Hi, David. I appreciate your clearly seeing the distinction. People who would like to read well-written, non-manipulative explanation of Small Business Health Plans can go here: http://www.ahpsnow.com/page/sbhpsnowFAQs Thanks for helping to clarify. -Mark Schecter Porritt, David wrote: > I don't see anyone asking the government - state or federal - to > establish a health care system. What is before the congress now is a > bill to remove the obstacles to private companies so they can provide > their insurance product across state lines. No insurance company in > one state will provide an insurance product for PTG because there are > too few of us in each state. However, if the obstacles to providing > a policy that will be legal in all states could be removed PTG would > be a large enough group for insurance companies to consider. The > government would not "provide" anything, or pay for anything. PTG > members would still have to do the paying all the costs. No > government handout, no socialized medicine. > > That's what has been languishing in congress - particularly the > senate - for way to long. > > dp > > __________________________ David M. Porritt, RPT Meadows School of > the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275 > dporritt at smu.edu > > ________________________________ > > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org on behalf of John M. Formsma Sent: > Thu 4/13/2006 10:29 PM To: schecter at pacbell.net; 'Pianotech List' > Subject: RE: Health Insurance for RPT's? > > > > Mark, > > You make several good points, and we are certainly in agreement about > insurance companies and aggregate buying power for a group like PTG. > > > There are those of us who believe that the federal government is not > constitutionally authorized to provide things like a national health > care system. Those powers belong to the states. We would say if the > states want to provide its residents with health care, then go for > it. But the federal government does not have those powers. (The Fed > has arrogated to itself more powers than these, and we could spend > months talking about it. And Republicans are just as guilty as > Democrats about this. BTW, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat, > and I don't think real solutions reside in a political party. I also > don't like the party system as it often sets party loyalty above what > is best for the people.) > > When I read your arguments, Mark, I understand that you are trying to > be pragmatic about fixing a current and serious problem. I agree that > something should be done, and if you and I were in charge of creating > a solution to the health care problem, we would probably be in a lot > of agreement. But I would take a step back to look at the big > picture. As I read what you wrote, it almost sounds as if you believe > that health care is a right. I disagree that health care is a right. > Let's substitute the word "food" for "health care" to see how the > argument holds up. One could argue similarly that without food all > 300 million people in the U.S. would be in serious danger of not only > their health, but also their lives. But is it the government's > responsibility to provide all its citizens with food? Of course not. > Having food is not a right. Neither is having health care, or cars, > or pianos for that matter. It's a privilege, and one must work for > it, just like one must work if he wants to eat. I get disgusted with > people nowadays that think that just because they're breathing, they > deserve _____. But, I'm preaching to the choir, as I'm sure most of > us are those who get out there and bust it to make a good living. > > Obviously, we are in a huge mess with the current structure of our > entire society, not just in our health care system. There is no > overnight solution to this difficult problem, as it would take many > years to undo all the errors of the past. We must begin somewhere, > and again, I probably would agree with you about some things that > could be an interim solution. But the ultimate answer does not lie in > more government "provision." As we all know, government "provision" > means government thievery from someone else. The government has no > money. What it does is take our money and give it back to us or > someone else - with huge amounts of waste every time money is > handled. > > Long term solution? Let the federal government go on a HUGE diet! > Abolish all entitlement programs and pork within 10 years. Give it > back to the states if the people want it, but let the federal > government do what it's supposed to do: promote (not provide for) the > general welfare by protecting the people from evildoers without and > within, and handling problems that arise between states. > > Something else we could all consider while we're on the topic of > government. I'm taking a look at www.fairtax.org, which advocates a > national sales tax to replace the current taxation system. I'm not > saying it's THE answer, but it might be worth a look. > > Regards, > > John Formsma > > -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org > [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Mark Schecter Sent: > Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:00 PM To: deanmay at pianorebuilders.com; > Pianotech List Subject: Re: Health Insurance for RPT's? > > Hi, Dean. Thanks for writing. I have a few thoughts to add to your > points. I'll intersperse my responses. > > Dean May wrote: >> If you want to talk about health insurance, fine. I've done it >> before myself. But if you advocate a political solution you are >> talking politics and religion. >> >> What is being advocated basically is that there is a whole group of >> people that are stuck when it comes to health care unless the state >> god > intervenes >> and saves them. So we should all contact our senators immediately >> to > resolve >> the problem. > > There are well over 40 Million people in the U.S. who have no health > coverage. What do they do when they get sick? Do you think they