glad to see i struck a bit of a nerve there

with that healthcare thing. you should get mad.

so during this whole process...

i started thinking that private insurance was kinda cool. yeah, you don't get assistance from your employer, but sometimes they don't help much and you can get a better deal without going through the group. ok, some people can get a better deal. if you're healthy, no kind of conditions or issues in the past, oh, ten years, then you can get a steal of a deal with private insurance.

but if you've had anything wrong, they just say they're not going to cover those issues. if you're chronically sick, then just fuhgeddaboutit. now i ask you, kind souls, aren't those that are more likely to use insurance the ones that we, as a society, would like to see be taken care of or at least have some kind of safety net?

here's an example. we tried to get jake private insurance with the same people who had been covering him. they look at his records, see that he's gotten a lot of expensive breathing treatment medicine that's normally used for asthmatics (his was used occasionally to treat and prevent bronchitis-like symptoms) and give him two choices: insurance with no prescriptions or insurance with generic prescriptions only.
our reaction: umm, hello? that's probably what we need the insurance for the most.
the money-grubbing insurance company's probable reaction: umm, exactly. that's why we don't want to cover that part.

the conversation with the next insurance company was similar except they didn't have access to his records. however, when it came up that jake (like a ton of other kids) had tubes put in his ears at 6 months old, they jumped on that. they ended up offering coverage (with prescriptions), but stipulated that they basically won't cover anything dealing with ear infections, etc. for like 2 years. ugh, whatever; at least it had prescription coverage.

ok, so back to my point. private insurance is not cooler than group insurance in the general, grand scheme of things because with group insurance, the insurance company's risk is defrayed by the large number of people insured and the insured can't be singled out and not covered for that which they need coverage the most.

so... does this mean we need the federal government to step in and facilitate healthcare for all people? i dunno. in the past 5-6 years, i may have swung from the right to the left and back towards the middle, but one thing i still don't care for is increasing the federal budget (much) or increasing taxes (hardly any). both would probably be required to accomplish the noble goal of healthcare for all.

what we need is intelligent, innovative solutions to this issue. that's kinda why i'm reading those two opposing books. both have interesting takes on actually solving this issue. i don't know what's best, but i want to support someone who actually has ideas - not someone who just regurgitates the unsatisfactory status quo.