Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLetter to the editor:
Insurers only doing what capitalism calls for
Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.
I am in favor of corporations earning a profit. Why else would anyone form one in the first place? If stock is sold to the public, the corporation has not only a right, but also a responsibility to its shareholders, to make as much profit as it can. Moreover, profits must grow each year or the stock price will suffer.
When a client costs more than the client pays in, you can’t blame the company for kicking the client out. How can the company make a profit paying out more than it takes in?
If the government mandates that the insurer cover you despite a preexisting condition, and that it not kick you out should you need expensive treatment, the corporation will simply raise your rates, or if it is not permitted by law to do so, it will raise everyone else’s a lesser amount. How else could it stay in business?
The health and welfare of the nation are not the responsibility of a corporation, nor should they be. On the other hand, the president and every member of Congress, having vowed to uphold the Constitution, are responsible for the health and welfare of all the citizens.
If “for profit” insurers insure only those who are most likely not to actually need insurance, they can keep their rates low and profits high simply by foisting the others off on the government. Those who have really expensive illnesses, such as cancer, AIDS, kidney failure and heart disease, as well as those who simply cannot afford health insurance, will be protected by the government. Of course that means the rest of us will have to chip in. Think of it like being drafted and sent to a jungle in Vietnam to protect your fellow Americans … only it doesn’t hurt quite as much.
Discussion: 37 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Illness theory gaining ground for gambling addiction
- At CityCenter, it’s not your usual uniforms for workers
- Rebels wake up Sunday with top RPI
- Carl Icahn offers $156 million for Fontainebleau, outbids Penn National
- Ex-ACORN official gets probation for voter registration plan
- Vegas-based Majestic Star Casino seeks bankruptcy
- Report details events leading to officer’s fatal shooting
- 3 arrested in shooting of Metro officer appear in court
- Despite economy, swank of lawmaker’s fundraisers not in recession
- Wynns agree on ‘amicable’ split of assets in divorce
Blogs
Shark Bytes
Sharing some Thanksgiving traditions
The Kats Report
Oscar Goodman sounds like a man not running for governor
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
And the Season 9 winner of Dancing With the Stars is …
Elsewhere
Sen. Steven Horsford parked in handicap spot for hours (19 Comments)
Now and Then
Rory in disguise ... with glasses
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Angle: I am better than all other Republicans against Harry Reid and here's why (1 Comment)
Robin Leach's Las Vegas Celebrity Watch
Photo Gallery: Donny Osmond within reach of Dancing With the Stars victory
Calendar »
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
- 27 Fri
- 28 Sat
-
Thanks-Spinning with Z-Trip at Moon
Moon Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Food Drive at Coyote Ugly
Coyote Ugly | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Surfer Blood with ACoSA at Beauty Bar
Beauty Bar | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Ladies night at Feelgoods
Feelgoods
-
Canned food drive at Pure
PURE | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
"If the government mandates that the insurer cover you despite a preexisting condition, and that it not kick you out should you need expensive treatment, the corporation will simply raise your rates, or if it is not permitted by law to do so, it will raise everyone else's a lesser amount. How else could it stay in business?"
Insuers are making 3% profit each year which goes to stock holders which is us.
And if the federal government ran it they would just raise taxes or borrow money to pay for it.
So what is the point?
If the government runs it we will be another day older and our garndkids deeper in debt.
There's sort of an unwritten requirement in the comments section. It goes like this: Read the letter or article, think a bit, then write your comment. It also helps to actually take advantage of the system's attempt to help you avoid "typos" by previewing your own replies and correcting them before hitting the Submit button.
So, Mr Goldfarb, what you are indicating is that the public option pushed by many on this site is going to cost all of us taxpayers. Kind of like socialism where we take from those that actually pay taxes and give to those who do not pay taxes. A spread the wealth tactic that Obama metioned in his campaign. I don't mind supporting and paying taxes to support those that cannot support themselves for what ever reason. But I do have a problem supporting those that will not help themselves and do not contribute to the advancement of this nation or society. There are far too many slackers out there that just wait for the gov't handouts and refuse to try and help themselves. How is this fair to those that work and actually pay taxes? We need a system where the few that do pay taxes do not support the many who pay nothing ( you can read illegals here if you like ). We need a capatalistic society that creates non-gov't jobs so workers pay taxes and support the nation and contribute to the overall well being of society. We need a tax system that does not support slackers, but only takes care of those that cannot take care of themselves. Until this happens, this country's tax rates will continue to rise, stopping small business creation, stopping job creation, etc. Its a death spiral without private enterprise and the only way to create private enterprise is through tax reduction.
