Going Rogue

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Well, you can do the conceive part at home... but very risky to do the delivery part at home. Even a home birth with a midwife can cost $3000 or more.

BOb

I know, I know, I was joking, but you know in many parts of the world the don't have even that luxury, maybe a village midwife but maybe not even that.

In somecountries childbirth is a leading cause of death.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Yes, DesertGrandma, let's keep our country safe by fighting the good war with equipment our military says it needs and not equipment our legislators want; let's fight corruption; and let's help those who need food and healthcare. Good thoughts for this holiday season.

Oh goodness yes. And on that point, let me point out another thread here that really piqued my interest......and that I intend to follow thru on. Check out post #1 here.
A food basket with so much food for so little money.....to someone who needs it so badly.......

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62382

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

And besides, the odds of catching something (so expensive that I cannot pay for it) is so small that it approaches zero. Just because some people panic over the nearly impossible does not mean I should do so as well.

How do you figure the odds are near zero for you? Your risk of catching a disease such as ebola may be approaching zero but there are non-disease injuries as well as diseases that start small and suddenly progress into a hospital stay.

And assuming it is zero for you, have you no compassion for your fellow American, such as the child who is born diabetic and needs rigorous medical care as well as expensive daily insulin but whose parents neither have health insurance and nor can afford it?

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Do you have auto insurance? Fire insurance on your house? Flood insurance? Life insurance?

That's the whole point of insurance... to protect you from the unexpected even if the chances are small that you will need it. When you are buying insurance you are betting you will need it and the insurance company is betting that you won't.
BOb

An interesting point on this - almost every type of insurance is intended to be purchased and hopefully never used. I hope I never get in an auto accident but I'm insured just in case. I hope my home never suffers a catastrophe, but I have fire/flood insurance just to cover myself just in case. I REALLY hope my life insurance is never needed but if I get hit by a bus on the way home today, I know my wife will be able to keep our home and have time to figure out how to support the family as a single parent.

But I have health insurance because I know that I (and my family) will have multiple visits to a doctor during the year, and insurance helps manage my own costs. A health insurer has a totally different set of costs and payouts than any other type of insurance company.

[Good Old Neon]

In a sane world, we wouldn’t be discussing Palin as a potential candidate, for any sort of elected office – but we’re not living in a sane world – to quote George Carlin:

When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat.

The conservative Andrew Sullivan has done a fine job of cataloging the nearly endless reasons why she should never be allowed within spitting range of the White House.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Her appearance on the national stage was little more than a deeply cynical attempt to salvage what was left of John McCain’s campaign. It was not long before the McCain camp realized their mistake, which is why the media was allowed limited access, and her appearances were strictly managed. She continually claims that she was treated unfairly by the media, when, in fact, it was her very own statements that precipitated her downfall. By and large, the media treated her with more respect, and afforded her a much greater benefit of the doubt than she ever deserved.

In short, she’s absurd – and given that she is considered a strong candidate by a depressingly large portion of our fellow citizens, so, by extension, is our political process.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by GlennD

But I have health insurance because I know that I (and my family) will have multiple visits to a doctor during the year, and insurance helps manage my own costs. A health insurer has a totally different set of costs and payouts than any other type of insurance company.

good point... and I was thinking about this as I wrote it.

Perhaps health insurance should be more like other insurances or perhaps like and extended warranty insurance on a car. You must pay for the normal preventive maintenance... but when something unexpected breaks the insurance pays (or helps) for it.

So, perhaps we should all pay for preventive care out of our pocket. Insurance will kick in for sickness or accidents. However, if you don't keep up to date with your preventive maintenance (annuals, etc) then the insurance won't cover sickness/accidents... because they are less likely to occur if you keep well on a continual basis... and if you are going for checks problems can be caught before they get too bad and are MUCH MORE expensive to fix.

BOb

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

good point... and I was thinking about this as I wrote it.

