Czuch: You tell me, you say you know better

As for the other 2 questions.. read back and study some economics. Most people who like to talk about things do so.. so other don't keep having to explain the simple things and repeat themselves.

Only one minor thing.. I called it "maximum employment", while the term seemingly used (a bit of a rusty memory on the name) is full employment.. where as it is expected that some of the population will not be in employment as a natural event.

Czuch: People in the US have a right to unlawful search???

Pedro Martínez: Right against....sorry

Czuch:

Like you, I was a little busy and could not reply to your post.

> it was about the companies, and even you admitted that it was a US
> company that develops a majority of drugs

Please don't put words in my mouth! I never said what you wrote and in that same post I gave examples of half a dozen drug companies which are not American. Drug development is done by pharmaceutical companies all over the world.

> You claim they make billions in profits, maybe so... but explain why then, if
> a government like Canada can make socialized medicine a part of their way,
> why doesnt the same government spend the money and time to develope
> their own drugs?????

Do you really think Canada has no research into drugs and pharmaceuticals? You should visit universities and companies here. Canadias spend billions in research too, both through private and public funds. Pharmaceuticals are a huge business and Canada exploits them too, like many other countries.

> Also, the question about health care being a right, my point was also missed.....
> we can have rights like the right to free speach, or the right to unlawful search
> or seasure etc, but how can we have rights to a service like health care?

I had on purpose stayed out of HEALTHCARE AS A RIGHT. The reason is that it is not as simple as it looks. Individual beliefs play a big role here, just as with many other issues of "rights".

I can give a good example too of how "rights" are interpreted differently by different people. Consider the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I brought this up to make a point. Many Americans consider the second Amendment to be an unalieanable right. They see restriction on gun possession as a direct infringement of their rights. Here is a good question. If it is a right for people to possess a deadly weapon, is that right a good or a bad thing? The answer to this has raised heated debates in the United States and here in Canada too. Gun control in Canada was a source of bitterness for many gun owners, as much as it is in the US.

Likewise, the "right" to healthcare is a source of a lot of vitriol on both sides of the political spectrum. One thing is interesting. Republicans generally tend to oppose gun control and healthcare reform. The defend one right (bear arms) and oppose the other (healthcare). Democrats generally oppose the right to bear arms (they support stronger gun control) and defend the right to healthcare.

> What about an MRI, do I also have a right to an MRI? What if the MRI isnt
> invented yet?

The issue of access is central to the debate of healthcare as a right. The question is not a black and white question. Consider a case of two men. One needs a hip joint replacement to be able to walk and the other needs a heart transplant to survive.

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone the right to life. Denying health care to the first man does not violate his human rights, but denying the second man does. The second man would die if not given treatment. The question is, does this man have a right to healthcare on account of his potential death if not given a transplant? The question is difficult. Assuming that doctors and a heart donor is available, would denying the transplant on accounts of economic reasons be a violation of human rights?

Now, two men need a heart transplant. One is wealthy and has all the insurance coverage he needs. The other is poor and is without adequate insurance to cover his operation. Is denying the poor man insurance coverage a violation of his human rights?

Most cases are not as drastic as this, like somebody who just needs prescription glasses, or simple pain relief for arthritis. It is a complex question. I think that ultimately a health care system has to attempt to balance all sides of the issue. Insurance companies have a right to make a profit, as do doctors and hospitals. However, if profit takes precendence over the protection of the inalienable right to life, then somehow the state has to find balance through legislation and a public system of some kind.

Some countries like Canada and Sweden have solved the problem by going for a publicly run system. These systems are not perfect, and often the state is unable to provide all the services needed.

Other countries don't care at all and all medical services are done privately with minimal state intervention. I have been to developing countries where healthcare is chaotic because the state has little or no involvement at all. In these places millions of people die every year because of poor healthcare.

Other countries like the United States and Australia have both private and public health care and they seem to function well except for the segments of society with the lowest incomes.

The balance has to lie somewehere. I am of the opinion that the Obama administration should do its best to find a balanced approach in which both public and private interest should try to cooperate to find a solution to the problems, rather than playing to public passions to defeat one or the other side of the issue. Of course, in real life special interest and individuals put themselves ahead of an entire country's well-being.

Is healthcare a right? I think it is when people die as a result of poor healthcare. To me Article 3 of the Declaration of Human rights takes precedence over anything else.

