Thursday, July 2, 2009

Health care.......Should you HAVE to buy it?

I don't know what to think about THIS....what do YOU THINK? FINING people for not buying affordable health care? It's a Massachusetts template....did Romney instigate/implement it? I mean, if people can AFFORD the health care and would rather go on the dole, maybe it's a good thing. If people are being forced to do anything, is that a good thing?
I'm on the me down. Which side?


beamish said...

Ve vill adminster your health care even if ve have to incarcerate you first. It is in your best interests, ja?

Z said...

Okay, devil's advocate here, but now that I think of it, maybe I'm going in bass akward....
A family has the little bit of money extra to buy insurance.
They don't want to. They get sick.

WHY? Because, nationalized health care or not, we ARE going to pay for them, right?

It's how we'll totally lose our private insurance though THE ONE denies that so bald facedly....As IF anybody's going to continue to pay $900 with an $8K ded. while their neighbor's getting it free. The more and more people opt out of private, who's going to keep that private company OPEN and HOW, right? Obama's just out and out LYING. (again)

So, to me. SHould they be forced to if they can? And, man, you know I hate typing "should they be FORCED TO" at least as much as the next person.

beamish said...

The beauty of our glorious national socialist system is that ve vill decide how much health care coverage you vill recieve based on a number of factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, and party loyalty.

If you disagree, ve have vays of curing that.

Z said...

Beamish..focus! heh!

I don't WANT to pay for my neighbor who WON'T pay but could. do you?

beamish said...

I don't WANT to pay for my neighbor who WON'T pay but could. do you?

Your disloyalty to the party has been documented, as has the capitalistic inclinations of both you and your neighbor.

The beauty of our national socialist system is that ve vill expand health care coverage to those who want it while expanding gravedigger employment with those who refuse it.

Ve vill administer your health care vether you like it or not.

You belong to the state, ja?

Z said...

Okay, I get it..I GET IT! :-)

or rather...:-(

Z said...

and stop doing that bad imitation of Mr. Z's accent, would ya? (smile)

Anonymous said...

LOL @ you two!

I blogged about it too, cause I was rather upset about being forced to pay for it or fined. Just my two cents!!

Z said...

I just saw this in an article about what the WH people are making....(sorry to go so off topic here, I couldn't resist)

"....while Obama earns $400,000 a year, far less than the $2.6 million he earned in 2008 as a presidential candidate and author."

WHAT A GUY, huh? Don't you LOVE that? "far less than the.."
Ya, he doesn't still HAVE the $2.6 million? like he gave it UP for US?

DAMN the media. I'm sorry, but just..dayum.

Anonymous said...

I guess my biggest question is how do they decide who can afford it? In NJ, we looked into insurance, because Johnny's got stopped and we didn't qualify because we made more than 44,000 gross. We are not a whole lot above that so we end up being totally screwed. So does that mean although we can't afford it, we'd have to buy it because the govt said so? Grrrrr!!!

Z said...

I just commented at your place on this same information, by the way.

Yes, who's to say? We going to draw that magic line like THE ONE did with "$250K" ? That number he's completely forgotten and is going against his campaign promise about?

UGH. I don't know, Jennifer...this is going to be SOME bumpy ride.

Anonymous said...

I think we were both on each others at the same time......LOL

If he brings out numbers like $250,000, hey that's fine with me. But in my opinion that is so not middle class and that is who is going to suffer if the numbers don't match up right.

beamish said...

Okay, no more German accent...

We have determined that the Rh factor of your blood is incompatible with the most easily acquired donor stockpiles. Please report to a government administered health facility to verify if your internal organs are needed for transplant into more economically viable patients.

Z said...

But, what I meant was, remember he said he'd only raise taxes on people who make more than that? RUBBISH...he's raising ALL our costs to LIVE with all his ridiculous added costs, right?

So, if he picks, say, $55K as the number over which you have to buy your own healthcare, will he stand by it? And who's making $52K who's going to want a RAISE if it bumps them into the YOU BETTER BUY YOUR OWN number?

