Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
... Even those "millions" have access to health care. What they don't have is health care insurance and many of them CHOOSE not to. There's a difference between access to health care and (practical) access to health care insurance, particularly for poor or middle income people. Fact is, the majority of poor people work at low wage jobs. They are on the battle lines of American commerce, actually delivering the services or building the widgets at $10 an hour, or often less. These jobs rarely include health insurance any more. When you're paying $1000-1200 a month for a worker's wages, adding 30, 40, 50 percent to that total to fund health insurance doesn't make economic sense. Gould, we already know most of the prerecorded responses which will be forthcoming from Dave, NOYB, etc. For instance, "Well...then 'they' can better themselves and get higher paying jobs if they don't like the ones they already have. I picked myself up by my bootstraps!" Great idea. What if all of "them" get better jobs? Do you suppose NOYB would mind checking into a hotel with his own toilet cleaning tools? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Were trailers full of hot air?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Even those "millions" have access to health care. What they don't have is health care insurance and many of them CHOOSE not to. There's a difference between access to health care and (practical) access to health care insurance, particularly for poor or middle income people. Fact is, the majority of poor people work at low wage jobs. They are on the battle lines of American commerce, actually delivering the services or building the widgets at $10 an hour, or often less. These jobs rarely include health insurance any more. When you're paying $1000-1200 a month for a worker's wages, adding 30, 40, 50 percent to that total to fund health insurance doesn't make economic sense. Gould, we already know most of the prerecorded responses which will be forthcoming from Dave, NOYB, etc. For instance, "Well...then 'they' can better themselves and get higher paying jobs if they don't like the ones they already have. I picked myself up by my bootstraps!" Actually, I blame the insurance companies for making the insurance unaffordable. Of course, thanks to the McCarron-Ferguson Act, they operate under different rules than the rest of us...making them exempt from many anti-trust laws. The Bush Administration is tackling this issue from the right direction. First, he's squeezing the trial lawyer's profits by pushing punitive damage caps. Secondly, he's squeezing the insurance companies by pushing Association Health Plans (AHP's), that allow organized "groups" to purchase competitive group plans ACROSS STATE LINES. (No longer will the insurance companies be able to "cherry pick" the most lucrative states to operate in). Finally, he's lowering the cost of administering the health care. How? By insuring more people are insured, hospitals and doctors won't be writing off the non-insured patient expenses against the patients that actually pay their bill. I'd love to see Congress repeal the McCarron-Ferguson Act. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|