Back that up. You claim far more of the un insured pass their medical costs on to the government.
When I didn't have insurance, I would go to a doctor and pay out of pocket. If it was expensive I would have it billed and make payment arrangements. How many people out there are doing that? Do you have anything to back that up? Or is this another flawed argument like the Penn report that didn't look at any small towns? > -----Original Message----- > From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:52 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: [signs of sanity] MD no longer subsidizing Walmart > > My point is that this is real life and, as is often the case > in real life, it is more complicated than the theory. The > fact is that those who cannot afford health care you > generally wind up at the ER and the bill for this more often > than not is paid by the taxpayers. > > This is not going to go away. It is even perhaps a legitimate > function of government in that it provides some sort of > safety net however dysfunctional. > > However, the well-intentioned provisions that have been made > for those who get sick while not in good financial > circumstances or while in starter McJobs are causing > escalating costs due to the WalMart effect. People with > insurance lose their jobs because their employers' costs were > higher and therefore these stores' prices could not be cut as > far, and they eventually go out of business because a lot of > consumers are very price-driven. > > So more and more people in the community have no insurance > and show up at the ER, sicker than they would be if they had > had insurance and gone to the doctor. And the bill for that > care is ultimately paid by the taxpayer. > > This is an externality, just the same as pollution is. It is > just a more subtle effect and harder to see. > > Anyway, Maryland has said that what is effectively a subsidy > should not given to a large, rich corporation, and I agree. > None of the above can be changed by yelling about > individualism or capitalism or Ayn Rand. It is simply what is. > > > > > >The contention that health care costs should be required is where I > >think the point falls apart. We are supposed to be about personal > >responsibility and individual rights. Therefore, requiring > any company > >to provide health care should be wrong. If Wal-Mart was > unable to find > >employees that would work for their wages and benefits, they > would have > >to change their model, as they are always able to find those > employees, > >they don't need to change their model. > > > >Its really quite simple to me. > > > >To be honest, the main reason that I think we have such a disconnect > >from Dana and Larry is because we grew up in the states which has a > >different cultural impetus than the United States. > > > >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193535 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
