“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their own expenses aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they need money and then suddenly they expect free money. That's -- that's basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by...penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their expenses.” - Barack ObamaActually, Barack Obama did NOT say that. I took a quote of his (quote link here)about penalties for not having health insurance, and made it about money in general.
This does beg the question: Why is it appropriate to have penalties for lack of health insurance, but NOT lack of money? It would seem to me, in the grand economic scheme of things, you need to have money before you can have insurance, n'est pas?
Mind you, we ARE talking about health insurance, NOT health care, so don't go off on a tangent about denying people health care. This is about money.
But here is a thought for Obama. If you want penalties for not having health insurance, why not try the ultimate penalty: Denial of health care.
4 comments:
"Mind you, we ARE talking about health insurance, NOT health care..."
EXACTLY...!!!
"Why is it appropriate to have penalties for lack of health insurance, but NOT lack of money?"
Playing Devil's Advocate I'd respond that lack of money equals lower living standards while lack of health care can lead to lack of... er... living.
(*SMILE*) (That was pretty good - huh?!)
Ed. As you well know I've posted the framework of a reasonable, rational, fair, and workable system on my blog...
http://usalyright.blogspot.com/2009/10/true-health-insurancehealth-care-reform.html
...but as you correctly point out, this debate isn't about actually coming up with proposals that would WORK in the sense of cost/benefit. No. This is about the exercise of raw political power... it's about the poor on one end and the upper middle class, upper class, and the truly wealthy creating a system that rewards themselves while fostering the ultimate costs upon the middle class.
"...basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by..."
You think WRONG.
(*SHRUG*)
The seniors want "theirs."
The poor want "theirs."
The politicians want "theirs."
Those who are presently insured through non-taxable employer payments or majority "contributions" want to keep their tax free "benefits" even though all those who don't have equal benefits pay to subsidize the lost revenues to the general treasury which represent the "tax free" aspect of employer provide health insurance.
People are greedy and stupid.
(*SHRUG*)
And now... to end on a positive note...
"But here is a thought for Obama. If you want penalties for not having health insurance, why not try the ultimate penalty: Denial of health care."
BRAVO...!!! I'm with you! Few others are though.
(*SHRUG*) (So much for the positive reinforcement; sorry.)
BILL
Playing Devil's Advocate I'd respond that lack of money equals lower living standards while lack of health care can lead to lack of... er... living.
Bill, you do know that people with lower income levels tend to have shorter lifespans? If you want to improve people's health, start with the economy. THEN you can work on access to health care.
Unfortunately, our morons-in-charge have their priorities backwards.
"If you want to improve people's health, start with the economy."
Agreed.
Problem is... not only are our leaders moving in the direction of further decimating the economy rather than repairing the damage they've already done, but anywhere between 40%-60% of our fellow citizens will BACK the morons in charge on their ass backwards fiscal and economic schemes (which only worsen matters).
Which brings us back to...
(*SIGH*)
Military coup, Ed.
Temporary benevolent and competent dictatorship.
It's the only way out, Ed... the only VIABLE way out.
(And IT isn't actually viable...!!!)
(*SHRUG*)
See the problem, Ed...???
There is no solution; not one that's actually going to be put into effect.
You have younger kids, right? You should invest some money into Chinese language instruction.
(Hey... I'm serious!)
You might also start seriously considering bailing out - moving overseas somewhere "safe" - pulling the trigger within the next 15 years or so.
Ed. This nation is headed for a fall. There's no way out other than... er... PERHAPS... moving out.
Diversity your holdings, Ed. I'm talking internationally. I'm talking safeguarding a portion of your wealth from our own government.
Anything the IRS, SEC, Treasury, etc., has direct ultimate control of... beware.
I'm not saying start burying gold under the "big rock" under the "old oak tree" on top of the hill back in the woods, but... I am saying that at this point - and especially as time goes on and things get worse - our government just can't be trusted not to directly steal from us.
You don't think it could happen here? Well... let me ask you... nine short years ago - the early months of 2001, pre-9/11 - would you have prophetized that America 2009 would be moving full tilt towards socialism...???
BILL
nine short years ago - the early months of 2001, pre-9/11 - would you have prophetized that America 2009 would be moving full tilt towards socialism...???
Good point, and no I wouldn't have expected that.
Post a Comment