Why Does Everyone Bow Down to the Health Insurance Industry?

You surrender control. Politicians decide what care you are eligible for, or more importantly, ineligible for. That is not freedom.

There is no such thing, it's only a public fund, I dobt there are any regulations on it, it's simple you get sick you get treated out of the public budget with as much as it is needed if your doctor(and not the inssurance company )asks for it, come to thing of it, corporate inssurance is more socialist, because there are so many regulations and directives.

reply to post by apc


It's not a belief, it's a fact.
Show me the freedoms you have at the moment and I'll be able to refute each and every one of them.
If you think you have any freedom, then you are sadly deluded - freedom does not exist.

APC seems to be ignoring my posts, is it because he has no answers for them?

Probably. He doesnt seem to be very bright, Im sure we have doctors to cure that here

If he really is ignoring me, could someone please quote what i say? He cant ignore that.

Why do people bow down? Because it's a monopoly.

How sad to read through some people's incoherent nonsense around here. Really sad. Seem's like 911 and Co. wouldn't even have been necessary.. since some people are still suffering from the manipulative effect of the cold war. :] Devastating. Just because of the word "social healthcare" it has got nothing to do with the Udssr. Many countries around the world have been using that form of healthcare in one or another way for a long time.

Many middle-class and rich people will never understand:

- Yes. There are indeed people who work even MORE than you. And still don't earn enough for their families.

- To work hard for a biased economy, being abused on a daily basis and still remaining in a completely ignorant state of mind does not make you a "good" person. Not even if you donate a couple of bucks to some TV charity AD, once in a while.

But I guess that's part of dividing the people. Let the richer ones bitch around about the lazy poor people at the bottom. At least I can safely claim that many working poors are at least spirituality, much more advanced than you bunch of arrogant middle-class swimmers will ever be.

And don't forget. It only takes one little accident at work to make you fall all the way to the bottom. One little event to burst your supposedly safe middle-class bubble. No matter how expensive your private insurance is.

At that point you can really show us how "hard" you work.

I think there is another issue pertaining to health care. I generally have been opposed to universal health care. The problem is the approach to health care itself, and a government managed system is most likely to make this worse. I believe the underlying goal of this thread is to determine how to maximize the wellbeing of the population.

Our health care system in the United States is today in bad shape. We rank in the bottom quartile (23rd out of 29) of industrialized nations in both life expectancy and infant mortality. We spend more money per capita on medical care than any other industrialized nation -- and get less. Now, some of this is not just medical care -- our health is also compromised by poor American diets and toxic loads. Much of what we call health care is really "disease care." We do have a medical system that is world-class when it comes to diagnostics and dealing with trauma. But one it comes to chronic and degenerative diseases, our system is a basket case.

The free enterprise system was supposedly designed to deliver the highest quality at a lower price. Adam Smith used the term, "enlightened self-interest." Unfortunately, we are not yet enlightened. Pharmaceutical companies make money and maximize their net worth creating drugs that people can go on for the rest of their lives. There is not any money in developing cures for anything. So, what we get is what is referred to as "disease management" and that is expensive.

What has happened in the health care industry is that it has been taken over by what could justifiably be called, "organized crime." All one needs to do is look at the lives of the countless individuals that individually developed effective treatments of cancer. One-by-one there lives were ruined by a sophisticated network. People in the thread have talked about Canada and Australia's programs. Medical technology has been suppressed there as well. In Canada, read the story of Gasten Nassens, and in Australia, look into the work of John Holt, for just a couple examples.

Many would like to turn to Government to help with the situation. The problem with this is that they are as corrupt as the health care industry. Does anyone really trust the FDA, NIH, or the CDC? This is an industry that is controlled by the oligarchy. So the difficulty with universal health care is those who would control the system are not those who I would want to control the system. What I want is Freedom in health care, which we do not have in this country, and most places in the world.

