Why Land of the Free is so conflicted on health care..

[Munin]

You are equating universal healthcare with a lack of capitalist rewards for individuals experimenting in medical treatments?

With out the profits to be had for innovation and new meds there would be no rush of new innovations or new meds. Pretty simple concept even a child could grasp.

Did you know that there are countries with socialized healthcare that have pharmaceutical companies that are able to make profits?

List of pharmaceutical companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nosmo King]

Doctor's visits and routine care should be covered by any and all private plans. This promotes preventative care and helps stem the rise in treatable infirmities. It's not just catastrophic care, it's the cheaper preventative care we should be concerned with!

good point Nosmo.... do you know how many guys i have run into over the age of 50 who will not have a colonoscopy , because they will not let someone stick a tube up their ass....preventative care only works if the people will actually go for the routine tests and take care of themselves....and there are many in this country who even though they have the means,will not go until something is getting bad....and then it may be too late.....

It's better to cover those scaredy cats than let them suffer, no?

 

[DiamondDave]

It's better that they do what it takes to provide for their own care... they are not simply owed it....

Again.. whether you or anyone else gets a tube stuck up their ass for preventative care is not my responsibility or the government's responsibility... nor is the payment of it

 

[Nosmo King]

It's better that they do what it takes to provide for their own care... they are not simply owed it....

Again.. whether you or anyone else gets a tube stuck up their ass for preventative care is not my responsibility or the government's responsibility... nor is the payment of it

It's not a matter of being 'owed' coverage! The fly in the ointment for Conservatives is this attitude!

It's a matter of propriety that insurers cover the costs of the cheaper, safer and more necessary preventative procedures. Without them, the cost of treating full blown cancer/diabetes, heart disease etc. increases to the point insurers feel 'justified' in dropping coverage altogether!

 

[DiamondDave]

It's better that they do what it takes to provide for their own care... they are not simply owed it....

Again.. whether you or anyone else gets a tube stuck up their ass for preventative care is not my responsibility or the government's responsibility... nor is the payment of it

It's not a matter of being 'owed' coverage! The fly in the ointment for Conservatives is this attitude!

It's a matter of propriety that insurers cover the costs of the cheaper, safer and more necessary preventative procedures. Without them, the cost of treating full blown cancer/diabetes, heart disease etc. increases to the point insurers feel 'justified' in dropping coverage altogether!

Again.. insurance is risk assessment.. it is legal gambling by a company...

Ultimately, you are responsible for you.. and I am sure, if the price is right, you can get almost any kind of insurance for any thing you deem as a need...

If you wish to pay for the preventative care yourself, fine... If you wish to pay for some type of insurance that covers it, fine.. You have the freedom to weigh those options to what best suits your need and the freedom to choose which you will use.. But that is not the government's job... It is not the populous' job. It is not the job of others in this country....

And if you would have MORE competition, and not less, I am sure that prices would be a bit more competitive... just imagine if you could have a group policy offered by your HOA, your local Moose Lodge, your athletic club, or whatever other group you can think of.. just imagine the types of coverage choices you could look through and weigh against each other.... you do not get that with a government plan... and you certainly should not get it at taxpayer expense as entitlement or even subsidized

 

[Nosmo King]

It's better that they do what it takes to provide for their own care... they are not simply owed it....

Again.. whether you or anyone else gets a tube stuck up their ass for preventative care is not my responsibility or the government's responsibility... nor is the payment of it

It's not a matter of being 'owed' coverage! The fly in the ointment for Conservatives is this attitude!

It's a matter of propriety that insurers cover the costs of the cheaper, safer and more necessary preventative procedures. Without them, the cost of treating full blown cancer/diabetes, heart disease etc. increases to the point insurers feel 'justified' in dropping coverage altogether!

Again.. insurance is risk assessment.. it is legal gambling by a company...

Ultimately, you are responsible for you.. and I am sure, if the price is right, you can get almost any kind of insurance for any thing you deem as a need...

If you wish to pay for the preventative care yourself, fine... If you wish to pay for some type of insurance that covers it, fine.. You have the freedom to weigh those options to what best suits your need and the freedom to choose which you will use.. But that is not the government's job... It is not the populous' job. It is not the job of others in this country....

