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.

 

Why Does Everyone Bow Down to the Health Insurance Industry?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
It would only benefit me if the socialists succeed in their agenda to dramatically expand the welfare state, make prohibitive the costs of private care, and force me to join a national population of people who have no choice but to be dependent on the Government because all other options have been legislated away from us.

Otherwise, it does me nothing but harm by stealing money I worked for.

It's true the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But it's because the rich work their butts off and the poor won't get off theirs.




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The real reason we don't have a national health care service is because the Pharmaceutical co. HMOs and the insurance company's Lobby the lawmakers, contribute to those politicians they can buy with campaign contributions. We have the best damn government money can buy here in the states and we don't need no furriners pointing out our third world status in the health field. Check out the infant mortality in the states as compared to other countries if you don't believe me.

BTW, many insurance company's are now sending their clients to India or Thailand where operations are much cheaper.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Here in Aruba we all work, pay our socialized healthcare, and we can go to the doctor anytime we want, and get treatment when we want. It's not perfect, because since the current ruling party won the election, they constantly meddled with the socialized healthcare.

But the point is. Earlier year I was able to get a two years supply of contact lenses for "free". Actually not really for free, because I pay for the healthcare every month. But if I didn't have that, I might not have been able to afford to years worth of contact lenses at that moment. I also had an MRI and a visit to the specialist for free.

I'm pretty happy and satisfied with my healthcare.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


I think that's a bit of a sweeping generalization - lots of poor people work very hard.

I'll ask the question again:
Where would you prefer your tax money goes, to an unacceptable, illegal, unwinnable war that has so far cost well over 400 billion and has cost hundreds of american lives, not forgetting the injured who may never be able to work again or would you prfer to spend these same tax dollars on helping your fellow citizens who are not fortunate enough to be able to afford proper healthcare.

Even Saddam gave his people free healthcare.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc

It's true the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But it's because the rich work their butts off and the poor won't get off theirs.





Well imo the rich make their money off the backs of the poor and the poor work their asses of to make the rich even richer it seems to me. I am doing very well now in my trade and can afford what I need to get by but a few years ago I was out of work and couldn't find a job thats pay was equal to my skill level and my government took care of my needs til I found a better job. I got unemployment and didnt have to worry about getting hurt or sick because I am covered just like every other Canadian and I really think as a nation we are doing great.

Why do you seem so adamant on not paying for poor peoples healthcare through taxes but you let your government run earmark after earmark and this costly war and look at your deficit! Why aren't you all up in arms storming congress over this stuff but instead you want to keep privitized corporate health care thats PROFIT DRIVEN! I just can't see profit driven health care being all that effective compared to socialized but thats just me.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The healthcare system in the states is run by businessmen with a profit motive for their stockholders. The real healthcare workers are just paid employees of a corrupt, greedy system that really doesn't care about even the patients unless you can pay, and pay and pay.

I now pay more for health care coverage a month than I do food.

I'm a Republican and I am going to vote for the candidate that will remedy the greedy HMOs be they liberal, conservative or green.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Good point,
but should this be extended to social medical schemes?
In the richest country, people should not be dying because of a lack of adequate medical care just because they can't afford insurance.


Precisely, Insurance Companies are the problem with our medical situation. Without these crazy insurance and drug lobbyists, doctors would be MUCH more affordable, there-by canceling the need for socialized medicine or obscene subsidies.

I think Ron Paul has the best take on this, as he was a doctor for many years. Both the patient and the doctor's are being raped by the insurance industry. They'll be our demise.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I'm curious as to how the hippocratic oath fits into this;


Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version
“ I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

source

and the modern implications and interpretation

Several parts of the oath have been removed or re-shaped over the years in various countries, schools, and societies as the social, religious, and political importance of medicine has changed. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the ancient version, which praised Greek deities, advocated teaching of men, and forbade general practitioners from surgery, abortion, and euthanasia. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues that face the modern physician.

Changed portions of the oath:

1. To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools would give preferential consideration to the children of physicians.

2. Not to teach medicine to other people. If taken literally, a physician who attempts to educate or make aware of treatment options, even informally, to anyone not enrolled in medical school would lose his or her license.[citation needed]

3. To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in the modern discussions of euthanasia.

4. Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in most countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions. However, in a small number of cases, most notably Oregon[2] and the Netherlands[3], a doctor can perform euthanasia, by both his and the patient's consent.

5. Never to attempt to induce an abortion. This item is still invoked in the modern discussions of abortion.

6. To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").

7. To avoid attempting to do things that other specialists can do better. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too difficult for physicians, and therefore was left for surgeons (specialists). The value of specialization was recognized in that time. The range of knowledge and skills needed for the range of human problems has always made it impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas. This also highlights the different historical origins of the surgeon and the physician.

