Letters to the Editor
In response to William Thomas
POSTED: August 18, 2009
To the editor:
I am certainly glad that we in southwest Minnesota can have a civil discussion about the issues surrounding the healthcare bill pending in the U.S. Congress.
I would like to respond to William Thomas's letter published Aug. 7.
In it he describes two scenarios mirroring "Today's" healthcare, and "Tomorrow's" healthcare as he would like to see it, where everyone is covered by insurance. He states, "Tomorrow almost everyone has health insurance; perhaps there are still decisions being made by plan administrators about what gets covered, but NO ONE (my emphasis) pays out of pocket for all the care they receive."
If this is true, I wish William Thomas, or ANYONE, would explain to me: Where does the money come from to pay for this universal coverage? The money HAS to come from somewhere (or someone). How can NO ONE pay out of pocket? Where is the money coming from?
You can tax the healthcare benefits of others, but isn't that coming "out of pocket."
You could increase taxes: corporate, income, death or inheritances, property, etc.; but the fact remains, the individual - either directly or indirectly through cost increases - will pay "out of pocket."
There is one question that has never been answered by anyone in this healthcare debate. I hope the Marshall Independent is flooded with letters answering this single question: "Who is responsible for my healthcare?"
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Todd Berger
Lake Benton
Share:
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpacesMember Comments
View Comments: | 1-25 |26-29 | Post a comment
|
ruralroute
|
|
|---|---|
|
08-21-09 11:35 PM
|
Actually, momtotwo, Jesus asks the church to play the biggest role in helping the poor. Not the government. The problem is, the church (in general) has failed so badly in helping the poor and downtrodden that the government assumed the role. Too many people are depending on the government and not God, and a reason is the church has gotten hung up on being a social club instead of working to help those in need.
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-21-09 7:56 PM
|
Sure I give a lot of my time. But that does not negate what I said before. ||| I just had a new idea. We could set our budget for the year and then anything we make OVER that amount, we could donate to the dept. of revenue for healthcare expenses. I'm sure they will do a great job spending it on the sick and needy. And by giving it, it will save them money with all the tax collecting and all. Thanks for the idea.
|
|
momtotwo
|
|
|
08-21-09 2:13 PM
|
Do you volunteer your services with the welfare to work programs in town - assisting those in need with resume help? It is easy to sit back and blame - it is much harder to practice being a good steward. Hopefully the day will never come that a member of your family becomes unemployed and then is denied health insurance for their asthmatic son because it was considered pre-existing condition under the new employers plan. Hopefully good health will follow you through your life. There are many programs funded by taxpayer dollars that do not have wide spread support throughout the country. I would rather fund a sustaining solution to health care. At least it benefits the society as a whole.
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-21-09 1:06 AM
|
So lead by example. You do not need to wait for the government to TAKE more of your money. You can give more in taxes when ever you want. I on the the other hand will use my gifts to enrich the lives of those less fortunate WITHOUT the help of government.
|
|
momtotwo
|
|
|
08-20-09 11:07 PM
|
no - but he does expect us to live his example. I don't think you can serve God and your own self serving interests at the same time. You cannot follow in His shoes and turn your back on those less fortunate than yourselves. I have a hard time swallowing those that state they are christian by name but clearly can't stand ALL of God's children.
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-20-09 10:33 PM
|
...wouldn't need to let Obama or any government entity take it by force.
