User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 112

  1. #81
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mooky View Post
    Then the imperfect peeps will be charged higher prices and us perfect peeps will be given free health cover! JK
    Well, you just dammned me from birth. Thank you.

    BTW, you might be perfect but you have no idea what they would see in your DNA that didn't please them. You might just end up paying higher price to based on your lifetime projection of health.

  2. #82
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    It's selfish of old people to want medical procedures. They should just die for the good of the collective.
    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    The line forms at the Soylent Green plant. If we hurry we won't have to wait!
    Personally, I like the idea of carousel from Logan's Run better, more festive.

  3. #83
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Well, if I'm not mistaken, it's the health care systems in the UK and Canada that have begun limiting the access of older patients to the more involved procedures.

    So restricting access on the basis of patient profiles is as much a public issue as a private one. I don't see how moving US health care into the public sector would help.
    Are you seriously going to ignore the fact that insurance companies limit or deny people's access to treatment in this country everyday based on their health history. You realize if you have ever reported smoking, it will be known by every insurance company you do business with to the day you die regardless of whether or not you have quit? The private industry is currently in the practice of using any prior health condition it can find to deny people coverage or insurance. You are comparing a multi-billion dollar industry that is only concerned with profit and their flagrant exploitation of records of everyone to a government program denying expensive treatments to the elderly? For such a wise old dude, you certainly are ignorant of the health care system.

    And I guarantee you that nobody in the UK or Canada loses their house and savings because they can't pay their medical bills.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    We don't have a very privatized system in the United States. The federal government spends 40% of the money spent on health care in the country every year. It's a hodgepodge of government, employer, and private spending in that industry. And the government has the potential for far greater malice with access to private medical records by its nature.
    I'm gonna need you to back up that 40% statistic. I assume what you mean is that 40% of the federal government money goes toward Social Security and Medicaid. That isn't entirely health care. As far as malice in public records, I have yet to see the federal government do so with the countless other records we trust them to keep. It made national news when just a few trainy yuppies peaked at the passport files of the presidential candidates out of curiosity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  4. #84
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Are you seriously going to ignore the fact that insurance companies limit or deny people's access to treatment in this country everyday based on their health history. You realize if you have ever reported smoking, it will be known by every insurance company you do business with to the day you die regardless of whether or not you have quit? The private industry is currently in the practice of using any prior health condition it can find to deny people coverage or insurance. You are comparing a multi-billion dollar industry that is only concerned with profit and their flagrant exploitation of records of everyone to a government program denying expensive treatments to the elderly? For such a wise old dude, you certainly are ignorant of the health care system.
    I don't see the merit in defending either system if it denies treatments to people

  5. #85
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I don't see the merit in defending either system if it denies treatments to people
    The merit is in the government program, you don't lose your home and most people are covered. Whereas a private system could care less whether people are dieing or losing their livelihood as long as it can bring in a quarterly profit. No system is perfect, but I have yet to find reason to embrace the private entities who have been exploiting our records, tax dollars, and general welfare.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  6. #86
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Are you seriously going to ignore the fact that insurance companies limit or deny people's access to treatment in this country everyday based on their health history. You realize if you have ever reported smoking, it will be known by every insurance company you do business with to the day you die regardless of whether or not you have quit? The private industry is currently in the practice of using any prior health condition it can find to deny people coverage or insurance. You are comparing a multi-billion dollar industry that is only concerned with profit and their flagrant exploitation of records of everyone to a government program denying expensive treatments to the elderly? For such a wise old dude, you certainly are ignorant of the health care system.

    And I guarantee you that nobody in the UK or Canada loses their house and savings because they can't pay their medical bills.



    I'm gonna need you to back up that 40% statistic. I assume what you mean is that 40% of the federal government money goes toward Social Security and Medicaid. That isn't entirely health care. As far as malice in public records, I have yet to see the federal government do so with the countless other records we trust them to keep. It made national news when just a few trainy yuppies peaked at the passport files of the presidential candidates out of curiosity.
    According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, just over $2.1 trillion was spent on health care in the United States in 2006, and the various levels of government in the United States combined spent $970 billion out of that $2.1 trillion, with the rest of it coming out of private or employer insurance or philanthropy. So, it's actually up to 46% as of two years ago. In other words, for every dollar spent on health care in our country, a government agency or program spends 46 cents.

    And it's totally within insurance agencies' rights to charge higher amounts or not to cover someone with major preexisting conditions. They are, after all, in a business to make money. The thing I come down on insurance (and pharmaceutical) companies for is their cozying up to the government to set beneficial regulatory frameworks, and for their notoriously "creative" methods of not paying out when they should. It's a risky business by nature, and they don't need anyone's help to turn a profit, if they are good at what they do. That goes for pretty much every industry, AFAIK. As it stands, health care, along with aerospace, utilities, and transportation, are major beneficiaries of the government teat.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #87
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, just over $2.1 trillion was spent on health care in the United States in 2006, and the various levels of government in the United States combined spent $970 billion out of that $2.1 trillion, with the rest of it coming out of private or employer insurance or philanthropy. So, it's actually up to 46% as of two years ago. In other words, for every dollar spent on health care in our country, a government agency or program spends 46 cents.
    You are speculating based on stats pulled off wiki articles or something because you are not doing a very good job. Federal government spending on health care in 2006 was 21.9% and in 2008 it is estimated that 23.2% will be spent. Both figures are half of what you are claiming.

    Oh, wait, I see what you are saying. over 40% of the money spent on health care, comes from the government. I agree with that. We are paying for drug companies research and whatnot.

    And it's totally within insurance agencies' rights to charge higher amounts or not to cover someone with major preexisting conditions. They are, after all, in a business to make money. The thing I come down on insurance (and pharmaceutical) companies for is their cozying up to the government to set beneficial regulatory frameworks, and for their notoriously "creative" methods of not paying out when they should. It's a risky business by nature, and they don't need anyone's help to turn a profit, if they are good at what they do. That goes for pretty much every industry, AFAIK. As it stands, health care, along with aerospace, utilities, and transportation, are major beneficiaries of the government teat.
    So basically it is alright if insurance companies keep databases and records of ours and our family's medical history and make judgments about whether or not we receive medical treatment when we need it, or even coverage if we choose to buy it, but you are down on the government being able to do the same thing.

    And of course, your only complaint of our health care system despite its glaring inadequacies is the government involvement. Spoken like a true free market loving libertarian.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  8. #88
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    The merit is in the government program, you don't lose your home and most people are covered. Whereas a private system could care less whether people are dieing or losing their livelihood as long as it can bring in a quarterly profit. No system is perfect, but I have yet to find reason to embrace the private entities who have been exploiting our records, tax dollars, and general welfare.
    I have yet to see why I should totally trust or embrace either system. I certainly don't agree with some national data base from the craddle to pidgeon hole people no matter which system controls the reins of power.

    In this country (USA) the corporations DO run the government through their influence due to political funding. So what's the real difference?

  9. #89
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    You are speculating based on stats pulled off wiki articles or something because you are not doing a very good job. Federal government spending on health care in 2006 was 21.9% and in 2008 it is estimated that 23.2% will be spent. Both figures are half of what you are claiming.

    Oh, wait, I see what you are saying. over 40% of the money spent on health care, comes from the government. I agree with that. We are paying for drug companies research and whatnot.



    So basically it is alright if insurance companies keep databases and records of ours and our family's medical history and make judgments about whether or not we receive medical treatment when we need it, or even coverage if we choose to buy it, but you are down on the government being able to do the same thing.

    And of course, your only complaint of our health care system despite its glaring inadequacies is the government involvement. Spoken like a true free market loving libertarian.
    The government has no right to decide whether or not to serve the public; it must. Medicaid can't deny service to someone (unless they make too much money to qualify). A private organization has every right to say "We do not want to do business with this person." That is freedom of association, and it's a core personal and economic right in the Western world.

    And health care is not perfect. I happen to work in a hospital, and I do insurance authorizations and deal with medical records every day. It's a bloated, bureaucratic industry that makes money hand over fist almost without regard to quality of care, because the demand for health care is pretty damn inelastic. I never claimed that businesses are good and government is evil, inherently. I do claim that government interference usually ends up doing more harm than good, and it can have particularly catastrophic results when it comes to individuals' healths and well-beings. To see what some very good doctors have to put up with from both the federal government and their bosses in the health system makes me respect them all the more. It sucks that so many are leaving Pennsylvania due to malpractice insurance premiums.

    BTW, every time you use "free market" and "libertarian" as epithets, I do a little dance inside, like this guy: Why would I feel bad about being pro-freedom on all issues?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #90
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I have yet to see why I should totally trust or embrace either system. I certainly don't agree with some national data base from the craddle to pidgeon hole people no matter which system controls the reins of power.

    In this country (USA) the corporations DO run the government through their influence due to political funding. So what's the real difference?
    Good question. Would you feel better if the government or the corporations controlled the information for databases on DNA for children who could become criminals?

    To be honest, the problem with labeling and invasion of privacy is easy enough to solve by just never letting the records become public or used for anything outside of police investigations. So the only major problem would be who controls the records. People don't seem to trust the public or the private sectors not to exploit the information, so maybe if it was ran by an independent entity like a trust. That way the DNA information could be treated as property and protected by the same laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

Similar Threads

  1. DNA database for Newborns in USA?
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-10-2008, 12:20 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-10-2007, 10:56 PM
  3. Bush apparently now OK with Mercury for Children
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 12:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO