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 case the opposition to Health Care Reform is presenting is built on a STRAW MAN!

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

I'm sorry, but Capitalism + Healthcare = Nothing Good!


Boy the Marxists are having field day here.

Capitalism and health care have done quite well.

The profit motive has conquered myriad diseases and made life infinitely more comfortable than anyone could have imagined at the turn of the twentieth century.

You're the one who has built a straw man.

If you think that HMOs are bad, just wait until you have a government bureaucrat deciding what health care you rate.

Public health care is nothing new in the US.

You should talk to those who've been at its mercy, or better yet, you should depend on it sometimes before you go throwing the baby out with the bath water.




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 



You bring up a good point here. This would be a good, cost-reducing measure: catastrophic insurance.


1) a publicly funded medical crisis insurance that covers heart attacks, etc.


Most people under 35 do not even want to pay a monthly premium for routine service. What they want, and need, is a policy that covers the worst case. The routine office visit, they would be content to pay out of their own pocket. They don't want an all-encompassing policy.

I'd have to think about the " publicly funded" part, though.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
The entire healthcare debate is, unfortunately loaded with half-truths and lies.
One of the scarier comments I saw though, was this:
www.newswithviews.com...

"PRESIDENT OBAMA SUGGESTED AT A TOWN HALL EVENT Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care."As reported by Peter Nichols of the Los Angeles Times. Former Senator Daschle said “Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them”, Bloomberg News. “In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass, because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed”.


There is no perfect solution, IMHO. However, there is very little question that costs have spiraled completely out of control. Something must be done, but I'm not sure that Congress and Obama's aides have any wise solutions. Look at Daschle's remark above. Essentially, if you're 59 or above, and you get ill, you're dead. Now there is REAL compassion.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



The entire healthcare debate is, unfortunately loaded with half-truths and lies.


That it is. It would be really nice if we could get a straight up honest explanation of the whole deal so we can make an informed decision about it.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is going to just screw everything up even more.

Especially with what you quoted about how the older people are going to have to suffer when they get to a certain age. That just isn't right. It might be expensive under what we have now, but at least you know you will get treated and live.

As for me, I'll be opposed to doing 'something' for the sake of doing 'something' until I can get some straight answers. I don't trust any of the crooks in Washington to trust my life to them.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Grady and I don't see eye to eye on many things but he is right. Without a for profit health care system, where is the incentive for improvements in treating diseases? No offense but if Drug Companies can't get patents for their drugs, who is going to do the research? Like it or not the Capitalist health care model has provided the lion's share of health care improvements.

The problem is that costs have got out of line with inflation and there is a significant portion of the American public with no or substandard health care for simple preventative issues. For example, my health insurance didn't pay for my vasectomy, you would think it would be cheaper for them to pay the $700 one time rather than pay for 2 or more baby births.

The thing that worries me the most about the health care debate is that everyone is low balling the actual money it will cost. When has the government ever accurately or underestimated the cost of something they do? It's not like anyone will have an incentive to NOT see a doctor with universal care.

1.5 Trillion could easily turn in to 4-5 Trillion. Add that on top of Cap and Trade and it's a really mess. Somebody is eventually going to have to pay the bills we are racking up. More taxes and inflation are on their way, sooner or later.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



That sounds all fine and dandy......until you turn 59 and need that procedure to stay alive. I don't think that is the model we want to emulate.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 





That sounds all fine and dandy......until you turn 59 and need that procedure to stay alive. I don't think that is the model we want to emulate.


I thought it was clear in my post that I believed that is horrific. I don't want government deciding what can and can't be performed on anyone.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Very good post, it's a starting point. Basically HSA's are the catastrophic plan you speak of, with government pooling, it might bring the costs down to reasonable levels and still be semi private.

Preventative care is the one where it will be the hardest. A full physical can run upwards of $700+ just for basic tests. There has to be a plan that covers that in a more reasonable way, what that is, I don't know.

Drug companies will be a hard one, they do need tons of money for research, much of which doesn't pan out. Perhaps some sort of Govt funding for Research might help, but it's a hard one to figure out and still get lots of new drugs hitting the market.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


You did, I was just restating it for some of our more stubborn readers. LOL.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by pavil
 





That sounds all fine and dandy......until you turn 59 and need that procedure to stay alive. I don't think that is the model we want to emulate.


I thought it was clear in my post that I believed that is horrific. I don't want government deciding what can and can't be performed on anyone.


Hi guys,

Sorry but this information is pure lies so you can disregard it compeltely


www.factcheck.org...

Even if it WERE true, I fail to understand how the SPECIFICS of another nations system would ever apply to Obamas plan.

Being in Australia means I have the option of relying on the public health system (which covers EVERY permanent resident, citizen and some temporary residents) or topping it up with private health insurance from a private health provider (I pay for this myself, around AUD$600 per year for my current coverage). We are however, facing issues with increased medical costs. The government system, for example, doesn't cover the cost of a general consultation with my family practitioner. He charges $50 for 15 odd minutes, government insurance gives me back $30. I pay the rest. Our system is not perfect and seems to be slowly declining until they start really addressing the issue but, I am very happy to be covered by a government system knowing that in an emergency, regardless of whether I have private health insurance or not, I will get free treatment and pharmaceuticals until I am healthy.

Many Americans seem fearful of change and the US based media constantly repeat the word "socialism" when reporting the health care issue in the USA. Are Americans actually still that frightened of the whole fight against socialism/communism era?

[edit on 14/7/2009 by believer81]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by believer81
 


That factcheck page is full of .

I hate to break this to you, but what politicians do and what they say are very different things.

To the best of my knowledge we don't even have a piece of legislation to even being to dissect yet.

As far as the fight against socialism/communism, that is for another thread. In fact use the search function there are plenty already written about it.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by believer81
 


Thanks for the Reply. So how often do you end up utilizing your extra, paid for out of pocket health care insurance? What does it cover that the Govt plan doesn't? Just curious as to how it works as something like that will probably develop here.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Lobbies, Pacs, and Industry groups will get the system THEY want.

Everyone the insurance companies don't want now will have to buy mandatory health insurance with a high deductible to give the insurance companies the maximum profit.

With high deductibles everyone will still have the same problems they have now affording health insurance.

The people with the worst health problems will have deductibles so high they will be bankrupt within a few years and then they will be under health care for the poor that the government will end up paying for.

When everyone has mandatory health insurance the auto insurance and workers compensation insurance companies can shift there burden of health care cost to the mandatory health insurance without reducing there rates and make even more profits.

This will allow companies to to injure workers/or cripple and have to workers pay there own health care cost for on the job injuries when they get laid off because they can no longer work at the levels that the companies want and make money for corporate America.

If a company exposes you to toxic or dangerous things like hazardous materials that do not effect you for years after exposure like asbestos, radiation dioxin ,ECT. they will claim since there is mandatory health insurance that they no longer have to take care of your health cost.

As it is now they just hire illegals to do the work around things like this and if any threaten to file a lawsuit the companies just have them deported.


[edit on 14-7-2009 by ANNED]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Really? Such an astute commentator as yourself should be made to get all of his health care from a VA Hospital for a year, THEN come back a preach about the ‘straw man’ argument; or be forced to sit under the British health care system with a love one suffering from cancer who is put on a EIGHT MONTH WAITING LIST BEFORE EVEN SEEING A DOCTOR, with a resulting two year wait to see a follow up specialist. Indeed, with NUMEROUS British and Canadian politicians and Doctors warning us NOT to believe the trash we are being fed – as they were told EXACTLY the same lies we are – I would tend to think the only ‘straw man’ arguing going on is coming from you.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
OK, here's my thing. The opposition seems to have no plan at all, in other words, "It ain't broke, don't fix it!". That is total BS! It is spiralling out of control! When I was a kid, you could get good health insurance and you could get it cheap. Now most plans suck, and they are far more expensive. So, it seems the choice now is do something or do nothing. Do nothing is just not an option. SOMETHING has to be done! So if you don't like the current plan, what's yours???

It is out of control. The Hospitals have cost overruns because of people that are uninsured or have no means by which to pay the bill. That cost gets passed on to everyone with coverage. The influx of illegal aliens into this country in the last twenty years has put a terrible strain on health care facilities. That is one reason for sky rocketing health care costs. The system need fixing no doubt. If they want to build a health care system designed for illegal aliens, that would treat them and then deport them.I would vote for that!! Take the strain off the system and cost would soon settle back down to a more normal system.


One thing you are missing here, and that is those who do NOT have health insurance, are charged MORE for the base cost of services/items, than those who do have insurance. If you do have insurance, let's say the base cost of medication would be $50.00, then your insurance pays part, so you pay like $5-$15 of that base price. If you do NOT have insurance, the base price will be something like $75, which you pay all of if you do not have insurance.

I learned this, because my daughter and I both have asthma and are on the same medications. My daughter lost her insurance, and when I went to get her prescription, and mine, I realized what was taking place, and asked the pharmacist. He told me, that people who have insurance get a better base price, as insurance companies put a cap on what they will pay. So people who do not have insurance, are charged more to make up for the loss that is incurred through the pharmacy doing business with those who have health insurance.

I also had to deal the our local hospital when my dad became very sick, and ran into this exact same issue being that my dad did not have health insurance.

You just have to open your eyes and look at what is being charged to other people, to realize that it is those of us, who do not have health insurance, but make too much money for government health care, that are paying out our arses.

So don't give me this crap that those who have insurance are paying for those who do not. Being a middle class USA born and raised citizen, I get to pay more for health care, to help PAY FOR YOU, those who DO have health care! Go ask around, get your facts. Deny Ignorance, and please stop listening to the propaganda that is spilled around by those who are in health care for the bottom $$$$$$.

Health coverage, IMHO should never involve making money. I know many people will hate that idea. But to me, when it is something that involves the lives and health of humanity, and especially children, profit should not be the bottom line as it is now. It can be done, we've just been brainwashed into thinking it is impossible. Humans are far more important, at least to me, than what the profit margin is. $ has become the biggest sickness of humanity to me.

