Medical Questions > Debate Forums > General Debate Forum

the Profitability of Sickness

User Profile
Have you ever wondered why your insurance company won't pay for preventative medicine? Do you know why males are cheaper to insure for health insurance than women?

Believe it or not, insurance companies (and perhaps your own government) stand to profit more from your demise than your health. Statisitcally and financially speaking, the government pays more and more for each year you are alive. When you factory in medicare costs, Social security costs, and the costs of the nation to care for an aging population, it is "better business" for you to die than be alive. Health insurance is a gamble. Your helath insurance company would rather you dropped dead of a heart attack at age 50 than live out the rest of your days needing only minor health care services. As you age over time, their risk increases that you will succomb to a chronic health condition than if you were to die of soem acute disease or condition. The longer you live, the greater the risk to your insurance company. Males have a shorter life expectancy and are more likely to die in accidents than from chronic conditions. Furthermore, men obtain routine health screenings far less than women do, which increases their chances from dying of something suddenly.

Think about it:

If a man received a prostate cancer screening each year (as they should) their cancer could be caught in early stages, and thus treated before it kills them (a great expense to insurance companies, no doubt). However, studies have shown that man do not undergo routine prostate cancer screening, and thus are liekly to die from it by the time it is discovered. On the other hand, women are much more likely to have their routine mammograms each year, and thus their cancer is found at anearlier stage and this equals a dramatically higher cost of health care ofver their life time.

Read below for a more in depth look at this phenomena. Any thoughts?



The Profitability of An Early Death
by Robert Lederman

Perhaps you've seen their heart-warming public service ads on TV about renovating a drug rehab center and how much they care about kids despite being a cigarette manufacturer. Here's something they left out of those 60 second announcements.

The tobacco giant Phillip Morris just suffered an embarrassing public relations gaffe by inadvertently revealing a fact economists, actuaries and eugenicists know but rarely speak publicly about.

Governments save huge amounts of money when citizens die prematurely.

Phillip Morris, one of the world's wealthiest corporations, recently commissioned a study intended to highlight this fact as a selling point to the Czech government, which is considering legislation to regulate cigarette smoking. Phillip Morris controls almost 90% of the rapidly-growing Czech tobacco market.

The study described premature deaths from cancer and emphysema as, "indirect positive effects" of smoking, leading to "savings in public health care costs and state pensions due to early mortality of smokers."

Responsible for millions of deaths in the U.S. due to smoking and the decades spent hiding the truth about its dangers from the public, Phillip Morris is by no means unique in its coldly-calculating bottom line approach to business. Automobile, pesticide, chemical, food, biotech, pharmaceutical and health care corporations all factor in similar statistical selling points as they lobby the Congress to prevent legislation from being passed that would protect human life.

Ever wonder why U.S. technology can get us to the moon but can't manufacture cars that don't blow up when hit or that kill an average of 50,000 Americans each year? Why do 500,000 Americans die each year from nothing more than taking prescription drugs? Did it strike you as peculiar when our "compassionate" President GW Bush wanted to prevent new restrictions on how much arsenic - a deadly poison - would be allowed in our drinking water?

Are you curious as to why in this modern age of refrigeration there's a steady increase in deaths from food poisoning or why our food supply is more disease-ridden than at any time in the past fifty years? Is the government's rush to release thousands of untested genetically-altered plants, animals and organisms into the environment scientific over-confidence, or might it be an indication of a more sinister purpose than helping feed the multitudes?

As you watch the news each night, do you ever wonder why so many people are getting cancer, are infertile, have disabling learning disabilities or psychological problems and thus need a lifetimes worth of expensive prescription drugs in order to function - drugs which will directly shorten their lives?

Is it possible our government wants people to die prematurely?

Just think of it in these simple terms. If millions of today's senior citizens were to die a mere one year sooner, the U.S. government would save hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs, social security and other social services. If they died five years sooner the savings might amount to trillions of dollars. Viewed in that context, causing even a minor increase in premature death in the American population would be the single most cost-effective economical measure the government could ever take.

New York City often represents the cutting edge of U.S. governmental efforts concerning human health. Whether it's throwing children off welfare, issuing the police hollow-point bullets, closing public hospitals or spraying the entire population with toxic pesticides, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani can be counted on to be at the forefront of any government efforts to downsize the population.

