Even though Barack Obama questioned a plan put forth by Hillary Clinton which mandated health care coverage for every American during his recent campaign for the Democrat nomination for the presidency- his recent plan calls for every American to be forced to purchase health insurance.In a bill signed into law by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts - residents are forced to purchase a health insurance policy or face wage garnishments or a $912 penalty assessed to ones income tax return.
But why do we need a plan which would Force someone to participate in a National Heath Care Program.
Does the Government really have the best track record when it comes to administering health care?
Do the CDC and FDA or WHO really look out for what's in our best interests, or are they more concerned with lobbyists for Big Pharma?
If a government agency can control what types of care are given and to whom the varying types of care are given - can the government be trusted to administer care to all equally?
Or could the government weed out the undesirable through government run and mandated health care?
Could we really be seeing the beginning of our own eugenics programs here in America?
A quick glance at recent recalls concerning medications and medical products points to an industry which seems more focused on making profits than an industry focused on making (keeping) one well.
http://www.usrecallnews.com/section/drug-recalls
Spending a day in front of the television and watching all the ambulance chasing lawyers with fear inducing commercials would alert one to the recent class action law suits filed against medications gone wrong.
Is H1N1 a real threat?
What about SARS, Avian Flu, Anthrax, West Nile Virus or a slew of other recent health concerns?
How does one explain the recent rise in Autism rates?
Do vaccines really cause Autism - or is it just the more recent aggressive scheduling of these vaccinations?
1974 Vaccination Schedule:
2 months: DTaP (Pertussis), TOPV (Trivalent Oral Polio Virus)
4 months: DTaP, TOPV
1 year: Measles, TB Test
1 - 12 years: Rubella, Mumps
1 !/2 years: DTap, TPOV
4-6 years: DTap, TOPV
2010 Vaccination Schedule:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/child-schedule.htm
(The list has become to cumbersome to reproduce here.)
Even if Obama is the face-man for forced health care coverage (and all the required vaccinations and medications) - should we believe that the government is really trying to help us?
Why would they force people to accept a program in which they could sterilize, euthanize and exterminate a segment (or segments) of the population at will?
Really there is too much money in this game.
All these insurance companies just waste money.
I just helped a woman clean the "needed" goods from the home of her mother which were bought by her insurance company.
We discarded;
*8 Bottles of medications for Dementia (Which caused her aged mother to act crazy. On one occasion, the elderly women threatened to hit me in the head with a hammer because I asked her if she had eaten. We took her off of that medication.) @ $65 per bottle.
*23 Boxes of Diabetes test strips @ $29 - $120 per box.
*5 "New and improved" testing meters @ $25 - $55 each.
*2 Wheelchairs @ $500 a pop.
*3 Shower chairs $75 - $125 each.
*2 Toilet seats risers @ $55 each.
All this was acquired in the last three years.
This doesn't even count the twice weekly visits from home health care nurses or her physical therapist. (Which I replaced with having her great-grandchildren cooking dinner for her and having them take her on walks around the back yard.)
Multiply this by the many people covered by "Cadillac" insurance companies.
How much do these companies squeeze from federal coffers in any given year?
There is just too much money to be made by keeping people "sick".
4 comments:
The mandate is needed to make the economics of no pre-existing conditions and no lifetime caps work. You trade the freedom to not have health insurance in exchange for the elimination of pre-existing conditions and caps. Insurance companies can eliminate the caps because they are guaranteed to get 30 mil new customers.
I don't necessarily agree with the mandate precisely because the mandate does NOT mean govt run health care. They're mandating that you buy PRIVATE health insurance. I object because there is no guarantee that the private, for profit insurance will be affordable and even the so called elimination of pre-existing conditions and caps has many unacceptable caveats.
I think you can trust govt administered health care about as much as a private health insurance co. Neither is to be trusted. Let's not forget that every other modern, developed country in the world has some form of universal health, almost all of which are administered by their govts. Most seem satisfied with their health care and you don't hear about these conspiracy plots; however, I readily admit there is the potential for this kind of abuse especially in AmeriKKKa.
By most accounts, especially the elderly, the largest run health plan in the US, Medicare, is fairly well run, administratively, though, I agree with your observation that it seems that there is a lot of waste. I suspect this waste pales in comparison to the 30% - 40% profit and admin costs that are added to the true cost of health care by the insurance companies.
You lament that the health care industry seems more focused on making profits than keeping people well. To me, this is an argument for govt run health care. (current proposals are not even close to govt run HC, despite what Fox says) Why must there be "profit" in health care at all? Why not just pay the doctors and hospitals directly for services delivered instead of paying insurance companies for services delivered plus that 30% - 40% of profit and admin they add in? Let's eliminate the profit layer, the middlemen i.e. the insurance companies in the health industry. Yes, in this scenario the govt would coordinate the payments, which they do very efficiently with Medicare, averaging 3% - 4% in administrative costs relative to total Medicare costs. This is the argument for single payer except under single payer the insurance companies would still be there to make their traditional profit, but much of their admin costs would be reduced, thus lowering the overall cost of HC. The delivery of health care would still be managed by the insurance co's, but payments would come from the govt. Is that really so radical? Health care and who makes the payments for health care are two different things and not tantamount to taking it over. Most of those other modern countries do not have the insurance profit layer/middlemen in their HC systems. We're letting then stay in the game and they're still mad.
I personally think it's criminal that a modern, developed, wealthy society like ours does not have basic universal health care. I really do like Obama, but I think Hillary was right, that nicca is too soft. He keeps trying to appease these White, right wing lunatics instead of smashing whoever to get his agenda implemented (just like Bush did for 8 years).
Anyway, guess I'm off on a tangent. The bottom line is that the current health care legislation sucks, but I think it is incrementally better than the status quo and does not even approach a takeover of health care by the govt. As long as the profit layer (insurance companies) remain in the Health care system, certain trade-offs will have to be made, such as the mandates. Outrageously, these mandates are not to buy an affordable govt health plan, but they are forcing you to buy from a for profit, private, health care insurer without guaranteeing that the private insurer will offer you an affordable plan that meets all your health needs. That's what's really infuriating!
To many insurance companies are now parts of banks.
Current thinking is that if the big banks failed - we would all fail.
But yeah... cut our the middle man and voila!
I see what you are saying about Big Pharma!!! Damn...
Post a Comment