Will this work as a solution to healthcare?

[BillyIdol]

Hey guys,

My sister is a doctor, and she studied for a lot of years, and she works for Kaiser in Colorado. I think she makes about $140k per year. And well deserved too. She is a good doctor.

POINT 1
I heard on the Dr. Dean Edell radio show a few years ago that one of the main reasons that health care costs are so high is that the AMA is trying to restrict medical care only to doctors. They don't want to give much power to physician assistants and/or nurses. If you have a finite supply of doctors, and a huge demand for services, doctors' high salaries are maintained. So, restricting healthcare only to doctors (mainly writing prescriptions) is part of what keeps healthcare costs high. I just don't think that for the benefit of those that are uninsured, that my sister and other doctors would be willing to lower their salaries (giving more responsibility to physician assistants and nurses) to help them. I think that they are way too much into their high socioeconomic status and lifestyle to do so. Doctors: "Yes...help the sick, but don't screw with my MONEY!!! I got a image and lifestyle to maintain here!!!"

POINT 2
I'm a Libertarian, and I don't make any apologies about that. I was thinking that we should totally eliminate employer backed health plans. Free market for everyone!!! You want healthcare? Then pay for it! People: "It's too expensive!!!" Well, if it is too expensive...don't buy it. You don't buy it....you might die. I want a Ferrari F430, but it is too expensive. Therefore...I don't buy it. Simple.

There is a worker at work that sort of made me mad. He looks real, real goofy like Downs Syndrome goofy (seriously). Well, I think that the doctor's told him that if he had a kid (well...if his wife had his kid), that the child would have a very high probability of having Downs Syndrome. Well, he went ahead and had the kid anyway, and sure enough the kid is having serious health issues. The kid needs a surgery to stay alive that costs 2.4 million. I think he is covered with Blue Shield or Kaiser. He came to me last year and said, "Yeah, my kid had this operation that costs 2.4 million!!! And do you know how much it costed me? Nothing!!!" Mein my head): "I'm glad your child got care, and thanks for helping keep our health care costs high!!! I wonder who ends up paying for this. I suppose all of the other health care subscribers that didn't make stupid choices like you did!!!"

Your child's surgery costs 2.4 million? Well, if you don't pay for it, your child dies. Simple as that. Your disease or malady...your cost. You want it? Buy it. You don't want it? Don't buy it. Take responsibility for yourself. When my mom died in April 2009, we probably could have raised $150K to keep her alive for a few more months, but it didn't matter, she slipped away so quickly. I want 2 Ferrari Enzos, oh...that costs 3 million dollars...well I want others to pay for it. Just because I want 2 Ferrari Enzos doesn't mean I should get them. That type of thinking doesn't foster any type of responsibility or accountability.

What about the super, super poor? Well, why don't we try to get every doctor to donate 1 day per month to the poor, and just see patients pro bono 1 day a month. Or get them to donate 1-10 days per month. Or maybe we should try to break up that healthcare monopoly that they have via AMA.

I know that this plan sounds simple, but I think that it will work. I'm not sure why Libertarianism is always seen as so radical, it always seems to make sense to me. I think the reason that Libertarianism is seen as "so radical" is that it makes people accountable for their own actions. I guess it is radical.

John

 

[Vega$ NSX]

I'm a Libertarian

As soon as I saw this, I knew you'd be talking a whole lot of sense.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, except I have a few concerns. In a free market like you suggest, the balance of power will quickly shift to the doctors and health care providers. And when you have health and emotions on the line, it can be taken advantage of really easy.

There's only one cardiologist in town that is available in the emergency time frame your dying mother needs him/her in. The cardiologist says, "So looks like if you want your mom to live, you'll need my services." He/she then says, "Soooo.... how much do you have in the bank?" At that point are you really willing to assign a dollar value over your mom's life?

Unfortunately, there will have to be some level of regulation.

