Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Preventive Health Care.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 marylandcutie
Joined: 1/3/2007
Msg: 2
Preventive Health Care. Page 1 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Health care in the US is disease care. True "health" care would pay for the types of things you describe to prevent and maintain wellness. It IS cheaper in the long run to avoid becoming ill. Once you're sick you're climbing UP a hill and health insurance companies are beginning to learn this.

In the last few years many are providing chiropractic and acupuncture treatments because the customers (you) are demanding it and the stats show that these treatments avoid expensive surgery so the insurance co makes mo money!

These treatments had once been labeled quackery and voodoo, then marginally accepted and now sought after by the public to avoid drugs and surgery. Hopefully the trend will continue.

Insurance is all about making money like any business. Unfortunately it's been at the expense of our well being for too long.
 IndKyPerson
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 5/3/2007 7:10:47 PM
Why do I have to pay for gasoline, childcare, my car, house, food, telephone, internet, cable tv, electricity, garbage pickup, water, soda, coffee, vacations, cell phone, candy, cigarettes, books, bicycles.................................
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 5/4/2007 8:35:25 AM

Wouldn't Paying for "Preventive treatment" be cheaper in the long run?

Yes......toyou...

NOT to the medical industries or the pharmacutical companies.

Doctors are trained to detect and maintain problems...they are not trained to prevent them. How so, you ask?

They spent about 20 hours on nutritional training in medical school.

How do you prevent diseases from occuring?

Everything you put in your body affects your body.

Food is fuel. You are what you eat.
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 5/5/2007 11:08:15 AM
powervamp: ..."to you..." meant all people...I wasn't implying that you were a lazy freak...sorry if it sounded that way. What I was trying to say is...the only person that can prevent one from getting a myraid of dieases is oneself.

The medical and pharma. industries are more powerful than the insurance industry...so the defintion of what is "insurable" is being narrowed...thus they still make a profit...which, of course, is the bottom line.

I don't think it's not so much that doctors have no interest in curing/preventing illness, it's that they have no knowledge of how to. Their just not trained that way....besides the fact that most of the knowledge they do get is via the medical/pharma industries. Doctors are sent free samples of drugs all the time...drugs approved by the FDA, based on studies done by the companies seeking approval! How's that for a self-serving conflict of interest.

Interesting to note you put this thread in the politics forum. From what I understand, there are more pharma. lobbyists in Washington than senators and congresspeople combined.

There never will be a cure for cancer...whole industries would collapse...tens of thousands thrown out of work...billions in potential profits lost...

Edit:...Many docs. do have the knowledge...but are afraid to speak out, fearing the ramifications of doing so. Some docs. have...

Caldwell B. Esselstyn
John McDougall
T. Colin Campbell

...to name a few...
 IndKyPerson
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 5/8/2007 9:00:25 AM
Didn't meen to imply lazy or freeloader either. Nothing is "free".
Hell, if it were up to me employers would get out of role providing health care.
I am all for private "untaxed" health care. Each person could buy what they want/need in insurance. If your beliefs and budget lean towards holistic med, then there would be a product to buy insurance wise (market driven). Your health club membership, vitamins, chiropractor, ect, ect would be included. It probably won't happen any time soon and if it does it will require social pain and growth.
I use an health savings account for the stuff not covered. The thing that really bothers me about that is it is a use it or lose it plan. I don't know of any other way to get around taxes on all the non covered stuff. I can't use it to save for over a year in order to pay for braces for kids or corrective eye surgery, stuff like that.
The collective "We" created this insurance - health care problem by giving the roles to our employers and government to provide it for us. "We" are shocked when we find they don't do it well or look out for our best interests (in the wallet and body). Its up to the collective "WE" to fix it.
 some/lips
Joined: 4/15/2006
Msg: 11
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 9/3/2007 4:18:51 PM
I would simply (add) that "WE" have demanded from our employers AND insurers a "FREE RIDE" insurance plan. Insurance is NOT about laying dn a piece of plastic and getting a "free ride" on the coat tails of a premium payer (your employer). It IS about sharing risk of peril; the possibility of a catastrophic loss wiping you out.

