U.K. N.H.S. Rationing: Should The Obese Take Precedence Over The Elderly?

[Guest]

While our Supreme Court is debating the legality of ObamaCare, I thought this story of the U.K.'s National Health Service's problem of staying financially afloat by rationing that care, would be pertinent.

The debate is over who's care should take precedence; the elderly or the obese? ........... Imagine.......

Why should fat people take precedence over the elderly in the NHS? – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100146838/why-should-fat-people-take-precedence-over-the-elderly-in-the-nhs/)

[Guest]

That's the type of questions that will be asked if obamaCare is not overturned
because old people go to the back of the line.

[Guest]

While our Supreme Court is debating the legality of ObamaCare, I thought this story of the U.K.'s National Health Service's problem of staying financially afloat by rationing that care, would be pertinent.

The debate is over who's care should take precedence; the elderly or the obese? ........... Imagine.......

Why should fat people take precedence over the elderly in the NHS? – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100146838/why-should-fat-people-take-precedence-over-the-elderly-in-the-nhs/)

Thanks for the link RICHIE......interesting and if this bill remains, a glimpse into our future.

[Guest]

While our Supreme Court is debating the legality of ObamaCare, I thought this story of the U.K.'s National Health Service's problem of staying financially afloat by rationing that care, would be pertinent.

The debate is over who's care should take precedence; the elderly or the obese? ........... Imagine.......

Why should fat people take precedence over the elderly in the NHS? – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100146838/why-should-fat-people-take-precedence-over-the-elderly-in-the-nhs/)

I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The elderly and the obese are often in the same age group. The elderly are often overweight and suffering from cardiovascular disease. Why should the government or medicare spend any money on by pass surgery when it has been known for decades that cardiovascular disease can be reversed through diet, exercise and stress control? I suppose one could call it rationing, but if by pass surgery was no longer paid for by the government or medicare, people would simply have to make a choice. 1) they could pay for it themselves 2) they could reverse it by changing their lifestyle or 3) they could do nothing and risk dying from a heart attack or stroke.

In the end, the answer is that we need to get back to personal responsibility.

[Guest]

I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The elderly and the obese are often in the same age group. The elderly are often overweight and suffering from cardiovascular disease. Why should the government or medicare spend any money on by pass surgery when it has been known for decades that cardiovascular disease can be reversed through diet, exercise and stress control? I suppose one could call it rationing, but if by pass surgery was no longer paid for by the government or medicare, people would simply have to make a choice. 1) they could pay for it themselves 2) they could reverse it by changing their lifestyle or 3) they could do nothing and risk dying from a heart attack or stroke.

In the end, the answer is that we need to get back to personal responsibility.

Same standard should be appplied to those who drink and those who smoke. They could just change their lifestyle.

[Guest]

Same standard should be appplied to those who drink and those who smoke. They could just change their lifestyle.

AMEN to that

[Guest]

I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The elderly and the obese are often in the same age group. The elderly are often overweight and suffering from cardiovascular disease. Why should the government or medicare spend any money on by pass surgery when it has been known for decades that cardiovascular disease can be reversed through diet, exercise and stress control? I suppose one could call it rationing, but if by pass surgery was no longer paid for by the government or medicare, people would simply have to make a choice. 1) they could pay for it themselves 2) they could reverse it by changing their lifestyle or 3) they could do nothing and risk dying from a heart attack or stroke.

In the end, the answer is that we need to get back to personal responsibility.

Same standard should be appplied to those who drink and those who smoke. They could just change their lifestyle.

AMEN to that

I don't want the government making those decisions for me. I guess when you're on Medicare there's a fine line. But this story about the U.K.'s socialized medicine has the government rationing out care from the day you're born, basically. You cannot have your own policy there. If you're wealthy you can leave the country and get care, but that's about it.

In the U.S. you don't have to be wealthy to supply your own healthcare. The correlation here is to see the U.K.'s National Health Service and think about how it would be under ObamaCare. Like in the U.K. only the U.S. wealthy would be able to circumvent the bureaucracy. Where they would go, I don't know.

[Guest]

I don't want the government making those decisions for me. I guess when you're on Medicare there's a fine line. But this story about the U.K.'s socialized medicine has the government rationing out care from the day you're born, basically. You cannot have your own policy there. If you're wealthy you can leave the country and get care, but that's about it.

In the U.S. you don't have to be wealthy to supply your own healthcare. The correlation here is to see the U.K.'s National Health Service and think about how it would be under ObamaCare. Like in the U.K. only the U.S. wealthy would be able to circumvent the bureaucracy. Where they would go, I don't know.

Just as an aside and I feel stupid but my post was being a bit sarcastic, without really understanding what I was replying to...said only as a non drinker and non smoker.

Sorry said the dumb guy No more to say...it should be clear from my posts how I feel about this entire travesty

[Guest]

I've got bad news. It may have already started. It used to be that Medicare would pay for a colonoscopy up to the age of 80...now it is only covered up to the age of 75.

[Guest]

I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The elderly and the obese are often in the same age group. The elderly are often overweight and suffering from cardiovascular disease. Why should the government or medicare spend any money on by pass surgery when it has been known for decades that cardiovascular disease can be reversed through diet, exercise and stress control? I suppose one could call it rationing, but if by pass surgery was no longer paid for by the government or medicare, people would simply have to make a choice. 1) they could pay for it themselves 2) they could reverse it by changing their lifestyle or 3) they could do nothing and risk dying from a heart attack or stroke.

In the end, the answer is that we need to get back to personal responsibility.

I'm tired of these encyclicals of yours that say that a person has total control over the dreaded diseases that can overcome us, by "simply" eating right and exercising.

There are hoards of people across the nation who HAVE eaten properly and exercised religiously, have NOT smoked, have reduced their fat intake and have kept their weight at better than average levels.....and they still get clogged arteries because of their genetics!!!

Or they get cancer because of unknown reasons, having no significant risk factors beforehand.

Or some get juvenile diabetes at age 16 when all the way up to that time, they have been star athletes who've practiced and lifted weights and run for 20 hours a week and were already being scouted by universities and pre-olympic training scouts.

Or some lead healthy lifestyles and work out like Olympic gold medalist swimmer Michael Phelps, and yet they have Marfan Syndrome which leads to aortic rupture.

:: National Marfan Foundation :: (http://www.marfan.org/marfan/2664/Phelps-Unintentionally-Raises-Marfan-Syndrome-Awareness)

Stop blaming people for getting dreaded disease when they are NOT living a risky lifestyle that's conducive for it to form.

The bottom line is that often, people get these diseases because "Sh*t happens." Period.

And we sure as heck don't want you being judge and jury, deciding that we self-inflicted it and therefore are undeserving of treatment in a theocracy in which the religion is Righteous Eating.

"for people who restrict or who make an attempt, the attention given to calories, fat or carbohydrate grams, weight loss or gain, and exercise-rituals often give a sense of control, order, and meaning. Foods are categorized into “good” and “bad,” much like the precepts of religions. People can judge themselves as better or worse depending on their food choices, which, even when punishing, can be reassuring to someone who craves certainty. People who are starved are known to make elaborate rituals of eating, stretching very little food into long meals. Because the rest of their lives, time, attention and activities are shrinking while the eating disorder takes precedence, the sequence and “ceremony” of the eating disorder gradually become the only meaningful source of ritual and purpose.

An eating disorder thus becomes a perverse sort of religion: one’s ideas about food and weight are the dogma; the allowance of calories or carbohydrate the commandments; and the familiar routine of eating disorder behaviors the ritual.

A low weight on the scale might elevate one to a momentary heaven of certainty, while a higher weight plunges one into a hell of terror......"

"Eating Disorders as a Source of Meaning, Religion, and Ritual"
Eating Disorders Newsletters - Eating Disorders as a Source of Meaning, Religion, and Ritual (http://www.bulimia.com/client/client_pages/nl_edt_6_2_1.cfm)

Rise in 'orthorexic eating disorders sparked by healthy food obsession' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6038301/Rise-in-orthorexic-eating-disorders-sparked-by-healthy-food-obsession.html)

[Guest]

I don't want the government making those decisions for me....And I have even less confidence in profit-driven private insurance companies making those decisions either, Richie.

