<html><head><style type="text/css"></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"> <DIV>I admire the presentation of both Dean's and Mark's 'arguments'.  They each took care in phrasing their comments, and--though I feel strongly one way--did not feel threatened or disrespected by the person writing the opposing opinion.  Reason, courtesy and mutual respect should reign in all our discourse.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Thanks to you both.</DIV> <DIV>Richard Morgan ----- Original Message ---- From: Mark Schecter <schecter@pacbell.net> To: deanmay@pianorebuilders.com; Pianotech List <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 2:59:33 PM Subject: Re: Health Insurance for RPT's? </DIV> <DIV>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.</DIV></DIV></div></body></html>