Why do people buy insurance in the first place? Is it not to be assured that should they get sick they need not worry about the expense? Mr. Goldfarb suggest insurance companies need not pay more out then they take in for any individual. Insurance companies at one time were gamblers. They gambled an individual would be healthy enough to pay in more money than the company would have to pay out for an illness.
Now it seems these companies are saying: Let's see, you've paid in X amount and we've paid our Y amount. Sorry you're becoming to expensive so we're kicking you out. This is what casinos do to those whom they detect counting cards in blackjack. Got to keep the odds highly in favor of the house.
That writer of the letter is totally clueless on how government run healthcare, like Medicare and Medicaid works here and how it works in other countries.
In all those programs the government rans out money and can no longer keep jacking up taxes to pay for out-of-control programs so they turn to rationing.
That is already occuring in Medicaid and Medicare.
Many people in those programs are denied coverage for costly procedures and have to resort to cheaper but more painful and less successful medical procedures.
Private insurers ration far less and provided much better benefits.
Where is the evidence Medicare and Medicaid ration health care?
Tepee--You ever been on Medicaid.??"Also, wait until this Congress and Obama slash 500 billion from Medicare. Ask those on Medicare Advantage how they feel!
Stanley R. Goldfarb wrote"
"The health and welfare of the nation are not the responsibility of a corporation, nor should they be. On the other hand, the president and every member of Congress, having vowed to uphold the Constitution, are responsible for the health and welfare of all the citizens."
Not true, the Constitution said that it would "promote" the General Welfare, not "provide". The Constitution does provide for very limited enumerated powers. The General Welfare of the people is not an entitlement that is listed in the Constitution.
What Mr. Goldfarb is speaking about is not the Rule of Law of a Constitutional Republic, but the "Rule of Man" in a Majority Rule Democracy.
It would be wise to understand the difference between these two forms of government.
Sgt Rock,
""That writer of the letter is totally clueless on how government run healthcare, like Medicare and Medicaid works here and how it works in other countries.""
Sounds like you were looking in a mirror when you said that, because if there is anybody on these comments who is clueless then it is you, totally and 100% clueless about foreign run NHS.
You are plain ignorant.
it is really very simple...
you either support the public option which is the only way to reduce the staggering cost of health care...
or...
you support the greedy pig insurance companies and their very real death panels...
period...
end of story...
The sweden dude speaks again.....He cites himself for all his study and expert opinion.
He even disagrees with publications issued by his very own government becaquse his personal "study" is superior.
He is soooooooooooooooo smart that swede.
Hustonjac:
I'm 70 and been on medicare for five years. How about you?
Comment removed by staff.
(L)emahj:
"'(P)romote' the General Welfare" is not in the Constitution. It appears in the Preamble and carries absolutely no weight of law.
As to the two forms of government: while we are a republic, we do elect our representative democratically while allows the will of the people to considered. If you feel our representatives have exceeded their constitutional authority, why not take it to the Courts?
Phargo:
Research this: the insurnace companies in this country are a cartel. The reason they are such is because they are exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act. This allows them to FIX prices. That is why there is no competition among them. Certainly doesn't sound like the free market at work here.
TePee wrote
"If you feel our representatives have exceeded their constitutional authority, why not take it to the Courts?"
The game is rigged within the three branches of Government, and the oath of office to defend the Constitution means very little today. The only thing the politicians listen to today, is the mood of the people, thus the only power the people have over the Politicans is public opinion . . . and the stronger said the better.
Tea party, anyone?
ABRAHAM BALDWIN
Preacher, Soldier, Patriot
Abraham Baldwin, who represented Georgia at the Constitutional Convention, was a fervent missionary of public education. Throughout his career he combined a faith in democratic institutions with a belief that an informed citizenry was essential to the continuing wellbeing of those institutions. The son of an unlettered Connecticut blacksmith, Baldwin through distinguished public service clearly demonstrated how academic achievement could open opportunities in early American society. Educated primarily for a position in the church, he served in the Continental Army during the climactic years of the Revolution. There, close contact with men of widely varying economic and social backgrounds broadened his outlook and experience and convinced him that public leadership in America included a duty to instill in the electorate the tenets of civic responsibility.
Baldwin also displayed a strong sense of nationalism. Experiences during the war as well as his subsequent work in public education convinced him that the future well-being of an older, more prosperous state like Connecticut was closely linked to developments in newer frontier states like Georgia, where political institutions were largely unformed and provisions for education remained primitive. His later political career was animated by the conviction that only a strong central government dedicated to promoting the welfare of the citizens of all the states could guarantee the fulfillment of the ideals and promises of the Revolution.
http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar...
lemahj:
Sorry to contradict our constitutional scholar here, but the constitution does, in fact, say "provide" for the General Welfare. Same as for the common defense. If you argue the government must provide for one, it must provide for the other. If it can tax you for the one, it can tax you for the other.