just > suffer alone until they either get better without help or die? No, > they go to the emergency room, the #1 most expensive form of health > care. Who do you think pays for that? (We do.) And wouldn't it have > been better if they could have had their problem treated in a more > appropriate, timely and cost effective manner? The cost of one ER > visit would cover several problems handled at the right level, i.e. > early when it's still a small problem. > >> Such is the nature of our state worshipping society today. Every >> societal problem can only be solved by yet another piece of >> legislation. > Legislative >> bodies churn out new code by the tens of thousands of pounds of >> paper > every >> year attempting to fix problems. In the end it usually only makes >> the problems worse. >> >> Health care is no exception. The reason health care is so expensive >> today > is >> people won't take personal responsibility for their own health >> care. As a result they look to the government to protect them. > > You gave one reason it's so expensive, but you left out some others. > > 1) The insurance industry has systematically lobbied/weaseled its way > into the health care system, so that they collect a percentage on > everything that's delivered to you and me and our families, as well > as often deciding exactly what care we should receive. Do you like it > like that? Personally, I think they have too much money, too much > power, and too much control over my health care, and they don't care > about me, they only care about their money. > > 2) Health care technology is becoming ever more expensive. We're not > going back to horse and buggy days, and everyone wants the best care. > There are huge questions to be argued about the ethics of who gets > what, and that's probably the main point of this whole discussion. > But when you need a brain scan, and you get one, and it shows the > problem, and you get the treatment, and you're cured, who are you > going to thank? Or would you decline treatment because it uses > expensive high tech, and hope for someone else to feed your family > after you die? > > 3) People are not educated about health, and don't know how to live > healthily. This is societal problem that is not addressed in any of > the legislation now being considered, as far as I know. But even > people who are well aware of health issues and who endeavor to live > well, still may need medical care from time to time. Injuries, > accidents, illnesses, mental health issues: we can't treat ourselves > for everything. When you need it, you need it. I prefer a system > where, when I need it, I can get it through reasonable means. If we > ignore these needs for 40 million people who are not in the system > now, we are not saving the money we should have spent on their care - > we will spend it anyway and then some. > > Every industry the >> government regulates becomes more expensive to the consumer. And >> health > care >> is one of the most heavily regulated. > > It's not health care we're talking about regulating, it's the > insurance industry that has inserted itself into the health care > delivery system. > >> And every service the government makes "free" to qualified people >> becomes even more expensive to those who don't qualify. Plus the >> only way the government can make it free is by stealing bread out >> of the mouths of my children. And if you are advocating more >> government involvement and regulation you essentially are >> advocating more stealing of bread from my children. I take that >> personal. > > I don't think anyone said anything about free. Health care has to be > paid for. But it's true that many people don't have enough money to > pay for their own care. So what's going to happen? Let them get > sicker until they wind up in emergency, or become chronically > debilitated? Sick people don't learn in school, they don't work, they > don't support their families. Who do you think pays for those things? > The point is, it's much cheaper to keep people healthy than to fix > them when they're really sick or broken. Likewise, it's cheaper to > educate people than to support them on welfare. Education costs money > and so does health care. The question for our society is, Do you want > to pay a little up front to make things better for everyone, or do > you want to pay a lot for a long time later, when it's too late to do > anything to prevent it? > >> So drink your sodas, eat that sugar, consume factory raised hormone >> laden meat products, treat yourself to bottom feeding sea foods, oh >> and write to your senators and demand health care legislation that >> will make sure you live to a ripe old age at no expense to you. > > Dean, this is not about supporting people in self-destructive > lifestyles. It is about fairness in taxation, and aggregate buying > power for trade associations. Do you prefer to pay self-employment > tax (15.3%) on the money you spend for health care? No corporation, > including insurance companies, pays that tax. For them, health care > costs are deductible as a business expense. I resent having to pay > for my health insurance costs out of after-tax dollars. I support > legislation to correct this unfair situation, and I would think that, > if you pay income tax, you would agree. > > Two, allowing associations such as PTG to access health coverage at > group rates, which are otherwise not available to its members acting > individually, is nowhere close to demanding free health care - it > merely allows trade groups to buy in bulk, the same as larger > individual businesses and corporations have always been able to do. > Strength in numbers, you know? > > -Mark Schecter Oakland, CA > > PS I apologize to any and all who might feel this is off-topic for > this list. My only intention is to bring pending legislation to the > attention of American technicians who might feel it is relevant to > their lives, and thus want to support or oppose it. Thank you for > your tolerance. > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC