It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A real alternative to Obamacare may be in the works.

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DAVID64


We had a system like yours once. We replaced it because it was essentially genocidal, with only the rich having any ability to access healthcare worth having. We were right to do it. The US is wrong to continue as it has been with regard to healthcare and its provision. We stand or fall together, for better or worse, because we understand that this is the only just way. To do anything else is either selfish at best, or at worst mercenary and callous.

First, everyone--EVERYONE--in America has access to healthcare. To say otherwise is absolute make-believe. As for your claim about "only the rich"...blah blah blah, I'm so tired of the BS bitching about only the rich this, or only the rich that.

The vast majority of Americans CAN afford healthcare and health insurance, they just choose to make other things a priority instead and then bitch about the cost of personal medical care while driving home cars that they bought on loan to homes that they bought on loan to sit in front of their flat-screen TVs and play on the internet and video game consoles. You talk about "regardless of the cost" and go on to applaud reliance on your government over the individual or family or charity--what about the personal responsibility that exists about one's own health?

You play the game of pretending that our system is rubbish and yours is heavenly, all in the same comment that includes acknowledging that one of our single-payer systems--the VA system, of which I have the ability to be a part of--sucks and is due to poor administration and budgeting. If you truly believe that socializing the entirety of the healthcare industry would magically affect administration for the better, you are laughably ignorant to reality.

The American system was not designed to act as everyone's caretaker. At worst, it should be municipal and state governments that take on this role, but the federal government should be kept out of the business of individual healthcare for its citizenry. You obviously disagree, so let's see...


Socialised, universal healthcare, with no insurance companies involved, no HMOs, no nothing, is the only legitimate way to run things.

Your love of equating your opinion to fact is tough to deal with in these types of discussions--you may feel that it works best for little ol' UK, which is 20% of our population and 2.5% of our land mass, and that's fine. I can even agree that, at such a population size and small square-mileage footprint and diversity of climate, it may work well for you. But, in a country the size (sq/mi and population) with such a diversity in lifestyles and climates and health issues that tend to be clustered often enough, it's an ignorant thought to believe that a central government located on the far east of a 2,680-mile wide land mass (and including two non-contiguous states that are basically opposites of each other concerning climate and health issues) is capable of efficiently administering a health-insurance/healthcare system to 323.1-Million people, let alone be "the only legitimate way to run things."

However, I do agree that getting rid of the norm that is health insurance (and definitely getting rid of the mandate to purchase it) is a very appropriate step in lowering the cost of American healthcare. Our nation used to run that way, and healthcare was dramatically cheaper per capita. While there are myriad variables in technology and healthcare that contribute to the rise in cost, the insertion of a middleman (insurance companies) is a prime cause of cost increases.

But socializing it the way that you champion is not right for America...but I get the feeling that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic.




posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Too simple. Besides.. illinois would give all money to the crooks and lazy folks.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


Of course the Left will cry about how many people will lose healthcare, but really any plan that cancels the individual mandate will lead to millions of people "losing" their healthcare simply because they are no longer required by law to buy it.


Once this partisan bs ends up in a thread....

Why would people lose healthcare, they're voluntarily giving it up by not being forced to buy it. That's not losing it, it's just letting it go.

The "left" in the states, is much different than the left in other countries.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   


Of course the Left will cry about how many people will lose healthcare


Why is it that people look down on those who want their fellow human beings to have good healthcare?



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Too simple. Besides.. illinois would give all money to the crooks and lazy folks.


See. That right there. That is why we can't have nice things.

Not because of the lazy folks, but because of this sentimentality.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't work better, I'm saying good luck getting the drug companies, insurance companies, Drs, govt agencies and anyone else involved to lower prices or allow regulation of the sort that would make health care in the US. actually more affordable. We do Not get "bang for our buck".
edit on 30-8-2017 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan






Take your time and do it right.