With the government, at least you have a vote every 2-4-6 years. What is your recourse if the private insurers tell you, "...sorry, we're not covering that anymore"?

[Guest]

I try to stay away, but I think you are missing the point. We all know that the way money is being spent has to change.

The UK is trying to ration in a logical way.

The US wants health care to go to the rich and not the poor.

So give a Heart transplant to a 71 year old while a child dies from lack of medical attention due to funding.


Either lower the population or one section of it will suffer.

Outlaw abortion, but do not help those you force to be born.

I say, if you conservatives would loose all your money and health care insurance, you would also loose your ME ME ME attitude. Medicaid only kicks in after it is too late to save the lives of the poor children.

I better go. I will be logging off again, so don't waste your personal attacks, just please consider what you say when you comment on issues that affect so many of the poor and young.

[Guest]

Just as an aside and I feel stupid but my post was being a bit sarcastic, without really understanding what I was replying to...said only as a non drinker and non smoker.

Sorry said the dumb guy No more to say...it should be clear from my posts how I feel about this entire travesty

I do think I know how you really feel about this subject. People overindulging or doing dangerous things to their own bodies naturally leads to the discussion of personal responsibility, and I understand how you feel people should accept consequences for their actions, and I really don't disagree. We can't expand that to mean that an unelected bureaucrat gets to decide if we're "worthy" of medical care based on arbitrary standards. I'm sure you also agree with that.

[Guest]

And I have even less confidence in profit-driven private insurance companies making those decisions either, Richie.

With the government, at least you have a vote every 2-4-6 years. What is your recourse if the private insurers tell you, "...sorry, we're not covering that anymore"?

"what if's"; here we go with the "what if's".

"If" an insurance company decides to withhold coverage for treatment, I have legal recourse, unlike I what I would have with the government.

You don't vote out bureaucrats, so your reasoning is fatally flawed; emphasis on the "fatally".

[Guest]

I try to stay away, but I think you are missing the point. We all know that the way money is being spent has to change.

The UK is trying to ration in a logical way.

The US wants health care to go to the rich and not the poor.

So give a Heart transplant to a 71 year old while a child dies from lack of medical attention due to funding.


Either lower the population or one section of it will suffer.

Outlaw abortion, but do not help those you force to be born.

I say, if you conservatives would loose all your money and health care insurance, you would also loose your ME ME ME attitude. Medicaid only kicks in after it is too late to save the lives of the poor children.

I better go. I will be logging off again, so don't waste your personal attacks, just please consider what you say when you comment on issues that affect so many of the poor and young.

I don't have to say anything. Your illogic is shining like a beacon.

[Guest]

I do think I know how you really feel about this subject. People overindulging or doing dangerous things to their own bodies naturally leads to the discussion of personal responsibility, and I understand how you feel people should accept consequences for their actions, and I really don't disagree. We can't expand that to mean that an unelected bureaucrat gets to decide if we're "worthy" of medical care based on arbitrary standards. I'm sure you also agree with that.

I agree !!!!

[Guest]

"what if's"; here we go with the "what if's".

"If" an insurance company decides to withhold coverage for treatment, I have legal recourse, unlike I what I would have with the government.

You don't vote out bureaucrats, so your reasoning is fatally flawed; emphasis on the "fatally".

This morning on "Morning Joe" I heard not the entire conversation but Howard Dean, surely a Democrat said that this administration had all the wrong people come in to advise them and each group that came in left with a promise of something.

On the same show as I watched that showed pamphlets put out by Obama himself when Clinton was trying to get some health care legislation, crticizing for one thing the personal mandate.

Point is, those who want to put this man on a pedestal should think about the fact that He did not tell the truth when he said there would be an open dialogue on health care....He did not tell the truth when he said this bill was the best and NOT a political sideshow, and of course as he always does, he stretches the truth about his constant and ever changing views on EVERYTHING. All politicians change their views on things over time to one degree or another, but Obama has maintained a saint like aura about being above the politics. He is a politician for sure.....he is NOT a leader for sure.

[Guest]

the opening post characterized obesity and the elderly as a place to find it...in so many words.

One just needs to go to any public place and observe. I disagree. I personally see almost every other person as being over weight or rotund....and I don't know where obese begins or these leave off.

