|
1 members (bluecollardpink),
355
guests, and
109
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,522
Posts417,629
Members6,175
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,045
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,045 |
Back to the health care issue. I plan on seeing the movie, even though I lived through a lot of it with the passing of my wife. Health care is all about money in this country. Everyone wants to make a buck off it, and a very high buck at that.
The worst of the bunch are the pharmaceutical companies. They have absolutely no concern for anything other than seeing how many pills they can get you to buy. I'm sure that the movie will make a point of this.
When I had gallstones 15 years ago, I was offered the conventional treatment, which was to cut me gall bladder out, slap me on the bottom, and send me home with a whoppin' big bill. I elected to go to my local health food store and to make a long story short, the stones are gone and the gall bladder is still where God put it. And it cost me about $50 to do it all.
Same thing with my Hepatitus C, which I suffer from now. When discovered, my general practitioner sent me to a gastro doctor, you told me I should go on a regimin of interfeuron. Well, not being real trusting of pills, chemicals, and doctors, I went home and did a little research.
Turns out that interfeuron has only a 33% chance of success with the type genome of Hep C that I have. On top of it, it usually makes one sick as a dog for a couple of days. And it costs about $50,000 for the full year's treatment.
I said no.
And back to the health food store for more goodies. Four years later, I not only feel fine, but my current gastro doctor has told me that my test results have improved every year.
This, of course, you won't hear from the doctors who are trained by pharmacy companies to push pills.
IT'S A RACKET FOLKS!!!
And kudos to Michael Moore for exposing it.
Now if we could just get him to see babies as human beings also
Brother Ed Amen. Much Love, Jonn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943 |
I always try to go to health food store rather than depending on some drugs that doctors and pharmacy companies get so rich off of. FDA is the most corrupt part of government we've ever had. They are so interwined with corruption so deeply that they couldn't get out of it even if they wanted to. Drug companies and food corporations pay them billions of dollars to get their drugs and food approved. It's like a vicious cycle of abuse...for instance...fast food companies (I believe) put chemcials in there to make them addictive to us...so we'll keep eating on them until we get cancer, heart attacks, obese, whatever it is they call it a "disease"...so we'll go to doctors... It's like a corrupted team-players between food and drugs. Yow!!! No wonder why Kevin Thorbeau (sp?) is making sense in what he says in the infomercials. And another reason why health care costs so much...illegal immigrants is probably one of the highest contributor to high health care costs and contributes to compromising health care services...why? Because they have no money, no insurance, etc. and they go to Emergency Room all the time... That is HOW hospitals go broke! In fact, in states where illegal immigrants are prevalent such as California, Arizona & Texas...there were hospitals that close down due to bankrupty due to illegal immigrants taking advantage of "free health care" that ordinary citizens as ourselve CANNOT EVEN GET!!! GRRRR!  But some folks are right...the health care in general in USA is very twisted and so upside-down. I guess it's up to us to expose the corruption and make huge loud-wave demand for a change. It's time for us to stop depending on the government. Isn't it that WE the People of USA is the true Government? Who is the boss? The government or the people? I'd like to end it with one of my favorite quotes: "When the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny. But when the government is afraid of the people, that's liberty." ---Thomas Jefferson. SPDundas Deaf Byzantine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217 Likes: 2 |
My medical insurance provider for the last 7 years has been Bally's Total Fitness.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
I'm not saying impaling is a good thing, just that there was a time when folks thought this stuff was OK, you know?
Constantine is a saint, and he killed loads of people (or had them killed) -- heck, any emperor of Byzantium falls under that category.
As for doctors, I refuse to see an MD anymore. I'll only see osteopaths.
The last few MDs I saw told me I was slightly overweight (I knew that) and that I had slightly elevated blood pressure (knew that too) and that the two were probably related... the last guy told me he'd give me some drugs for the blood pressure. I asked what I should do about the weight; he said he'd give me drugs for that, too! I said, "what about diet and exercise?" He conceded, "yeah, that works too." Never trust a guy with a "Botox certified" plaque prominently displayed in his office.
Ah, but when I went to see the Osteopath, WOW! He took an hour just to take my HISTORY! I almost cried. His solution to my problems was: keep riding that bike! and I have. What general ailments would one have in order to go to an Osteopath? Osta means 'bones' in Greek, I believe. Thanks, Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Health care is so high, and we have so many people uncovered because we have a profit motive in health care insurance. It is not just medicine and machines, although they too, contribute.
When there is profit to be had, vulnerable populations of the sick and elderly are either going to be charged extremely high premiums or be dropped from the system. While on the other hand, some HMO CEO's have garnered obscenely high bonuses and salaries.
We are spending more per capita than nearly every other industrialized country and have less people covered. People will always point to problems with health care systems in Europe, but the fact remains is we have problems here too, we have people who are not covered, do not go to the doctor (like my ex-wife, and then she got cancer, and could have been treated better earlier if she could have gone and had it discovered earlier), do in fact wait for some services(which is a criticism that opponents of health care reform throw at the other systems).
we need to go to single payor. We have to make a decision whether or not we value people's health care, or whether we have a sacred cow in the so-called free market.
We started school lunch programs in this country, because young men were shopping up for duty in the Armed forces with bad teeth and bones and other health issues.
Our country is better off when we have a health population, with preventative medicine and exercise emphasized.
I myself do not have health care at the moment; I lost my job, and could not afford the COBRA while unemployed. I have diabetes. I have worked and payed taxes for 33 years.
One comment about Michael Moore, I do not agree with everything he says and does, and think he has personal flaws. But I do not judge his catholcism on his politics. I get tired of hearing people judge where some people are at spiritually just based on their politics. It gets old.
Michael Moore responded to an e-mail I sent him personnally a few years ago. He told me that his Catholic Faith was very important to him, and that he looked to Catholic heroes like Dorothy Day and Oscar Romero. Dear Lance, Cobra is ridiculous. How in the world are people who have been laid off or fired supposed to afford the exhorbitant rates on no salary? DUH?!? Or are they supposed to deplete any savings they may have, not knowing when they will find their next employment, on Cobra health insurance payments, and not pay their bills and buy food?!? Alice Alice, Cobra was the Republican way of looking like they care about people without having to significantly burden business. And this is something that people need to realize. Without employer subsidizing, health insurance is outrageously expensive. Also, while I am fond of small business, it is a fact that small business can't afford (typically) to help with health insurance for employees. So, many of these new jobs are jobs without benefits. And anything less than full time is also, usually, without benefits. The best, and most affordable, benefits come from state and federal government. Let me tell you all a true story. When my parents got divorced, my mother decided to work for McDonald's for awhile to help make ends meet. McDonald's policy was that benefits were offered to all employees who averaged over 37.5 hrs per week per pay period. Near the end of the pay period (the last few days), the managers would look at the roster and send home all of the workers who had worked 34-37 hrs. The result was that McDonald's could refuse to offer these folks benefits. Who were these folks? Mostly, little old ladies who needed full time work and single-mom's who needed full time work and benefits. I'm with lance. We need nationalized health care. Sure, it has its drawbacks, but the advantage is that everyone is covered and everyone has to pay something to be a part of the system. Also, we would need to outlaw private practice of medical care since this would allow the wealthy to purchase better health care. Health care should be exactly the same no matter one's income. In my opinion, it is a human right and it is the moral obligation of government, in the name of the common good, to provide it. Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 06/20/07 05:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
By the way, I realize that my post on health care is contradictory to my support for Ron Paul, who is libertarian. Let's just say that I'm politically schizophrenic. They haven't found a medication for that yet.  Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571 |
Joe, I've been reading this topic, and I agree it is an important one. We need nationalized health care. Sure, it has its drawbacks, but the advantage is that everyone is covered and everyone has to pay something to be a part of the system. This argument has been going back and forth for decades. I have come to believe that the enemy of the good is the best. I think we need universal health care, starting with pre-natal care, and child care through the end of high school, "free", on the federal government, and portable between employers. This is the group of people who overall are the least expensive to cover, and who need it the most for "wellness" (preventative health care). When I say "free" it's paid for out of taxes, but treatment doesn't depend on being employed. I think it would be excellent if this could then be extended to the end of natural life for "ordinary or typical" conditions, to be defined by some political compromise. The other stuff: no solution on my part, but why hold all the above hostage to coming up with some Solomonic decision about the most expensive and difficult treatments (or the most "iffy" but experimental)? Also, we would need to outlaw private practice of medical care since this would allow the wealthy to purchase better health care. Health care should be exactly the same no matter one's income. In my opinion, it is a human right and it is the moral obligation of government, in the name of the common good, to provide it. I don't think this would be productive: why would people train to become doctors [and in the short-run what would you do with doctors, hospitals, etc.?]? Some basic level of health care should be required to start, no changes for 5 years or so to see how the system is working and correct it where needed. Then have the political argument over the rest. I tend to to be free-enterprise oriented, in general, not a capitalist, but after decades watching the debate where the choices are All or Nothing, I'm against both All and Nothing. How does this idea grab you'all? Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
I'm with lance. We need nationalized health care. Sure, it has its drawbacks, but the advantage is that everyone is covered and everyone has to pay something to be a part of the system. Joe, Economics 101: as long as "somebody else" foots the bill, the price will keep going up. Nationalized health care will easily triple the cost of health care in 10 years, and once the government is bankrupt it won't be able to pay for anything. Also, we would need to outlaw private practice of medical care since this would allow the wealthy to purchase better health care. Health care should be exactly the same no matter one's income. In my opinion, it is a human right and it is the moral obligation of government, in the name of the common good, to provide it. Now you're really starting to sound like a Socialist. Outlawing private practice would bring about a host of evils, not the least of which would be the prosecution of any doctor whose professional judgment might have caused him to make a decision that was not in line with all sorts of highly restrictive bureaucratic regulations. Caring for the sick ("health care" is a neologism) used to be considered a work of mercy. Greedy men have seen a way of making it into a business. Nationalized health care will not solve that. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217 Likes: 2 |
The cost to taxpayers of supporting the public school system is a considerably greater burden than paying for medical insurance. At least when you pay into a medical program you get something out of it, millions pay for public education and have no children attending school. I see that as a far greater injustice. I do however see the importance of having some form of medical insurance, but my motto as always is "Everything works best through the private sector".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
Caring for the sick ("health care" is a neologism) used to be considered a work of mercy. Greedy men have seen a way of making it into a business. Nationalized health care will not solve that. Dear Deacon Richard, How nice it was to go into a Catholic hospital and to be cared for by nuns...and how much cheaper. Nationalized health care does sound wonderful, considering how expensive health care is, and how few people are covered. The drawbacks though is that we taxpayers will be paying all the costs, and as you said they will go higher and higher, simply because our government doesn't give us our money so we can see what we are paying out... but rather has it withdrawn from our checkbooks before we even see it. I believe we are the most highly taxed people in the world  ....at least in N.Y. Before there is any form of subsidizing health care by the government, there must be tort reform. Lawyers shouldn't be allowed to sue into the tens of millions for every incident, and driving the insurance rates up. There must also be some control on the drug companies that tend to charge us a great deal for drugs, so that the same one's can be sold cheaply in other countries.  Doctors should not be forced to drug up their patients with ten different antidepressants, (due to health care problems no doubt), in order to get kick backs to pay medical school debts. Illegal immigrants should have visa's, and pay some tax so that they can stop being a burden on the health care system.  Then we have who's to run the hospitals? I think it should be the churches, just like it was in the good old days...and with an abundance of volunteers. The hospitals that I recall were Saint Vincent's, the Lutheran Hospital, the Methodist Hospital, etc. And then we should go into our food industry.  Force the companies to use better quality ingrediants. The prices will go up accordingly, packaging will become smaller, and people will be forced to eat less. Then healthcare can be nationalized...that's if it's still needed. I doubt it!  God Bless, Zenovia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
