Health insurance in America is a joke- anyone else pissed off!

I can't believe we are the only western country without universal health care! Because I've had (and still have to) to see a Dr. once a week for the addictive benzodiazepines that I admittedly requested, but she prescribed for me; My private PPO that my folks were generously paying for has increased and increased in cost. Now they cannot afford to pay it anymore, nor do I expect them to, and so I am a full time student with a little money in the bank to add to my student loans who is forced to make a decision: Do I pay cash for monthly $120 Dr. visits and prescriptions, or do I try and raise my deductible and find the cheapest plan?

Can someone tell me what I should do please. I'm willing to risk going without comprehensive coverage if they have rx only plans, but I know that insurance companies are businesses designed to make a profit from you and I honestly don't want to deal with hours of searching through plans. My mom was concerned about switching companies because they can exclude you for pre-existing conditions that I did not have when I got my current policy which will expire November 1st.

I was thinking that the situation with the largest chance of major injury/hospitalization would be a car accident, so what do you think about just getting medical on my auto insurance and paying cash for the Dr. and rx's?

I've seen so many things on the news about the shady practices of insurance companies that I don't trust that they wouldn't deny me coverage if something really bad were to happen to me. They hire people (private investigators) to dig up any undisclosed info on you or the slightest technicality to get out of paying for treatment for expensive life threating conditions. One lady was denied coverage for some rare disease after they had already paid out because they found out she didn't report a previous yeast infection when she applied!!

So should I go with cash, and maybe try to get my meds online from Canada? Or is there any rationale for paying a huge amount for health insurance with no income? Thanks (PS. our country is going to shit)

JH--

If the Constitution were properly followed, then you wouldn't have an issue with healthcare. Healthcare shouldn't exist at all, anywhere, and should exist only between the doctor and patient. This was corrupted by Nixon in the 70s when he was approached by one of his associates with the idea for the government to make money off of healthcare by introducing corporations into the mix via HMOs. From here, the medical-industrial complex was born (Sicko talks a bit about this, Moore's documentary), and combined with constant inflation from the unAmerican Federal Reserve, prices skyrocketed. Inflation benefits the top of the pyramid, at the expense of the bottom (us).

Universal healthcare would be a disaster for America. Big government is why we are in the economic crisis that we are in now, big government is why our savings decrease by roughly 10% every year in value, big government is why we are not only bankrupt as a nation but $10 trillion in national debt, and over $47 trillion in domestic debt (think Social Security, Medicare, etc.). We currently run a socialist form of capitalism, in other words, we're slaves to our government and nowhere near as free as we'd like to think. The idea of an income tax, even if it were 1%, is proof of this slavery. Universal healthcare in America would guarantee that we have taxes even further raised or more money created out of thin air to destroy our currency as we cannot afford a universal healthcare system. You can also thank the illegal immigrants for getting free health care and not paying a cent of taxes or fees towards that healthcare due to a government that could give a shit less about them receiving citizen welfare benefits when they don't even have green cards. This crap is what's responsible for hospitals closing down.

If you want to rebel against the system, get the generic version of what you want from India. I've purchased generics from India before, and they're VERY reliable and safe. Dr. Reddy is a good distributor. Don't allow yourself to get ripped off and don't give a dime to those asshats in America. Canada is decent as well but not as cheap as India.

LOL, Nidhogge I respectful disagree with you other than the part about avoiding American medicine altogether. Real quick:

Do you know why prescriptions in Canada and Cuba are cheaper? Because Canada has goverment oversight of blood sucking pharma companies and a universal health care system. Say all the bad stuff you want about Cuba, they have some of the best free health care available.

There is a difference between democratic socialism and communism, but over the years politicians have succeeding in blending the two together in the minds of American people. Canada and European countries have this same system and it works great. You saw Sicko. In democratic socialism, the people get a say and the government regulates only certain areas of the private sector. Turn on the news and tell me that free Capitalism works.

Yes we have big government, but what you cannot do is blame the beneficial programs for that while ignoring the needless ones. We have the largest military budget in the world. We could cut that by half and solve a lot of our problems. These days conventional weapons aren't the big threat anyway. It is chemical, and biological weapons that can be sneaked in here. The funding should go towards intelligence (and I'm not talking about illegal phone wiring!)

Bush created the department of homeland security, and gone from a surplus to a record deficit. This is the party of small government! Why chose to talk about social security and medicare and not unnecessary wars and military occupations. Yo really think social security is what is breaking us?

Our big government sticks it's nose in places we don't want it, but it doesn't fund programs that actually would help. That is why there is such a negative view. We are demonstrating all of the worst parts of socialism and none of the good. The bank bail outs for example. Dude we just have different opinions on this, but 1% income tax is slavery? Do you enjoy having a fire department, police department, public education, military, etc? Where would this money come from if not from the people? You want a bill to come from the for-profit fire department after your house burns down and it cannot be delivered because your mailbox no longer exists? You think this wall street mess is good? Should we just have duels or shoot it out like the wild west? There has never been a government in historythat I know of being successful without collecting taxes. It is the greedy war mongering empires that have collapsed in the past because they over tax the average man/woman, and spend all that money invading and conquering other countries. Now why does that ring a bell?