Our society is more lethargic, less active and eat more junk/crap than at any time in our past. A more accurate scale would be that obesity is OBVIOUSLY across the board...all age groups...all sexes...all colors...all religions...and what ever I missed.

btk

[Guest]

In the U.S. you don't have to be wealthy to supply your own healthcare.

Oh really? How much do you think an ER visit costs?

[Guest]

To get back to the OP - I read about this story a few days ago.

Basically this fat woman, who's dietary habits were basically listed for all to see, is saying that the NHS should pay for her gastric banding or bypass surgery that she wants. She says it's the only way for her to lose weight and that staying fat will cost taxpayers more by her being 'on benefits'.

First, that sounds like blackmail. But I digress.

Now here's the interesting thing. She says she can't stop eating - and hasn't been able to since her pregnancy. She basically turned into a glutton when she could suddenly use the excuse that she was eating for two - despite the fact that the "#2" she was eating for was the size of a pinhead at the time.

For a person who WILL NOT stop eating, gastric banding/bypass won't work. You will be in SEVERE pain and all kinds of complications will occur.

This has all the hallmarks of someone who THINKS up an idea and finds some headline-hungry news 'reporter' and makes an issue out of it.

Remember, NHS *does* have some good parts to it. One individual was FINED because he swallowed a large amount of coins so he could keep getting treated at a hospital. I wonder if they'd apply the same standards to her.....

[Guest]

And I have even less confidence in profit-driven private insurance companies making those decisions either, Richie.

With the government, at least you have a vote every 2-4-6 years. What is your recourse if the private insurers tell you, "...sorry, we're not covering that anymore"?

That is what all 50 states have a state insurance commissioner and depatment for. No policy and its coverages and exclusions can be sold until it has been analyzed by actuaries for its financial solvency and claims vs. premiums collected ability to stay solvent with legal amounts of reinsirance and reserves. Nor can any policy be marketed without the department's approval of the policy coverages and exclusions reqired or allowed under state and federal law.

And the state cimmissioner or director is accountable to voters by way of the election of the governor who appoints him as a Cabinet member or by way of the legislators who we vote in and out.

Best of all, insurance co. dolts at a computer screen, reading a script to your doctor and approving payment, can be fired because they are not in public sector unions that bar firings for incompetency, chronic absence and lateness etc.

[Guest]

I know a lot of different people have legitimate reasons/problems for not being able to not be over weight. However, for the majority, it is a simple fact of controlling input...eating too much....and exercise.

They continue to want the magic pill that will allow them to continue their contribution to being fat life style and lose weight. Not going to happen.

btk

[Guest]

Affordable? The average healthcare costs for a family of 4 will top $20,000 a year in 2012. Thats a 7% increase,5th year in a row of large increases. Doubled since 2002. Rationing? If this continues families will be forced to ration healthcare themselves never mind the government. Our system is broken for most of us,simply it is too expensive. I already know people who have given up their dental plans,or their prescription plans because of costs. Affordable? I don't think so.

[Guest]

As for obesity please look up DIABESITY and some might be surprised at the scope and cost the obese put on our healthcare system. Diabesity is bankrupting our heathcare system and making us the sickest nation in the world.

[Guest]

the so called costs in the health care business is directly attributable to fraud, price gouging by pharmaceutical companies, political and other government protection of the pharmaceutical companies (just like oil) and probably the biggest contributor to health care costs the US Government for it's lack of action(s) to curtail all the above....because it is in their personal self interest to do nothing....just as in oil and energy.....and too many to mention other hose jobs...

we the people get stuck with the end result.
We the majority are getting what we deserve because we allow it to continue.

Obamascare is only more icing on an already, long ago baked cake.....destined to break the back of what we think is bad now. What you have today is the best health care at the lowest price not to be continued in the foreseeable future. You will pay more in the years to come to TRY to remain at parity with what you now have. Future costs in and of itself will be a rationing in effect shutting out those who just cannot afford what needs to be done.

btk

[Guest]

I don't have to say anything. Your logic is shining like a beacon.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

[Guest]

Oh really? How much do you think an ER visit costs?

