CAUTs and Health Insurance

Jeff Tanner jtanner@mozart.sc.edu
Fri, 6 Aug 2004 12:03:28 -0400


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
All these posts have very good points.  The idea that National Health 
Care has been tried in other countries with "less than desireable" 
results is something which can be overcome.

When the state of Georgia put the Education Lottery on the ballot in 
the early 90's, one of the biggest arguments was that it had been tried 
in other states, and in all the other states there were problems with 
misuse of the funds generated (or not being used the way they were 
promised).  The lottery did pass in Georgia by a handful of votes, 
barely a margin of 50.1% vs. 49.9%.  Only two of the 159 counties 
actually passed it, but the population in those counties was just large 
enough to overcome the narrow defeat it would have otherwise suffered.  
But Georgia did something that none of the other states had done with 
the Lottery - due to the concerns that Lottery proceeds would be 
misused..  It defined ahead of time exactly how those proceeds were to 
be spent, and added a mandatory evaluation of the system to take place 
every 4 years.  If the Lottery were to come up on the ballot in Georgia 
again, you would see a huge difference in the margin of votes this 
time, because it was done right.  Georgia learned from the mistakes of 
others and got it right.  I voted against it then, but would not again, 
and did not in South Carolina, despite the fact that there was not a 
settled proposal before it came to the ballot.  The Lottery in South 
Carolina passed by 65-35% margin purely based on the successful results 
Georgia had seen for the 10 years prior.  But unlike Georgia, there is 
still significant debate over the lottery's effectiveness here.

I said all this to say that a National Health Care system CAN BE done 
right.  But the system we now have is based on sales, sales sales.  It 
is not concerned with health care.  It is concerned with shareholder 
profits and huge corporate management salaries.  Those people don't 
really care if you live or die.  All they care about is their return on 
investment.  Doctors earn money not only on the service they provide, 
but also on profits from the pharmaceuticals they sell.  Pharmaceutical 
sales reps are trained for one thing and one thing only - to get 
doctors to prescribe their medicines.  The overwhelming majority of 
medical research and education is tainted with slants towards selling 
drugs - not on providing health care.  That's right - med schools are 
highly funded by pharmaceutical profits.  What do you think med 
students are going to learn there?  Health care or pharmaceutical sales 
techniques?  And the argument from the health care and pharmaceutical 
industries is that you can't put a price on saving lives.  Well, they 
seem to be able to come up with a figure pretty easily that they're 
comfortable with.  I actually heard a pharmaceutical sales rep say, 
"well, they can pay our price or they can die" in a presentation to my 
college sales class.  Yes, malpractice insurance is a problem.  But it 
would not be such a problem if the health care industry did not already 
gouge the American public and hold it hostage through what I consider 
to be not much short of extortion using brainwashing propaganda.  The 
only reason people sue in the first place is because there are HUGE 
PROFITS in the industry to begin with.

Look, it cost $253 for me to be born in 1966.  That's hospital bill, 
doctor's bill, and all.  Last year, our COPAY for our daughter's birth 
was in the $3500 range.  That was for a normal, in-hospital delivery 
with a MIDWIFE - NOT AN OBGYN.  Now, we're talking about the birth of a 
baby here - something that's been being handled with regularity since 
the beginning of time.  It is the single oldest procedure associated 
with health care in the world.  It's not like we're talking about some 
new high tech miracle cure discovery.  But the industry gets you over a 
barrel with their, "what if something goes wrong?" sales pitch, and 
then gouges you with the bill afterward.

I'll go one further.  The provider charged more than reasonable and 
customary charges for the birth and when I fussed about that, they 
advised we apply for medicaid.  Yes, you heard right.  The hospital and 
women's care practice over charged and advised us to send the bill for 
the difference to Uncle Sam.

Tom Brokaw will be doing a piece tonight on Dateline about the health 
care problems in the US.  He said this morning during a promo for the 
piece that he is convinced that there needs to be a bipartisan 
commission, like 9-11, to address it, because the health care issue is 
being used by both parties as election fodder from year to year, and 
nothing ever gets done about the problem.

I believe that if nothing is done, we will be soon working to pay just 
for health care (er, sick care).  Already, my health care premiums are 
almost as much as my state and federal income tax deductions COMBINED, 
and beginning in December, the premiums will exceed income tax 
deductions, and this is WITH state benefits.

Yes, there is certainly an income trade off to be considered for the 
benefits provided by a large employer - I have never maintained 
otherwise.  But we're talking about a gross pay check which averages 
$150/day for these positions.  The MSU position starting pay is 
$141.68/day before taxes and deductions.  Add the "value of benefits", 
and you're up to about $190/day.  It will produce a bring home check in 
the neighborhood of $500 a week, and there are no income tax deductions 
for vehicle expense, tools, or any other expenses you will incur.  You 
can't deduct your cell phone, your home phone, internet service, home 
computer, or any of those other types of "business expenses" you can go 
out and purchase just because you can find a way to use them as a tax 
deduction.

What you will find, is that you cannot eat the value of those benefits 
if you take too large a pay cut just to get them.  You will find you 
will have to severely lower your standard of living or significantly 
increase your working hours.  Yes, there is certainly a consideration.  
But at what point do we find ourselves lowering the worth of our craft 
just for the sake of benefits, many of which are quite overrated to 
almost mythical proportions?

Jeff
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6222 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/59/f7/e0/48/attachment.bin

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--


This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC