Health Insurance for RPT's?

[Porritt, David]

I don't see anyone asking the government - state or federal - to establish a health care system.  What is before the congress now is a bill to remove the obstacles to private companies so they can provide their insurance product across state lines.  No insurance company in one state will provide an insurance product for PTG because there are too few of us in each state.  However, if the obstacles to providing a policy that will be legal in all states could be removed PTG would be a large enough group for insurance companies to consider.  The government would not "provide" anything, or pay for anything.  PTG members would still have to do the paying all the costs.  No government handout, no socialized medicine.
 
That's what has been languishing in congress - particularly the senate - for way to long.
 
dp
 
__________________________
David M. Porritt, RPT
Meadows School of the Arts
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275
dporritt at smu.edu

________________________________

From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org on behalf of John M. Formsma
Sent: Thu 4/13/2006 10:29 PM
To: schecter at pacbell.net; 'Pianotech List'
Subject: RE: Health Insurance for RPT's?



Mark,

You make several good points, and we are certainly in agreement about
insurance companies and aggregate buying power for a group like PTG.

There are those of us who believe that the federal government is not
constitutionally authorized to provide things like a national health care
system. Those powers belong to the states. We would say if the states want
to provide its residents with health care, then go for it. But the federal
government does not have those powers. (The Fed has arrogated to itself more
powers than these, and we could spend months talking about it. And
Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats about this. BTW, I'm neither a
Republican nor a Democrat, and I don't think real solutions reside in a
political party. I also don't like the party system as it often sets party
loyalty above what is best for the people.)

When I read your arguments, Mark, I understand that you are trying to be
pragmatic about fixing a current and serious problem. I agree that something
should be done, and if you and I were in charge of creating a solution to
the health care problem, we would probably be in a lot of agreement. But I
would take a step back to look at the big picture. As I read what you wrote,
it almost sounds as if you believe that health care is a right. I disagree
that health care is a right. Let's substitute the word "food" for "health
care" to see how the argument holds up. One could argue similarly that
without food all 300 million people in the U.S. would be in serious danger
of not only their health, but also their lives. But is it the government's
responsibility to provide all its citizens with food? Of course not. Having
food is not a right. Neither is having health care, or cars, or pianos for
that matter. It's a privilege, and one must work for it, just like one must
work if he wants to eat. I get disgusted with people nowadays that think
that just because they're breathing, they deserve _____. But, I'm preaching
to the choir, as I'm sure most of us are those who get out there and bust it
to make a good living.

Obviously, we are in a huge mess with the current structure of our entire
society, not just in our health care system. There is no overnight solution
to this difficult problem, as it would take many years to undo all the
errors of the past. We must begin somewhere, and again, I probably would
agree with you about some things that could be an interim solution. But the
ultimate answer does not lie in more government "provision." As we all know,
government "provision" means government thievery from someone else. The
government has no money. What it does is take our money and give it back to
us or someone else - with huge amounts of waste every time money is handled.

Long term solution? Let the federal government go on a HUGE diet! Abolish
all entitlement programs and pork within 10 years. Give it back to the
states if the people want it, but let the federal government do what it's
supposed to do: promote (not provide for) the general welfare by protecting
the people from evildoers without and within, and handling problems that
arise between states.

Something else we could all consider while we're on the topic of government.
I'm taking a look at www.fairtax.org, which advocates a national sales tax
to replace the current taxation system. I'm not saying it's THE answer, but
it might be worth a look.

Regards,

John Formsma

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Mark Schecter
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:00 PM
To: deanmay at pianorebuilders.com; Pianotech List
Subject: Re: Health Insurance for RPT's?

Hi, Dean. Thanks for writing. I have a few thoughts to add to your
points. I'll intersperse my responses.

Dean May wrote:
> If you want to talk about health insurance, fine. I've done it before
> myself. But if you advocate a political solution you are talking politics
> and religion.
>
> What is being advocated basically is that there is a whole group of people
> that are stuck when it comes to health care unless the state god
intervenes
> and saves them. So we should all contact our senators immediately to
resolve
> the problem.

There are well over 40 Million people in the U.S. who have no health
coverage. What do they do when they get sick? Do you think they just
suffer alone until they either get better without help or die? No, they
go to the emergency room, the #1 most expensive form of health care. Who
do you think pays for that? (We do.) And wouldn't it have been better if
they could have had their problem treated in a more appropriate, timely
and cost effective manner? The cost of one ER visit would cover several
problems handled at the right level, i.e. early when it's still a small
problem.

> Such is the nature of our state worshipping society today. Every societal
> problem can only be solved by yet another piece of legislation.
Legislative
> bodies churn out new code by the tens of thousands of pounds of paper
every
> year attempting to fix problems. In the end it usually only makes the
> problems worse.
>
> Health care is no exception. The reason health care is so expensive today
is
> people won't take personal responsibility for their own health care. As a
> result they look to the government to protect them.

You gave one reason it's so expensive, but you left out some others.

1) The insurance industry has systematically lobbied/weaseled its way
into the health care system, so that they collect a percentage on
everything that's delivered to you and me and our families, as well as
often deciding exactly what care we should receive. Do you like it like
that? Personally, I think they have too much money, too much power, and
too much control over my health care, and they don't care about me, they
only care about their money.

2) Health care technology is becoming ever more expensive. We're not
going back to horse and buggy days, and everyone wants the best care.
There are huge questions to be argued about the ethics of who gets what,
and that's probably the main point of this whole discussion. But when
you need a brain scan, and you get one, and it shows the problem, and
you get the treatment, and you're cured, who are you going to thank? Or
would you decline treatment because it uses expensive high tech, and
hope for someone else to feed your family after you die?

3) People are not educated about health, and don't know how to live
healthily. This is societal problem that is not addressed in any of the
legislation now being considered, as far as I know. But even people who
are well aware of health issues and who endeavor to live well, still may
need medical care from time to time. Injuries, accidents, illnesses,
mental health issues: we can't treat ourselves for everything. When you
need it, you need it. I prefer a system where, when I need it, I can get
it through reasonable means. If we ignore these needs for 40 million
people who are not in the system now, we are not saving the money we
should have spent on their care - we will spend it anyway and then some.

Every industry the
> government regulates becomes more expensive to the consumer. And health
care
> is one of the most heavily regulated.

It's not health care we're talking about regulating, it's the insurance
industry that has inserted itself into the health care delivery system.

> And every service the government makes "free" to qualified people becomes
> even more expensive to those who don't qualify. Plus the only way the
> government can make it free is by stealing bread out of the mouths of my
> children. And if you are advocating more government involvement and
> regulation you essentially are advocating more stealing of bread from my
> children. I take that personal.

I don't think anyone said anything about free. Health care has to be
paid for. But it's true that many people don't have enough money to pay
for their own care. So what's going to happen? Let them get sicker until
they wind up in emergency, or become chronically debilitated? Sick
people don't learn in school, they don't work, they don't support their
families. Who do you think pays for those things? The point is, it's
much cheaper to keep people healthy than to fix them when they're really
sick or broken. Likewise, it's cheaper to educate people than to support
them on welfare. Education costs money and so does health care. The
question for our society is, Do you want to pay a little up front to
make things better for everyone, or do you want to pay a lot for a long
time later, when it's too late to do anything to prevent it?

> So drink your sodas, eat that sugar, consume factory raised hormone laden
> meat products, treat yourself to bottom feeding sea foods, oh and write to
> your senators and demand health care legislation that will make sure you
> live to a ripe old age at no expense to you.

Dean, this is not about supporting people in self-destructive
lifestyles. It is about fairness in taxation, and aggregate buying power
for trade associations. Do you prefer to pay self-employment tax (15.3%)
on the money you spend for health care? No corporation, including
insurance companies, pays that tax. For them, health care costs are
deductible as a business expense. I resent having to pay for my health
insurance costs out of after-tax dollars. I support legislation to
correct this unfair situation, and I would think that, if you pay income
tax, you would agree.

Two, allowing associations such as PTG to access health coverage at
group rates, which are otherwise not available to its members acting
individually, is nowhere close to demanding free health care - it merely
allows trade groups to buy in bulk, the same as larger individual
businesses and corporations have always been able to do. Strength in
numbers, you know?

-Mark Schecter
Oakland, CA

PS I apologize to any and all who might feel this is off-topic for this
list. My only intention is to bring pending legislation to the attention
of American technicians who might feel it is relevant to their lives,
and thus want to support or oppose it. Thank you for your tolerance.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 12376 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20060414/c9a759d8/attachment.bin