Documents from an actual Chiropractor

[leechlake]

Juice- what's funny is one main premise and failure of the ACA was that young healthy people would buy health insurance to subsidize the balance of the population.  It was like at some meeting someone said, "we can have people that aren't likely use the insurance benefit buy the thing they won't most likely need to cover older people who will use a lot of dollars"  and someone actually said, "yes!  That's a great idea".  

Life insurance companies do a physical and research and charge you accordingly, do it for health insurance too.  A lot of people would get their health better it they saw it effecting their pocket book, win/win. 

 

[DrJuice1980]

Um, there are a lot of unhealthy younger folks that are massive drains on the system.  Their parents have been pumping with pills and injections since birth.  Its ok because theres a business that needs to be ran.

[swamptiger]

1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

Sure, as long as there is a method to make folks take responsibility for their decisions.  Do you have a suggestion how?

Quote

And the Gates effort mostly goes to places with brown, black, and yellow people.  The developed world mostly already has a birth or fertility rate of below replacement and most developed countries have been so for years.  The US was the last to go below replacement so far as I know.   That is one reason economic growth is slow in the US and Europe. 

 

If the plan is to save the world from starvation through population control by vaccination, wouldn't it make more sense to vaccinate the people who are using the most resources?

Saving the world is a big job, even for Bill Gates, ya know...

 

P.S. 

(None of  you mandatory-vaxers have actually answered my question as to how you feel about population control by vaccination yet.)

Edited April 5, 2016 by swamptiger

[delcecchi]

16 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

 

If the plan is to save the world from starvation through population control by vaccination, wouldn't it make more sense to vaccinate the people who are using the most resources?

Saving the world is a big job, even for Bill Gates, ya know...

 

P.S. 

(None of  you mandatory-vaxers have actually answered my question as to how you feel about population control by vaccination yet.)

OK, I oppose it.   And none of you antivaxxers have said how you would compensate those third parties injured due to diseases they caught because of your refusal to vaccinate.   At least an unhealthy life style affects the individual, and we know how to deal with that.  We may not be doing it but we know how. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by delcecchi

[nofishfisherman]

3 minutes ago, leechlake said:

 

Life insurance companies do a physical and research and charge you accordingly, do it for health insurance too.  A lot of people would get their health better it they saw it effecting their pocket book, win/win. 

 

God help the people who get cancer.  Once their next annual insurance physical is required they'll see their premiums go up 50,000%.  Then your option is do you bankrupt your entire family in hopes you'll beat cancer and can live a long yet impoverished life or do you tap out and cut your loses.  Your family can maybe hold on to some of the nest egg you've set aside but of course you'll likely be dead.  Maybe death isn't so bad, at least you can look back fondly on the low rates you enjoyed when you were 22.

[swamptiger]

Quote

OK, I oppose it.   And none of you antivaxxers have said how you would compensate those third parties injured due to diseases they caught because of your refusal to vaccinate. 

 

Actually, I've never refused any vaccinations.  Even though I had a positive reaction to a smallpox vaccination as a child, and nearly died from it.

But I'd like to keep that option open, just the same.

Freedom of choice is good.

 

And your argument about compensating third parties is just plain silly, because if you believe vaccinations work, you would have one.  The people who die because they refuse a vaccination, too bad.  Choices have consequences.

Edited April 5, 2016 by swamptiger

[leechlake]

36 minutes ago, nofishfisherman said:

God help the people who get cancer.  Once their next annual insurance physical is required they'll see their premiums go up 50,000%.  Then your option is do you bankrupt your entire family in hopes you'll beat cancer and can live a long yet impoverished life or do you tap out and cut your loses.  Your family can maybe hold on to some of the nest egg you've set aside but of course you'll likely be dead.  Maybe death isn't so bad, at least you can look back fondly on the low rates you enjoyed when you were 22.

I should clarify that the rates should merely be higher for some people than others.  I ain't talking no 50,000%.  I have 5 or 6 life insurance policies and one of those I didn't do as well on some blood work and instead of the premium being 1,000 it was $1800.  People pay higher auto insurance based on driving record why is health insurance different?

[bobberineyes]

,

Edited April 5, 2016 by bobberineyes

[RebelSS]

Some institutions require their employees to get certain vaccinations, or they don't come to work. Period.

[delcecchi]

1 hour ago, swamptiger said:

 

Actually, I've never refused any vaccinations.  Even though I had a positive reaction to a smallpox vaccination as a child, and nearly died from it.