And if you would have MORE competition, and not less, I am sure that prices would be a bit more competitive... just imagine if you could have a group policy offered by your HOA, your local Moose Lodge, your athletic club, or whatever other group you can think of.. just imagine the types of coverage choices you could look through and weigh against each other.... you do not get that with a government plan... and you certainly should not get it at taxpayer expense as entitlement or even subsidized

Are there no sins committed by health insurers, or are all the sins absolved by the blanket of Conservative Capitalism?

If insurers deny coverage for pre-existing conditions while not covering preventative screenings, isn't that just a way for insurers to take payments without ever having to pay claims?

 

[DiamondDave]

It's not a matter of being 'owed' coverage! The fly in the ointment for Conservatives is this attitude!

It's a matter of propriety that insurers cover the costs of the cheaper, safer and more necessary preventative procedures. Without them, the cost of treating full blown cancer/diabetes, heart disease etc. increases to the point insurers feel 'justified' in dropping coverage altogether!

Again.. insurance is risk assessment.. it is legal gambling by a company...

Ultimately, you are responsible for you.. and I am sure, if the price is right, you can get almost any kind of insurance for any thing you deem as a need...

If you wish to pay for the preventative care yourself, fine... If you wish to pay for some type of insurance that covers it, fine.. You have the freedom to weigh those options to what best suits your need and the freedom to choose which you will use.. But that is not the government's job... It is not the populous' job. It is not the job of others in this country....

And if you would have MORE competition, and not less, I am sure that prices would be a bit more competitive... just imagine if you could have a group policy offered by your HOA, your local Moose Lodge, your athletic club, or whatever other group you can think of.. just imagine the types of coverage choices you could look through and weigh against each other.... you do not get that with a government plan... and you certainly should not get it at taxpayer expense as entitlement or even subsidized

Are there no sins committed by health insurers, or are all the sins absolved by the blanket of Conservative Capitalism?

If insurers deny coverage for pre-existing conditions while not covering preventative screenings, isn't that just a way for insurers to take payments without ever having to pay claims?

Nobody is saying that there are no problems with insurers or 'the system'... just that government takeover or government funding of or government subsidized healthcare is not the answer

 

[Darkwind]

and many americans can't get access to that care b/c of asshole/greedy/immoral health insurance companies. get them out of the way and the rest of americans have a chance at a healthy life

I agree the government has caused some affordability issues and more government won't fix that. The fact is that very few Americans go without care. It is against the law to not treat someone here. They might not get the Lamborghini operation, but hey if they want that then pay for it.

I know we have problems with the insurance system in America, and the #1 problem is that it is not a free market system. The government wants a monopoly but haven't been able to get it before so they gave us our current oligopoly.

And now they want to take away our right to health care and make us dependent on the state.

You neglected to consider preventative care.

Sure, the emergency room won't turn you down, but that's not where cancers are detected, is it? Nor diabetes, nor a host of infirmities a regular check up can detect.

Emergency rooms do not provide prenatal care either.

Are you "pro life"?

Let Me ask you something. Do you expect your car insurance to pay for oil changes?

 

[Darkwind]

America has the best health care in the world. Sorry that it wasn't socialist health care that got us there.

I have been working to pay premiums to a health care insurer. That insurer has raised premiums, cut benefits, dropped subscribers because they had the nerve to file a claim, denied me the prescriptions my doctor recommends because those drugs don't fall on their formulaires, and eaten up what little disposable income I earned.

Yup! America! Number 1!

in a pig's eye!

Wow. Another imbecile that can't distinguish between the care given and insurance.

Our health care services are the best anywhere on the planet. No one is better.

At least understand what the **** your talking about.

 

[Chris]

You are equating universal healthcare with a lack of capitalist rewards for individuals experimenting in medical treatments?

With out the profits to be had for innovation and new meds there would be no rush of new innovations or new meds. Pretty simple concept even a child could grasp.

The vast majority of innovations come from non profit universities.

Pretty simple concept even a child could grasp.

 

[Chris]

America has the best health care in the world. Sorry that it wasn't socialist health care that got us there.

I have been working to pay premiums to a health care insurer. That insurer has raised premiums, cut benefits, dropped subscribers because they had the nerve to file a claim, denied me the prescriptions my doctor recommends because those drugs don't fall on their formulaires, and eaten up what little disposable income I earned.

