English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

27 answers

Not in the least, for the profit line is paramount

2007-12-23 10:56:42 · answer #1 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 1 2

Not sure why corporations "should" care about the health (or education or financial stability) of anyone. Making health insurance be tied to employment as it is for more than half of those insured is a HUGE MISTAKE.

Reading Jamie Cort's book "HMOs: Making a Killing" and looking at that ERISA shield law, for example, is blood curdling. It is better for people to have their own policy--and they could get what they believe fits for them, which is better anyway.

That leaves us with a couple of problems, however, what about the uninsurable and what about affordability? Uninsurable now CAN be addressed--state high-risk insurance pools is better than the nothing that about 17 states offer their citizens. Affordable is going to require government at both state and federal levels to back off on the micromanaging. It would help bring costs down if people could buy any policy they want. Hopefully more would get one when young and healthy, like an HSA, and keep it. Catastrophic coverage costs less than supposed "full-service" does. It would also help break up the log-jam that's created now where a handful of insurers dominate the market and basically dictate health care to everyone--from the doctor on down.

Still, for the best proposal I've seen, the PDF (not the blurb) for this plan is the best I've seen, but there is nothing in it for special interests:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html

AFFORDABLE (sliding-fee scale premium AND limit per year on out-of-pocket medically necessary expenses--therefore fertility treatments do NOT count, but surgery for cancer DOES count toward the out-of-pocket. Nothing against the infertile--or those with ED either--but we can't afford to give everyone EVERYTHING he wants and as these providers will STILL exist and the treatment is available, those who need it will have to find a way to finance it outside of the pool required to keep people alive).

CATASTROPHIC COVERAGE--this is all the insurance anyone REALLY needs--currently sometimes paying a bit here and there for not much of a medical need means that the really ill or injured run up against stupid caps where THEY can be expected to come up with tens or hundreds of thousands for procedures the insurer pretends are "covered" items. IF insurance were doing an adequate job, more than half of all bankruptcies in the US would not be over medical bills--and most of those folks have insurance. So if you're into seeing the doctor every month, then you should pay for that. If you NEED to see the doctor every month because you have cancer or such, then the insurance will make sure you don't end up bankrupt as a result of that.

One physical with follow up per year to be covered for a modest co-pay. Prevention is better. It's moral, it's cheaper, and if you detect a problem early, it's cheaper to treat. THIS is the way to do healthcare for everyone's benefit. Also one ER visit per year IF needed with a co-pay--stuff happens.

Cover the necessary meds and treatments. Let people have additional policies they can buy IF they want insurance that WOULD deal with infertility, ED, etc. Someone's always willing to come up with some kind of policy so long as he can still make money on the deal.

Funding? How about NO mandatory participation by employers and NO new taxes for individuals BUT fixing some CURRENT problems that would allow the funding? It is i doable, but lobbyists will hate it because they lose their leverage and special deals.

2007-12-24 04:24:35 · answer #2 · answered by heyteach 6 · 0 1

McDonald's is not anyone's mother. They didn't take anyone to raise. It's about profit. But when Wendy's started offering salads, other fast foods took note. Many are making subtle changes, like changing to more heathy oils. So, while they are trying somewhat, they ll never be healthy places to eat. For that, get an apple from the local grocery store. Stay away from drive thrus.

2007-12-23 19:17:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

"Americans, let's face it: We've been a spoiled country for a long time.
Do you know what the number one health risk in America is?
Obesity. They say we're in the middle of an obesity epidemic.
An epidemic like it is polio. Like we'll be telling our grand kids about it one day.
The Great Obesity Epidemic of 2004.
"How'd you get through it grandpa?"
"Oh, it was horrible Johnny, there was cheesecake and pork chops everywhere."

Nobody knows why were getting fatter? Look at our lifestyle.
I'll sit at a drive thru.
I'll sit there behind fifteen other cars instead of getting up to make the eight foot walk to the totally empty counter.
Everything is mega meal, super sized. Want biggie fries, super sized, want to go large.
You want to have thirty burgers for a nickel you fat mother ******. There's room in the back. Take it!
Want a 55 gallon drum of Coke with that? It's only three more cents."

2007-12-23 18:40:41 · answer #4 · answered by Me 2 · 4 1

I agree with Kesh. Large corporations don't care about their customers. They just want the money. Please, they don't even care for their employees. However, as much as I hate McDonald's, I have to say that Ray Kroc is a genius. McDonalds, and other fast food restaurant's are making some people rich.

2007-12-23 18:56:44 · answer #5 · answered by Medina B 2 · 1 2

Corporations are made up of and owned by people. People care about their health and the health of others.

2007-12-23 18:40:04 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2 2

I don't think it's McDonald's job to care about the health of Americans. It's the individual American's job to care about his or her health and opt for healthy foods. Just because you have access to a gun doesn't mean you have to shoot yourself with it.

If you don't want to support a company, any company, the best way to show your displeasure is to not patronize them. If enough people vote with their wallets, the company will either change or go defunct. This works for all companies...no one is forcing you to go to McDonalds, Walmart, etc. You can choose to shop elsewhere.

2007-12-23 18:40:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

Very little. Have you seen Super Size Me? They care about the bottom line (profits). Ultimately it is up to you to be responsible for your own well being, but you live in a free society and you have a choice whether you want to or not.

2007-12-23 18:43:37 · answer #8 · answered by Robert S 5 · 1 1

Why should McDonalds care? They sell fast, greasy food. If someone can't take it upon themselves to eat a balanced meal, and pig out on McDonald's food all the time then they'll reap the benefits. Being overweight and unhealthy. When did it become McDonalds job to sell food and be their customers babysitter?

2007-12-23 18:39:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

very little, evidenced by the unhealthy menus and ingrediants of the products as well as the way products are prepared and presented. They care much more about profits than the health of Americans and others.

2007-12-23 18:44:52 · answer #10 · answered by exexutivedirector 2 · 1 2

McDonalds offers a product. If you don't like it or feel that it's unhealthy, don't eat there. The overall health of the population is not their concern, nor should it be.

2007-12-23 18:51:23 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers