Town Hall with Obama

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
John S. wrote:
Gambit, I am sorry about my spelling and puncuation. I am currently using my cell phone and I am having trouble with it.

Okay

My first question is how would you pay for this plan. My second question is do you agree with the CBO when they said this plan will add I cant remember the exact figure but something like 247 billion dollars to our debt?

Okay, I think it’s important to understand that there are a few “plans” out right now, the one bill and nothing yet agreed upon in the senate. Personally, I’m waiting for the senate finance committee to come out with their plan before I invest a lot of time in reading through a bill. I doubt the final version will look much like the 1000+pg monster above.

Reform is necessary. Only a few refute this. Some reforms cost nothing or very little. Others cost a lot. As others have stated, as it stands now, those of us with insurance are paying for those who don’t (see Doc’s thread). No matter how we choose to pay for this, tough choices will have to be made.

And im pretty good at figuring this kind of stuff out. This time it wont be a 2 day skim through but a full 3 day read.

By the way, why are you investing so much time in reading this particular bill? Chances are good the final version will be little like this one.

And to answer someone elses question, I dont have health insurance and I dont want or need a government handout.

You may not “need” it, but if you end up in the emergency room, those of us with insurance will end up paying for it.

[/quote]
First off If something goes wrong I can and will take care of it, I will be no burden to society I promise that.

Tho with how to pay for it I ran across this.

Subpart Bâ??Surcharge on High Income Individuals
59C. Surcharge on high income individuals.
59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
GENERAL RULE.â??In the case of a taxpayer
other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal toâ??
1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
$350,000 but does not exceed $500,000, 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
$500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
$1,000,000.

Is this not the exact opposite of what Obama said in his town hall?

Page 197-198.

I agree, we already have some sort of inbred hybrid Socialized insurance and its biting us in the ass. Why would we want to expand it. If the government has shown us one thing, they need to get out of the way.

When the senate releases their bill I will read through it too.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
And to answer someone elses question, I dont have health insurance and I dont want or need a government handout.

You may not “need” it, but if you end up in the emergency room, those of us with insurance will end up paying for it.

First off If something goes wrong I can and will take care of it, I will be no burden to society I promise that. [/quote]

Interesting. Mind if I ask how? Are you independently wealthy?

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
John S. wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
And to answer someone elses question, I dont have health insurance and I dont want or need a government handout.

You may not “need” it, but if you end up in the emergency room, those of us with insurance will end up paying for it.

First off If something goes wrong I can and will take care of it, I will be no burden to society I promise that.

Interesting. Mind if I ask how? Are you independently wealthy?

[/quote]
No, The hospital here gives up to 7 years to pay off, and I am in good health. I will get health insurance in about 2 years when I finish up my first part of school and can get a job that makes some real money.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
John S. wrote:

…I agree, we already have some sort of inbred hybrid Socialized insurance and its biting us in the ass. Why would we want to expand it. If the government has shown us one thing, they need to get out of the way…

I’ve seen this remark several times now, “We already have socialized blah blah blah…rationing blah blah blah…farm subsidies blah blah blah…” So therefore we should increase the socialism and the rationing, etc.? Pull out all the stops and let Mr. Marx’s grand experiment run wild with abandon…again?[/quote]

Maybe I am reading what you wrote wrong, but I am suggesting that the Government get out of the way because the government is the problem not the people. I just want the government the found fathers gave us.

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENE2
FITS PLANS.â??On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable
requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:
(1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).
(2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits).
(3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protection).

So I have to ask, If all plans will basically be the same, and the government can always fall back on the tax payers, how can anyone think this is not a way to put in a single payer system.

This is on page 15 by the way.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
John S. wrote:
pushharder wrote:
John S. wrote:

…I agree, we already have some sort of inbred hybrid Socialized insurance and its biting us in the ass. Why would we want to expand it. If the government has shown us one thing, they need to get out of the way…

I’ve seen this remark several times now, “We already have socialized blah blah blah…rationing blah blah blah…farm subsidies blah blah blah…” So therefore we should increase the socialism and the rationing, etc.? Pull out all the stops and let Mr. Marx’s grand experiment run wild with abandon…again?

Maybe I am reading what you wrote wrong, but I am suggesting that the Government get out of the way because the government is the problem not the people. I just want the government the found fathers gave us.

I was agreeing with you and reinforcing your statement.[/quote]

Alright, sorry it’s been a long day.

Edited*

[quote]pushharder wrote:
John S. wrote:

…I agree, we already have some sort of inbred hybrid Socialized insurance and its biting us in the ass. Why would we want to expand it. If the government has shown us one thing, they need to get out of the way…

I’ve seen this remark several times now, “We already have socialized blah blah blah…rationing blah blah blah…farm subsidies blah blah blah…” So therefore we should increase the socialism and the rationing, etc.? Pull out all the stops and let Mr. Marx’s grand experiment run wild with abandon…again?[/quote]

I think I rather prefer our first grand experiment around here.

jumping in here

This bill must not pass…

[quote]John S. wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
John S. wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
And to answer someone elses question, I dont have health insurance and I dont want or need a government handout.

You may not “need” it, but if you end up in the emergency room, those of us with insurance will end up paying for it.

First off If something goes wrong I can and will take care of it, I will be no burden to society I promise that.

Interesting. Mind if I ask how? Are you independently wealthy?

No, The hospital here gives up to 7 years to pay off, and I am in good health. I will get health insurance in about 2 years when I finish up my first part of school and can get a job that makes some real money.[/quote]

And what happens, god forbid, if you are unable to work again? A head injury perhaps? A thousand other things that could ruin your health to the point where you’d be unable to work to pay it off?

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
John S. wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
John S. wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
And to answer someone elses question, I dont have health insurance and I dont want or need a government handout.

You may not “need” it, but if you end up in the emergency room, those of us with insurance will end up paying for it.

First off If something goes wrong I can and will take care of it, I will be no burden to society I promise that.

Interesting. Mind if I ask how? Are you independently wealthy?

No, The hospital here gives up to 7 years to pay off, and I am in good health. I will get health insurance in about 2 years when I finish up my first part of school and can get a job that makes some real money.

And what happens, god forbid, if you are unable to work again? A head injury perhaps? A thousand other things that could ruin your health to the point where you’d be unable to work to pay it off? [/quote]

If that’s the case don’t treat me. I can accept with the consequences of my actions.

Edit*

[quote]
John S. wrote:
Tho with how to pay for it I ran across this.

Subpart Bâ??Surcharge on High Income Individuals
59C. Surcharge on high income individuals.
59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
GENERAL RULE.â??In the case of a taxpayer
other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal toâ??
1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
$350,000 but does not exceed $500,000, 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
$500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
$1,000,000.

Is this not the exact opposite of what Obama said in his town hall?

Page 197-198.

[quote]

Aren’t there a number of different proposed bills and methods of how to pay the bill though? Seriously, asking as that is what I’ve heard on the news.

One proposal that I heard was simply to stop subsidizing Medicare Advantage (which apparently gets something like 11 billion dollars a year in subsidies and apparently does the same job as regular Medicare at greater cost) and apply that money towards the “public option” which none of us really knows what this will look like since they haven’t agreed upon or passed any bills yet.

Another one I heard was similar to what you posted above. It was basically to eliminate the cap that Bush placed on the taxes owed by the top 1% of income earners (which is currently set at 15% from my understanding) and apply that towards the bill.

I’d actually agree that the proposal you cited seems unfair. People in those income brackets already have quite high taxes. But, at the same time if you are making over 1,000,000 dollars a year, I doubt that an extra 5.4% is going to break you. It might still seem unfair, but let’s face it, you’re still going to be able to live comfortably.