I mean, to become insured.

[Guest]

I don't have to say anything. Your illogic is shining like a beacon.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Not funny, changing my post. It's also very dishonest.

[Guest]

As for obesity please look up DIABESITY and some might be surprised at the scope and cost the obese put on our healthcare system. Diabesity is bankrupting our heathcare system and making us the sickest nation in the world.

It's none of your business. Many of these people have personal problems and/or medical conditions which lead to obesity.

I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant.

[Guest]

Liberals wish to take care of the sick from the young up to the old. Conservatives wish to take care of the rich down to the poor.

Sad but true.

Shows very selfish ME ME ME.

I would rather give than receive.

Conservatives only give what they have left over from there selfishness.

Just saying.

[Guest]

This thread is a classic example of liberals "magic thinking." The reason liberals lean toward "magic thinking" is because they fail to understand that there are limits to the "natural law".

Technically no one is entitled to anything. building on that premise you have people who are born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Others use their skill sets to build a life. Many defer payments todays for future benefits. Still further some people for one reason or another have genuinely been disadvanyaged from the start.

Some people genetically are pre-disposed to maladies, while others will go through life without as much as a cold.

Since the beginning of time person(s) have pitched security requiring people surrrender control of their lives to gain said security.

Science is not exact nor is it ever settled.

Some people do abuse their bodies while others are victims of their genetics.

Beginning in ther 1980 insurance companies began to demand peer reviews making decisions that should have been left with a physician. The government has done the same with medicaid/medicare and now wants control of the entire medical community

I believe medical decisions should be left in the hands of doctors. They can best decide if an obsese person is being irresponsible or has organic reasons for the obseity. I sure don't want an insurance company or a government employee deciding for me. Yes I understand that there are a few doctors who participate in fraud but that can be managed

Finally people should focus on what good health means to them rather than being judgemental as to who is entitled to health care and who should not, such a position some, may view, as being arrogant.

I opine, you decide.....

[Guest]

I am appalled at how callus some can be. If you are poor, die is what I see in this thread. Should we not do everything in our power to keep all gods children alive. Why does the ones with the most money have a right to live over those that serve rather than enslave.

[Guest]

This thread is a classic example of liberals "magic thinking." The reason liberals lean toward "magic thinking" is because they fail to understand that there are limits to the "natural law".

Technically no one is entitled to anything. building on that premise you have people who are born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Others use their skill sets to build a life. Many defer payments todays for future benefits. Still further some people for one reason or another have genuinely been disadvanyaged from the start.

Some people genetically are pre-disposed to maladies, while others will go through life without as much as a cold.

Since the beginning of time person(s) have pitched security requiring people surrrender control of their lives to gain said security.

Science is not exact nor is it ever settled.

Some people do abuse their bodies while others are victims of their genetics.

Beginning in ther 1980 insurance companies began to demand peer reviews making decisions that should have been left with a physician. The government has done the same with medicaid/medicare and now wants control of the entire medical community

I believe medical decisions should be left in the hands of doctors. They can best decide if an obsese person is being irresponsible or has organic reasons for the obseity. I sure don't want an insurance company or a government employee deciding for me. Yes I understand that there are a few doctors who participate in fraud but that can be managed

Finally people should focus on what good health means to them rather than being judgemental as to who is entitled to health care and who should not, such a position some, may view, as being arrogant.

I opine, you decide.....

No offense, but I find this post cold and inhumane. I love everyone and not just the rich.

[Guest]

Rich it is my business. It's everyones business. Obesity and all its bad effects is the major cause of our healthcare problems. It is costing us billions of dollars. And finally for the majority of overweight people it is their fault. They are fat for two reasons...they eat too much and do not exercise at all. If we all think like you our healthcare system will go bankrupt. The government does not cause fat people,either does big pharm.

[Guest]

"what if's"; here we go with the "what if's".

"If" an insurance company decides to withhold coverage for treatment, I have legal recourse, unlike I what I would have with the government.

