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.

 

Universal healthcare is indentured servitude and a weapon

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot



People can have the right to health care. Again the actual mechanism can vary. The UK and France both have a universal healthcare but use very different systems


As long as individuals agree to provide their services at the rate the government provides compensation.


Just the same as governments pays lawyers ( and a whole lot of other things).


Again. By definition. Something that requires the skills and time of others is not really a universal right.


By your definition of a universal right perhaps. Others disagree.

Doesn't prevent it being a right just as people have the right to a lawyer.


I know, very hypothetical. All doctors, EMTs, Nurses disappear this instant. What just happen to your universal right to healthcare?



Cancer doctor shortage 'puts care at risk'
By Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

A Royal College of Radiologists census of 62 major UK cancer centres found more than 7.5% of consultant posts were vacant, with services maintained only by large amounts of overtime.
It said this was unsustainable and would put treatments at risk.
But the NHS said plans were in place to increase doctor numbers.
Doctor training places are increasing, as is investment in the NHS.
But the college said this was not enough to cover the increases in demand for care, particularly given the number of doctors who are retiring.


I think if several million people disappear in an instant discussions about rights are the least of concerns.

The discussion isn't about rights in a desert island or some dystopian future. It's about what rights people have in a modern functioning democratic society.




posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

Free markets can expand to meet demand. Government can only ration and raise taxes to fight an increase in demand. The problems with centralized healthcare.


Free markets work very well for the provision of some goods and services, not all of them.

However It's not a binary choice. There is a whole spectrum of how much much healthcare should be provided by the state and what mechanism

Every developed country uses some form of state provided healthcare ( the US included), and almost everyone has it's own method to do so.

At the the moment the US spends almost twice as much on Healthcare as most other developed countries. Do You really think you are getting twice the results?



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
The rise in maternal deaths seems to have started about the same time as our hospitals began falling into the hands of Catholic groups and put under rules dictated be Catholic bishops.

But please tell me. If there is no right to healthcare, why are diabetics rationing their insulin because it is unaffordable while federal, state, and local taxes are sucked out of them to be used to to provide the insulin to another.
By providing it to another they seem to be exalting one persons right to live over that of the taxpayer who is risking a diabetic coma.
They have done very little to put pressure onto the insurance companies, drug companies, and providers to pressure them to keep the costs in check choosing instead to just suck more and more out of the taxpayers to not only ensure that they were provided with a steady flow of customers but also to provide the funding to research and develope new treatment and cures, install new and better equipment in the hospitals and clinics, and new drugs. All if which very few of us could afford if it wasn't for either an insurance company or govt program pooling funds from the many. And for that many more and more are finding the don't have the resources the would need to take advantage of the system they are propping up.
In case you can't see where this is heading I will clue you in. The masses will be paying a ton of money for a system that only the elect few and their pets will have access to.
Will you still be proclaiming healthcare is not a right then?


Well I am old enough to remember when people did fine (I did for instance) without the need for insurance. The more the government got involved the more costs rose and the richer insurance companies became. As a matter of fact, my thoughts are that in the USA, the insurance companies actually wrote the ACA and then politicians were paid off to "sell it" and then vote for it.
The only people benefitting from the ACA (Obamacare) are the insurance companies and they are REALLY benefiting.

Regardless, you have shifted gears on my discussion and I would be glad to talk about single payer - but not at this moment.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: dawnstar
The rise in maternal deaths seems to have started about the same time as our hospitals began falling into the hands of Catholic groups and put under rules dictated be Catholic bishops.

But please tell me. If there is no right to healthcare, why are diabetics rationing their insulin because it is unaffordable while federal, state, and local taxes are sucked out of them to be used to to provide the insulin to another.
By providing it to another they seem to be exalting one persons right to live over that of the taxpayer who is risking a diabetic coma.
They have done very little to put pressure onto the insurance companies, drug companies, and providers to pressure them to keep the costs in check choosing instead to just suck more and more out of the taxpayers to not only ensure that they were provided with a steady flow of customers but also to provide the funding to research and develope new treatment and cures, install new and better equipment in the hospitals and clinics, and new drugs. All if which very few of us could afford if it wasn't for either an insurance company or govt program pooling funds from the many. And for that many more and more are finding the don't have the resources the would need to take advantage of the system they are propping up.
In case you can't see where this is heading I will clue you in. The masses will be paying a ton of money for a system that only the elect few and their pets will have access to.
Will you still be proclaiming healthcare is not a right then?