 

[BillyIdol]

Vegas,

Yeah, it doesn't matter what system you have, if the people behind it are bad, then the results are bad. I see your point with the cardiologist, and his pricing. That is sort of assuming that most people are bad, and don't want to help. I've found that most people are good, and want to help.

I mean...just today, I gave this older Filipino fellow some free tennis lessons. I'm a tennis pro (teaching). I saw that his left hand could not clasp fully due to an injury. We worked on forehands and backhands, the fundamentals. I don't think that he has had a tennis lesson in his whole life. He and I had an enjoyable time learning about tennis together. Due to his hand condition, I think that he has been shunned by others, but I took an interest in helping him, and I think he really enjoyed it!!! His face lit up when I told him that I was going to teach him some tennis.

By the way, I also support a Filipino family to the tune of $30/month that is automatically debited from a credit card every month. So....yeah, I'm Libertarian, but I also believe in giving back because I have been blessed with so much. I also given about $1500 a year to my church, so the idea that most people are greedy, selfish jerks doesn't seem to apply in this case.



John

 

[steveny]

Hey guys,

My sister is a doctor, and she studied for a lot of years, and she works for Kaiser in Colorado. I think she makes about $140k per year. And well deserved too. She is a good doctor.

POINT 1
I heard on the Dr. Dean Edell radio show a few years ago that one of the main reasons that health care costs are so high is that the AMA is trying to restrict medical care only to doctors. They don't want to give much power to physician assistants and/or nurses. If you have a finite supply of doctors, and a huge demand for services, doctors' high salaries are maintained. So, restricting healthcare only to doctors (mainly writing prescriptions) is part of what keeps healthcare costs high. I just don't think that for the benefit of those that are uninsured, that my sister and other doctors would be willing to lower their salaries (giving more responsibility to physician assistants and nurses) to help them. I think that they are way too much into their high socioeconomic status and lifestyle to do so. Doctors: "Yes...help the sick, but don't screw with my MONEY!!! I got a image and lifestyle to maintain here!!!"

POINT 2
I'm a Libertarian, and I don't make any apologies about that. I was thinking that we should totally eliminate employer backed health plans. Free market for everyone!!! You want healthcare? Then pay for it! People: "It's too expensive!!!" Well, if it is too expensive...don't buy it. You don't buy it....you might die. I want a Ferrari F430, but it is too expensive. Therefore...I don't buy it. Simple.

There is a worker at work that sort of made me mad. He looks real, real goofy like Downs Syndrome goofy (seriously). Well, I think that the doctor's told him that if he had a kid (well...if his wife had his kid), that the child would have a very high probability of having Downs Syndrome. Well, he went ahead and had the kid anyway, and sure enough the kid is having serious health issues. The kid needs a surgery to stay alive that costs 2.4 million. I think he is covered with Blue Shield or Kaiser. He came to me last year and said, "Yeah, my kid had this operation that costs 2.4 million!!! And do you know how much it costed me? Nothing!!!" Mein my head): "I'm glad your child got care, and thanks for helping keep our health care costs high!!! I wonder who ends up paying for this. I suppose all of the other health care subscribers that didn't make stupid choices like you did!!!"

Your child's surgery costs 2.4 million? Well, if you don't pay for it, your child dies. Simple as that. Your disease or malady...your cost. You want it? Buy it. You don't want it? Don't buy it. Take responsibility for yourself. When my mom died in April 2009, we probably could have raised $150K to keep her alive for a few more months, but it didn't matter, she slipped away so quickly. I want 2 Ferrari Enzos, oh...that costs 3 million dollars...well I want others to pay for it. Just because I want 2 Ferrari Enzos doesn't mean I should get them. That type of thinking doesn't foster any type of responsibility or accountability.

What about the super, super poor? Well, why don't we try to get every doctor to donate 1 day per month to the poor, and just see patients pro bono 1 day a month. Or get them to donate 1-10 days per month. Or maybe we should try to break up that healthcare monopoly that they have via AMA.