Übergeek 바둑이: But how many actually die because of PROVEN poor health care? rather than poor lifestyles,smoking, drinking, obesity? also to think about,, everyone has the right to education at least k-12, but not college, meaning paid by the taxpayers

GTCharlie: Poor lifestyle is a factor the docs know how to adjust for. The science and technology exists to determine all the factors that lead upto a persons death.

Little things called autopsy's and post mortems...

As for college.. the more that go to that level of education and complete it the better potential for high skilled employees. That level of workforce potential should be nurtured and kept open otherwise you end up with a lack of skills. It is simple economic sense to have college open to as many potential skilled employees as possible.

As long as they pass the entrance tests.

Übergeek 바둑이: Healthcare is a right when people die as a result of poor healthcare.

Well, it either IS a right or it ISN'T. Words like "when" or "if" have no place in defining what is a right.

Pedro Martínez:

Thank you... and statements like "if there is a heart and a doctor available" is a good example.

That was my whole point..... if health care is to be a "right", then the government has to have the ability to protect that for the people in all and every instance, and if it is not possible to do that, then it cannot be possible to be a right

Its a philosophical debate... it either is or isnt, there is no grey area.

GTCharlie: Good points as well.... I guess the government should be required to provide everyone a personal trainer and dietitian etc to every person from age 5 on too

Pedro Martínez: Having a healthcare system where some die due to lack of money (workers) and bosses don't as they have the money..... Last I looked into the infrastructure of a company.... The bosses needed workers.

It's inhumane to say that one person can have quality healthcare and one cannot, especially in the same country.. such is, that such a policy is liable to end up in revolution in one form or another.

"Animal Farm" springs to mind

Czuch: As mentioned.. Czuch, our NHS covers everyone and has turned around a £500 million overspend to a £1 billion plus surplus that is to be wholly reinvested.

It can be done, all that the USA has to do is work out which scheme is right. Controls such as full audits need to be made law for all providers. Tort law needs reforming, as in reasonable levels of compensation.. not this "it has to be bigger" attitude that is lining lawyers pockets and robbing the people of the USA as they have to pay for the lawyers getting rich.

It is possible.

Czuch: Not unless normal people stop having babies the normal way, and people are grown (like in "Brave New World") rather then born.

Pedro Martínez:

stop quibbling over what you have and haven't got...

think on this???

http://livenews.com.au/life/overworked-queensland-doctors-admit-to-killing-patients/2009/9/7/218565

Bernice: Blimey!! That practice of making doctors work stupid shifts was made illegal over here about 5 years ago. I'm surprised it's not the same over in Aussie land!!

GTCharlie:  Obama will go down in history as one of the most incompetent and dishonest presidents ever in US politics.

Artful Dodger: I always like reading the member comment section for these articles,, some are pretty funny,

Artful Dodger: Will he beat Raygun and Bush II??

What about Nixon??

GTCharlie: I like this member comment...

"Why is everybody blaming Obama? He has been in office for 8 months. It is the disasterous policies of the Bush administration that have this country on life support. Obama is doing his best to contend with a patient (the USA) with multisystem organ failure caused by greed and deception over decades but magnified by bush and his people!"

(V): How about the one calling him "dear leader", or the one from the chinese article saying" Don't worry China. We will print PLENTY of money so there will be enough for everyone!"

GTCharlie: Well... unfortunately Obama inherited alot of problems from the Bush administration. As for Dear leader...

"FDR was responsible for killing 400,000 American soldiers in WWII."

I guess the axis forces just sat at home name calling then.

.... As for printing money... In small doses that is fine, inflation is effected by more then just printing money. Ya just don't want the policy of Germany after WWI.

And as for the first article you posted... "The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s."

This is the point of who knows!! WWII intervened with the ability to have the authors of the article having a clear case and argument.

(V):   In just a few months Obama has managed to increase the crisis he "inherited" and he's on his way to making it worse.  History shows that his ideas are NOT new and they've failed in the past.  Obama is a fish out of water.  He has no plan.  Only ideas.  And he doesn't have a clue as to how to impliment them.

Artful Dodger: When does history show this? As I said, the great depression does not count

(V): hey don't shoot the messenger, I'm just posting different viewpoints from England now and again,, I'm on record and have hopes that everything turns out good, I honestly hope Obama turns out great because that will be good for the country ,However he's certainly not above constructive criticism and hopefully readjusts as we go on ,like he did with that moron,Van Jones, he(they) picked for Green Jobs. Also, don't forget, that he,Emmaneul, Biden, Frank, Kennedy and that economic Genius Rangel were right there wheeling and dealing with the Republicans,so I don't give either side a free pass

GTCharlie: I ain't shooting ya Dude.. Just the Telegraph has become a bit of a joke over here compared to it's past.

And yes, no president is above criticism. Just at the moment so many want him to fail just because he is not a republican, which is crazy. Much of what led to the problem in the USA as it is goes back decades, and all the various politicians have just sat on their bottoms and not bothered... Just like over here with the expenses scandal.

As I've said before everyone needs to work the problem.

(V):  It doesn't matter according to you but you're no expert so I'll dismiss your comments on that score.

and the progressive movement has been rejected ever since it's inception.  People don't lean left here, they are mostly centrist.  Obama hasn't figured this out yet because he's surrounded himself with far left loonie progressives.  He's a lame duck already.

GTCharlie:

I was away for a couple of days. I can finally reply to some comments.

> But how many actually die because of PROVEN poor health care? rather
> than poor lifestyles,smoking, drinking, obesity? also to think about,,
> everyone has the right to education at least k-12, but not college, meaning
> paid by the taxpayers

You realize that there are countries in which education is considered a right to any level. For example, in countries like Germany and Austria education is free. In fact Germany did not allow tuition fees for universities until very recently. People in some German states still have a fully free univeristy education. Austria is the same. In the US and Canada university education is expensive because it is not considered a right, but the state does provide the "minimum" which is considered highschool. Education as right is just like healthcare as a right. Different countries see it different depending on what is politically and economically convenient.

It is curious, nobody said anything much about my post (some 26 posts ago). If Article 2 of the Bill of Rights says that people have the right to bearm arms, why is owning a gun a right, while giving healthcare to everyone is not?

I am curious to see some opinions, from both defenders and opponents of healthcare as a right.

Übergeek 바둑이: The difference is quite simple. It comes down to what the Czech constitution defines as "rights" and "freedoms." "Rights" are those entitlements that cannot exist without a corresponding duty of the state - e.g. the right to healthcare requires the state to provide the healthcare. Or the right to fair trial requires the state to take such measures as to guarantee the fair trial. On the other hand, "freedoms" are immanent within every citizen and they exist regardless of what the state does. Such as the freedom of speech, or the freedom of religion.

The English language is not as consistent as Czech and analogously the U.S. Constitution is not as consistent as the Czech constitution in the naming of the "rights" and "freedoms." The right to bear arms is not a "right," it is a "freedom." You are free to own a weapon even if there are no gun manufacturers, even if there are no arms available.

Pedro Martínez: well said

Artful Dodger: So, in dismissing my comments, you dismiss the FACT that WWII came at a point that interfered with the data as such to give an accurate assessment of how the dealing with the great depression back then worked or failed? Can you explain how you arrived at this assessment??

The progressive movement seems to have come from Republicans who joined the Democrats as they no longer agreed with the Republican idols... as you know, ideology is a dangerous business.

Yes.. most people are centre in views, neither left or right.. having to choose between two parties who are left or right. That's why the Republican party failed to be re-elected.. Bush and McCain had gone toooooo far right to be fair representatives of the people.

Pedro Martínez: One thing that gets me about this 'freedom' of owning arms is the situation in which it came about. IE the time of American independence. It has led imho to much gun crime on the streets, in schools, etc in current times.

I can accept that to change such a freedom would be not possible, but the nature of what people are allowed to own, or at least the nature of how they are kept needs sorting. When my brother owned two guns, he had to be vetted by the police (even though he was a serving member of the UK military, his guns had to be stored as such that if someone broke in, they could not just nick them (steel boxes bolted down) and that each weapon was stored so that someone could not just break into one box and have a gun, as the firing mechanisms were stored in a separate steel box, again bolted down.

Access as such in homes I can appreciate in America needs to be quick due to the number of criminals with guns, but this ought to be handguns only, anything heavier stored to prevent thieves getting easy access to them. Or as has happened.. kids using them.

A small safe, does not cost much. And with keypad combo's is quick to open.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Who is an expert???

(V): This gun conversation is helpful for me in explaining the differences of opinions in the health care debate.

