Elizabeth Eugenia LaBozetta
"Why is it that some doctors and other health professionals can face accusations of killing and maiming, and if those claims are proven, face little or no jail time and in some cases continue practicing and ruining ordinary people's lives?"
One reason is because the medical syndicate has a kind of agreement with those placed in other seats of power: "look the other way when our profession commits a crime and we will not use you, or yours, lives up practicing new surgery, green student surgery training, experimentation, drug or device testing--you, and yours, will get the best of the best, always--for as long as you obey and look the other way when required. If you don't, well, don't you, or yours ever dare get sick or injured with us in control of care offerings..."
"There are young and healthy people out there at risk and even old people or people who are terminal patients, they have the right to whatever hours they have left of their lives."
Most of those risks are at the hands of those paying the medical bills--and that would be health insurers who are, too often, run by organized crime now. They don't want to pay out the enormous cost of providing access to care to prolong the lives of people with chronic, untreatable illnesses--whether these illnesses come naturally or from damage caused by bungling doctors or doctors-in-training. Every dollar spent on policyholders is a dollar they don't get to pocket. So they want to get rid of these particular people as quickly, and as cheaply, as possible--even if that means placing, and paying, killers to do that dirty-work for them. When the insurer also owns the hospitals, labs, and so on they can control the presentation and the medical record. But if the hospitals the insurers own are also teaching hospitals (and most, if not all, are) they have incentive to corral and use up their load of damaged, chronically ill policyholders in their government-funded student surgery training program or industry-paid drug and device testing. By whatever means necessary--and I do mean "whatever": lie, coerce, threaten...whatever it takes.
"Because we can't break what is already broken"
"It is okay to sacrifice a few to benefit many"
"Eat what you kill"
Returning to the the last sentence of this quote about "the right to whatever hours they have left of their lives" We have plenty of rights but they are only as good as those enforcing them--so, returning to my statement in regard to the first quote, nobody is going to stick their own neck out and lay it on the chopping block with so much at stake if they do--and with the reward of blind obedience so great. The medical syndicate has a monopoly on an essential service and somewhere along the path has found a way, and the means, to use it as a tool of coercion and as a weapon. It has corrupted from a humanitarian ethic into a utilitarian ethic and my belief is it came about under the corrupting influences, and infiltration, of health insurance money and control.
Now we have to buy their crooked product. Government does not have the right to force people to do business with organized crime. But they do it anyhow--because how else can they get us to sign our rights away? They have to position us to sign a contract, even under duress and the threat of punishment, in order to take away our right to self-determination, our right to choose--and this will go on until we stop them. I suppose, under contract law, we could claim it null and void because our signature was coerced under threat of punishment, but who will?
I watch all of this go down and know where it is headed--and it isn't pretty..
All of a sudden doctors prescribing pain killers is a "problem" inflicted upon everyone because of the few who become addicted and go on to abuse these drugs. They know who the addicts are; it is no mystery with all the tracking done these days. But why install a heavy control for all? Even upon the ones who have chronic pain and don't abuse the drugs?
Because people in pain are made more controllable and will bend to coercion more easily--and can be corralled and harnessed up for student surgery training, drug, and device testing. This opens up whole new $$$ possibilities to the benefit of the drug industry, the teaching hospitals, and the device manufacturers, and experimenters--because we now have to buy health insurance (with big deductibles and monthly payments) and we have signed their self-serving contracts that have a clause hidden in them somewhere that says we "will do whatever our doctors tell us to do whether we agree with it or not" under the potential threat (which will be acted upon at a later date I am convinced) of "breach of contract" if we do not comply and the insurer has to pay out real, or imagined, consequences for other care that came as a result of our non-compliance.
Anyone else notice doctors using the term "non-compliance" a whole lot more in recent years? As if their role has suddenly reversed from advising to dictating? Historically their place was to advise, not dictate--and we were free to choose what path we felt was in our best-interests and take what consequences that came of it upon ourselves. But they know something we don't: big changes are coming.
All patients should be guaranteed the following freedoms:
(When Obama Care was implemented in 2012, the following freedoms were lost).
- To seek consultation with the physician(s) of their choice;
- (However with Obama Care implemented and the way insurance networks have been established, this right has been eliminated by many insurance carriers).
- To contract with their physician(s) on mutually agreeable terms;
- (If one does not have any insurance or the ability to pay, there is no contract).
- To be treated confidentially, with access to their records limited to those involved in their care or designated by the patient;
- (Access to medical records can be costly because many hospitals charge by the page and access to "truthful records" is a rarity because many of the records have been destroyed, lost or forged.
- To use their own resources to purchase the care of their choice;
- (This is if the person who has the resources is rich. However if the person is financially challenged, they are at the mercy of deceptive and inferior quality of care offered by the greedy insurance carriers).
- To refuse medical treatment even if it is recommended by their physician(s);
- (When a patient refuses treatment, medications or recommendations by a physician, they are labeled "none-complaint " which makes them tagged as a difficult patient to any future doctor who reads their medical records, and thereby might jeopardize their care because the doctor sees them as a difficult patient and will use any excuse to withdraw from their care).
- To be informed about their medical condition, the risks and benefits of treatment and appropriate alternatives;
- (Which is a lie because many of the risks are left out when procedures are recommended or side affects are omitted when medications are prescribed).
- To refuse third-party interference in their medical care, and to be confident that their actions in seeking or declining medical care will not result in third-party-imposed penalties for patients or physicians;
- (Which is another lie because by the time the patient refuses treatment or medications and is classified as none-complaint in the eyes of doctors and health care workers, they are passed around like "hot potatoes" from one doctor to the next until they are dropped from the system because doctors refuse to accept them as new patients or insurance coverage will drop them.)
- To receive full disclosure of their insurance plan in plain language, including:
- (Most people need to hire an attorney to read and interpret the insurance plan, so this is a lie.)
- CONTRACTS: A copy of the contract between the physician and health care plan, and between the patient or employer and the plan;
- (A contract which many people do not understand or misinterpret, leaving them confused.)
- INCENTIVES: Whether participating physicians are offered financial incentives to reduce treatment or ration care;
- (This is another lie, because how many physicians are going to tell their patients, "we can no longer treat you because your insurance will not pay for the treatment or procedures". Or how many will say, you have outlived your usefulness and we have sucked you financially dry, so we are going to recommend hospice".
- COST: The full cost of the plan, including co-payments, coinsurance, and deductibles;
- (Another lie because the cost of medical care is not consistent and the element of being billed for more than expected is the norm).
- COVERAGE: Benefits covered and excluded, including availability and location of 24-hour emergency care;
- (Under Obama Care this is a nightmare. People who have Obama Care insurance can testify this coverage is extremely limited and a nightmare to navigate through.
- QUALIFICATIONS: A roster and qualifications of participating physicians).
- (The participating physicians are approved by the insurance carriers. If the individual purchases a plan that does not have their family physician, too bad).
- APPROVAL PROCEDURES: Authorization procedures for services, whether doctors need approval of a committee or any other individual, and who decides what is medically necessary;
- (Who decides what is medically necessary are the insurance carriers. They decide who lives and dies. They will argue this point, but the bottom line is profit. If it costs too much money to keep a patient alive, they will deny treatment, procedures or deny approval for medications prescribed).
- REFERRALS: Procedures for consulting a specialist, and who must authorize the referral;
- (This applies to specialists within the network. If a more qualified specialist is out of network, too bad).
- APPEALS: Grievance procedures for claim or treatment denials;
- (This must have been put in to make the patient think he or she has recourse, but the fact is, the insurance industry has the final say in this decision).
- GAG RULE: Whether physicians are subject to a gag rule, preventing criticism of the plan.
- (Many physicians no longer have the final say in the treatment of their patients if the insurance plan the patient has does not cover the treatment plan the physician prescribes or recommends).