Asking them to do it right is like asking a whore to be celibate



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Why don't we have it the way it was before,employers offered health care benefits,the problem with the ones who complained was,they did look for jobs,things were fine before,the Obamacare act was a socialist act,targeting the very people who pay the government the taxpayers,the government makes no money,it only spends it,another example of people eating the free grain



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

How do you control rampant conflict of interest and fraud in medical research and methodology, in a for profit medical system.

We are looking at a 50 percent rate of failure for drug trial retest.

I think the bare min should be they have to operate as nonprofits.

However you are correct, but maybe compulsory insurance isn't a terrible idea. It's not much different than car insurance.

The end result is my kidney stones were $11k for an iv od saline and xray, charged to the insurance company who the pool then gets to eat.

The greatest problem I feel is not cost however, it's the conflict of interest in for profit treatment of the sick. So you get failed drug trials being fabricated to make shareholders happy. The fda doesn't even have the means to check the work.

I am not for single payer but almost nobody in the world does that either. It's a total lie that Europe is single payer. There are only a few that are.
edit on 30-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

But it is an interesting, liberating concept. We regulate all sorts of critical industries. Food, stocks, banking, medications. We do not regulate healthcare....

...other than regulating that everyone must pay for insurance, and what insurance companies must offer in their plans.

The regulation in healthcare is regulating The People, not the industry itself. Its completely backwards. And the rationale is so my bloated premiums can provide for the poor.

Im not a church. I pay taxes. And I do not want to provide for the poor. Hell, half the time im usually "the poor". I would love to visit a doctor today, in fact....but i cannot pay my copay or risk not having groceries and gas to get to work. The copay my $600/month in premiums (after an 80% chip in from my employer) gets me.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: TrueBrit




First, socialise medicine as a science so that all hospitals are run by the state, all suppliers to that hospital are run by the state, all the people making pills, treatments, equipment for those hospitals, are state employees,


Because government has such a great track record of running anything. Look at our V.A. system.
No thanks.

Here's an idea to solve that underfunding & bad management -- less money & resources funneled into pointless, unwinnable wars, more money & resources going towards the healthcare for the folks who'd fight the wars to keep them healthy throughout their lives. Just, you know, a small token of actual appreciation from the government they oh-so-willingly serve.

Low pay and poor care after fighting for the supposed values of this country don't seem like much beyond a door prize afterthought, don't they?
edit on 8/30/2017 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SlapMonkey

How do you control rampant conflict of interest and fraud in medical research and methodology, in a for profit medical system.

We are looking at a 50 percent rate of failure for drug trial retest.

I think the bare min should be they have to operate as nonprofits.

I say enforce laws better and make penalties harsher for things that are done illegally (which means with knowledge and intent). But, forcing types of businesses is no better than just giving the government control and making the drug companies work directly for them.

Of course, the government agencies get away with far more than private agencies do concerning illegal activity and low-quality punishment for wrongdoing, so I guess that you much pick your poison either way at some point, and just hope that the oversight committees and regulatory agencies actually do their jobs.


However you are correct, but maybe compulsory insurance isn't a terrible idea. It's not much different than car insurance.

Which is a state mandate, not a federal one. Like I've said numerous times in countless threads, my biggest beef is with the federal government taking control of something (health insurance or healthcare, in this instance) that the constitution doesn't say is it's authority to do (and the 10th Amendment, IMO, is pretty clear about who has authority if it's not specifically spelled out in the constitution for the federal government to do). If states want to play with the idea, that's on them, but it's not appropriate for the federal government to be doing it.

And as it stands, I have issues with forced auto insurance, but recognizing that driving is a privilege and not a right, I can begrudgingly excuse it, even though I see it as being overbearing. Health insurance is not a right, nor in my opinion, a privilege, either.


The end result is my kidney stones were $11k for an iv od saline and xray, charged to the insurance company who the pool then gets to eat.

