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.

 

I spent 3 hours in the ER on the 15th. I just got my $11,000.00 bill in the mail.

page: 28
81
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
What we care for is that there is no need to be FORCED under another socialist doctrine to pay for anyone else.




This is where the difference between the two ideologies becomes obvious.

You wont find one person in the UK or Canada or wherever, who believes they are being forced to pay anything... they find it fair that everyone pays into a pot and everyone benefits.
It's not being forced... It's called contributing for the benefit of everyone.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


I was just thinking that and you pipped me to the post!

I can't understand the mindset that thinks nationalised health care is free. It isn't and paid for through the same taxes we fund our respective countries' defence budgets with. Are the likes of ElectricUniverse just blinkered?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 




Well I think It's mainly the hatred of the Russians to be honest... and the South American dictators.

Don't forget, American propaganda is extremely powerful, as is all propaganda.



I pay taxes and I pay national insurance, and I'm happy for others to benefit because of my payments.


I guess electric universe would be all like "GET A JOB YOU COMMIE SCUM!!!" to anyone who needed to use the NHS or whatever.

I'll never really understand that mentality and I guess he/she will never understand my mentality of looking after everyone and allowing everyone, regardless of income or social standing, the same quality of healthcare.

That's why the NHS was born.... It's called progression.

And I for one am proud that my country has this type of healthcare.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


And that's the friggin scary thing. We've had moderators on this thread riding undeserved pedestals in regard to the OP's predicament and insane thinking from the likes of FryersFran and ElectricUniverse who think that nationalised health care is a step toward Communism. Maybe it is just an ideology thing, but I am with you and many others who think our taxes should afford us a decent level of medical care based on patient condition and not income.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove

Rather than mindless trips on Google to extract articles that don't relate to OP's problems in hand, could you begin to answer a few questions.


I have to wonder the legitimacy of the OP's problems, if it is true what he says there are already programs that he can apply for.


Originally posted by LarryLove

Are you happy with the status quo? If not, what changes would you like to see?


The end of the socialist/communist utopia mentality" in the U.S., including the socialism Europeans have been brainwashed to accept and want to force upon Americans. You can do whatever you want even if you are happy with your masters that's fine, but leave us out of it.


Originally posted by LarryLove
Should a patient be treated based on their condition and not level of income?


You have anything against affordable healthcare? There was a time when Americans could get their doctors to visit them, treat them and it didn't cost an arm and a leg, and neither was there "socialised healthcare"...


Originally posted by LarryLove
Do over 50 million Americans without insurance deserve alternate methods to attain cover?


A lot of Americans decide to have no insurance, and there are as many who don't know that there are already programs that they can apply for that would help them.

If families with children don't apply to medicaid they can apply for the "State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Despite ignorance from both Americans and Europeans alike there are programs out there that help needy families, including for healthcare.

If the OP is only getting $50 a month for medical reasons he can apply for disability and medicaid, and for SSI (Suplemental Security Income).

There is TANF, SNAP, and a myriad of other programs available, apart from charities that people can get food, clothing, and other help from, including churches, and other charities.



Originally posted by LarryLove
A nationalised health care system is paid for through taxes. It isn't free. If you are happy to support a trillion-dollar defence budget through taxation, why object to paying for medical coverage the same way?


We already have several sources to help people... we don't need more "socialism" and much less a system that even has been working in the U.S. for decades, the Veteran's hospitals are a form of socialised healthcare and has not worked that well.

You are happy with centralised government, and more draconian laws? that's fine, but leave the U.S. out, and if your masters try to force it upon the American people, even with all the brainwashing they want to throw at Americans they will find themselves facing another civil war.
edit on 30-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroReady
 


To add insult to injury, if you went out and hired an expensive lawyer to fight L&I you'd probably win.
This society makes you jump thru so many hoops and has a million ways to ensure all money ends up in the hands of those who already have lots.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


With respect, you won't answer questions nor remove yourself from dogmatic thinking to engage in constructive dialogue. My medical system has problems, so does yours. I'll agree to disagree with you because my intention in this thread isn't about extolling the virtues of nationalised health care, but to discuss what is right for a patient and not the profit margin.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


lmfao.....wow nothing biased there the second article written by an...get this....insurance company.....


comeon my friend please before you call wikipedia a leftist source....please check out your sources....now as to the first article...no one has said universal health care is the cats meow...but it is better than no health care...also that article is talking about personal bankruptcies...which has gone up the world over...have you not heard of this thing called the resession....man alive your agruements are getting weaker and weaker.
not only that....It was done by none other than the Frazer institute...omg...and you say things about the NWO....

now the tag you showed there was written by none other than someone....lol....associated with ..Bio -pharma...none what are they going to write about...sorry my friend but you have got to be kidding me....and they are not saying what the causes of the bankruptcies are the are just comparing personal bankrupties saying that if you have healthcare you should have less bankruptcies...now that is what is called a typical strawman arguement.

now lets ask ourselves would the

American Journal of Medicine be reasonable


BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of
all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and
bankruptcy laws have tightened.
METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court
records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated
reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.
RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these
medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for
medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical
bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three
quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attrib-
utable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,
the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.
CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. • The American Journal of Medicine (2009) xx, xxx


and then the myth continues....i will go really deep here i will not put up with these fragmented biased reports by the Insurance Lobbyists....I could go into a huge tirade of how the Frazer Institute is run by backroon lobbyists.


Published on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 by Reuters
Half of Bankruptcy Due to Medical Bills -- U.S. Study
by Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON - Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said on Wednesday.

The study, published in the journal Health Affairs, estimated that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans every year, if both debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children, are counted.

"Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who led the study.

"Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick. Health insurance offered little protection."

The researchers got the permission of bankruptcy judges in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas to survey 931 people who filed for bankruptcy.

"About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9 to 2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy," they wrote.

"Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness."

The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses.

"Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick," the researchers wrote.

Bankruptcy specialists said the numbers seemed sound.


source

and you cite how unreal wikipedia is.

Also like i say...I know it is no myth as i have Friends who have gone through it in the States....they were not poor they were middleclass and it ate they funds away.

Now are you going to say a HARVARD study is wrong also...most likely huh but here it is anyways


Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.

Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.


source

they go onto say this...


The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical causes of bankruptcy. With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges in five Federal districts (in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas) they administered questionnaires to bankruptcy filers and reviewed their court records.


I mean really the myth just continues....so please when you choose to call someones source....and then use a complete and utterly biased source with hidden agendas.....please try to use something neutral next time.

Is the US health system horrible....no one is saying that...could there be more compassion brought into the US healthcare system without Americans immediately thinking it is a welfare State for giving people care...that is the issue...It can work both ways you know...so i am struggling to understand your angst towards people having healthcare...it seems so strange...it does not all of a suddenmake your country socialist or communist....it makes your country compassionate.....so please tell and educate me on where the evil is in that.
Health care is not political....it is humane for gods sake...nothing more.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 



Food, water, shelter, and clothing are all more important than medical care.


... and you can rest assured that all of those things are provided in one way or another in civilized societies to those who can't otherwise afford them. So, I don't get your point.

Those of us who have enough to spare willingly contribute to the funding of these things through taxes or donations -- in most civilized countries. Yes, I am intentionally making a distinction between "civilized" countries and the US.

There are times when your "every man for himself" attitudes get to be a bit much.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
...
That's why the NHS was born.... It's called progression.

And I for one am proud that my country has this type of healthcare.



Yeah, and i can see by your avatar where that "progression" leads to...

i know it too well, as I said I have already lived, and experienced the "socialist progress"... Thanks but no thanks...

That "progress" saw the murder of over 110 million people, and millions more were inprisoned for not accepting "progress"...

History repeats itself, and we are facing the repeat of history.

Too many Europeans, and others have been brainwashed to no end and they can't see the road they are treading is nothing more than a swamp with no end.

Europeans, and others who have been brainwashed to no end can't see where you are being lead, but if communists are agreeing with your "socialization" maybe it is time to peal that cloth you have been put around your eyes and to inform yourself of the wonderful "progression" that the socialist/communist dogma brought to the world.

www.hawaii.edu...

