Comments on: Health Care Hyperbole http://www.bloggernews.net/121982 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:24:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: m2c http://www.bloggernews.net/121982#comment-1396919 m2c Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:03:57 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/121982#comment-1396919 I understand and agree with the last two statements. I'm still working on trying to understand the part before that. About # 1: "One: is it the duty of the government to insure such care, or is it a duty of the family to try to care for their own?" Nancy, insurance is extremely expensive and then there are the deductibles. So a family of four paying for their own health care could be out $2,000 annually plus $1,000 deductibile per person each year. That's a lot of money for people in lower income brackets. I sure agree about the idiots in the $500K house who did not buy insurance. But there is a big difference between them and less well off families who could not afford HC. I understand and agree with the last two statements. I’m still working on trying to understand the part before that.

About # 1: “One: is it the duty of the government to insure such care, or is it a duty of the family to try to care for their own?”

Nancy, insurance is extremely expensive and then there are the deductibles. So a family of four paying for their own health care could be out $2,000 annually plus $1,000 deductibile per person each year. That’s a lot of money for people in lower income brackets.

I sure agree about the idiots in the $500K house who did not buy insurance. But there is a big difference between them and less well off families who could not afford HC.

]]> By: Nancy Reyes http://www.bloggernews.net/121982#comment-1396591 Nancy Reyes Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:02:34 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/121982#comment-1396591 You are correct. Paying for a catastrophic disease can bankrupt families. The question is twofold: One: is it the duty of the government to insure such care, or is it a duty of the family to try to care for their own? It sounds terrible to say: Sell the $500thousand dollar house to pay the bills and move into a slum apartment with the kids. But you know, a lot of folks living in $30thousand dollar houses resent paying increased taxes to give them free medical insurance that they didn't bother to buy. Your comment "living on the streets" is nonsense. Those on the street often are addicts or the mentally ill. Ordinary folks move in with family, or apply for welfare, because they know where the welfare office is to get housing and help. Some even move to areas where housing is cheaper than the big cities. The real problem is the working poor who don't get insurance with their job. Mandate catastrophic insurance and voila, no problem. And, of course, the "answer" is mandatory catastrophic health care insurance, not government mandated insurance that will let you straighten your kids' teeth and get your arthritic knee fixed so you can jog on taxpayer money. You are correct.
Paying for a catastrophic disease can bankrupt families.

The question is twofold:

One: is it the duty of the government to insure such care, or is it a duty of the family to try to care for their own?

It sounds terrible to say: Sell the $500thousand dollar house to pay the bills and move into a slum apartment with the kids. But you know, a lot of folks living in $30thousand dollar houses resent paying increased taxes to give them free medical insurance that they didn’t bother to buy.

Your comment “living on the streets” is nonsense. Those on the street often are addicts or the mentally ill.

Ordinary folks move in with family, or apply for welfare, because they know where the welfare office is to get housing and help. Some even move to areas where housing is cheaper than the big cities.

The real problem is the working poor who don’t get insurance with their job. Mandate catastrophic insurance and voila, no problem.

And, of course, the “answer” is mandatory catastrophic health care insurance, not government mandated insurance that will let you straighten your kids’ teeth and get your arthritic knee fixed so you can jog on taxpayer money.

]]> By: m2c http://www.bloggernews.net/121982#comment-1396301 m2c Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:04:02 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/121982#comment-1396301 Nancy, I don't understand a LOT about this issue. So please let me address just one of the things I don't understand (and I really don't - I'm not arguing, I'm asking). You wrote: "One: most people, facing a life threatening problem, will find funding to pay for their care. Yes, it might mean emptying their savings first, selling their house, and going on welfare so they can get Medicaid, or maybe even going bankrupt, but they’ll get care." -- Nancy, who is saying that this is okay? A family, for example, could end up living on the streets so Mom can have a chance to survive breast cancer or Dad can have a chance to survive an auto accident or a brain tumor (just examples of life threatening situations)? I do not think that is okay. That cannot in all good conscience even be related to the concept of "health care." Can it? Nancy, I don’t understand a LOT about this issue. So please let me address just one of the things I don’t understand (and I really don’t - I’m not arguing, I’m asking).

You wrote: “One: most people, facing a life threatening problem, will find funding to pay for their care. Yes, it might mean emptying their savings first, selling their house, and going on welfare so they can get Medicaid, or maybe even going bankrupt, but they’ll get care.”
–
Nancy, who is saying that this is okay? A family, for example, could end up living on the streets so Mom can have a chance to survive breast cancer or Dad can have a chance to survive an auto accident or a brain tumor (just examples of life threatening situations)?
I do not think that is okay. That cannot in all good conscience even be related to the concept of “health care.” Can it?

]]>