolutely.
Simply saying that something is a concern to our success as a country is hardly a reason to turn it over to the government. In fact, many would agree with me that something of that nature should be protected from government interference, not turned into a government monopoly.
- Do you believe that having 47 million (2007) or approximately 50 million people, (2008), thereof 10 million children without access to health care is a burden on this society? If not, why not?
I don’t agree with your numbers, as I indicated earlier. Therefore, your question is, to use your own word, “bunk.”
But, I do agree with your basic premise- that society is burdened by those lacking healthcare.
You appear to have forgotten that our fundamental disagreement is about the SOLUTION to the problem, not that a problem exists.
You also appear to be drifting back toward the position that anyone who disagrees with you must just not care if people die due to lack of adequate healthcare.
- Do you believe that charity has been effective in closing the gaps in private and public health care programs?
Your question is so general that it doesn’t make sense.
Which gaps? Gaps in people, gaps in care, gaps in services?
There is a huge chasm between private and public healthcare programs- this is by design.
Politicians like it that way because it makes them feel useful, and it gives them something to complain and make promises about when they’re up for re-election.
- Do you see something odd about a “market” participant having a financial incentive to deny people the “product” they have already paid for? Insurance companies do this on a regular basis, as it increases their profits by investing money during the appeals process. Do you find it just a little disquieting that insurance agencies do this by providing incentives to their own employees to find reasons to deny care, and employ people who do nothing else than look for such reasons?
What I find most odd about it is that the government does EXACTLY THE SAME THING. It is almost as if they are collaborating- now there’s an interesting idea.
Do you work in the healthcare field? Have you ever billed Medicaid or Medicare? Want to know why so many physicians dislike working with people under those policies? Because the government routinely denies claims, refuses to pay market rates, and holds payments up for months before finally agreeing to pay only a percentage of their posted fee schedule.
The problems you see in the private market are just as prevalent in the government.
The difference between the two is that, in the free market, a company that develops a reputation for abusing its customers in this way will ultimately lose those customers and have difficulty gaining new ones. In fact, my wife’s company recently dropped their previous healthcare insurance provider and switched to one that had better rates and a lower incidence of denying claims. Oddly enough, the company they dropped came back with a better offer shortly afterward. Now, the two companies are competing for our business next year-
But under government care, the government isn’t competing with anyone- it can do whatever it wants to whomever it chooses- it can pay, or not pay, as it sees fit. There would be nothing that the little guy could do about it because there would be no other insurance provider waiting to get a leg up on their competitors. The most we could hope for would be to change it through the political system- and we can probably both agree that would be a long road to a dead end.
Is that what you want? A single provider that can abuse the sick and the poor at its whim with no recourse and no other choice but to accept it?
That’s hardly what I would call justice.
I know, I know. Save yourself the trouble of responding-I’ll type it out for you…
“yeah, but what about justice for all those who are uninsured!!!”
Your idea of justice, as evidenced by supporting a socialist program, is to make everyone equally miserable.
That’s why you’re so unwilling to even consider a way to help those in need that doesn’t involve hurting everyone else.
And could I ask you to please remove that word “socialist” from your characterizations of national health care programs? It is nothing but an easy smear, and it is inaccurate. They are no more “socialist” than the Federal Aviation Administration or your local fire department.
No. I’m just going to go ahead and call it what it is. It is rather disturbing that you have a problem with a label like “socialism” but have no problem whatsoever actually advocating socialism.