Make no mistake, all this "socialization" is leading the world towards one goal, and it is not one of "unity, where we are all treated well"...
edit on 30-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Do you think that for a moment you could stop getting wrapped up in dogma and respond as a human being and not mccarthyism?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


The NHS isnt a recent thing, it was created in 1948 and guess what? Still no communism in the UK. Take a close look at our government and tell me they are socialists.
edit on 30-12-2010 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Arguing about which health care system is the best is like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end.
It is a complete waste of time.
Both systems have their pros & cons. Neither is sustainable in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
...
Yes, I am intentionally making a distinction between "civilized" countries and the US.

There are times when your "every man for himself" attitudes get to be a bit much.


Really? then tell us why Americans give out more in aid, and donations than any other country?...


This is the sort of arrogance that we see and expect from Europeans, and some others who like to brag about but in reality are completely ignorant about..



NEW YORK (AP) — Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charitable causes last year, setting a record and besting the 2005 total that had been boosted by a surge in aid to victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and the Asian tsunami.
Donors contributed an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006, a 1% increase when adjusted for inflation, up from $283.05 billion in 2005. Excluding donations for disaster relief, the total rose 3.2%, inflation-adjusted, according to an annual report released Monday by the Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy.

Giving historically tracks the health of the overall economy, with the rise amounting to about one-third the rise in the stock market, according to Giving USA. Last year was right on target, with a 3.2% rise as stocks rose more than 10% on an inflation-adjusted basis.

"What people find especially interesting about this, and it's true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors," Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said.

Individuals gave a combined 75.6% of the total. With bequests, that rises to 83.4%.

The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8%, went to religious organizations. The second largest slice, $40.98 billion or 13.9%, went to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries.

About 65% of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity, the report showed.

"It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country," said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism. Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.

Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.

www.usatoday.com...

Then of course when we show facts these same people tend to claim "Americans love to brag"...

edit on 30-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Slippery Slope logical fallacy.


A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Dear lord....

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? All this "socialism", "communism" deaths of millions..blah blah blah....

Not stuck in the 1950's much, are you? Better watch out, there might be a commie behind you RIGHT NOW!!

The Social Democracies that Europe has are nothing like the Governments of the old Soviet Union, which was never communist either in the true sense of the word, but rather Authoritarian single-party dictorships. Socialism is also a different ideology than communism, so I am totally confused why Americans confuse the two..

Well, actually I am not that confused, because I know from experience that unless you can break something down into a simple black/white, right/wrong, left/right explanation, alot of you guys simply cannot grasp it. There is no grey area, no between the lines, no room for maneuver. Pretty retarded really, but it's the way you guys have been brainwashed, to use your turn of phrase



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


America is a country of 300+ million people. Compare that to a much smaller country such as belgium and of course you'll give more. Care to compare your figures against the total EU?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


REPLY TO ELECTRIC UNIVERSE

You know what i find interesting is that you seem to go on about your american history.....the lousy 500 years of it...but do you know of any history other than your own...really....cause i do know a fair amount American history...but also about history of other nations.....so would you please enlighten us as to how healthcare leads to socialism....or for that matter communism.....your words are spiteful and vengeful to all things not american...but let me inform you that these same nations that your critizing have been in exsistance far longer than America....they have fought far greater numbers of wars...they have survivedmany many plagues and have been the forebearers of your so called American....not only that...you say you know so much about your history yet do you even have one bit of an idea how much influence in the american way comes from the influence of European Banking families since your so "informed" on the NWO....
I mean i could probably make you sink in the NWO info and how much research i have done into the Controllers of the world...and believe me they ARE NOT AMERICAN......they are old money....

So please back off on the history stuff before i wipe your bottom with it...and stick to the thread at hand...and please tell us how health care would lead the states into a "socialist" or "comunist" society. Because last time i looked Canada was niether of those.....

NOTE: sorry larrylove this was ment to be a reply to electric Universe...please forgive me....


edit on 083131p://f26Thursday by plube because: note to larry

edit on 083131p://f28Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


For crying out loud, oh yeah i forget your kind are against a free market... How silly of me...

BTW, spare me that BS about "act like a human"... Socialism does not grant you, or anyone else the ability to be more humane... I am a human, whatever I do with charities, is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, and neither is it any of your business to try to force Americans to take on your socialist "utopia"... which last i checked is nowhere near an utopia.

BTW, you have got to be very naive to claim the healthcare spending/deficits of Europeans countries have nothing to do with your socialised healthcare when your countries are running wild deficits which you can't pay, as for the U.S. it has more to do with the $13 trillion + dollars stolen by the Feds, and the billions in bailouts which are taking the U.S. to a depression/crisis that has one purpose, the consolidation of all power to one state/government, which means centralizing all power to a few.

These same people have been using several environmental problems, like population, and AGW, to push for a One World Government. Such a One World Government can oly exist if every nation becomes socialist.

We have several threads about this including papers in the UN that specifically state this is their goal.

That is the goal of all the indoctrination Europeans have come to embrace and which will put us all in a new One World Socialist Dictatorship.
edit on 30-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Oh and hey, I could keep on searching for more than this but it should sufice.



Canadians sent to U.S. for neonatal care
LISA PRIEST
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jul. 24, 2007 1:53AM EDT
Last updated Friday, Apr. 03, 2009 10:09AM EDT

Women with high-risk pregnancies in three provinces have been sent at taxpayers' expense to give birth in the United States, where fragile infants spend weeks to months in hospital neonatal intensive-care units.

Expectant mothers from British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario have been sent to four U.S. states, a development some attribute to an increase in the number of premature births, a nursing shortage and a stretched health-care system.

This year, 26 mothers from B.C. have been sent to three hospitals in Washington State; nine patients remain there

today, according to Sarah Plank, spokeswoman for the B.C. Health Ministry.

In Ontario, 10 women with high-risk pregnancies were transferred to U.S. hospitals from April to the end of June, according to Kris Bailey, executive director of CritiCall, an emergency-referral service for physicians in that province. That is one patient more than the entire number Ontario transferred to the United States in fiscal 2006-07. In Alberta, four pregnant women were transferred to Montana this year.

Mothers sent across the border are typically those who have gone into labour before 32 weeks gestation, at which point the premature babies require the highest level of neonatal intensive care. With no beds available in their home province or nearby, expectant mothers are often sent by air ambulance to hospitals in Washington, Montana, Michigan and New York.
...


www.theglobeandmail.com...

If Canadians and people from all over the globe are sent to the U.S. for medical care it must mean all the socialised healthcare around the world are not perfect.

Ah, and one last thing, we have had socialised healthcare in the U.S. for a very long time... The hospitals where this socialised healthcare is practiced are called Veteran's Hospitals.


Substandard Conditions at VA Centers Noted
90% of More than 1,000 Problems Reported Are Routine, Officials Say

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 22, 2007

A review by the Department of Veterans Affairs of 1,400 hospitals and other veterans care facilities released yesterday has turned up more than 1,000 reports of substandard conditions -- from leaky roofs and peeling paint to bug and bat infestations -- as well as a smaller number of potential threats to patient safety, such as suicide risks in psychiatric wards.

The investigation, ordered March 7 by VA Secretary Jim Nicholson, found problems such as rugs loaded with bacteria from patient "accidents," ceiling and floor tiles with asbestos that needs to be removed, as well as exposed pipes and other fixtures from which mental patients could hang themselves.
...

www.washingtonpost.com...


BTW, before you all go claimimng "it only happens in the U.S. socialised system"...

www.youtube.com...

Ths is what happens when the socialist system bankrupts a nation, but since in the U.S. we were not having this problem, yet, the socialist elites/feds had to bankrupt the U.S. some other way, including stealing over $13 trillion U.S. dollars, plus the socialised bailouts, and other socialist takeovers. When a president announces the governments of the U.S. and Canada are taking over a PRIVATE COMPANY that is socialism. Heck Chavez has been doing it for a long time now.
edit on 30-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.


AGAIN!. I hope you have money and your family members aren't dying. Keep preaching.

ALSO, countries are becoming bankrupt not because of health care (that would be why PEOPLE are becoming bankrupt), but because the BANKS and BROKERS pulled off the biggest SCAM the world has ever seen.

amirite?



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join