It is because of criminals who use guns in illegal ways that you want to infringe our freedom to bear arms, in the same way you want to change our whole health care system, just because of a few bad apples.

Pedro Martínez:

> "Rights" are those entitlements that cannot exist without a corresponding duty
> of the state - e.g. the right to healthcare requires the state to provide the healthcare.
> Or the right to fair trial requires the state to take such measures as to guarantee the
> fair trial. On the other hand, "freedoms" are immanent within every citizen and they
> exist regardless of what the state does. Such as the freedom of speech, or the
> freedom of religion.

In other words, we are down to legal semantics.

I could rephrase things a little:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A healthy population, being necessary to the well-being of a free nation, the right of the People to healthcare, shall not be infringed."

The first statement is acceptable as a "freedom" because anyone can keep and bear a weapon, regardless of what the state does, and the state has no right to take away that freedom.

The second statement is unacceptable because the state would be responsible in ensuring that everyone receives healthcare.

Then similar arguments can be made about education. Legally speaking, the state is not required to provide education in the US. This is a quote of the Republican campaign platform of 1996:

"The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning."

Ronald Reagan promised to dimsantle the Department of Education in the 1980s (the Democrats blocked that), and to George W. Bush's credit, he refused to implement the Republican platform of dismantling that department.

However, by Pedro's argument, since education is an "entitlement", the state should not be required to provide it and the Reagan administration was justified in wanting to dismantle the federal system of education and let individual families decide when and where education would happen. If the poor happened to have no money for it, it would be their problem, just as with healthcare.

Since a person can choose any healthcare they want according to its affordability, why should there be restrictions on which gun a person can buy. If a person can afford a fully automatic assault weapon, why restrict purchasing those. Sarah Palin is right in wanting to remove the ban on automatic assault rifles. If I can afford it, why should I not be able to buy it?

Then the letter of the law should be applied. If a person is not enrolled in a well-regulated militia, should they be free to own a gun? Then all those not in a militia should give up their guns!

Interpreting legal semantics is a tricky thing, obviously.

Czuch:

> It is because of criminals who use guns in illegal ways that you want to infringe
> our freedom to bear arms, in the same way you want to change our whole health
> care system, just because of a few bad apples.

Your are right in this. Guns in themselves do no harm until somebody pulls the trigger. Opposition to availability of guns is just like prohibition. "If there is no alcohol available, then people will stop drinking. If no guns are available, then people will stop killing each other."

Some countries like Japan have full bans of buying and selling firearms. Their statistics show a low incidence of murder, but not a low incidence of stabbing. Less people die of stabbing, but it does not mean that stabbing happens less often than shooting.

Some gun owners are responsible. I know a man who collects guns and he loves hunting. He keeps at least 50 hunting rifles safely locked away in the basement of his home. He would never harm anyone. He just loves fishing, hunting, etc.

Then we hear stories of children taking their parents gun to school and shooting other children. Irresponsible parents leave the gun lying around without thinking of the consequences.

Healthcare in the US is somewhat like that. Some insurers are responsible and care about their clients. Others are greedy and charge more for providing less services. Some insurers operate in some states where they provide better or worse services than in other states.

Should the government intervene? Legislate companies at a federal level to ensure everyone in every state gets adequate coverage from private companies? Should there be price checks to make it affordable to everyone? Or should the state pick up the slack and provide equal healthcare to the needy?

People in the US don't seem to agree. Here in Canada the government did away with the problem by providing universal healthcare. It works here, in spite of the mistakes and problems with waiting lists, etc. However, the American reality is different. Somewhere along the way the problems with the system have to be fixed in a balanced manner. I think that if all the special interests could be removed, the government might find a better way to deal with the problem.

Czuch: No. I don't. I would like it made so kids cannot just take guns. I made that quite clear. Seeing as much gun crime is kid related.

Is being responsible regarding firearms anti republican?

Many people support the ideal of universal health care insurance coverage. The utopian heart beats strong and steady. But once the incision is made, there is no turning back. And without a clear understanding of economics, our experimental treatment may kill Uncle Sam.

The knee-jerk reaction of liberals to the rubber hammer of health care is the simplistic mantra, “Everyone should be covered,” or, “The government should pay for everyone.” Whether 46 million are uninsured or just one individual, anything less than universal coverage is simply unacceptable to them.

Conservatives, in contrast, whittle the number down. About 6.4 million people are on Medicaid or SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) but tell the census taker they are uninsured. Another 4.3 million are eligible and would be automatically enrolled after visiting a clinic or emergency room. Both groups are protected from risk and do not need more coverage.

Another 9.3 million are not American citizens. The law currently covers them for emergency care while they are in the United States. Debate is ongoing whether they should qualify for full medical insurance even if they are undocumented and pay no taxes.

Another 10.1 million have incomes more than triple the federal poverty level. Even people at the poverty level live better than the average American did in 1960 and more comfortably than 90 percent of the world today. For a family of four, three times the poverty level is $66,150.

About 5 million are healthy adults with no dependent children between 18 and 34. They have ruled out health insurance coverage as too expensive. The current proposals limit how much insurers can set their premiums based on age. The limit is two times, which discriminates against younger adults. Nothing makes sense about charging a 19-year-old half as much as a 91-year-old. Well-intentioned statism steals from struggling young people and lines the coffers of the wealthy AARP lobby.

So we are left with 10.6 million uninsured U.S. citizens with children who live three times below the poverty level - for example, a family of four earning less than $66,150 a year.

These are the heart-wrenching stories. Imagine a young middle-class family without health insurance whose child suddenly needs tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. They can’t qualify for assistance, but their son’s or daughter’s future depends on getting expensive treatments immediately. That’s the poster child for universal coverage.

The compromise for conservatives is to agree as a society that we can afford to make catastrophic coverage mandatory. Americans are generally compassionate and will try to pay after the fact. But if America’s generosity insulates people from this risk, they won’t feel the need to buy insurance. So in fairness everyone must be required to buy coverage ahead of time.

The compromise for liberals is to agree that we are not going to provide an entitlement program for the first aspirin purchased. We are building a safety net, not a hammock.

Insurance only makes sense for extremely expensive and unlikely scenarios. It is never advisable for everyday events.

Here is the perfect analogy: compare insurance that tries to cover the first dollar of health care to the idea of grocery store insurance.

Imagine the average family of four spends $100 a week on groceries, $25 per person. Now think about implementing universal grocery insurance for everyone.

There is no way weekly premiums would be less than $25 per person. They would have to cover the cost of insurance administration and reimbursement. At checkout you would be obliged to show your card and have your insurance numbers recorded. Each item would need to be coded to qualify for reimbursement. Shaving cream would be disallowed. Organic vegetables would only be reimbursed at the generic rate. A dietician would have to certify the tuna is for human, not feline consumption.

Coverage for a week’s worth of groceries would quickly rise from $100 to $200 a week. Then $300. Then $500. Soon many people couldn’t afford grocery coverage and would drop out of the system. They would have to grow their own vegetables and raise chickens. Those who paid in cash would subsidize the collection costs of those with insurance.

Pressure would increase to lower grocery costs. The government would implement price controls. But you can’t reduce costs simply by refusing to pay. Shortages and rationing would ensue.

Those who regularly ate steak would be denied. Families who normally made do with hamburger would start eating the maximum reimbursable amount of filet mignon. Vegetarians would get the meat anyway and trade it for organic food on the black market. Parents of children with allergies would demand expensive gluten-free options. Grocery fraud would be rampant.

Grocery stores would no longer be able to price items. “It depends,” clerks would answer. “Ask your insurance company.” Shoppers wouldn’t care as long as lobster was covered once a quarter.

Older women who ate sparingly would subsidize teenage boys. The obese would take advantage of items that were unlimited allowances. All of the restraint imposed by economic forces would be lost.

Clearly, insurance never works for frequent events with moderate costs. But unfortunately it typifies the style of government-imposed health insurance on the industry. Hundreds of regular expenses are required by law. Each one comes with a nominal copayment that fails to deter its use.

Insurance should be used to limit catastrophic risk, not to pool everyday expenses. Affordable medical insurance should have a high deductible. Then out-of-pocket expenses below the deductible would provide sufficient negative feedback to prevent skyrocketing insurance costs. We have just such an economic trial right now that appears very promising.

If you support universal coverage, consider Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Thus far, the results of HSAs are surprising and may actually be a miracle cure for America’s health-care crisis.

As long as funds are saved and spent on qualified medical expenses, all contributions, capital gains and withdrawals related to an HSA remain untaxed. And HSAs come complete with debit cards and checks.