I always try to go to health food store rather than depending on some drugs that doctors and pharmacy companies get so rich off of. Dear Spdundas, I have found 'Swanson', to have the lowest prices on nutritional suppliments and health foods. They seem to carry everything, and you can order directly from them on the internet. There are other companies too, such as Botanic Choice, etc. God Bless, Zenovia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
I'm with lance. We need nationalized health care. Sure, it has its drawbacks, but the advantage is that everyone is covered and everyone has to pay something to be a part of the system. Joe, Economics 101: as long as "somebody else" foots the bill, the price will keep going up. Nationalized health care will easily triple the cost of health care in 10 years, and once the government is bankrupt it won't be able to pay for anything. Also, we would need to outlaw private practice of medical care since this would allow the wealthy to purchase better health care. Health care should be exactly the same no matter one's income. In my opinion, it is a human right and it is the moral obligation of government, in the name of the common good, to provide it. Now you're really starting to sound like a Socialist. Outlawing private practice would bring about a host of evils, not the least of which would be the prosecution of any doctor whose professional judgment might have caused him to make a decision that was not in line with all sorts of highly restrictive bureaucratic regulations. Caring for the sick ("health care" is a neologism) used to be considered a work of mercy. Greedy men have seen a way of making it into a business. Nationalized health care will not solve that. Peace, Deacon Richard We have to clarify our terms- are we speaking about national health system, where all of the doctors and hospitals are all government employees, or are we simply talking about a single payor? I am talking about a single payor. The fact is, we are paying more per capita than most other industrialized countries, and we are getting less for it, and have 45 million people uncovered. That is wrong morally, and unbecoming for a country that considers itself to have a Christian heritage. If done properly single payor will actually reduce our costs, not increase them. We do not have a free market- that is a myth- we have a market that is geared to profit for a few corporations. We need to regulate health care. We need above all to take the profit motive out of coverage. Otherwise, we are simply choosing to continue a system of large profits to insurance companies, and large burdens for the rest of us. Lance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
Joe, I can understand the contradiction between voting for a libertarian and believing in universal health care.
It is very difficult to get someone who embodies all of our values.
I watched the Republican debates. Ron Paul was the only one who made sense on the war.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
We need above all to take the profit motive out of coverage. Otherwise, we are simply choosing to continue a system of large profits to insurance companies, and large burdens for the rest of us. Dear Lance, I'm going to disagree with you there. The insurance companies would not exist if they didn't make a profit. Who would insure us...the government? Up again the taxes. The lawyers will have a hey day at our expense. We have to have tort reform, so that they can make a profit without charging doctors an arm and a leg for insurance. God Bless, Zenovia
Last edited by Zenovia; 06/21/07 02:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
How nice it was to go into a Catholic hospital and to be cared for by nuns...and how much cheaper. That bears repeating!  Before there is any form of subsidizing health care by the government, there must be tort reform. Lawyers shouldn't be allowed to sue into the tens of millions for every incident, and driving the insurance rates up. There must also be some control on the drug companies that tend to charge us a great deal for drugs, so that the same one's can be sold cheaply in other countries. Zenovia, Thanks for your comments. The real problem, as I see it, is that too many people lack a real Christian formation and as a result they simply buy into the prevailing world view, without the advantage of being able to see the world from a divine perspective. The lawyers can sue for tens of millions because both their clients and the juries who make the decisions are blinded to the real situation, and easily swayed by some persuasive appeal to their emotions. Even though they cleverly cover it up, these lawyers are really appealing to both greed and vengeance. (Without Christ, sin simply begets more sin.) As for the drug companies, their whole paradigm is based on a world view in which our bodies are somehow cobbled together as a result of random chance. From that perspective, the idea of the body having a wisdom within itself and tremendous powers for self-healing are simply absurd fairy tales. Hence, they seldom if ever seek to produce medicines that will leverage the body's own resources, but rather to "inhibit" or "block" some function--nearly always with unwanted side effects. Thank God there are still doctors who will say things like, "all we can do now is pray!" Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