As Dick Morris recently said "We used to have a WAR ON POVERTY now we have a WAR ON PROSPERITY" really

Z said...

beamish...i had to joke with you....i was reading your accent and listening to Mr Z talk to me at the same time!

beamish said...


Germans are efficient. They can put a paragraph into one word.


Z said...

they sure can, beamish!
and you can read a whole paragraph thinking they're positive and find "NICHT" at the end, which negates all that you read.

JINGOIST said...

Z wrote:
"A family has the little bit of money extra to buy insurance.
They don't want to. They get sick.

That's the way it is, but that's NOT the way it should be! Able bodied people do not have the right to live off of their fellow man. I don't like the idea of forcing anyone to buy health care, and I abhor the idea that otherwise capable people can use the government as an instrument of plunder against their fellow man.

This is what private charity is all about.

**Z, we'll be marching in the Tea Party in DC tomorrow. I'll tell you all about it here and at Founding Principles.

Z said...

Jingo....I was at your site tonight and saw you're going DC, you definitely must write about it..I'd love for you to AND your site..thanks.

Anonymous said...

My view is that if there is going to be a government health care system, it should belong to the state, rather than the federal government. “Power to the people” is why we founded this country to begin with. People have greater access to democratic ideals within their states, so let the people of MA decide; and let the people of MA pay for it.

Now let us wonder where in the constitution it read, “And the people shall have access to universal health care.” Where did we come up with this notion that we are living Lake Woebegone where everything is free, where government knows best, and where no one ever dies?

Do you remember my math quiz? So then, if this isn’t about providing all Americans with health care, what is it all about? Try this: it is about government control over every aspect of your life. And if the government will make all the important decisions on your behalf, why should you ever again behave in a responsible manner, for yourself or your family? Ah, but what happens to poor old Ed who decided not to participate in a health insurance program? Well, Ed should have wondered about that at the time he declined state coverage … and now, Ed’s going to die. Too bad, too … he was a nice guy; not real smart, but nice. Death comes to us all.

Always On Watch said...

From the link:

Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines...

How is affordability determined? That's the big question for me.

Gross income isn't an accurate measure -- for one thing because of real-estate taxes. My real-estate bill, another hike in what I have to shell out, arrived yesterday. Now, if I had that $5000 to apply to my health-insurance premiums...

Honestly, I don't see how an expanded health-insurance requirement can work without universal coverage, forced or not. That is one of the basics of insurance: low risk and high risk in one pool of insureds.

[cringes and runs for cover]

BTW, a $1000 fine barely covers one month's premium for Mr. AOW and me. Of course, it would still leave us open to medical bankruptcy, which is the primary reason that most want health insurance anyway.

Now, if the prospect of medical bankruptcy were eliminated, very likely few of us would even opt for health-insurance coverage.

Z said...

I have to really study this's perplexing and confusing, in my opinion.

It brings something to mind; Mustang's "ED" reminds me of a problem we have at the condos.

One woman had her pipe to the washing machine break within her place. She does have insurance. She's in the corner. The woman on one side of her place also got tons of water into her condo...she has insurance and their places are being fixed; as far as I know, the original problem's condo insurance is paying...

Another woman to the other side of this corner condo has no insurnace. She and her husband had some mighty bad bills and they've had recent financial reversals and home insurance seemed to be what they'd let slide for a while.
Sure enough, their condo has moisture under their wood floor and up the walls, some of which are behind mirror.

She called in a panic (she's foreign) not understanding that the original problem's condo would pay for her, too, of course. She kept saying to me "But why should WE be punished for not having insurance? We just couldn't afford it..the condo building insurance should pick up ours, no?"

I'm thinking "But, that's the whole deal..." "No, I said...why would they? Nobody in our building hurt you but that one condo WITH insurance...we don't want to pay the $5000 deductible.."


geeZ She really believed SOMEBODY else ought to pay if SHE couldn't afford insurance!! Where do you go from there?
Thankfully, the upshot is that, of course, the original problem's ins. is paying, but........this showed me a lot.

"I don't HAVE insurance, why should I be penalized?"


LASunsett said...

Mustang makes some excellent points. With his thoughts in mind, allow me to add some things that have yet to be considered in this discussion.

I won't deny that there have been some problems with the present healthcare system. The healthcare industry has not done a good job of policing itself.

Physicians used to write orders for a complete battery of tests every time someone had a minor complaint, most of which were unnecessary. Naturally, those who had decent healthcare coverage were covered, those who didn't were stuck with huge out of pocket expenses.

When insurance companies finally woke up and stopped paying for unnecessary tests, doctors got a little smarter and found ways around the constraints placed on them. It became a vicious circle, a test of wills, to see who could out manipulate the other.

Even in this day and age, there are abuses.

Speaking with a Radiology Technologist the other day, she told me of doctors who still write for unnecessary tests. The RTs see the order, they call the doc to inquire as to what the he/she is looking for and when they tell him/her that the test he/she ordered will not show it, he/she will still insist on the test being performed.

Of course, this is not always the case. Many have improved and are using a common sense approach to diagnostics, now.

Patient presents with a complaint, the docs will order some basic tests to see if anything is out of whack. If so, then they will delve deeper with other tests. It's like a flow chart that many other professions use. If nothing is wrong, then stop. If something is wrong, then on to the next step.

But I said all of that to say this, even with the problems we now have, we cannot even begin to see how much healthcare will actually cost when government begins to insert their bureaucracy, corruption, and overall incompetence into the equation. It always costs government more to do less, because the bureaucracy is saturated with red tape.

I am thoroughly convinced that the government could not effectively run a hot dog stand without charging $25 a hot dog. By the time every wheeler-dealer gets their kick back and bribe, by the time the products are bought in a closed (wink,wink) bidding system and sold paying the hot dog maker a union wage, the cost to do business is astronomical.

If you can see and understand this concept and this example, imagine what this kind of business model will do to the medical profession.

I could go on and on for hours. This is but one small consideration in why this Obamacare crap will fail the people miserably.

Anonymous said...

People should not be forced into buying something they don't want and people should not be forced into paying for someone else when they don't want to. Any society that does either is not a free one.

Not to say you cannot be allowed to fund healthcare for someone else, that's entirely your business.

Z said...

LA SUNSETT.....have you thought of any solution? any plan that could work? Did you like McCain's "Give everybody $5K" solution?

Have you considered how we can get solve the insurance mess?

Germany's two-tier system has worked very well. But, of course, a relative there pays $1000 a month WITH NO DEDUCTIBLE....and that's a kind of high level plan. It works beatifully.

Canada's one-tier system, as well as England's, are failing miserably...and THAT is Obama's idea.

Sadly, the lie that "you can keep your insurance if you like it" is just that...a lie. How will the Blue Shield/Blue Cross companies stay OPEN for all of us when the neighbors are leaving in DROVES for the Government FREEBIES? They'll close, we're done.

It's such a blatant lie that it's more upsetting than his others somehow.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me, if you don't have insurance, the doctor sends you the bill. Wow there's a novel approach!

We don't have dental insurance, we get the bill. The dirty little secret is, the bill is lower than if we had insurance.
If it's a sizeable amount, our dentist will accept monthly payments.

When we had our first baby who was premature, she had to stay in the hospital for two more weeks.

Insurance then was at it's infancy, and paid $50.00. This was 1958. Even though we had saved some money, we had to borrow the money to pay for the unexpected cost, and paid back the loan in monthly payments.

But folks, we got great care. No bureaucrats of the government or insurance types.

So, my point is, if you don't want insurance, you are responsible for the bill.

If you can't afford it, there are programs like medicaid or in California, medi-Cal.

No one should be forced to buy insurance, or be fined. I think insurance has driven up costs because of abuse of the system, and overhead of the system itself.

If medical insurance disappeared tomorrow, medical costs would have to drop to remain competetive. The market would determine cost, and you and your doctor would be free to determine the care you need.

If you buy a &40,000 car you buy it on time plus the required insurance.

Now, if someone had to pay for his healthcare out of pocket, would he choose a $40,000 car, or prioritize his obligations? He would if he knew no one else would pay his doctor bills.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's too late, and people want to be taken care of, without the worry of the cost.