To protect you against catastrophic medical expenses, HSAs are coupled with a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP), a minimum of $1,150 for individuals and $2,300 for families. Once the deductible is met, HSA-eligible HDHP plans cover 100 percent of most medical expenses.

Of course, these deductibles are significant. The minimum deductible for a family is $2,300; the maximum is $11,600. That’s a lot of money for a struggling family, but it isn’t crippling. People hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of dollars won’t mind losing a few pints of blood instead. They will consider themselves blessed.

Utopian liberals are willing to sacrifice the negative feedback of the first dollar coming out of pocket to fund that dollar for the truly needy. This is madness. Don’t break the system for the 80 percent of Americans who can afford to self-insure the deductible.

Utopians also suggest that automatically paying for routine health maintenance reduces the costs of health care. But annual checkups still cost more than they save. And if they are cost effective, let the insurance companies offer discounts on the cost of the HDHP if patients pay out of pocket for annual checkups. The less government tries to make those decisions, the better.

The good news is that HSA-eligible HDHP premiums are considerably less expensive than the cost of a traditional medical insurance plan. If you want universal coverage, demand Health Savings Accounts with high deductibles. Let’s agree we can solve the problem without a grand government takeover of health care.
Post a Comment

Universal Eyes: Unfortunately for that author, one of the main points of the election was healthcare. The people voted..... yes.

And the analogy of fruit and veg is really bad... I would say looking for a "knee-jerk reaction"

Universal Eyes:

The idea of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) seems good, but certain things are not clear to me.

I am curious about what restrictions people have to withdraw money from the accounts. Reading more about it, I found certain details:

"HSA participants do not have to obtain advance approval from their HSA trustee or their medical insurer to withdraw funds."
"Funds can be withdrawn for any reason, but withdrawals that are not for documented qualified medical expenses are subject to income taxes and a 10% penalty."

What happens to somebody who is having money problems? Imagine that somebody lost their job and is defaulting on their mortgage payments. They can go, take their HSA money (paying the 10% tax) and save their home, but they would be left without the HSA. Somebody who for some reason needs money in a hurry could find themselves with no coverage of any kind all of a sudden, and knowing human nature, when people have money problems they will go for whatever they can grab.

The HSA is suppossed to accrue value over time, like an IRA.

"income tax is paid on the withdrawal, and in effect the account has grown tax deferred (similar to an IRA)"

I imagine that there is somebody managing that money, most likely some financial services firm. If for some reason they lost money (like IRAs do when the financial markets take a tumble) then people could find themselves with less money for medical expenses than they may have expected.

I Imagine that like IRAs, there is some degree of protection from bankruptcy filings. In some states bankruptcy proceedings or creditor lawsuits cannot seize assets in an IRA account. I Imagine that something similar must exist for HSAs. Otherwise somebody who goes bankrupt could lose healthcare coverage to creditors seizing the account.

I am curious to know too how the plan works for people who cannot afford to fund the HSA account. Would those people have to opt for different insurance plans, or rely on government-provided care? A larger family might be unable to fund an account for many children. I imagine that some government-sponsored child coverage would help those families.

Is the system fair for all age groups? As we grow older, our health can deteriorate. A senior's medical expenses are not the same as those of a person in their 30s. The assumption is that the HSA account grew over time, but if for some reason the account did not grow (like many retirement plans in the last 9 years), the senior would end up losing in relation to a younger, healthier person.

Well, these are technical details in an otherwise interesting idea, like educational savings plans (529 Plans) that allow parents to save money towards a child's future education.

Übergeek 바둑이: the right of the People to healthcare, shall not be infringed.


Well, fine then.... but the government does not provide us all with guns, free or otherwise..... and we have no "right" that says they have to provide us with health care either.

Czuch: What i don't get is that you say the government run clinics are fine, yet you object to them!!

Politics (Czuch, 2009-07-27 13:08:17)

I quote.. "Lack of health insurance does NOT equal lack of health care, not in the US anyway!"

and ...."..have no confidence that the government health care will do any better than the US postal service when it comes to competing with private industry..."

So, are you saying, or not saying that the gov is perfectly capable of running a health system?

Übergeek 바둑이: Well look at it this way if you die you can't be or are not responsible to pay for your health care so if they want to be paid they better not kill you.

Tuesday: I'm native Canadian yet I'm still supposedly covered for all medical and dental in the states.

Czuch: That would be opening up the door for lawsuits.

(V): What about home care.Do you feel the same?