Take his enthusiasm during the past three years for spraying poisons invented by the Nazis on eight million New Yorkers.

Was it an oversight or an error that the Mayor consistently lied to the public about the well-known negative health effects of being repeatedly exposed to the organophosphate and pryrethyroid nerve gasses Malathion and Anvil? Was it an accident that products whose labels specifically state they are not to be sprayed on people under any circumstances were directly applied to children in parks, to shoppers and to millions of workers going to and from their jobs?

[2] My eight years of research on Mayor Giuliani shows him to be ideologically linked in numerous ways to the science of eugenics or population control - as is his pal GW Bush. Both men claim to get their ideological inspiration directly from the Manhattan Institute, a right-wing think tank founded by Reagan's CIA chief William Casey after he brought thousands of former Nazi experts in eugenics to the U.S.

If understanding Giuliani's Nazi-connection requires one to research the maze-like corporate, think tank and CIA connections behind his administration, GW Bush's are a simple matter of documented American history. Until their assets were seized by the U.S. Congress in 1942, President Bush's family operated banks and shipping companies that were fronts for the Third Reich. Their Nazi-connection is the source of the Bush family fortune and continues to this day.

[3] Bush and Giuliani's policies euphemistically code-named, "compassionate conservatism" and "quality of life", share a common but never publicly stated objective - the efficient shortening of our lives.

The poor, children, minorities, the elderly and the environment must all be sacrificed in order to increase the profitability of corporations - the same corporations which put these elected officials in office or which in Bush's case, he, his family and his administration members are major stock-holders in.

The increase in disease creates fantastic economic opportunities for drug manufacturers and health providers while at the same time lessening the long-term total in social benefits that the government must pay out. Disease is rapidly becoming the driving force behind the entire U.S. economy. It may prove even better than war as a profit-driving engine.

What more cost-effective way to cut government spending than to massively apply chemicals to the population which reduce fertility, worsen chronic illnesses such as asthma (which is at epidemic proportions among minorities in N.Y.C.) and lead to terminal diseases such as cancer?

The reason many people balk at accepting this view of Giuliani or Bush as eugenicists is that they don't see people immediately dying in large numbers as a result of their policies. What isn't understood is that we are dealing with death rates as analyzed by an actuary. Like geology, the effects can only be observed over a long period of time.

Learning from the mistakes of the past century, immediate death - as in rounding up millions of people and shipping them to gas chambers - is an unworkable solution from this viewpoint. Reducing life expectancy by as little as a single year or reducing fertility so that one less child is born to each family or so that an additional 15-30% of people become infertile is all that's needed in order to save vast amounts of government money while creating a huge economic boon for pharmaceutical, chemical and medical companies.

These savings on social programs can then be passed along in the form of tax write-offs and corporate welfare - exactly as Giuliani and Bush have done to the delight of their wealthiest patrons.

Another factor which makes it hard to comprehend what's really going on is that today's eugenics agenda is not necessarily about targeting Jews, Blacks or some other minority. In this madness, no one is to be spared. Giuliani's enthusiastic use of Malathion may have even given himself prostate cancer, which is a known effect of repeated Malathion exposure.

Before you say this proves he could not have known it was harmful, ask yourself if Phillip Morris executives didn't allow their family members, children and friends to smoke, knowing as they did that tobacco was a definite cause of cancer?

Ask yourself if Ford executives allowed their friends to drive cars they knew were defective and might shred their tires at high speeds or overturn?

Ask yourself if the drug manufacturers that have every study at their disposal and know the long-term effects of taking their products don't allow their own friends, family and relatives to take these dangerous medications or if chemical company executives aren't aware that they and their children are being slowly killed by air pollution and chemical contamination of the environment?

Perhaps this is what is meant by the saying, money is the root of all evil.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to whoever at Phillip Morris commissioned the benefits of an early death study. Perhaps as a result more Americans will realize that our corporations and the government they own and operate may not be the public servants and public benefactors their glossy commercials and service announcements would lead us to believe they are.

Public enemy #1 might actually be a far more apt description for them.


-------------------------------------

[1] CBS Evening News
7/17/2001



Philip Morris: Dead Smokers Cheaper

Tobacco Co. Outlines Savings To Czech Gov't From Smokers' Deaths
Company Is Lobbying Against Stricter Anti-Smoking Regulations

"Sick smokers may burden a country's health care system, but dead smokers save governments money. That's the conclusion of a study on the financial cost of smoking that was commissioned by tobacco giant Philip Morris. The company is lobbying the Czech government against stricter health regulations on cigarettes with a study of "indirect positive effects" of smoking, detailing "savings in public health care costs and state pensions due to early mortality of smokers... The study by research company Arthur D. Little International concluded that the financial benefits to the Czech government from duties and taxes paid by consumers, importers and tobacco businesses outweighed the costs of health care, lost working days and fires caused by cigarettes. "

For related article, see World Bank Study report

[2] For the latest article on Giuliani's West Nile Virus fiasco see: www.villagevoice.com www.villagevoice.com/issues/0129/baard.sht ml
Village Voice 7/18-24/2001 Mutant Malathion: How New York's mosquito spray campaign spawned a deadly neurotoxin

[3] For numerous documented articles about the Bush/Giuliani-Nazi connection, the CIA's Manhattan Institute, eugenics and West Nile Virus information see: http://baltech.org/lederman
Street artist information: www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyc.html

Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics) [email protected] (718) 743-3722 Feel free to forward widely.
Did you find this post helpful?
|

User Profile
replied September 19th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
So very depressing. So very true.

Pharm companies have such enormous accounts and incredible influence.

I didn't see it mentioned in the article, but those who do the research on medications before they are deemed 'safe' (or 'reasonably safe') by the (American) FDA are the pharm companies themselves.

And they are huge schmoozers. I have been the recipent of many a fine meal with very friendly reps. I know doctors who were paid $5000 to talk for a half an hour about certain medications.

Ohio law was recently changed, however, to prohibit these kinds of occurrences, but I don't know how effective that will be.

It's the same kind of deal with the dairy industry. They are deep in official's pockets. Cow's milk is for cow's, not people.

The FDA and insurance companies are not interested in your health. If they were, they would have banned hydrogenated oils years ago. Things like Snowballs, which I personally believe are leftover silicon breast implants, would be left to rot.

I recommend reading "Fast Food Nation". You will never eat at a fast food restaurant again.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 19th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Birch wrote:
I recommend reading "Fast Food Nation". You will never eat at a fast food restaurant again.


my mom gave me that book last year to read

it was sick
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 20th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
the_girlfreind wrote:
Birch wrote:
I recommend reading "Fast Food Nation". You will never eat at a fast food restaurant again.


my mom gave me that book last year to read

it was sick


Well, could you expound on that a little more so people don't think I'm recommending a disgusting book to them? Wink
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 20th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
GRRRR..............

Evil or Very Mad
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 20th, 2007
Supporter
We don't have insurance over here we have the NHS instead. Personally i don't think you should ahve to pay for any medication or healthcare because afterall it's for your heath
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 20th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Birch wrote:
the_girlfreind wrote:
Birch wrote:
I recommend reading "Fast Food Nation". You will never eat at a fast food restaurant again.


my mom gave me that book last year to read

it was sick


Well, could you expound on that a little more so people don't think I'm recommending a disgusting book to them? Wink


well basically tit tells you exactly what youre eating when you eat atn these fast food restraunts
goes into great detail about how they are run and whats behind the major companies such as mc donalds.
how they target the society and stuff...

__________________________________________ ______
fast food nation: the dark side of the all american meal

fascinating, unsettling truths -- from the unholy alliance between fast food and Hollywood to the seismic changes the industry has wrought in food production, popular culture, and even real estate. He also uncovers the fast food chains' efforts to reel in the youngest, most susceptible consumers even while they hone their institutionalized exploitation of teenagers and minorities. Schlosser then turns a critical eye toward the hot topic of globalization -- a phenomenon launched by fast food. Fast Food Nation is a groundbreaking work of investigation and cultural history that may change the way America thinks about the way it eats.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 21st, 2007
Community Volunteer
Dannzibelle wrote:
We don't have insurance over here we have the NHS instead. Personally i don't think you should ahve to pay for any medication or healthcare because afterall it's for your heath


