Sylvia is basically my only (platonic, as if any woman, including my ex-wife, would be otherwise for long). She is a Mexican-American female who is a veteran of being unemployed at various times, which has not stopped her trips to Greece, Turkey, Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam, Italy, and other places. She has a virtual second home in Portland, and lived in the Northwest for many years (including Seattle). I mention all of this to show you that Sylvia is a pretty savvy, sophisticated person. Twenty years or so ago she was my legal assistant. She then got an IT degree, and recently went to work for Automatic Data Processing in El Paso (to which city she returned a few lyears ago because her son and granddaughter live here. Sylvia assures me that the main "discrimination" she suffers is from being TOO BEAUTIFUL, rather than from being Mexican-American. Of course, as with my ex-wife and two daughters, you would not really know Sylvia is Mexican-American (outside of El Paso), since she has an "anglo" last name, and "Latinas" are really WHITE (Caucasian)--looking no different than many other European women, In the case of my daughters, they look like California (non-Hispanic) girls.
Well, I asked Sylvia a month or so ago whether she had taken advantage of that subsidy given to unemployed persons that covers about 75% of the cost. She had been laid off in about October of last year, and had not gotten her new job (with health care--although a company like ADP might be glad to have the government take over, if such an "option" is available).
This was Sylvia's response to me (on whether she had taken advantage of the heavily subsidized health insurance while she was unemployed, which would have cost her very little because she has no real serious health problems and is in her forties): "Hey. I have more important things to spend my money on. I was unemployed. Even a hundred dollars a month is too much. I have a house to take care of. I can't eat up my savings with health insurance. I have more important priorities."
Sylvia had actually bought a house, with no money down, right before she was laid off. So much for the panic that there was "no credit". However, while she was unemployed, she had no problem finding money to fix up her new house. She found money for trips to Portland, and other places. She was getting unemployment. The point is that if health insurance were IMPORTANT to her (as distinguished, say, from fixing up her new house or taking trips), she could easily have paid the subsidized amount.
I have no problem with Sylvia's decision to put other things ahead of subsidized health insurance. It might not have been my choice, but that is what freedom is all about. Sylvia was making a rational choice as to what was important to her, on the assumption (correct, as it turned out) that she could find a job with health insurance before she really needed substantial medical career.
The bone I have to pick is with President Obama, who would not recognize freedom (despite his campaign rhetoric that he would never force Americans to have health insurance) if Thomas Jefferson's ghost explained it to him. See my earlier article, entitled "Obama vs. Obama....."
Notice that Sylvia did not panic when she became unemployed. She rationally decided what her priorities are. Contrast that with President Obama, who tried to scare people today, as he tried to do in his speech last night. Today, Obama cited new statistics saying that more people (like Sylvia?) are without health insurance.
What does that mean? It means that more people are UNEMPLOYED (see next planned article). They have decided, despite the subsidy available to them, that they have higher priorities than health insurance. Maybe they are right. But what is the real "solution" to this problem? Hint: It is NOT to RIN the economy with government intervention in health care. It is to get the EC ONOMY back on track. We have managed to pull out of every other recession without massive government control of substantial parts of the economy. In fact, Reagan pulled out of a recession about as bad with TAX CUTS. Once people return to jobs, they have health care again--unless the government has ruined it in the meantime, or enabled employers like Wal-Mart to push the responsibility for health insurance on to the taxpayers.
President Obama does not know what he is talking about. The fat that people like Sylvia "lose" health insurance during unemployment is NOT an argument for government control of the health care industry. It is really the opposite--an arguent AGAINST using such passing (hopefully) economic event as an excuse to ruin our health care system. Instead of getting the whole country distracted with a health care "plan", and debate, that we can'T afford, Obama should have been concentrating on the economy.
While Obama is fiddling (with health care, cap and trade, and other things), Rome is burning. The continuing deficit, which health care will make WORSE, is destroying any possibility of an economic recovery. Any increase nt he number of people without health insurance means that government subsidies have not prevented it. MORE government programs will merely increase the cost, without improving the health insurance situation (not really that bad, by the way), if the economy does not do better.
In short, Obama's policies, including this attempt at government control of health care, have done nothing but make economic recovery a very doubtful thing. The deficit alone, AS OBAMA HAS SAID, will make economic recovery impossible. Nor are we "paying for" health care reform(see yesterday's analysis of Obama's speech by me, and my previous article looking at this fromt he point of view of Dave Ramsey). It is NOT "paying for" health care "reform" to use "savings"(CUTS) in Medicare and Medicaid to finance a new program, when such "savings" could be used to save Medicare and Medicaid, and REDUCE the deficit. Ditto on new revenue, which is needed to cut the deficit rather than finance a NEW program with money we don't have.
As I said, President Obama does not know what he is talking about. Sylvia, uninsured as she was, is considerably more intelligent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment