Health Insurance for RPT's?

[Mark Schecter]

Hi, David.

I appreciate your clearly seeing the distinction. People who would like 
to read well-written, non-manipulative explanation of Small Business 
Health Plans can go here: http://www.ahpsnow.com/page/sbhpsnowFAQs
Thanks for helping to clarify.

-Mark Schecter

Porritt, David wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
>