We also do not need to make a bad system more efficient. Everyone talks about trying to reduce costs of medications. No one talks about getting people off medications. When we sort through the various approaches to alternative care, there are healing options that provide high efficacy, and in most cases, an almost trivial cost. We cannot fix nutritional deficiencies with drugs and surgery, and trying to do so causes more problems. 85-95% of most health conditions can be quite effectively addressed through dietary changes, supplementation, detoxification, and addressing emotional issues. None of this is addressed through universal health care.

I have worked with doctors, naturopaths, and chiropractors in the alternative world working on serious conditions. Some of this is quite outstanding, and most people have no idea what is out there. Alternative treatment is under 10% of the cost of standard medical care, and often can be much more effective.

So, what I see is that we need to rethink health care. We do not need a free, more efficient, bad system of disease management. If we had universal alternative care -- sign me up. Not only would the economic burden of health care drop in this country, but we would also have a higher quality of life of our citizens.

Regards

The good old US of A gives 400 billion dollars minimum per year to the Pentagon. America's so called enemies Russia, China, Axis of Evil etc spend between them a lot less than half that. So if you were to take 10%- 20% off the 400 billion you could probably pay for universal healthcare for the less fortunate in American society and not need to pay one cent more in taxes. Have a look at this www.truemajority.org... and it will give an idea of what you could do for the poorest at no extra cost to the taxpayer. Worth thinking about?

Wow... four pages of off-topic nattering from two sides who will NEVER agree, as they have a fundamental difference of opinion that runs far deeper than health-care.

To summarize:

apc - "I should be able to control my life."
budski - "I should be able to ciontrol your life."

Yes, it's clear where my sympathies lie, but the point is that the two viewpoints are fundamentally at odds and always will be.


Now then - why do we bow down to the insurance industry? THAT'S the question that started off this thread.

That's an easy one - because the insurance industry spends millions (billions?) of dollars per year on campaign contributions (aka "bribes"). That's also why all the healthcare proposals involve, at most, funneling taxpayer money first through the hands of some government department (from which a portion of it will never leave), then through the bands of private insurers (from which another portion of it will never leave) before it finally gets to the healthcare professionals who actually provided the service.

In the end, it's just a scam. The government and the insurance industry cooperate so that, to as great a degree as possible, the money that is spent on healthcare passes through their hands along the way so that they can each grab some of it as it goes by.

For years now, the government has made occasional noises about some form of socialized medicine, which would effectively cut the insurance companies out of the loop. Then the insurance industry ponies up with the campaign contributions (bribes), and the noise dies down. But the time is coming when they're going to have to actually do something, if for no other reason than to shut up all the reformers. So what they're going to do is establish a single-payer system wherein taxpayer money will be issued to private insurers (either directly or, as is more likely, in the form of "vouchers" that will be issued to the citizens to be applied toward health insurance), and the insurers will, in turn, pay the healthcare providers. That way, both the government and the insurance industry will get to swipe part of the money as it goes by. Of course, that system will be unsatisfactory to many, so there will still be calls for reform, but that just means that the government will still be able to make occasional noises about socializing healthcare and the insurance industry will still be obliged to keep paying campaign contributions (bribes) to make sure it doesn't happen.


And that's just the way it goes, and it really makes no difference what anyone outside of that perverse government/insurance industry alliance thinks...

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Wow... four pages of off-topic nattering from two sides who will NEVER agree, as they have a fundamental difference of opinion that runs far deeper than health-care.

To summarize:

apc - "I should be able to control my life."
budski - "I should be able to ciontrol your life."

Off topic nattering?
Please, please, don't try and put words in my mouth.
Threads have a way of evolving, and as long as it's relevant then it can be explored, which is what's been done.
If the thread carried on for long enough, you'd see other aspects pertaining to the subject, but it probably won't

Please don't presume to know what I or anyone esle is thinking - you can't possibly know.

Thanks
Bud

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
APC seems to be ignoring my posts, is it because he has no answers for them?

Probably. He doesnt seem to be very bright, Im sure we have doctors to cure that here

If he really is ignoring me, could someone please quote what i say? He cant ignore that.

I can't speak for apc, but for myself, I only made it as far as "HA! your[sic] grasping for straws," before I started ignoring your posts.

