Re: OT POLITICS Re: Please Boycott Whole Foods!!!

[Guest guest]

I agree with you on the problems of middle men paying. And no, most

insurance companies don't pay for alternative medicine. But I still have

the option to pay for them privately. But if the single payer

(government payer) system means all medical care is paid by the

government then I would be prohibited from paying for care privately.

Which means if the government decides they won't pay for alternative

medicine doctors (which is likely) then those options will disappear.

The history of government in medicine is dominated by certain classes of

the medical profession (aleopaths, drug companies, etc) using government

power to keep out competitors. Their ability to do this has only grown

in recent years (with exceptions) and we can reasonably expect them to

use the new system to the same effect. Put differently, since they are

in power now, any new system will not come into being unless they retain

or enhance this ability to deny competition.

Pete

Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote:

>

>

>

> Well, let's see....the quoted passage of mine address what was

> referred to as " usorious " costs, and simply states that if you take

> out the middle man, costs to people will come down.

>

> You retort that this is insane, but you don't address the point at

> all. Generally in a discussion there is some semblance of continuity -

> if you want to argue that my point is insane, actually refer to it in

> some coherent way.

>

> Do most insurance plans now pay for alternative healthcare? Do

> corporate insurance companies decide what treatment is allowed? Do

> they disallow insurance if you have a preexisting condition, or if you

> get sick? What happens if you're poor or unemployed?

>

> I'm surprised that I haven't heard that they are going to 'pull the

> plug on Grandma'. Anyone?

>

> > Thats insane. If the government pays then the government will decide

> > what medical treatment is or is not allowed. And given the history of

> > government working to destroy alternative medicine that would be

> > catastrophic.

> >

> > Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > It seems obvious to me that if you remove the insurance companies,

> > and

> > > have the government pay (single payer), you are obviously addressing

> > > " usurious " costs. In fact, this is one of the arguments of the

> > > opposition - that a public option is " unfair " to private insurance

> > > companies, who won't be able to compete.

>

[Guest guest]

LOL - well, if the single payer plan means that the government will

burst into your home and kill your family, then it's a bad idea also....

The point is that NO ONE wants a system that has horrible provisions

in it - well, except for some of the right who prioritize the well

being of corporations over people.

No one (except maybe some rather crazy people) who pushes a single

payer system is in favor of the government 'pulling the plug on

grandma', or forbidding

a person to pay for a service from another person that isn't

covered. What you're suggesting is that if there is a single payer

system, all alternative

healthcare would be banned. That is not what would happen. Millions of

people (I assume) in this country pursue some alternative kind of

healthcare, and there would be quite an uproar if suddenly it were all

banned.

Is alternative healthcare banned in Canada, the United Kingdom, or

elsewhere where this is a single payer system? Are chiropractors

hauled off to jail, etc?

I simply have heard of any proposals that in a single payer system, it

would be illegal to pay for for something outside of the system. The

problem with paranoia is that you can just keep on getting more and

more paranoid and it all seems so logical....

> I agree with you on the problems of middle men paying. And no, most

> insurance companies don't pay for alternative medicine. But I still

> have

> the option to pay for them privately. But if the single payer

> (government payer) system means all medical care is paid by the

> government then I would be prohibited from paying for care privately.

> Which means if the government decides they won't pay for alternative

> medicine doctors (which is likely) then those options will disappear.

>

> The history of government in medicine is dominated by certain

> classes of

> the medical profession (aleopaths, drug companies, etc) using

> government

> power to keep out competitors. Their ability to do this has only grown

> in recent years (with exceptions) and we can reasonably expect them to

> use the new system to the same effect. Put differently, since they are

> in power now, any new system will not come into being unless they

> retain

> or enhance this ability to deny competition.

>

> Pete

>

> Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Well, let's see....the quoted passage of mine address what was

> > referred to as " usorious " costs, and simply states that if you take

> > out the middle man, costs to people will come down.

> >

> > You retort that this is insane, but you don't address the point at

> > all. Generally in a discussion there is some semblance of

> continuity -

> > if you want to argue that my point is insane, actually refer to it

> in

> > some coherent way.

> >

> > Do most insurance plans now pay for alternative healthcare? Do

> > corporate insurance companies decide what treatment is allowed? Do

> > they disallow insurance if you have a preexisting condition, or if

> you

> > get sick? What happens if you're poor or unemployed?

> >

> > I'm surprised that I haven't heard that they are going to 'pull the

> > plug on Grandma'. Anyone?

> >

> > > Thats insane. If the government pays then the government will

> decide

> > > what medical treatment is or is not allowed. And given the

> history of

> > > government working to destroy alternative medicine that would be

> > > catastrophic.

> > >

> > > Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It seems obvious to me that if you remove the insurance

> companies,

> > > and

> > > > have the government pay (single payer), you are obviously

> addressing

> > > > " usurious " costs. In fact, this is one of the arguments of the

> > > > opposition - that a public option is " unfair " to private

> insurance

> > > > companies, who won't be able to compete.

> >

>

>