Whether you will admit it or not, you CAN afford higher deductibles, and therefore lower premiums. If you were to "cost manage" the deductible to the time value of money, the ded you had in the 60's would be a 2500 ded today. How many of you have that? How many of you have checked the price of it? You are so insecure about what you probably won't use (statistically we KNOW that only 16.1% of 100 ee's will hit a 2500 ded) you will seek the FULL benefit at your AND your employers expense! Since YOU KNOW WITH CERTAINTY only 16% of your group will "max" a ded at 2500; WHY ARE YOU INSURING FOR SOMETHING THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN?

MOST corporations moving to a quasi-self insured model will save an IMMEDIATE 30% on premiums AFTER deductibles are paid. If you raise your ded from 500 to 2500 your premiums WILL FALL significantly; furthermore, a 30% rate hike on a low prem is LESS than a 40% hike on a fully insured plan...when you use High deductibles, you also enjoy MOST of your expenses falling "under" the radar; less claims = less reasons for a rate increase at renewal time...and over a 10 yr period, you will WIN 7 years, LOSE 2, and break even ONE. (WHEN was the LAST TIME you "broke even" under your current model???

MOST companies now WAIT until they get their renewal notice BEFORE completing their annual budget so they know how much their rate INCREASE will be! Health care (group) ins is consistantly in the top 5 expenses an employer carries; yet, this "entitlement" attitude of our working population continues top propagate and perpetuate bad habits...

We cannot "win" with "Hilliary" care, or any other method of govt paid health care. MOST of you in the 5-50 market would benefit GREATLY from an HRA plan... you turn an HSA into ledger domain, and deductibles paid on behalf of an ee are tax deductible to your company.

The problem is that FEW companies are able to be competitive in the high ded market place. They have committed ALL their resources to low ded plans and the admin and claims care of the low ded stuff. Candidly, they do NOT WANT you to go high ded~
(it screws with their budgets) plans.

There ARE a couple companies in the under -50 ee market who are ready and competitive to that market change...this IS the wave of the future...Partial "self funding" is just darned smart in this day...IF IF IF you can get past your FEAR of what will NOT happen (i.e; what if 100 % of our insured are hospitalized)
1. Have you ever EVER experienced that (100% claims)?
2. Do you know of a competitor or supplier who HAS experienced that? (NOT likely)
3. Could your company survive the loss of manpower if you DID have 100% (or, even 25% claims? (NOT likely)

WHAT are you afraid of?
What are you afraid of?
What are you afraid of?
What are you afraid of?
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 9/25/2007 6:13:37 PM
Taxes: I pay about 28% of gross income for all taxes...federal, provinical and municipal...and that includes sewer, water, garbage and property taxes. (I own a fair amount of property)
Basic federal tax: about 17%

Health Care: $54 a month.
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 9/25/2007 7:16:57 PM
I thought this thread was about preventing the costs accociated with the health care (sick care) industry. I.E. How to take care of oneself.

Well, IMHO...the first thing to do is take the government food guides and pretty much toss them out the window.(find out who sponsors and helps write them...that will tell you a lot)
Did you look up the names I posted earlier? The long term studies done by Esselstyn are pretty impressive. A prime example of the shenanigans ongoing is the offer he gave the Cleveland Clinic...which turned him down.

Most people think milk is the best source of calcium...why is that?

Because the milk industry says so.

Most people think meat is the best source of protein (some think without meat=no protein)...why is that?

Because the meat industry says so.

Don't just use google...clusty is a pretty good search engine.

Like I said before...you are what you eat...

Here's a thread worth looking at...
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts7132107.aspx
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 18
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 9/26/2007 6:52:53 AM
Problems with state funded healthcare:

- Grossly mismanaged (as all government programs are) causing high operational costs.

- Doctors dictate prices, not competition and demand, therefore price for services inflate and no one cares since it is not coming out of their own pocket. Price caps aren't really the answer here since those simply will incurr extra supervisonal costs, again overseen by government.

- Eliminates all possibility of insurance companies and private enterprises to succesfully undercut individual costs of it's competition, since it's competition has the ability to reach into a collective tax pot that doesn't discriminate about withdrawals from itself.


Problems with private insurance coverage:

- You aren't sure what you're covered for.


The easier battle here is against privatized companies. The government has no one to answer to so it can go on making mistake after mistake as it always does. On the other hand, a private industry does have to answer to it's customers. Repeat offences by any one company is a sure way to lose all of your business. Privatized companies will also have to answer to shareholders, are they managing costs efficiently and what are they doing to cut those costs? When costs are cut, that company can now undercut it's competition, offering the consumers a better value for their dollar. Wal-Mart didn't become a multi-billion dollar chain by ripping customers off and mismanaging it's costs.

I live in Canada and even though healthcare at face value might appear cheaper than in the U.S., I know us Canadians are paying individually more for it through other facets of communal taxes. We just don't get that memo from our governements spending analyzers or risk managers...probably because government has never used those tools.
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 20
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/1/2007 12:38:12 AM
In essence my tax bill is Zero.


Then you must either be a drug dealer, or just naive.


in British Columbia Canada i pay about 20% of my gross income for all my taxes...federal, provincial and municipal.


Please, for your own sake and for the love of god, don't believe without question what the people that are stealing your hard earned money from you tell you what they are stealing from you just because they typed it on paper. They have taken much more from you than that.

Even someone who is working "under the table" and gets paid cash daily will never be able to 'even out' against the forced donations they give to government. You have forgotten about the taxes on every good and service you purchase, which I belive B.C. takes away 14% of your already taxed income right there. This is forgetting to mention oil taxes, cigarette taxes, alchohol taxes, taxes because you bought property, taxes against withdrawing from your own hard earned R.R.S.P. fund, taxes on the private utility companies service you contract and, oh ya, somehow there still isn't enough money left over to give you free health care.

All together, most of us are paying about 40% of our NET earnings back again in taxes, some a little less, some alot more, but that's how it averages out. Take some time to think about it.
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 22
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/4/2007 12:55:10 AM

Got any actual statistics to back this up?


God I hate how some people need someone else to give them a "statistic" just to tell them what's obvious.

I don't need to look this up....here it is in black and white.

- If you smoke you pay approximately $7.00/pack. Average that out to one pack/day per smoker in the country. Do you need a stat on that to know that's huge income?

- If you're an adult (approximately 75% of us are) you pay income tax, C.P.P., E.I., and others. This, on my "barely above poverty line" salary, equates to better than 30% of my income with a couple hundred dollars per year "gifted" back to me by way of a "rebate". I suppose the only "stat" I have to prove this is on that little slip of paper you call a paystub that you throw in the garbage every two weeks as you assure yourself that everything that has been deducted from your gross pay is going to a "better cause".

- No matter what age you are, you pay GST. In most provinces, you also pay a PST on top of that. Now 7-15% more of the already diminished funds you have left are depleted every time you buy something. Most of us have to buy things to survive and be comfortable...do you need a stat to prove that?

- Ever had a drink? Guess what? That was outrageously taxed too. The liquor and tobacco in the U.S. is also taxed and costs well below half of what those things cost here even when marked up high. I don't need a stat to prove that, I've been all over the country, so you'll just have to take my word for it or ask someone who has been there too.

- Ever thought of getting married? You actually have to pay a fee for that. Why? Who knows, but it shouldn't cost anything to the state since the state has no right to be interested in who I marry.

- Ever purchased fuel. That's taxed about another 15% on top of GST/PST. Don't believe me, it says so right on the pumps here at petro-canada. I suppose you want "proof" of this since you're so stubborn about politics even though you're a sheep to the prime ministers party.
Fine, here it is, right out of the government of Canada's mouth.


As a national average, the provincial tax rates on gasoline are about 14.5 cents per litre.


Source? Here (notice the gc.ca ending on this site. That means it's posted by the government of Cana-duh!) Here....

http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2005/gas_tax-e.html

And that was in 2005, when prices were still below a buck/litre.

Even if you don't own a car, common sense should tell you that the buses and taxis you transit also have to mark up their costs to accomodate the raise in operating expenses. In other words, you still pay for that tax whether you own a car or not.

- Property taxes you pay for whether or not you own property, since renters only pay a higher rent to accomodate the increased cost of the property. Common sense tells me that no landlord is going to LOSE money on a property, what would be the point of that?

-How about oil tax, recycling tax, electronics tax, RRSP withdrawl tax? There are countless others that you and I don't even know about or can't remember. Do you need a stat to prove that these exist?

-Oh ya, and healthcare STILL isn't even free in a "free healthcare
country" ?!?!?!? Why do you figure that is? Still think your government has your best interests at heart? Ya, sure you do.

And you call me a sheep?


God I hate how some Albertans just swallow the Klien propoganda.


Klein didn't get rid of any old taxes by the way, he's just another politician that was fiscally.....oh how do you say it, at the head of the retard class, the smartest of the stupid etc. At least he didn't invent any new taxes (that I know of) while he was around.

But you just go on propagating your anti-Klein, pro-tax/pro-communism argument to the rest of us, like you were told to do, while you accuse others of "swallowing the propaganda" of the fiscally semi-responsible. Smart move.
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/5/2007 5:40:26 PM
Yet another case for the USA to finally catch up with the rest of the world and adopt universal health care!!

What I wouldn't give to have fewer worries about having good health care, and being able to afford i t!! The taxes a Canadian poster mentioned plus $50 a month!! WOW. That's a fair deal if Iever saw one. Those tax rates sound reasonable to me, and yet universal health care is available. Maybe I'll move to Canada to get away from this messed up place in which the war in Iraq is more important than the health care of American citizens. What a fracked up country we live in to have a president vetoing health care for children!
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/6/2007 8:59:34 AM

Actually the OPs premise was that people shouldn't have to pay for preventative health care. Her reference was to yearly exams to rule out chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and high cholesterol.

Going for yearly tests, check-ups, etc, does absolutely nothing to prevent you from getting any disease, regardless of the cost.
Those diseases are NOT chronic...they can be reversed through diet and exercise...but that's not profitable to either system...
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 27
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/10/2007 12:46:47 AM
etownboy79,
you state " then your either a drug dealer or naive"

nice ASSumption there.


I suppose I could have been a little more graceful with my argument, and I apologize, I was only trying to drive my point home with a snappy one liner.


PS...we were discussing health care and how some were using the arguement that income taxes rise to pay for it. Why in the heck are you bringing up cigarettee taxes and alchoal taxes. ...I dont even smoke...completely of topic.


Not at all off topic. Why do you suppose there is such a heavier tax burden on those things here than there is south of the border? It's because it's used for extra income that goes toward the collective pot that our "free" healthcare system feeds from. How do you suppose people like yourself are able to get free healthcare after applying for subsidies and such? Do you suppose that money just appears out of thin air? Ofcourse you don't, but you still have to realize that someone has to pay for you everytime you use the system. And the point I am still trying to make clear is that it is even more expensive and less efficient to put the state in charge of healthcare matters, or any social program for that matter. This is because of their inability to correctly manage funds and the rules of economics that have proven time and time again throughout history that socialism just isn't as efficient because people don't care when it's not their own money being used to pay for things. All of this is explained further in one of my earlier posts. So you see, healthcare is no more free for us than it is for our friends below, in fact the opposite is probably true.


if your paying 40% in taxes, net earnings, then that sucks to be you. I'd say do some reading, education yourself or at the very least seek some professional advice on tax deferral strategies.