Are you trolling, looking for a row?
sorry to disappoint you.

Sic is a Latin word, originally sicut [1] meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized — [sic] — to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.[2]

source
inappropriate.

[edit on 30/9/2007 by budski]

reply to post by budski
Of course threads evolve. I was simply expressing my vague displeasure that this thread, which initially addressed a particularly pertinent side-issue to the neverending healthcare debate was immediately derailed by yet another installment of the ongoing, never to be resolved and frankly tedious bickering in which each of the two defined sides customarily engage.

Hell - you might as well be arguing about global warming.

As for putting words in your mouth - I stand by my assessment. That's really what it comes down to - apc believes that he should be able to control how his own money is spent, while you believe that you (or, more accurately, the state acting on your behalf) should be able to ciontrol how his money is spent. It might not appear quite so high-mnded when viewed that way, but that's the way it really is. He demands that he be able to spend his money as he wishes, while you demand that some portion of his money be spent as you wish.

But what I'm really interested in is the insurance industry's role in all of this. You might not like this, but your viewpoint is utterly meaningless anyway. As long as the insurance industry keeps paying campaign contributions (bribes) to politicians, there will NEVER be any sort of even vaguely socialized medicine in the US, no matter what you or anyone else might desire.

Not that the system will be the free market that most of the opponents of socialized medicine (at least the ones who aren't on insurance company payrolls) might prefer either. Instead, it will be one that will funnel money to government agencies AND the insurance industry, and the public - BOTH sides in this little squabble, be damned.

Originally posted by budski
Are you trolling, looking for a row?
sorry to disappoint you.

Sic is a Latin word, originally sicut [1] meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized — [sic] — to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.[2]

source
inappropriate.

[edit on 30/9/2007 by budski]

Huh?

I'm certainly not "trolling," as that's the act of posting something deliberately provocative merely in order to garner responses. I'm not particularly "looking for a row" either. Instead, I merely took a moment to respond to a poster who was decrying the fact that he was apparently being ignored since I found it ironic since I too had taken to ignoring said poster's posts, as they didn't seem to add anything of merit to the debate.

And regardless, it had nothing to do with you. Did you believe it did?

And regardless, it had nothing to do with you. Did you believe it did?

sorry, am I not allowed to post unless it's directed at me?

I repeat my assertion about you looking for a row - not gonna happen.

Originally posted by budski

And regardless, it had nothing to do with you. Did you believe it did?

sorry, am I not allowed to post unless it's directed at me?

I repeat my assertion about you looking for a row - not gonna happen.

Ah.

Well, if I was indeed "looking for a row," then it would certainly appear that it was with Octavius, since it was to his post that the response you quoted was directed in the first place, and therefore it would also be up to him to decide whether or not it was "gonna happen." And I've already explained the purpose of that post.

For your part, if you so desire you're certainly free to debate (or agree with) any of the points I've made in my other posts on this thread. Or not - it makes little difference to me. I intended to express my opinion on the nominal thread topic and did so and that's sufficient for me.




[edit on 30-9-2007 by Bob LaoTse]

reply to post by Bob LaoTse

Fair enough, I agree that you can post and say whatever you like, within reason.
However, please desist from posting what you think I think.

Wow... four pages of off-topic nattering from two sides who will NEVER agree, as they have a fundamental difference of opinion that runs far deeper than health-care.

To summarize:

apc - "I should be able to control my life."
budski - "I should be able to ciontrol your life."

Yes, it's clear where my sympathies lie, but the point is that the two viewpoints are fundamentally at odds and always will be.

What?! Please, try and leave your bias at the door while doing research, i know i have some trouble sometimes, but it is mandatory to give a good assessment.

What Budski and i have been saying is that everyone should pay into a fund (including the government) which then goes into paying everyones medical bills.

We have no control over who gets this system, it is blind and all people get equal care. The only difference is the severity of the case.

