Justice Dakota
03/26/2012
My mother is 76-years-old, and she has had numerous, major surgeries and medical procedures over the past five years. I know for a fact that she has benefited from Medicare (a federal program that helps pay medical expenses for people over the age of 65). I presume, American tax-payers partially paid for her medical treatment that she otherwise could not have afforded.
A friend of mine who died in his late 50s from kidney failure received dialysis treatments during his "end-stage" kidney failure (paid for by Medicare). Again, I presume the American tax-payers paid for his medical treatment that he otherwise could not have afforded.
I think Medicare is worth having!
In my state, at one time, you could drive a vehicle without automobile insurance. The state changed the law to require a minimum level of auto-insurance because those who did not pay any insurance were getting a "free-ride."
The uninsured driver could plow their $1,000 car into a $50,000 vehicle and not be required to pay for the damage due to a lack of funds and insurance. That required the owner of the $50,000 vehicle to pay insurance for two people (insurance for his vehicle in case he was at fault, and insurance for the uninsured vehicle in case the uninsured vehicle's driver was at fault.) That was a system that penalized the responsible person.
Similarly, the person with health insurance has to pay a higher premium to cover his potential medical problems, and the potential medical problems of the uninsured patient. That is a system that penalizes the responsible person.
When the medically-uninsured person requires a $100,000 medical procedure, that cost is passed on to every one else -- including the state.
So, if a state required, for instance, an additional fee for everyone who does not have private health-insurance to pay for a minimal amount of medical insurance -- the person who normally would pass 100-percent of his medical bills on to the rest of us, would have a portion of his medical bills paid for by a private insurance company. Thus, less costs are passed on to the rest of us. And, this is bad -- why?
If it is a state program (RomneyCare) it allows state's to address their financial health-care deficits. RomneyCare was a state program. That, my friends, is a conservative approach to a difficult and expensive problem in America. Why do so-called "Real Conservatives (RCs)" hate the state-solution approach? I thought that was a significant ideological foundation of conservatism!
What is wrong with allowing every state to fashion their own uninsured driver and uninsured patient programs?
When I attended college, part of my tuition paid for "student" health insurance. When I broke my ankle, I did not have to pay a dime. (I did not even know I had insurance.) And, that was a bad thing -- why?
Senator Rick Santorum and RCs should lay off the issue of RomneyCare.
I think most Americans would like to see their state's come up with a reasonable way to insure their uninsured drivers -- and insure their uninsured future patients. What the hell is so wrong with that?
A lot of us remember having the flu and going to the doctor during our college years. We thought it was free -- but, in reality, we were getting treatment we had already paid for. Why was that so bad?
Has anyone considered that every state in the country will be experimenting with a version of RomneyCare as an anti-federal, fiscally conservative solution to out-of-control health-care costs?
No comments:
Post a Comment