Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with everything you say. But you're talking about what was, and how supply and demand works. But that was then and this is now. And our country needs to evolve to a place beyond considering healhcare a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. We are taking about the common good, here. Phrases like "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...."promote the General welfare..." come to mind.
I think you raise a valid point here, but the root cause of this was -- precisely -- the blurring of the line between individual benefit and individual responsibility; something that arose on Madison Avenue rather than Wall Street. (Sorry, but I don't buy into the fantasy of "common good" -- that is a buzzword used by anyone who seeks access to the power of the State fir his/her own agends.)
Quote:
Denying people life-saving healthcare does not refect a concern with Life or the Pursuit of Happiness. Making fisrt-class medical care deendent on one's persinal wealth is hardly "promot[ing] the Genral welfare".
With the exception of the usual precautionary exams (and those, I would argue, are more under the control of the vigilant health-care consumer than the twerp who smokes a pack a day), no one is being denied life-saving care; that is, when necessary, provided by the public sector. The quality might not be quite as good, but another layer of bureaucracy won't "improve" it.
Quote:
The insurance companies benefit from the Supreme Court decisions which conveyed the rights of individual to coporations. As such, they are not immne to having their ethical behavior called into question. And there is nothing ethical about cancelling medical insurance coverage to people who become ill, or denying that coverage to people who are sick when they apply.
For openers, let's not forget that employer-provided health insurance originally evolved as a wartime "fringe benefit" for workers (often female, BTW ) who could not be offered cash raises due to prce controls. The "rights" weren't "conveyed to corporations"; rather; the floodgates were opened to a new form of distortion, pitched by Madison Avenue to the stay-at-home suburban "triailing spouse" who places a disproportionately high value on an unattainable level of security -- and has now been given a generous sum of the working spouse's employer's largesse to pursue it -- provided spousey stays healthy, productive and employable him/herself.
And ironcally, this same clientele is now going to find itself squeezed into the "Medicaid ghetto", so that Obama and Co. can "deliver the goods" to ACORN, et al.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-17-2012 at 08:39 PM..
It seems you swerving towards the healthcare is a right territory, which surprises me. As a healthcare provider you do not have any right to my labor. Promoting the general welfare is not the same as providing general welfare.
I can't come to any other conclusion. Again -- it's not a commodity. It's realistic, ethical pont of view reflected in our founding documents and in the capacity of the incredibly skilled and devoted people who make up our health care professionals. They can do the job. But they need to work for the good of patients, not for the profit of the insurance companies.
Quote:
Again healthcare is a finite resource, looking to the past may help solve today's problems.
Lack of ethics, indifference, incompetence, I don't particularly care about the motivation behind the healthcare decisions as to why any third party denies service. (the government will need to deny service too, if it becomes our insurer, it already does for Medicare and Medicaid). When someone else pays for your healthcare, they make the choices. There is no reason to believe the government, or any other third party scheme you may want to come up with, would be any better than an insurance company. There is ample evidence the existence of third party payers drive costs up.
Costs, which currently consume nearly 20% of GNP, are projected to increase at an average of nearly 6% per year over the next decade -- with the insurance companies calling the shots.
I can't come to any other conclusion. Again -- it's not a commodity. It's realistc, ethical consideration reflected in our founding documents and in the capacity of the incredibly skilled and devoted people who make up our health care professionals.
Costs, which currently consume nearly 20% of GNP, are projected to increase at an average of nearly 6% per year over the next decade -- with the insurance companies calling the shots.
While highly "believeable", this is unsustainable. The status quo is not an option if we intend to maintain a viable economy. Period.
I absolutely agree, healthcare costs are out of control. We also seem to agree that third parties are at least partly to blame for the increased costs. ( not only for profit insurance companies, the government too). If you replaced insurance companies tomorrow with some other 3rd party payer, costs would continue their relentless march up. So the choices are to revamp who pays for what or to ration the resources that are available.
We do diverge on health care being a right. I am unaware of any right that is derived at the expense of another. As much as you find the fact that healthcare is a commodity distasteful, it is.
Last edited by shorebaby; 03-17-2012 at 08:35 PM..
No one could afford to pay for 100% of their healthcare. Impossible.
That leaves insurance companies or the government. Or this disaster we currently have in place, with the worst components of all three (self -- big insurance --big gov), which is currently consuming 1/5 of our GNP, and rising at 10-15% per year.
Something is going to have to give. And the current crop of politicans on both sides of the aisle have neither guts nor a clue. What they DO have of course is their own gold-plated lifetime healthcare plan...
The entire premise of insurance is cost averaging and sharing across a large pool. Some people won't pay 100% and some people will pay subsidize them.
As for the healthcare of Congress, they have the same plan as any federal employee. It's no more gold-plated than your average GS-7. They do have access to docs on capitol hill which saves time, but they pay extra for that . And it's not lifetime. I'm not in the habit of defending congress but those are the facts.
To all of you conservatives out there who rail against socialized medicine:
You say you don't want your taxes to pay for other people's healthcare. I understand that point of view. Unless you've been living under a rock the last 50 years then you know that the price of healthcare has evolved to a point to where it is out of reach for the vast majority of Americans. My challenge to you if you oppose socialized medicine is to offer viable solutions that would bring that cost down to a point that the lowest wage earners in this country could afford an extended hospital stay and the necessary followup therapy and/or care that is required to treat a major illness.
You say you want people to pay for their own medical care, well either do something to bring down the cost or accept socialized medicine as the alternative. The system has gotten to a point where it cannot sustain itself in its current form. None of us choose to be sick so you cannot expect medical services to be reserved solely for the ultra-rich. That is a system that is doomed to failure.
