Unless you're poor, or very wealthy, you can't afford health care in Indiana.
If you're poor, regardless of how hard you work to not be poor, they can't take the modest amount you've accumulated because you're poor and you don't have a modest amount to take. And the laws require you be given medical attention.
If you work hard, you end up making some money, you try to save for retirement, and if you don't pay outrageous amounts for insurance you can't afford without wiping out any savings, you can't afford health care in Indiana. And the laws require you be given medical attention, but first made poor by taking all your wealth, then having government pay for your medical care.
If you're wealthy, you can afford health care. But a lot of people want to take your money and make you poor, so the poor can have medical care.
If you look at the money government puts into health care, and the rules and regulations that benefit drug companies and insurance companies, you quickly realize that there is no free market in health care, only mercantilism regarding health care.
I think people would be pleasantly surprised at the widespread availability of health care at low costs if a true free market actually existed in the United States regarding health care. But that wouldn't help government favored elites, such as insurance companies and drug companies, and politicians, and professors with grants, and nonprofits with grants to study the problem and all of the rest of the health care mercantile system.
Our government promotes not working and being poor. At least you get medical attention and you don't have to worry about losing stuff you worked hard to get. What a perverse incentive!
Here are the three most likely courses of action pursuant to current government policies on health care:
1. Be poor, don't work hard and get medical care.
2. Work hard, pay too much for insurance and/or have a major medical problem (most people do in their lives) and lose it all and become poor, and get medical care.
3. Be wealthy, get medical care, but have it all taken by government to pay for medical care for the poor, and end up poor. But you get medical care, which is now inferior because everyone is poor, and there is no money for medical care.
The smart person might just stay poor, rather than take the chance they get lucky enough, to be wealthy enough, and to stay rich enough, even though a lot of their money is taken to pay for medical care for the poor.
1 comment:
Eric Schansberg made an interesting point in his debate while running for US Rep.
We don't need more health insurance, we need less. We don't insure our vehicles for worn windshield wipers and other trivial expenses. Why not apply the same principle to health coverage?
Post a Comment