U. S. Constitution
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
staff resents the word Magic
staff are bigots
What kind of entitlement were in place before and after the writing of the Constitution?
Free health care?
Unemployment Compensation?
Welfare?
Food Stamps?
ACORN?
Mr. Goldfarb is spot on with his letter. A reasonable and conscientious stance.
And also StanG makes a GREAT point. For those hard of hearing I'll quote him:
"Sorry to contradict our constitutional scholar here, but the constitution does, in fact, say "provide" for the General Welfare. Same as for the common defense. If you argue the government must provide for one, it must provide for the other. If it can tax you for the one, it can tax you for the other.
U. S. Constitution
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Scream and yell and wring your hands about 'socialism' all you want, but there it is in black and white.
It is time for a major change in the Constitution that repeals the 16th amendment and prohibits the government from taxing anyone except for the actual government services they use. What could be more fair than that.
I don't use the Army do I? Well I don't use the Navy I am positive of that. I never use the 95 or the 15 but I do use the 215. I Don't use the Secret Service or the FBI. I do sometimes us NASA, but I cannot recall using the NOAA.
Great idea.
A bunch of people whining about taxes.
Do your part and pay Uncle Sam his part, for we pay for many things from the military, to NASA and a bunch of other programs we might never use. Just because you don't use a certain program, doesn't mean it's gotta be cutoff. By the way, is our Constitution socialist?
Nothing wrong with Socialism. These people scream it out and don't even know what it means. They think it has to do something with Communism or Facism. It's funny the lack of knowledge that they have.
SgtRock, Thanks for the comment, your quite smart as well!!
The Prophet is a capitalist, true, but in the case of health care reform, he suggests the following:
1) Government pays for the health care of everyone that a) doesn't smoke (if you smoke, you want to get cancer, so we'll let you, knock yourself out!) b) you're a drunk (sorry, trying to kill yourself again, we'll help you by assigning you Dr Mengele, enjoy!) and c) your a fat slob (if you overeat, sorry, you don't care about your health, neither do the tax payers, hasta la vista, fatty!)
2) Government provides preventative medicine by a) making all chemmical sweeteners illegal b) stop dumping toxic fluoride into our water c) clean water supplies with ozone instead of chlorine, d) eliminate all artificial colors and flavors from our food e) outlaw hydrogenated fats and oils as well as trans fats. Governement also makes alternative health herbs and oils free to the public when they get sick in lieu of pharma drugs that are mostly outlawed due to the side effects (see those commecials? "May cause death", are you frigen kidding me??)
In other words, if you want free health care, then you best take care of your health or else under the Prophets health plan (and gods), we'll just help you die quicker by giving you more tobacco, alcohol, or zuzuz and wham whams or whatever made you fat so that you kiel over quicker! Why should people who don't take care of their health burden the rest of us who do take care of our health??? They shouldn't! And I'll be damned if anyone will make me pay into a system that does just that! Reward the sinners and punish the prudent.
Yes, Stan G and TePee, you both have good points now let's consider some other historical points to put this all into context.
Stan G correctly points out the language at the beginning of Section 8, the paragraph that precedes the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. The point missed by that argument, is that in the writing style of the 18th century, a paragraph was first wrote in order to create the context that the following paragraphs were to be considered. The point is that the enumerated powers granted to the Government followed the paragraph cited. As has been often pointed out in the past, if the first paragraph was considered to be an enumerated power, any power could be claimed by the Government and the remaining powers granted in the following paragraphs would have no meaning.
TePee, you must consider the etymology of the word welfare in the context of the 18th century when you interpret the constitution. The meanings of many words have changed over the past 200 years and the word welfare is one of them. At the time, the expression general welfare had nothing to do with the concept we have today called welfare.
Interested parties are invited to read about the educational system called the Trivium, which was the dominate educational method at the time, in order to better understand my arguments. Incidentally, it also shares the same root meaning as the word trivial.
In summary, when comprehending the document called the Constitution of the United States, one must read and understand it as 18 century educated men.
Larry, Population at the time of the writing of the constitution was approx 2.5 million.
Any comments.
Uddeboda wrote:
"Larry, Population at the time of the writing of the constitution was approx 2.5 million. - Any comments."
I suspect you were speaking to lemahj when you wrote to Larry.
Not certain in what context you are asking this question, but let me give it a go:
Human nature has not changed much as we can see ourselves in the classics of the near and far past. It does not matter if the population is 2.5 million or 250 million, humans are humans. Only the times and technology changes.
Our language has changed, and the meaning of words have evolved over time. Orwell suggested that these changes to words could be done to eliminate certain concepts from the minds of the people. Thus the concept of newspeak was introduced by Orwell.
