Local Posts #40 (Part Two)

2009-10-7 03:54:00

  

Sept 9, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Laura Taylor is very confused about the teachings of Jesus. He never once said anything about giving to Caesar so Caesar could funnel money to the social programs of Rome. He told the rich to give directly to the poor.

The key is to go back to the basics before the government tried to "help" us.

In 1958 I had an accident that caused me to go through six operations and spend a total of 3 months in the hospital. For the first month my hospital bill was $8 a day ($58 in today's money) and we paid it off picking fruit with illegal aliens, mowing lawns and working for minimum wage. The other two months and four of the operations were paid for by a charity.

So my single mom and I, with no insurance, no government help and no child support paid the whole thing through our own labor and with the help of people who gave as Jesus actually taught.

If the government would quit helping us so much we could recapture the security of those bygone days.

  

Sept 9, 2009 -- Post #2

"Domer76" wrote:

"The bill (for 2 days) was $17,000. Can you provide the name of your charity that can help me out? Can I mow your yard? And you worked for minimum wage, huh? Fortunate that the government set that or private employers would have paid you less."

JJ:

Not many charities help with hospital bills these days as the cost is too high unlike the situation in 1958 before the government tried to help us.

I personally didn't get any minimum wage and neither of us believed in being forced to get one. As a boy of 13 I helped pay off the bill by mowing lawns and my mom and I picked fruit together and got paid by the amount we picked. My mom received around the minimum wage in a potato plant and together we paid for 30 days in the hospital, two surgeries and the doctor. We didn't expect any free lunch and were unconcerned about insurance as we didn't need any.

If the private sector were left to work today the way it was back then your bill would probably be less than $200. What situation sounds best? The boondoggle we have today where 2 days in the hospital costs you $17,000 or the less regulated 1958 where your hospital bill would have been $14 a day in the most expensive room? Daily costs then were from $8-$14 a day in Emmett, Idaho.

"Eduguy" wrote:

"Note too that the medical profession is vastly different. No more small town doctors able/willing to make a middle class living. No more house calls."

JJ:

I lived in the Emmett area, a small town of 3064 at the time. We had three doctors who made a better living than many MD's do today and they didn't make house calls.

  

Sept 9, 2009 -- Post #3

"Becourteous" wrote:

"Joseph, you paid for part of it...just like many uninsured do today. Charity paid the rest...just like many hospitals do today."

JJ:

Forcing the hospital to pay is much different than a voluntary private charity. The charity pays through free will offerings lovingly given whereas the hospital is forced to raise prices on an angry clientele.

It is true that technology has caused prices to raise, but those who do not use the technology should not have to share the costs.

Some say we do not want to go back to 1958 and in many ways I agree, but as far as the government staying out of our business or interfering with true capitalism I not only want to go back to 1958, but 1880 would be even better.

"Gimmeshelter" wrote:

"Joe: Your rocker is missing a leg. Are you kidding us? Comparing 1958 to 2009? The problem is not that people are unwilling to pay their bills, or, that charitable giving is less than 1958. The problem is greedy insurance carriers, hospitals and doctors who must overcharge us all to satisfy their share."

JJ:

Insurance companies were just as "greedy" in 1958. It has been the government's "help" which has made the difference. Now the people that created the problem want to solve the problem and people who are emotionally polarized are oblivious to what is happening.

"Thatsrap":

"I think you'll find that arguing with our resident tool...of the right will only serve to frustrate you, like trying to clap with one hand. He discards logic, reason and facts in favor of blind doctrine. He thrives off the negative attention he generates."

"That's why I've decided to no longer respond to him."

JJ:

Looks like I got you to engage after all. You know you can't resist responding to me even if it is to mindlessly insult me. I suppose "tool" is the Left's wimpy way of calling someone a fool?

Quoting JJ, "Becourteous" wrote:

"'Insurance companies were just as 'greedy' in 1958. It has been the government's 'help' which has made the difference.'"

"Becourteous" then wrote:

"Could you elaborate? I believe there is much more to it than the government, but am willing to hear some details as to why you believe this."

JJ:

Of course there are a number of factors involved but I think the government is the main culprit. Prices really seemed to shoot up in all areas of medicine when they stepped in to help with Medicare and Medicaid.

When these programs started in 1965 they seemed like a good idea to many, especially when one looks at their cost projections. The public was sold on the idea that Medicare costs would only reach $9 Billion by 1990, but the actual cost was a whopping $67 billion. Today it is over 500 billion.

There are over 45,000 pages of Medicare regulations but the HCFA cites specific practices like "unbundling" services to raise consumer costs. "Unbundling" refers to billing treatments separately which are normally billed as a single, combined charge.

Currently the government controls and pays for almost half of all medical costs so everything they do to increase costs, regulation, paperwork etc spills over to the private sector.

As evidence take Dr. Muney in the pricey state of New York. He bypassed anything to do with the government paperwork and socialized medicine and went entirely private and offered unlimited medical services for $79 a month. This included everything except major surgery or conditions that required hospital care.

Then bureaucrats stepped in and told him he wasn't charging enough and forced his prices up. Sigh.

  

Sept 10, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Interesting letter by Tim Olson. His data certainly conflicts with some of the hype I have heard from the Left. For instance, they say that the single payer will save us 25% right off the top from all those nasty profits private insurance takes. Well Blue Cross is non-profit and he says the profit margin is 1-3% nationwide so where are these big savings going to come from?

I'll be eligible for Medicare in a few months but my current costs with Blue Cross are only $2000 a year, not much more Medicare premiums. In addition Medicare costs an extra $9600 per person from taxpayer money. I'll be forced to take Medicare whether I want it or not or else be denied Social Security. You'd think the government would want to save money and allow people to stay private if they want - but no, billions are wasted this way.

Mr. Reynolds says that 75 cents on the dollar goes to providers but Olson says 87. Who is correct? Maybe someone here can find the truth.

  

Sept 10, 2009 -- Post #2

JJ:

Mr. Starry says:

"the majority of Canadians (57 percent) are satisfied with their 'universal' health care system and only 25 percent of people in the U.S. are satisfied with theirs. (Gallup polls)."

This guy has to be remembering wrong a Washington Post-ABC News poll in June that found that 83 percent were either "somewhat" or "very" satisfied with the care they receive and 81 percent felt the same way about their insurance.

The same poll also found that "84 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat concerned that reform would increase their health-care costs, 82 percent worried that it would reduce their health insurance coverage, and 81 percent fretted about it hurting the quality of their care."

See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701372.html

  

Sept 10, 2009 -- Post #3

JJ:

Bill Wilson and others continue to distort Palin's words on the death panel linking them to the counseling in Section 1233 of the bill. She never mentioned 1233 but was talking about the overall effect of the entire bill which could cause a shortage of services causing bureaucrats being forced to decide who will get life saving procedures and who will not. This would qualify as a death panel.

Undeniable Death Panel Facts

Fact 1:  When something is "free" the demand always goes up, usually way up.

Fact 2:  Under universal health care the demand will go up for services, drugs and the money to pay of them.

Fact 3:  Because of higher demand there will not be enough money to pay for all the demands and needs of the people.

Fact 4:  There will be the need to ration care.

Fact 5:  Some will be denied life-saving treatment because the funds are not available.

Fact 6:  Panels of bureaucrats will be forced to make decisions on how much is to be spent on end of life care. These will decide life and death.

Fact 7:  Such panels will not be called death panels, but this does not change the reality they decide between life and death.

Fact 8:  Such panels are indeed death panels.

Fact 9:  Sarah Palin is right.

Not taken from Fox, Rush, Hannity or Beck -- but created by Yours Truly.