How do you dodge GST at the supermarket or any other retail store? How do you manage to get out of paying "at purchase taxes" when you visit a liquor store, convienience store, bar, gas station, electronics store, tire shop, restaurant, movie theatre etc? How do you get them to stop taking away your C.P.P. fund (which you'll never get reimbursed for), income tax, E.I. tax and other dues? The only ways that I know of that actually allow you to get back everything you put in to your paycheque taxes are if you acutally earn very little money in the first place, in which professional tax advice is not a luxury you could afford. Or if you work under the table. Or if you actually are an entrepreneur that is paid on gains, not on wage, which I don't think you are. So, please, don't try to insult me and everyone else by pretending that you have found the ultimate wage earners tax loophole that gives you everything you pay in back to you, and then pretending your strategies are common knowledge to all except me. There is a reason they say the only two sure things in life are death and taxes.


Charles:


I think you don't understand what "NET" is. Net is the ammount you have after those tax deductions. So it certainly doesn't feed into your argument about "40% of net income is taxed"


Oops, busted on a blond moment. I'm glad you were smart enough to know what I meant though. 40% of my GROSS income is taken from me by all forms of taxation put together. I still think that's a fair estimate in my case, and I'm sure I fit into the category of "average" among the rest of Canadian taxpayers.


Hey, if your answer is no. Then thats fine. Just say so.


You know as well as I do that if you try hard enough you can google search just about anything to support any cause you may have, yours and mine both, so I'm not going to put much effort on this, but if someone else's gathered numbers mean more to you than my common sense spelled out for you in plain english, than here they are.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2496/future/taxes/2004.html


According to the OECD, total government revenues for 2004--federal, provincial, and municipal--will be 41.3% of GDP, down from a peak of 44.5% of GDP in 1997 and 1998. This means that Tax Freedom Day is May 30 (since 41.3% of 366 is 151 days into the year.)


Oh hooray, thanks for that slight unnoticable drop in per capita tax spending across Canada, you left winged politicians.

Acutally, the report suggests that my number might be closer to 50% at a national average when you factor in business gains.

Here is some more interesting facts that they lay out for you.


Roughly speaking, out of $15,000 in total spending per capita, there's $5000 for social services, $5000 for health and education, and $5000 for everything else, including $1500 for interest on the debt and $1200 for protection of persons and property (meaning military, police, legal system, firefighting). Here's the detailed breakdown.

38,400 GDP per capita

15,000 total public spending

1,500 interest on the debt (30,000)
4,600 social services
2,600 health
2,100 education
1,200 protection of persons and property

615 transportation and communication
590 resource conservation and industrial development
510 general government services
370 recreation and culture
320 environment
160 foreign affairs and international development
130 housing
100 labour, employment, and immigration
66 regional planning and development
59 research
30 other


I rest my case.


Actually marriages are legal contracts. It's a service provided by the government, which is why the government is responsible for legislation on marriages, once again a no go on "taxes" Unless you think services like paying for a lawyer is a "tax"


What you are failing to realize is that marriage only became a "service provided by the government" when the government decided to make it a service you had to pay for. Do you think that no one could get married before the government made you pay a fee for a licence? I stand firm that the state need not conern itself with it's legislations on MY marriage, yet I still have to pay to make it legal, and it only need be legal in the first place because of the states unrequested involvement in my affairs.


No I call you innacurate. Unless you spend the majorit of your money on alcohol and tobacco, there is simply no way that "40% of your net income goes to taxes"


Ya, a like to go to the bar once or twice a week, and I am a pack a day smoker with no apologies about it. So that means I do pay a fair bit more into the bottomless tax piggy bank, which means I have a right, nay, a justification for saying the things I am saying.

This all ties in to healthcare too, because nothing is really "free", especially healthcare. The funds to support it are just diverted from other inflated tax assets like alchohol and tobacco for example. And, as I described earlier, it is more expensive to allow the state to control healthcare as opposed to privatizing it because of the states inability to be fiscally responsible or accountable for anything, not just healthcare.
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 29
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/10/2007 1:38:11 AM

in the one first world nation that doesn't have government healthcare, the government spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world.


So, where is your proof of this?


You state this clame again, yet you can't back it up.


