the Profitability of Sickness Posted: 09-19-07 10:08am
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. "
Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists' Response To Illegal State
Tactics) robert.lederman@worldnet.att.net
(718) 743-3722 Feel free to forward
widely.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3769 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 85
Thanked:11
Posted: 09-19-07 21:59pm
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.
|
young Girl
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 13932 Location: everythings better in, texas USA
Posted: 09-19-07 22:06pm
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
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3769 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 85
Thanked:11
Posted: 09-20-07 09:43am
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?
|
Georgia59
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5321 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 63
Thanked:28
Posted: 09-20-07 12:58pm
GRRRR..............
|
Dannzibelle
Supporter
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 Posts: 3742 Location: South East, England
Thanks: 22
Thanked:10
Posted: 09-20-07 14:20pm
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
|
young Girl
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 13932 Location: everythings better in, texas USA
Posted: 09-20-07 14:36pm
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?
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.
|
The Ginger 1
Supporter
Joined: 09 Jul 2007 Posts: 556 Location: Loony-tune-land, England
Posted: 09-21-07 07:07am
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 ... there are ways
.... but then I'm persistant and cheeky
....
|
Jules
Supporter
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3688 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 52
Thanked:57
Posted: 09-21-07 07:13am
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 ... 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
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!
|
The Ginger 1
Supporter
Joined: 09 Jul 2007 Posts: 556 Location: Loony-tune-land, England
Posted: 09-21-07 07:40am
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 ... 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
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!
Thanks Jules ... I ll keep that one in
mind.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3769 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 85
Thanked:11
Posted: 09-21-07 15:08pm
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!
Bloody English people...paying with
something called "quid". And we Americans
have mangled the King's English...I think
most definately not.
The site is not a replacement for professional medical opinion, examination, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your medical doctor or other qualified health professional before starting any new treatment or making any changes to existing treatment. Do not delay seeking or disregard medical advice based on information written by any author on this site. No health questions and information on eHealth Forum is regulated or evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and therefore the information should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease without the supervision of a medical doctor. Posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author, and not the administrators, moderators, or editorial staff and hence eHealth Forum and its principals will accept no liabilities or responsibilities for the statements made.
Schizophreniahealth
This page was last updated on June 11, 2008