Yup! America! Number 1!

in a pig's eye!

Wow. Another imbecile that can't distinguish between the care given and insurance.

Our health care services are the best anywhere on the planet. No one is better.

At least understand what the **** your talking about.

What good are health care services if you can't afford them?

Our system sucks.

It rewards companies for making profits off the sick, not for keeping people healthy.

 

[Nosmo King]

America has the best health care in the world. Sorry that it wasn't socialist health care that got us there.

I have been working to pay premiums to a health care insurer. That insurer has raised premiums, cut benefits, dropped subscribers because they had the nerve to file a claim, denied me the prescriptions my doctor recommends because those drugs don't fall on their formulaires, and eaten up what little disposable income I earned.

Yup! America! Number 1!

in a pig's eye!

Wow. Another imbecile that can't distinguish between the care given and insurance.

Our health care services are the best anywhere on the planet. No one is better.

At least understand what the **** your talking about.

We were ALL discussing health care insurance. And then you brought "imbecile". Read much?

 

[Nosmo King]

I agree the government has caused some affordability issues and more government won't fix that. The fact is that very few Americans go without care. It is against the law to not treat someone here. They might not get the Lamborghini operation, but hey if they want that then pay for it.

I know we have problems with the insurance system in America, and the #1 problem is that it is not a free market system. The government wants a monopoly but haven't been able to get it before so they gave us our current oligopoly.

And now they want to take away our right to health care and make us dependent on the state.

You neglected to consider preventative care.

Sure, the emergency room won't turn you down, but that's not where cancers are detected, is it? Nor diabetes, nor a host of infirmities a regular check up can detect.

Emergency rooms do not provide prenatal care either.

Are you "pro life"?

Let Me ask you something. Do you expect your car insurance to pay for oil changes?

Try comparing oranges to other citrus fruit.

 

[Nosmo King]

Again.. insurance is risk assessment.. it is legal gambling by a company...

Ultimately, you are responsible for you.. and I am sure, if the price is right, you can get almost any kind of insurance for any thing you deem as a need...

If you wish to pay for the preventative care yourself, fine... If you wish to pay for some type of insurance that covers it, fine.. You have the freedom to weigh those options to what best suits your need and the freedom to choose which you will use.. But that is not the government's job... It is not the populous' job. It is not the job of others in this country....

And if you would have MORE competition, and not less, I am sure that prices would be a bit more competitive... just imagine if you could have a group policy offered by your HOA, your local Moose Lodge, your athletic club, or whatever other group you can think of.. just imagine the types of coverage choices you could look through and weigh against each other.... you do not get that with a government plan... and you certainly should not get it at taxpayer expense as entitlement or even subsidized

Are there no sins committed by health insurers, or are all the sins absolved by the blanket of Conservative Capitalism?

If insurers deny coverage for pre-existing conditions while not covering preventative screenings, isn't that just a way for insurers to take payments without ever having to pay claims?

Nobody is saying that there are no problems with insurers or 'the system'... just that government takeover or government funding of or government subsidized healthcare is not the answer

And government "regulations"?

Every time I read a Conservative say "government is not the solution, government is the problem", I think that those Conservatives are fooling themselves when they go on to say they are strong on law and order.

Government is the watch dog to protect the consumer from criminal practices. And the practices demonstrated by insurance companies is just this side of criminal.

 

[Samson]

You neglected to consider preventative care.

Sure, the emergency room won't turn you down, but that's not where cancers are detected, is it? Nor diabetes, nor a host of infirmities a regular check up can detect.

Emergency rooms do not provide prenatal care either.

Are you "pro life"?

Let Me ask you something. Do you expect your car insurance to pay for oil changes?

Try comparing oranges to other citrus fruit.

Oranges to Grapefruit is Health Insurance to Auto Insurance?

The common denominator is individual choice: We should choose to eat oranges, grapefruit, or health insurance without having it shoved down our throats.

 

[DiamondDave]

Are there no sins committed by health insurers, or are all the sins absolved by the blanket of Conservative Capitalism?

If insurers deny coverage for pre-existing conditions while not covering preventative screenings, isn't that just a way for insurers to take payments without ever having to pay claims?

