health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Jack Hollis on 24 Feb 2010 21:13 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:58:06 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Xref: cv.net rec.sport.golf:672271 > >On Feb 23, 8:12=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:12:49 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> >> wrote: >> >> >I agree with your first statement. =A0Never said the 2nd statement. =A0H= >owever, >> >I think a significant portion of working, uninsured Americans can afford >> >basic health insurance. >> >> About 43% of the uninsured could afford insurance if they wanted it. > >According to whom? The 43% were individuals or familiy units that had enough disposable income (2.5 times the poverty level) to buy insurance but didn't. You also have to remember that around another 20% of the uninsured are illegal aliens. Then there are people who actually qualify for Medicaid or their kids qualify for SCHIP but have not applied. In then end there are about 12 to 15 million people in the US who want insurance but can't afford to buy it and don't qualify for any government program. Overall, you're talking about 5% of the polulation. http://www.epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf
From: Howard Brazee on 24 Feb 2010 21:13 On 25 Feb 2010 00:02:00 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> It does matter, but efficiency and gov't are opposites. > >Really? Are you sure you're not being biased? I suppose it depends on whether the government is doing what I think it should be doing or what you think it should be doing. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Carbon on 24 Feb 2010 21:34 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:13:33 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: > On 25 Feb 2010 00:02:00 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: > >>> It does matter, but efficiency and gov't are opposites. >> >>Really? Are you sure you're not being biased? > > I suppose it depends on whether the government is doing what I think > it should be doing or what you think it should be doing. It is ridiculous to claim that government and efficiency are opposites. It may often be true. It may even mostly be true. But it's not always true. Is it?
From: John B. on 24 Feb 2010 22:08 On Feb 24, 9:13 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:58:06 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Xref: cv.net rec.sport.golf:672271 > > >On Feb 23, 8:12=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:12:49 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> > >> wrote: > > >> >I agree with your first statement. =A0Never said the 2nd statement. =A0H= > >owever, > >> >I think a significant portion of working, uninsured Americans can afford > >> >basic health insurance. > > >> About 43% of the uninsured could afford insurance if they wanted it. > > >According to whom? > > The 43% were individuals or familiy units that had enough disposable > income (2.5 times the poverty level) to buy insurance but didn't. You > also have to remember that around another 20% of the uninsured are > illegal aliens. Then there are people who actually qualify for > Medicaid or their kids qualify for SCHIP but have not applied. > > In then end there are about 12 to 15 million people in the US who want > insurance but can't afford to buy it and don't qualify for any > government program. Overall, you're talking about 5% of the > polulation. > > http://www.epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf It's awfully subjective to say that people at 2.5 times the poverty level have enough disposable income to pay for health insurance. That kind of depends on how much the insurance is going to cost them, doesn't it?
From: assimilate on 24 Feb 2010 23:25
On 23-Feb-2010, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > > Given a choice between being "forced" to pay $50, or having the freedom > > to choose between $75 and $80, which would you take? > > Money isn't the only issue, and I would rather pay the 70 or 80 > because the 50 from the govt will be for a cut rate service. How much > health care costs isn't a big issue to me. not to mention the imposition of conditions only a bureaucrat could think up. Freedom to choose is worth something. To paraphrase Ben, those that would give up their freedom for a discount deserve neither. -- bill-o |