posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 07:24 PM
Right now the insurance companies (in America) pay for a large portion of the insureds' health care cost. There are so many "exclusions" as make
it essentially worthless. I was with one insurance company years ago that basically said, "if you need healthcare of any sort, it's not covered
under your policy."
Now imagine if the government, aka "socialized medicine", becomes the insurance company. "You're over 50? Developed a chronic condition? Going
to start being a drain on resources? You're not covered for actually living long enough to get sick." Or how 'bout you've got AIDS, cancer, in
need of a kidney transplant? "Oh you're definitely too expensive! Plus you can't work AND need disability in addition to health care for the rest
of your life? You gotta go!"
Here's a scenario: The economy is failing, homelessness and joblessness is increasing, the natives are getting restless. The government of a
socialized healthcare system who is the only payor to the doctors/nurses, etc. decides that being homeless and jobless and restless "disqualifies"
you from receiving health care. Shut up and take your lot in life or die.
Think that's too far-fetched? Can't/won't happen? The government has already shown its track record. If you're poor enough to qualify for food
stamps then the government (who took money out of my pocket to pay for your food stamps) has already decided that you must have a working refrigerator
and stove in order to receive the food stamps. Sounds reasonable on the surface but if you're homeless, how are you going to get a stove and
refrigerator and where are you going to put it?
We had the best health care system in the world at one time and then DRG's were introduced. By the government. For the insurance companies. DRG
stands for "diagnosis related group". Basically, it stated that if you have a cold, fever, weakness so severe you can't stand up then you're not
sick enough to be in the hospital and you can just stay home and drink your chicken soup. If you have a home. More importantly, it said that if you
have a particular diagnosis then you have a specified amount of time to recover. After that specific amount of time the insurance company will
consider you a slacker, a drain on resources, the weakest link....pick one, and will quit paying your healthcare provider. In those awful early days
we saw people who were literally green being wheeled out of the hospital, puking the entire trip to their car, dumped out on the sidewalk and told,
"good luck". Healthcare providers rebelled and began making up "complications" so that the ill person could stay until they were well enough to
actually be discharged. The government cried "fraud" and introduced HMO's.
HMO's actually got more money for NOT treating you. It was preventative medicine based (which is futile considering that we're being poisoned with
our food, water, fluoride, etc. ad nauseum.) The HMO insurance providers would pay for immunizations (thanks for the autism), yearly gynecological
and breast exams. If you developed a palpable lump one month after your alloted yearly exam you had to wait until the following year to get another
one paid for. Most women were beyond treatment for their breast cancer by then. Most HMO's were doctor-owned businesses. They had a yearly
allotment set aside for diagnostic tests. If there was any money at the end of the year from that fund, it was split up evenly among the
doctors/business owners. Guess how many diagnostic tests were performed? If you insisted on a diagnostic test (rather than hoping the doctors'
diagnostic skills in the area of clinical symptoms only was adequate) then you had to get a referral from that doctor to be allowed to go to a
competitor (another doctor) and hope it wasn't another HMO doctor.
Then the Medicare changes came along and the elderly on fixed incomes were forced to go back to work to afford their overmedicated existence.
Then Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala (2 unelected "officials") told the American people: It's none of the people's business what we're doing.
(behind closed doors regarding Americans healthcare). All combined, we now have the "healthcare crisis".
And you still want the government to take charge of your healthcare? Even now, when I call 911 for an ambulance to pick up one of our elderly nursing
home patients, they ALWAYS ask, "how old are they?"!!!!!!!Now what the hell difference does that make? Honestly. Here the guy is having a full
blown obvious heart attack and the operator will wait patiently while I run for his chart to look up the guys age. They will NOT dispatch an
ambulance until they have that information. What could possibly be the reason for a 911 operator to refuse to send an ambulance until they know the
patient's age? Are we being geared to accept that some people are just too old to be worth saving? btw, I have learned to quickly blurt out
"they're 48" rather than waste time getting their chart. If I get busted for lying to the 911 operator, they can sue me. I'd love to see that
one in court.
Another piece of interesting news is that bioethics committees (yes, they do really exist) are developing a "do not enter" criteria for ER's. If
you have a Glasgow scale (a neurological assessment) of 3 (basically brain dead by clinical symptoms) then there's no point treating you. Makes
sense you say? We had a guy come into the ER with a Glasgow of 3 who had ingeniously been poisoned by his wife. The poison was reversible with
proper treatment and the wife was arrested. If the bioethics committee criteria had been in effect when he came in he would have needlessly died and
a killer would be at large.
The healthcare "crisis" in this country is due to a system of errors. A system mucked up by our government. I do not trust them to "reform" it.
I think it will be used to decide who lives and who dies. I think that will eventually apply in Canada and the EU as well.