Nope. Republicans (along with Democrats) make sure that American citizens aren't allowed to legally purchase their prescriptions from Canada in order to save hundreds or sometimes thousands of dollars. FDA says that Canada's drugs aren't "FDA approved", so that means freedom of choice, free markets, free trade are all out the window. And Republican politicians don't seem to have a problem with that. Neither do Democrats.
The system is stacked against the poor. Costs are driven up on purpose to line the pockets of corporations/pharma giants, and those trying to decide how to afford food for their child or medicine for their child on a tight budget are left to fend for themselves. The Republican solution is do nothing, screw them. The Democrat solution is take money from everyone who makes decent money and funnel it to the rich pharma giants through socialized medicine, take care of the poor, screw the middle class and who cares if they end up poor.
The entire premise of insurance is cost averaging and sharing across a large pool. Some people won't pay 100% and some people will pay subsidize them.
I know how businesses work. The point is that the entire premise of insurance is inapplicable to healthcare. Look at the cost of medical insurance. Look at how many people are cut off or denied access due to pre-existing condiitions. THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE BLEEDING US WHITE. THEY ARE NO LONGER COMPETENT TO EXERT CONTROL OVER ONE-FIFTH OF OUR GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT.
Quote:
As for the healthcare of Congress, they have the same plan as any federal employee. It's no more gold-plated than your average GS-7. They do have access to docs on capitol hill which saves time, but they pay extra for that . And it's not lifetime. I'm not in the habit of defending congress but those are the facts.
I stand (partially) corrected:
From Fact Check:
In addition, members of Congress also qualify for some medical benefits that ordinary federal workers do not. They (but not their families) are eligible to receive limited medical services from the Office of the Attending Physician of the U.S. Capitol, after payment of an annual fee ($491in 2007). But services don’t include surgery, dental care or eyeglasses, and any prescriptions must be filled at the member’s expense.
House and Senate members (but not their families) also are eligible to receive care at military hospitals. For outpatient care, there is no charge at the Washington, D.C., area hospitals (Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center). Inpatient care is billed at rates set by the Department of Defense.
JOBS...jobs....jobs....when people have jobs they can pay for their own healthcare....usually in-unison with the employer's contribution.
Obama is a huuuge hypocrite....it's his strategy to hate Capitalism, killing jobs in every way he can, like his moratorium on drilling, was it for six months? and he knew he was destroying tons of jobs that depended upon the gulf drilling, and then he wants to give free healthcare.
Sure! destroy jobs---what a Communist would do, making millions more of we citizens needy, and be there to rush in as their savior, and give them free healthcare, assuring the communist millions more votes for himself, and staying in power to finish off the freedoms of our Capitalist nation, fundamentally transforming us into a slave-nation.
I know how businesses work. The point is that the entire premise of insurance is inapplicable to healthcare. Look at the cost of medical insurance. Look at how many people are cut off or denied access due to pre-existing condiitions. THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE BLEEDING US WHITE. THEY ARE NO LONGER COMPETENT TO EXERT CONTROL OVER ONE-FIFTH OF OUR GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT.
I stand (partially) corrected:
From Fact Check:
In addition, members of Congress also qualify for some medical benefits that ordinary federal workers do not. They (but not their families) are eligible to receive limited medical services from the Office of the Attending Physician of the U.S. Capitol, after payment of an annual fee ($491in 2007). But services don’t include surgery, dental care or eyeglasses, and any prescriptions must be filled at the member’s expense.
House and Senate members (but not their families) also are eligible to receive care at military hospitals. For outpatient care, there is no charge at the Washington, D.C., area hospitals (Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center). Inpatient care is billed at rates set by the Department of Defense.
Who is competent to run 1/5 of he economy? The same people who brought us the DMV?
As far as pre-existing conditions are concerned, do you favor forcing insurance companies to issue home owners insurance while someone's house is on fire?
Nope. Republicans (along with Democrats) make sure that American citizens aren't allowed to legally purchase their prescriptions from Canada in order to save hundreds or sometimes thousands of dollars. FDA says that Canada's drugs aren't "FDA approved", so that means freedom of choice, free markets, free trade are all out the window. And Republican politicians don't seem to have a problem with that. Neither do Democrats.
The system is stacked against the poor. Costs are driven up on purpose to line the pockets of corporations/pharma giants, and those trying to decide how to afford food for their child or medicine for their child on a tight budget are left to fend for themselves. The Republican solution is do nothing, screw them. The Democrat solution is take money from everyone who makes decent money and funnel it to the rich pharma giants through socialized medicine, take care of the poor, screw the middle class and who cares if they end up poor.
I agree with some of what you posted, cost could be reduced with more competition allowed but many of these drugs would not be needed for the vast majority of people if we took better care of ourselves.
Why should your doctor have to prescribe drugs for lowering cholesterol instead of first telling you to change your diet and exercise? You may just need to give up or greatly limit meat and other foods that drive cholesterol sky high.
Why do we have sin taxes on cigarettes but not fast food? Why doesn't that pail of soda from a convenience store cost as much as a pack of cigarettes?
Maybe the doctors should be telling people who are overweight to put the fork down a little earlier and stop eating so much crap and maybe you just might cure your high blood sugar,also while your at it throw away the salt shaker.
Many people have self destructive behaviors and instead of listening to good advice they will argue and complain right up until they take their last dying breath, maybe the only way for some people to learn is to make bad choices so expensive that they are not worth pursuing.
By the way, I am not against UHC but we as a people need to make some serious changes to make it more affordable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