Perhaps health insurance should be more like other insurances or perhaps like and extended warranty insurance on a car. You must pay for the normal preventive maintenance... but when something unexpected breaks the insurance pays (or helps) for it.

So, perhaps we should all pay for preventive care out of our pocket. Insurance will kick in for sickness or accidents. However, if you don't keep up to date with your preventive maintenance (annuals, etc) then the insurance won't cover sickness/accidents... because they are less likely to occur if you keep well on a continual basis... and if you are going for checks problems can be caught before they get too bad and are MUCH MORE expensive to fix.

BOb

I'd vote for that. But you know as well as I do Bob that it's way too logical.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by GlennD

An interesting point on this - almost every type of insurance is intended to be purchased and hopefully never used. I hope I never get in an auto accident but I'm insured just in case. I hope my home never suffers a catastrophe, but I have fire/flood insurance just to cover myself just in case. I REALLY hope my life insurance is never needed but if I get hit by a bus on the way home today, I know my wife will be able to keep our home and have time to figure out how to support the family as a single parent.

But I have health insurance because I know that I (and my family) will have multiple visits to a doctor during the year, and insurance helps manage my own costs. A health insurer has a totally different set of costs and payouts than any other type of insurance company.

Well, actually, the figures on that are more in line with life insurance. Everyone dies, eventually. They just make a bet wiht you that you won't before the term insurance laspses. After that, they are a money management scheme that benefits everyone involved.

The gamble is on how soon. Health insurers are gambling that you are amongst the 80% of people who utilize 20% of the health care dollar, rather than vice versa when they make that book. Or that you will not get sick before Medicare kicks in, which actually skews the book much in their favor.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ea

While politically a light-weight, she still had enough personality to have fun.

Speaking as a grizzled old man, I'm compelled to point out that the last person who evoked the ridicule from the self-appointed elitocracy that Palin gets was Ronald Reagan, also regarded by his enemies as a light-weight. And he had plenty of fun, too, I think, particularly when it turned out that he not only got elected president, but was pretty effective as such.

I think Palin is laughing all the way to the bank. My guess is that she's going, not Rogue, nor John Galt, but rather, Al Gore or maybe even Oprah. She'll ride her popularity - and she is quite and I think increasingly popular with a lot of people - to become a multimillionaire, which in America is probably the best answer there is to those who seem to be so...threatened...by a capable female who doesn't tow the liberal line.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Speaking as a grizzled old man, I'm compelled to point out that the last person who evoked the ridicule from the self-appointed elitocracy that Palin gets was Ronald Reagan, also regarded by his enemies as a light-weight. And he had plenty of fun, too, I think, particularly when it turned out that he not only got elected president, but was pretty effective as such.

I think Palin is laughing all the way to the bank. My guess is that she's going, not Rogue, nor John Galt, but rather, Al Gore or maybe even Oprah. She'll ride her popularity - and she is quite and I think increasingly popular with a lot of people - to become a multimillionaire, which in America is probably the best answer there is to those who seem to be so...threatened...by a capable female who doesn't tow the liberal line.

And she probably won't have to worry about health insurance costs.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I think Palin is laughing all the way to the bank. My guess is that she's going, not Rogue, nor John Galt, but rather, Al Gore or maybe even Oprah. She'll ride her popularity - and she is quite and I think increasingly popular with a lot of people - to become a multimillionaire, which in America is probably the best answer there is to those who seem to be so...threatened...by a capable female who doesn't tow the liberal line.

This has nothing to do with being female and/or towing the liberal line, or, for that matter, the conservative line. It is about basic, core competencies – and as Palin has demonstrated time and again, she is lacking in that department. She could not handle the governorship, what makes you think she could handle presidential responsibilities? Her hastily scheduled exit interview - called on a Friday, before the start of a holiday weekend no less – was quite possibly the most surreal statement ever issued by a politician, and that alone is quite an achievement. The fear I have of her, is sort of like the fear I might experience if I were to come upon a toddler brandishing a loaded shotgun, pointed directly at my head, with finger on trigger.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I keep coming back to what Steven Waldman, Editor-In-Chief and Co-Founder of BeliefNet, said about the current status of health care in the U.S.:

* A system is immoral [immoralities deleted.]

