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.

 

Health Care Reform Reality.. Anti-American

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
It seems to be that everyone is getting their panties in a knot over health care reform because they have forgotten the unique nature of America.

First, we are a free market capitalist country. That means that instead of the Nanny-state government, we let the private marketplace deliver goods and services. The private sector always delivers good and services more efficiently than the public sector.

Health is no different. It is a business just like everything else. it is sold in the marketplace and it responds to the laws of supply and demand and cause and effect. The efficiency of the market place means that US medical care is the best in the world, which is why that Canadian Premier bailed on the Canadian system and headed here when he needed real health care.

The problem is that people have gotten it into their heads that they anyone in heath care has to give it away and not earn a living at it. Yes, insurances companies make profits but that is why companies exist. No one would form a company to lose money or not turn a profit. If you cut out the profit motive what reason do people have to provide health care and insurance?

Yes there are some uninsured people but we have to be realistic. Health is not a right, just like owning a car is not a right, it is a commodity that you purchase and it is up to each individual to pull their own weight to be able to afford health care if they want it. And in case of emergencies, no one gets turned away even if they can't afford it. Anyone can have top rated health care in the US, but here you have to earn it just like anywhere else.

As for pre-existing conditions, the point of insurance companies like all companies is to make a profit for their shareholders. The disqualifrying of high risk people is a prudent business practice just like not giving car insurance to people with dangerous driving records is a prudent decision. We cannot bankrupt our country chasing after an impossible goal of universal health care.

We are not a socialist country. We operate on the free market system. If we allow health care to move out of the marketplace, then we have set a precedent for moving other aspects of our lives out of the marketplace until there is a single government state agency that runs our life from cradle to grave in return for taking care of us.

As far as health costs, the reason that this is spinning out of control is the high amount of regulation that the governments try to place on medical industries. De-regulation leads to innovation and greater cost effectiveness which in tern leads to the ability to cover more people with health care at lower costs.

Not a popular view but then the realism point of view never is.




posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Okay....so if you have no insurance or money for a doctor you have no right to be healthy and doctors are selling services purely for profits.

Yep that's kinda cold and calculating but I understand what you are saying I think.

That pretty much takes all the humantarian elements out of heathcare.

If I go to a doctor and I know he really does not care about anything but milking my excellent insurance and getting paid exorbitant amounts of money...what kind of healthcare is that?



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
if we were a true pure capitalist nation with no socialism whatsoever, we would not have these damned socialist programs:
social security
medicade
military
police/firemen
roads/highways
etc...basically, there would be nothing publically owned as publically owned stuff = governmental owned paid for by taxes (a social program also where you give up money so everyone can have these things)



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by superrat

As for pre-existing conditions, the point of insurance companies like all companies is to make a profit for their shareholders. The disqualifrying of high risk people is a prudent business practice just like not giving car insurance to people with dangerous driving records is a prudent decision.


Except that people can control their driving habits. Nobody get's to choose their pre-existing conditions. Your argument is invalid.




Originally posted by superrat
As far as health costs, the reason that this is spinning out of control is the high amount of regulation that the governments try to place on medical industries. De-regulation leads to innovation and greater cost effectiveness which in tern leads to the ability to cover more people with health care at lower costs.



You really don't understand how insurance companies work, do you?



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I never thought I would find myself agreeing with you on anything, however I think you have described the current US health care system quite well -- driven by profits and commercial interests in which people's lives are treated as business risk factors to the bottom line.

The irony is, of course, that you pointed these things out in some bizarro world defence of the status quo where lives are treated as part of the business risk to the bottom line.

One of the reasons that the current US system has failed is that the private sector only is more efficient that the public sector when those efficiencies increase profits. So when we talk about running health care efficiently, the average person in the street takes that to mean delivery of better quality health care to more people, while the insurance companies see it to mean finding ways to avoid delivering health care to ensure that profits margins are maintained.

Great post supperat although I know it pisses you off to point out how much you really do agree with me. Even unintentionally. (blows kiss)



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by superrat
We are not a socialist country. We operate on the free market system.

...and howze that working for you? Globalism eliminated the free market system. Notice the foreclosures? The unemployment? The world changed. One might want to take notice.

As to health care...taking care of your own is not a Commie plot.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
if we were a true pure capitalist nation with no socialism whatsoever, we would not have these damned socialist programs:
social security
medicade
military
police/firemen
roads/highways
etc...basically, there would be nothing publically owned as publically owned stuff = governmental owned paid for by taxes (a social program also where you give up money so everyone can have these things)


The US does seem to be going that way with the massive sell-off of government services to the private sector during the Bush years. Standard neo-liberal protocol. Defence is contracted out to Blackwater (oops Xe) and Haliburton et al. Roads, well remember that highway up from Mexico was going to be owned by a Spanish company (help me out iwht the facts on that one people). Police are being contracted out to Wackenhut andothers. Social Security almost was privatized under the idea that people should invest their own retirement funds in the stock market -- I'll ahve to look that up sometime when I have had some sleep.

Yep. Pretty much everything is for sale.



[edit on 12-2-2010 by metamagic]



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
What exactly is a "right?" Owning "arms" is a right. Why? (The quotes on "arms" is to remind strict constructionist types that it doesn't define the term with great specificity... do I have the "right" to own nukes?) Every generation pushes the concept of "right" a little bit further. Two hundred years ago I had the inalienable "right" to own my next door neighbor. Property rights. Now, my next door neighbor has the "right" to be "free." All very contentious. Fortunately, we Americans were able to sort these things out reasonably, right? Now there is a general Zeitgeist that thinks that maybe, just maybe, we all have a "right" not to die in the street just because we left our credit card at home. No question, every individual's health is their own responsibility: if you smoke two packs of cigarettes every day, eat McWhoppers by the pound and get in the car to put a letter in the mailbox on the corner, well... no pity here. On the other hand, if you're hit by a bus, come down with the flu, or get sucked into a machine at work... do you deserve to die because you only make $7.50/hour? Does anyone simply have a "right"... to live? Discuss.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Alot of religous organizations offered
free or close to free health care and
they recieved tax exempt status. That
changed around the 50's and 60's.

I guess we were not only a socialist
country at the same time we were in
the middle of the Cold War, but that
whole separation of church and state
never really existed either.

Insurance companies were generally
non-profit until recently. That's why
we had to bail out AIG, which happened
under a Republican admin. They worried
more about profit than their responsability
to the people who paid their premiums.

And while I would never wish someone
to become ill in this country, for
one week live in my shoes while I
try to payoff $200,000 for a heart attack
that I blame the V.A for.

I am 42 years old and I will never be
able to afford any health care ever again.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Yea, we live in a system where people are denied the "right" to persue natural healthcare, which would save many lives, often which are considered gone by western medicine. We have a system (capitalist) which denies people the right to use any but the socially approved (allopathic) medicine to treat any of their diseases, often at great expense to them, and often with lesser results. Personally i treat myself for all illnesses from herbs and vitamins, yet my goverment is now pushing to say that this is illegal...why? because it conflicts with the profits from western medicine. Why? because the capitalist system we live in sees NO profit from natural medicine as it cannot be patented, and so they do everything in their power to discredit and illegalize it. THIS is what is wrong with capitalism. Something that would be helpful to the masses, like natural or alternative medicine, goes completely unresearched and unapproved due to the fact that there is little profit in it.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
A preface:

I am a Libertarian, a Constitutionalist, and a great lover of liberty and equality across the board, even when it's uncomfortable or dangerous.

My Response:

I fundamentally disagree that socialized medicine is UnAmerican. We live in a nation that, presumably, works on the notion of State's Rights, by which States may create the system of laws that govern it's people.

Should a state wish to have a system of private insurance, so be it. Conversely, if a state wishes to have a socialized medicine policy and pay for it internally, that is perfectly acceptable as well.

I will certainly agree that there are many options on how to make our current healthcare system better without stooping to an Unconstitutional National Healthcare system, nothing prevents a state from doing it on their own.

I would suggest that State's Rights is quintessentially American and is discussed and/or considered practically never, even on a site as "Intellectual" as this one is.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
...and howze that working for you?


Considering we haven't enjoyed nearly the free market they keep saying we have, not so good really. This is not to say that the principles are not sound.

Many are capitalists just for the sake of it, but ignore the socialistic endeavors they happen to like (police, libraries, etc). There is no all or nothing, no black and white, in running a nation and those who follow that principle are either fools or liars.


Globalism eliminated the free market system. Notice the foreclosures? The unemployment? The world changed. One might want to take notice.


That's debatable, but not a bad point. I'd agree that things have become rather entwined in the digital age, but that is not to say that we could not recapture some of the independence we seek.


As to health care...taking care of your own is not a Commie plot.


That is also debatable. If it truly is being done for the beneficial purposes of the citizens I'd be more inclined to agree.

This seems rather unlikely, however, in America these days as there are many options that could improve the situation without National Healthcare. Not a single actual solution is being proposed that I have read, only more bureaucracy and political subterfuge.

When nations with small populations do this (Canada, France, etc) it isn't an easy task and requires great vigilance to ensure quality and to stem corruption.

When a nation of 300+ million with a large aging population tries with the persons making the choices are already corrupted and owned, there is a huge problem and the results will probably be far less attractive.



[edit on 13-2-2010 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think you are on to something. There is too much socialism in this country.
All we need is insurance companies to take care of our need for a price.

We pay for property insurance right? Well lets do away with the socialist fire departments and when a fire breaks out, let it consume your house and the insurance company will help you with your total loss.

We have the socialist police patrolling our streets to protect us against harm. Who needs it! Let the chaos begin and when you take a knife to the gut you can call your insurance company to fix that too.

We all pay insurance on our vehicles too. Why have a socialist dmv teach you the rules of the road and issue you a socialist drivers license when we have insurance to take care of our mishaps.

Just think of the money that could be saved without these socialist programs.
with the money saved, we can all pay a little more to the insurance company.

I think it's funny that as a people, we rely and depend on these socialist programs for everything from education to protection and when the # hits the fan we run to these socialist organizations to help you.

when the airlines aren't making enough money, they run to the government to bail them out.When the airlines can't keep you safe in the air, they call on the socialist government to buy them expensive equipment to try to keep you safe. When bankers and investors make bad loans and lose money, they call on the socialist government that everyone despises to bail them out.

Everyone hates the socialist except when they need them.




[edit on 13-2-2010 by Tartarspoon]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by superrat
 


If you think we are in a free market, go ahead and try to open a dime store next to Wal-Mart. Tell me how you do.

Freemarket means that more then a handful of companies have power.

Also, do some homework first before trying to claim that the US has the best healthcare. If we truly had the best healthcare, people wouldn't be clamoring for reform. And they ARE clamorin for reform.

The number one reason for bankruptcy in the US: medical bills
15,000 people die each year from not having health insurance
The US ranks 37th in the world for health care.
Yet we spend 140% more on healthcare then world's median.
Americans have spent 40% on healthcare just in the last decade.
And the United States is 37th on lifespan in the world.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by superrat


Health is no different. It is a business just like everything else. it is sold in the marketplace and it responds to the laws of supply and demand and cause and effect.



Except health, is a human life, not a car or house. Your arguments are all built upon just economic and hierarchy ideas which do not include any morals what so ever.

If the world was built, with ideas such as yours, you would be my slave and I would be somebody's dog.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPresident
Except health, is a human life, not a car or house.


Actually, health is also maintained only with food, water, and shelter as well, but those are not provided wholesale to each and every American, nor does anyone think they should.

They are subsidized for those most needy depending on the state, which is already done for healthcare. Let's recall that 50% is already provided by the government and things still aren't terribly great. Cost is high and quality isn't.


Your arguments are all built upon just economic and hierarchy ideas which do not include any morals what so ever.


I disagree. There is nothing amoral about it. Saying the government shouldn't do it does not preclude people from helping others, banding together as a community, or reaching out to those in need.


If the world was built, with ideas such as yours, you would be my slave and I would be somebody's dog.


This nation was built on those ideas, and it has provided the highest standard of living for the most amount of people that I know about in history.

Things are not black and white.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by elaine
 


You are correct with your assessment. Doctors, Hospitals, Insurance companies, etc. are in the business to make money. Yes, your doctor bills your insurance company but it is an unfair conclusion to say that he does not care about you. The free market works for us all because people "choose" their profession and then have a passion for it. Yes, they make money but they care for you because that is their chosen occupation and they are passionate about it. I, for one, would rather pay insurance premiums and a co-pay to a Dr. who loves what he or she does and, therefore, they make money, I get good healthcare and we are all happy. Healthcare is a privelage, not a right. When it becomes a right, the care will decline due to lower payments to doctors and then we will be treated by Dr.s who would rather be making more money in an easier profession that is not as regulated.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPresident
 


Yes it is moral. However, why should I work as hard as I do to provide health insurance for my family if someone else who is capable of working as hard as I do but chooses not to, is going to receive the same level of care on my dime? That does not make any sense whatsoever. Healthcare is not a "right"



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by superrat
The efficiency of the market place means that US medical care is the best in the world, which is why that Canadian Premier bailed on the Canadian system and headed here when he needed real health care.


Close to the truth some what.
The last word used to describe the US Health Service would be "efficient".

The US does have however , some of the Best doctors in the world.
This Premier , wipes his ass with 1000. dollar bills, of course he would want
the best doctor in this field to treat him.
Now sir, try something for us .

You, a US citizen, try to make a appointment to see the same doctor !!!!


On a side note, we in Ontario over the last few years have had to change our Health Cards , to have it Photo Identity, you want to know why ?

Too many Illegal Aliens crossing the borders , using the system.

The Illegals , Are Americans.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdl59
reply to post by MrPresident
 


Yes it is moral. However, why should I work as hard as I do to provide health insurance for my family if someone else who is capable of working as hard as I do but chooses not to, is going to receive the same level of care on my dime? That does not make any sense whatsoever. Healthcare is not a "right"


"Life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness".......is an unalienable right, right?Without healthcare, most do not have life, liberty or happiness.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by aero56]




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join