I know that this plan sounds simple, but I think that it will work. I'm not sure why Libertarianism is always seen as so radical, it always seems to make sense to me. I think the reason that Libertarianism is seen as "so radical" is that it makes people accountable for their own actions. I guess it is radical.

John

I agree with everything you have said. No pay no get. This would also make the cost of those who use health care much less as everyone who would use it would actually pay.

My buddy is a doctor and he was over the other day. We are talking about this issue. He happen to have a list on him. He went down through the list and counted the amount of patients. He then counted the amount of patients on Medicaid or Medicare. he had a total of 20 patients, 17 are on public assisted pay. WTF.

Quite honestly what this country needs is exactly what billy suggests, that and a ground war to thin the population.

 

[steveny]

As soon as I saw this, I knew you'd be talking a whole lot of sense.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, except I have a few concerns. In a free market like you suggest, the balance of power will quickly shift to the doctors and health care providers. And when you have health and emotions on the line, it can be taken advantage of really easy.

There's only one cardiologist in town that is available in the emergency time frame your dying mother needs him/her in. The cardiologist says, "So looks like if you want your mom to live, you'll need my services." He/she then says, "Soooo.... how much do you have in the bank?" At that point are you really willing to assign a dollar value over your mom's life?

Unfortunately, there will have to be some level of regulation.

Well the way it is set up now the insurance company gets to assign that value and now the government wants the ability to assign the value. If anyone should be able to decide what to spend it should be the person involved and that person better have made some really good choices or he/she won't get the ability to decide anything.

This country has been taking care of people for a long time who add no value to the country at all. Some peice of trash gets shot in a drug deal but he gets free healthcare, well free to him. Me well I just sent in my 13 THOUSAND DOLLAR CHECK for my family oh and every other lazy ass too.

A good example, did anyone see Gran Trino? The scene where the girl is walking with some dumb ass and they come up on 3 guys hanging on the street who give them a hard time. Well those three guys hanging out on the street get free everything. Sure it's just a movie but I know guys (tenants) just like those guys. TAKE, TAKE,TAKE. That's all they do is take. Stack a few thousand takers up like firewood and the rest will change their tune.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Vegas,

Yeah, it doesn't matter what system you have, if the people behind it are bad, then the results are bad. I see your point with the cardiologist, and his pricing. That is sort of assuming that most people are bad, and don't want to help. I've found that most people are good, and want to help.

Oh yeah, Libertarians unite!!!

I don't think people are inherently bad, and most are good but when life/death is in balance of the equation, there will always be ramifications that skew judgment. Say we have that same cardiologist who is good and is doing life saving surgeries for a reasonable price. Well say there a lot of people who need his/her services and because their price is reasonable, soon that doctor has more patients than he/she can handle. So he/she needs to choose or do something to reduce the number. But when people's dying mother/brother/sister/etc is involved, they aren't going to accept being turned away. They will accuse the doctor of playing favoritism or racist or whatever if their loved one isn't saved. If the doctor tried to raise prices then they will be seen as being elitist or greedy, even though they are just trying to reduce the number of patients. The problem is with the supply and demand. In the case of health care, unlike typical goods, is that the “demand” part of the equation is based on the health and care of a loved one. Unlike a typical good where you can set a price, how do you set a price on saving the life of a loved one?

Say you invented a pill that cured cancer and you were the only one that could supply it in a given city. Someone, who has a brother dying of cancer, wants to buy it from you. He is willing to pay you $5 for that pill. He is also willing to sell his home and cars and sell you $500,000 for that same pill. How much do you charge him? To complicate matters more, say you have a sister in need of a kidney transplant or she won’t make it. Someone is willing to donate their kidney for a price: $500,000. Would the cost of that cancer curing pill now change based on what that situation?

In a typical goods and service industry, and open market works very well. And for the most part I’m a huge proponent of open markets. Hell I’m Libertarian! But unfortunately in a market where part is based on health, loved ones, emotions, it’s hard to let the open market run free. There are just too many opportunities to for things to get taken advantage of. I agree there needs to be more free market, but unfortunately there would have to be some regulation as well.

 

[steveny]

I don't think people are inherently bad, and most are good but when life/death is in balance of the equation, there will always be ramifications that skew judgment. Say we have that same cardiologist who is good and is doing life saving surgeries for a reasonable price. Well say there a lot of people who need his/her services and because their price is reasonable, soon that doctor has more patients than he/she can handle. So he/she needs to choose or do something to reduce the number. But when people's dying mother/brother/sister/etc is involved, they aren't going to accept being turned away. They will accuse the doctor of playing favoritism or racist or whatever if their loved one isn't saved. If the doctor tried to raise prices then they will be seen as being elitist or greedy, even though they are just trying to reduce the number of patients. The problem is with the supply and demand. In the case of health care, unlike typical goods, is that the “demand” part of the equation is based on the health and care of a loved one. Unlike a typical good where you can set a price, how do you set a price on saving the life of a loved one?

Say you invented a pill that cured cancer and you were the only one that could supply it in a given city. Someone, who has a brother dying of cancer, wants to buy it from you. He is willing to pay you $5 for that pill. He is also willing to sell his home and cars and sell you $500,000 for that same pill. How much do you charge him? To complicate matters more, say you have a sister in need of a kidney transplant or she won’t make it. Someone is willing to donate their kidney for a price: $500,000. Would the cost of that cancer curing pill now change based on what that situation?

In a typical goods and service industry, and open market works very well. And for the most part I’m a huge proponent of open markets. Hell I’m Libertarian! But unfortunately in a market where part is based on health, loved ones, emotions, it’s hard to let the open market run free. There are just too many opportunities to for things to get taken advantage of. I agree there needs to be more free market, but unfortunately there would have to be some regulation as well.

Speaking of which....[/QUOTE]


ah, but most anything can be traced back to either life saving or life extending. Should Mercedes sell someone a car for less just because it's safer in a crash? What about healthy food should the price be regulated? Or should people just have better work ethic and if they want better for themselves then work harder or smarter? No one owes anyone anything and when the masses get that through their head this country will be a better place.

 

[flaminio]

As soon as I saw this, I knew you'd be talking a whole lot of sense.

Now it's my turn to stalk you :biggrin:.

Yeah, another (L) here, and I agree with the OP, for the most part. I would point out that in the example he used the person did have private insurance, and so that $2.4M is being shared by all of the members of the insurance company, which I don't have a problem with, as that's rather the way insurance works. After all, if I crash my car, I pay the deductible and AAA pays the rest, but that money didn't magically appear from nowhere.

 

[queenlives]

folks,

i would appreciate it everyone would stop posting links to political sites / threads - it's a downward spiral we've all been down before and don't need to re-visit.

thx to those who have removed them from their posts as requested and to you who have them remaining, please remove the links or delete your posts.

thx,
hal

 

[passline]

Speaking of which....

No one owes anyone anything and when the masses get that through their head this country will be a better place.

"Ya got dat rite!"

 

[steveny]

"Ya got dat rite!"

It's gone from "you gotta pay to play," to "you gotta pay so I can play."

 

[Ski_Banker]

There is an answer in this debate. It won't be, or feel, absolutely perfect at the individual level but collectively -humankind- it will. This solution will not happen in any proposed legislation -right or left- though. Fundamentally, it will require the recognition by all parties that *other people* are involved. Not to say you're sacrificing Granny to save rich people's taxes, but that in certain end-of-life-inevitable circumstances, you and Granny will come to realize what is proper and in God's name. Further, in that heightened state of enlightenment, you & Granny will feel good about your decision [to forego treatment that won't do much] so that it won't feel like a sacrifice.

We won't be coming to this realization any time in the next couple of years.