You don't vote out bureaucrats, so your reasoning is fatally flawed; emphasis on the "fatally".
Richie, this one is one of your more laughable posts. When's the last time you read a report of someone winning a lawsuit against an insurance company over coverage? I'll ask a simpler question--how wealthy would a person have to be to fle a suit and take it all the way thru adjudication and appeals against a company like United Healhcare? How long would that take? Who pays for the rejected claims for coverage of needed medical procedures in the meantime?

This post is not really laughable--it's not funny. But it is ridiculous.

[Guest]

That is what all 50 states have a state insurance commissioner and depatment for. No policy and its coverages and exclusions can be sold until it has been analyzed by actuaries for its financial solvency and claims vs. premiums collected ability to stay solvent with legal amounts of reinsirance and reserves. Nor can any policy be marketed without the department's approval of the policy coverages and exclusions reqired or allowed under state and federal law.

And the state cimmissioner or director is accountable to voters by way of the election of the governor who appoints him as a Cabinet member or by way of the legislators who we vote in and out.

Best of all, insurance co. dolts at a computer screen, reading a script to your doctor and approving payment, can be fired because they are not in public sector unions that bar firings for incompetency, chronic absence and lateness etc.
You accurately describe the role of state insurance commissioners in assuring the financial stability and solvency of state-registered insurance companies. But insurance commissioners do not get involved in the interpretation and administration of the contractual terms of insurance coverage. Your statement is not only misleading, it's wrong!

[Guest]

Richie, this one is one of your more laughable posts. When's the last time you read a report of someone winning a lawsuit against an insurance company over coverage? I'll ask a simpler question--how wealthy would a person have to be to fle a suit and take it all the way thru adjudication and appeals against a company like United Healhcare? How long would that take? Who pays for the rejected claims for coverage of needed medical procedures in the meantime?

This post is not really laughable--it's not funny. But it is ridiculous.

Can it Kahuna; I would have more success in litigating against insurance companies than you would have against a government agency.

You want something laughable, as you so rudely addressed me; how about your assertion that you would accomplish something at the ballot box; against a government bureaucrat?; how do you make that connection?

Talk about laughable!! You get mean when you're challenged. What's your defect?

[Guest]

Rich it is my business. It's everyones business. Obesity and all its bad effects is the major cause of our healthcare problems. It is costing us billions of dollars. And finally for the majority of overweight people it is their fault. They are fat for two reasons...they eat too much and do not exercise at all. If we all think like you our healthcare system will go bankrupt. The government does not cause fat people,either does big pharm.

Holier than thou people make me ill.

[Guest]

I am appalled at how callus some can be. If you are poor, die is what I see in this thread. Should we not do everything in our power to keep all gods children alive. Why does the ones with the most money have a right to live over those that serve rather than enslave.

On March 20th, you made this big and tearful announcement:

Thanks to management for being tolerant of me on this forum. I am logging out for the good of the entire TV site. I feel it would be better to do that than try any longer to attempt at Bi-Partisanship discussion on this forum. This is a radical conservative Forum without hope of change. Thanks to those that have tried to make it better.

Goodbye.

It was good while it lasted.

[Guest]

the so called costs in the health care business is directly attributable to fraud, price gouging by pharmaceutical companies, political and other government protection of the pharmaceutical companies (just like oil) and probably the biggest contributor to health care costs the US Government for it's lack of action(s) to curtail all the above....because it is in their personal self interest to do nothing....just as in oil and energy.....and too many to mention other hose jobs...

we the people get stuck with the end result.
We the majority are getting what we deserve because we allow it to continue.

Obamascare is only more icing on an already, long ago baked cake.....destined to break the back of what we think is bad now. What you have today is the best health care at the lowest price not to be continued in the foreseeable future. You will pay more in the years to come to TRY to remain at parity with what you now have. Future costs in and of itself will be a rationing in effect shutting out those who just cannot afford what needs to be done.

btkHave you actually analyzed the amount of Medicare fraud, Billie? Last time I looked, those who analyze such things estimated that fraudulent claims contribute somewhere in the range of $60-80 billion per year, about 15-20% of total Medicare expenditures. That's certainly not insignificant, but it's a long way from your allegation that increasing healthcare costs are directly attributable to fraud and the government's unwillingness to attack the problem.

