George Harris KC Star Reader Advisory Panel
Someone, please tell me what I’m missing.
In his letter to the editor today (July 7, 2009) Jim Griggs of Stilwell, Kansas complains that his insurance company began charging higher co-pays unless he uses their “distant, faceless, centralized pharmacy.”
He submitted a prescription, and when it arrived ten days later, it was the wrong dosage. After “going through a veritable maze of phone options” he finally reached a live person but couldn’t persuade him that there was a mistake. He offered to fax a copy of the prescription, but the faceless worker wouldn’t give a fax number.
He concludes, “My choice of pharmacy had been removed, it took longer to get my prescription, the amount was incorrect, and I didn’t save any money.”
Then, he offers a mind numbing, bonk your head non sequitur: “Is this a simple illustration of how the future of health care will be, should President Obama’s national program become a reality?”
Earth to Jim: This is a simple illustration of how your private insurance company is now.
Jim’s letter was timely because my insurance company is touting a mail order pharmacy option, which they claim would save me money. I can’t see how it would, and so far I have continued to use a local drug store, where the pharmacist always asks if I have any questions.
Once, in reply I asked the pharmacist, “What is the meaning of life?” She smiled politely, and I guessed she might have heard this before, but who knows. Maybe some people like non sequiturs, and some don’t.
I’d say Jim’s question is at least as much of a non sequitur as mine, and arguably much funnier. On the other hand, if we have to argue about it, all the humor is gone anyway.
While we’re arguing, I’d point out to Jim that he didn’t actually lose his “choice” of pharmacies. His company didn’t prohibit the use of a local pharmacy, and he concluded the mail-in option didn’t save money anyway. So then what’s the problem. Jim should just use his local pharmacy.
Maybe Jim thinks President Obama’s proposal would require mail-order prescriptions. But he’d be wrong. The president’s proposal allows people to keep their current insurance if they’re satisfied with it. Jim could choose to keep his insurance with its voice mail hell and faceless bureaucrats if he wants to.
So, please help me. What am I missing?
Is Jim so anti-Obama and anti-government that he can’t believe there might be an option that some would prefer over the private insurance company he wrote to complain about?
Would Jim vote to deprive the rest of us the option of avoiding his insurance company’s faceless bureaucracy?
Will Governor Palin and Governor Sanford team up to host a Governors Gone Wild radio call-in talk show?
Sorry, I kind of like non sequiturs.
Delicious
Digg
ugg boots
Good ! I like it ! Welcome to read following news: ugg boots,Nike dunk sb,discount ugg boots, uggs ,nike dunk low,ugg boots sale,UGG Bailey Button boots,new nike sb,UGG Classic short boots,UGG Nightfall boots,cheap nike dunks,UGG Classic tall boots.
With government bailouts?
The for-profit health insurance industry has been dropping like flies, hasn't it?
With government bailouts who actually goes out of business? Oh, it's too big to fail so we need to dump in some tax money to bail them out.
Sadly, Interface ... you don't seem to know how the actual free market system works. You just want more government.
yeah
The for-profit health insurance industry has been dropping like flies, hasn't it?
You forgot one thing
A for-profit corporate bureaucrat is better than a government bureaucrat any day!
When the for profit does a bad job it gets fired and goes out of business. When the government does a bad job they don't care and raise taxes.
Health care
It's OK for private corporations to make mistakes while administering health care because they're doing it for a profit. But if the government does health care, it has to be absolutely perfect or it's a complete failure!
A for-profit corporate bureaucrat is better than a government bureaucrat any day!
Ridicule away
I can take it from a Socialist whiner.
riktig, let's analyze your statements
First, you assert that I believe government is "wonderful." Prove this, show me citations. Second, you assert that I "whine" about the private sector. Prove this. Third, you assert by implication that SS problems are unsolvable that it is a mere Ponzi scheme. Prove this with evidence that the problem is unsolvable. Your statements are very offensive in many ways. The next time I receive such a statement from you I will respond with the ridicule that you and it so justly deserve.
I keep hearing that
"Social Security has been the US's most successful social program"
And when will it go bankrupt unless it steals more money from more people? Yes, Ponzi schemes are very successful until they collapse.
Eurasmus, needs to improve his/her arithmetics
By anyone's count, the 43 years of Medicare's existence is NOT two generations. Social Security has been one of the US's most successful social programs. (Perhaps, only the GI Bill after WWII has been as successful.) SS literally moved millions of elderly out of poverty providing them with an adequate if very modest livelihood. There are difficult funding issues, but even these could be resolved easily except for recalcitrant loonies on the far right. Recall, it was the right not the New Deal that insisted that social security taxes could only be invested in low yield government instruments.
Government Health Care
Why does anyone believe that health care can be fixed by a government that has not been able to fix Social Security and Medicare that has been in need of fixing for more than two generations.