Skip to content

Five Questions

August 23, 2009

Obama will give health insurance to illegal immigrants. Obama will force everyone into a government-run system. Obama will have death panels. The majority of Americans know these three statements are fact – even though they’re actually false. The healthcare industry has spent millions to force-feed those lies down our throats, and by the way, those millions came out of the premiums we’ve paid to those folks, supposedly to keep us healthy. So, what’s the real truth? Let’s play a little game.

Do you want the choice to either keep your current plan, or change insurers?

Do you want to spend less for health insurance?

Do you want to be covered if you get sick?

Do you want to stay covered if your job situation changes?

Do you think your neighbor should have coverage?

If you answered Yes to those five questions, you support healthcare reform. It’s that simple. Calling Barack Obama (a self-described “mutt”) and Barney Frank (a gay Jew) “Nazis” doesn’t help the discussion. Then again, the insurance industry doesn’t really want there to be any discussion in the first place. They like things fine just the way they are, and who can blame them?

So while you’re busy attacking the President for taking a vacation after all he’s been through this year, take a minute to think about yourself. Think about your family. About your friends and neighbors.

SDC10358%20(Large)

Because this is serious stuff.

Advertisements
14 Comments leave one →
  1. August 23, 2009 9:52 am

    Do you want the choice to either keep your current plan, or change insurers?

    No. I want the choice either to keep my current plan, change insurers, or purchase no insurance whatsoever. Or anything in between. At my discretion.

    Do you want to spend less for health insurance?

    Yes. I’d like to have the choice of spending $0, in fact.

    Do you want to be covered if you get sick?

    It depends. What do you mean by “get sick”? Sometimes I get colds and flus. In those cases who cares whether I’ve “covered”? “Covered” for what exactly? I’ll just deal with it myself.

    So actually, I say no. I don’t want to be “covered” for every ache and pain and tap on the knee with a hammer. I would like the option of a catastrophic-only (and cheaper, of course) insurance plan that would cover true medical emergencies and backbreaking costs. My car insurance doesn’t cover oil changes. I shouldn’t be forced to have health insurance that covers every hangnail.

    Do you want to stay covered if your job situation changes?

    Yes. Insurance should have nothing to do with employment in the first place. But this is entirely the government’s fault (because of the tax break for paying people in Health Insurance rather than money). The solution is less not more government.

    Do you think your neighbor should have coverage?

    None of my business. What if he doesn’t want “coverage”? (See my answer #1)

    If you answered Yes to those five questions, you support healthcare reform.

    I answered Yes to only some of them. But not all, which I guess is why I am 100% against (what is misleadingly called) “healthcare reform”.

    Calling Barack Obama (a self-described “mutt”) and Barney Frank (a gay Jew) “Nazis” doesn’t help the discussion.

    I agree with you there. They are just people with bad, bad ideas.

  2. jmadlc55 permalink
    August 23, 2009 1:16 pm

    The biggest problem I see with the current system is the ability of the insurance companies to deny coverage when you most needed. Even if you had payed into the system for twenty years. You can always fight it but if you health is failing is not a very fair fight.

    The primary interest of the insurer — to make a profit — is increased and protected the less money they have to pay out. The dynamics they call “irreconcilable differences” in divorce court.

  3. August 23, 2009 2:54 pm

    They can only deny coverage when you most need it if/when the contract says they can. If the contract doesn’t say that, they are in breach and can and should be sued. But most likely, if/when they deny coveage, the contract says they can (insurance companies have lawyers on staff).

    After all, who actually reads their insurance contracts?

    A good remedy here would be to encourage choice and free market options so that people could leave, or eschew, insurance companies known for denying promised coverage or being especially stingy. However, that is not what we have. In reality we have a system where most people are TOLD what their health insurance company will be (or given a short list), by their employer. Which is ridiculous and antiquated. And entirely the fault of misguided government intervention (the tax credit for paying employees in Health Plan rather than in Money).

    I’d certainly love to move away from that direction. But that is not what Obama et al are proposing. They are proposing more of the same – more government intervention, more market distortions – only bigger.

  4. August 23, 2009 3:12 pm

    Sonic, thanks for an honest discussion. I think Obama agrees with you more than you think. Removing the antitrust exemption and things of that sort. But please remember there are millions of Americans in various different situations with different needs and perspectives, and that our government must represent all of them.

  5. August 23, 2009 3:14 pm

    J – I couldn’t agree more, that’s one of the main reason I want reform.

  6. August 23, 2009 3:22 pm

    Kurt, nothing the government is proposing to do will benefit me in any way. It will directly harm me and my family. So how is that “representing all of us”? Apparently, I don’t count as one of those “all”.

  7. mikeytherhino permalink
    August 23, 2009 5:24 pm

    Do you want the choice to either keep your current plan, or change insurers?

    It would be nice if I had insurance.

    Do you want to spend less for health insurance?

    Like I said, I don’t have health insurance. I got laid off from my job and even cobra cost too much for me to keep my coverage. Cigna would have cost me over $1200 a month for me and my wife and Cobra would have not saved me much. And for what? Cigna is crap insurance to begin with but i was forced to use there insurance at my job because paying for good insurance would have cost too much, So yes a less expensive option would definitely fit the bill.

    Do you want to be covered if you get sick?

    I’ve heard too many horror stories of these evil bastards in the insurance industry cutting peoples benefits just when things get really hairy, so Yes, it would be nice if they covered more than just hangnail.

    Do you want to stay covered if your job situation changes?

    I think i covered that bit in question 2, but yes. And to speak to the point Sonic made, Tying benefits to job status is silly, but i am uncertain that it was government alone that did that. It takes two to tango, and the insurance industry didn’t put up much of a fight. Seems to me that Sonic is fighting harder for big pharma and their billionaire buddies than they did on this front.

    Do you think your neighbor should have coverage?

    If my neighbor doesn’t have coverage, much like me, and he gets hurt and has to go to the hospital everyone pays, right? How many billions are lost annually to people who simply can’t pay? How many bankruptcies costing how much money happen because of the overwhelming cost of health care?

    And a quick question for Sonic. Could you describe for me the harm to you and your family? Leaving that statement that open ended invites query.

    Excellent piece Kurt.

  8. August 23, 2009 7:22 pm

    And a quick question for Sonic. Could you describe for me the harm to you and your family?

    Certainly.

    I believe the government is going to garnish more of my salary than they already do as a predictable and direct result of any of the various “reform” proposals on the table. Taking money away from me, and (thus) opportunities away from my children. End of story.

    That is what you propose to do. To me. At least thieves are open and upfront about what they are doing. “Reform” advocates cloak their thievery in a veneer of self-righteousness and piousness that, at times, is just too much to take.

  9. mikeytherhino permalink
    August 24, 2009 1:24 am

    The problem with your statement are the second and third words of your response.

    “I believe…”

    Belief is a slippery slope.

    There is no harm in paying a few extra bucks each to make sure that insurance companies and the health care industry don’t bankrupt America. Which is where we end up if we keep going the way we are going. The way you want to go, bankrupts EVERYONES kids.

    No future for any of us if we go your way and just leave things go.

    Face it. You’re kids’ll survive.

    The arguments I’ve heard here are no different than the ones brought about during the argument against medicare years ago. And this program is smaller and less of a burden than medicare.

    I like the way you make people trying their level best to do right by America somehow sound EVIL.

    {“Reform” advocates cloak their thievery in a veneer of self-righteousness and piousness that, at times, is just too much to take.}

    And the theivery of the insurance industry is somehow more palatable? Why? Because they just rob you blind?

    Don’t talk about others veneer of self righteousness when your wearing your own.

  10. August 24, 2009 2:01 am

    There is no harm in paying a few extra bucks each to make sure that insurance companies and the health care industry don’t bankrupt America. Which is where we end up if we keep going the way we are going.

    Um, that’s your belief, not mine. You did bring up slippery slopes, did you not?

    I like the way you make people trying their level best to do right by America somehow sound EVIL.

    They aren’t evil, they just have evil ideas. Which they cloak in arrogant, condescending self-righteousness.

    And the theivery of the insurance industry is somehow more palatable? Why?

    Huh? Didn’t say that. Let me go on the record here against thievery of all sorts.

  11. August 24, 2009 8:30 am

    If you’re against thievery of all sorts, you must support reform – at least some aspects of it. Your representatives should be advocating for you, instead of simply saying No to everything.

  12. August 24, 2009 8:18 pm

    If you’re against thievery of all sorts, you must support reform – at least some aspects of it.

    This does not follow. Let’s say I like chocolate but am allergic to peanuts. It would make no sense to say “you must eat that chocolate-covered peanut candy bar – at least some aspects of it”. If I could pick and choose only those aspects of “reform” which I would be inclined to favor, then ok, I would support it. But that is a trivial statement, and is not how anything works.

    Your representatives should be advocating for you, instead of simply saying No to everything.

    For the record, “my” representatives hail from the opposite side of the aisle as myself, and are actively working to do things I oppose and which are inimical to my values, beliefs, and interests. But I digress.

    I gather that by “my representatives” you mean “legislators who are generally on my side of the aisle”. Very well. Yes indeed I do want “my” representatives to agitate for me (i.e. put forth the ideas I favor). And indeed it is true that few do, at least not as much as I might like.

    But one of the ideas I favor, most certainly, is Saying No to the “reforms” being proposed. I am strongly in favor of Saying No in this context. So in that regard, anyone saying No is all right in my book, and represents me 100%.

  13. meanmrmustard1 permalink
    August 24, 2009 9:35 pm

    Your questions are all reasonable and accurate, where a rational person could not say no, nor argue with them.

    However, reason, facts, logic and compassion do not count in a dittohead’s world.

    Ignoring does not work, so shine the spotlight on them for all the world to see their hatred and ignorance.

  14. August 24, 2009 10:15 pm

    Hopefully, years from now the same folks who say “Keep the government away from my Medicare” will look as favorably on what they now call “ObamaCare”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: