John Stossel on Insurance


5000 Post Club
Henderson, NV
This article is from October and it's about 3 pages long. I found it interesting and have kept it since then. You might find it interesting.
Interesting article, Rick. Stossel asks, "Do employers pay for our food clothing or shelter?" (Paragraph 4) I am sure he meant that as a rhetorical question, but in fact wages or salaries do pay for those things.:rolleyes:
It's an arguement I've heard for decades, nothing new. Wise use of health care dollars is always good advice.

However, since a portion of our uninsured in america are people who could purchase health insurance, but choose not to for varioust reasons, you could argue that employer provided health care is preventing a massive health care crisis by providing insurance for people who are too stupid to cover the risk themselves. How many people would just choose not to have coverage?

I have swung back into life insurance sales and honestly I am amazed at the number of people who haven't bought or considered life insurance until their late 50's and now with poor health.. These people would also not have health insurance if they didn't get it from their employer.

As much as some would lick their chops at the prospect of all those individual sales... I think you'd be surprized how many people would forgo health insurance to pay for a new car, vacation, etc..

If anything I am curious to see how MA mandated requirement to own insurance is working out.

This is one of those be careful what you wish for things....
Personally I think all Employers that offer Health Coverage should offer the ability to opt out and take the money for the cost (of the employer) go directly to the employee tax free such as other employees get from the benefit of HC. If someone doesn't want HC it should never be mandated via governence or business, its call choice. People have the absolute right to be stupid! In fact the way things are going maybe we need an Admendment we can call the "Stupid Admendment" added to the Constitution.
People have the absolute right to be stupid! In fact the way things are going maybe we need an Admendment we can call the "Stupid Admendment" added to the Constitution.
Actually, in American the government wants to keep us from having this right. That's why there are seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, trans-fat banning, etc. exist.

Everyone agrees that we have the right to do the correct things. It's true freedom to have the right to do stupid things.

Unfortunately, our legislators believe they know what's better for us than we do. It's a sad situation and I am convinced that we will be more of a socialist country in 20 years than we are now.

What some here are failing to see, is that without these type of government enforcements and requirements, those who would be stupid enough to ignore safety also tend not to have the money available to pay the cost of their stupidity on their own. So who pays?

The guy w/o health insurance runs his motorcycle into a curb, no helmet, scambled eggs for brains. Large ongoing medical bills. A helmet? maybe a few thousand we have to eat, rather than a lifetime of care.

Sometimes the government has figured out that by making some laws they reduce their costs when stupid or even not stupid people mess up. So I will buckle up or wear a helmet and want others to as well, my taxes are high enough thank you.
In all honesty I don't know what the Federal Government has to do with Health Care? If States want to get involved okay, that is up to the people of the State in question. Yet we don't have to pay for health care for others, I simply don't see the argument valid under our Constitution but obviously many feel as though its a living Constitution meant for change, meaning we might as well call it toilet paper and be done with it.

Ps as many studies that show that helmets prevent serious head injuries as many on the other hand suggest helmets cause as many serious spinal injuries and offset head injuries. You can't win for loosing sometimes.
"Its all about finding ways to get people to pay more money into the system."

pretty much. I doubt there would be any savings to the public at all, just a redirection of expenditures. Instead of paying insurance company abc, we'll just payroll tax it away. See? didn't we "improve" healthcare?