Charles, how do you suppose that something that has to be payed for by somebody gets paid? I don't need to be a first year e.s. to prove this to you.


Your viewpoint is simply in error, in most cases the private system is in fact more efficient, there is no argument on that, but a first year economics student will tell you that not all industries function in this manner.


A first year student will be able to tell you what he's been told in one year. In fact, schools are one of the many propoganda vehicles for socialist causes anyway, so anything a first year student tries to proslethyze to me will already be at a loss.

What would a one man economical superpower, like a Ray Kroc, or a founder of Wal-Mart or a Bill Gates tell me, is what I'd be more interested in hearing, since they clearly have a better understanding of money than you or I.


I find it amusing that you don't see how health effects the protection of person.


And I find it amusing that you still want to think that a giant unaccountable state controlled operation has your best health in mind, as opposed to a corporation that is accountable to it's customers and actually relies on your health for it's means of profitable gain.


Which is why the average Canadian has a 24% income tax at the federal level.


And I suppose you're "okay" with that, even if it were true.

What about provincial and municipal levels? Those are tax generating too, you know. Why do you consistently refuse to see the big picture. It is not okay that they nickel and dime you to death just because it looks better on paper, because in the end they are still getting nearly half of your money (on average). And, unfortunately we have a graduating tax system which actually makes the people that employ us pay even more to the government, which hinders the employers ability to pay me fairly, and instead you and I have to settle for less than we're worth. We've been stimied from every angle by our "generous" governement that was kind enough to give us free healthcare, that it charges us a service fee to use anyway. I wish you could see that.


Roughly speaking, out of $15,000 in total spending per capita, there's $5000 for social services, $5000 for health and education, and $5000 for everything else, including $1500 for interest on the debt and $1200 for protection of persons and property (meaning military, police, legal system, firefighting). Here's the detailed breakdown.


That is the big picture, and it's true. Everything else is just circumstantial. It doesn't matter how, all that matters is why.
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 31
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/10/2007 10:08:53 AM
So which is it?



For one simple reason, in the one first world nation that doesn't have government healthcare, the government spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world


or



January 2007.
Canada government healthcare expenditure per capita: 2,998
USA government healthcare expenditure per capita: 5,771


So now is your position that the US government spends too much on healthcare, or that we don't spend enough? I'm confused, because you've really shown me nothing more than more ammo for my argument against state spending. What you really need to look for is a comparison between government spending in a fully subsidized state versus the spending allocated in a fully privatized state by insurance companies or otherwise with no government healthcare to compete with, in a first world country. You'll also have to consider medical bills, which will be cheaper when compared against the same procedure at a state funded level.



It's not that somebody get's paid, it's about what systems are more efficient in particular sectors. Namely healthcare.


So what historical knowledge do you have that supports this belief that healthcare is more efficient when it is tax money funded?



Oooooh I get it, education is a tool of those people that don't agree with you. So you go by your gut?


You see, it's about what I, me, myself spend, or am forced to spend, now, versus what I would spend if I was self providing. That's all I need to care about.



An Economist will tell you how the economy works, a business person will tell you how they make money, and will tell you whatever it takes for them to make more money.


An economist, according to you, knows all about how the economy works, which suggests that they should know all about how money works, however I don't know of anybody who got rich being an economist only. Where are all the help wanted adds for "economists"? A business person makes money because they actually understand how money works, and they can calculate risk. This is why I'd listen to what they have to say, and not what some student thinks he knows.



a business person will tell you how they make money, and will tell you whatever it takes for them to make more money


So I guess if they said that they were pro-privatization of healthcare then that would just be a ploy to make more money? Well, they and you would be right, but I guess you would rather spend more money than you have to, and would rather not listen to proven individuals who know about their money, because a first year economics prof. told you what was in the curriculum.



Actually it doesn't, it relies on extracting premiums, minimum pay outs for treatment, and rejection of anyone with pre existing health concerns that might cost the company.


Tell that to the people who have cromes disease but can't get the proper prescription in Canada because of unecessary government regulations. I know a person that has to get their treatment from abroad, through private means.