It could be argued that the meaning of Welfare is indeed one of those words whose meaning was intentially mangled, in order to twist the written word of the Constitution (some call this process of twisting words: a living document) in order to achieve a goal that could not be accomplished by way of admending the Constitution.
America, during the 18th century existed mostly along the coast and waterways that allowed travel between those population centers. Towns existed, but could not prosper into large communities inland until after new transportatation systems were developed.
Attempts to create canal systems were attempted at great cost, to interconnect existing city centers in the US during the late 18th century, but most of those enterprizes ended up in failure due to economic reasons.
America started to move westward and inland after the invention of the steam locomotive, ~1820. This invention opened up vast areas of land to be settled, and provided a reasonable method of moving large amounts of commerce and people.
The development of the steam locomotive first tracked Englands lead, but the economics soon caused the American rail system to adopt less expensive rails routes that allowed steeper grades and more powerful, but less efficient locomotives.
So, Uddeboda, you can see how the context of a question can be so very important. In this case of attempting to answer your question, I have covered a lot of ground and I also know that I most likely didn't truly answer your question.
Lemahj,
""What kind of entitlement were in place before and after the writing of the Constitution?
Free health care?
Unemployment Compensation?
Welfare?
Food Stamps?
ACORN?""
That was why I wrote about the population more than 220 yrs ago.It was somewhat stupid of Larry to write what he did, as usual.
The Constitution, like all legislation was written by men who had an intent in mind. What was the intent of the writers when it came to the Federal Government providing for support of it's citizens?
I think that the writers of the Constitution purposely did not specifically address the issue because they thought that was a matter for states rights. If a State wanted to provide welfare or the like to it's citizens, then let the state's citizens determine, vote and pay for it. I think that should be the way it is handled today.
If there are no "state rights," why do we bother to have "States?" Just let the Federal Government do it all.
Oops, that may be what the current Administration has in mind.
uddeboda wrote:
Lemahj, ""What kind of entitlement were in place before and after the writing of the Constitution?
Free health care?
Unemployment Compensation?
Welfare?
Food Stamps?
ACORN?""
I stand corrected . . . I didn't recognise you were posting to LarryVegas.
In speaking about what the Public Sector (Government) gave to all the general population, the public sector entitlements that you listed did not exist 200 years ago.
Socialism and Collectivism has always existed in both the public and private sector, but the goals of the public sector and private sector had been historically different. The public sector provided for the common good by building roads and the other needed infrastructure that allows a society to work. And historically, the private sector groups of family, church, individule and local organization of all types did provide for those in need in a community on a case by case basis.
What has changed, is in the concept that the public sector can provide for all the needs of its people such that the collectivist roles traditionally done by the private sector are now being done by the public sector. It is this centralized, forced, re-distribution of wealth, to those in need that has caused the uproar from the common taxpayer.
The current concept of Socialism has changed from what that word meant in the past. That is why in the minds of many, what was considered good in the past is now thought of as being bad.
"States Rights" is always the last bastion for the typical right winger who has no other points. If you cannot win the debate then, of course, attempt to change the premise of the debate. A desperate tactic to be sure.
So ThisOneGuy does not believe in "states rights."
That doesn't surprise me. Those on the far right, do not believe in the rights of the States. They would just as soon see the States disappear and the Federal Government run everything. And to the Left's delight we are getting close to that.
One thing the Federal Government has not taken over yet is the ability of the States to collect taxes from their citizens. But don't worry, before long the Federal Government will want to collect all taxes and distribute them as they feel fit.
So, we in Nevada, Texas and Washington State along with a few others will be paying the same portion of our income into the tax coffers as the rest of the U.S.
Watch it. It's coming...
I'm not necessarily 'against' states rights, but the reality is that states have continued to lose power starting in the 1860's and then again in the 1960's. For better or worse it simply isn't the way our system of government works anymore.
My point is that right wingers typically drag out the states right argument when all else fails. It usually comes out so late in the debate as to seem disingenuous.
ThisOneGuy wrote:
My point is that right wingers typically drag out the states right argument when all else fails. It usually comes out so late in the debate as to seem disingenuous.
Don't agree . . .
It is not the far right of the Republican Party that promotes these libertarian or classic liberal arguments. These arguments are being promoted by people that identify themselves with the Constitutional, Libertarian and Independent Parties.
The Republican Party as a whole supports a strong centralized Federal Government. Where Republicans differ with the present Democratic is the mix of services provided to the people from a regulated private sector to public sector.
The States rights movement is simply an extension of the movement to limit the power of a centralized Federal Government in order to regain some home rule back to the people.
Whether you believe in it or not, both the Democratic and Republican parties have lost the confidence and support of many Americans who now see our two party systems as the root of many of the problems in our country today. What we are witnessing is nothing less than the start of a revolution that will first occur in the ballot box.