AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I'm going to add another problem that is currently not being discussed by the charitable conservatives.

why are those of us who are unable to afford insurance charged the most by the providers of "healthcare" when we attempt to pay for services we need.

(assuming we do not just go to the "free hospital".

I believe that if the Federal government got out of it entirely except to enact meaningful tort reform--not elminate redress for gross negligence, but protect doctors and medical providers from opportunistic suits or suits when something goes wrong that simply could not be reasonably foreseen or prevented. . . . .if the Federal government got out of it entirely except to enact legislation relaxing unnecessary regulation and enabling more creative and economical ways for insurance companies to insure people. . . . if the Federal government got out of it entirely except maybe administer and offer a catastrophic illness insurance pool similar to Federal flood insurance which would relieve the insurance companies of much risk and allow them to lower premiums significantly. . . . .if the Federal government would allow bigger deductibles before the insurance policies kicked in--we all manage to find the money to have our automobiles serviced and repaired and pay our cell phone fees, etc. Most can surely pay out of pocket the doctors' call for their kid's earache or their annual flu shot and save the insurance for the big expensive stuff they can't afford out of pocket. . . . .

If the Federal government would do just that and then get out of the way and allow the free market to work, we would see our healthcare costs come down significantly and stabilize without losing any of the qualities about it that we like.

Cycloptichorn, when the cost of medical treatment for those who cannot afford to buy it themselves, is passed along to those who can afford it, those who cannot afford do get that medical treatment, anyway. So my cost of medical insurance includes my increased cost of medical treatment due to some not being able to pay for it themselves. So what! I'm glad to be able to help that way those people less fortunate than myself instead of involving the government to do it for me. Besides, when the government helps them for me, it costs far more. I have found it much more economical to help others myself rather than to have the government do it for me. When the government does it for me either my taxes increase, or government deficits increase later causing inflation, or both, such that my dollars will buy less, including less medical insurance.

Come on now, Cycloptichorn, what is the "great evidence of the faulty conclusions that can be came to, when one worships the so-called Free Market and demonizes the Government continually?"

If that evidence were in fact "great," surely you could provide it.

Come on now, Cycloptichorn, what is the "great evidence of the faulty conclusions that can be came to, when one worships the so-called Free Market and demonizes the Government continually?"

If that evidence were in fact "great," surely you could provide it.

ican711nm wrote:

Come on now, Cycloptichorn, what is the "great evidence of the faulty conclusions that can be came to, when one worships the so-called Free Market and demonizes the Government continually?"

If that evidence were in fact "great," surely you could provide it.

Perhaps he could include some links to back up his statement of facts? Back up his conjecture with some hard evidence like he keeps hounding others to do.

It most certainly is not more economical for us to jack up private health-insurance costs, than it is to have a government program address the needs.

You complain about your taxes increasing, but that is functionally exactly the same as your insurance rates going up under a private carrier - something which has happened at a much higher rate than your taxes have gone up, or that medicare costs have gone up, I guarantee. You aren't really being logical about this issue.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It most certainly is not more economical for us to jack up private health-insurance costs, than it is to have a government program address the needs.

You complain about your taxes increasing, but that is functionally exactly the same as your insurance rates going up under a private carrier - something which has happened at a much higher rate than your taxes have gone up, or that medicare costs have gone up, I guarantee. You aren't really being logical about this issue.

It most certainly is more economical for us to endure increased "private health-insurance costs, than it is to have a government program address the needs." Huh? "the needs?" Whose needs?

Taxes increasing is not "functionally exactly the same as your insurance rates going up under a private carrier - something which has happened at a much higher rate than your taxes have gone up." Two reasons:
(1) my federal income taxes have not gone up since 2003, when they went down to a minimum of 10% for that part of my taxable annual income less than $16,700. Obama is fixin to raise my taxes of various kinds if his damnable medical program is passed.
(2) The cost of my medical insurance has not gone up since 2005. I want to keep it as close to that way as I can get.

You, Cycloptichorn, "aren't really being logical about this issue."

It most certainly is more economical for us to endure increased "private health-insurance costs, than it is to have a government program address the needs." Huh? "the needs?" Whose needs?

So the insurance companies don't get a special rate that I don't?

Fox already did provide it. The constant drumbeat coming from the Republican side, that if we just had 'less regulation,' things would work a lot better; this position is generally not born out by fact, logic, or history, but rather is an ideological one.

I can understand why you object, for you follow the same model Fox does: take an ideological position and try and find evidence to support that position, regardless of the fact that this often leads to poor logic and poor policy proposals.

Insurance companies have to charge enough to cover the amount of risk they are assuming plus their overhead, expansion, and a reasonable profit or they go broke.

Foxfyre and others of us have provided you a great deal of valid evidence to support our ideological models.

Cycloptichorn, no it is not exactly the point you have made! The rest of my point was:

You and others like you, have not provided any evidence to support your ideological model. You continue to advocate what history--both ancient and contemporary--has repeatedly shown to be a false, illogical, and ultimately cruel ideological model.

Yes, Walter, your so-called non-profit insurance companies just pay salaries to those employees who operate them. I bet those salaries are not all equal! In fact, I bet some get bonuses. But my God, don't call those bonuses profits!