Conference yukon::christian_v7

	John, the state of Massachusetts does not allow common law marriages,
but if one happens in a state where it is legal, the state of Massachusetts
honors it. I'm curious, are there any laws that specifically say the 3
marriage types you talked about are illegal?


Glen

John,

It sounds as if the company arrangements permit the employee to include 
*anyone* to join their health scheme, provided they have someone to act as 
their contact, in terms of an employee.  You start by mentioning the 
different sorts of informal or locally illegal or unlegal links between the 
employee and the other beneficiary, but by the end you indicate that it can 
extend to include a distant relative, tenent, etc.

It sounds to me as if this is really just becoming a front - a shop window
for health schemes which happen to have the patronage of a particular
company - to let anyone enrol.  Even the 'employee' link begins to seem a
loose formality. 

No.  On re-reading, I think that you ware suggesting that the latter is 
what it *ought* to be extended to cover, for the administrative convenience 
of the employee.  Right?

							Andrew

	Another thing John, people who do participate in health plans who are
not married have got to show that they live together, have financial ties, and
that they have been together for X amount of time. It is not a system where
someone you just met would be allowed to enter in to. Also, with these plans if
the relationship should end, X amount of time has to pass before you can add
someone else.

X= specific amount of time determined by company or city


Glen


PS	Cambridge has domestic partner insurance for city workers. 

    I see absolutely no need for employers to provide healthcare to
    "an employee's affiliated people".  I have about 100 people that I care
    very much about, should Digital provide them healthcare?  
    
    Some firms provide free healthcare for their employees, and then allow
    the employee to purchase additional care for "affiliates", which is not
    bad.  But, these firms do not subsidize that additional coverage other
    than to make the group plan available.  In my opinion that is a much
    better solution.
    
    Whatever happended to the individual providing for his own family?  In
    the early U.S. experience that was quite common.  I have always done
    that.  What is wrong with that concept?
    
    

	What's wrong with that concept is the price of medical help,
prescriptions, etc.

Glen

>It is not a system where someone you just met would be allowed to enter in to.

Certainly not, but upon marrying the little woman, health care coverage is
immediately granted.  So why not immediately grant it to people who are
(somewhat similarly) adjoined by some "commitment."  Is there something
special to marriage or not?  

John makes a good point.

The upshot of this is that companies arbitrarily define who they want to cover,
based on agenda-pushing factions that apply economic and political pressure
to define it their way.

Mark

>    I see absolutely no need for employers to provide healthcare to
>    "an employee's affiliated people".  I have about 100 people that I care
>    very much about, should Digital provide them healthcare?  

I agree with you.

The current policy of most companies (including Digital) provides coverage
for an employee, and optionally for a spouse and for dependent children up
to a certain age.

I think it's a good thing to help an employee support his family; after all,
nurturing a family is part of our vocation in life, and our compensation
package from our employer should help us meet our life's goals.

I started .0 to point out that certain companies have bowed to political
pressure and have expanded the definition of a family to include living
arrangements that are illegal under the laws of many states.  Cohabitation
(a man and a woman living together as though they were married without
having been married) and other similar arrangements are illegal in
Massachusetts (Glen, you can go to the library and look it up) -- but
some of these companies actually require their employees to formally
declare to their employer that they are breaking the law in order to
obtain health coverage for their domestic partners.

While I'm not convinced that health benefits provided by employers should
be expanded at all, in .0 I simply proposed a way that a company could
expand benefits without being quite so explicit about requiring documentation
of and providing support to illegal behaviour.

/john

    Re: Note 528.7 by COVERT::COVERT
    
>some of these companies actually require their employees to formally
>declare to their employer that they are breaking the law in order to
>obtain health coverage for their domestic partners.
    
    Blow the whistle?  Have you lot over there got a police force that is
    _required_ to investigate breaches of laws?  Like, if someone tells
    them that this situation is occurring, that a company is witholding
    information that could lead to charges, is the company liable to
    charges itself?
    
    James
    (who is _not_ an expert in the US legal system)

Enforce the cohabitation, adultery, and [deleted] laws?

You must be kidding.

/john

      Hi,
    
        I glanced at .4 and just thought to say that I see no need
        for employers to provide health care for ANYONE.  If they
        want to, fine.  Its their right.
    
        It doesn't seem Consitutional to me that employers have to
        provide anything for anybody.  They just cannot victimize
        anybody.
    
        But, then again, we are living in a very socialist country
        masquerading as Constitutional.
    
                                                   Tony

	John, if a common law marriage is allowed in another state and that
couple moves to Massachusetts, they honor it. One can not have lived in
Massachusetts for the 7 years for it to work. Massachusetts honors all
marriages from other states. Go look it up.



Glen

| <<< Note 528.6 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| Certainly not, but upon marrying the little woman, health care coverage is
| immediately granted.  So why not immediately grant it to people who are
| (somewhat similarly) adjoined by some "commitment."  Is there something
| special to marriage or not?

	Mark, I am talking about those who have known each other for a short
period of time. Those who are in a committed relationship should be covered if
as Tony put it, a company chooses to have that option. 

| The upshot of this is that companies arbitrarily define who they want to cover,
| based on agenda-pushing factions that apply economic and political pressure
| to define it their way.

	Not always true Mark. No matter how hard you cry more and more
companies are covering their common law marriage people, that group we 
can't talk about, ect. You see, it doesn't always work....


Glen

re .11

I wasn't even discussing common law marriages, but since you told me to
look it up, I did.  (Actually, I called the Secretary of State's office.)
Massachusetts will only recognize a common law marriage from another state
if the couple presents a marriage certificate from that state.

/john

.12 Glen

>as Tony put it, a company chooses to have that option. 
>
>| The upshot of this is that companies arbitrarily define who they want to cover,
>| based on agenda-pushing factions that apply economic and political pressure
>| to define it their way.

You support my argument by quoting Tony here, Glen.  Then you say, "not
always true" after my statement but continue to support the statement
that "more and more companies cover" [whomever they arbitrarily choose to
cover].

So, even though you agreed with my statements you have difficulty in 
seeing that you have actually agreed with it.  You still amaze me at times,
though I am infrequently surprised anymore.

Mark

| <<< Note 528.14 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| >as Tony put it, a company chooses to have that option.
| >
| >| The upshot of this is that companies arbitrarily define who they want to cover,
| >| based on agenda-pushing factions that apply economic and political pressure
| >| to define it their way.

| You support my argument by quoting Tony here, Glen.  Then you say, "not
| always true" after my statement but continue to support the statement
| that "more and more companies cover" [whomever they arbitrarily choose to
| cover].

	Mark, I was being sarcastic towards your comment about agenda pushing.
I used your beliefs for the example you were talking about. As in you have an
agenda to push..... whether you do or not doesn't seem to matter, at least it
shouldn't where you have all these people pushing one for one thing or another.

| So, even though you agreed with my statements you have difficulty in
| seeing that you have actually agreed with it.  You still amaze me at times,
| though I am infrequently surprised anymore.

	No Mark, what happened is you failed to see that I was just throwing
back at you the same stuff you are throwing out. Sorry about you not catching
on. 


Glen

   re .5 
    " What's wrong with that concept is the price of medical help,
    prescriptions, etc.
    
    Glen"
    
    
    With this thinking, then our employers/government should buy me a new
    car and a new house, because they cost far more than my medical care.
    Why a nice home here in So. Calif. costs at least $500,000, so Digital
    should buy it for me according to the quoted statement.
    
    
    

	If they would attack the cost of everything then that would be fine.
But they don't. A combo of health care for everyone and a driving down the
prices of care and meds would do far more for this country than the system we
have now. But as an aside, how did you bring the government into something that
is an employer thang only? 

| Why a nice home here in So. Calif. costs at least $500,000, 

	And the same type home in Virginia would cost $50,000. I know someone
that is looking to buy an old farm house there with 35 acres for $120,000. So
maybe you could move? Of course the cost of medical help ain't gonna change all
that much, but the house will be cheaper.....

| so Digital should buy it for me according to the quoted statement.
    