That's an easy one - because the insurance industry spends millions (billions?) of dollars per year on campaign contributions (aka "bribes"). That's also why all the healthcare proposals involve, at most, funneling taxpayer money first through the hands of some government department (from which a portion of it will never leave), then through the bands of private insurers (from which another portion of it will never leave) before it finally gets to the healthcare professionals who actually provided the service.

Then the problem lies in the private insurers does it not? Why can we only work through government insurers?

Also, dont put words in Budski's mouth, he speaks with his own mind, not yours.

I can't speak for apc, but for myself, I only made it as far as "HA! your[sic] grasping for straws," before I started ignoring your posts.

And i still listened to Apc's verbal excriment, i may not respect him but at least i give him the chance to hear both sides of the arguement.

As for putting words in your mouth - I stand by my assessment. That's really what it comes down to - apc believes that he should be able to control how his own money is spent, while you believe that you (or, more accurately, the state acting on your behalf) should be able to ciontrol how his money is spent. It might not appear quite so high-mnded when viewed that way, but that's the way it really is. He demands that he be able to spend his money as he wishes, while you demand that some portion of his money be spent as you wish.

Yes, i want to control 1% of his money, not for just myself, but for him, his friends, his family and everyone he hasnt met yet.

But what I'm really interested in is the insurance industry's role in all of this. You might not like this, but your viewpoint is utterly meaningless anyway. As long as the insurance industry keeps paying campaign contributions (bribes) to politicians, there will NEVER be any sort of even vaguely socialized medicine in the US, no matter what you or anyone else might desire.

Viewpoint is meaningless? Why are you posting then oh master?

Is your viewpoint more 'meaningful'

"Lets change nothing!"

I'm certainly not "trolling," as that's the act of posting something deliberately provocative merely in order to garner responses. I'm not particularly "looking for a row" either. Instead, I merely took a moment to respond to a poster who was decrying the fact that he was apparently being ignored since I found it ironic since I too had taken to ignoring said poster's posts, as they didn't seem to add anything of merit to the debate.

really? I live in a socialised medical system, i actually have proof of its merits.

So you ignore them. Good for you, ill buy you some new earmuffs for c
christmas.

sorry, am I not allowed to post unless it's directed at me?

I repeat my assertion about you looking for a row - not gonna happen.

Oh, i disagree. This...person looks like he will defend this with his life,

Whether i want to or not

Well, if I was indeed "looking for a row," then it would certainly appear that it was with Octavius, since it was to his post that the response you quoted was directed in the first place, and therefore it would also be up to him to decide whether or not it was "gonna happen." And I've already explained the purpose of that post.

Well Budski spoke for me in my absense, he's a nice guy and i like him.

You may not know what a forum is, It allows the free flow of information.

That means if you post something, its free game, if you didnt want others to comment, send a PM.

Fair enough, I agree that you can post and say whatever you like, within reason.
However, please desist from posting what you think I think.

You may post your opinion. As i do.

I will read it, no matter if i disagree.

If you ignore my posts then that shows how stupid you really are.

"How am i supposed to take his viewpoint seriously?! He only LIVES IN A SOCIAL MEDICAL SYSTEM, that gives no weight to his argument!"

Honestly, IMO the only way I would EVER support NATIONALI, or SOCIALIZED, or UNIVERSAL healthcare, whatwvere you wanna call it, is for some very strict legislation and airtight pre-conditions.

For instance, I do not believe that the insurance should not cover selfish, apathetic, and self-destructive individuals. What falls under that definition and whi gets to vote on it? Well that is why we have democracy, to come up with the rules and vote on them.

for insatnce, no coverage shall be provided for a disease, illness, ailment, or condition to any individual partaking in a hobby that was clearly proven to be detrimental to their health, a contributing factor to the problem, was thoroughly warned from the time of their youth against it and the consequences of it and having such konwledge available and known for some time.


See health insurance is not expensive because of the un-insured recieving medical services in emergency rooms. It is expensive because people who can afford it use it as hard as possible using it as an excuse to destroy their own body and a free ticket to abuse their own health.

