Re: Graduated National Health Plan Needed

Gretchen Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 15 Oct 2003 03:21:15 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan
> Smith) wrote:
> 
> >"Karl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> "Jonathan Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > Cheerful Pickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> > > Jonathan,
> >> > >
> >> > > While it is true that long-term chronic malnutrition can cause such
>  effects,
> >> > > I am not sure how many actually suffer from long-term chronic
>  malnutrition.
> >> >
> >> > You were sure in your previous post - you said no one.
> >> >
> >> > > I have known of people who have been malnourished for a month or two
> >> > > (including myself for a couple of weeks), but with the availability of
>  food
> >> > > stamps and accessibility of food banks, there should be few who suffer
>  from
> >> > > that for extended periods of time.
> >> >
> >> > OK - so what is your problem with free clinics and public hospitals?
> >> >
> >> > > Mostly, the one's who do suffer from
> >> > > prolonged malnutrition do so not from lack of resources, but from lack
>  of
> >> > > wisdom.
> >> >
> >> > OK - so how do rationalize that this lack of wisdom regarding
> >> > nutrition miraculously disappears when it comes to medical care and
> >> > health?
> >
> >Well?  Didn't you want to answer for your twin?
> >
> >> > > They would rather spend money on alcohol, heroine or cocaine than
> >> > > on food.  Unfortunately, there are also those sad cases who are
> >> > > economically dependant on fools like that, I hate to say.  For instance,
>  I
> >> > > have known people who have sold their Food Stamps (illegally, I might
>  add)
> >> > > for half price just for drug or alcohol money.  That is sheer
>  foolishness,
> >> > > but whoever accused drug addicts of having the wisdom of Solomon.
> >> >
> >> > And your point is?
> >> >
> >> > > Have you not heard, there is such a thing as being medically indigent
> >> > > without being poor?
> >> >
> >> > No, I haven't.
> >> >
> >> > > Imagine a single person who makes $2000 a month (about
> >> > > double the poverty line for a single person).  Imagine he has $2500 a
>  month
> >> > > in medical bills.  That person would have to spend over 70% of his
>  annual
> >> > > income on medical expenses to qualify for Medicaid (and he would have to
>  do
> >> > > so in only nine months, because Medicaid now requires proof that the
>  money
> >> > > was paid, not just billed.  During that period of time, what would he
>  live
> >> > > on?  Air?).  To make matters worse, suppose he has to do that not just
>  in
> >> > > one year, but in several years in a row, dissolving any savings he may
>  have
> >> > > had.  What is that person suppose to do?  Die?  Apparently, by the
>  attitude
> >> > > you portray, unless you are ignorant, of course.  I pray you are
>  ignorant
> >> > > rather than heartless, because ignorance is far easier to correct (by
> >> > > learning) than is heartlessness.
> >> >
> >> > Then FIX the Medicaid eligibilty requirements.  Don't FIX my health
> >> > care system - the one I like and the one I pay for - the one that
> >> > WORKS.
> >> 
> >> This is the core of your beliefs it seems.  You want to be left alone 
> >
> >No doubt.
> >
> >> and
> >> not taxed 
> >
> >too late for that.
> >
> >> and you want YOUR healthcare untouched by anyone's reforms.
> >
> >Damned right.   Fix the parts that don't work but leave well enough
> >alone.  Pixie has Cadillac care - so do I.  I'd like to keep it that
> >way.  I certainly pay for it so why shouldn't I have it?  I don't ask
> >YOU to pay for it for me, now do I?
> 
> Wrong still again.. I've never claimed to have 'Cadillac' healthcare
> coverage. Nor do I.. 

OK - so what's missing, Pixie?  Do you have drug coverage?  Do you
have hospitalization?  Do you have outpatient care?  Do you have a
deductible less than 10% of your income?  What part of your care
package is not cadillac?

> Assuming, of course, that there is some true
> definition of that term.  I have coverage that's quite adequate for
> our needs at the present time since we have sufficient resources to
> fill the 'holes'.. 

OK - but didn't you say you'd be willing to give up something so that
others might have "fully adequate care"?  So, am I to assume that
"fully" adequate is something less than "quite" adequate?