	If that is something they want to do then they would. If you really
feel it is something you want them to do, talk to them. Try to get them to
change their policy. Remember, benefits for all employees who are in committed
relationships (and using the usual criteria listed a few notes back) are not a
reality for Digital employees. People are trying to see if it can't be
incorporated into policy. It may or may not happen. But if ya don't try and do
something then it ain't gonna get anywhere. But your above analogy makes zero
sense ONLY because you just expect them to give it to you, and not that you
have bothered to put any effort into seeing if it can't be changed. Ya wanna
just sit back and expect things to happen? PUHLEASE! 


Glen

    There is one steady fact that should steer anyone away from supporting
    a government controlled health care system.
    
    FACT: The government has an abyssmal track record.
    
    New Deal welfare...from $29 million/year in the 1930's to $300
    BILLION/year + today.
    
    Has any of this money fixed the problems they were geared to?  Nope. 
    Things only get worse.
    
    Government controlled education...we spend $25,000 per classroom and we
    have folks graduating from high school who can't even read or point out
    their own country on a map.
    
    And the answer is always more government control and more money to
    throw at the problems.  What we really need is deregulation and
    rugged individualism.
    
    Some people will never learn...

    Is there any truth to what I hear that Clinton's health care plan will
    phase in medical clinics into public school buildings over the term of
    his plan...?

    I heard this on a Christian TV station yesterday, but unfortunately had
    flipped to the channel after the discussion was in conclusion, so
    didn't get a chance to hear the whole story.
    
    If this is true, I do not want the government nor the schools giving
    checkups to my children... What would be the purpose of this move.
    
    Bob
    

    re .17  Glen, are we going to fast for you?  I am not suggesting you
    sit back - I am the one who said provide it for your self.  Don't lobby
    your employer or the government to do it for you - YOU do it.
    
    By the way, I have my home here in So. Calif., a block from the beach. 
    I have always provided my own health care and have gone through a
    catastrophic loss when my wife died with brain cancer.  Our system of
    medical care is the best in the world.  The problems with the system
    are that there are too many third parties involved, beginning with the
    government, then the employers and finally the lawyers.  Few people
    shop and find the best cost/benefit ratio since the employer's
    insurance will pay whatever the cost, or government will pay and then
    you can sue for malpractice...
    
    Proposition 186 here in California this fall, proposes to have the
    state mandate employer coverage, adding about 8.9% taxes to the
    employers and between 4-9% to the individual tax payers.  Then we can
    ration care as is done in Oregon and queue up for services as in Canada
    or England.
    
    My original suggestion remains, why not do it for ourselves?

    re .19
    
    School based health clinics are a part of Slick Willie's plan.  The
    first reason is to provide a condom in every pocket and then be able to
    counsel without the parents' consent to get an abortion.
    
    Longer term it would appear the reason is to take better care of the
    children than we miserable parents have, are or will be able to
    provide.  If you doubt this listen to what the Clinton appointees are
    saying ...

    I realise that I'm not an American and therefore don't have access to
    the information that you do concerning the health reforms that are
    proposed for your country, but I would like to point out that, in
    Britain, we've had school clinics for years and they are a good thing.
    They give regular check-ups for health (my defective eyesight and my
    mother's too were discovered at routine school checkups) and consult
    with parents about a child's development. They also organise
    vaccinations - much easier to keep track if the whole year is
    vaccinated at the same time.                     

	If you are able to provide it for yourself, then that's fine. And if
you can't? Do ya just throw them out into the street? Remember, companies did
not always pay part or all of someone's medical insurance. But it was a benefit
to get people into the company. If one would like to see a benefit offered by a
company, they ask for it. They try and get that benefit in the company. Is
there anything wrong with this? If so, could you please tell me?


Glen

    Offering a benefit has no problem associated with it.  The problem is
    that of saying they "should" or "must" or requiring employers to do it.
    
    You don't just throw them out into the street.  You do what is done in
    the United States today, which is to provide health care to everyone. 
    Even to illegal aliens that have their babies here to become citizens. 
    What we don't do is provide them with medical insurance, just the health
    care needed. 
    
    

| <<< Note 528.24 by SIERAS::MCCLUSKY >>>


| Offering a benefit has no problem associated with it.  The problem is
| that of saying they "should" or "must" or requiring employers to do it.

	Good point. But do ya think companies got health care for individuals
on their own? Do ya think they improved the packages on their own? Part of it
is due to comparing other companies packages, part of it is due to employees
pushing for it and part of it is due to wanting potential employees to have
another reason to work at that company. People did not sit back and say, well,
if they want to do it they can..... they went out and tried to get these
things.



Glen

    What's that got to do with the government *forcing* the companies to
    supply health care insurance.
    
    This is very unAmerican.  Government's nose is much too big these
    days.  Let the FREE enterprise system work on its own...that is why
    there are these insurance packages to begin with (amoung other benies).
    
    
    -steve

	Steve, at the time we were talking about people getting companies to
insure their employees who are in committed relationships but are not married.
The government was not part of the conversation. 


Glen

    Unfortunately, most companies are not altruistic with the idea of 
    providing employees with an income, satisifying work, and a way to
    provide for their families and balance the needs of their jobs with
    the needs of their families.  Most companies are out to simply make
    a profit of as much as they can, and they will use and abuse their
    employees if given half a chance.  That is why unions originally
    came into being, why there are child labor laws, and all the rest.

    The same sort of thing goes for insurance.  Very few companies would
    try to find some way to arrange group insurance and cover part of it
    unless they had to.  Very few insurance companies would provide 
    adequate coverage for a decent price unless there were laws in place.

    There are exceptions I am sure.  But imperfection, sin, greed, are 
    a part of life here on earth today, and would run amuck and take the
    upper hand if it were not for some form of government and standards,
    and even with a government with built in correctives and balances
    like ours, there are problems galore.  The blame cannot be laid in any
    one place, and everyone shares the cost of sin by being negatively 
    impacted in one way or another.

    Leslie

    re: .28
    
    The entire premise of needing government for all of these things is
    entirely wrong!  The United States history shows this clearly.  The
    strength of this nation, the well being of its people has declined
    steadily as government has increased in size and scope.
    
    Did government mandate God?  Yes, there is original sin, but government
    has not had one single thing to do with the fantastic beauty of
    Christians doing as their Father would have them do.  Look at the many
    wonders of His work and compare them to anything that government has
    done.  No we don't need anymore government intervention.

    In a free market, companies who wish to get the best workers will offer
    good salaries and benefits, else said workers will go to company B who
    *does* offer the goodies.
    
    If you do not have the skillset desired by the companies that offer the
    good benefits, then you have a choice...go learn needed skills or take
    a job without the bennies.  Just because you work, does not mean you
    are entitled anything other than the wage agreed to.
    
    The mentality that government should step in and "equalize" matters,
    goes directly against the concept of a free market.  If you don't have
    skills that are in demand, then you need to learn, in order to better
    your lot in life (and to get the bennies).  It is up to YOU, as an
    individual contributer, to make yourself a needed asset to a company. 
    If you do not do this, then don't cry about not having bennies.  You
    are ultimately responsible for yourself, and your lot in life.  
    
    By stepping in and equalizing the bennies between the skilled workers
    and the non-skilled workers, it actually takes away from personal
    initiative.  If you are guaranteed insurance, a minimum salary, etc
    etc, then you are less likely to try to learn new skills. 
    
    Why do you think socialism does not work, and has never worked in any
    country in history (for long)?  Because it takes away personal
    initiative, responsibility to self and family, and does not reward
    success to promote new industry and creation of wealth.
    
    Government interference kills free enterprise...and if you'll take a
    cursory look at what is happening in industry today, you will be amazed
    at just how big a toll it is actually taking. 
    
    -steve

    re .30 - Steve, that is so well said - but, I guess the truth is
    usually so.

You are thinking that people would not be willing to work for mere
subsistence if that's all there was, and all it take is a good look
at history, and certain areas of the world today to see that this is 
not true.  Corporations are not benevolent institutions in operation 
for the benefit all their workers.  I'm not saying things are better 
or worse than the way they were.  I am saying that it is human nature 
to take unfair advantage.  Its happening even now.  

Its not the over abundance of government that is the problem, though there
are areas where it has overstepped the boundries of what it should be, BUT 
rather it is the nature of the human heart that is problem.  If we were 
perfect, governing would be un-needed, if we were perfect and had governments,
they would be perfect from graft, corruption, etcetera.  But that's not the 
case.  Sin abounds, and God, by His grace keeps it in check through various 
ways, one of these is government.

We are fortunate that the founders of our government's constitution were so
well aware of what government out of bounds can do in tyrrany, etc., and
therefore they did put in checks and balances.  It was from an awareness of
what is right and that wrong exists that they framed our constition, not 
from an idea that free economics would provide natural checks and bounds on
the depravity of the human heart.  We have been blessed with many opportunities
during the age we live in, and in this country especially, but if all laws, 
regulations, requirements, and standards were abolished, we certainly would 
not become a utopia.

Leslie

!    The mentality that government should step in and "equalize" matters,
!    goes directly against the concept of a free market.  If you don't have
!    skills that are in demand, then you need to learn, in order to better
!    your lot in life (and to get the bennies).  It is up to YOU, as an
!    individual contributer, to make yourself a needed asset to a company. 
!    If you do not do this, then don't cry about not having bennies.  You
!    are ultimately responsible for yourself, and your lot in life.  
!    
!    By stepping in and equalizing the bennies between the skilled workers
!    and the non-skilled workers, it actually takes away from personal
!    initiative.  If you are guaranteed insurance, a minimum salary, etc
!    etc, then you are less likely to try to learn new skills. 
    
Okay, I admit, you're pressing some hot buttons for me.

If insurance were not available or cost went beyond what all but the very
rich could pay, and you were required to pay all your own medical bills, and 
someone whom you support had a catastrophic illness, then I guess you would
be content to watch them die for lack of care because after all, it is all
your own fault that you don't have the skill sets to earn enough money to 
provide for your family.

And I guess the early church described in ACTS made a huge mistake when those
who were wealthy and had excess property, sold what they had and shared the
proceeds with those in the community who did not have.  

Not everyone is given an equal footing or an equal opportunity in life, and
those of us who have been blessed beyond what we need, and I count myself in
this very blessed catagory, should be generous and helpful to those who are
in need.  Compassion is a very scarce and very valuable item that this world
needs more of.  That is why we support children through Compassion, its why
we have given directly to families in need through monetary gifts, and/or
groceries, and other ways.  Its why I think every church ought to have a fund 
for helping those in need in the community, its why I think we need child 
labor laws, safety regulations, polution controls, police forces, and courts 
of law.  Not that any of these are perfect or even adequate.  When we speak of
laws that are intended to prevent the powerful from taking advantage of those 
with less power, it is not total equality or giving so that people do not have
to work, it is puting some kind of boundries around human greed.

God Himself gave us laws and rules to live by.  Love the Lord your God with
all your heart mind and soul, love your neighbor as yourself, do not thieve,
use honest weights .... invite the stranger and traveler in for a warm meal
and shelter for the night, and so on.  As the Jews say, may you be Torah,
the marriage canopy, and the GOOD DEEDS.

Leslie

re: .33
        
|Okay, I admit, you're pressing some hot buttons for me.

    Understandable...it's a hot topic.  I get rather emotional about it
    these days, too.  8^)
    
|If insurance were not available or cost went beyond what all but the very
|rich could pay, 
    
    ...then the insurace companies would go broke, or would lose vast
    amounts of money off the public market.  If prices skyrocketed too
    much, another company could step in and offer insurance at a lower
    rate, to pick up the business left behind from insurance company A
    (assuming insurance company A stayed in business due to corporate
    accounts, etc.).
    
|    and you were required to pay all your own medical bills, and 
|someone whom you support had a catastrophic illness, then I guess you would
|be content to watch them die for lack of care because after all, it is all
|your own fault that you don't have the skill sets to earn enough money to 
|provide for your family.

    Yes.  Only I would not be content to let them die.  I would take them
    to the emergency room, where they cannot be refused.  It may take me a
    lifetime to pay back the hospital, but I would do my best.  
    
    The idea of National Health Care is not about insurance...it is about
    the government being handed over another 1/7 of our economy, when it
    has proven, categorically, that it cannot manage money (much less
    manage something as important as health care).
    
|And I guess the early church described in ACTS made a huge mistake when those
|who were wealthy and had excess property, sold what they had and shared the
|proceeds with those in the community who did not have.  

    No.  This was a wonderful thing, which showed the reflection of the
    giving nature of our Lord, Jesus.  
    
    You seem to forget that these people VOLUNTARILY gave up their wealth
    to share with others.  This, in no way, is comparable with government
    mandates forcing corporations/small businesses to provide insurance to
    their workers.  Such mandates are actually opposed to the whole idea of
    the giving of the church in ACTS.  Forced charity is not charity.  It
    is taking money/resourses from one entity and giving it
    indiscriminately to another.
    
    The free market is driven by profit.  When profits are good, the
    employers are able to hire more people at decent wages  (and with
    benefits) of a certain skill set, to expand.  When the government
    interferes in this process, it always results in lost jobs and a slowed
    economy (as the economic retribution mandates delve into profits earned
    by the company).
    
    This is basic economics.  Another basic, proven theory, is that you
    cannot tax a nation into prosperity....someone tell Mr. Clinton, quick!
    
|Not everyone is given an equal footing or an equal opportunity in life, and
|those of us who have been blessed beyond what we need, and I count myself in
|this very blessed catagory, should be generous and helpful to those who are
|in need.  
    
    I agree completely.  However, such help should come by the way of
    charity organizations and giving to the works of the church, not by the
    government picking our pockets and redistributing it as it wishes. 
    Fact is, private charity organizations are MUCH more efficient.  For
    every dollar spent on welfare, 28 cents goes to the actual recipients.
    
|    Compassion is a very scarce and very valuable item that this world
|needs more of.  That is why we support children through Compassion, its why
|we have given directly to families in need through monetary gifts, and/or
|groceries, and other ways.  Its why I think every church ought to have a fund 
|for helping those in need in the community, 
    
    Agreed.  These are all done in the private sector...where it belongs.
    
|    its why I think we need child 
|labor laws, safety regulations, polution controls, police forces, and courts 
|of law.  Not that any of these are perfect or even adequate.  When we speak of
|laws that are intended to prevent the powerful from taking advantage of those 
|with less power, it is not total equality or giving so that people do not have
|to work, it is puting some kind of boundries around human greed.
    
    Safety regulations and polution controls are out of hand these days. 
    The EPA mandates and legislation, in total, would fill up an entire
    tractor trailer rig (one of the long trailers) top to bottom.  The many
    regulations mandated by the feds is probably the number one reason why
    corporations are moving out of this country.
    
    And guess who really sufferes after all is said and done?  Yup, the
    little guy.  The corporation will still make its profits...only it will
    make it either with less employees or in another country that is more
    hospitable to business.
    
|God Himself gave us laws and rules to live by.  Love the Lord your God with
|all your heart mind and soul, love your neighbor as yourself, do not thieve,
|use honest weights .... invite the stranger and traveler in for a warm meal
|and shelter for the night, and so on.  As the Jews say, may you be Torah,
|the marriage canopy, and the GOOD DEEDS.

    At least we can all understand God's laws.  The laws of the US are so
    many and so long that it takes a team of lawyers just to understand a
    single realm of it (this is because the spirity of the Constitution and
    the laws set up by our founding fathers have been lost...along with all
    common sense).
    
    -steve

    re .32 and .33
    
    "Corporations are not benevolent institutions in operation for the
    benefit all their workers."  This is true, but remember a corporation
    is a business unit made up of people, like the people in this
    conference.  In another spot you suggest that you give to children,
    etc. and so do these "corporations".  They exist because they can
    provide a benefit to their workers, owners, etc. in exchange for labor
    or capital, they are people.  I agree that some people are greedy. I
    agree there is original sin, but I see the beauty in people - people
    like you who give and care - those people make up the corporations.
    
    As for needing child labor laws, I doubt it.  You need the ability for
    the family to remain as the unit that God foresaw and the parents will
    protect the child.  You are correct that the church should step in and
    provide when the family cannot, but don't dare to suggest that
    government is capable of doing well in this area.  Recognize that our
    Attorney-General is attempting to rewrite the laws on child pornography
    at the present, so that it is not considered pornography unless the
    child displays full genital veiws or displays a lacivous conduct.  How
    much better if the tax structure assisted families in meeting demands,
    if government programs did not exist that encouraged single parent
    families, if government had not destroyed a once fine public school,
    etc. so that both parents would be there and equipped to protect the
    child.  So much better for the child if the public school could teach
    old line Judeo-Christian values, and they could pray in school.  But,
    we opted for more government control, and the result has been disaster
    as SAT scores continue the downward spiral since 1963, taxes frequently
    force mothers to work to sustain a family, the father is better off to
    leave.
    
    The church in ACTS did not have a government mandating the giving of
    wealth to the less fortunate.  They gave because they saw that as what
    God and they wanted to do.  Those same people make up corporations.
    And probably because of all the governmental incentives for secular
    forces, the increasing taxes, we are far worse off.
    
    When my first born arrived, I paid no income tax, because my income was
    below the $3,500 limit.  I had just purchased a house, had a five year
    old car, was going to college, and had to pay all medical bills on my
    own.  Those were beautiful times.  My taxes today far outstrip my total
    income and the prices are unbelievable, but government is definitely
    bigger and into so much more of my life, eliminating school prayer,
    religious symbols at Christmas on the community center lawn, etc....
    
    Let's give back to the individual family - let's empower them to
    provide for them selves.  When they can't let's look to the church and
    to people like you and me to give a helping hand.  I am confident that
    our Lord Jesus Christ will provide and use you and me to ensure His
    will be done.

| <<< Note 528.34 by CSOA1::LEECH "I understand the black flame." >>>



| |    and you were required to pay all your own medical bills, and
| |someone whom you support had a catastrophic illness, then I guess you would
| |be content to watch them die for lack of care because after all, it is all
| |your own fault that you don't have the skill sets to earn enough money to
| |provide for your family.

| Yes.  Only I would not be content to let them die.  I would take them
| to the emergency room, where they cannot be refused.  It may take me a
| lifetime to pay back the hospital, but I would do my best.

	Steve, is this logic? Wait until they have to be brought to an
emergency room? One, this logic will make the health care coverage skyrocket as
not everyone who goes to an emergency room will ever pay back their bills. If
one waits until it gets bad enough to go to an emergency room, then it will
cost the person more money because it may take a greater treatment to cure
whatever is ailing you. By your above analogy you have just opened the door for
free health care coverage for all and will put the medical community in a very
compromising position, of losing even more money. With health insurance one can
have part or all of the bill paid. Your way could really hurt the industry.

| I agree completely.  However, such help should come by the way of charity 
| organizations and giving to the works of the church, 

	Steve, look at the homeless situation and tell me that your analogy
will work. It will help, but most of the churches have a hard enough time
keeping the soup kitchens and shelters open, never mind trying to pay for
health care. BTW Steve, where do the shelters and food banks get their money
from? Could the government be one area????? The same government that you feel
shouldn't be involved?



Glen

    re: .36
    
| Yes.  Only I would not be content to let them die.  I would take them
| to the emergency room, where they cannot be refused.  It may take me a
| lifetime to pay back the hospital, but I would do my best.

>	Steve, is this logic? Wait until they have to be brought to an
>emergency room? 
    
    Actually, when I wrote this, I was thinking about the sudden, severe
    illnesses that come on fast, as well as accidents.  But, let's consider
    your view for a moment...
    
>    One, this logic will make the health care coverage skyrocket as
>not everyone who goes to an emergency room will ever pay back their bills. 
    
    This is 1/2 true.  Not everyone will pay their bills, but this is only
    one factor (of many) in skyrocketing health care costs and the cost of 
    insurance.  This is a much too simplistic view of cause and effect.
    
>    If
>one waits until it gets bad enough to go to an emergency room, then it will
>cost the person more money because it may take a greater treatment to cure
>whatever is ailing you. 
    
    Perhaps.  I was not thinking along the lines of long-term illnesses
    when I wrote my previous note.
    
    However, there are reasons as to why such health care is so expensive
    these days.  I'm of the mind that treatments should not cost so much to
    begin with.  There is a cause and effect going on that is being
    ignored.  The only answer anyone seems to be able to come up with is
    for the government to step in and take over...I disagree.  I have a
    strange suspicion that is just one part of a complex plan to bring
    about more government controls.  Of course, I am a noted paranoid, so
    you can take it for what it's worth.  8^) 
    
>    By your above analogy you have just opened the door for
>free health care coverage for all and will put the medical community in a very
>compromising position, of losing even more money. With health insurance one can
>have part or all of the bill paid. Your way could really hurt the industry.

    It is not my way, it was just an example.  My way would be to struggle
    and pay for health insurance from the private sector, just in case
    something did happen to me or a family member.  
    
    However, the situation I gave as an example happens all the time.  The
    industry is surviving.  It will not survive a government take over,
    however.  In typical government fashion, the cost will skyrocket, taxes
    will go up to pay for it, and then, the inevitable rationing will
    occur.  
    
| I agree completely.  However, such help should come by the way of charity 
| organizations and giving to the works of the church, 

>	Steve, look at the homeless situation and tell me that your analogy
>will work. 
    
    It would work a lot better if the government would quit picking
    everyone's pockets so they actually had some money to give to charity. 
    As it is, even two income families struggle to get by.  Increasing the
    tax burden on them will not help anyone.
    
>    It will help, but most of the churches have a hard enough time
>keeping the soup kitchens and shelters open, never mind trying to pay for
>health care. 
    
    We send missionaries to third world nations to help out.  We send
    doctors to take care of them, and it works well.  Why can't it work
    here?  If we had less taxes taken out of our checks, we would be more
    able to be charitable.  (note that in the Reagan years, after the tax
    cuts, the "greedy" people of this era gave record amounts of money to
    charity).
    
>    BTW Steve, where do the shelters and food banks get their money
>from? Could the government be one area????? The same government that you feel
>shouldn't be involved?

    I'm sure there are some programs that get federal funds.  But, with
    federal monies, most of it goes to administration rather than to the
    food banks and shelters.  Private charity is much more efficient use of
    our money in this area.
    
    
    You seem to be of an attitude that we all should be forced to pay for
    health care insurance for those who do not have any.  I say this is a
    dangerous attitude.  The government is not here to see to our every
    need; that is our responsibility.  There will always be starving people, 
    homeless, poor, etc., and no liberal redistribution policy has ever done 
    anything to help the situation it seeks to cure.  In fact, things always 
    get worse.  Now, we want to hand over 1/7 of our economy to the government 
    to insure that everyone has health insurance.  Can you not see the danger
    in this?  
    
    Mark my words, if the government takes over the health care industry,
    we WILL go bankrupt as a nation.  Depending on how it is first
    implemented (the number of mandates to businesses, amount of tax
    increases and what kind of tax increases), this will happen in 5-10
    years.  We will be insolvent, as our debt will increase beyond our
    ability to borrow money.  What do you think will happen then?
    
    We would stand a chance of surviving this, at least for a reasonable
    period of time, if we didn't already have a 4-6 trillion dollar debt
    hanging over us, and if we had a balanced budget.  As it is, we have
    neither. 
    