All utopians think that immoral systems can be corrected by limiting someone else's freedom. But what actually happens is that one immoral system is simply replaced by another. In the case where a private immoral system is replaced by a public immoral system, you not only get immorality, but risk tyranny, and guarantee inefficiency.

I doubt that there are many people on this board who remember Richard Nixon's abortive attempt to control inflation back in the early 70s. He set up an elaborate price control regime - Stabilization, I think it was called. Thereafter, inflation got entirely out of control. Meanwhile, we had various shortages, the most famous of which was the oil shortage, but the most important of which was the toilet paper shortage. Everyone was stocking up...

I have no doubt that there are things that could be done to make the current system a better one. But government control of economic resources results in shortages, rationing, and ultimately, corrupt political allocation. I do not know what WILL work with health care, but I damn well know what WON'T work, and that's turning over the responsibility to the government.

EDIT: Today's Wall Street Journal has an article by the Dean of the Harvard Medical School http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...994054014.html that is worth reading:

"In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system...

"Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern."

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Speaking as a grizzled old man, I'm compelled to point out that the last person who evoked the ridicule from the self-appointed elitocracy that Palin gets was Ronald Reagan, also regarded by his enemies as a light-weight. And he had plenty of fun, too, I think, particularly when it turned out that he not only got elected president, but was pretty effective as such.

I think Palin is laughing all the way to the bank. My guess is that she's going, not Rogue, nor John Galt, but rather, Al Gore or maybe even Oprah. She'll ride her popularity - and she is quite and I think increasingly popular with a lot of people - to become a multimillionaire, which in America is probably the best answer there is to those who seem to be so...threatened...by a capable female who doesn't tow the liberal line.

I had to go look (it's post no. 30) - it's a typo. I meant to write 'to be fun', not 'have fun'. I'm sorry. Sometimes English 'slips through my fingers'.

[Ea]

There is this thing - very strange - that I seem to be reading between the lines of the more republican/conservative/libertarian USA posters, and that is that you seem to perceive a government as primarily an oppressor - something to be avoided.

You seem to abhor governmental influence and do not trust a government. I don't understand at all.... Do you not vote for a government to act as a government - to rule the affairs of your country? It all sounds quite anarchist to me. You seem to equate government with oppression.

I mean, the point of a government is to have someone handle the affairs that are to big to handle on one's own - affairs that should be shared among member of the population of one's country. That would include the things that are to the benefit of the country and nation, things that support and help people and businesses to grow and stay healthy to the benefit of everyone. Sometimes that involves things that are not universally popular, but that would be normal - you need to invest in the future, or in people that are not you, to keep everyhting running.

To me it's such a me - me - me - individualism that does not take society, the nation, the people into account. I can not percieve it. I don't think I can discuss it, because I can't understand it at all, which I have tried a number of times - I'm sorry.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Ea

There is this thing - very strange - that I seem to be reading between the lines of the more republican/conservative/libertarian USA posters, and that is that you seem to perceive a government as primarily an oppressor - something to be avoided.

You seem to abhor governmental influence and do not trust a government. I don't understand at all.... Do you not vote for a government to act as a government - to rule the affairs of your country? It all sounds quite anarchist to me. You seem to equate government with oppression.

This isn't too far off the mark. The US government was instituted "of the people, by the people, for the people". The Constitution was intended to enumerate the rights and powers of the federal government, specifically to LIMIT those rights and powers. That's why many of the bill of rights (which theoretically list some of the rights of the people) are phrased as "congress shall not infringe..."

Clearly some level of government is needed. Much of the debate between conservatives and liberals in the US is centered around where that line is drawn.