 

[Ski_Banker]

Until then, it will simply be a matter of passing the buck around. Short change doctors, insurance companies (some reform to increase competition here is necessary), or rich people, will be the interim solution. Passing the baton is not a solution though in the long run.

 

[Olyar15]

Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents worth. First off, I am a doctor, and I live in Canada. I haven't really paid much attention to the health care debate in the US, apart from what I see on the Daily Show.

While several of my personal and political views is somewhat libertarian, I don't pretend to be one and I certainly don't know all the ins and outs of Libertarianism. However, some of the opinions voiced in this thread are really impractical in a society. To me, to truly be libertarian, you essentially have to live outside society, and essentially be self-sufficient.

To me, society is about mutual interdependence. You are dependent on others, and they are dependent on you. Therefore, what affects them may in fact affect you. For better or for worse, humans have learned that the advantages of living in a mutually interdependent group outweighs its disadvantages.

So what does this have to do with healthcare? First off, keep in mind that everybody dies. And most people will get sick before they die, so chances are that they will need or want the services of a medical practitioner at some point in their lives. Now it is easy to say that those who need it should pay for it, and that they should take responsibility for their health. First of all, no matter what you do or don't do, eat or don't eat, you will get some sort of disease and die. Or you might get injured through no fault of your own.

Another problem is that the sickness or death of an individual can have consequences for many others, so is it really okay to place the burden of health car entirely on that individual? For example, say some stranger happens to get TB. Now you can say that he should pay for whatever care he needs, and that if he can't afford it, tough. Now, say that he can't afford it so the TB goes untreated. Now he is walking around, spreading the disease among the population. If, by a chance encounter, you then develop the disease, now you have to pay to treat it, even though it wasn't your fault. And even with treatment, there is still a chance that you may die. So don't you think that, after several epidemics have swept through your community and killed a large proportion of the population, devastating the economy and wreaking havoc on family and friends, that at some point you will think, "perhaps it is in everyone's interest if we just treat these individuals even if they can't pay themselves"?

Another example: Say your local farmer develops cancer. Without treatment he will surely die, but with treatment he has a good chance of a cure. Problem is that he can't afford the treatment. So what, you say? If he can't afford it, then he'll just have to die. Fine, except that his death means no food on your table. At that point, do you think that, for your own well being, it would be a good thing to help fund his treatment?

These are obviously very simplistic and unrealistic scenarios in a modern society, but the fact is that individuals in a society are dependent on each other to at least some degree. Therefore, the health of that society will depend on the health of the individuals, and at some point, access to some basic level of health care for everyone is beneficial to society as a whole.

The real trick is finding that level.

 

[Juice]

Finding that level is important. I think the concern over here is that healthcare is not being treated like the critical entity that it is. There are too many personal and political agendas driving every decision. NOBODY is making sense anymore. Everyone who actual has the power to make change wants to do so to better their political position and power. Even the organizations that will be affected by this legislature are posturing themselves to take advantage of what comes next.

I have started to see corporate emails telling us how we are going to position ourselves to gain from what is happening and it breaks my heart to know that my company already believes that socialzed medicine is coming. They might even be supporting it. This is a precipice that I hope this country does not step off of.

 

[steveny]

For example, say some stranger happens to get TB. Now you can say that he should pay for whatever care he needs, and that if he can't afford it, tough. Now, say that he can't afford it so the TB goes untreated. Now he is walking around, spreading the disease among the population. If, by a chance encounter, you then develop the disease, now you have to pay to treat it, even though it wasn't your fault. And even with treatment, there is still a chance that you may die. So don't you think that, after several epidemics have swept through your community and killed a large proportion of the population, devastating the economy and wreaking havoc on family and friends, that at some point you will think, "perhaps it is in everyone's interest if we just treat these individuals even if they can't pay themselves"?

Is it a stranger that gets TB or is the person just strange because he lives under the bridge as a recluse? To this day I have not met someone who has gotten TB and shows up for a job everyday. I am sure as a doctor you have, but honestly, out of all the TB cases the greatest number of people who test positive for TB are what? Bums!