> >> But I wonder how you would feel if you premiums grew grossly higher
> >> due increased cost past 
> >
> >PASSED
> >
> >> on to you by more and more uninsured people
> >> receiving health services and being unable to pay for them?
> >
> >The rule is - if you take Medicare money you need to provide
> >uncompensated care.  That rule won't change - but if you make some
> >hospitals non-competitive for insurers in terms of price, you'll
> >quickly find hospitals dropping uncompensated care and focusing their
> >business on the private insurance market.
> >
> You might take the time to review HIM-10, the Hospital Insurance
> Manual for Medicare once again.  They provide quite a clear
> description of what is 'required' by hospitals in the way of
> uncompensated care.  And the term, BTW, also includes contractual
> discounts as well as true uncompensated, i.e., 'charity' care. 

OK - but the point was - Medicare participation requires X% of
uncompensated care.  If you don't take Medicare (Medicaid) then that
percentage drops to zero.

Right or wrong?

> >Have you ever heard of Harley Street in London?
> >
> >> I wonder how you would feel if we let insurers drop you altogether
> >> because you cost them too much and you didn't even have Medicare?
> >
> >They can't.  And until the government changes ERISA and HIPAA, the
> >can't.  So it's just another non sequitor.
> >
> And changes cannot be made to an existing act?

OK Chicken little - the sky is falling.
  
> >> Any reforms regarding portability or deductibility should be of great
> >> concern to you since you feel so oppressed by taxation now.  
> >
> >I'm managing just fine at the current tax rates - but enough is
> >enough, thank you very much.  As far as portability is concerned - I
> >have no issies.  As far as Medicare is concerned - I have no need for
> >it.  As far as social security is concerned - I donate more to charity
> >in a month than what I will get in a couple of years - total
> >non-starter.
> >
> So if Medicare coverage is of no value to you, do you plan on becoming
> self pay at age 76?  Most policies reduce coverage at that age due to
> the automatic coverage of Medicare Part A. 

Not mine.

> >> I would
> >> gather allowing a person to deduct at say 60% the cost of health
> >> premiums would be unfair in YOUR eyes?
> >
> >I would advocate MSAs that INCLUDE pre-tax benefits for insurances be
> >supported.  There is absolutely no reason why individuals should not
> >be treated the same way as corporations when it comes to insurance
> >premiums.
> >
> And for those without sufficient income to fully fund an MSA?  Oh, I
> forgot.. Just let them use the available 'free services' that are so
> plentiful... Or possibly just die.

The question was how to manage the tax im[plications of MSAs.
 
> >> Hell having medicaid at all must really bug you since these people are
> >> getting something for free in you eyes.
> >
> >Medicaid is a necessary condition that I refer to as the safety net. 
> >I am a proponent of getting people OFF medicaid and welfare through
> >training and incentives.  I find medicaid eligibility rules to be self
> >defeating in many states.  I'd like to see that changed.  I would much
> >prefer giving poor or near poor the opportunity to buy into health
> >care insurance as opposed to having a separate system just for them. 
> >There is no justification or rational for governments to be in the
> >business of health care.  In fact, with the exception of some
> >obviously necessary basic services, I feel that government should not
> >be in the business of anything.  Governments are inherently poor
> >businessmen.
> >
> Don't you find it odd that those who claim to have a certain amount of
> financial resources that grant them adequate care are so adament about
> not providing the same adequacy to those less fortunate?

Did you bother to read what I wrote - or did you just go straight to
typing rebuttals?

I said: 

"I would much prefer giving poor or near poor the opportunity to buy
into health care insurance as opposed to having a separate system just
for them."

I want the poor in the same programs as me -  not the other way
around.  I do NOT want me to be put into the programs available to the
poor.  You and I both know that it is hard to be poor.  Health care
access is challenging.  It requires standing in line, it requires
filling out forms, it requires all sorts of gyrations.  It is
demeaning.  Public health care sucks big time.  You know it, I know
it, and maybe even Karl will catch on.
 
> >> You have no compassion at all?  NONE.
> >
> >I have compassion to the tune of 200K+ annually not counting my
> >private donations to the church, Unicef, SLU, and the NAACP.
> >
> And here comes the old self acclaim once again.  How impressive!

Well - that's what I do.  Now, perhaps you can impress me?

> >How much "compassion" do you have?  Or are you only compassionate with
> >my money, not yours? Or is your compassion highest when it is on the
> >receiving end?
> >
> 
> Let's face it, Karl, this klutz makes Marner look like a
> philanthropist. 

Can't get over the fact that your solution has no basis so you slip
into the insult role.

js