And I can almost guarantee, not knowing the specifics, that the insurance company and the hospital have an agreement as to the cost cap of each thing that you note, and that the insurance company did not, in fact, end up paying $11k. But, maybe they did...


The greatest problem I feel is not cost however, it's the conflict of interest in for profit treatment of the sick.

I'll disagree with you on this, although I agree that single-payer isn't the answer, either. But the reality is that something like 80% (I posted links to figures in a different thread a while ago, so I could be a tiny bit off, but not much) of hospitals are NOT for-profit hospitals, so citing that as a main problem, I feel, is a bit myopic. And if you're talking about Big Pharma, all that I can say is that they absolutely are not perfect in any way, but without profit, we have no R&D for new life-saving medications. We (America) are the leader by a LARGE margin in medical innovation for a reason, and I do believe that it is because we have not historically been a single-payer(ish) system, like much of the world.

But I'll be honest, I've had this conversation many, many times on ATS, and today, I just don't have the energy to keep it up. I do appreciate the discussion, though.

Off-Topic Alert!: I start back into martial arts next week--my surgeon gave me the okay to start doing "common-sense normal life things." We'll see how it goes. Hopefully I won't need to access any healthcare over it



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

Why is it that people look down on those who want their fellow human beings to have good healthcare?

All Americans have access to good healthcare--even homeless and very poor people.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Man so great to hear! Take it slow. Resistance bands instead of weights at first. Even if they call to you saying come back old friend.


When I say for profit the whole system.

Pharma has conflict of interest issues. Major ones. I think I gave you the report of falsified drug trials. Literally 50 percent retested.

How do you monitor patented equip making patented drugs? The fda can't possibly check up on every drug trial they don't have the equipment to reproduce the tests often until decades later after the damage is done.

This is also for diagnosis. Even the diagnosis process is being found to be incorrect. By the NEJM.

You can't control that without massive regulations. Which nonprofit status can take a lot of the conflict away. The shareholders needing a good report makes them falsify data or embellish.

I think it's a special area because fraud and snake oil is so easy with people holding on to a thread they could live or be healed.

I think if we don't go that way it will be far worse. It will collapse and we will have single payer



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

Why is it that people look down on those who want their fellow human beings to have good healthcare?

All Americans have access to good healthcare--even homeless and very poor people.


That's not true at all.
When I was homeless I had stomach pain due to what I believed to be ulcers. The clinic doctors told me there was nothing they could do and the hospitals said the same. Years later when I had a home but no insurance the clinic doctors , only after an upfront fee, gave me pills that did little to ease that pain. What I needed was an endoscopy , something clinics and hospitals refused to do without a doctor referral. The clinics here can't give referrals to see specialists. So here I am after 10 long years of pain, finally I was able to get on the ACA and in 7 hours will be having my first endoscopy. Who knows what they will find. But this first step is something I could not get done without insurance. (thanks obama)

See a hospital will fix your broken leg or gun shot wound but they will not do tests on a homeless man who just walks in off the streets. The clinics wont do the tests for ulcers without an upfront fee. It's only a 10 dollar fee but I was homeless I had 0$. When i was able to pay the fee for the clinics the doctors were #. Now that I have insurance and a good doctor (thanks to obamacare) I'm getting the right tests, I have a doc who listens to me and cares , and the pills I was giving actually work to stop most of the pain. Anyone who thinks that homeless people can get a decent level of healthcare have never been homeless and don't know what they are talking about.
edit on 31-8-2017 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DAVID64

Why not instead look at every other country that has a single payer system? Their healthcare systems are continuously ranked way higher (with the exception of Canada who just rank higher) than the US. We are the only First World country in the world that doesn't have a single payer system. At the same time none of the countries that have a single payer system are clamoring to switch to the US model.

Single payer works better consistently the world over. If it you think it would fail in the US then that is the fault of the government not the healthcare model. How do you fix those failings? I'm sure there are multiple ways. But one way that will not fix it is to pass a bill that will have the government kowtowing to corporate interests more than they already are.



I wouldn't have a problem with single payer if We switched over to a consumption tax so everyone could pay their fair share. The main problem I have with single payer is the middle class ends up getting screwed while the lower class get's more incentive to not work.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

I'm not going to play the game of Let's See Who Can Find The Times Hospitals Didn't Care For This Or That Ailment.

So, I'll be more specific: Most hospitals don't turn away patients from the Emergency Room for possibly serious conditions simply because they don't have insurance, or an income at all, or a home. They have to be examined to determine if there is an emergency situation (ulcers tend not to fall under that category), and if so, treat the patient and release them. If the doctors determined that your stomach pain was not an emergency, under EMTALA, they are under no obligation to treat you. I'm assuming that you already understand this, though.

See, when I said that all Americans have access to good healthcare, I meant it. But, see, access doesn't always mean that you qualify for everything, and while that sounds like a cop-out to cover my ass over my comment, my intended statement was not that homeless people get absolute free healthcare and access to all of the tests and treatments and benefits of people with insurance--my intended statement was meant in the purest form, that we all have access to it, and when there are lives on the line and there are emergencies, people are not left to die in the streets if they go to a hospital.

Look, I'm glad that things are looking up for you, and I truly hope that you get this ulcer condition figured out and treated, but if it turns out to be something serious and you were turned away, I would take the diagnosis back to the hospital to which you previously went and have a discussion with them about that. NO hospital wants to have an EMTALA-based complaint filed against them, especially when they refused to do appropriate medical screening examinations.

As for your prior experiences, did they offer a "barium swallow" to you at all? Also, was it an emergency clinic that you went to? I ask, because EMTALA only applies to medical facilities with emergency department AND who accept Medicare/Medicaid (which, for the latter half is nearly all facilities with emergency care).

Look, I know that my statement was broad and not specific, but I just wasn't in the mood to, once again, get into the specifics on ATS against people who try to equate not wanting socialized medicine to being some moral deficiency--that claim is asinine.


originally posted by: scraedtosleep
The clinics wont do the tests for ulcers without an upfront fee. It's only a 10 dollar fee but I was homeless I had 0$. When i was able to pay the fee for the clinics the doctors were #. Now that I have insurance and a good doctor (thanks to obamacare) I'm getting the right tests, I have a doc who listens to me and cares , and the pills I was giving actually work to stop most of the pain. Anyone who thinks that homeless people can get a decent level of healthcare have never been homeless and don't know what they are talking about.

Did you ever attempt to get covered through Medicaid? It appears that it's difficult to do when you are homeless, but not impossible.

And you're correct, I have never faced the struggle of being homeless, but I do understand that we as a nation DO have outlets for certain types of care for homeless people--if they are not working as they should be, it needs to be addressed.

Also, if I had seen you near the clinic needing $10, I would have given it to you in a heartbeat and then taken out for a decent meal afterwards. I wish that society would rekindle its relationship with human-to-human kindness. I wish you the best in the future, and hopefully the pills help you heal and don't only address the symptom.



edit on 31-8-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I would love to visit a doctor today, in fact....but i cannot pay my copay or risk not having groceries and gas to get to work. The copay my $600/month in premiums (after an 80% chip in from my employer) gets me.

Had to pay a visit to emerg yesterday...nothing huge, but a concern and circumstances did not allow me to visit my GP, who is an hour away (I chose to keep my doctor when I moved outta town). Took about 3 hours...but that's ok, I did not require urgent care and there were those who did. Left with reassurance, advice, and a script, and all I had to do was flash my provincial health card. The script was covered by my employee health benefits. No co-pay, no hesitation about going, I brought a book because I knew there'd be a wait.

I say this not to boast, just to reinforce the notion that there is another health care reality out there and you guys deserve it. But you're going to have to fight for it...right, left and centre (yes, that's how we spell it). Good luck to you, and good health!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join