sb10
02-20-2008, 01:00 PM
Maybe I've missed it, but I've looked at various Ron Paul writings on the subject of health care and I have yet to find anything that addresses how to deal with the costs of those who are catastrophically ill. RP has introduced legislation reducing the tax burdens for those ill AND their caregivers, but what about the costs?!?!?
Steve Lopez, a (IMO, excellent columnist at the L.A. Times) has written a column that implies that Universal Healthcare is the answer (he quotes people in the article saying as such). I do not have the background to craft a good reply. Can somebody PLEASE HELP?!? Steve can be reached at steve.lopez@latimes.com.
Fighting to live, remain insured (http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-lopez20feb20,1,6081228.column)
Here are some notes I've drafted for a reply, but they are TOO LAME:
Hi Steve,
This same Federal Government who decided a long time ago that it knew what was best for us by forcing Health Maintenance Organizations on us is the same Federal Government that thinks the way out of any financial problem is printing money and dishing out easy credit. Back in the days when I was in school, I learned that the consequence of that is inflation. Health care costs are one consequence of that.
Health maintenance organizations came into being because of government legislation, not because health care consumers flocked to them. Our labyrinthine tax system allows employers - but not individuals - to deduct the cost of their insurance premiums. The unintended consequence is that when employment and health insurance are separated, people are left without catastrophic coverage. Government is already involved in over 66% of all US health care spending through Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs. So how is *more* government going to make it all better?
What are our options? Do we keep printing money and dishing out easy credit, continuing to inflate everything the government meddles in, like housing, health care, and education? Do we point guns to the heads of health care providers and force them to provide care for free? Do we continue taxing ourselves more and more until we can no longer function on whatever remaining income we have, and take to living out in the streets?
I don't believe that Universal Health Care is The Answer - Hillary wants to take an even bigger chunk out of our paychecks to fund her version of it. She wants to point a legislative gun at me and tell me she is taking more of my earnings whether I like it or not.
Maybe if government left me alone and allowed me to keep more of my earnings, I and others could donate to charities set up to administer to terminally ill people like this poor lady (Christine Lilly) in your story.
By the way, as for the replacing of "secure pensions with risky 401(k)s", pensions are not necessarily secure. They can be financial deathtraps as much as 401ks. I'm sure you've heard the words "subprime crisis" to death. Do you think company pensions are filled with safe, 100% backed by full-faith-and-credit-Treasuries?
Not likely.
A "secure" pension promotes a false sense of security. If the economy continues going the way it is, more than a few companies won't be able to meet their pension obligations. Yes, I know there is "government insurance" for that, but the Pension Benefit Guaranty is deep in the hole. It is to pensions what bond insurers are to subprime mortgage paper and municipal bond paper (have you been reading the news lately?) Should we just keep printing more money and taxing ourselves more to fund that too?
Steve Lopez, a (IMO, excellent columnist at the L.A. Times) has written a column that implies that Universal Healthcare is the answer (he quotes people in the article saying as such). I do not have the background to craft a good reply. Can somebody PLEASE HELP?!? Steve can be reached at steve.lopez@latimes.com.
Fighting to live, remain insured (http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-lopez20feb20,1,6081228.column)
Here are some notes I've drafted for a reply, but they are TOO LAME:
Hi Steve,
This same Federal Government who decided a long time ago that it knew what was best for us by forcing Health Maintenance Organizations on us is the same Federal Government that thinks the way out of any financial problem is printing money and dishing out easy credit. Back in the days when I was in school, I learned that the consequence of that is inflation. Health care costs are one consequence of that.
Health maintenance organizations came into being because of government legislation, not because health care consumers flocked to them. Our labyrinthine tax system allows employers - but not individuals - to deduct the cost of their insurance premiums. The unintended consequence is that when employment and health insurance are separated, people are left without catastrophic coverage. Government is already involved in over 66% of all US health care spending through Medicaid, Medicare, and other programs. So how is *more* government going to make it all better?
What are our options? Do we keep printing money and dishing out easy credit, continuing to inflate everything the government meddles in, like housing, health care, and education? Do we point guns to the heads of health care providers and force them to provide care for free? Do we continue taxing ourselves more and more until we can no longer function on whatever remaining income we have, and take to living out in the streets?
I don't believe that Universal Health Care is The Answer - Hillary wants to take an even bigger chunk out of our paychecks to fund her version of it. She wants to point a legislative gun at me and tell me she is taking more of my earnings whether I like it or not.
Maybe if government left me alone and allowed me to keep more of my earnings, I and others could donate to charities set up to administer to terminally ill people like this poor lady (Christine Lilly) in your story.
By the way, as for the replacing of "secure pensions with risky 401(k)s", pensions are not necessarily secure. They can be financial deathtraps as much as 401ks. I'm sure you've heard the words "subprime crisis" to death. Do you think company pensions are filled with safe, 100% backed by full-faith-and-credit-Treasuries?
Not likely.
A "secure" pension promotes a false sense of security. If the economy continues going the way it is, more than a few companies won't be able to meet their pension obligations. Yes, I know there is "government insurance" for that, but the Pension Benefit Guaranty is deep in the hole. It is to pensions what bond insurers are to subprime mortgage paper and municipal bond paper (have you been reading the news lately?) Should we just keep printing more money and taxing ourselves more to fund that too?