RE: Government Controlled Heath Care

RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 2:25:40 PM)
quote: Health care is not being denied. A specific procedure is, because that procedure is materially affected by continuing to smoke. Today. If you are confident that the policy won't be extended to other procedures requiring different prerequisite behavior modifications no reason to be afraid. Based upon similar initial limited applications expanding exponentially over time by both Corporate and Government entities, I'm suggesting people are right to be concerned. You say that people should not be concerned. Only the passage of time will determine which position was accurate. Nothing I have witnessed or can point to in history gives me comfort that a program managed by government bureaucrats wont be expanded. Every bureaucracy needs to expand and dictate if only to justify its budget and reason to exist. I see this situation, for this specific procedure, as a test case. Get this by the people and there is no reason it won't be used by a government to manipulate, or in this case, dictate other behavior.

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 3:01:48 PM)
...then let's be honest. This isn't really about the measures being suggested in the UK, this is about your misgivings about a healthcare system administered by the state.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 3:10:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...then let's be honest. This isn't really about the measures being suggested in the UK, this is about your misgivings about a health-care system administered by the state. Sorry if that wasn't clear. To give a proper representation of my position the above sentence could eliminate the words "health-care" and be accurate.

philosophy -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 3:13:17 PM)
lol...got it now.[:)]

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 5:24:51 PM)
Loser pays court and atty fees just not preclude someone bringing a suit. It forces them to think about it, not to mention that an atty would think twice about taking the case. There are many points I am making; 1) Reduce medical cost so that insurance will be affordable for all 2) keep it away from the American government, because the feds have very little success at handling anything 3) the indivdiual needs to take some responsibility for their own situation, less fortunate is often either less intelligent or not hard working. 4) A one size fits all solution is rarely the right one. The people need to serve themselves through their government. There is no such thing as Federal funds, it is all tax payer money. If someone is in poverty, they are not paying taxes, and can barely afford to live. Address the poverty issue and it takes care of some of the problem. If more people began to starve, instead of being given a hand out, then surivival may kick in and they actually do something to help their situation. It is a problem from both ends, some want to be dependent on the system and the system (politicians) want voters to be dependent upon them. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: bbw2switch i believe the point i was trying to make is simply that we do have health care. it doesn't ask questions. it is just there. there are flaws in this system. people do wait a terribly long time for any number of health concerns. Orion, your explanation of how to make the universal health care system more effective seems to be quite the task! do you really think all of this could happen? what would happen in the short term while this is being established? You mentioned "frivolous lawsuits." i thought that was an American "right" to sue whomever they chose for whatever reason. how would that come into play as a variable. how would you convince the average American not to sue? i think no matter how you look it, there isn't one answer to this question. if we could take the good of each health care system, it would serve the people much more effectively.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 5:29:01 PM)
Never had a problem with an insurance company paying a claim for myself or family. Each state has laws that regulate it. Stop stating the exception (not paying a claim because of nefarious reasons) as if it is the standard, that is called deception and alarmism. I believe that each of your provences must handle things differently and maybe the story of my friend is exagerrated or an exception. The US government does not handle things well, period. Orion

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 5:33:12 PM)
What about those that are obese, high cholesterol or high sugar? I think the point is, at what point does the slippery slope stop if they can be refused for one thing. The thing happens to be smoking, which many people do not like emotionally, but there are also slow healing and health concerns in obese, high cholesterol and high sugar people as well. Where would it stop? In the US the insurance companies are starting to target smokers, and it is a horrible addiction to have. The irony is that insurance here will not pay for things that will help someone stop smoking. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth ..........They are dictating policy with no other option after the fact of announcing "universal". .......nope they're not. In the UK, which is the country we are speaking of with this news story, there is no question of not being allowed to pay for any procedures. quote: I think people should be "scared". Just because this decision isn't pointed at them why assume immunity for similar future decisions? The response; "If they don't like this they can purchase additional coverage at additional expense."; would seem in opposition of the concept being sold - universal health care for everyone. In this case, in this instance, it is health care for this problem only if you are a non-smoker. That is the pragmatic reality of this action. I extrapolate from that action based upon history. ...i have italicised that sentence because it is another inaccuracy. Health care is not being denied. A specific procedure is, because that procedure is materially affected by continuing to smoke. You state that people ought to be scared. That may be true of models of health care proposed in the US. However it is a distortion of what has happened in the UK. To be honest, you seem to be scaremongering, based on a misunderstanding of what is really being proposed.

dawntreader -> RE: Government Controlled Heath Care (6/13/2007 5:44:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth dawn, I appreciate your comments and agree with them. Thanks Merc[:)] quote: Assuming "universal health care" solves the problem of health care in the US is a false assumption. Should this trend represent the future, it will be universal health care as long as you fit the State's definition of a healthy lifestyle. If you are ready for one - be prepared for the other. Ok, i see now where i became confused... i think i agree with Orion. i have seen first hand the difference in healthcare since it became "mamaged" by agencies as opposed to physicians. Neither group is doing/has done a good job ~ The power is with the patient/public. The voting power, the monies paid for insurance and the responsibility for their own health. i personally have little tolerance for those who live unhealthy lives, get sick and then expect to be cured and have insurance pay - all without personal responsibility or lifestyle change~

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125