I'm also from England, and I think that the persciption costs here are extortionate .....
I had to have 3 types of pain killer ... only 7 in each pack, and it cost me £21 .... yet, if I asked my doctor to put 100 in each pack, it costs the same ... and they changed the goalposts to suit the NHS ... I also had to have something that would have cost me £40 ... so I asked them to perscribe it so I'd get it for £7... would they??!! ..naaaaa ... so I went to a physiotherapist, and he got one for me, free of charge, as it was to help me walk after my back operation ... Wink there are ways .... but then I'm persistant and cheeky ....
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 21st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
The Ginger 1 wrote:
Dannzibelle wrote:
We don't have insurance over here we have the NHS instead. Personally i don't think you should ahve to pay for any medication or healthcare because afterall it's for your heath


I'm also from England, and I think that the persciption costs here are extortionate .....
I had to have 3 types of pain killer ... only 7 in each pack, and it cost me £21 .... yet, if I asked my doctor to put 100 in each pack, it costs the same ... and they changed the goalposts to suit the NHS ... I also had to have something that would have cost me £40 ... so I asked them to perscribe it so I'd get it for £7... would they??!! ..naaaaa ... so I went to a physiotherapist, and he got one for me, free of charge, as it was to help me walk after my back operation ... Wink there are ways .... but then I'm persistant and cheeky ....


We pay very high taxes to maintain the NHS, we don't really get 'free' healthcare Wink

Ginger - if you need to get a lot of prescriptions then I'd recommend getting a pre-payment prescription card. It's about £40 for 4 months and £100 for a year. I do that because I need about 8 prescription items per month which would cost me over 50 quid a month if I didn't have my card! Shocked
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 21st, 2007
Community Volunteer
Jules wrote:
The Ginger 1 wrote:
Dannzibelle wrote:
We don't have insurance over here we have the NHS instead. Personally i don't think you should ahve to pay for any medication or healthcare because afterall it's for your heath


I'm also from England, and I think that the persciption costs here are extortionate .....
I had to have 3 types of pain killer ... only 7 in each pack, and it cost me £21 .... yet, if I asked my doctor to put 100 in each pack, it costs the same ... and they changed the goalposts to suit the NHS ... I also had to have something that would have cost me £40 ... so I asked them to perscribe it so I'd get it for £7... would they??!! ..naaaaa ... so I went to a physiotherapist, and he got one for me, free of charge, as it was to help me walk after my back operation ... Wink there are ways .... but then I'm persistant and cheeky ....


We pay very high taxes to maintain the NHS, we don't really get 'free' healthcare Wink

Ginger - if you need to get a lot of prescriptions then I'd recommend getting a pre-payment prescription card. It's about £40 for 4 months and £100 for a year. I do that because I need about 8 prescription items per month which would cost me over 50 quid a month if I didn't have my card! Shocked


Thanks Jules ... I ll keep that one in mind.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 21st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Jules wrote:



Ginger - if you need to get a lot of prescriptions then I'd recommend getting a pre-payment prescription card. It's about £40 for 4 months and £100 for a year. I do that because I need about 8 prescription items per month which would cost me over 50 quid a month if I didn't have my card! Shocked


Bloody English people...paying with something called "quid". And we Americans have mangled the King's English...I think most definately not.

Wink
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 21st, 2007
Experienced User
insurance?... does this mean you have to pay to go the doctors
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 21st, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Ahh insurance-

you pay the insurance company to pay for your medical bills. An extreme amount.

And then you still get a bill from the doctor for hundreds of dollars.

?? What's the point??
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 21st, 2007
Experienced User
ahh im so glad we dont have to do that

<3 yah for healthcare
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 21st, 2007
Especially eHealthy
prfctbyntre wrote:
ahh im so glad we dont have to do that

<3 yah for healthcare


Now you're just rubbing it in. Grrr..

Very Happy
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 21st, 2007
Experienced User
Georgia59 wrote:
prfctbyntre wrote:
ahh im so glad we dont have to do that

<3 yah for healthcare


Now you're just rubbing it in. Grrr..

Very Happy



lol sry
im just glad cause i go to my dr every week
|
Did you find this post helpful?