Well I am old enough to remember when people did fine (I did for instance) without the need for insurance. The more the government got involved the more costs rose and the richer insurance companies became. As a matter of fact, my thoughts are that in the USA, the insurance companies actually wrote the ACA and then politicians were paid off to "sell it" and then vote for it.
The only people benefitting from the ACA (Obamacare) are the insurance companies and they are REALLY benefiting.

Regardless, you have shifted gears on my discussion and I would be glad to talk about single payer - but not at this moment.


Hahaha! You think? Absolutely the insurance and pharma wrote the legislation. Obama literally went into a closed office with them to create it. It’s garbage, and a handout to the leeches who extort sick people for profit.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421



Obama literally went into a closed office with them to create it. It’s garbage, and a handout to the leeches who extort sick people for profit.


Then why would anyone want the only source and gate way to healthcare be through corrupt politicians?



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
So your first concern of the US going down to 3rd world country rates for infant mortality and deaths during childbirth was going on before or after Obamacare was enacted? Did that get better or worse?


After, and it has been entirely through a rise in a lack of health care in states that created a medicaid gap as a way of attempting to sabotage the ACA as their response to a law that would expand access to health care was to make Medicaid much harder to get, so many more people, mostly poor people, would lose their health care.

Keep this in mind the next time you advocate for states rights by the way. The federal government never would have been able to get away with such an action, because it has far more oversight.
edit on 11-4-2019 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

This isn’t about Obama. It’s about what he promised and didn’t deliver. And it’s about what the majority of the nation actually wants according to all polls. The fact that we need to take control of our government back is a whole other issue.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
Because, for people that exist in poverty, they can all get medical care for free. If they don't want to find out how to do that or care to do that then that means they are dumb, or at the very least ignorant. I know this because my grand daughters mother has no insurance and she works as a janitor (or something like that) and she has gotten more help for her pregnancy and my grandaughter through government programs than I previously wouldnt have imagined possible and she hasn't paid a cent.


No they don't. In some states there are free clinics, such as those run by Planned Parenthood, but well... those have been fully defunded in several states. In other states, you can get Medicaid but in those same states that defunded PP and other free clinics, they've created a gap where about 40% of the population makes too much money for free care, but too little to afford even the cheapest health insurance. In other states there's volunteer organizations that attempt to help, but charity cannot adequately substitute for actual government programs.

www.statista.com...

What do you notice about that chart?



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

You


I think if several million people disappear in an instant discussions about rights are the least of concerns.

The discussion isn't about rights in a desert island or some dystopian future. It's about what rights people have in a modern functioning democratic society.


Again. By definition. Something that requires the skills and time of others is not really a universal right.

And you are trying to change the topic to avoid providing an answer to:

I know, very hypothetical. All doctors, EMTs, Nurses disappear this instant. What just happen to your universal right to healthcare?


If healthcare is a universal right, then how can it’s quality be effected by the number of practicing doctors?

Nice of you to selectively quote out of context. Nice of you to ignore the below.


Cancer doctor shortage 'puts care at risk'
www.bbc.co.uk...


If healthcare is a right, why does it have to be rationed? What other rights are rationed?


NHS 'rationing leaves patients in pain'
By Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

www.bbc.com...

The journal obtained data showing more doctors are having to resort to special appeals to get their patients treated.
Local health bosses have blamed the tighter restrictions on a lack of funding.
But medics and patients' groups said the restrictions being placed on non-emergency treatment were "unfair" and meant patients spent longer in pain or were going without treatment.




Thousands more patients made to 'beg for treatment' as NHS rations hip operations, investigation finds

Top doctor warns more patients will spend time in pain with potential deterioration of their condition


www.independent.co.uk...


How do you ration a right?

edit on 11-4-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

Free markets can expand to meet demand. Government can only ration and raise taxes to fight an increase in demand. The problems with centralized healthcare.


Contrary to popular belief, single payer health care would not be centralized. Single payer is like having one large insurance company. The number of each service can be estimated for the following year and purchased in advance by leveraging the ability to buy in bulk rates. Furthermore, it still keeps the process competitive because the providers of those services are able to bid on the contracts. If for example, you need 100,000 wheelchairs, you can break that up into 20 bids of 5000 wheelchairs each, and let wheelchair manufacturers compete over securing those bids.