Going by your gut on large issues is never a good idea.


Neither is blindly following others.



Don't claim education is propoganda and then claim I'm refusing to see the big picture. Worse you've now shown yourself to be actively hostile to the process of learning.


AHHH, not learning.... my worst enemy. Don't accuse me of being some caveman with a vendetta against books just so you can appear to win you argument in front of these people.

A student who pays $20,000 in tuition is forced to believe what they are told at school, no one can blame them for that. It would be a very difficult mental process to pay that much money and then have the audassity to question what is being taught to them.



You don't know anything about natural monopolies


Naturally, I don't know anything other than what I have to pay for things. You still haven't proven to me that taxes other than healthcare bills aren't linked to healthcare spending, because you can't.
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/10/2007 2:26:41 PM
I have had more BS and red tape trying to get surgery from a private insurer. I waited six months while fighting tooth and nail against ridiculous denials for the operation. Private health care is the pits and should be scrapped completely!!
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 36
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/30/2007 11:51:42 PM
there are many competing economic theories


So why do you disregard them?


So here, find me a country with a public healthcare system in the industrialized world, that spends more per capita on healthcare than the American system.


Well, I did take a long look at the graphs and charts, and yes, clearly it states that the U.S. spends more 'per capita' on it's health care. I don't disagree with you on that. I could not find a clear answer to my next question though, which is whether those figures are concluded specifically based on government spending, or if they include all costs, private or otherwise. The answer to that changes the perspective somewhat.

Also, there seems to be a direct relationship between the average wealth of a nation and their spending on healthcare. This proves to me that if the country has it, they'll spend it, which means spending money on the issue is not entirely the answer, but it seems most people on this thread seem to think it is.

Another question that comes to mind is whether these stats include all of the recent immigrants from poorer countries that don't even have access to some of the basic care technologies we have. If so, and if the USA is a leader in the stat of landing immigrants ( #8 in legals and probably higher in illegals), how many of them did not receive necessary medical attention in the past, leading to expensive treatments and premature deaths? This has to be considered as a factor.

Yet another factor is the dollar itself. Who's dollar are they basing it on? An American dollar is more easily parted with to an American than a Canadian dollar is to a Canadian simply because things cost less in America than in most, if not all other countries. I know this is a weak argument by itself, but all of these little factors (and more that have been left unmentioned) that aren't considered in these comparisons could make a big difference.

The bottom line is this. If the USA is indeed the most lavish spender on tax money funded health care in the world, than Americans have the most to gain by eliminating public funded health care entirely. Right? Since this would mean that there would be even more money in every Americans pocket to self provide for their own health, and as I've said before and I'll say it again, the individual is far more aware of their health needs than the bottomless tax feeding state is and the individual can therefore allocate their own expenses more appropriately.

The idea of preventive health care is a great one, I was never against that. I'm only against the idea of your preventive health care being paid for by me. You see, you should be the only one in charge of you, and none of us should have to defeat our own buying power by allowing the unfrugal governement to decide where our spending goes, and then taking a healthy chunk of that for themselves as compensation for their poor decisions and wasteful management of our money.
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/31/2007 10:20:22 AM
I just don't get the Greed based system that so many are so proud of. It will be the destruction of our civilization. We have seen what greed does to the political and corporate world.

Ford:
Faulty light causes the Ford Pinto to explode, eveluate costs, determine that it is less expensive to pay off families than to fix faulty lights.

Enron:
Can inflate coroprate stock, by lying about corporate profits, sell off stock before public knows, company goes under, but only average stock holders are ruined.

Tobacco companies:
Know their product causes cancer, writes memos etc outlining need to replenish smokers with new, young smokers, because 250,000 of their best customers dies from their product each year.

Asbestos:
Internal memo admits that Asbestos causes incurable lung disease. Solution, break up company so Asbestos division is alone, so lawuits can't touch all of the corporate profits.

