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.
The government is elected, we can use the government to enforce the laws
that will restrain and eliminate all the private interests that have raised costs
over the last 4 decades.
When the churches ran health care, they did so as non-profits.
They provided care for everyone who needed it. Alas, big corporations,
big banks and a corrupt government had resources the churches did not, they
took over health care like a mafia owning all the strippers and strip clubs
and liquor licenses and selling protection so you don't get mugged.
Don't pretend there is a solution without force. For-profit corporations
are never going to undercharge and turn down money. They must be
forced to do so by government.
Non-profit health care is the only solution, as a right of the citizen.
No more "insurance" scams, no more hundreds of millions for fat cats
living in McMansions and buying politicians who should be protecting
our interests instead of taking campaign contributions and becoming
millionaires themselves by selling us out.
I agree with this as well. I know with my mother I had to seek out Christian based/non profit providers to prevent her from just be treated like a cash cow at the risk of her well being. It wasn't perfect either as they are still about the money somewhat too and have to work within the expensive healthcare delivery framework too, but the results were better.
So why not allow catastrophic insurance policies? It's really no different than having life insurance.
Because every person gets sick and diseased and dies or gets injured.
Insurance in an ethical sense is for something that "might" happen.
Illness and risk of bodily injury are the human condition, a fact of life
not a contingency of chance.
Because every person gets sick and diseased and dies or gets injured.
Insurance in an ethical sense is for something that "might" happen.
Illness and risk of bodily injury are the human condition, a fact of life
not a contingency of chance.
Non sense, most people go thru there entire life without some horrible disease, or injury, The amount of money people shell out for insurance could be invested in an account accessible to pay for the deductible on a catastrophic plan.
Also if the first 10 or 20 thousand is your responsibility, you will shop around and make better choices, It will also make the doctors,drug companies, and hospitals compete for your business, thus bringing down the cost.
Mandates matter and should be utilized, for something as important as health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
Corporations who provide "insurance" and "hospitalization" are overcharging
by leaps and bounds. They are abusing their place, feeding the ceos and
shareholders massive profits and bilking the government.
Let's face it, Obamacare doesn't work because it is a sellout to the insurance
companies and all the various ladder rings of duplication in the health system
chain of parasities. That is the only reason why Obamacare doesn't work..
I'm not talking about "single PAYER".
I'm talking about a public provider, the total elimination of the profit motive
in health care.. except for new technologies, and the doctors and nurses
who actually work to give us care.
No more greedy corporations who have done nothing but lie and lobby
that "competition" will bring down prices. That is a disgusting lie.
Competition is a farce and not only in health care.
ALL insurance companies should have been made to abide by the guidelines of ACA - and if there had not been partisan opposition, there would have been price caps utilized.
Insurance companies often settle with medical facilities for a cost that is far less than what the medical facility will settle for directly with the consumer. Therefore, that is the base of what the cost cap should have been structured to meet what insurance companies and hospital settle with each other for.
The insurance companies know the hospital game and the hospital companies know the insurance game. When these two are brought to exposure of fact. then Cost will become forced down, and then there needs to be a caveat that Insurance Companies should not own Hospitals and Hospitals should not own insurance companies. BUT if Insurance companies owned hospitals, they are not and cannot cheat themselves, because its a loose loose proposition. or if hospitals owned insurance companies they cannot cheat themselves, because its a loose loose proposition. Then The matter can become more of managing the lowered premiums, and severely impose the previous program, where insurance companies had to refund the excess charges back to the consumer, when their pay out are out of balance and their profit margin is out of balance to the money collected on the high side.
Eventually, the system will get a correction to function, but it also has to put caps on Medical Procedures and get rid of the "Become a Doctor -Get Rich Program", and get back to the oath that was taken.
When we set a system to reduce the cost of medical school and for the cost reduction, people have to work service agreements in place, then the cost will be reduced for services.
government also must gain control over pharmaceuticals, and limit the time of patent's, because many of these companies use Government Grants and University Grant and Students who work on grant programs and professors who work on grant programs to produce various medicines, therefore, this wild profit and prolonged patent to companies after they'd used all these variations of government grants, can be contained and the cost can be managed to be made lowered. Then promote clarity on Generic's which must meet equality with a brand name, then again the cost if forced down.
The younger generation who has immediate access to INFORMATION, will compile the data and they will force change, because they are more informed than previous generations, because they have the tools and it is part of their common life actives to utilize information technology, as well as communication via social exchange and thus they have power via these combinations to not become fleeced nor duped like previous generations who had limited access to such information and limited means to work in concert, because now social media can build social coalitions rapidly.
The Game of Industrial Greed has a limited life-cycle in the society of the future generations. Information is powerful and the more it is utilized the more powerful the people become against the collusive and abusive usage of language to keep the consumer's uninformed. The usage of 20 letter words will not be a hindrance to the young people of the future, because the computer tech can translate it into simple layman langues by the swipe of a finger.
As this comes to be part of the future, the wealth gathering by collusive gaming against the population will become a thing of the past. Already Artificial Intelligence will give the people the instant ability to translate any convoluted word usages into simple language.
This will help us with Food as well, because when people use information to simplify the ingredient list and use technology to input information on blood type and other critical data, it can associate the information and know what is toxic and what is not, how much toxicity a certain chemical system analysis of individual can take before there is adverse reaction, and this will force truth in labeling. The wordsmiths will no longer be utilized to confound the people.
We are just beginning to learn how to truly use computing tech in our everyday lives, it took the past 50 yrs to get data input, build systems that can associate and managed large complex calculations of associations to give us more exacting data analysis. This will improve tremendously. At a future time, people will use the tech they now create to make games, to do real life processing that is useful and beneficial to the individuals.
Apparently some people's common sense filters don't turn all the way on.
Self pay sounds great for regular preventative care and colds, but when your family is financially destroyed because someone gets cancer, I'd say anyone who thinks that is a good system has a permanent "moron" filter turned on.
Such notions are reasonable for one who has only experienced our glorious socialist system (post 1933) and debauched money system.
Before "socialism" destroyed the old fashioned healthcare system, where many hospitals were operated by (shudder) religious groups, whose staff were unpaid zealots ("sisters" and "brothers" and "priests"), I doubt that people were financially ruined by a lengthy stay.
In fact, if you could pay, you had a private room.
If you couldn't - you might have to endure the wide open charity ward... or even help trot bedpans for other sick people. Such indignity! Meh.
But now, those once free hospitals had to shift to comply with the socialist tax system, and their generous free care is but a memory.
Non sense, most people go thru there entire life without some horrible disease, or injury, The amount of money people shell out for insurance could be invested in an account accessible to pay for the deductible on a catastrophic plan.
Also if the first 10 or 20 thousand is your responsibility, you will shop around and make better choices, It will also make the doctors,drug companies, and hospitals compete for your business, thus bringing down the cost.
bill
MOST PEOPLE?
You better do some reading.
The stats for cancer alone is one in every four. If you mean 75% aren't going to get cancer, fine, but now let's talk about heart disease, diabetes, any one of the hundreds of other ailments that can ruin your life that also have statistical analysis done.
Okay maybe I'm naive, but I've a Canadian friend who just described his serious surgery, five day hospital stay, all the tests and medicines and doctors visits involved in pre and post surgery and it cost him-ready for this? Not a single, solitary penny.
Canada has a single payer system.
Contrast that with your medical coverage (unless you're rich and have the Mercedes of great medial coverage as our rich and government officials have) and what would your cost be for the same medical issue? I dare say a lot more than not a penny.
So here we have a tried and true system that works great for our neighbors to our North.
A single payer system.
Why--oh why--cannot we institute a system like this??
Corporations who provide "insurance" and "hospitalization" are overcharging
by leaps and bounds. They are abusing their place, feeding the ceos and
shareholders massive profits and bilking the government.
Let's face it, Obamacare doesn't work because it is a sellout to the insurance
companies and all the various ladder rings of duplication in the health system
chain of parasities. That is the only reason why Obamacare doesn't work..
I'm not talking about "single PAYER".
I'm talking about a public provider, the total elimination of the profit motive
in health care.. except for new technologies, and the doctors and nurses
who actually work to give us care.
No more greedy corporations who have done nothing but lie and lobby
that "competition" will bring down prices. That is a disgusting lie.
Competition is a farce and not only in health care.
So government oversight is a fail when overseeing the corporations that supply insurance and healthcare??????
So the government who failed to oversee corporate insurnce and healthcare is now going to be responsible for overseeing your healthcare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
corporate competition and some fed guidelines are the best solution. checks and balances by feds and competition are required. going to either extreme is a huge fail but corporate dominanace would be preferable if competition is allowed. The feds are the ones that eliminated cross state competition.
The feds are a huge fail when they apply too much control. the VAis a good example of what federal single payer healthcare would look like/
So government oversight is a fail when overseeing the corporations that supply insurance and healthcare??????
So the government who failed to oversee corporate insurnce and healthcare is now going to be responsible for overseeing your healthcare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
corporate competition and some fed guidelines are the best solution. checks and balances by feds and competition are required. going to either extreme is a huge fail but corporate dominanace would be preferable if competition is allowed. The feds are the ones that eliminated cross state competition.
The feds are a huge fail when they apply too much control. the VAis a good example of what federal single payer healthcare would look like/
No, IMHO, the VA is a rotten example of what a failed single payer system is (too much red tape, too many fingers in the pie?) while Canada is a stellar example of a working single payer system that's effective for a whole nation.
Let's emulate the one that works and not the one that doesn't.
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.
Mandates matter and should be utilized, for something as important as health care.