Another example: Say your local farmer develops cancer. Without treatment he will surely die, but with treatment he has a good chance of a cure. Problem is that he can't afford the treatment. So what, you say? If he can't afford it, then he'll just have to die. Fine, except that his death means no food on your table. At that point, do you think that, for your own well being, it would be a good thing to help fund his treatment?

This farmer has been hoarding prime land for years. :biggrin:


how about we add up all the medical bills of the recently dead and divide that by the amount of people who died. Then add up all the ages and also divide that by the amount of people who have passed.

Take the cost of care, divide it by the average life span, minus 10 years to be sure most everyone will have to pay in full for their care and not die before their payments are done.

Think about that for a second. The last two people I knew who have died spent, well the state spent, ~ 300-500k. the one lady was 67 and her care was around 500k. If we divide that 500k by her 67 years on the planet it comes out to about 7500.00 a year she should have been paying in. She in fact didn't pay anything in at all. She was mostly on public assistance her whole life and also cleaned Hotel rooms. So if she can't pay the 7500 someone will have to. It's why I pay near 2x the 7500 she should pay.

 

[DocL]

How about this. Let everyone go for a comprehensive medical exam and let the results determine the policy that you can get. If you have more problems, you'll have to pay more. You will then be given the option of what policy coverage you want to get. If you can't afford the five million lifetime benefit and can only afford the $250k lifetime benefit, well that's all you get. If you somke two packs a day and drink a bottle of scotch a week, don't complain that your five million dollar policy is $15k a year. You can buy a $250k policy for $1,200 year. If you start to lead a healthy lifestyle your rates will drop and you can get a higher lifetime benefit. This can be like automobile insurance. Your rates go up if you have more tickets and crashes and are higher if you drive a high risk vehicle. At one time the inurance for my NSX was $3,800/yr, now it's $1,100/yr with the same 500k/1M coverage.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

How about this. Let everyone go for a comprehensive medical exam and let the results determine the policy that you can get. If you have more problems, you'll have to pay more. You will then be given the option of what policy coverage you want to get. If you can't afford the five million lifetime benefit and can only afford the $250k lifetime benefit, well that's all you get. If you somke two packs a day and drink a bottle of scotch a week, don't complain that your five million dollar policy is $15k a year. You can buy a $250k policy for $1,200 year. If you start to lead a healthy lifestyle your rates will drop and you can get a higher lifetime benefit. This can be like automobile insurance. Your rates go up if you have more tickets and crashes and are higher if you drive a high risk vehicle. At one time the inurance for my NSX was $3,800/yr, now it's $1,100/yr with the same 500k/1M coverage.

Great in theory and I like where you are going with that idea, but I'm not sure that would work and would open up Pandora's box of ethical issues. Say someone is clean and healthy but sexually promiscuous and does not practice safe sex. One day he/she contracts AIDS because of his promiscuous ways. It surely wouldn’t have shown up on this physical exam, but he/she was much more prone to that disease and would tax the healthcare system. How could we hold them accountable for that? Monitor their sexual habits (i.e. ocotomom scenario)? What about some scientific studies that reason that some people are genetically pre-disposed to have diseases or addiction genes. Should we genetically pre-screen these people and bill them at a higher rate? How about people born with autistic disorders, should we start billing them the day they are born because they can be a drain on tax and healthcare system?

 

[steveny]

How about this. Let everyone go for a comprehensive medical exam and let the results determine the policy that you can get. If you have more problems, you'll have to pay more. You will then be given the option of what policy coverage you want to get. If you can't afford the five million lifetime benefit and can only afford the $250k lifetime benefit, well that's all you get. If you somke two packs a day and drink a bottle of scotch a week, don't complain that your five million dollar policy is $15k a year. You can buy a $250k policy for $1,200 year. If you start to lead a healthy lifestyle your rates will drop and you can get a higher lifetime benefit. This can be like automobile insurance. Your rates go up if you have more tickets and crashes and are higher if you drive a high risk vehicle. At one time the inurance for my NSX was $3,800/yr, now it's $1,100/yr with the same 500k/1M coverage.