JHarsh80 - As a "medical insider" I am very pessimistic about our sick care system. I have very little faith in most forms of "organized medicine."

I see a bright spot in the future though, as more and more individuals starting to take responsibility for their own health.

Have you heard of the slow taper method to get off of benzodiazepines? It works by reducing the medication by 2% every 14-days. The sides will be very, very minimal. You wouldn't want to be a slave to this stuff, it's brutal.

I say no thanks to cut, burn or poison medicine, I don't even have health insurance, if I get a broken leg or arm, I'll pay out of pocket, that's about all I would trust them for is emergency trauma, that's it.

CausticSymmetry wrote:JHarsh80 - As a "medical insider" I am very pessimistic about our sick care system. I have very little faith in most forms of "organized medicine."

I see a bright spot in the future though, as more and more individuals starting to take responsibility for their own health.

Have you heard of the slow taper method to get off of benzodiazepines? It works by reducing the medication by 2% every 14-days. The sides will be very, very minimal. You wouldn't want to be a slave to this stuff, it's brutal.

I say no thanks to cut, burn or poison medicine, I don't even have health insurance, if I get a broken leg or arm, I'll pay out of pocket, that's about all I would trust them for is emergency trauma, that's it.

Thanks to you IH, I think a lot of us have.

I agree completely IH, But one trauma incident is all it takes to bankrupt you in some cases. As a student I cannot even afford to break my arm. I'm definitely not going to renew my insurance. It's gambling but the odds of a catastrophic event are less likely than me paying for nothing. The only other thing is that lab work is very expensive to pay out of pocket.

I know to taper very slowly, but how do I go about physically reducing two pills by .02? In my head the only way I can assume you do it is by crushing them into powder, buying a very accurate digital scale, and being super meticulous about getting that powder into your mouth without loosing any. Never mind I just figured it out- Make a liquid solution and then calculate mg/ml. That was so obvious lol.

So if I take 2mg of clonazepam (2 x 1mg pills) a day x 30 days, do you have a suggestion on the right volume of water to dilute it in order to get .02/x without x being so small that I need to measure it in drops? I know I can do the math tomorrow when I'm not so tired but I would be a lot more reassured if someone else calculated it for me because I don't trust my math 100%.

Thank you so much for bringing this option to my awareness IH. You may have saved me tons of agony! Thank god they aren't gel caps!

This is what I'm worried about. The Australian government have long spoken about completely privatising heath care. This would be a shocking move IMO

Thanks to professional and knowledgeable like IH and others on this forum, we do have a choice in the kind of medical care we want. Like IH I do not trust the comventional medical profession. I have seen too many cases where their treatments have resulted in far more negative consequences to those who have undertaken them. Unfortunately people are like sheep. Out of fear created by propaganda through various means most of us put conventional medicine on a pedestal and their practitioners have attained an almost godlike power over the masses. While this continues we will see millions continue to suffer and die unnneccessarily at their hands. I, for one, have given up on the medical profession. Since undertaking the alternative, or should I say the true healing route, I feel 100% better, strong, fit and healthy. And you know what, I am confident in being able to fight any kind of health issue through people I know care and can give me the right advice and are not influenced by greed and profit as has been created by Big Pharma. That's why, I will thank IH again. Through the creation of this website and forum, his advice that he always unconditionally provides, he demonstrates that he is a man of morals and kindness. I've never met you IH but I can tell what sort of person you are - one who has a big heart. Your advice to all my queries has helped me a lot - not like those insensitive and cold doctors and specialists I have encountered over the years.

Agreed on IH, he's made a big difference in all of our lives I believe, as well as others that we associate with indirectly through knowledge that we pass on. And, he's inspired us to do our own research which creates a constant influx of new information in this forum.

JH--

America used to have the best healthcare in the world, envied by all. This isn't a matter of disagreement between you and I, but rather a matter of knowledge of history and how things came to be. Never, ever look at the problem before studying the root. If Congress studied the root of the financial crisis, they would be deregulating the markets (more regulation is BULLSHIT, regulation got us into this mess, just more lies to take away more of our freedom), and wouldn't be contributing a cent of taxpayer money towards bailouts.

Due to institutions like the FDA, doctors can't prescribe things that have been traditionally used for health--they're forced to prescribe meds exclusively, or lose their license. In America, the government is heavily influenced by pharmaceutical lobbying, therefore, universal healthcare would only stand to benefit them further. This would eliminate all competition remaining between pharmaceutical companies, and since it is government money, they would charge the government EVEN MORE for prescription medication than they are currently! Why? Because they can. And, guess what? Government money is YOUR money.

Universal healthcare is collapsing all over the place. People have to wait 3 months to get an X-ray and everything is in a "queue" system. It used to be that a doctor would negotiate a price based on affordability to you, before government allowed corporations to get in between the doctor and patient. You still have docs like this today, but they must refused Medicare and any other form of government welfare to doctors, because if they *DO* accept it then they also accept the terms that come with it. Those terms being complete slavery to government ideas about how medical care should be. Ron Paul was one such doctor that delivered 4000+ babies, some free--he never refused a patient, and negotiated rates with them based on what they could afford. If they couldn't afford anything, he'd do it for free. THIS is how all American docs used to be, and why healthcare was never a crisis like it is today. People were always healthy!

Sicko is mostly a load of garbage. Michael Moore is a twisted version of a patriot, he even tries to blame the sub-prime mortgage crisis on, get this, HEALTHCARE. He claims that because Americans pay so much for healthcare, they were unable to afford those mortgages. While this may be true, he totally ignores the Federal Reserve's role and the government's role in creating laws that force lending institutions to lend bad credit. These are the two agents responsible for this mess, NOT healthcare. How can you compare a tiny little country like Cuba with a population smaller than most of our states to America? That's comparing apples and oranges. I've spoken with people that actually live in Europe about their healthcare systems, namely France and Germany, and they are a CLUSTERFUCK. Those words exactly out of their mouths.

I think it's sad that you go to the news for your information, when our news is manipulated by 5 men that own it all. You clearly didn't read anything that I said--we DO NOT HAVE free market capitalism. We have democratic socialism. If we had free market capitalism, our country would be thriving. Everything you see today is the result of government meddling in the markets. If you actually take the time to research what laws Congress and the Bush Administration have passed in the past decade, then it'd be crystal clear as to how the government was instrumental in this mess. Austrian Free Market economicists predicted this disaster 70 years ago.

I have two articles for you. One is on FDR showing how his meddling in the economy extended our Depression by seven years:

http://tinyurl.com/44ysum

Ron Paul in 1999 against what appeared to be deregulation:

http://reason.com/blog/show/129593.html

Anne Schwartz, an associate of economic genius Milton Friedman at 93 years of age explaining the crisis (she lived through the Depression):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428279231046053.html

"Yes we have big government, but what you cannot do is blame the beneficial programs for that while ignoring the needless ones. We have the largest military budget in the world. We could cut that by half and solve a lot of our problems. These days conventional weapons aren't the big threat anyway. It is chemical, and biological weapons that can be sneaked in here. The funding should go towards intelligence (and I'm not talking about illegal phone wiring!)"

So, now you're contradicting yourself. You say we have free market capitalism, and then say we have big government. The two can NOT coexist together. Big government has done absolutely no good, and do you even know how social security works? In the 1930s there was a lawsuit against the government regarding the government using Social Security money for whatever they please (wars, pork, you name it). The Supreme Court ruled that according to the Constitution, ANY tax can be used as the government sees fit. Your social security is bankrupt for a reason, it's a tax, and the government uses it as it sees fit. Social Security wouldn't be needed if we had no income tax and a gold standard to protect our savings from inflation. Social Security will not exist and can not exist because we are bankrupt. When we had little government before 1913 (when the Federal Reserve was created), our country prospered and was the envy of the world. Since then, we have been living on credit, and what we are experiencing now is the bill. We were hugely in debt under Clinton as well, it's just that much worse under Bush.

The funding should not go to intelligence, the funding should go towards securing our borders. The CIA should be dismantled, as they are the cause of Middle Eastern contempt, and are full of corruption. They go into Middle Eastern governments, overthrow their leaders and then install puppet leaders. How pissed would you be if the Chinese did this to us? Well, we already *have* puppet leaders--our presidents are chosen at the yearly Bilderberg conference by the most powerful people in the world.

There are no good parts to socialism, and republican ideals are not being followed. Neoconservative principles are what the Republican party is all about now. Let me explain to you what a true Conservative Republican believes in:

- Gold standard: Sound money that cannot be inflated. This chains down government and limits it so that we can't go to war unless absolutely necessary (self-defense)

- Anti-War: Historically, Republicans ended wars, Democrats began them. The Republican that was going to run against FDR was mysteriously murdered, he was anti-war. The Republican that replaced him was a British Agent, pro-war. FDR was seen as the lesser of two evils, and was voted in. Because of that, we were put into WWII despite the fact that our Congress enacted TONS of laws to prevent us from entering another war like World War I after they realized they were duped into entering it. We had no place in either of those wars, and the reason that the Japanese attacked us was due to us placing an oil embargo on them which drastically screwed with their economy. Allies with none, free trade and friends with all, and you don't have these problems. That's the way of the founding fathers.

- No income tax. You do not NEED an income tax and in fact, it's 40% of the taxes that our Federal Government receives each year. That means that 60% of taxation is through other means. What you need to do is shrink government down and make it live within its means. The Department of Education is atrocious and the quality of education has gone down drastically since its inception. It's a massive waste of taxpayer money. The Dept. of Energy has only facilitated Big Oil and has done nothing for alternative energy. The Federal Government doesn't provide money for your fire department, police, etc. -- that is all local. You need to realize that states are to be treated like countries, and the Federal Government's role is ONLY to maintain a military and secure our borders, as well as diplomacy, trading, regulating our currency (which it doesn't), and any other powers designed by the Constitution. That is how the Constitution was designed--if the Federal Government doesn't have the power, then the states do.

The most successful empires were those with sound money and low taxes. Those that collapsed had fiat currency systems like we do (in fact, not one fiat currency system has EVER survived, dating back to the Roman Empire). Nobody's saying we won't have taxes, but you DO have a right to every penny that you make. Socialism forces you to work for other people, and that is stealing, plain and simple. If you condone redistribution of wealth in the name of "fairness," then you are condoning thievery. It's not your role to determine what is fair or not, and I don't trust anybody to be fair. Just let me live, and give me freedom.

On another note, the more decentralized that government power is, the less chance for corruption, and the more voice that you and I have. Is it any wonder that we have big government? The power elite know this, and that is why they're doing everything possible to try to pin our current problems on capitalism and democracy. They want to dupe you into thinking that these are the problems so that you willingly give up more of your freedom to them. They create chaos so they can bring about a new world order. Make no mistake, everything happens with careful planning. JFK even gave a speech on Secret Societies shortly before he was assassinated, feel free to listen to it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces&feature=related

The more power that the states have, the less power the elite have. Concentrating power in the Federal government is restoring America to what it was pre-Revolution...pure tyranny. Decentralization gives each individual a far bigger voice as the people with the power would be governors, state senators, local legislatures, etc. It is a lot harder to corrupt local politicians and far easier at the federal level.

Nidhogge is spot on.

nidhogge - I think this is the best speech I have heard from Kennedy, I've heard it many times. Seems these days, the media has a stranglehold over who gets elected. To think that the revolution that enable liberty was a result from only 3% of the population back in 1776.

The FDA in all of its many forms over the last 100 hundred years has always been wrought with corruption. Many organizations such as the AMA figured a way to gain "credibility" by using dubious "approval" tactics. The system of "protection" is more like a ruse for protection of a profit system, rather than for consumer advocacy.

Wow, excellent thread! Nid, IH - I am in agreement with almost everything you have written. Its funny but I have been independently coming to most of the same conclusions as of late regarding this. Good to see it laid out so thoroughly. I feel that most people if actually given the choice, and clearly able to see the pros and cons - would choose smaller government. A larger government almost invariably means less individual freedom, liberty is necessarily reduced, and power is stripped from the citizens.


This is worth checking out:

Health Care Is Not a Right - By Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. - http://www.afcm.org/hcinar.html

Its a discussion on the moral travesty of the "right" to free health care

"...Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree."



IH - I earlier this year I began saving the the $ I would be "investing" in health insurance in an actual savings account. I think that account (its getting quite large) would serve me much better if I happen to get sick or injured then any health insurance would.

JS--

I absolutely love that article, thanks for sharing that man.

Nid and IH are right on the money. If you think that universal healthcare is the answer, you need to spend more time in Europe. Those people have to wait months if not years to see shitty, disinterested physicians. They may spend less on healthcare directly, but their taxes are much higher and the quality of healthcare is lower.

The current system is broken, no doubt, but universal healthcare is not the answer. There is a reason that most people in this country dread going to the post office or DMV. They are gov't run institutions and as such, are terribly inefficient. Such things would not be tolerated in the private sector because in the private sector a company that is inefficient and provides poor service will lose business a company that is efficient and provides fantastic service. But there are no competitors when it comes to government service.

Moreover, why would we want to make the entire country responsible for our collective health problems? I choose not to smoke, drink, use recreational drugs, engage in promiscuous unprotected sex, or eat junk. Why should I have to subsidize fat slobs who do all or most of the above? I absolutely will fight to the death to defend your right to be a lazy slob if you chose, but I just as steadfastly refuse to pay for the consequences of those choices.

Of course, this same argument can be made about many things. I make smart financial decisions, manage my expenses to avoid debt, got an education, etc., all so that I could take care of myself and (someday) my family. Again, you have every right to refuse to do most or all of those things, but you must bear the consequences of those actions.

Having said all of that, I do believe in charity and helping the downtrodden. But I would prefer to do this on MY terms, not the government's. In the end, the amount of money "donated" may be the same, but at least if I do it myself I have more control as to whether the money is going to those who truly need it or some lazy slob who squandered any opportunity he or she had to make the most of his or her life. This, of course, is not to mention the corruption that inevitably results from putting large sums of money in the hands of politicians to allocate.

I could go on, but I will stop here to spare those who've read this far.

EIC--

That'd make a great guest editorial in a paper if only there were a paper that would let it be printed!

nidhogge wrote:EIC--

That'd make a great guest editorial in a paper if only there were a paper that would let it be printed!

Thanks, dude. It might need to be toned down a tad, though!

By the way, I want to be clear that all of what I said is coming from a man who is paying for private insurance out of pocket. Insurance that is unbelievably expensive and doesn't cover shit. Indeed, I have a preexisting condition (shoulder) and my insurance company assured me they would drop me if I needed too much care for my shoulder. So if anyone could benefit from government-sponsored healthcare right now, it's definitely me. The downside, of course, is that I would have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror in the morning.

When millions of people don't have health care, it is you and I (the US citizens/tax payers) that foot their bills when they visit the ER or need emergency care anyway. Someone has to pay it, and if you don't want it to be the government (via your tax dollars) you still end up paying it indirectly because of the increase in insurance premiums that result for everybody. You guys already pay for universal health care as a result of your sky high premiums; all without us actually having the benefits as a nation that would come with actually having the health care! Those Dr.s and Nurses get paid regardless if the patient has insurance or not (which is the way it should be), and as a result the cost of health care for everyone rises to compensate. When the cost of health care rises; what else do you think rises? If you said Health insurance cost you would be correct. So why not at least get something that we are already paying for instead of continuing to get raped by an obviously god-awful system. How many major industrialized countries have universal health care now and how many don't. Have any of you guys watched "Sicko"? Was Michael Moore staging those scenes when he goes into hospitals in different countries and dispels the idea that you have to wait forever to get in, the quality sucks, or the doctors are disgruntled or underpaid by actually interviewing the patients and the physicians? Did he pick and chose the best places to go (I guess there is a chance). That movie received widespread bipartisan acclaim, and unless I completely missed the whole point of the movie (our health care system is broken, and privatized (for profit) health care insurance does not work./We are in the dark ages compared to countries with universal health care/We have a major problem and government needs to intervene.) then could someone please tell me where he was going with it?

It's funny how people get so pissed at the idea of their taxes going to provide universal health care (one of the benefits of socialism), but don't seem to be thoroughly raging pissed off when our government steps into the private financial sector and bails out private institutions with a start of 7 billion dollars of your tax money- A gigantic act of socialism of the worst kind. So we have the negatives of socialism without any positives, and that is ok with people? The free market approach does not always work out for the best. The insane climb over the last couple years in oil prices is not because of a lack of resources, it is from Wallstreet buying up all the shares and artificially inflating their value resulting in you and I getting screwed. It is only because of the current economic collapse and the selling off of those shares as the whole market took a nose dive that we are finally seeing some relief at the pump. Maybe we could have saved billions more in Middle Eastern wars over the years if there was some kind of oversight of that shit?

EIC wrote:
By the way, I want to be clear that all of what I said is coming from a man who is paying for private insurance out of pocket. Insurance that is unbelievably expensive and doesn't cover shit. Indeed, I have a preexisting condition (shoulder) and my insurance company assured me they would drop me if I needed too much care for my shoulder. So if anyone could benefit from government-sponsored healthcare right now, it's definitely me. The downside, of course, is that I would have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror in the morning.

EIC,

Would you have a hard time looking at yourself in the mirror if the fire department saved your house from burning down, because they are a universal service regulated by government and payed for with your our tax dollars? What about if a policeman saved your life? When you hear sirens and pull over to the side of the road do you think, "oh hell, there goes my hard earned dollars to pay to save someone else's property. They probably fell asleep with a cigarette in their hand...I would never do that; why should I be paying for that?" Why would you have a hard time excepting treatment for your shoulder that you payed for via your taxes. It's not free; it's not a handout. Nothing is free. I personally wouldn't feel that way for that reason- I'm getting what I payed for.

You make it too easy, JHarsh.

JHarsh80 wrote:

EIC,

Would you have a hard time looking at yourself in the mirror if the fire department saved your house from burning down, because they are a universal service regulated by government and payed for with your our tax dollars?

As a matter of fact, I would feel like a piece of shit if I did something careless or stupid and the fire department had to come. And here's a whopper for you: If it was determined that my negligence caused the fire, I would get a bill for the cost of fighting it. If the fire caused damage to others' property, I would have to pay for that, too. And that's the way it should be. But if my house caught fire from a brush fire that some unnamed arsonist caused, I would absolutely not feel bad about the fire department helping out.

What about if a policeman saved your life?

Dude, it's about choice. If someone broke into my house, what choice did I exercise to put myself in that position? Someone who chooses to live poorly and need constant medical attention should deal with the consequences and foot the bill themselves.

When you hear sirens and pull over to the side of the road do you think, "oh hell, there goes my hard earned dollars to pay to save someone else's property. They probably fell asleep with a cigarette in their hand...I would never do that; why should I be paying for that?" Why would you have a hard time excepting treatment for your shoulder that you payed for via your taxes. It's not free; it's not a handout. Nothing is free. I personally wouldn't feel that way for that reason- I'm getting what I payed for.

You don't seem to get it. The choice is not between no government and a total socialist society like the one you crave. I believe a government's first responsibility is to provide essential emergency services like fire and police protection. The government should also provide courts so that private citizens have neutral forums to air grievances against one another. The government should also stamp currency. These are things that all citizens will enjoy relatively equally. But healthcare is not. Someone who gave himself diabetes and now has to be on drugs for insulin management, poor eyesight, impotence, etc. had better find a way to cover that shit. Why should I, a person who has worked very hard to ensure that I don't need such healthcare, pay for his dumb ass?

My problem with socialism is not that I hate to help others. My problem is that I resent the government forcing me to help others who, in my opinion, don't deserve it. Now my opinion may not matter much to you, but it should be the final word when it's my hard-earned money we're talking about.

JHarsh80 wrote:When millions of people don't have health care, it is you and I (the US citizens/tax payers) that foot their bills when they visit the ER or need emergency care anyway. Someone has to pay it, and if you don't want it to be the government (via your tax dollars) you still end up paying it indirectly because of the increase in insurance premiums that result for everybody.

Hilarious. So because we dipped our toes into the socialist pool with ER's and are suffering for it, we should just dive all the way in? And you're wrong about insurance premiums. Insurance companies don't charge flat premiums. They tailor the rates to your individual problems. So, when I got my insurance, they wanted to take a look at my medical history. Since I am young, healthy, and free of problems, they could set the rates lower than someone who has a boatload of health issues. This is the way it should be. That tailoring disappears when the "premiums" come in the form of increased taxes and I simply send the bill to Uncle Sam.

You guys already pay for universal health care as a result of your sky high premiums; all without us actually having the benefits as a nation that would come with actually having the health care! Those Dr.s and Nurses get paid regardless if the patient has insurance or not (which is the way it should be), and as a result the cost of health care for everyone rises to compensate. When the cost of health care rises; what else do you think rises? If you said Health insurance cost you would be correct. So why not at least get something that we are already paying for instead of continuing to get raped by an obviously god-awful system. How many major industrialized countries have universal health care now and how many don't. Have any of you guys watched "Sicko"? Was Michael Moore staging those scenes when he goes into hospitals in different countries and dispels the idea that you have to wait forever to get in, the quality sucks, or the doctors are disgruntled or underpaid by actually interviewing the patients and the physicians? Did he pick and chose the best places to go (I guess there is a chance). That movie received widespread bipartisan acclaim, and unless I completely missed the whole point of the movie (our health care system is broken, and privatized (for profit) health care insurance does not work./We are in the dark ages compared to countries with universal health care/We have a major problem and government needs to intervene.) then could someone please tell me where he was going with it?

It's funny how people get so pissed at the idea of their taxes going to provide universal health care (one of the benefits of socialism), but don't seem to be thoroughly raging pissed off when our government steps into the private financial sector and bails out private institutions with a start of 7 billion dollars of your tax money- A gigantic act of socialism of the worst kind. So we have the negatives of socialism without any positives, and that is ok with people?

No, it's not okay. Frankly, I would have preferred to see the government deny the bailout. But there is an added factor that you are ignoring: The economic crisis was caused by banks imprudently giving out loans to people who could not afford them. When those people failed to make good on those loans, the banks needed a bailout. In this scenario, there are two culprits: the banks, for giving out loans when they shouldn't have, and the debtors for taking loans they had no business of accepting. If that were the end of it, you would not have seen a bailout. As far as most Americans are concerned, the banks and stupid people can go fuck themselves.

BUT, that is not where it ends. Unfortunately, many Americans and businesses have directly or indirectly invested money in the banks and financial corporations. If those institutions tanked, then millions and millions of "innocent" Americans and businesses would lose a lot of money. So the bailout was not designed to protect the financial institutions or the imprudent debtors, but the millions of people who had money invested in those institutions. In that respect, many believe that a temporary bout of socialist control is better than a total collapse. I'm not sure which is worse.

And that's just it--the bailout is supposed to be temporary, which makes it easier to stomach. But what you are advocating is a total and permanent control of the healthcare system. That's a totally different ballgame.

The free market approach does not always work out for the best. The insane climb over the last couple years in oil prices is not because of a lack of resources, it is from Wallstreet buying up all the shares and artificially inflating their value resulting in you and I getting screwed. It is only because of the current economic collapse and the selling off of those shares as the whole market took a nose dive that we are finally seeing some relief at the pump. Maybe we could have saved billions more in Middle Eastern wars over the years if there was some kind of oversight of that shit?

I disagree. The rise in oil prices is actually partly due to government regulation. Let me explain: This country is increasingly hamstrung by environmental regulations. Refineries are required to meet ever more stringent requirements. Suppose a company has 10 refineries each processing 1,000,000 barrels of oil a year (10,000,000 total) and it would cost them $10 billion ($1 billion each) to update them to government standards. Why would the company do this? Instead, it will simply close 9 of the refineries, pay $1 billion to update the tenth, and then, because supply has dwindled from 10,000,000 to 1,000,000 barrels processed, charge way more at the pump. This is a simplified illustration, but nicely highlights how government regulation has hurt, rather than helped, gas prices.

The other factor, of course, is that up until recently, Americans were consuming more oil than ever. The horsepower of the average vehicle has increased dramatically over the years, but the fuel economy has gone down. The number of vehicles on the road has also increased. With the recent hike in gas prices, people have been buying up highly efficient vehicles and driving less. The reduced consumption (reduced demand) more closely matches the supply and the price drops.