What do you think about say the Medicare Advantage plan then? They basically do the same care (actually less quality in many cases) as regular medicare, for more money, and they get subsidized billions of dollars a year. On top of that, they actually lie and try to convinced seniors that they are Medicare (or that the senior’s medicare is about to run out) to get them to enroll in their program.

Wouldn’t you agree that this private insurance program is doing more harm than the “socialized” (and technically it’s not socialized as the government doesn’t own the hospitals where medicare patients get their treatment, the VA system would be a true socialized system which interestingly enough has the highest approval rate among it’s members of any health care provider, private or otherwise) Medicare program?

Not saying that all private insurance programs are evil though or that we should get rid of all of them. Just that demonizing either group (be they private or single payer) simply because of their distinction is a mistake. There are problems on both sides of the spectrum.

As will I.

What if it’s not a consequence of your actions but just a random event? Like you’re walking down the stairs at your school and slip and fall down the stairs. In other words you weren’t acting irresponsibly, you just happened to be unlucky and wind up getting injured to the point where you are unable to work (or at least get a high paying job which allows you to pay off your medical bills)?

Btw, I hope that never happens to you.

Exactly. John, what happens if, again god forbid, it’s no fault of your own, but you are injured horribly. I walk a lot to increase my NEPA, and my god are there a lot of bad drivers. It would only take one to put you or me into a situation where we were completely unable to pay for our hospital bills. But we would be treated. Period. If you or I were hit by a car tomorrow, we’d be rushed to the hospital and treated immediately. How could you stop them from treating you?

Also, do you honestly think you’ll “accept the consequences” if an accident actually occurs? In the case of a terrible, painful accident, I think just about everyone would accept treatment. Pain is a powerful motivator.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
John S. wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
John S. wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
And to answer someone elses question, I dont have health insurance and I dont want or need a government handout.

You may not “need” it, but if you end up in the emergency room, those of us with insurance will end up paying for it.

First off If something goes wrong I can and will take care of it, I will be no burden to society I promise that.

Interesting. Mind if I ask how? Are you independently wealthy?

No, The hospital here gives up to 7 years to pay off, and I am in good health. I will get health insurance in about 2 years when I finish up my first part of school and can get a job that makes some real money.

And what happens, god forbid, if you are unable to work again? A head injury perhaps? A thousand other things that could ruin your health to the point where you’d be unable to work to pay it off? [/quote]

That’s his problem dude, not mine or yours and not yours to tell me what if…

Let’s keep that mindset here…

What if… the baby you support that is aborted could have been the next michael jackson…or Obama…hell we should then stop abortion right?
Make sure nothing is killed that may have been.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Aren’t there a number of different proposed bills and methods of how to pay the bill though? Seriously, asking as that is what I’ve heard on the news.

One proposal that I heard was simply to stop subsidizing Medicare Advantage (which apparently gets something like 11 billion dollars a year in subsidies and apparently does the same job as regular Medicare at greater cost) and apply that money towards the “public option” which none of us really knows what this will look like since they haven’t agreed upon or passed any bills yet.

Another one I heard was similar to what you posted above. It was basically to eliminate the cap that Bush placed on the taxes owed by the top 1% of income earners (which is currently set at 15% from my understanding) and apply that towards the bill.

I’d actually agree that the proposal you cited seems unfair. People in those income brackets already have quite high taxes. But, at the same time if you are making over 1,000,000 dollars a year, I doubt that an extra 5.4% is going to break you. It might still seem unfair, but let’s face it, you’re still going to be able to live comfortably.

What do you think about say the Medicare Advantage plan then? They basically do the same care (actually less quality in many cases) as regular medicare, for more money, and they get subsidized billions of dollars a year. On top of that, they actually lie and try to convinced seniors that they are Medicare (or that the senior’s medicare is about to run out) to get them to enroll in their program.

Wouldn’t you agree that this private insurance program is doing more harm than the “socialized” (and technically it’s not socialized as the government doesn’t own the hospitals where medicare patients get their treatment, the VA system would be a true socialized system which interestingly enough has the highest approval rate among it’s members of any health care provider, private or otherwise) Medicare program?

Not saying that all private insurance programs are evil though or that we should get rid of all of them. Just that demonizing either group (be they private or single payer) simply because of their distinction is a mistake. There are problems on both sides of the spectrum.

If that’s the case don’t treat me. I can accept with the consequences of my actions.

What if it’s not a consequence of your actions but just a random event? Like you’re walking down the stairs at your school and slip and fall down the stairs. In other words you weren’t acting irresponsibly, you just happened to be unlucky and wind up getting injured to the point where you are unable to work (or at least get a high paying job which allows you to pay off your medical bills)?

Btw, I hope that never happens to you.[/quote]

What I pulled up is in the bill, meaning if it passes this is how they will be paying for some of it. Any other thing they said may be fine and they may do it but as long as it is in the bill that’s what is going to happen. Sure the people making over a million dollars won’t be too affected by it, but is it really okay to steal from their American dream? I think not.

I am not defending all Private insurance companies, Their are scams out there that is true, but there are also very good plans out their. The problem with medicare and medicade is that they underpay the doctor, which in turn raises the cost for everyone else. Also we will see a major problem in the next 15 years when all the baby boomers retire. Medicare and Medicade created a dependency on the government and we have no way to pay for it. What will happen is this will collapse and leave a bunch of elderly with out insurance.

If these same people were not taxed to death all their lives they could have gotten private insurance, And this entire mess could have been avoided. I plan on having a lawyer read over any insurance plan I get before I get it. I will know exactly what they can and can not do so I can make an informed decision. If people took a more active look into there insurance plans(Yes I am promoting self responsibility I know that is almost dead in America now) most of these messes could be avoided.

The problem with a single health care plan is that it can not work like Obama said. It will need to be backed by tax payer’s, so more stealing of peoples money. Now I know people will say, “But my lord and savior Obama said that it wont be he even used the USPS as an example” well I hate to break it to those people but the USPS is funded through tax payer money. 7 billion in debt they where this year, guess who’s bailing them out… We are.

Another problem with it, is when it does run out of money and cost do need to be cut, where do you think that is going to happen? The last years of life treatment makes up roughly 80% of all medical spending. Rationing of health care is inevitable in fact one could argue that it is going on right now, but do you really want the government to be in charge of who lives and who dies? I don’t.

Now this is a far out scenario and I am in no way implying obama is planning this, but if the government can control your health they can control you.

When I say I will accept the consequences of my action I mean that I choose not to have health insurance. If anything happens to me I am willing to accept the consequences.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Exactly. John, what happens if, again god forbid, it’s no fault of your own, but you are injured horribly. I walk a lot to increase my NEPA, and my god are there a lot of bad drivers. It would only take one to put you or me into a situation where we were completely unable to pay for our hospital bills. But we would be treated. Period. If you or I were hit by a car tomorrow, we’d be rushed to the hospital and treated immediately. How could you stop them from treating you?

Also, do you honestly think you’ll “accept the consequences” if an accident actually occurs? In the case of a terrible, painful accident, I think just about everyone would accept treatment. Pain is a powerful motivator. [/quote]

That it is, but to me at least the thought of having to steal from someone else to get by is even more painful.

And like I said the Hospital does give 7 years to pay something off, so if it comes to something like a broken bone or anything like that I can easily pay that off. Now if anything comes up like I am on a breathing machine or anything like that I have told my doctor and my family I do not wish to be put on it.

To me it makes sense, given the chance of something catastrophic happening to me I am not worried about it.

Now back on track. This guy debunks all Pre-existing conditions will be covered.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/13/obama-health-plan-wont-cover-pre-existing-conditions/

You may have heard President Obama trumpet in many recent speeches his plan to have government run health insurance cover everyone’s pre-existing medical conditions. As an example, he said to the American Medical Association on June 15, 2009:

“That is why we need to end the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. The days of cherry-picking who to cover and who to deny–those days are over.”