It's quite literally taking the same ability insurance companies have to negotiate their rates based on providing several customers, and expanding it to represent even more customers. This results in much cheaper healthcare, and it gets paid for in a much more equitable way by leveraging taxes and not needing to provide for a profit margin on the middleman.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
NO....things did NOT get better with ACA.
It sucked.....EVERYthing was out of pocket for me....PLUS the high--for me---premium. Less coverage for more money!!!!
I did not ask for this.....I had great healthcare through my employer.

Then got thrown under the bus by my employer and we had to get our own insurance.....unACA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND.....my state is one of the backwards ones....we are NOT allowed to buy anything other than obummercare.


Did you have great healthcare? Or did you not get sick enough that the greatness of your healthcare was never tested?

It's not the random every day stuff that costs money. Sure, a hundred or a couple hundred here and there is enough to exclude many people from doctors, but the real cost of health care is when you have expensive treatments like cancer, which costs $5 million per person to treat, and is something 50% of us will statistically get in our lifetimes. Meaning, cancer alone costs $2.5 million per person to treat. So tell me how your health insurance was planning to cover that? Prior to the ACA the main way they dealt with that, was lifetime coverage caps, then letting you wrack up millions in bills, declare bankruptcy, and lose everything you owned plus your life savings. Or was your plan to simply die an early death?

And that's assuming your employer wasn't going to simply drop your coverage once you got sick enough that you couldn't work (and then due to a pre existing condition, you would be unable to ever secure health insurance again, for the remainder of your life)
edit on 11-4-2019 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Then why are cities finding it more cost effective to return public transit over to companies.

Or another example. TVA being in dept.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I had great insurance, a good Blue Cross PPO.
I have used it over the years, for issues past and present.
Blue Cross always covered pre-existing conditions AFAIK, and I've not heard stories that people were drooped, at least not in my state.

ETA
My employer didn't drop me....they dropped an entire group of people....


edit on Thu Apr 11 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ScepticScot

You


I think if several million people disappear in an instant discussions about rights are the least of concerns.

The discussion isn't about rights in a desert island or some dystopian future. It's about what rights people have in a modern functioning democratic society.


Again. By definition. Something that requires the skills and time of others is not really a universal right.

And you are trying to change the topic to avoid providing an answer to:

I know, very hypothetical. All doctors, EMTs, Nurses disappear this instant. What just happen to your universal right to healthcare?


If healthcare is a universal right, then how can it’s quality be effected by the number of practicing doctors?

Nice of you to selectively quote out of context. Nice of you to ignore the below.


Cancer doctor shortage 'puts care at risk'
www.bbc.co.uk...


If healthcare is a right, why does it have to be rationed? What other rights are rationed?


NHS 'rationing leaves patients in pain'
By Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

www.bbc.com...

The journal obtained data showing more doctors are having to resort to special appeals to get their patients treated.
Local health bosses have blamed the tighter restrictions on a lack of funding.
But medics and patients' groups said the restrictions being placed on non-emergency treatment were "unfair" and meant patients spent longer in pain or were going without treatment.




Thousands more patients made to 'beg for treatment' as NHS rations hip operations, investigation finds

Top doctor warns more patients will spend time in pain with potential deterioration of their condition


www.independent.co.uk...


How do you ration a right?


I have answered. I pointed out that we are not discussing some hypothetical fantasy land where there are no doctors or nurses. Government can provide health care the same way that can provide police, or defence or build infrastructure.

A democratic society can the decide what is covered, you are looking for absolute philosophical answers rather than dealing with the reality that, in most of the developed world, access to health care is considered a right.

The right to an attorney doesn't mean you are entitled to Perry Masson representing you. It's perfectly possible to havecl rights that have limits.
All rights have limits attached.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Aazadan

Then why are cities finding it more cost effective to return public transit over to companies.

Or another example. TVA being in dept.



I'm not familiar with all of the public transit issues. In the ones I am familiar with, which largely involve bus systems, the main reason is because budgets tend to be fluid. There is a major push to make such systems self supporting through the use of fares, but bus systems primarily service low income neighborhoods which can't afford the necessary fares. Privatization encourages cutting these unprofitable routes and focusing only on the communities that are able to afford the higher rates.

For something that is intended for all of society, this is not an acceptable solution. That is why it is sometimes necessary for the government to step in and mandate access to services. If not for this practice, you can forget broadband in most smaller towns or lower income areas. Many still wouldn't even have telephone or electric service, both of which were brought to poorer areas through this same principle.

Worth noting that other forms of public transit like subways operate on a very different axis, as the biggest cost to them is the up front digging of tunnels and routes cannot be easily expanded, so removing routes tends to offer up far more opportunity cost.
edit on 11-4-2019 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
ETA
My employer didn't drop me....they dropped an entire group of people....


Yes. The question was, what would have happened if you got sick and had to permanently stop working, or stop for a period of several years? As you would no longer be employed your employer wouldn't be providing that health care. What do you think the health insurance companies would have said to you?


Edit: Oh, and blue cross had lifetime coverage caps. Prior to the ACA, the most common lifetime limit was $1 million but some rarely went as high as $5 million. At $1 million that would mean that even with health insurance, getting cancer, hiv, or other serious illnesses would leave you with 3 to 4 million in medical debt in the most common situations.
edit on 11-4-2019 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I was retired.....so they could not drop me unless I refused to pay premiums, or was old enough for Medicare.

I'd have to see actual info to know about those figures of yours.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Aazadan

I was retired.....so they could not drop me unless I refused to pay premiums, or was old enough for Medicare.

I'd have to see actual info to know about those figures of yours.


They could drop you. They probably promised not to, but we've all seen what companies have done with pension promises over the years. So that's not really any sort of guarantee.

As for the rest, just google it for yourself. They were generally called lifetime caps, but sometimes went by other names. Although, lifetime was something of a misnomer because they were actually spending limits over 10 year time periods. So $750,000 in 1992 and then $800,000 in 2005 wouldn't have gotten you dropped.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

And I remember a time when the doctor lived in the same neighborhood as many of his patients and distributed the prescriptions out of his office.
I wasn't a fan ofACA either. It was more like while the businesses and people were screaming they couldn't afford the insurance and healthcare the govt just came back with a too bad pay for it anyways or we will just take it from you anyway.
Not really sure what you mean as far as when the govt got involved in it either since I think the govt has been involved in it since before I was born. The polio vaccine was developed through govt research and I remember very well receiving it free of charge one day at school.
But what brought me into this conversation was the topic equating universal healthcare with indentured servitude.
I had a neighbor years ago who had a baby that was born premature and with undeveloped lungs. She spent her first years of life in hospitals more than out. This family wasn't poor but they sure couldn't afford the Bill's that were piling up. And they made too much money to get any govt assistance. Child protective laid out the choices they had. They could surrender the baby and get socked with paying a small percentage of their income in child support. Or they could come up with a way to decrease their household earnings. Or they could just let the Bill's pile up and max out their credit. Soon after the were presented with these choices dad moved out leaving mom with five or six kids one very I'll to care for alone. Dad kept his decent paying job although his paycheck was a tad smaller and mom jumped through the hoops to get the govt benefits but the baby for the healthcare that was needed. This was not uncommon advice for social services to give at the time
Indentured servitude was used to lure the first colonists to come here. England would offer the poor passage to the new world, land of opportunity if they were willing to sign away a few years of their lives in bondage. They worked along side the slaves and weren't treated much better. And occassionally they revolted alongside them.
I really don't see how universal healthcare equates with that as much as I do what we had then and probably still do. It has the power to separate families. Take away the protections for preexisting conditions and it can practically force a person who hates their job to continue to show up for work and never seriously think about looking for something better. And it has the potential of wiping out whatever wealth you have accumulated and hope to pass on to your kids.
Dependency equals servitude and it seems to me that our current system has way too much power over our lives, forcing us to work when our bodies are too sick or hurt to continue, forcing us to remain in jobs we would rather move in from, forcing us to adapt our income one way or another to earn less so we can have more.
And its not just those who are sick and need care that are suffering from this trap. Doctors and nurse's are more and more having to adjust how they treat patients to make the big corporates that rule them, the insurance companies and such happy so they can retain their job and the insurance companies will pay out. They have become just as dependent on the big money flow and now have to serve the master's themselves.



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Employer provided health care is essentially slavery. You work for whatever wages the employer offers, or in many cases you simply get sick, suffer, and in some cases die.

It is anti free market and anti competitive, because it removes the ability of the employee to switch to employers that are offering better deals. Universal healthcare, would not only give employees choice, therefore allowing companies who are willing to do what it takes to attract better talent actually do so, but it would alleviate them of the overhead of managing healthcare.

Single payer is good for everyone.
edit on 11-4-2019 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join