But I'd like to keep that option open, just the same.

Freedom of choice is good.

 

And your argument about compensating third parties is just plain silly, because if you believe vaccinations work, you would have one.  The people who die because they refuse a vaccination, too bad.  Choices have consequences.

Actually vaccinations are not 100 percent effective, and there are those who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate  reasons, such as they are immuno compromised etc.  Herd immunity protects those people until the percent of immune individuals drops to the threshold.  

Those who you kill by not being vaccinated get to file charges?  How about the child born with birth defects due to mother getting measles? It is an anti-social thing to do and those who do it need to be held responsible for the consequences.  Isn't that the Libertarian thing?

[RebelSS]

1 hour ago, JigSawJimmy said:

The only thing you get out of health ins is life and others make money. The primary source of inheritance being passed on is life ins, so you're now making money. Cash is king. 

That's a totally broad, inaccurate, and selfless statement. The usual purpose of life insurance is to provide for the family, or just to help pay for or defray the cost of funeral expenses, in some instances, depending on the policy. I do not see that as "making money", ala "cash is king". Hope you are never in a position that you need that money or that there is enough there to bury your parent. It sucks.

[nofishfisherman]

2 hours ago, leechlake said:

I should clarify that the rates should merely be higher for some people than others.  I ain't talking no 50,000%.  I have 5 or 6 life insurance policies and one of those I didn't do as well on some blood work and instead of the premium being 1,000 it was $1800.  People pay higher auto insurance based on driving record why is health insurance different?

Well if its going to be higher for some than others based on level of risk (like all other insurance) how would you go about rating the individuals risk?  Given we are talking health here and your risk factor for disease or health issues go up as you age you'd have to rate the policy on an annual basis with rates going up each year as you age.  That way the people who are using the most dollars (the sick and elderly) are the ones paying the most. If you don't increase the rates when someone gets cancer or some other major chronic illness then you aren't assigning the right risk to the right people.  Someone with cancer is obviously at the most risk of requiring the highest level of medical care, if you don't charge them based on that risk then who pays?  That cost would still filter down and get paid by others with their premiums going up to cover it.  Basically how it works now.

If the rates were to climb evenly each year without things like cancer, car accidents, or other illnesses impacting rates it might work better as the older you are the more you'll likely need the insurance however now not only do we all need to plan for our normal retirement costs but we also have to save double because our insurance premiums will go through the roof as we age.  It could be the end of retirement as we know it here in America.

 

[swamptiger]

2 hours ago, delcecchi said:

Actually vaccinations are not 100 percent effective, and there are those who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate  reasons, such as they are immuno compromised etc.  Herd immunity protects those people until the percent of immune individuals drops to the threshold.  

Those who you kill by not being vaccinated get to file charges?  How about the child born with birth defects due to mother getting measles? It is an anti-social thing to do and those who do it need to be held responsible for the consequences.  Isn't that the Libertarian thing?

 

You might be getting a little deep into the swamp with all the liability talk, but the mandatory immunization legislation is also typically accompanied with legal waivers for the drug companies effectively immunizing them from liability at the same time.

So how do you feel about that?

 

[delcecchi]

There is a government agency to pay legimate claims due to vaccines.   But it is sort of a zero (well, a negative because of the lawyers taking a cut) sum game since the price would go up to cover any claims.   And sure, people with actual injury due to vaccine should be compensated.  How exactly, if not the current system of a national vaccine injury compensation program, I can't say.  The tort system seems ill suited for drug and malpractice issues in my opinion.   (and the ads to call 1-800-bad-drug on tv reinforce my opinion). 

Now, about those who willfully refuse to get vaccinated, resulting in injury to others because of their collective deliberate actions in which could be said to be reckless disregard for other's safety,  what should be done?    

[swamptiger]

4 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

 

Now, about those who willfully refuse to get vaccinated, resulting in injury to others because of their collective deliberate actions in which could be said to be reckless disregard for other's safety,  what should be done?    

 

Is there any legal precedent for what you are talking about at all, or are you just trying to provide some justification for universal mandatory vaccination laws?

I guess I could see some liability lawyers giving it a shot, if there was a buck to be made at it.

 

But if you can make the statement that vaccines aren't 100 percent effective, how could you make the leap to the assumption that someone who refuses to be vaccinated could be 100 percent liable?

[delcecchi]

Is there a legal precident?  Hmm, hard to say.  I'm not a lawyer for sure. 