That's why it is total bullshit when Obama says that drilling for oil is not the answer because it will take years for that oil to reach the pump. Just the announcement that we are going to be starting widespread drilling would make the price of oil drop $.50 overnight. (Not to mention that we could temporarily draw additional oil from our oil reserves and then replace that draw as soon as the new oil is ready.) But we are getting off topic here.

It's clear that you are a socialist at heart. Socialism--like the mainstream Democratic platform--sounds awesome on paper. The big, nasty rich people should help the good-natured, poor person who's fallen on hard times. Who would say no to that? Then you get on the ground and see that most "rich" people are like my parents, who live in a modest house in a modest neighborhood in California and work a minimum of 50 hours a week each at 60 and 67, respectively. They are considered "rich" because their combined income is $250,000, although that kind of money is nothing here in Southern California.

On the other hand, you see that "poor" people are often people who dropped out of school, are addicted to drugs, still manage to have 6 kids, cannot hold a job, and expect the government to help them.

That is disgusting. Forcing people like my parents, who work their asses off to save for their retirement, to pay for someone who has totally fucked up his own life is an absolute insult. Imagine if I moved back with my parents and instead of getting a job, I sat at home all day drinking booze and smoking pot. My dad would (rightly) kick my ass out the door, and I'm his own son! Why should he have to subsidize a stranger who essentially does the same thing?

For some reason we have this fantasy about how awesome Europe is, but I wonder how many socialists have spent any length of time there. In 2003, I went to tour Europe for awhile before starting a study abroad session at Oxford. I recall vividly staying with relatives of a family friend in Paris. They were a married couple with one son. Both the husband and wife were surgeons, so I thought I was going to be staying in some swanky pad. Not so; it was one of the smallest, oldest, shittiest apartments that I've ever seen in a crowded part of the city. There are many people working blue collar jobs in this country who don't have it so bad.

EIC- I do get it actually, and although you seem to think that I crave an absolute socialist society based on the fact that I think emergency health care (and god-forbid maybe even preventative health care) should be a service just like any other emergency service means I want a completely socialist government- despite my obvious focus on the issue of health care, and the specific example about the bailout package I included so you could see that was not the case; that's simply not true. I see everything in gray believe it or not. It is just that the opinions of some are so black and white, that I was trying to overstate the case to compensate for that.

The cigarette analogy was maybe a bad example because it would be negligence, but it was just an analogy...substitute cigarette for old heater or whatever makes that analogy work for you. I also asked you what you would think, not what actually happened.

You talk about people who chose to live poorly like death and illness are 100% a matter of choice. Got news for you man..everyone dies someday, and there are traumatic accidents that happen to people that they cannot control. Also, last time I checked I didn't have control of my genetics. Maybe you've mastered that one too. Even assuming that health was a matter of choice like you are suggesting...healthy food costs a lot more than Mc'donalds, and the fact of the mater is that many people can barely afford to live off mac and cheese, let alone take a multi vitamin and/or other supplements. What about exercise? Tell someone working two jobs and raising a family that they should spend more time in the gym or jogging.

Of course health insurance co's tailor their rates to the individual. Come on now man...who is the one talking black and white now? I am talking about a blanket rise in health care for everyone regardless of their health history. Simply put...the healthy person and the ill one are BOTH paying more than they should because it is a baseline rise in overall health costs. This is not a complicated concept.

No we did NOT tip our toes into socialism with ER's! That is my whole point you seem to be missing. We are "paying for it" as a result of privatized health care and the idea that the free market capitalist approach to business can equally and affectively be applied to such things as health care. We are not paying for it as a result of a socialized ER system. You do know that we do not have one right? I think you have more of an issue as to who you hand your money too, than actually handing your money over. Regardless of whether or not you give a dollar to "Uncle Sam" or a dollar to your insurance company for that uninsured person, are you not still giving your dollar away? The only difference is that if you give it to "Uncle Sam" then there would be oversight, legislation, and regulation to make sure that dollar goes to pay for that uninsured person, whereas the insurance company has absolutely no transparency and being a private entity can spend that dollar on whatever they want and just demand another.

I agree with this paragraph:

"No, it's not okay. Frankly, I would have preferred to see the government deny the bailout. But there is an added factor that you are ignoring: The economic crisis was caused by banks imprudently giving out loans to people who could not afford them. When those people failed to make good on those loans, the banks needed a bailout. In this scenario, there are two culprits: the banks, for giving out loans when they shouldn't have, and the debtors for taking loans they had no business of accepting. If that were the end of it, you would not have seen a bailout. As far as most Americans are concerned, the banks and stupid people can go fuck themselves."

This is also true:

"BUT, that is not where it ends. Unfortunately, many Americans and businesses have directly or indirectly invested money in the banks and financial corporations. If those institutions tanked, then millions and millions of "innocent" Americans and businesses would lose a lot of money. So the bailout was not designed to protect the financial institutions or the imprudent debtors, but the millions of people who had money invested in those institutions. In that respect, many believe that a temporary bout of socialist control is better than a total collapse. I'm not sure which is worse."