Did you ever ask the amount of fraudulent claims made against private health insurance companies, and how much they might add to skyrocketing premiums? Surely, you're not asserting that the private insurers have fraud completely in check, are you? Of course, you surely recognize that just like government insurance, we pay for fraud against private insurers too. You've noted I'm sure that then insurance company's profit margins don't decline, but our premiums have doubled in just five years. Do you think that private insurers are also subject to fraud, just like Medicare?

[Guest]

?..I would have more success in litigating against insurance companies than you would have against a government agency....I'll bet you have a terrific lawyer, Richie. But you didn't answer any of my questions.
When was the last time you've seen a news report of a successful lawsuit against a health insurance company over coverage?
How long would it take to take such a suit to final adjudication?
What might your legal fees be? Who cold better afford such fees, you or the insurance company?
And who pays for your medical care declined by the insurance company while you're suing them?
Until you can respond with at least some reasonable responses, quit the soundbites, OK?

[Guest]

I try to stay away, but I think you are missing the point. We all know that the way money is being spent has to change.

The UK is trying to ration in a logical way....Finally, an intelligent response. Of course, decisions must be made that will limit or modify payment for healthcare claims to those procedures and treatments proven to be necessary, effective and cost efficient for the patients being treated. Is that "rationing"? Of course it is. What Great Britain seems to be doing is trying to make some intelligent choices as to what medical care is necessary and affordable and what is not. Will some people remain sick or even die as the result? Yes. But the objective will be to provide an effective and affordable system of healthcare for the maximum number of people.

That's an approach not yet considered here in the U.S., and our skyrocketing costs show it. Yet there are those, including many on this forum, who refuse to recognize that we simply can't continue our healthcare system which produces sub-standard results with unaffordable costs.

The critics, like the original poster in this thread, will continue to refuse to recognize the problem or even begin to suggest a solution. Rather, they'll take their own form of " fun" by throwing out inflammatory and often incomplete and inaccurate allegations.

But why should I be critical of anyone doing that here in this forum? The same type of thing happens every day in the Congress of the United States.

[Guest]

I'll bet you have a terrific lawyer, Richie. But you didn't answer any of my questions.
When was the last time you've seen a news report of a successful lawsuit against a health insurance company over coverage?
How long would it take to take such a suit to final adjudication?
What might your legal fees be? Who cold better afford such fees, you or the insurance company?
And who pays for your medical care declined by the insurance company while you're suing them?
Until you can respond with at least some reasonable responses, quit the soundbites, OK?

I see you also deleted out of my quote of your silly assertion that you can somehow get relief from a bad medical decision at the ballot box.

I don't need to answer your fanciful what if's, when you didn't address that bit of comedy.

[Guest]

Why stop with the too old and too fat?

Should we include profession - Police and Fire Fighters face significantly more danger than the rest of this in their line of work.

Bad neighborhoods - If live in the Chicago south side you are at much greater danger than if you live in the Villages.

Avocations - Sky diving, deep sea diving, extreme snowboarding have a much greater chance of being injured than the general population.

The list can go on nearly forever. Just a good a case can be for almost any area of life. Why not simply expect that everyone has a reasonable right to privacy and kill all the discrimination for whatever reason?

[Guest]

Why stop with the too old and too fat?

Should we include profession - Police and Fire Fighters face significantly more danger than the rest of this in their line of work.

Bad neighborhoods - If live in the Chicago south side you are at much greater danger than if you live in the Villages.

Avocations - Sky diving, deep sea diving, extreme snowboarding have a much greater chance of being injured than the general population.

The list can go on nearly forever. Just a good a case can be for almost any area of life. Why not simply expect that everyone has a reasonable right to privacy and kill all the discrimination for whatever reason?

All great points.

[Guest]

There are hoards of people across the nation who HAVE eaten properly and exercised religiously, have NOT smoked, have reduced their fat intake and have kept their weight at better than average levels.....and they still get clogged arteries because of their genetics!!!

I believe your post was more emotional and subjective than factual. A person may have a genetic predisposition but that's no excuse because genes by themselves won't bring on cardiovascular disease. It takes a combination of genes plus environment (environment meaning diet, stress, etc..) Many people may think they do all the right things, but most are totally ignorant of what it really takes to avoid or reverse heart disease.