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-20-09 10:31 PM
|
Momtotwo: So now Jesus tells us to let the government take our money to serve the poor? | No. We are to give our 1st fruits to him for his purposes. You're to GIVE because God is in your heart & has moved you to do so. It is not giving if it is the government coming in & FORCING you to give (also called 'taking it away.') | Explain your analogy please. Why don't we compel doctors to heal the sick & serving the poor for free in the name of being more Christ-like? ||| You ask "what if Jesus were in our midst & the poor in health care came to him asking for healing?" I suppose he may heal them himself. (He's done that b4.) He may ask for those among us to give so that the sick can be healed. He may tell us to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" but that does not equate giving Caesar everything. He may tell us to give our 1st fruits to his Father, but is that the same as giving it to our government? If everyone gave to their church or charity, we would
|
|
momtotwo
|
|
|
08-20-09 9:24 PM
|
Depending on whom you choose to listen to, you will find support either way. We all find information to support what we already believe. But what if Jesus were in our midst and the poor in health care came to him asking for healing? Would he look at the tiny band of doctors around him and say that he couldn’t afford to care for all of them? Would he turn away those who weren’t ****? Yes, we are at our financial ends. Trillions have become the new billions. But let this not dissuade us from doing what we know we ought — caring for the poor and sick. These are whom Jesus called blessed. Perhaps they are blessed because Jesus could always count on the goodness and generosity of those who had something to give, no matter how small. In this time, let future generations know how truly great we are.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
08-19-09 6:43 PM
|
Let me clarify moronberg - the voucher goes directly to the insurance company. Also, whose responsibility is my health care? It is my own. However, when my health care costs, co-pays and deductibles shoot through the roof, then I look for answers. The biggest drain on hospitals, and why costs are high, is unpaid emergency room bills for those who don't have insurance. That is in the billions of dollars. Hospitals then have to raise their costs of every procedure, appointment and test -- which then causes insurance companies to jack up their costs and premiums. THAT's why we need better regulation on this industry.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
08-19-09 6:39 PM
|
moronberg, then how do you suggest fixing health care? Pretty soon, nobody will be able to afford the insurance. The insurance companies in this country are corrupt, greedy and don't give a rat's butt about the patients' care -- they care about getting that monthly premium check instead. Would it be expensive to have the government fund it? Yes. But the government can regulate costs, they can tax profits, and they can really regulate this industry like the power companies (Xcel, etc.) -- where they can exist independently and make money within the rules. Hartman75 raised that point on another topic. My bottom line: don't like the government run a system (let it pay for it and get out of the way and let the people get a voucher and pick their own provider or care), don't let the health insurance companies control things.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
08-19-09 6:35 PM
|
As far as school vouchers go, you are right, the union would go running to the ACLU on that. However, there is no guarantee that a court would uphold their demands. Let's say school vouchers were passed: public education in this country would be at a crossroads -- either improve your system or what the students go to private schools by the thousands. Wouldn't the teachers' union feel pressured to have to make changes as a result?
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
08-19-09 6:33 PM
|
moronberg, taxing the profits means it is taxing the profits -- if a insurance company did not make a profit, then you don't tax them. For instance, if a health insurance takes in $100,000 and the expenses (including salaries, etc.) are $100,000 -- then there is no tax that will be levied. That is NOT affecting the overall operation of a business. It just means that a health insurance company, if it profits $100 million per quarter, would pay $25 million to pay for the uninsured. No profits, no taxes. Jobs won't be cut, moronberg, if a company only comes away with a $75 million profit instead of $100 million. That was my point. As far as being constitutional, government funds the building of roads, schools and other public buildings, along with funding for education, -- in your view, why are these unconstiutional? Why would funding health care be in that group? I in no way want social medicine or govt.-health care. I agree with you there.
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-19-09 6:25 PM
|
I AM a teacher, RuralRoute. I know, too, what I am talking about. The union would be the LAST group to race to reform. They would race to the ACLU to declare them unconstitutional.
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-19-09 6:20 PM
|
Need I point out (again) that RuralRoute is the one who said “I also want to point out that a federally-run system will not only be expensive, but impractical.” I would clarify that a government FUNDED program would be expensive AND unconstitutional.
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-19-09 6:15 PM
|
I don't know what orifice your comments are coming out of, but at least have the civility to leave foul language out of this. I am listening, and commented directly from what you posted. And while I criticized your ideas, never attacked you personally, no matter how wrong you are. ||| I understand that your proposal is different than Obama's, but it is still government FUNDED. Which will bankrupt us [U.S.]. ||| RuralRoute: 3 Questions: #1 Does the voucher system you suggest go to the insurance company or to the hospital (You suggested both)? #2: How does Taxing profits NOT affect the bottom line of a business? [earnings - expenses (includes TAXES) = profits] #3 Whose responsiblity is my (or your) healthcare?
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
08-19-09 4:05 PM
|
I also want to point out, moronberg, that I support school vouchers to help give people in failing schools a choice. Education in this country is close to a monopoly dominated by the teachers' unions, whose sole purpose is to hire more and more teachers -- and keep the rotten ones in their jobs. The union does very little to reward the great teachers (and that is about 90 percent of the people in the profession) who bust their butts to teach. I guarantee that if you offered school vouchers, our public education system would see massive reforms in a hurry -- with the teachers' union leading the way.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
08-19-09 4:00 PM
|
moronberg, your comments are out of your ass. This won't be a gov-run system, but rather a government-funded one -- there is a difference. A government-run program means that the govt. determines who gets treatment. All of the paperwork will go to the federal govt. All of the decision making will be made by go health panel or some sort of agency. If you provide vouchers -- all the government will do is pay for it and them get the heck out of the way. Taxing the profits of the health insurance companies isn't affecting their bottom line or jobs -- and I might add, it will also cause costs to go down because the biggest drain on health care is unpaid emergency room costs. If these individuals were insured through vouchers, the hospitals would get those checks. This proposal is FAR different that Obama's one. The liberals want a universal single-payer system that shuts down private insurance. That is what I call impractical and way too expensive. Listen before you yap, moronberg.
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-19-09 1:48 PM
|
Hartman: Insurance is by individual choice, not government mandated. Many people in the U.S. pay healthcare costs with CASH ONLY and do not bother with insurance. Under a socialized medicine, you could not do that. Why do some Canadian come to the U.S? It is not socialism when it is insurance companies b/c it is not GOVERNMENT forced or coerced! We would have liberty and freedom to choose now.
|
|
hartman75
|
|
|
08-19-09 11:16 AM
|
Exactly moronberg. So how does that differ from the public option except that insurance companies are earning huge profits?
|
|
bystander
|
|
|
08-19-09 9:51 AM
|
Medical Assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Military Health Benefits, Minnesotacare, etc. are all socialized medical programs. Health insurance is a socialistic concept. Many people pay in and some use more and some use less. If you truly want to take away government run healthcare ENTIRELY you will have to give up all of those programs. No cherry-picking. Take it ALL away. Then what? Who has the answer to that?
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-18-09 10:33 PM
|
Hartman75: Your money goes to pay for the procedures of people not as fortunate as you.
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-18-09 10:31 PM
|
6] We DO make the decisions now. We decide what policies to have, we decide whether or not & HOW we will pay for procedures that insurance doesn’t. NO one is denied healthcare now. Hospitals are required to treat you if you come to them in need of help! ||| Basically this give GOVERNMENT Vouchers to everybody who needs them and anyone who has bad insurance at work. Don’t let any insurance company anywhere make any profit [or tax it to death] until they go out of business, then give all those people GOVERNMENT Vouchers, then regulate everybody (with GOVERNMENT) to make sure everyone lives happily ever after. ||| Do I need to remind you that RuralRoute prefaced the comments with “I also want to point out that a federally-run system will not only be expensive, but impractical.” Now THAT I agree with!
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-18-09 10:31 PM
|
Someone SERIOUSLY needs to explain to RuralRoute how insurance works! Any insurance types out there, please do. ||| There is SO much wrong with these 6 proposals! 1] You decry a federally-run system, yet want to tax Insurers 25% and turn them into vouchers for insurance. That’s government run you know. [WHY is it that vouchers are OK for insurance, but dreaded for education??] 2] Provide vouchers… where do these vouchers come from? That’s right, the government! 3] Pass a law, once insured, always insured: That will put insurers out of business for sure! Where would this money come from to pay for these plans? What happens when the business goes bankrupt? That’s right, more GOVERNMENT vouchers! 4] Not sure how that would work, but I wouldn’t even support this. This make NO sense at all. 5] Why a co-op? That is what insurances do now! They insure many people to reduce the cost for the individual!
|
|
moronberg
|
|
|
08-18-09 10:02 PM
|
Ruralroute: You try to run middle of the road, the problem is there IS no middle of the road. Once you open the gate of public system, those horses run wild, and as Obama said, it will not happen over night, but we will have a single payer system.
|
|
hartman75
|
|
|
08-18-09 2:37 PM
|
Where does the money CURRENTLY come from for our health care? Some from government subsidies; the govt. takes in less payroll tax on businesses who pay for health insurance. Any additional expense is passed on to consumers. People like me; I've paid in thousands over the years and, thankfully, have never been seriously ill. Now lets ask, "Where is the money going?" Who profits from our illness? Eliminate Insurance companies. We don't need them. Tort reform; put a cap malpractice judgments. Reduce redundancies; hospitals can share specialized equipment. Offer incentives to those who maintain good health. Individuals will continue to pay for health care whether a public option is offered or not. Why should we allow insurance companies to make our health care decisions for us? A public option allows us all to become shareholders and, as such, gives us a say in how our health care is delivered.
|