Nobody is saying that there are no problems with insurers or 'the system'... just that government takeover or government funding of or government subsidized healthcare is not the answer

And government "regulations"?

Every time I read a Conservative say "government is not the solution, government is the problem", I think that those Conservatives are fooling themselves when they go on to say they are strong on law and order.

Government is the watch dog to protect the consumer from criminal practices. And the practices demonstrated by insurance companies is just this side of criminal.

And there should be possible legislation about regulations surrounding things such as pre-existing conditions, etc... but the government is not your mommy to kiss your boo boos or to give you the funds to have your colon scoped or broken arm fixed

But again.. that is not what the DEM version of health care reform is revolving around... it is about portioned care, government acting as an insurance company, government running medical care, etc

Again... your coverage and your preventative care and your personal well being is not the responsibility of everyone else nor the government...

Hell.. if I had all my premiums back, even with all the services I have used for a couple surgeries and trips for some pseudo-emergencies, and put that into a health savings account, I would have an assload growing with interest for any future needs... just imagine what you could save up with say $400 a month going into an interest bearing account after 20 years

Fix the problem areas.. but don't blow up the whole system and put an inefficient, corrupt, red-tape laden government in charge of running insurance or care

 

[Nosmo King]

Let Me ask you something. Do you expect your car insurance to pay for oil changes?

Try comparing oranges to other citrus fruit.

Oranges to Grapefruit is Health Insurance to Auto Insurance?

The common denominator is individual choice: We should choose to eat oranges, grapefruit, or health insurance without having it shoved down our throats.

Under the bill as it is currently written, will you still be able to keep the coverage you now have? Will you still be able to see the doctor of your choice (provided that your current coverage permits that?)

What is being shoved down your throat aside from a thermometer?

 

[DiamondDave]

Try comparing oranges to other citrus fruit.

Oranges to Grapefruit is Health Insurance to Auto Insurance?

The common denominator is individual choice: We should choose to eat oranges, grapefruit, or health insurance without having it shoved down our throats.

Under the bill as it is currently written, will you still be able to keep the coverage you now have? Will you still be able to see the doctor of your choice (provided that your current coverage permits that?)

What is being shoved down your throat aside from a thermometer?

And your taxes still subsidizing care for others... not to mention the penalties if you choose to have primo coverage... not to mention penalties if you exercise your freedom not to carry insurance.. not to mention a red-tape money wasting government running the system... the list goes on

It is not the job of government to be your nanny... and certainly not to be an insurance carrier

 

[Samson]

Try comparing oranges to other citrus fruit.

Oranges to Grapefruit is Health Insurance to Auto Insurance?

The common denominator is individual choice: We should choose to eat oranges, grapefruit, or health insurance without having it shoved down our throats.

Under the bill as it is currently written, will you still be able to keep the coverage you now have? Will you still be able to see the doctor of your choice (provided that your current coverage permits that?)

What is being shoved down your throat aside from a thermometer?

We'll see.

Frankly, I'm dubious about whatever the bill says, vs whatever Pelosi says, vs whatever Hannity says. There is very little that I hear from anyone that I believe.

I do believe what I see.

What I see is a number of social programs that have been inflicted upon my country so that The Land of The Free can be strangled by overwhelming debt and inflation.

I see beaurocracy running amok, year after year justifying larger budgets by fabricating more "social need" for their programs.

This is only More of The Same.

 

[Neser Boha]

You are equating universal healthcare with a lack of capitalist rewards for individuals experimenting in medical treatments?

With out the profits to be had for innovation and new meds there would be no rush of new innovations or new meds. Pretty simple concept even a child could grasp.

Many medical advances have been made under the communist rule in former Czechoslovakia due to the fact that the system had to keep the medical treatment costs down, so it invested heavily into research and preventative health-care. That's a fact. How do you reconcile that with your immutable world-view?

I remember this fun Czech communist catch-phrase: "in healthy body healthy spirit dwells." Those fuckers were into preventative healthcare totalitarian style. It didn't matter that you didn't feel like stretching before every class in the elementary school

You have to accept the fact that there is more than one answer to this question...

PS: I am not a proponent of communism, and I was being cynical when I said 'fun Czech communist catch-phrase'.