From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Right to health care?
Date: 16 Oct 1992 12:53:09 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Oct15.215209.18298@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:
>Just a couple of questions regarding the dream of giving everyone in the US
>health insurance:
>
>  If it's mandated that everyone receive coverage, what incentive is there
>for the person who is living a lifestyle not in the best interest of their
>body to clean up their act?  Right now insurance companies have the option
>of either dropping or charging higher premiums to the guy who smokes three
>packs of cigarettes a day and downs a 12-pack of beer before going to bed.
>If it's his "right" to receive coverage, will he change his ways?  And if
>he doesn't, will the money that goes for treatment of problems caused by
>his lifestyle be well spent?

So what does this have to do with everyone recieving health insurance? According
to some of the plans I've read, the government will pickup the cost of the
insurance for those who are unemployed. For those that ARE employed, the
company will be required to "provide" health insurance, not pick up the
entire tab. Most companies that *do* offer health insurance for their
employees basically split the cost. It has nothing to say about not charging
higher premiums for Joe Six-Pack. So, if Joe here smokes & drinks, thats his
choice, but he'll have to pay higher premiums for insurance...

I have a *major* problem with insurance companies "dropping" a person, or
not insuring them in the first place because of "pre-existing conditions".
This option is getting abused especially with the genetic testing available
nowdays..."we can't insure you because you have a genetic pre-disposition
for heart problems...". 

I would like to see the health insurance industry provide more incentives
for being healthy, such as promoting an paying for proactive treatment 
(annual physicals, pap smears, mammograms, etc...), and possibly reducing
premiums for those who *choose* to live a healthy life style...

>
>  With the budget constraints we have now, only a small fraction of those
>who seek treatment for drug addiction manage to get into an available slot.
>With everyone having a "right" to health insurance, how much will it cost
>if hundreds of thousands of addicts demand treatment which they say they
>have a "right" to?  And considering that only a tiny fraction (<5%?) are
>successful in the treatment programs, will that money be well spent?
>

Well, part of the reason for the budget constraints are that we are paying
1/3 of our annual budget to the military, and 1/3 of it to pay INTEREST on the
4 trillion dollar debt. The remaining 1/3 go to everything else...perhaps 
we should rethink our national priorities...

>  If people have a "right" to health insurance, can't the same argument be
>made that people have a "right" to auto insurance, home insurance, and
>other forms of financial protection?  Many people lose their life savings
>due to auto accidents and catastrophes which destroy their homes.  Do
>people have a "right" to be protected financially by the government in
>every situation?
>
I thought the phrase was..."...the right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit
of happiness...", but seriously, people can do without a car, people cannot
do without their health. Owning a car is not necessarily in the national
interest, having a healthy work force is DEFINETLY in the national interest.
Take a look at you're health (not just your contribution, but how much
your employer pays also), car, and house insurance premiums. For myself
and my wife, the health insurance premiums MONTHLY are about the same
as the YEARLY premiums for my house insurance. (an order of magnitude
difference!!!)

>  I agree that something should be done so that everyone has access to
>basic health care, but have all the ramifications been thought out of the
>blanket programs which have been proposed?

Good point...I hope *whoever* wins in November will take a LONG HARD look
at ALL the ramifications of health care...The question then becomes who
do you think HAS and WILL think long and hard about health care for the
average person?

>
>-- 
>Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
>NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
>              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!    

BTW: I saw on CNN this morning that the Bush administration is pushing the
     the supreme court to uphold a company's decision to severly restrict
     the health coverage for an ill employee...apparently the company wants
     to cut the employee's (who has AIDS) health benifits from $1,000,000
     to $5,000. Does anyone know anymore about this???

John


Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections