[Vision2020] Another Answer to School Shootings . . .

Fri Jan 4 09:06:16 PST 2013

Donovan,

Heath care is expensive. Maybe it shouldn't be but it is. Let's look at car
insurance first. Why do we need car insurance? Well, you could get into a
car accident and (accidentally) total someone's car. Maybe the road was icy
and you slipped through a stop sign. If you can only afford to pay $2000 in
that instance, then the person who's car you've (accidentally) wrecked is
SOL. Thus, given that accidents like this are possible, it stands to reason
that some folks need some assurance that they will be adequately
compensated in the worst case scenario. Thus, the need for insurance.

For heath care, the situation is even worse. Here we don't just have our
usual wants and desires like having a nice car. We've got interests of
quality of life, fear of death, etc. In a society ruled by supply and
demand, it isn't too surprising that heath care costs are outrageous.
People will pay anything when life and heath are concerned.

The fact is, there is some risk that your heath care costs over the next
year will exceed the $2,000 that you can afford. In fact, the probability
that they exceed those costs at least once during the course of your life
is close to 100%. Just to give you an idea of how easy that is, last year I
had what I thought were symptoms of a heart attack. I went immediately to
my doctors office but they sent me across the street to the emergency room.
Preliminary checks were fine but since I was 53 with a family history of
heart disease they suggested that I spend the night, where I could be
monitored and further tests could be run. Eventually they recommended that
I get an angiogram. Long story short, I paid over $2,300 to find out I was
OK. And that is because I have pretty good insurance! If I had no heath
insurance, the bill would have been in excess of $11,000 (which would have
been the bill for the emergency room stay and tests alone).

So the real question is: Who should encumber your heath care risk, a risk
associated with being mortal and living in an imperfect world? On the old
system, you'd have gone to the emergency room and those costs would have
been spread among others. That was a very inefficient system where all of
us encumbered costs. I see Obamacare as an attempt to make a more efficient
and fair system. Not perfect, of course.

I think that this is one case in which (ideally) BIG government could
provide a better solution since we could do away with insurance companies
altogether and have the government play that role. Why the government? They
are the only entity willing to play that role without seeking a profit, so
they would limit costs substantially. (I'm speaking ideally, of course.)
Unfortunately, we also live in a country where just suggesting something
like this gets you labeled as a "communist" so that option is out! As it
is, all we seem to be able to do is spread the costs beforehand and, as you
note, this eventually has a much greater impact on the economically less
fortunate.

There is clearly a problem here. What is your solution?

Joe

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> wrote:

> Obamacare isn't health care, it is an federal tax om the poor. Health
> insurance isn't health care.  I would like a single payer care system. You
> either buy your own, or you pay a health care tax to the government and you
> get access to health care.
>
> The way Obama wants it now I would pay $4000 a year to my employer for
> health insurance, and then another $3000 in a deductible to the health
> insurance company, plus $45 for every doctor visit. So I pay $7200 for what
> would cost me $2000 worth of care. I cannot afford the $7200 on a nursing
> assistant salary. I can afford only the $2000. Obama wants to force me to
> pay the extra $5000, which is unfair and budget busting. Who needs that
> $5000 more, me or an insurance company executive?
>
> Basically, he is just stealing my tax return, because I am not going to
> pay $5000 extra for medical expenses. That is just too much damn money for
> me.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>   *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 3, 2013 2:26 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Another Answer to School Shootings . . .
>
>  If you don't like Obamacare what kind of healthcare system would you
> prefer?
>
> On Jan 3, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>   Why do we care what Bouma thinks? I don't like Obamacare either. It is
> simply a tax on people that cannot afford to give money to fraud artists
> called insurance companies.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>   *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 2, 2013 7:36 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Another Answer to School Shootings . . .
>
> What is the deal with the alleged connection between Obamacare and
> (supposed) "corporate welfare to big pharma," as you say Scott? That is
> clearly what he's getting at. I confess ignorance on this matter --
> meaning, I have no idea whether there is a link between the two or not. Is
> there a link? Does anyone know if the comment has any basis? Of course, big
> pharma has been consistently helped by big government but that was true
> before Obama and as far as I can tell both Dems and Repubs have been
> guilty of this sin. Is there something in Obamacare that I've missed
> suggesting that the situation is likely to get worse? Joe
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>  It's interesting that Bouma chooses to list his biases for his 'ideas'
> on preventing massacres.  Vouchers = parents are allowed to send their kids
> to schools with better security (and as an added bonus Bouma essentially
> lists that the vouchers target teacher's unions).  And now, he pretty much
> writes that preventing kids from being medicated will prevent shootings
> (and as an added bonus, Obamacare is stopped and that thus corporate
> welfare to big pharma would be curtailed).  This is pretty much the worst
> spin I've ever seen put on anything.  If he continues in this vein, I'm
> guessing that his next move will be '[insert any conservative cause] will
> prevent school shootings because [insert any random bullshit] and as an
> added bonus [insert underlying Biblical or financial justification]'.
>
>  From: thansen at moscow.com
> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:41:58 -0800
> To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another Answer to School Shootings . . .
>
> It should also be noted that those shooters, identified in the article
> linked by Bouma's comment, wore under garments (so it has been reported
> by a source best left un identified).  Could the donning of undergarments
> have been a contributing factor in the commission of these heinous murders?
>
> If so, Moscow, you can feel safe with me.  I haven't worn underwear since
> 1968.
>
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
>  Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>  The article that Bouma refers to and his use of it provide nice examples
> of fallacious reasoning. In the article, there is a list of school shooters
> and then the claim that all of them (not all school shooters but everyone
> on the list) happened to be prescribed some kind of medication, though in
> some instances the medication is listed merely as "Med for Depression."
> Then the claim that the medications are responsible and so we should reject
> Obama-care!
>
> One fallacy is the confusion of correlation and causation. All the
> shooters drank water as well but that doesn't mean that drinking water was
> the cause of the shootings. One needs to establish at least "4 cells" of
> information in order to make a case for a causal relation: How many took
> the meds and became shooters? How many didn't take the meds and became
> shooters? How many took the meds and didn't become shooters? How many
> didn't take the meds and didn't become shooters? Correlation fallacies
> focus on just one bit of this information, In this case, we don't really
> even get the first cell of info since we don't know that the shooters took
> the meds, just that they were prescribed medication (not sure how we
> could know this latter point either, by the way) -- and a variety of medsto boot, some unknown or listed just as "Med for Depression."
>
> Today's logic lesson was brought to you by Starbucks coffee!
>
>  On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>  Does this message from Bouma auger a merging of Freeze Church ans Christ
> Church?
>
> w.
>
>
>  On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  <image.jpeg>
>
> https://chumly.com/n/19166c9
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares"
> http://www.moscowcares.com/
>
>  Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net/
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net/
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>   =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net/
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palousesince 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net/ mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net/
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130104/713e87a1/attachment-0001.html>