On Aug 31, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > On Aug 31, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Jared ''Danger'' Earle wrote: > >> On 31 Aug 2009, at 15:23, Charles Bennett wrote: >>> Cancer? You want to be in the US >> >> Yeah, we acknowledge that you're the best at cancer; that's well- >> known. What about the rest? > > The thing is if you start breaking down those numbers, and the numbers > for other diseases by race and economic status the numbers start to > change quite a bit. Basically if you can afford health care you do > ok. The problem now is health care is becoming less and less > affordable. > > Where I work we have changed health care providers 3 times in 3 > years. Aetna the prior one wanted to double the rates or more because > we were in their words "using our health care too much." Note the > company I work for is not a small one, and does very, very well. I > work for a financial firm, one of the few that is mostly unaffected by > what is going on because we don't deal with equities. Anyway when > you have companies jacking rates up to the point where coverage is no > longer feasible just because we use what we pay for there is a > problem. This is why a real profit motive is a bad thing in health > care. Some profit is fine but not at that level.
I understand, but deciding what profit is "good" and what is too much as a darn slippery slope. Who gets to decide? Politicians? The very ones that are bought and paid for by everyone BUT the common man? <http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/08/06-7> " Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the- scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion." ". But its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards." Here is the biggie.. "Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. “80 billion is the max, no more or less,” he said. “Adding other stuff changes the deal.”" The insurance companies required that the government would not negotiate to import CHEAPER drugs from Canada! This is about cost savings and helping the common man find affordable drugs? No it's not. It's about paying off the companies to support your political aims. This is what you get. You know that promise of "Open Government" that Obama made? That ALL dealing would be open and available for the public to see? You saw all of this published on the whitehouse website first right? The fact is that Obama, just like Bush and every President and congress critter before him is going to cut a behind the curtain deal that gives the illusion of help when the only people being helped are politicians the the people that give them money. I'm not going to willing give them another 7% of the countries money. =c= _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
