Let me begin by saying I am not defending rich people, I am defending their right to be rich. I want that same right and I'm certain most of you would too.
In all human endeavors, in financial terms. some people are very successful, some somewhat successful and others, for a variety of reasons, not so successful. Each is where they are on the scale because of their degree of opportunity, desire, ability and determination. Sometimes, even a little luck, good or bad. Each condition serves a purpose in the "balance" of our economy. An economy in a population in which only one of those categories existed just wouldn't work, even if everyone were rich.
Any attempt to "equalise" economic conditions would result in a total collapse of the economy as it has in all LARGE countries which have tried it. Capitalism's genious is that it rewards those whose abilities and SELF INTEREST are merged to create wealth. If those same people were to be deprived of the rewards, there would be no incentive for them to do the things they do. Would you work for nothing? If we are to be "equalised", most people would "leave it to George".
In the case of health care, certain sensitivities almost require equalization, but let's see if they are always valid. Since the advent of insurance, unnecessary utilization of the system has exploded. Why not, with insurance, it's "free" or already "paid for". With this attitude, insurance becomes a pre-payment plan. Many go to the doctor only BECAUSE they have insurance. If they were better informed about what signs required a doctor's attention, many would still go, you got it, BECAUSE it's free.
The only people who are at risk from lack of health care insurance are the working poor and those who CHOOSE not to buy insurance. The indigent have access through Medicaid and special provisions for child care. The moderately successful have private or employer provided coverage and the rich, well, need I say more? The old have Medicare. In each case, the premiums are based on the risks for the insuror. All the unneccessary office visits, exams and treatments provided by over zealous patients and doctors are the reasons premiums are so high.
While nearly everyone believes that allowing children to remain on their parents' policy until age 26 and to compel coverage for preexisting conditions is great, I think few realize that's not "free". These two features create enormous costs for insurers and the premiums will reflect that.
The effort now to equalise care for all, except those who concocted the law and enjoy the best at no cost, will necessarily result in mediocre care. In many places, it's not so hot now but mediocrity is, like some diseases, contagious. Those who favor this change in health care law will realise too late that only they and their doctor should make decisions about their health.
Better start living healthier now.
In all human endeavors, in financial terms. some people are very successful, some somewhat successful and others, for a variety of reasons, not so successful. Each is where they are on the scale because of their degree of opportunity, desire, ability and determination. Sometimes, even a little luck, good or bad. Each condition serves a purpose in the "balance" of our economy. An economy in a population in which only one of those categories existed just wouldn't work, even if everyone were rich.
Any attempt to "equalise" economic conditions would result in a total collapse of the economy as it has in all LARGE countries which have tried it. Capitalism's genious is that it rewards those whose abilities and SELF INTEREST are merged to create wealth. If those same people were to be deprived of the rewards, there would be no incentive for them to do the things they do. Would you work for nothing? If we are to be "equalised", most people would "leave it to George".
In the case of health care, certain sensitivities almost require equalization, but let's see if they are always valid. Since the advent of insurance, unnecessary utilization of the system has exploded. Why not, with insurance, it's "free" or already "paid for". With this attitude, insurance becomes a pre-payment plan. Many go to the doctor only BECAUSE they have insurance. If they were better informed about what signs required a doctor's attention, many would still go, you got it, BECAUSE it's free.
The only people who are at risk from lack of health care insurance are the working poor and those who CHOOSE not to buy insurance. The indigent have access through Medicaid and special provisions for child care. The moderately successful have private or employer provided coverage and the rich, well, need I say more? The old have Medicare. In each case, the premiums are based on the risks for the insuror. All the unneccessary office visits, exams and treatments provided by over zealous patients and doctors are the reasons premiums are so high.
While nearly everyone believes that allowing children to remain on their parents' policy until age 26 and to compel coverage for preexisting conditions is great, I think few realize that's not "free". These two features create enormous costs for insurers and the premiums will reflect that.
The effort now to equalise care for all, except those who concocted the law and enjoy the best at no cost, will necessarily result in mediocre care. In many places, it's not so hot now but mediocrity is, like some diseases, contagious. Those who favor this change in health care law will realise too late that only they and their doctor should make decisions about their health.
Better start living healthier now.
No comments:
Post a Comment