Yes - because inevitably, sh*t happens and people who are convinced they are invincible end up being - bankrupt.
No - it's a rights thing. The government should not force people to buy anything, especially insurance. For that matter, the government should not tell people where they can and cannot smoke.
Well, there ya have it - the pros and cons.
Here's an interesting article that got me to thinking about it all. Not sure I know what my own answer is but one this is certain - people who NEED health care coverage desperately WANT health insurance - and if they are allowed to wait and buy it only when they need it, that drives the cost through the roof.
Then there's this - the other perspective, arguing that having the uninsured become insured will lead to better care for all.
Personally, I tend to agree with the latter view. It's life. Sh*t happens. It is completely irresponsible not to carry insurance on one's health (which must mean that health insurance is a responsibility - not a "right").
CDR
Thankfully, the American people aren't quite as gullible as Obama would like for them to be.
As it becomes clearer that The Liberal One really wants the Government to take over our every day lives, Americans are growing skeptical of this approach.
The Post Reports: Splinters in Health Care Debate
Hopefully, we are turning the corner on this wretched idea.
To be sure, there are things the Government can do that will help, such as protecting physicians & hospitals against soaring litigation costs, and streamlining the medical information system to be computerized.
But forcing people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty is a fundamentally bad idea. Forcing businesses to do the same is an even more egregious no-no.
If people opt not to carry coverage when they plainly can afford to do so -- screw 'em if something happens. Those people should not even be allowed to file bankruptcy.
What about the poor people? The working and non-working folks who literally cannot afford coverage? They should be allowed to participate in Medicare on a sliding subsidized scale. How simple is that?
But to allow the Government to set up shop and become the WalMart of health insurers is fundamentally a flawed concept.
Thankfully, people are beginning to see the light - and just in the nick of time.
CD Richard
In a somewhat stunning acknowledgment of reality, Senator Baucus now states that health care legislation will not include a "vast majority" of the 46 million "Americans" uninsured.
Read the Washington Post story here
Who is he talking about? Illegals. The "Undocumented workers."
First and foremost, how did a "majority" of the 46 million "Americans" come to include ANY number of undocumented illegals?
What's the real number please? Anyone know?
Of course not - it's politically powerful to stretch the truth by including hordes of illegals in the number of "uninsured Americans."
What a bunch of baloney.
Moreover, just how do you (Congress) plan to keep those people OUT OF THE EMERGENCY ROOMS??
That is one of the biggest problems with our "system." The indigents show up there because the hospitals are obliged to provide coverage, then they are forced to pass the cost for coverage on to those who can afford to pay, i.e. those with health insurance, which predictably drives up the cost of coverage.
Hey Congress: Solve THAT problem and you're more than half way home already.
By the way, I am perfectly cool with the idea of putting people like that on a Medicare type plan. Why not? Better than nothing!
An income stepped Medicare enrollment option makes more and more sense.
It's official. Sleeping more is good for you.
University of Chicago researchers tested arteries of about 500 people over 5 years. They discovered the people who slept 8 hours or more every day had a 6% chance of a heart attack, compared to 27% for those who slept 6 hours or less -- a staggering increase.
The thinking is that stress hormones are reduced by the additional sleep.
MSNBC Link to Story
The Obama kids haven't even picked out, much less named their new puppy yet and already Democrats in Congress are spending money we don't have on healthcare reform.
This article from the WSJ Health Blog gives a pristine overview of the Democratic overreaching.
Among other things, they want to throw some more money into Medicaid, state children's health programs, and the computerization of medical records.
Meanwhile in Detroit . . . .
No, I'm actually not a fan of the great automobile bailout scheme -- just making a point that there are better things to spend our borrowed dollars on.
And just to be clear, I'm not against healthcare for children. What I am against is more federal intervention in programs that by all rights should be funded by individual states, including Medicaid, by the way.
But you think there's too much Washington in your backyard NOW? Just wait until that new puppy is 3 or 4 years old.
As premiums on traditional plans continue to skyrocket, more and more people are turning to high deductible plans to save money on premiums.
Almost 20% of employees had deductibles of 1,000 or more in 2008, compared with only 12% one year sooner.
Of course, not everyone would qualify $1,000 as a "high" deductible, but in our practice, we are seeing an increasing number of individuals opt for deductibles of $2,500 or higher.
As this article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution indicates, an increasing number of high deductible plans are being used as part of consumer driven health care plan designs, which means that a tax-advantaged account is used in conjunction with the high deductible plan. Usually, this will mean a health savings account, but in some cases, a health care reimbursement account can be used in conjunction with high deductible plans.
And the answer is:
THE GOVERNMENT!
???
No, seriously.
They've finally figured it out in Washington -- they've got all the answers.
Since the private market can't "fix" itself, Washington will get it fixed.
"unprecedented government intervention" will create a system of universal coverage
Oh boy, I can hardly wait.