8. To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.

9. To avoid sexual relationships or other inappropriate entanglements with patients and families. The value of avoiding conflicts of interest isn't often questioned.

source

It seems to me that this has gone out the window, in a way, as rules 4 and 8 do not seem to apply in the US.

IMO there is no valid argument that can justify NOT having social healthcare.

[edit on 25/9/2007 by budski]


apc

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slickinfinity
Why do you seem so adamant on not paying for poor peoples healthcare through taxes but you let your government run earmark after earmark and this costly war and look at your deficit! Why aren't you all up in arms storming congress over this stuff but instead you want to keep privitized corporate health care thats PROFIT DRIVEN! I just can't see profit driven health care being all that effective compared to socialized but thats just me.


Where exactly did you read me say, "I would rather have war than socialized healthcare!"

That's the problem with you people who use that argument in support of your position. It's fiction.

I would rather have every penny I make stay in my pocket than have it go to pay ANY government program/operation/organization.

Just because we don't like one evil doesn't mean we should just swap it out for another one altogether.

We already have systems in place to help the poor. Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare for the elderly. Medicaid for everyone else. Problem is, you have to qualify. If you don't qualify, there's a reason: you are physically and mentally capable of paying for it yourself.

Personally responsibility... don't leave home without it.

But profit is the best most powerful human motivator. Health care would not be as expensive as it is today if it weren't for these dirtbag ambulance chasing lawyers like John Edwards.

If a hospital can provide superior quality care, and in return make buttloads of money, they are motivated to continue providing the highest of quality.

If a hospital has no motivation to provide quality care other than to help people, they will go bankrupt without government funding.

Have you ever been to a medicaid doctor's office? It's scary. You wait forever. The doctors are incompetent because they're paid crap and know they can't make any more. You're lucky if the secretary even sets your appointment correctly. I cringe at the notion of all doctors offices and hospitals being forced to operate this way.

In the end I'll take anything that ensures freedom of choice over something that doesn't, and socialized medicine most certainly does not.


apc

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I tied the answer to this question in my post above, but to expand...

I would much rather have every dollar going to this war going towards say... space exploration. I am enraged that the monthly cost of this war is what... 6 times NASA's annual budget? I could be living on the Moon right now if the total cost of this war were spent on colonizing the ol' rock.

But that doesn't mean I wan't to trade one evil, war, for another one, government mandated theft through redistribution of wealth.

Help people take responsibility for their own actions. Teach them how to get a better job and provide for their families. But if they refuse to pursue this, that is their problem. Not mine.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


I don't mean to sound trite, but isn't that what a society is? Everybody working together for the common good, rather than just individuals working for themselves.


apc

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
A society is people voluntarily working together for the common good.

The moment people are forced, it becomes something else.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


That's very true, and is also part of the problem.
With no offense intended, I find it a quite selfish national attitude - am I mistaken, or is it case of "I've got mine jack, I'm ok"
Observation, not criticism.


apc

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Oh absolutely.

I'm getting mine, and everyone else is fully capable of getting theirs too.

Most millionaires are first generation rich. They didn't inherit their money and it wasn't given to them. They earned it. There's nothing stopping others but themselves.

See this excuse of, "the rich make their money off the backs of the poor," goes right up there with, "the Man is keepin' me down." It's garbage.

If you can't afford to pay your own bills, do something about it. Don't expect a Government bailout. Give up responsibility for your own life, and you give up responsibility of your own fate.

If I feel the need to pay someone's medical bills because they are unable to pay for some reason, that will be my decision which I am free to make. I'm not about to let politicians decide who's bills I should pay and how much I should give. They're not really deciding how much I should give. They're dictating how much I should have.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


And yet you're willing to let your government spend over 1.5 billion p.a. to start a war?
And kill more american people than even BAD healthcare does?

I'm sorry mate, but try as I might, I can't understand your point of view.



[edit on 25/9/2007 by budski]


apc

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Did... did you just like hit a cat hair and skip back a few songs? I thought I covered that already...

I'm confused.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Great thread budski,

The core problem's I see with America's health care system have been mentioned, but not discussed in depth, on the thread.


Originally posted by apc
.

But profit is the best most powerful human motivator. Health care would not be as expensive as it is today if it weren't for these dirtbag ambulance chasing lawyers like John Edwards.


and


Originally posted by whaaa
The real reason we don't have a national health care service is because the Pharmaceutical co. HMOs and the insurance company's Lobby the lawmakers, contribute to those politicians they can buy with campaign contributions.