Only the "insured" drive around multi-thousand dollar machines because they were too lazy to maintain a healthy walking weight throughout their lives. Only the insured live on multi-thousand dollar a day machines that help them breathe, feed, beat their heart, and use the bathroom for them for the rest of their lives.

I am not saying that everyone on insurance is guilty of abusing themselves and the system, but most the people who abuse themselves do abuse the system through insurance, making it more expensive for health-concious people such as myself, therefore an unnecessary option.

At least i will take life-insurance inc ase I die pre-maturely through some natural or unnatural means.

For instance, I do not believe that the insurance should not cover selfish, apathetic, and self-destructive individuals. What falls under that definition and whi gets to vote on it? Well that is why we have democracy, to come up with the rules and vote on them.

No, you want that you pay for your own operations.

Its all or nothing, you cant choose who you help.

If you do choose who you help then you are a selfish bastard who deserves nothing but scorn.

for insatnce, no coverage shall be provided for a disease, illness, ailment, or condition to any individual partaking in a hobby that was clearly proven to be detrimental to their health, a contributing factor to the problem, was thoroughly warned from the time of their youth against it and the consequences of it and having such konwledge available and known for some time.

What? You mean EVERY DISEASE EVER.

With this system a company could be motivated to find holes in the person "We told you that eating badly kept Steak could give you Salmonella 34 years ago!"
"I dont remember that! and anyway, I was at a restraunt! I didnt know it was badly kept"
"Too bad, pay for your own damn surgery"
"*dies*"

Sorry, no. I dont like Cigarettes or smoking, but i gladly pay for the chance to save their lives.

I dont agree with drug users, but i will gladly pay so they can get rehabilitation.

Noone should die because they cannot afford to live, that is just sick.

See health insurance is not expensive because of the un-insured recieving medical services in emergency rooms. It is expensive because people who can afford it use it as hard as possible using it as an excuse to destroy their own body and a free ticket to abuse their own health.

Only the "insured" drive around multi-thousand dollar machines because they were too lazy to maintain a healthy walking weight throughout their lives. Only the insured live on multi-thousand dollar a day machines that help them breathe, feed, beat their heart, and use the bathroom for them for the rest of their lives.

What the hell are you talking about?

Did Iesus go around killing himself at parties because he knew he'd be resurrected?

Of course not (although that would be a pretty cool party trick)

Your logic makes no sense.

At least i will take life-insurance inc ase I die pre-maturely through some natural or unnatural means.

Fine, so you can watch as those around you are hurt or die with no chance but to either drop dead, live with the pain, or commit suicide economically.

US insurance- killing with the stroke of a pen

Hey, dont smoke and you wont have to worry about lung cancer, and you will not have to suck my tax dollars in for your bad habits.

If you want to smoke, or be an alcoholic, or weigh 400+ pounds and stationary, get your own private insurance, you should not be covered under a tax funded insurance program.

Accidents, victims of crime, brain-eating amoebas, and a number of natural causes of sicknesses and contagious sicknesses are all legitamate issues for which a National, tax-funded health insurance program would and should cover.

People who use and abuse manufactured substances for which they have been fully educated about how it will adversly affect their health and that of the peopel around them, should not come around years later and start crying about how they need help because they are dying or suffering from the negative habbits they chose.

It should be mandatory that if you do partake in such unhealthy, insurance money sucking habits, you are required to find your own private insurance. Do not be surprised on how many will turn you down, or why.

If you want to smoke or binge drink regularly, go right ahead and partake in your supposedly "God-given" right, just know you may not be covered under a tax-deducted health insurance program. You will be required to seek your own private provider.

I would just like to edit my stance on the severe obesity thing. I feel that there should be no problem bringing those of which who do suffer from this under the program, so long as the individual commits to a state-sponsored obesity-reduction program which will help you to attain a healthy weight, and appropriate dietary program to assist you in maintaining a healthy stature.

I am just saying, if you truly want to be healthy, then simply dishing out money for suffering the consequences of bad habits you were educated in so that you may continue self-destruction is not the best way of going about such a thing.

[edit on 10/1/2007 by DYepes]