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.

 

The 47 Million People Don't Have Healthcare Lie

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Turd Fergusson
 


I understand what you are saying, but here in America the people writing this bill are the Big Corporations.

I trust the doctor that I see more than I trust a bureaucrat in Washington that only care about the bottom line.

And I would wage 10 to 1 that the bureaucrat in Washington worked in some capacity for big pharma or insurance at some point in their lives. Not to mention those positions will then be politicized.

Besides we all know how hated Bush is/was I don't want him determining what kind of health care I get.




posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Just thought I would contribute with some information to help further the discussion on this thread. This is the US National Health Expenditures, 2006.




Does anybody feel that drugs and alcohol addiction also contributes to the increased cost of Health care?



Substance abuse and addiction cost federal, state and local governments at least $467.7 billion in 2005, according to Shoveling Up II: The Impact of Substance Abuse on Federal, State and Local Budgets, a new 287-page report released today by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.

The CASA report found that of $373.9 billion in federal and state spending, 95.6 percent ($357.4 billion) went to shovel up the consequences and human wreckage of substance abuse and addiction; only 1.9 percent went to prevention and treatment, 0.4 percent to research, 1.4 percent to taxation and regulation, and 0.7 percent to interdiction.

The report found that the largest amount of federal and state government spending on the burden of substance abuse and addiction----$207.2 billion, or 58 percent--was for health care (74.1 percent of the federal burden).


www.casacolumbia.org...



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


That's an interesting perspective, and I respect it.

My personal thoughts, though, are that society collapses when people no longer benefit from a system that makes them subservient to laws upholding the status quo. For instance, if 1% of the people have acquired 50+% of the wealth, what incentive do the masses have for continued participation? Hard work is good and all, but many many people work their finger to the bone and still end up poor--and not by choice or as a result of their decisions.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I personally could care less about the numbers to be honest. I don't have health insurance, and I would LOVE to be able to either afford some, or be able to get on a government program to get some, I cannot either way. I got pretty sick last year and had to go to the hospital (I had blood in my urine). They took a ct scan and gave me some morphine, and sent me home, said it was most likely just that I passed a stone, and happened to have the flu at the same time. Then I got hit with a 1500 bill. My situation is pretty minor, I'm sure there are many people worse off, and even if it is only 1 million people....they NEED insurance. My quality of life would be better all the way around if I had insurance.

I would go to the doctor for the minor things that are bugging me and get them taken care of. For example, I have had some type of fungus on my big toenail on my right foot for years and have not been able to afford to get it taken care of. The list goes on, quality of life is important.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


There are tons of problems with health care in this country, and 99% of them can be related to government.

It just really makes my shake my head when people rail against the government then in the very next sentence they want the government to take control of their health care. It really defies all logic.

To be completely honest I don't think we are being fed the whole story in order to make an informed decision. But what we do know is that Big Pharma and Insurance are a big cause to the rising health care costs.

Like the people with out insurance claim. They just throw out this big number to tug on the heart strings of the bleeding hearts.

Personally I don't think we are getting the whole story to really consider giving control of our health care to the government. But one thing we do know is that Special Interest pretty much run Washington and I'm going to be skeptical of anything that comes from our government. And it shouldn't even be a leap in logic to understand they are going to do something with a single payer system to further pack their pockets.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
The insurance companies have spent over a BILLION dollars lobbying the government.

1 billion!

1 billion dollars of of lobbying money that could have been used to CUT HEALTH CARE COSTS!

CEO's are making billions of dollars off of the middle class with insane health care costs.

The health care industry shouldn't be profitable....except for doctors and other medical officials...they should make good money for what they do...but the CEO's? NO.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Yes, you guys have an interesting situation on your hands! It seems pretty disturbing...almost like a class war. All I can say is that I think lobbying should be banned. Special interest groups have no business influencing politicians.