Greed is going to destroy us as a civilization. Preventative medicine save billions of dollars each year in America alone, however, more than 40,000,000 people don't have access to preventative heathcare, so they have to go to the ER when it is more serious, costing YOU money, and AMERICA tens of Billions each yer. In the past two years alone, Arizona has received $92,000,000 for our Emergency rooms from the federal government, your taxes, to keep our hospitals open. That is socialism, without it, your hospitals would close. Wake up!
 Politically INCORRECT
Joined: 8/14/2007
Msg: 38
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 10/31/2007 11:04:43 AM

What would a one man economical superpower, like a Ray Kroc, or a founder of Wal-Mart or a Bill Gates tell me, is what I'd be more interested in hearing, since they clearly have a better understanding of money than you or I.

Why don't you Google Wal-Mart for shitz and giggles...and see who is one of the strong promoters of UHC?


Let us know what you find....
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 11/1/2007 12:52:47 PM
Oprah Winfrey is a successful, intelligent woman who backs universal health care.
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 11/1/2007 4:06:39 PM
We already have waiting times and health care rationing in this country.

I've done my share of collecting cobwebs on myself while waiting for approvals from insurance companies. As it is now, I do not have sufficient choice of medical providers with my private insurance, and won't miss being cornered into using a less than desireable provider once HR 676 passes and is implemented.

People have DIED waiting for insurance companies to approve cancer treatments, and I for one will not stand for that. You're gonna wait some no matter what system you are dealing with. But never is not a good thing, and there are too many cases of insurance companies outright denying needed medical care to give any credibility to keeping the current system as is. Never=death. Wait a bit=better shot at a chance of living. Waiting is going to happen no matter what: You have to book the surgery or procedure in question with UHC, and in private you have to wait for the insurance company to approve BEFORE you even book that surgery.

ICK to waiting for the insurance company to approve and arguing with them ad nauseum.

 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 11/1/2007 4:06:59 PM
We already have waiting times and health care rationing in this country.

I've done my share of collecting cobwebs on myself while waiting for approvals from insurance companies. As it is now, I do not have sufficient choice of medical providers with my private insurance, and won't miss being cornered into using a less than desireable provider once HR 676 passes and is implemented.

People have DIED waiting for insurance companies to approve cancer treatments, and I for one will not stand for that. You're gonna wait some no matter what system you are dealing with. But never is not a good thing, and there are too many cases of insurance companies outright denying needed medical care to give any credibility to keeping the current system as is. Never=death. Wait a bit=better shot at a chance of living. Waiting is going to happen no matter what: You have to book the surgery or procedure in question with UHC, and in private you have to wait for the insurance company to approve BEFORE you even book that surgery.

ICK to waiting for the insurance company to approve and arguing with them ad nauseum.
 Etownboy79
Joined: 8/3/2006
Msg: 42
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 11/1/2007 10:37:15 PM

Why don't you Google Wal-Mart for shitz and giggles...and see who is one of the strong promoters of UHC?


Please elaborate, I wasn't able to find what you sent me to find. Can you provide a link?

I know that Wal-Mart has some employee benefits that help pay for healthcare costs, but I'm not too sure exactly how they work it. Is this what you're referring to?
 Politically INCORRECT
Joined: 8/14/2007
Msg: 43
Preventive Health Care.
Posted: 11/1/2007 11:42:28 PM

Is this what you're referring to?

Not quite.

By Bloomberg News | February 8, 2007

NEW YORK -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc., AT&T Inc., Intel Corp., and Kelly Services Inc. joined forces with two labor unions in calling for an overhaul of the US healthcare system that would guarantee universal coverage by 2012.

"We need to change the current system and we need to start now," Wal-Mart chief executive H. Lee Scott said yesterday at a news conference in Washington. "Business shouldn't have to pay a disproportionate share of healthcare costs."

Members of the alliance want the current system, in which most Americans rely on their employers for healthcare coverage, replaced by an undefined system paid for by the federal government, businesses, and workers.

Since February....an alliance of a different nature has coalesced...lol
Scott knows where the $$$ is... enshrined in Law.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Preventive Health Care.