mandated check ups and promotion for prevention.

[Technosoul]

In the Obama health care package, although you are not forced to buy medical insurance, if you do then you must get regular check ups, and that would be mandated (I assume if you do not, you loose that coverage, if enforced). If you do get checks ups can you reject the Doctor's opinion to get early treatment for an illness he claims to have discovered in you. Can you say no to taking presciption drugs if so recomended by a doctor?

Of concern to many of the voters is the prevention part, as many people smoke, drinking a lot of beer, eat fat foods, and we might not be into jogging and gymnastics. Obama said that prevention would lower the costs of medical care which would be of concern to budgeting health care.

And so could they drop you from Obama's affordable insurance if ignore the prevention advice of a doctor?

And what do you think about that aspect of affordable health care?

And what about people who unlawfully smoke pot as a hobby, would they still have confindentuality with doctors if the government is involved? Does that even matter?

[Gods_Mercenary]

If you're being provided healthcare, it makes sense that you should do what you can to lower the providers expenses.

[Domino]

Lifestyle is already factored into the cost of healthcare. That should remain the case even if the cost is lowered, else we're not really getting anything.

But, no matter how much you pay, how often you get a checkup, or what your lifestyle is, if the provider's job remains to deny coverage everywhere possible, nothing will have been fixed.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If you're being provided healthcare, it makes sense that you should do what you can to lower the providers expenses.

Not provided, paying for it at a more reasonable rate. That is the Democratic plan.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If you're being provided healthcare, it makes sense that you should do what you can to lower the providers expenses.

Bingo, and that's the part that reduces it down to the common denominator, perverted capitalism. The whole mess gets boiled down to the bottom line, profitability ( and defering the cost to taxpayers ), in stead of focusing their efforts towards R&D, or advancing medical science.


It becomes another Big Gubmint enforced monopoly on power, and only those with connections inside the Beltway will benefit from this legislation. Well, them, and everybody content to see the US sink into the abyss.


Chalk another one up for nepotism, and special interests.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Domino Lifestyle is already factored into the cost of healthcare. That should remain the case even if the cost is lowered, else we're not really getting anything. But, no matter how much you pay, how often you get a checkup, or what your lifestyle is, if the provider's job remains to deny coverage everywhere possible, nothing will have been fixed.

Under present standards if you are a construction worker doing a high risk job your health insurance policy goes way up, compared to someone doing a fairly safe job. That is part of the plan that Hillary proposed and Obama has echoed, everyone everywhere can get affordable insurance that covers all quality treatments that are obtainable. That is all treatments that treat a health problem (not hollywood make overs). No one can be denied due to their current health satus, job discription, credit rating or income, etc. At least in the Hillary plan but I am not sure how much of her plan Obama would include in his version.

[Milton Bradley]

I also find it funny that none of the capitalists here have yet concluded that, like all things market based, the true answer to reduced priced is to "mass produce" the product that's needed to reduce costs.


Isn't that the pure principle behind "capitalism"?


Kind of makes ya wonder why the only cheap stuff on the shelves comes from...China, the real capitalists in this economy.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Bingo, and that's the part that reduces it down to the common denominator, perverted capitalism. The whole mess gets boiled down to the bottom line, profitability ( and defering the cost to taxpayers ), in stead of focusing their efforts towards R&D, or advancing medical science. It becomes another Big Gubmint enforced monopoly on power, and only those with connections inside the Beltway will benefit from this legislation. Well, them, and everybody content to see the US sink into the abyss. Chalk another one up for nepotism, and special interests.

In case you did not notice we already sank into the abyss during the Bush term in office, now we got to get back out, and perhaps even make things better then they were before Bush.

The drug companies are not really advancing science with their profits, instead they are seeking to make new pills they think are the most marketable over TV - so old foggies can keep a hard on. Big advancement but watch out for the deadly side effects.

Health care insurance will not rule out real medical advancments.

Of course doctors, hospital staff, and insurance people would make a profit, No one is suggesting they work for free or without a decent profit for their services. In fact doctors would get more business if checks up were required to encourage prevention, and we would create more openings for many more doctors and related health workers and that is good news of university students that study medicene, which in turn will generate more in the way of taxes for the Feds to work with.

Bringing down the cost of medical drugs is also a good idea, if it costs 5 cents to manufacture a pill why change $10.00 for it? In the long run the drug company will profit anyway, cover the cost of research and then the rest is nearly all profit, it would just take a little longer. And they are rapidly raising the cost on popular drugs in a manner that is totally uncalled for.

Idea: Let the government fund research for drugs and treatments that are really worthwhile and let them hold the copyright, then get some private company to manufacture the drug at a fair and reasonable price.
( and not a company over in China or India ). It is a shame that private companies should gain such high profits because of the suffering of other people. That would be tax money well spent.