We have the same problem here, where voter turnout has dropped off as a result of government not doing what it is told to do by the electorate. I just worry that in the US, people seem to be getting angry at the idea of taking care of each other instead of being angry at the fact Business is calling the shots, turning the population on itself and subverting everyone.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


I agree with what you say. Washington is in on the fix as well.

What gets me about all of this is the government's track record.

A government that can't control its budget, constantly in debt, and is managing a lot of programs that are inefficient and almost broke. Why would people want government handling their healthcare considering the government's lousy track record.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I wonder how much they have spent under the table.

I recall posting that many had met with Ted Kennedy in a closed door session to address healthcare. They are all in on it and I am willing to bet that even after they pass a heathcare plan, many will still be without healthcare, and the insurance and pharmaceutical companies will still be making nice profits.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Tentickles
 

I was just browsing the sites here and i cant stay quiet on this one. :shk:

I live in Massachusetts where its mandatory to have health insurance...however...because my husband works, Mass Health will only cover me if i'm in a head on collision- and thats debatable. My husbands employer wants $300/month to cover both of us.
Right.
If we do that, WE DONT EAT.

I have health problems, too many to list here, and my only resource is the hospital, where others will have to pick up the tab because i could never pay it. I worked all my life and here i am, an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not qualified for a handout (due to my situation not because i like handouts) so i spend my life in terrible pain, so much so that i sometimes dont care about life.

Now, i cannot work, not because i dont want to, but because i cant (for now). So i ask you, not you Op, but anyone here, just what do i do?Pay the $300 to my husbands insurance? I'd have to walk out of this house and live in a cardboard box.

Some people just dont realize how hard it is---And i'm not for or against Obamas health proposal, i am just talking about my current situation.

There are lots of people like me. I got a letter from Massachusetts Health Dept saying that my husband makes more than $900 a month
so therefore they can not help me.

Scuse me??? $900 a month???????
Oh wow, thats funny. Who could make less????? and have a little home and an older truck just for the hell of it...


Obviously this blogger is an idiot. His sole purpose is political anti Obama rhetoric. He should do his homework.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Turd Fergusson
 


Yea, its very bad, and things are just becoming more polarized. Our current system of government doesn't even come close to resembling to what it should.

Things are just getting worse also, we have the left wing media attack dogs that the biggest hypocrites to exist and say so and so is inspiring hate, when the people that believe that garbage don't even see that the pot is calling the kettle black.

Here I just found this article I'm going to start a thread on it here in a little bit House Health-Care Bill to Include 600 Billion in Tax Increases

It also says that its going to cut 400 billion for Medicare and Medicaid, which is for children and older people that have paid into Social Security their whole lives.

It's just when you start doing the math the math doesn't add up. The other big problem here in America is that people want all these social programs but when it comes time to pay for them they don't want to pony up.

Look at California for example they voted all these social programs and now they are about go bankrupt and they don't want to pay for it, because their taxes are already astronomical.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by SpacePunk
 


Yep and the worse that happens is that your credit is ruined which if you are poor your credit is probably already ruined.

The fact is that you still get treated if you need to be treated.


No, only if it is an emergency situation and if it's something such as a heart problem, long term illness or something else a single visit to the emergency room can't fix.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 



but anyone here, just what do i do?Pay the $300 to my husbands insurance? I'd have to walk out of this house and live in a cardboard box.

Some people just dont realize how hard it is---And i'm not for or against Obamas health proposal, i am just talking about my current situation.

There are lots of people like me.


You should just keep going to the hospital and don't worry about it. There are a lot of people like you.

Mine is different but equally difficult. I have insurance because I work for a College and they pay for it. However, I can't afford to go to the doctor because most of the time I don't have the money to pay for the co-pay of the visit and the medicine. Furthermore, I fear being sent to other clinics for more testing. Testing that I can't afford.

So even if one has insurance, there are still people who can't afford to pay for what the insurance doesn't cover.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 


A single payer system is going to cost you 300+ dollars in taxes, so really you're in the same boat.

It sucks. Believe me I know, my grandmother had to be put into a Nursing home and died from neglect because she made 21 dollars to much to qualify for medicare or medicaid, always get the two confused.

Something has to be done but taxing us out of the necessities of life isn't the answer. After all the best health care in the world isn't going to save you if your dead.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I've worked for myself for most of my life as a consultant. When I was younger, insurance was out of the question. Paying more than I paid for rent wouldn't have been possible.

Currently, I am covered under my husband's policy. We're both in our 40s, non smokers, in good health and...we pay $500 a month.

But the real story is about my parents. Hard working middle class farmers. My parents didn't believe in credit, and so while a lot of other farms were pretty much owned by the banks, and these families all had new trucks and tractors and whatever, we did without.

And that means that they could never afford health insurance. We didn't have a spare 500 dollars a month, or even sometimes 100 dollars.

My step father hurt himself a few years ago - and died. And I'm convinced he wouldn't have died if they had had insurance. He tried to move a large water tank by himself and thought he tore his shoulder out of socket. He was in so much pain he went to the emergency room - for $3000.

They saw that his shoulder wasn't broken, gave him pain meds and sent him home.

And he got worse. He hurt. He couldn't hardly stand. We thought it was the drugs, he seems 'out of it', but now we know better. He wouldn't return to the doctor, fearing more bills, thinking that he just needed to rest.

Two nights later, his leg swelled up. Finally, he relented and said he'd go to the doctor in the morning. But he fell into unconsciousness and died before the ambulance got there.

No one should have to die because they cannot afford the care they need.

And one last note: did you know that more than 60% of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills?


"Unless you're a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you're one illness away from financial ruin in this country," says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. "If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that's the major finding in our study."


www.cnn.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 





And one last note: did you know that more than 60% of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills?


It was 10% it jumped 50% in the past 6 years. The last thing we need in this debate is more propaganda.

This is what people don't understand, is that under a single payer system your father would have not gotten any better care. The hospital would have done the same thing.

And a question that nobody seems to be answering that are in favor of a single payer system, is how does higher taxes lowering your level of income to the point of not being able to afford the necessities of life solve the problem?

Then there are a whole host of other issues. What people are failing to understand is that there are many other factors that effect the cost of health care.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 


Found this in your source.


Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.

"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler.


www.cnn.com...


So even with health insurance for all, people will continue to file bankruptcy due to the costs the insurance doesn't cover.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Jadette
 


This is what people don't understand, is that under a single payer system your father would have not gotten any better care. The hospital would have done the same thing.



But, point being, there wouldn't have been any hesitancy for him to get additional care. And that hesitation is what killed him.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 


Chances are and very good chance the doctor wouldn't have done anything for him, because of factors like his age and the injury wasn't cost prohibited.

How would you feel if he went to the doctor and the doctor told him to suck it up Washington won't let me do anything. Which is most likely what would happen. Happens all the time in countries with single payer.

That is what people are not understanding, with single payer you get health care rationing. In almost all of the arguments presented for a single payer, the outcome would have been no different.

Single Payer means cost benefit, which means that your age, what the problem is, your life expectancy, and how much the treatment cost gets plugged into their formula by some Bureaucrat in Washington will decide if the doctor can do anything.

Then if he does get approved there is a waiting list to get surgery, and if he has to see a specialist it could be months and months before he even gets the surgery that he needs.

With a single payer Old People are going to get screwed.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Canada is a bad example to compare universal health with. Compare it to Scandinavia and you will see how things can work out.


For those talking abut the income of people there is Poor, working poor, middle class poor

we all know what poor is, well working poor is a person who does work but is classified as poor by the purchasing power which is none, people work get paid however much an hour or a fixed salary, pay for housing, clothing and food and can not afford anything else.

Middle class poor like which was discussed by amaze earlier.


with Medicare and Medicaid if your are even 1 penny over the limit meaning you may be working poor or middle class they wont give you a damn thing.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join