That certainly sounds like signing up for one of the government insurance plans, no matter what ails you, will get you covered, doesn’t it?

I was curious to see if the President is right about his plan putting an end to “cherry-picking” which illnesses to cover, so I decided to wade through the 1,018 page proposed health care law to find out if that’s true.

Come with me on this fantastic voyage through a mess of cross-referenced and confusing legalese. As your tour guide, I have nearly 20 years experience in practicing insurance law, but reading this was not easy for me. We can get through it together though.

If the President wanted his health insurances to cover all pre-existing conditions, you’d expect some pretty simple language that says,“All pre-existing conditions will be covered.” Take a look at what is written into the law instead:

Section 111 has this paragraph about pre-existing conditions:

A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion…

Great! Looks like the President is telling the truth. Oh but wait, the paragraph doesn’t end there. It continues…

…(as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act)…

Ok, that means we have to look up a whole other law - the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) - to find out what the definition “pre-exiting condition exclusion” is. But before we do that, the paragraph we are reading continues:

…or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent.

Ok, the paragraph we are reading has ended, but we now have two tasks: Go to the PHSA and look up the definition of “pre-existing condition” in section 2701(b)(1)(A) and the definition of “health status related factors” in section 2791(d)(9).

When we Google those sections of the PHSA to read it, we run into a problem: The section numbers referenced in Obama’s bill for the PHSA are the old numbers. The PHSA has been amended with new numbers, so our Googling has failed us.

Undeterred, we print out the full text of the PHSA so we can read the whole thing and find the correct section numbers. Much to our chagrin, it is 1,476 pages long. There goes our Saturday. But we are committed to this project, so we bear down and find the right sections.

Here is how the PHSA defines “pre-existing condition exclusion” in section 2701(b)(1)(A):

IN GENERAL.-The term “preexisting condition exclusion” means, with respect to coverage, a limitation or exclusion of benefits relating to a condition based on the fact that the condition was present before the date of enrollment for such coverage, whether or not any medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received before such date.

That’s great! I have to tell you, President Obama seems a man of his word…oh wait. We had two things to look up here in the PHSA, didn’t we? Section 2701(d)(9) defines “Health Status-Related Factor” like this:

The term “health status-related factor” means any of the factors described in section 2702(a)(1).

Ok, what kind of dirty trick to waste our time was that? President Obama sends us to section 2701 for a definition, and the definition is"see section 2702." Why not send us right to section 2702? Sigh. Fine. Let’s keep reading.

Section 2702 (a)(1) of the PHSA says:

(a) INELIGIBILITY TO ENROLL.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-Subject to paragraph (2),…

Ok, stop right there. Just know that as we continue reading paragraph 1, we have to withhold any conclusion, because everything we are about to read is subject to paragraph 2. Ok? So let’s continue with paragraph 1:

…a group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan, may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan based on any of the following health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:

(A) Health status.

(B) Medical condition (including both physical and

mental illnesses).

(C) Claims experience.

(D) Receipt of health care.

(E) Medical history.

(F) Genetic information.

(G) Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising

out of acts of domestic violence).

(H) Disability.

Well I have to tell you up to this point President Obama is still looking good. Paragraph 1 seems to say the Government can’t deny you coverage based upon any of the above pre-existing conditions. Oh but I forgot - the whole thing is “subject to paragraph 2.” Let’s see what that says:

(2) NO APPLICATION TO BENEFITS OR EXCLUSIONS.-To the extent consistent with section 701,…

OK, stop right there. They are making us work again. We are going to continue reading paragraph 2, but we have to withhold conclusions because we have to make sure it is “consistent with section 701.” All right, here is paragraph 2:

paragraph (1) shall not be construed-

(A) to require a group health plan, or group health insurance coverage, to provide particular benefits other than those provided under the terms of such plan or coverage, or

(B) to prevent such a plan or coverage from establishing limitations or restrictions on the amount, level, extent, or nature of the benefits or overage for similarly situated individuals enrolled in the plan or coverage.

The bottom just fell out, and Obama is looking pale. The above language in paragraph 2 just put a whole bunch of power in the hands of the folks writing the policies when it comes to pre-existing conditions.

But before we analyze that, remember paragraph 2 has to be “consistent with section 701.” So let’s look at that. It says:

The purpose of this subpart is to enable the Secretary to provide a Federal program of student loan insurance for students in (and certain former students of) eligible institutions (as defined in section 719).

Wait…what? What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China? We are talking about pre-existing medical conditions and suddenly we get sent to a section about - I don’t know - giving loans to foreign exchange students from Kenya?

I think I know what happened there. The Public Health Service Act was originally written in the 1940’s and has been amended many times. Somewhere along the way Congress just got sloppy, and now there is a cross-reference that either makes no sense or the connection is so obscure even comedian Dennis Miller thinks it’s a little far-fetched.

I think it’s just a huge typographical error, so the only thing we can do is ignore section 701 and get back to paragraph 2 of Section 2702, which we were discussing above.

I know all of this is confusing, but let your trusty tour guide tell you where you stand:

What paragraph two says in part A is that policy writers for the government will be allowed to make the insurance you buy cover certain ailments, and not cover others (one of which may be a condition you happen to have, which is pre-existing).

What paragraph two says in part B is that policy writers for the government will be allowed to limit the amount, level, extent, or nature of the treatment you get for certain ailments (one of which may be your pre-existing condition).

So who will be writing your insurance policy? According to the President’s plan, a new bureaucracy known as the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee.” It will be made up of 27 people, and guess how many have to be a treating doctor: One.

So if you believe President Obama’s quote to the AMA means that if you sign up for government insurance your pre-existing condition will automatically be covered, - you’re wrong, and so is the President. You’d better read the fine print on whether the gang of 26 bureaucrats plus one doctor is going to cover your pre-existing condition or not. President Obama is giving them the power to not cover you.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Exactly. John, what happens if, again god forbid, it’s no fault of your own, but you are injured horribly. I walk a lot to increase my NEPA, and my god are there a lot of bad drivers. It would only take one to put you or me into a situation where we were completely unable to pay for our hospital bills. But we would be treated. Period. If you or I were hit by a car tomorrow, we’d be rushed to the hospital and treated immediately. How could you stop them from treating you?

Also, do you honestly think you’ll “accept the consequences” if an accident actually occurs? In the case of a terrible, painful accident, I think just about everyone would accept treatment. Pain is a powerful motivator.

That it is, but to me at least the thought of having to steal from someone else to get by is even more painful.

And like I said the Hospital does give 7 years to pay something off, so if it comes to something like a broken bone or anything like that I can easily pay that off. Now if anything comes up like I am on a breathing machine or anything like that I have told my doctor and my family I do not wish to be put on it.

To me it makes sense, given the chance of something catastrophic happening to me I am not worried about it.[/quote]

Why aren’t you addressing the point and just dancing around?

Here’s a post from the other healthcare thread:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

The parallel fallacy entertained by some, here, in “macho” style, is that they do not want to be compelled to buy insurance, or they do not need insurance because they can save and pay for it when needed. I do not intend a run through of the general theory of risk. But anyone with life experience knows that rare things nevertheless happen: meteor showers, bus crashes, colon cancer.

These are expensive events, and we are all doomed to get something, sometime, when we are least prepared. The 26 year old man I saw tonight in the ER, whom I predict will have Stage II Hodgkin’s Disease, wasn’t planning on $100,000 bill to save his life this year.

For those of you who still think you can avoid insurance premiums and save up, guess what? You will compete with the indigent for attention, and you may get the care you need, and the rest of us will foot the bill.

Medical insurance–to mitigate the risk of the unpredictable catastrophe–is absolutely necessary. “Health care plans,” not so much.

[/quote]