The answer is total collapse BTW. What you are doing is looking at the necessary bail out and not acknowledging that it could have and should have been prevented in the first place. You are looking at the ultimate indicator of a failed economic system yet you seem to want to continue the same economic practices that got us there in the first place. (Less government correct?) Because it seems by what you are conveying that any government regulation in the free capital market is either socialism or a slippery slope to it. Is it socialism you are afraid of or communism, many people get the two interwoven.

You said the bailout is supposed to be temporary. Do you think that money is actually going to be paid back? Is that not the definition of a loan? So we loaned the tax payer's money to the banks that were irresponsibly lending to the taxpayers that were irresponsibly borrowing? Somehow that just is just comedical. Are you and I going to make interest on this loan? Or are you just saying that the 700 billion was a one time give away? Isn't this whole board about treating hairloss and other medical issues at the root and not the symptom level?

You also seem to be making the leap that universal health care and private health care or other alternatives for those wanting it could not co-exist. I honestly don't know if they could, but I'm not convinced they couldn't unless government specifically legislated that it was not allowed.

As far as our broader political views are concerned, I'd rather not discuss them out of respect to IH and those who come here for hair loss and other medical concerns. Our health care system is pretty on topic, but I don't think this is the place to discuss general politics. Besides, you already believe that you know what "I am" and that is fine. It's just too far OT and really irrelevant to talk about here, and I honestly don't care about your opinion enough to argue with it. We can agree to disagree, and that's the beauty of it.

Just wanted to add that I also respect your opinion and your right to have it enough not to argue with it. It is not my job or place to change anyones opinion- not that that would even be possible as people are pretty attached and identified with their opinions anyway. What's right or true for someone may not be the same as someone else.

Somewhat off topic but has anyone here ever looked into buying health insurance over and above what is offered from their employer?

I really don't like the idea of having health insurance tied to employment. Let's say you get some sort of bad 'xyz illness' and then a few months later for whatever reason you lose your job (and therefore your insurance) - aren't you then screwed?

You're not going to be able to get new insurance because now you have xyz illness and are 'un-insurable'.

JH--

Few points. Look at our Constitution--it doesn't ALLOW for healthcare. If our Constitution was followed 100%, healthcare would be affordable to all, in fact, it wouldn't even exist. It'd be like it used to be in America--a business. What happens when you need gas--do you need to pay a monthly rate to make sure that you can get filled up? No. You go to the station, fill up, pay, and leave. That's how it should be treated--you get sick, go to the doc, pay, and leave. When corporations and government got involved, that's when prices started to skyrocket.

EIC--

You missed out on some valuable info. here for JH:

"No, it's not okay. Frankly, I would have preferred to see the government deny the bailout. But there is an added factor that you are ignoring: The economic crisis was caused by banks imprudently giving out loans to people who could not afford them. When those people failed to make good on those loans, the banks needed a bailout. In this scenario, there are two culprits: the banks, for giving out loans when they shouldn't have, and the debtors for taking loans they had no business of accepting. If that were the end of it, you would not have seen a bailout. As far as most Americans are concerned, the banks and stupid people can go fuck themselves."

The economic crisis was caused not by banks and lending institutions first and foremost, but rather, our government. Laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act FORCED lending institutions to make bad loans. What folks here need to realize is that those who control our world, the few guys at the tip of the pyramid--everything is planned. This financial disaster is NOT a mistake, it was carefully crafted. Cause more panic and fear, and you can take more liberties and consolidate more power. This is the goal for a New World Order.

JH--

"You talk about people who chose to live poorly like death and illness are 100% a matter of choice. Got news for you man..everyone dies someday, and there are traumatic accidents that happen to people that they cannot control. Also, last time I checked I didn't have control of my genetics. Maybe you've mastered that one too. Even assuming that health was a matter of choice like you are suggesting...healthy food costs a lot more than Mc'donalds, and the fact of the mater is that many people can barely afford to live off mac and cheese, let alone take a multi vitamin and/or other supplements. What about exercise? Tell someone working two jobs and raising a family that they should spend more time in the gym or jogging."

Genetics does NOT guarantee that you will get cancer or diabetes if you're predisposed to it. This stuff is TRIGGERED by the Western Diet. You eat healthy and stay healthy, and it won't be a problem. Death and illness aren't a 100% choice, but life isn't fair. You work with what you have and do the best you can with it. Trusting government to balance things out is foolish, they don't want to help you--they want your money so they can further enslave you and enrich themselves.

And, healthy food most certainly does NOT cost more than McD's, in fact, it costs less. I suggest you go to the local public market sometime. Also, if someone's working two jobs, that is BECAUSE of the government. Due to inflation and taxation, people have far less income available to provide for themselves. Big government is not your friend, and the only person that you can trust is you and your own. Never trust a politician to handle your money.