    Charity belongs at home, not in a huge government boondoggle and power
    grab. 
    
    
    -steve        

| <<< Note 528.37 by CSOA1::LEECH "I understand the black flame." >>>

| This is 1/2 true.  Not everyone will pay their bills, but this is only one 
| factor (of many) in skyrocketing health care costs and the cost of insurance.  

	Agreed, but it is one that can be avoided. 

| >If one waits until it gets bad enough to go to an emergency room, then it 
| >will cost the person more money because it may take a greater treatment to 
| >cure whatever is ailing you.

| Perhaps.  I was not thinking along the lines of long-term illnesses
| when I wrote my previous note.

	Not perhaps Steve, try more than likely. But it CAN be avoided.

| However, there are reasons as to why such health care is so expensive
| these days.  I'm of the mind that treatments should not cost so much to
| begin with.  There is a cause and effect going on that is being ignored.  

	I agree with the above analogy. Costs can be cut and a profit can still
happen. But to do this, cuts will have to be made. To use the emergency room
for medical help is not going to do ANYTHING to cut corners. What it will do is
drive costs up even further. People without insurance is one of the biggest
reasons the costs are so high! There is a cure for this, it's called insurance.
Look at how the normal insurances are run, with the costs involved, and then
look at an HMO. Out of the two, the HMO is FAR more efficient, which drives
DOWN the costs. With less overhead, and people without insurance IS overhead,
the costs could come down. Malpractice suits are another reason the costs are
so high. Some are legitimate, others are just people out to make a buck. 

| >By your above analogy you have just opened the door for free health care 
| >coverage for all and will put the medical community in a very compromising 
| >position, of losing even more money. With health insurance one can have part 
| >or all of the bill paid. Your way could really hurt the industry.

| It is not my way, it was just an example.  My way would be to struggle and 
| pay for health insurance from the private sector, just in case something did 
| happen to me or a family member.

	And use the emergency room as your personal physician whenever the need
for medical help is needed. Oh, and those who could not pay for their insurance
through the private sector, they can pay back the hospital, if they feel like
it, at a small rate per month, when insurance would pay it all at once. Steve,
your plan does not seem to work too well.... btw, do you have insurance through
Digital or through the private sector?

| However, the situation I gave as an example happens all the time.  The 
| industry is surviving.  

	Sure it is, and look at the cost on us keep going up and up and up....
it may be surviving, but we're paying for it.

| It would work a lot better if the government would quit picking everyone's 
| pockets so they actually had some money to give to charity.

	Steve, just as a guessamate, what % of Americans would give some of the
extra money they are now getting to charity? Remember, if the government took
less money from us, a lot of programs would be cut, which a lot of people may
need the extra money to pay for.

| We send missionaries to third world nations to help out.  We send doctors to 
| take care of them, and it works well.  

	Does it really Steve? Is that why they keep begging for money? Then
when they do get money they hound you for a bigger contribution? There are so
many areas in this world where people are hurting, are they all being cared
for? Can we take care of these places and our own country? BTW, is the medical
capabilities as good with the missionaries as it is in our own hospitals? You
aren't making much sense here Steve.

| If we had less taxes taken out of our checks, we would be more able to be 
| charitable.  (note that in the Reagan years, after the tax cuts, the "greedy" 
| people of this era gave record amounts of money to charity).

	But they did so because they got a tax break. That is the ONLY reason
it was happening so much. So do we give more of the money back to the greedy so
they will donate to charity? Kill our own government to allow the rich to stay
rich? Doesn't make sense to me Steve.

| I'm sure there are some programs that get federal funds.  But, with federal 
| monies, most of it goes to administration rather than to the food banks and 
| shelters.  

	Steve, can you prove this point? You say that you are sure that there
are some programs that get federal funds, which I agree with. But you don't say
it like you are sure about it. Yet you seem 100% sure that most of it goes to
administration. Just how are you so sure about the latter, but not the former?
Is this your paranoia rearing it's ugly head again?

| You seem to be of an attitude that we all should be forced to pay for health 
| care insurance for those who do not have any.  

	Actually, the topic was about a company offering insurance to couples
who were in committed relationships, but not married. How it got on the
government thing is beyond me.

| There will always be starving people, homeless, poor, etc., and no liberal 
| redistribution policy has ever done anything to help the situation it seeks 
| to cure.  

	Wait Steve, have shelters or food banks done anything to seek a cure?
You are quick to point out the governments faults, which in this case I agree
with, but it goes beyond the government. I wish you would also recognize that
as well.

Glen

    
    
    It appears that there is actually quite a bit of unity here.  As far as
    I can tell, all the notes in one way or another say that so long as
    there are homeless, hungry, ailing, needy people there remains work to
    be done....more work needs to be done.  This is all good.
    
    The big split comes in implementing how we go about this work.  Is the
    Government the solution or not.
    
   Government has a long track record in its solution to these problems. 
    Think of it as a resume.  If you like the solutions government has
    offered to problems (a long list, but I'll mention only welfare here),
    and believe that this is the best possible solution, and believe that
    government has ably demonstrated capable administration of its
    solutions, then by all means 'hire' the government to solve health
    care.
    
    There is really no other standard to judge whether or not government
    can come throough.  It is  on this basis that I would *not* hire
    government for most anything.
    
    Otto

	Nice note Otto! BTW, like I said in my note to Steve, the origional
content was companies giving employees benefits for couples in committed
relationships. I was thinking about it and I think what happened was someone
brought up people should have their own insurance (it was said before Steve
brought it up) that they pay for, and the discussion went to those who could
not afford to do that to government stepping in. Do I have that right? :-)


Glen

    
    Although you wouldn't know it from comments made by many prominent
    politicians currently in power, we Americans do have the right to
    opinions (dissenting or otherwise).   I still have trouble determining
    when I should keep my opinions to myself, however.  ;-)
    
    What I really cannot understand, though, is why *anybody* would look to
    the government for the kinds of solutions discussed here.  Has the
    government *ever* delivered?  It would be like me saying "well, this
    auto shop hasn't repaired my car the last 12 times I've brought it in,
    despite my paying 10X the estimated cost of repair each time.  They
    say they'll fix this new problem, though, and the estimate, while high, is
    not toooo bad..."
    
    As far as 'committed relationships' go, we Christians can find lots of
    recommendations in the Bible on how God intends for us to live.  Oddly
    enough, this is also in line with most companies' benefits policies 
    regarding dependent insurance coverage.
    
    Otto
    
    
    

    re: .38
    
>	I agree with the above analogy. Costs can be cut and a profit can still
>happen. But to do this, cuts will have to be made. To use the emergency room
>for medical help is not going to do ANYTHING to cut corners. What it will do is
>drive costs up even further. 
    
    I agree, it does up the cost.  Not near as much as government
    mandates will...nor as much as it will cost the economy to pay for
    health insurance for those who currently have none.  And remember,
    there are direct costs and the related costs...it is the related costs
    of implementation that will do the most harm. 
    
>    People without insurance is one of the biggest
>reasons the costs are so high! 
    
    I disagree.  This factor is probably in the bottom half of the reasons
    behind explosive cost increases in health care.  Number one would be
    government interference with medicare and medicade and related hassles. 
    Number two would probably be malpractive insurance (yes, you and I pay
    for the rediculous law-suits against hospitals and practitioners). 
    After these two, we move on to a more diabolical web of hospitals
    sponging off the insurance carriers by charging tons of extra $$ for
    silly things that any normal person or business would consider part of
    the overall package (like paying $50 for the tray used to deliver
    medicine to your bedside...and you don't even get to keep the tray,
    etc. etc.).
    
    Uninsured people actually don't have near as much to do with rising
    costs as you are lead to believe.
    
>    There is a cure for this, it's called insurance.
    
    Nope.  You have the cause and effects our of order.  Insuring the
    uninsured masses will do little to help in reducing costs...especially
    when taxes must be raised to pay for it.
    
>Look at how the normal insurances are run, with the costs involved, and then
>look at an HMO. Out of the two, the HMO is FAR more efficient, which drives
>DOWN the costs. 
    
    Okay, look to the reasons as to why the HMO seems to be more efficient,
    and then apply it to the free market.  Don't you think that eventually,
    if let be, that costs will come down as more and more people join HMO's
    (which generally keep a better eye on what they are paying for, which
    doesn't allow the hospitals to overcharge for various proceedures or
    tests or items)?  
    
    As more people join HMO's (and more organizations use them in groups),
    don't you think that the free market will reign in the escalating
    costs?  Won't this force the hospitals and doctors to be more
    efficient as well?  Won't this be superior to anything that the
    government can do to control costs (actually, mentioning the government
    and cost control in the same sentence is laughable)? 
    
>    With less overhead, and people without insurance IS overhead,
    
    You'll have to explain this one.  How are uninsured people overhead to
    insurance companies?
    
>the costs could come down. Malpractice suits are another reason the costs are
>so high. Some are legitimate, others are just people out to make a buck. 

    Agreed.  Though this is much farther up the list of cause and effect
    than uninsured people are.
    
>	And use the emergency room as your personal physician whenever the need
>for medical help is needed.
    
    Now you're getting rediculous.
    
>    Oh, and those who could not pay for their insurance
>through the private sector, they can pay back the hospital, 
    
    This happens.  Many people DO try to pay their bills, believe it or
    not. 
    
>    if they feel like
>it, at a small rate per month, when insurance would pay it all at once. 
    
    And don't insurance rates go up to cover the extra costs incurred when
    many of those they insure hand over large hospital bills?
    
>    Steve,
>your plan does not seem to work too well.... btw, do you have insurance through
>Digital or through the private sector?

    First of all, it is not my plan, it was a simple example that you have
    blown out of proportion.  
    
    Second, by being insured through Digital, I AM beinging insured through
    the private sector.  I also pay so much per week our of my paycheck.
    What's your point?
    
>	Sure it is, and look at the cost on us keep going up and up and up....
>it may be surviving, but we're paying for it.
 
    And of course insuring all those uninsured folks will fix everything
    without ANY cost whatsoever.  Yes, it's much better to bring everyone
    down to the least common denominator, rather than try to lift others
    up (and a fed controlled health care system would do just that).  
      
| It would work a lot better if the government would quit picking everyone's 
| pockets so they actually had some money to give to charity.
  
>	Steve, just as a guessamate, what % of Americans would give some of the
>extra money they are now getting to charity? 
    
    Of what pertinence is this?  What if none did, isn't that their choice? 
    Is it proper for these people to be forced to give their money to the
    fed so it can in turn be given to someone else?  If they want to be
    greedy IT IS THEIR RIGHT.  I'm not saying that this is good, but what
    right do I have to live off your tax $$?  What right does anyone have
    to live off my tax $$?  
    
    Keep charity in the private sector where it belongs; where people can
    feel good about giving to their favorite charity OF THEIR CHOICE-
    rather than having their pockets picked and money distributed where
    they would rather not see it go.  I still think more would give if they
    had more money TO give.  The evil greedy Reagan era supports this idea.
    
>    Remember, if the government took
>less money from us, a lot of programs would be cut, which a lot of people may
>need the extra money to pay for.

    So what?  What good are they doing anyway?  We don't need to delegate
    this responsibility to the government.  Just as we are sending supplies
    and medicine to Rwanda (because no one is there to help them), we would
    send help to our own here in the US, if the government was not there to
    (supposedly) help them.
    
    Welfare has only increased poverty, not helped it.  It is a trap from
    which few escape.  
    
>	Does it really Steve? Is that why they keep begging for money? 
    
    In case you haven't been paying attention...we are seeing starvation
    of, well, Biblical proportions going on in many different areas.  In
    fact, this is just one of many signs to look for before the coming of
    Jesus.
    
>    Then
>when they do get money they hound you for a bigger contribution? There are so
>many areas in this world where people are hurting, are they all being cared
>for? Can we take care of these places and our own country? 
    
    We can try.  What are you getting at?  Do you think that somehow, by
    the government taking "care" of us here, that we will be more able to
    help other nations?
    
    Do you not realize that WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT?  Do you not realize
    that the government is not some separate entity of the economy, that WE
    PAY FOR EVERYTHING??
    
    If the government just covered what it was designed to, we would be a
    thriving economy able to help our own poor and the poor around the
    world WITH PRIVATE CHARITY.
    
    The fact that our economy is still working somewhat WITH all the
    government controlls and sanctions, etc. gives you an idea just how
    strong our economy could be without interference.
    
>    BTW, is the medical
>capabilities as good with the missionaries as it is in our own hospitals? You
>aren't making much sense here Steve.

>	But they did so because they got a tax break. That is the ONLY reason
>it was happening so much. 
    
    People take care of their own first and foremost.  This is natural.  If
    they have extra, they give back.  What is your problem with this? 
    Seems we actually agree that by cutting taxes, we increase charitable
    contributions.
    
>    So do we give more of the money back to the greedy so
>they will donate to charity? Kill our own government to allow the rich to stay
>rich? Doesn't make sense to me Steve.

    Define greedy.  Why are you making such swooping accusations of people? 
    IT IS THEIR MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!   You have take a good look at your
    attitude here, it is one of economic retribution.  "You will help the
    poor one way or the other, becasue I feel that this is something that
    needs to be taken care of."
    
    You know, people should be free NOT to give to the poor.  Radical
    thought, eh?  
    
    I don't suggest "killing" the governmenet...merely putting it back on
    its constitutional leash, where it belongs.
    
>	Steve, can you prove this point? You say that you are sure that there
>are some programs that get federal funds, which I agree with. But you don't say
>it like you are sure about it. Yet you seem 100% sure that most of it goes to
>administration. Just how are you so sure about the latter, but not the former?
>Is this your paranoia rearing it's ugly head again?

    Out of every dollar taken from your wallet and earmarked for
    redistribution, 28 cents reaches its final destination.  This is the
    way of government bureaucracies...the ratios may differe between
    departments, but I'm willing to bet that *any* private charity is much
    more efficient that *any* government run redistribution program.
    
>	Actually, the topic was about a company offering insurance to couples
>who were in committed relationships, but not married. How it got on the
>government thing is beyond me.

    Well, it did...and you dodged my question.  
    
>	Wait Steve, have shelters or food banks done anything to seek a cure?
>You are quick to point out the governments faults, which in this case I agree
>with, but it goes beyond the government. I wish you would also recognize that
>as well.

    I'm not sure what your point is, but we all know it comes down to human
    nature, at its base.  The problem is, some feel that the rest of the
    population need to be forced into charitable giving (via federal
    government redistribution policies), I am merely pointing our that not
    only is the WRONG (and unconstitutional..another topic), but actually
    makes the problem itself worse, while at the same time puts a drag on
    the economy.
    
    -steve

RE: .42

	I'll split this up as 222 lines is a no no Steve... :-)


>	I agree with the above analogy. Costs can be cut and a profit can still
>happen. But to do this, cuts will have to be made. To use the emergency room
>for medical help is not going to do ANYTHING to cut corners. What it will do is
>drive costs up even further. 
    
| I agree, it does up the cost.  Not near as much as government mandates will...

	How much do you feel it will raise the costs? Now, is this just a gut
feel or is it something you know as fact?

| as much as it will cost the economy to pay for health insurance for those who 
| currently have none.  

	Steve, we're paying more for health insurance now, more for medical
costs, all because people don't have insurance, malpractice, etc. If we do away
with those who do not have insurance, wouldn't a big chunk come out? BTW, how
much more in taxes do you think it will cost? 

| Number one would be government interference with medicare and medicade and 
| related hassles. 

	Is this just a gut feel or is there some proof you can provide?

| Number two would probably be malpractive insurance (yes, you and I pay for the
| rediculous law-suits against hospitals and practitioners). 

	I agree that this one is high on the list! It does stink that there are
so many suits against doctors. If a surgery is high risk to begin with, then I
do not think there should be a suit. They need to know the risks going in. But
then you're in a catch 22 as what happens if the doctor is not up to par to
begin with? Too many scenerios with this one. Not quite sure how to resolve it.
  
| After these two, we move on to a more diabolical web of hospitals sponging 
| off the insurance carriers by charging tons of extra $$ for silly things that 
| any normal person or business would consider part of the overall package 
| (like paying $50 for the tray used to deliver medicine to your bedside...and 
| you don't even get to keep the tray,

	Steve, this is a biggie, but you need to also look at a few things.
Everyone, regardless of what business, does it. Look at Digital. Does it cost
as much to make a piece of equipment as what we sell it for? Of course not. The
medical business is out to make a profit. Explain to me why they should be any
different than Digital? 
    
| Okay, look to the reasons as to why the HMO seems to be more efficient, and 
| then apply it to the free market. Don't you think that eventually, if let be, 
| that costs will come down as more and more people join HMO's (which generally 
| keep a better eye on what they are paying for, which doesn't allow the 
| hospitals to overcharge for various proceedures or tests or items)?  

	To be honest with you Steve, no. They are not about to drop their
prices for anything. Future costs may not go as high, but they too will still
go up. They are out to make money, plain and simple. 
    
| As more people join HMO's (and more organizations use them in groups), don't 
| you think that the free market will reign in the escalating costs? Won't this 
| force the hospitals and doctors to be more efficient as well?  Won't this be 
| superior to anything that the government can do to control costs 

	Steve, this is pretty funny. You talk of this, like you believe it and
all, yet you also talk of the industry now as ripping people off. Costs need to
be regulated, yes. Will an HMO be the cure all? No.     

>    With less overhead, and people without insurance IS overhead,
    
| You'll have to explain this one.  How are uninsured people overhead to
| insurance companies?

	The insurance companies get the brunt of it all Steve, but they are not
hit with the overhead. The hospitals pay for the care of those who do not have
insurance. That is THEIR overhead. They pass that overhead into the prices they
charge for insurance. The result is that the insurance companies pass that cost
onto us in their price of their insurance. But the overhead is the hospitals.
Sorry for the confusion.
    
>	And use the emergency room as your personal physician whenever the need
>for medical help is needed.
    
| Now you're getting rediculous.

	Why is that Steve?
    
>Oh, and those who could not pay for their insurance through the private sector, 
>they can pay back the hospital, 
    
| This happens. Many people DO try to pay their bills, believe it or not. 

	What % do you feel actually pay back their bills? Now, is this just a
gut feel?
    
>at a small rate per month, when insurance would pay it all at once. 
    
| And don't insurance rates go up to cover the extra costs incurred when many 
| of those they insure hand over large hospital bills?
 
	Yup. But that will ALWAYS happen. If we can cut down on the hospitals
costs, in what ever way possible, it would help the costs from rising as fast.
I think we're at a point where unless someone comes in and looks at what we pay
for everything, it will never be brought under control. One thing that might
work out well is to have the industry do an overhaul of themselves, the prices
they charge, etc, with the threat that if it isn't done, the government will
step in and make changes. I could live with that. I think the industry would
start cutting, but you know they will still make a profit... :-)


Glen

RE: .42

>Steve, your plan does not seem to work too well.... btw, do you have insurance 
>through Digital or through the private sector?

| Second, by being insured through Digital, I AM beinging insured through the 
| private sector.  

	Ahhh... now I see what you mean. By private sector I thought you were
talking about doing it on your own, without Digital's help. So now I have a few
questions for ya. (like you didn't see this coming:) 

	How can you include you lower costing insurance in with those
	who have to pay for it 100% out of pocket? 

You see, with you only paying a SMALL portion of the insurance costs, you
aren't having that LARGE chunk of money taken out of your paycheck weekly. I
know for a single plan of insurance with blue cross is about $250/month, and
the insurance is not nearly as good as an HMO. It's people stuck in these
positions that need the coverage. To pay the small amount that you pay per
month would greatly help them. I know I only pay 29.20/month. Far cry from what
these other people are paying.

| And of course insuring all those uninsured folks will fix everything
  
	Who said that? I certainly didn't. I said it would be a START. It would
fix THAT end of things. 

| without ANY cost whatsoever.  

	I NEVER said this either Steve. I said it would help drive costs down
overall. 

| It would work a lot better if the government would quit picking everyone's 
| pockets so they actually had some money to give to charity.
  
>	Steve, just as a guessamate, what % of Americans would give some of the
>extra money they are now getting to charity? 
    
| Of what pertinence is this?  What if none did, isn't that their choice? 
 
	You are saying that if the government would quit picking everyone's
pocket, they would have money to give to charity. I do believe some would, but
I also believe that most would not. That is just a gut fel, but it is what I
think. To cut taxes in hopes that more money would be given to charity is dumb.
Most people will use that money to get ahead. So let's not say we can cut taxes
for one thing when the reality of the situation is most would not give to any
charity. You were the one who thought charities could save those who do not
have insurance. I'm saying a tax cut in no way gaurentees more money for
charities. (which would be needed to help out the people of this nation)

>    Then
>when they do get money they hound you for a bigger contribution? There are so
>many areas in this world where people are hurting, are they all being cared
>for? Can we take care of these places and our own country? 
    
| We can try.  What are you getting at?  Do you think that somehow, by
| the government taking "care" of us here, that we will be more able to
| help other nations?

	No, what I am saying is that charities can't help the country as you
seemed to imply. Well, help to the point that they cure what is ailing the
people who do not have insurance. Maybe they could if they did not help anyone
else but the people of this country, but that is not about to happen. Your use
of charity to save those who do not have medical insurance is not one that is
feasible.
    
>BTW, is the medical capabilities as good with the missionaries as it is in our
>own hospitals? You aren't making much sense here Steve.

	Steve, you never answered this.

| Out of every dollar taken from your wallet and earmarked for redistribution, 
| 28 cents reaches its final destination.  

	Steve, how do you know this?

Glen

    Please Mr. Silva, do at least a little homework.  
    
    Only about 15% of U.S. citizens are without healthcare coverage.  This
    is down considerably over the last 50 years.  This is one of the major
    factors in raising medical costs, which universal care will put out of
    sight!  When a third party takes the responsibility for paying for your
    healthcare, you no longer are agressive about cost control.  If I told
    you that I would pay for any car that you wanted, would you worry about
    the cost.  If you decided on a particular car, would you worry that you
    might get it at a better price from another dealer, or that you could
    negotiate a better deal, or would you leave out a little needed or
    wanted extra if it would lower the cost?  If you said "No", you are
    just like everyone else.
    
    Malpractice insurance and the legal profession is the second major
    cause of high healthcare costs.  Even thirty years ago, the legal
    profession was reluctant to take on malpractice cases.  But, now, for
    instance, my cousin began his practice as an anathesiologist about 12
    years ago and his malpractice insurance cost $4,000 per week.  Yes he
    is in a high cost practice, but that cost is out-of-sight.
    
    Over the past 50 years, no one has been turned away from emergency
    health care in the United States, including the illegal aliens who come
    here to give birth to their children, so that the children will become
    citizens.  That cost has been small, until we started giving away
    insurance by the government and by our employers.  The system worked
    well and then the government stepped in and said we needed emergency
    centers to meet certain basic criteria, we increased the Medicaid and
    Medicare coverage, etc.
    
    In California, a physician can be on staff for a given hospital by
    attending the monthly staff meeting and doing research and free patient
    care for four hours per month.  The staff meeting requirement may be
    waived if he increases his free health care.  I have two friends that
    are plastic surgeons and they increase their free care, because they
    want to be on as many hospital staffs as possible, because their
    patients may appear at any one of the many hospitals in the greater
    Sacramento area and they are summoned on an emergency basis, since both
    are reconstructive surgery specialists within the plastic surgery
    speciality.
    
    I've had personal experience with the Canadian, Mexican and English
    systems and I will take the U.S. system hands down for the quality of
    care.  I'll pay the larger tariff for that quality and I will go and
    find the best doctor, not one that an HMO assigns.  I've had care from
    an HMO and it will never come close to choosing your own.  Common sense
    tells you that if you impose an additional layer of administration into
    the cost picture, which is what is down with the "Gate Keepers" the
    cost must be greater, yet they charge less, so it is evident that they
    must restrict treatment.  The most frequently sued corporation in
    California is one of the oldest and most "respected" HMOs in the
    country. (I have two other doctor friends that work for that
    corporation.)  If we "fix" our health care system with universal health 
    care coverage and employer mandates, you will see the same rationing of 
    care that occurs in those countries.
    
    I have opted out of my Digital care, preferring private insurance.  I
    have had the serious type of problems, with cancer, heart disease,
    chronic illness and the responsibility for an Alzheimer's patient. 
    When you have major problems, you are only too willing to pay the price
    of being able to pick and choose and also get the immediate care you
    want for yourself or a loved one.  
    
     

re: .43
    
>	Steve, we're paying more for health insurance now, more for medical
>costs, all because people don't have insurance, malpractice, etc. If we do away
>with those who do not have insurance, wouldn't a big chunk come out? BTW, how
>much more in taxes do you think it will cost? 
    
    The national health care bill does nothing about regulating litigation,
    that I am aware of.  As I keep telling you, uninsured people ARE NOT A
    SIGNIFICANT FACTOR in the current cost of health care, and a NON-FACTOR
    in the cost of insurance.
    
    The tax cost will be spread over certain commodities and excess IT, as
    well as funded by businesses (which will only harm the economy, causing
    a downward trend in the economy).  The first figures in for the NHC
    package was 75 billion, last I heard it was us to $150 billion (as
    proposed by Clinton).
    
    How many new taxes would we need to pay for an extra $150 billion/year? 
    Isn't this an awful lot of money for a small % of the population that
    isn't insured?  

| Number one would be government interference with medicare and medicade and 
| related hassles. 

>	Is this just a gut feel or is there some proof you can provide?

    Do some research on medicade and medicare.  Heck, do research on any
    government redistribution policy, and tell me which ones actually have
    solved- or even helped- the situation in an efficient manner.
     
| After these two, we move on to a more diabolical web of hospitals sponging 
| off the insurance carriers by charging tons of extra $$ for silly things that 
| any normal person or business would consider part of the overall package 
| (like paying $50 for the tray used to deliver medicine to your bedside...and 
| you don't even get to keep the tray,

>	Steve, this is a biggie, but you need to also look at a few things.
>Everyone, regardless of what business, does it. Look at Digital. Does it cost
>as much to make a piece of equipment as what we sell it for? Of course not. The
>medical business is out to make a profit. Explain to me why they should be any
>different than Digital? 
 
    No, all businesses DO NOT DO THIS.  The many extra charges to fluff
    hospital profits are a direct result of...(and read this
    carefully)...INSURANCE.  There are a few reasons for this (note .45
    gives a few good examples), which I'm not going to go into here.  
    So the answer to all this is to GIVE EVERYONE INSURANCE.  Oh yeah,
    that'll bring the costs down...definitely.
      
>	To be honest with you Steve, no. They are not about to drop their
>prices for anything. Future costs may not go as high, but they too will still
>go up. They are out to make money, plain and simple. 
 
    You seem to have little understanding of the free enterprise system. 
       
| As more people join HMO's (and more organizations use them in groups), don't 
| you think that the free market will reign in the escalating costs? Won't this 
| force the hospitals and doctors to be more efficient as well?  Won't this be 
| superior to anything that the government can do to control costs 

>	Steve, this is pretty funny. You talk of this, like you believe it and
>all, yet you also talk of the industry now as ripping people off. Costs need to
>?be regulated, yes. Will an HMO be the cure all? No.     

    NO!!  COSTS DO NOT NEED TO BE REGULATED (by the feds)!  argh!  What needs 
    to be regulated (by the insurance companies) is what they will pay for and
    how much they will pay for it (like some HMO's).  This way, the
    hospital will not rip them off by overcharging or charging for silly
    things that they do now.  The answer is not governmental control, but
    controls placed within the market itself.  There are many ways to bring
    costs down, none of which include government interference.
    
>	The insurance companies get the brunt of it all Steve, but they are not
>hit with the overhead. The hospitals pay for the care of those who do not have
>insurance. That is THEIR overhead. They pass that overhead into the prices they
>charge for insurance. 
    
    Actually, they can count it as a loss on their taxes, or in many cases
    get reimbursed by the feds through Medicare.  
    
    BTW, hospitals don't sell insurance...last I heard, anyway.
    
      
| And don't insurance rates go up to cover the extra costs incurred when many 
| of those they insure hand over large hospital bills?
 
>	Yup. But that will ALWAYS happen. 
    
    Then why hand over insurance to EVERYONE?
    
    
    -steve

re: .44
    
>	How can you include you lower costing insurance in with those
>	who have to pay for it 100% out of pocket? 

    What difference does it make?  All are insured by the private sector.
    
>You see, with you only paying a SMALL portion of the insurance costs, you
>aren't having that LARGE chunk of money taken out of your paycheck weekly. 
    
    So what?  Life isn't fair, is it.  Previous to my employment here, I
    was quite uninsured and worked more than one job.  You didn't hear me
    whining about those who managed to get a job with the good bennies.
    If I had really wanted insurance, I could have paid for it, though it
    would have been quite a strain on my pocketbook.  It was my choice, and
    I chose to go uninsured at the time.
    
>    I
>    know for a single plan of insurance with blue cross is about $250/month, and
>the insurance is not nearly as good as an HMO. It's people stuck in these
>positions that need the coverage. 
    
    Why?  Why is anyone entitled to be subsidized on their insurance via
    wealth redistribution?  This is a scary mentality...especially when
    your example shows someone who is scraping up enough money and HAS
    insurance.  
    
>    To pay the small amount that you pay per
>month would greatly help them. I know I only pay 29.20/month. Far cry from what
>these other people are paying.

    So what.  Dat's de breaks, mon.  You don't like your lot in life? 
    CHANGE IT!  It is still a (vaguely) free nation, with plenty of
    opportunities for those who are willing to work hard.
    
| And of course insuring all those uninsured folks will fix everything
  
>	Who said that? I certainly didn't. I said it would be a START. It would
>fix THAT end of things. 

    It would fix NOTHING.  Have you paid no attention at all to the abysmal
    record of the government?  It would only insure bankruptcy in our
    nation within a decade.
    
| without ANY cost whatsoever.  

>	I NEVER said this either Steve. I said it would help drive costs down
>overall. 

    I suppose you have some evidence of this?  
    
    Do some research.  Costs will only go up...and guess who pays?  All tax
    payers.  
    
>	You are saying that if the government would quit picking everyone's
>pocket, they would have money to give to charity. I do believe some would, but
>I also believe that most would not. 
    
    That's right, some would, some wouldn't.  Why do you have a problem
    with this?  Is freedom so hard to comprehend?
    
| We can try.  What are you getting at?  Do you think that somehow, by
| the government taking "care" of us here, that we will be more able to
| help other nations?

>	No, what I am saying is that charities can't help the country as you
>seemed to imply. Well, help to the point that they cure what is ailing the
>people who do not have insurance. 
    
    Charity can and does help.  THERE IS NO CURE, GLEN.  Get used to it. 
    Welcome to reality, buddy.  Government subsidized insurance is not a
    cure, either...it will only harm everyone involved in the long run.
        
| Out of every dollar taken from your wallet and earmarked for redistribution, 
| 28 cents reaches its final destination.  

>	Steve, how do you know this?

    Research, Glen...research.  You should try it.
    
    
    -steve