Re: OT - Where do you spend?

[Guest guest]

Geoff,

I work at a GOCO site. They pay all my expenses after a small copay and

after a modest initial annual buy-in. It's good for any location, any

doctor. It's pretty good and of course I like it. But the fact is....I

earned it. I'm due it because the market bears it. Take it away, and I go

somewhere else (unless I'm compensated) even after 15 years, and again

because the market will bear it. So, me personally, if it is coming out my

pocket (other than my reasonable, perscribed contribution), then my value

has been diluted by somebody.

Have I then finagled it in some way? Maybe in a sense I have. But the

ground rules are clear and it truly is compensation in the strictest sense.

Greedy? Okay. But greed is only a desire for more of something. And more

compensation is good for me. Of course, I in turn compensate the company

(and therefore, the taxpayers) with superior, cost-effective performance.

It is interesting though...the question that you have raised. I try to

reexamine my selfishness now and then anyway. So, this maybe will be be a

good place to start for the new year. Thanks for the prompt.

Jeff

----Original Message Follows----

From: & quot;Geoff & quot; & lt;geoff@... & gt;

& quot;RA Support Group & quot; & lt;rheumatic & gt;

Subject: rheumatic OT - Where do you spend?

Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:26:34 -0800

Hi Gang! Geoff here.

I got this newsletter today that made me really think about what we value.

There is an old concept, where a person's money is, there their heart is

also. It's a Biblical idea, so you could say it's not exactly new. After

asserting that people buy & quot;health & quot; products the newsletter carried

this

sentence: & quot;...all that's holding up & quot;Western Medicine & quot; is

the insurance and

MediCare system. Americans won't spend an out-of-pocket nickel on it. & quot;

It seems from reading this board, that holds true here too. But I really

wonder if this is a function of preference or greed, i.e., do we spend on

what we prefer as the article asserts, or is our spending curtailed in favor

of & quot;medicine & quot; out of greed, i.e., wanting someone else to pay for

us if we

can finagle it?

Geoff

To unsubscribe, email: rheumatic-unsubscribeegroups

[Guest guest]

Dear Geoff,

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are implying, or just don't understand

it. (And I hope my reply here doesn't trigger any sort of heated argument

or criticism of you. I'm sure you meant well.) However, let me say that

our daughter has had Medicaid/Medicare coverage since 1991 when we applied

for it on her behalf (she was only 19 years old at the time). We didn't

feel guilty about doing this, since my husband has paid into the system now

for over 40 years and has never asked for help. They pay for most, but not

all, of her prescription drugs and all of the cost of any hospital stays.

(Her first hospitalization was covered by my husband's work insurance, but

that was before she was diagnosed. Now, of course, she wouldn't be able to

get insurance.) She gets SSI which amounts to a pittance that would

probably not support her even if she were living on the street. However,

she WOULD be taken care of if she were hospitalized. I guess what I am

wondering if you meant is this: That maybe we should have sold our house

and all our possessions and gone to live in a hovel of some kind just so

that our daughter would not have to rely on the government for help? (That

wouldn't last long anyway.) But maybe you didn't mean it that way. These

catastrophic illnesses are difficult to deal with financially, as I'm sure

you know. Do you not believe in a government health care system of any

kind - that we should all just tailor our lives for the sole purpose of

coping with the cost of illness?

Ellen

rheumatic OT - Where do you spend?

>

> Hi Gang! Geoff here.

>

> I got this newsletter today that made me really think about what we value.

> There is an old concept, where a person's money is, there their heart is

> also. It's a Biblical idea, so you could say it's not exactly new. After

> asserting that people buy " health " products the newsletter carried this

> sentence: " ...all that's holding up " Western Medicine " is the insurance

and

> MediCare system. Americans won't spend an out-of-pocket nickel on it. "

>

> It seems from reading this board, that holds true here too. But I really

> wonder if this is a function of preference or greed, i.e., do we spend on

> what we prefer as the article asserts, or is our spending curtailed in

favor

> of " medicine " out of greed, i.e., wanting someone else to pay for us if we

> can finagle it?

>

> Geoff

>

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe, email: rheumatic-unsubscribeegroups

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, Geoff:

The people you are asking have already identified the flaw in the medical

system as it now stands: It is NOT WORTH a nickel! You can go to a doctor

and they have no idea how to treat you effectively.

It is not greed--first it is NEED:

(and their statement about medical insurance and MediCare is absolutely

correct) When the doctors can not only harm you, esepcially if you have a

chronic disease, but the basic cost of doing their (however bad) business is

greatly inflated due to malpractice insurance costs (50% of what the doctors

charge is trial lawyer protection money).

It not only PAYS to be your own doctor today--but it is unhealthy to rely

upon those who kill and maim so many (1992 Ralph Nader and Sidney Wolfe, MD

study: Doctor incompetence killed at least 650,000 outright and 1.1million

were WORSE OFF BECAUSE of going to the doctors; only 2% of these actually

recognized this fact).

We really need FDA reform (not totally eliminated; they can still inspect

some foods even if they have no idea what BSE is...) so that we can write

our own prescriptions--they don't protect us from doctors any better than

they protected us from Vioxx!

If I did not have insurance, I would not go to any doctor, but it sure came

in handy when I broke my back (due to previous doctors' incompetence related

to ankylosing spondylitis).

Fortunately, President Hillary will solve all our problems!

Best Regards,

rheumatic OT - Where do you spend?

>

> Hi Gang! Geoff here.

>

> I got this newsletter today that made me really think about what we value.

> There is an old concept, where a person's money is, there their heart is

> also. It's a Biblical idea, so you could say it's not exactly new. After

> asserting that people buy " health " products the newsletter carried this

> sentence: " ...all that's holding up " Western Medicine " is the insurance

and

> MediCare system. Americans won't spend an out-of-pocket nickel on it. "

>

> It seems from reading this board, that holds true here too. But I really

> wonder if this is a function of preference or greed, i.e., do we spend on

> what we prefer as the article asserts, or is our spending curtailed in

favor

> of " medicine " out of greed, i.e., wanting someone else to pay for us if we

> can finagle it?

>

> Geoff

>

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe, email: rheumatic-unsubscribeegroups

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

We may be chided for getting into politics here . . . However, (and I may

have mis-read your comment - it may have been tongue-in-cheek), but if

Hillary Clinton were in the driver's seat, I DO think she would see that the

health care system were tackled and revised. Back in '92 his opponents were

aghast when Clinton put her in charge of a committee to do just that. Now,

that's what everyone knows has to be done.

Ellen

rheumatic OT - Where do you spend?

>

>

> >

> > Hi Gang! Geoff here.

> >

> > I got this newsletter today that made me really think about what we

value.

> > There is an old concept, where a person's money is, there their heart is

> > also. It's a Biblical idea, so you could say it's not exactly new.

After

> > asserting that people buy " health " products the newsletter carried this

> > sentence: " ...all that's holding up " Western Medicine " is the insurance

> and

> > MediCare system. Americans won't spend an out-of-pocket nickel on it. "

> >

> > It seems from reading this board, that holds true here too. But I

really

> > wonder if this is a function of preference or greed, i.e., do we spend

on

> > what we prefer as the article asserts, or is our spending curtailed in

> favor

> > of " medicine " out of greed, i.e., wanting someone else to pay for us if

we

> > can finagle it?

> >

> > Geoff

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > To unsubscribe, email: rheumatic-unsubscribeegroups

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Although it is true most of us would rather have someone else pay for our

health costs, there are many on this board (I for one) who have paid every

dollar of their medical costs. Yes, I have insurance, but after being tested

for

RA years ago and having my policy not renewed, I realized that those of us

with single family policies are just out of luck if we get really sick. I hid

my disease so I could continue getting insured in case I got run over by a

truck or something, but it did teach me that American insurance companies will

find all sorts of loopholes in the law to dump chronically ill people.

I hear the moans and groans of people who cannot get their insurance

to pay for the treatment they need and the bottom line is...... sometimes you

just have to anti up or stay

sick. More and more people are finding themselves without insurance as

small business finds their policies canceled because they have some expensive

employees and no one wants to insure them. A friend of mine worked at a place

where they had 12 employees. At the end of the year when it came time to

renew the policy the insurance company refused as one employee had been

diagnosed

with cancer and one with hepititis C. If you work with a large company be

grateful they will pay for the majority of your problems and if you decide you

want to do the AP and have a chance of being practically normal again...bite

the bullet and pay for it. My mother always said she never saw a brinks

truck following the casket to the funeral home. Besides a few visits to an

experienced doc and a supply of minocin costs a great deal less than a nursing

home. Just my thoughts on the subject.

I, too, have given the info for this treatment to people and been told

they could not do it as their insurance would not pay for it. They are

headed for a lot of pain and misery while I am out enjoying life as it should

be

enjoyed. Yes my wallet is lighter and some things I have had to cut back

on, but on the whole it has been worth every penny. Martha

[Guest guest]

On 1/4/05 5:25 PM, " MRSROSE2000@... " <MRSROSE2000@...> wrote:

> Yes, I have insurance, but after being tested for RA years ago and having my

> policy not renewed, I realized that those of us with single family policies

> are just out of luck if we get really sick. I hid my disease so I could

> continue getting insured in case I got run over by a truck or something, but

> it did teach me that American insurance companies will find all sorts of

> loopholes in the law to dump chronically ill people.

Martha, you're a great gal with a lot of common sense, I always enjoy your

posts.

However, as I understand it, if your insurance company ever finds out you

hid a diagnosis from them, they can in fact refuse you coverage for being

hit by a truck, because you obtained the insurance under false pretenses.

These games are no fun, and they are very difficult to win.

--

Jean

[Guest guest]

Hi Gang! Geoff here.

I've read some very interesting responses to my post. Here is *my* take on

the author's comment:

" ...all that's holding up " Western Medicine " is the

insurance and MediCare system. Americans won't

spend an out-of-pocket nickel on it. "

As I see it, we pay for alternative health care because we can. We don't

pay for allopathic health care because we can't. This is a broad brush and

like most such brushes doesn't perfectly apply to anyone. But it sort of

applies across the board.

For example, as the author asserts, I pay for " health " by investing my own

money in vitamins, herbs, and alternative treatments. No small part of my

motivation is purely selfish: I want to stay healthy. That's all about me;

it is " self-centric " . Is that bad? I don't think so. If I don't take care

of me, I can't take care of anyone else. Another part of my motivation is

fear: I do not want to land in a hospital, surgery, or any other place where

I might be subjected to " heroic medicine " , AKA allopathic health care.

Because, frankly, I do not trust them to have my singular and solitary best

interest at heart. Again, this is selfish, and it is fear-laden. Is it

bad? I don't think so. Precaution is based on fear, fear of injury, death,

etc. If I'm dead, I can't do much for anyone else either. However, it

doesn't address the last part of the equation, the " can't " part.

" Can't " exists because allopathic health care has, by and large, priced

itself out of the market. It is now so expensive that the majority of

people cannot afford to buy it themselves without the help of their

neighbors. They must be part of a pool and the pool is managed by a third

party. We call it insurance. Would we buy allopathic care if insurance did

not exist? Yes, I believe we would, and that it would be far less expensive

than it is today. However, because it is not, we do not.

Does being more expensive make it better?

This is a " trick " question. In a true free-market economy one would have to

say yes, because price is a function of the supply-demand curve. However,

allopathic medicine is not part of a free-market economy. On the day health

care insurance was invented, the free-market restraints of supply-demand

were removed. Because on that day, the consumer of the product was no

longer the buyer of the product.

Today we as consumers are endlessly confused as to why our insurers won't OK

a certain process, test or procedure since it would obviously cost less and

lead to better health. The reason we're confused is because we think as if

allopathy was part of a free-market and we were actually buying the goods

for our personal consumption. We are not and it is not. Health care in

today's paradigm is purchased by that third party, the insurer. And, as odd

as it seems, the insurer has a vested interest in raising the perceived cost

of health care beyond any individual's ability to pay while at the same time

convincing the consumer they need it, they must have it, or they will die.

Why?

Because if you can't buy it and you must have it, you will use other means

to obtain it. Those means will be to purchase insurance. And if the

insurance is too expensive for you to buy individually, you will engage

collective bargaining to force an employer to buy it. When that well is

dry, you will then push legislation to force its purchase through taxation.

Do you see the pattern? You force the purchase up the food chain through

bottom-up demand. The higher up the chain it goes, the more money you can

get. At each step, you get more pennies from more pockets.

To whose benefit?

Think simply: are insurance companies in the business of losing money on

health care? Are their profits plummeting? Are their profits even just

steady-state? (Investors call this " dead money " .) No. Their profits are

increasing as more people join the roles, the vast, vast majority of whom

are healthy and will remain healthy and need few if any services for which

the insurer must actually pay. A little prudent pruning here and there,

(what we see as denied services, denied coverage, etc.) and the profit is

ensured.

So what is happening?

Alternative health care practices, be they services such as homeopathy or

products such as vitamins, are largely uncovered by insurance and thus are

open on the free-market. The consumers, you and me, are voting with our

wallets the only place we can.

I do not think allopathy is " the great evil of modern society " , although I

probably sound like I do sometimes. I think allopathy is but one of many

forms of health care and that it has a place. However, by successful

intentional manipulation of the law and marketplace through collective

association and propaganda (what we now call PR), allopathy holds an

inordinate and inappropriate sway over the hearts, minds, legislation and

health of the world's citizenry.

When the tax man has to pay the piper, he has to get the money from you. He

then has the added authority to force you to consume the product, especially

if he is convinced it will ease his burden in the long run. Thus mandatory

vaccinations.

In short, insurance is the most successful middle-man in history. Without

it, allopathy would be far more affordable, alternatives would be considered

far more mainstream, and the objective of " health care, " in the USA at

least, would be " health " and not the sale of medicine.

So there's my 2¢.

Geoff

Soli Deo Gloria

[Guest guest]

Hi Martha,

Not much better here in Australia either in this respect. We are in the

middle of an insurance claim at the moment and the way they are using

anything at all to try and wriggle out of paying is disgusting. We

haven't lost yet though.... It makes us wonder why we are bothering to

pay insurance on anything at all if companies aren't going to pay up on

some small technicality should the insured event occur.

BTW I always enjoy your posts too

Chris.

On 05/01/2005, at 9:55 AM, MRSROSE2000@... wrote:

> but it did teach me that American insurance companies will

> find all sorts of loopholes in the law to dump chronically ill

> people.

>

[Guest guest]

Jean....I had a choice of being either careful, or not having any insurance

at all. In this day and age one simply cannot risk having no health

insurance. It was not a matter of what I wanted to do, it was what the in

insurance

companies forced me to do as I was uninsurable with a positive diagnosis of

RA. Fortunately for everyone I have remained otherwise healthy and have had

no claims for years.....(that truck never did run me over). Next August my

husband turns 60 and we get government insurance from the military as he

retired from the reserves. I was only fortunate to have enough money to pay

for my

treatment, bought all my prescriptions out of country, used incorrect SS

numbers at the docs to avoid detection and paid cash for all my visits. This

is

what many people are forced to do to get coverage in this country...isn't

our health care system great. The insurance companies are willing to take your

money when you are well, but find loopholes to drop you when sick.

I have been pretty much in remission for the last three years, am in

otherwise good health, and look forward to having government insurance which

I hopefully won't need for a very long time!!!! I am not recommending this

course for others, for me it was the only option available except selling my

business and trying to work for a company with a large pool of employees that

one sick one would not be noticed. I felt I put enough energy into this

illness without having to give up a job I loved and am suited for. Now days I

have friends who are getting into their 50's and 60's and starting to have

expensive medical problems and many are getting " laid off " from their companies

after years on the job........interesting isn't it? O.K. I'll get off my

soapbox now!! Martha