It won't be too long before they realize cost-effectiveness translates to regulation of their lifestyles, (loss of freedom) and ultimately rationing and lower quality of care. It's inevitable.


Z said...

yA, Pris..novel idea, huh?
If you don't have insurance, YOU pay.

Imagine my friend who says "But we don't HAVE insurance, we shouldn't be penalized!?" WHAT?

Anonymous said...

Z, the thing is, if you say why should you pay, it's not a big stretch to say, why should you pay if someone's fat or smokes? Then, one step further, why should you pay if someone's 85 and needs a costly life saving procedure?

The government will box us all in to a regimen we are mandated to follow or be cast aside. The possibilities are endless, all in the name of "fairness".

Anonymous said...

Z, well, your friend is wrong. he/she should feel obligated to pay. I sure would.

It seems to me it would be easy to say, you don't have insurance? You pay the bill.

The nanny state is alive and well isn't it? Too sad.


LASunsett said...


To answer your question:

I think that if the goal is to cover the uninsured, the best possible solution would be to use the insurance companies. The government could negotiate deals with a handful of carriers and vouchers could be issued to the uninsured.

It will be expensive, but it doesn't allow the government to wreck the entire industry.


I have given some thought to your comments about the cost factor and how it applies to insurance. I see some of what you are saying as valid, to a degree.

One thing we must realize in this is how we get the costs that we get.

In the cases of medication and medical equipment costs, research scientists and bio-engineers do not work for free. The companies that develop the things we need to heal and keep people healthy shell out an enormous amount of cash for R&D.

They must be able to recuperate their costs or there will be no incentive to remain innovative and pursue new cures and treatments. If government gets involved, kiss this aspect of healthcare goodbye. As is the case in any industry, take away incentive and you get garbage for results.

The same can be said for doctors. How much money does it take to get though medical school. How many people would put that kind of cash out if theu could only make peanuts afterward? There must be a possibility of getting a return for a medical school investment.

Z said...

LA Sunsett...We do need to remember that America and Germany are THE cutting edges on the best new medicines and protocols and, without that, where is the world? (gee, another place America screwed up by being 'arrogrant' (S!)and why Europe doesn't like us, huh? saving lives for those who hate us..go figure! How arrogant)

Those discoveries and the work that goes into them cost a HECK of a lot and it's why meds cost so much. You'll notice the old standard narcotics are MUCh cheaper than cutting edge cholesterol drugs, for instance. The newer stuff on the market has to have costs built in to cover all the R&D costs, you're right.

We have to protect those costs...those aren't taking advantage of us, they're HELPING US. It's why AMERICA DOES GOOD WORK.

As for the insurance plan, I like yours...We just have to wonder why the Republicans aren't working harder at coming up with something; or they are and this 'under the radar secretive' new admimnistration isn't telling us.

Do you know, OFF SUBJECT, a friend sent me a picture TODAY of Mrs. Obama's expensive trip to England for her little girl's birthday? TODAY. It happened, what...3 weeks ago? We've written a little abuot it, I'm going to write more next week, but if this isn't the incredible power the WH holds over our media, I don't know WHAT IS. NO WONDER the WH hired 3 big producers from CNN and a network. Cars, secret service...holding people up at the Tower of London for hours because they had to stand aside for Mrs. O's's quite a story.
SILENCE IN AMERICA...except a brief clip about how they had such FUN!

We have to get informatino out to America..sadly, the blogosphere seems to be the ONLY way.

beamish said...

I remember in the early 1980s my great-grandmother was getting her health care paid for through Medicare and on her itemized bill were several procedures that were not performed by her doctors. When the doctors were confronted, our family was told "the government is paying this bill, why worry about it?"

Well, for one... the government is paying for something that wasn't done with my tax dollars.

For two, to cover up the crime should the government ever crack down on fraud, my great-grandmother's medical records will show a procedure was done which was not done, which isn't fair to her or her next doctor looking over her medical records...

Multiply my great-grandmother by around 150 million, and you begin to see just how big of a problem with medical insurance fraud could come when the government begins "providing health care" on a grand scale.