The vaccines are good enough to achieve herd immunity, that is the disease will not spread due to the scarcity of susceptible individuals in the population.  Talking about stuff like measles, mumps, polio etc.  not flu vaccine.  

So if you as a free individual are able to and choose to not get vaccinated and thereby increase the likelihood that you might infect someone then you should take responsibility.  I guess an alternative plan would be that anyone not vaccinated who catches the disease in an outbreak becomes liable for injury to anyone in the area who was vaccinated or couldn't be vaccinated and gets sick.  I would go along with that.  

As a result of your decision, someone is injured.  Hmm maybe even punitive damages?  

[swamptiger]

Quote

As a result of your decision, someone is injured.  Hmm maybe even punitive damages?

I'm thinking that might stick in California, if the law sticks.

But under the current laws I would doubt it.

[DrJuice1980]

15 hours ago, nofishfisherman said:

God help the people who get cancer.  

Most cancers just don't appear out of nowhere.  A cell mutation took place somehow.  

[Bobby Bass]

Coming from some one who has cancer and another blood disorder that I am going to die from since there is no know cure I smile at the dribble coming from Dr. Juice just stirring the pot so he has someone to write to. How about you pick a topic and stay on topic till you talk it to the end instead of adding more tangent subjects to cloud what you first brought up, what ever that was? Cancer from a cell mutation, wow guess you have a cure to. Broken arm from a fall, what a surprise? Dr Juice made a scent to add to fishing bait as an attractor,  Dr. Gregory Bambenek is a Psychiatrist in Duluth, MN I don't think you are him or are you? and if you are you are just playing mind games.

[delcecchi]

Bobby, Juice is a guy connected in some way to alternative medicine and Chiropractic.   He seems to believe the bizarre stuff that Chiropractic puts out.  He is also an anti-vaxxer, and seems to think main stream medicine is a conspiracy.

The thread drifted to insurance and taking responsiblity for choosing not to get vaccinated.  I think cancer came in as an example of why the "evil insurance companies" would raise someone's rates. 

 

[DrJuice1980]

Del, go pound sand. 

 

It doesnt take a genius to understand that you can increase your odds of health risks if you do not take preventative measures.  Personal health choices. Is smoking good for you? Is eating a diet that stresses your colon good for you? Is walking around being a nervous nelly good for you?  Is eating foods containing massive quantities of preservatives good for you? 

Point is you should be aware of everything to limit your risks.  As I stated, most cancers just don't appear. Something triggered the mutation. 

Something that you possibly could've made yourself aware of. This isn't directed at any one person.

Edited April 6, 2016 by DrJuice1980

[swamptiger]

Lifestyle choices are probably important, but I think genetics play into it quite a bit, too.

I was talking to my sister last night, and we were talking about our Dad and his amazing health.  He will turn 92 on the 4th of July this year, and we calculated he has been using tobacco for 75 years now.  Other than that, he has led a physically active, fairly clean lifestyle and ate a lot of homegrown food.  He thinks he will only live to 93 or 94, but by present indicators, we think he might make 100 or more.

 

Oh, basically no (zero, none) medical care or medications until about 10 years ago when he started taking blood pressure medication and watching his cholesterol intake.  His blood pressure and cholesterol numbers have since dropped.

Edited April 6, 2016 by swamptiger

[roony]

Sorry if this is kind of off topic but it is one of my favorite jokes and it never hurts to lighten things up:

Dirty Ernie was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after another. After the 6th one, an older man sitting at thebench across from him said, "Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, & make you fat." 

Ernie replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old." 

The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?" 

Ernie answered, "No, he minded his own &**^^%^*  business!" 

[swamptiger]

My mother, on the other hand, actually lived a cleaner lifestyle, never used tobacco or drank, and ate the same food as my dad.

She developed cancer of the lymph nodes in 1977, and was successfully treated with chemo-therapy at the U of M.  That was basically the beginning of her nearly 40 year medical ordeal.  She survived cancer 4 times, and underwent 20 plus surgeries for different sorts of ailments, and made countless visits to doctor's offices.  She had diabetes for about 20 years, and finally passed away from congestive heart failure last June at the age of 87.

Edited April 6, 2016 by swamptiger

[thatoneguy]

On 4/3/2016 at 3:50 PM, DrJuice1980 said:

I don't have kids so I haven't really educated myself to give you a valid opinion.

 

Clearly.