Health insurance certainly doesn't work that way. I started out at less than 2k a year many years ago and now it's 13k a year.

Same goes for the rental property insurance. Those rates are getting totally out of hand IMO. some of the policies have doubled in the last couple of years and no clims either. I am getting ready to shop that around if I don't get the current writter to reduce the cost. However I am a bit concerned because I have my auto policy through the same place and my auto insurance is CHEAP, less than 2k a year for all my cars and some of them are pretty valuable vehicles with full coverage.

 

[DocL]

Say someone is clean and healthy but sexually promiscuous and does not practice safe sex. One day he/she contracts AIDS because of his promiscuous ways. It surely wouldn’t have shown up on this physical exam, but he/she was much more prone to that disease and would tax the healthcare system. How could we hold them accountable for that?

There is only one way you can get certian STD's, by having unprotected sex. If you get one, you are then put into a high risk category and your rate goes up immediately. HIV/AIDS is spread mostly by people with high risk behaviors. Yes there are the unfortunate incidents where a doctor may stick himself with a needle that was used in an HIV/AIDS patient. However as a doctor I was taught how to properly handle sharps, and I use needles everyday and I've never had an accidental needle stick in almost 20 years. It's called taking universal precautions, and why not educate the population as well.

What about some scientific studies that reason that some people are genetically pre-disposed to have diseases or addiction genes. Should we genetically pre-screen these people and bill them at a higher rate?

Yes, they should be tested if there is a genetic history and they should be educated on how to live with the disorder. Let's use alcoholism for an example. There is research that shows it can be a genetic trait. If you know that, and are educated to avoid alcohol it will save the system money. However, if you are educated about the disease yet you choose to drink and need medical attention to treat it, your rates should go up and you should be held accountable for your actions. [/quote]

How about people born with autistic disorders, should we start billing them the day they are born because they can be a drain on tax and healthcare system?

Same as above, but the parents need to be educated so that the child can be brought up a way where he/she can be a part of society without being a financial burden.

There are obviously going to be loopholes in my theory, but it sounds like a place to start. The fundamentals of education and prevention need to be a significant part of healthcare reform and some accountablilty also needs to be stressed.

 

[DocL]

Health insurance certainly doesn't work that way. I started out at less than 2k a year many years ago and now it's 13k a year.

I pay for two employees and myself for health insurance and it cost me $22,000 a year. Each of my employees has needed emergencey surgery and one had to be airlifted off of a cruise last year. They had to pay their deductible and that was all. I didn't see the bill for the helicopter or the surgery, but I'm sure it was close to $100k. But it was a rare occurance that does sometimes happen. I'm sure my policy went up because of it, but I've only used $4,600 of my lifetime 5mil benefit so it evens out.

Same goes for the rental property insurance. Those rates are getting totally out of hand IMO. some of the policies have doubled in the last couple of years and no clims either.

But you know of the high risk associated with renting to crack addicts. Now not all of your tennants are on drugs, and you've shown us some pictures of what renters have done upon leaving town.

I have my auto policy through the same place and my auto insurance is CHEAP, less than 2k a year for all my cars and some of them are pretty valuable vehicles with full coverage.

And you are the one to thank for that. You don't drive drunk, you don't wrap your cars around telephone poles, and you don't live in a high risk area like NYC. Would you dare to own any of your cars in NYC and park them on the street? If yes, then you should have no problem paying the premium.

All that I'm getting at is yes there are flaws in the system, but no system is perfect. We need to find a balance where people like you and I who contribute to the well being of our communities aren't penalized by taxation and high insurance fees. Let's start chopping off toes for each DUI someone gets. I could probably get along just fine missing a pinky toe, however I don't drink so I'm not worried.