These two groups are, imo, the causes of the price of medical insurance to be as high as it is in the States. The frivoulous lawsuits by one cause the other to be constantly increasing prices and premium's.

Here's some numbers I found on a quick search. there from 2005 so they'll be a little low compared to today.


The Kaiser survey found three out of five employers (60%) offered coverage, down from 69% five years earlier, with most losses in small companies. Among employers with 200 or more workers, 98% offer health coverage.




This year, the average annual premium for family coverage hit $10,880, with employers paying an average of 74% of that cost and workers paying the rest. Workers this year paid on average $2,713 toward family coverage, or $1,094 more than they paid five years ago, the survey found.

Helen Darling, head of the National Business Group on Health in Washington, says those numbers may be low.

"The average we see is more like $12,000 per family," says Darling,

www.usatoday.com...


Thats a lot of money for the average family to be paying out with about an annual increase of 9.5-10% every year.Here's a another quote from that USA Today article


Growth in health insurance costs outpaced inflation and wage growth.


With the average American family making about $48,000 a year and over 50 million households earning less $50,000 a year, that is quite an expense added on every month.



I'm sure the average American family works pretty hard to earn what they do but there are some greedy, greedy people anxious to get there hands on as much of it as they can.

Coupled with things like the illegal immigrants in your country, which your tax dollars pay to provide health care to but don't pay taxes in return, puts a heavy burden on the middle class of America.

I've always thought that a two tiered system, kind of a happy medium, would work best.


ED: I tryed to get that link to work twice. I couldn't so I deleted it.
[edit on 25-9-2007 by GAOTU789]

[edit on 25-9-2007 by GAOTU789]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Well, if I can... I would like to make another argument FOR social healthcare...

If there were to be a pandemic, some disease going around, and people were unable to get the care they needed to get themselves treated... Don't you people fear disease running rampant and affecting yourself or your loved ones? Or do the "well-off" people not have family and loved ones that would come before their own personal wealth?

People without healthcare can easily spread disease. A pandemic in America would be something VERY horrible, if I'm not mistaken.


apc

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
A few points from the "article."


Will I be arrested if I resist paying $10,000 a year for a private policy laden with killer co-pays and deductibles?

Most people haven't realized the benefits and won't even notice getting a high deductible policy. I can't speak to families, but my individual is a PPO at $350 a quarter with a $2,500 deductible, 100% after, and I had a parent with cancer and used to smoke (they loooove smokers). I use an HSA to pay for deductible expenses (and even non-deductible expenses like dental and vision).

But they don't expect people to be able to afford private care. They expect people to apply for socialized care. So big surprise on that one.


Private health insurance is only for people who aren’t likely to ever get sick.

No... it just might be too expensive for someone with AIDS. Understandable, but not unavoidable.

People with disabilities can receive Medicaid in most states. However I think Medicaid needs reform to introduce more competition and privatization to reduce costs and improve cust^H^H^H^Hpatient care.


Yes, it is big. Leighton Ku, at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, gave me the figure of $776 billion in expenditures on private health insurance for this year.

And what was the cost of the care provided for this year?


It’s also a big-time employer, paying what economist Paul Krugman has estimated two to three million people just turn down claims.

I believe the people they are referring to here are called underwriters. They do a bit more than "just turn down claims." Their job is to assess risk. They exist in every insurance agency (and creditor for that matter). You're asking for access to someone else's money after all. They have a right to weigh the risks. Who do you think they are? The Government?

 


Originally posted by GAOTU789
Coupled with things like the illegal immigrants in your country, which your tax dollars pay to provide health care to but don't pay taxes in return, puts a heavy burden on the middle class of America.

That's a good thing to point out. Illegal aliens are a healthy chunk of excessive care provider costs, especially in the Southern states. An example, three years ago I got bit bad by a stray cat (drunk) so I go to the ER to get a tetanus shot and antibiotics. $500. This year I get in a car wreck, go to the same ER to get some muscle relaxers. I was in there half the time I was in for the cat bite. $1200. The neighborhood has an extremely high illegal population. Vivi en esa vecinidad.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Sorry, your defending your health care system, again.

Let me Reiterate.

1% of my taxes is all my medical bills for the the year
Every drug, every doctors appointment, every ambulence ride, every operation.

I have a hole in my eardrum, ive talked to a doctor about it, ran some tests (paid $300 for it and got $270 back after)

Now, whenever i want i can call him and arrange to operate to fix it, i get to choose the hospital where it happens, and its absolutly free.

1%...

Not everyone can pay for their healthcare, im grateful for my system.

How much would the same cost for you?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join