Carol Says But

This is the ongoing conversation with [liberal] Carol. My comments are in italics. Carol says,

Emergency room treatment doesn't restore people to health. It is the
inaccessibility of health care that causes many of the problems the
uninsured face. I doubt if you worked in a children's cancer center, you
would not get somewhat emotional about those unable to get
treatment...unless you are very cold, which I doubt. Personally, I am
passionate towards helping people survive.

Emergency treatment does restore health. Health is the absence of death. When we avoid death, we create health. Perhaps you think health is an absolute state. It is not. All people walk around or exist with a degree of health. Many have a lower degree of health because they abuse their bodies by excessive eating, drinking, insufficient sleep, not paying attention to symptomatic changes, wherein they could take corrective action, etc.. Am I supposed to feel sorry for those people, because they make no effort towards self-control and attention to their own responsibilities? I already support their health in that they can go to the emergency room to maintain their life at my expense. Contrary to what you say, health care is available to all either through personal treatments or professional attention at hospitals and clinics. Those needing healthcare need only to treat themselves or when that is not possible, ask for help.
I have not worked in a children's cancer center nor do I intend to. I do not like to be around the poor and unfortunate, although I see a need for others to do so, and I respect their compassion and ability to work in that area. I spend my time with growth possibilities in education and to a degree with persons like you in an effort to preserve a workable system within the country. I help people survive on a larger scale, but I do also work with individuals.

No, personal liberties don't have anything to do with emergency health care. We all know what people
can to their health all by themselves. You can only help those that
seek help. However, in life-threatening situations, personal liberties
don't enter the picture. Anyone available must do what he/she
can...rights don't enter into it. Have you ever worked in an emergency room? The context I am using the words public opinion in means that the people expressing unsubstantiated opinions often haven't done their homework.
This is our responsibility in a government, which requires its citizens
to be informed in order to make judgments on what is best for the
country. For example, to elect judges, whom most of the voters have
never heard of, one must spend hours studying their backgrounds, et al.
If we don't take responsibility for our actions, like voting, our form
of government fails.

Too much emotion in this paragraph. Personal liberties do have everything to do with healthcare. The recipient has the liberty to decide to accept it. The basic giver should have the decision to decide to grant it, but he does not in a socialistic society. One can help those who want help as those persons usually do in a life-threatening situation. This is the reason why we have medical emergency units, who don't ask political or financial questions in life-threatening situations. They merely apply technology to sustain life. I've never worked in an emergency room but I have been there. My first visit was when I had a leg wound which was bleeding profusely. There was a waiting line. One person had a headache. Another person needed a second opinion on a medical procedure. There are plenty of hypochondriacs in the United States. Any more convenient medical care will increase that number, at substantial unnecessary cost to the economy. Most people have a basis on which they have an opinion, as I am sure you do. It is usually a function of basic personality characteristics concerning compassion etc,.previous training and subsequent influences, such as desire for personal profit, jealousy with respect to others who appear to have more financial assets, and a number of other things. You are a product of this background, just as I am with mine.
I agree that voters should be informed on the ideologies and previous records of candidates for public office.

The insurance system as it exists leaves out 45,000,000 or so of our
citizens, has ever-increasing rates, drops people seriously ill or
denies coverage due to pre-existing conditions, doesn't always pay for
services covered by contract...it needs fixing.

I'm rather tired of seeing this 45 million number batted about, in spite of the fact that on analysis it is a significant misrepresentation of the facts. Even if we agree on 45 million, and even if those 45 million people are denied health insurance, they are not denied health care, as I have explained several times previously. Insurance companies are also not allowed to drop seriously ill people from an accepted insurance program, PROVIDING the applicants have been truthful in their initial applications. Even those who may be subsequently dropped from insurance because of initial untruthfulness in their applications can always receive emergency room treatment to sustain their lives. How many of the 45 million do not want health insurance, because they feel it is an unnecessary expense? How many also feel they do not want it because of ideological opposition? The rights of all these people should be respected, even though you may disagree. You should not have the power to force them into accepting a program which they feel they have the personal right to reject.

I don't see anything in health care reform that will destroy the private insurance companies.
There is plenty of speculation that it will because of a deep-seated
distrust of our government to get things right. President Obama is too
new on the scene to predict that his plan will destroy the private
insurance industry.

Let me explain it to you again. If you establish a government insurance company and offer me exceptionally good benefits at extremely low costs, I will accept a government insurance program for my personal needs. Millions of other people will the same. Those millions who have jumped to government insurance are no longer customers or private insurance companies. Without customers, private insurance companies can no longer exist.
There is a deep-seated distrust of government or any institution that has unmodulated power. If you may claim that the government insurance company will not offer better benefits and lower premiums, you may be initially correct. However, history shows that government does not operate in this stable, consistent manner. They change things based upon an initial program which will institute modifications in easy stages, or government regulators may change their minds in operation of a particular program.


Please elucidate on monopolistic control of the banking and automotive
industries. Several banks have paid back their bail-outs. The automotive
industry is operating in the private sector. The king-pin of the banking
industry, the Federal Reserve, is a private corporation.

Government does not now have monopolistic control of the banking and automotive industries. However, government has now an increasing stake in both these industries. One obtains control of a corporation through seats on the board of directors, which direct from the the operations of the company, including the appointment of Administrative Officers. While government does not now have monopolistic control, it does have substantially more control now and than it did before Mr. Obama became President.
It is a laugh to even think that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. With that line of thought, you could also add Freddie Mac and Ginny Mae as private corporations. Why not add the Department of Energy?

Carol