What Can Americans do About Health Care? (financial, retire, money)

[Tjukken]

[quote=anonymous;1172818]It's funny you say that. In no way, shape, or form, do I want an elected official to decide what is medically necessary for me. I'd rather pay someone, an unelected medical professional perhaps, like a doctor - to determine what was best for me.
/QUOTE]


Do u realy think that in the rest of I world. The politicians deside wther u are need medical care or not?

do u realy think an spokes person from some huge insurance company whos only job is to make sure the company dosent loose any money. Is better to make that choise?

In the I world the doctor makes the choise. and goverment pays.. according to the doctors choise. thers no spokes person from the goverment there to discus the doctors choises. just the doctor and u.

I have friends who moved to USA. some of them are working for insurance companies.
a femal friend me has a job where she makes sure that the doctors dosent give the company unessesary xpenses. So her job is to push the doctors not to do xpensive treatments. And she got no absolutly no medical training att all. All she knows are numbers and costs.. And she is the one who decides if the insurance companie is covring a treatment or not.


I ratter have a doctor make that call... i think u want that too.

[roanoker 4]

If anyone out there is getting ready to retire and not yet 65 for Medicare and they will lose their group health insurance, my advice:

1. Try to pay for a PPO type individual health plan. Depending on your health status, the premiums can be somewhat affordable.

2. Be careful this PPO insurance plan does not have an expiration date. The insurance companies will cancel you out when it is convenient on their part.

3. Be wary of HMO plans. The insurance companies are in control of your health.

4. Don't expect your employer to continue to pay for your health insurance when you retire or after you retire. The system is going broke.

5. Pray that we get a democratic congress and a democratic President in '08!

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

By this logic if your child is kidnapped don't expect any help from a federally funded force, it's certainly not a crime that threatens those taxpayers who have no children.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. When I stated "ALL", I didn't mean collectively, but "ALL" as in every single individual.

Who knows? Had she had healthcare she might still be alive

I believe that 96 years qualifies as having lived without healthcare.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

Who DOESN'T have an agenda? Despite his slant, the FACTS remain that America has a healthcare system that lags behind the rest of the world.

Sorry, this is NOT a fact. You're right that everyone has an agenda, but the question is "Does it skew the presentation?" In MM's case, it does, just as you seem to think that the US's healthcare system is the worst in the world, probably because of his "documentary".

FACT remains that we live in a Democracy, where "statist" doesn't mean the same thing as a Communist "statist" agenda. After all, with the private insurance system, you are beholden to the whims of UNELECTED decision-makers. Call me crazy, but I'd rather be able to ELECT those who purport to be able to decide what's "medically necessary" for me (which I can't do under the private system).
While people such as yourself wrangle over ideology of what the government should and shouldn't do, people die. You say the government should ONLY be concerned with protecting its citizens' property, but for some reason, in your mind the government has no place protecting or investing in its most valuable asset - its people.

What you CAN do under the private system is change insurance companies.

English Lesson:

statism: The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy. (whether democratic or not)

property: Something owned; a possession.(which includes one's body)

After all, nobody will ever FORCE you to take government insurance. Your freedom intact, you can go on living in your bubble of self-sufficiency (though we'll conveniently forget how much government money undoubtedly went into subsidizing your education, etc.)

Have you ever heard of private schools? Because my family was poor as I was growing up and because I didn't know that I had a choice, I DID attend public schools. However, that changed when I became a responsible adult, in spite of my previous public education, as I financed my own education. If I can live in my "bubble of self-sufficiency", why should I finance your healthcare and pay into an inefficient bureaucracy? If you're deserving, I would be more than willing to help you pay your own hospital/doctor/insurance bills if a crisis arises.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. When I stated "ALL", I didn't mean collectively, but "ALL" as in every single individual.

OK, here's the part I just don't understand, WHY is it fine for the government to be involved with protecting an individual's property but not his/her health? All the stuff in the world isn't worth a tinker's damn if you're dying and unable to get care.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by burdell

OK, here's the part I just don't understand, WHY is it fine for the government to be involved with protecting an individual's property but not his/her health? All the stuff in the world isn't worth a tinker's damn if you're dying and unable to get care.

Exactly. It's called a civilized society. So should the CDC and other agencies also be terminated? When the welfare of society is threatened it is the governments job to step in.

[skytrekker]

Originally Posted by sunnyhelena

Exactly. It's called a civilized society. So should the CDC and other agencies also be terminated? When the welfare of society is threatened it is the governments job to step in.

A civilized society would allow its citizens affordable or nearly free health care.
A society that subjects its citizens health to predatory for profit companies is void of any kind of values or social conscience.
I am tired of welfare to the CEO's and shareholders of insurance companies and drug companies-

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

OK, here's the part I just don't understand, WHY is it fine for the government to be involved with protecting an individual's property but not his/her health? All the stuff in the world isn't worth a tinker's damn if you're dying and unable to get care.

The government should protect an individual's property from others, not from disease or self-inflicted injury. A component of protecting an individual's property is allowing him/her to keep what he/she earns without fear of being jailed.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

A civilized society would allow its citizens affordable or nearly free health care.
A society that subjects its citizens health to predatory for profit companies is void of any kind of values or social conscience.
I am tired of welfare to the CEO's and shareholders of insurance companies and drug companies-

You forget that someone must pay for it. To be absolutely accurate, you are saying that a civilized society should force some individuals, under the threat of imprisonment, to pay for the health care of others who do not care to pay for it themselves.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

The government should protect an individual's property from others, not from disease or self-inflicted injury. A component of protecting an individual's property is allowing him/her to keep what he/she earns without fear of being jailed.

So when you have to pay six figures for your heart surgery because your PPO opts out, and a lien is slapped on your private home that is acceptable to you, then?