Harm None
Peace



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazed

Health coverage, IMHO should never involve making money. I know many people will hate that idea. But to me, when it is something that involves the lives and health of humanity, and especially children, profit should not be the bottom line as it is now. It can be done, we've just been brainwashed into thinking it is impossible. Humans are far more important, at least to me, than what the profit margin is. $ has become the biggest sickness of humanity to me.


This is probably the most intelligent thing anyone has said about healthcare in awhile.

We have more than enough capability in this country to provide equal, full health coverage to ALL citizens. But if we did that the insurance companies would lose their income, and the lobbyists would stop paying the politicians, and the politicians would be forced to earn their money. We can't have that.

People who actually support privatized health care either:

a.) haven't been let down by their insurance provider (yet).

b.) honestly don't care about less fortunate people.

c.) don't know a damn thing and are just brainwashed into thinking 'capitalism good, socialism evil'.


It is worth noting that, while the US government is the only wealth industrialized nation that does not have universal health care, the government still spends more per capita than any other nation on health services.

For those with comprehension difficulties, this means more of your tax dollars are going into healthcare than any other nation on the planet, yet you are still forced to pay (or your employer is forced to pay) for private insurance on top of that.

Don't like socialized medicine? Tough, you're already paying for it. It's about time we started to receive it as well.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by believer81
 


Thanks for the Reply. So how often do you end up utilizing your extra, paid for out of pocket health care insurance? What does it cover that the Govt plan doesn't? Just curious as to how it works as something like that will probably develop here.


Hi Pavil,

My coverage is through a NOT FOR PROFIT private health care insurer. Private insurance does not cover for things like family physician visits or specilist consultations. That is usually covered by public insurance (Medicare). Family physician puts me out about $20 for a standard consult but specialist consultation fees so far, have been fully covered. Even things such as CAT scans, Ultrasounds and X-rays are payed for by Medicare, not my private insurer.

The private insurance I have (www.hbf.com.au) has 2 aspects to it. Hospital/ambulance coverage and extras coverage. The hospital and ambulance allows me to choose my doctor and choose a private run hospital paid for 100% by the insurance company should I require any procedures or treatment done. It also covers urgent ambulance transport which would normally be about $100.

The second aspect, extras cover, will pay benefits for things such as dental, optical (glasses and contacts), pharmaceuticals not covered under the subsidised benefits scheme we have here (this lets us buy medicine cheap - paid for by the government), physiotherapy, podiatry, chiropractor, natural medicine, preventative medicine and so on (mostly none of this is payed for by Medicare). The amount you choose to pay for your extras cover depends on how high and how many benefits you want to claim each year. So I may not get my private dentists bills payed for 100% but if I up my coverage, it gets closer to that figure.

If I didn't have private insurance I would have to rely on the public hospital system and not have my choice of specialist, surgeon or private hospital (unless I payed for it all out of my own pocket). Yes, the public system does have its weaknesses.
Waiting lists can exist though note this article is for a REGIONAL area of Australia, not a major city.(www.cairns.com.au...)

Overcrowding can occur inside the hospital, beds can run out and so on. I have family members who were treated in the public hospital system and were 100% satisfied. Regardless of your insurance, if you call an ambulance in an emergency, you will be admitted to a public hospital in the first instance.

[edit on 15/7/2009 by believer81]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 




It is worth noting that, while the US government is the only wealth industrialized nation that does not have universal health care, the government still spends more per capita than any other nation on health services.


Which is also why sick from around the world who have suffered under government run health care systems come HERE to go to our hospitals. It is also why they BEG us NOT to believe the same lies they were told when they brought into socialized health care. I mean, have you ever even BEEN to a VA Hospital? I have, from rotting bandages on the floor, dirt and run away staff infections - got me twice in the Columbia VA - and doctors that cannot speak english, so they just hand out pain medications, plus nurses and staff who act like they are doing you a favor to speak to you - let alone help you... Yes, government run health care at its finest.

Plus, healthcare cost our government so much because of their mandates on what needs to be done and what does not - THEIR mandates on what health INS Providers MUST cover is what has driven cost up - that and the bottom feeding lawyers that hang out at hospital entrances.

PLUS, ALL poor are always treated when they go to a hospital, so stop playing the liberals favorite card. It is bull to suggest that because I do not want to have year long waits, rationed care, and a 'health board" telling me what treatments I can and cannot have that I do not care for the poor.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by believer81
 



It also covers urgent ambulance transport which would normally be about $100.


Wow! Your costs are much lower than here in the states. An ambulance ride here will cost you about $400-$600, easily!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by believer81
 



It also covers urgent ambulance transport which would normally be about $100.


Wow! Your costs are much lower than here in the states. An ambulance ride here will cost you about $400-$600, easily!


Oops! sorry... things changed about 4 years ago.
$738 for a life threatening ambulance transport charge.
www.ambulance.net.au...

My private insurance pays for this. You can take out Ambulance insurance as a completely seperate entity on its own too.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join