Re: OT: Interesting article on the healthcare bill

[G. Morgan <usenet_abuse@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> So that's what it boils down to gentlemen.  The likes of Jim don't
>> want any of their tax money helping poor people with health care.
>
>Please don't make this personal.

It was not meant to be personal, I was merely pointing out the crux of the issue
and used Jim's statement that pretty much sums up the divide.  From every post
by Jim over the years I conclude he is a staunch Republican party member, very
conservative, and believes that our Country must remain 100% capitalistic with
no exceptions.  There are many like him that feel the same way, which is why we
have this division.  True Capitalists believe that everything must be monitized,
and turn a profit.  They generally don't like -any- social programs, and see
them as a waste of "their" hard-earned money.

What I don't understand is why he thinks the richest nation in the world should
not provide healthcare as an entitlement.  I think it should be.  Of course it
is not in the United States Constitution, even as an amendment in the Bill of
Rights.  There has been no reason to include it as a basic entitlement until
now.  The whole system got fucked up when HMO's and "managed care" became the
norm (early 80's ??).  What alternative do people on his side of fence recommend
as an alternative?  Should those that can not afford healthcare insurance (which
is WAY overpriced) just be forced to live (or die) due to their ailment?  It
seems to me even conservatives should be able to see the benefit of keeping the
whole population with affordable access to a doctor so they CAN get back to work
and start producing.

What the opposing people like Jim (no insult, just an example) never mention is
that we already have socialized medicine.  Emergency Rooms by law can not turn a
patient away until they are "stabilized".  So, they may send an invoice to those
patients, many never get paid.  That is why the hospital has to bill your
insurance company $50 for 2 Tylenol pills, in order to stay afloat.   The
insurance company just passes that cost to it's subscribers, so *they* can stay
afloat.  So in reality wouldn't the people against HC reform at least
acknowledge this fact of why premiums are so high?

Not everyone was born with the intelligence Jim, You, I, and 99% of the our
little ASA group here.  If the average IQ is 100, that would mean most people
with that intelligence level pre-set at birth would likely correlate to a lower
paying job, with the employer not offering to pay a portion of the premium.
Remember, most people are dumb.  I get so damn frustrated with it all the time
when they make stupid mistakes that cost me money and time.  But the dumb ones
are the majority.  We are the exception.  What does Jim propose we do with these
folks when they need a broken leg set and can't afford it?  What about
catastrophic illness, should we just let Darwin's Law to take affect, and let
the dumb ones die to cull the population?  THAT sounds a lot like Germany, circa
1938.

Maybe you can share your story with the group you told me on the phone regarding
hospice limits on your policy?  I'll bet many in this NG have the same provider
as you, and don't even realize how little insurance will pay for catastrophic
illness and all the little bills that come along with it (your bed).

Jim has been ignoring me for at least a year, but uses Google Groups so I know
he see's my posts.  Would you kindly ask him to address this message?  I don't
know why he ignores me, or what I did...  but I sure would like a response to
this one.