Illness - A State of Emergency FOR YOU!! !!

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone who has been through a natural disaster is likely familiar with States of Emergency. Prior to or shortly after, the governor of the affected areas will declare a State of Emergency. During this period, prices cannot be artificially inflated to maximize profits. In a true capitalistic economy, any seller has the right to inflate a price for any reason at any time and it would be perfectly acceptable to charge $100 each for the last 20 cases of bottled water in the store as people are fleeing for their lives and stand to lose not only their homes, but their jobs as well which is often the case with natural disasters. It's more than becoming homeless within a few hours, often the loss of commercial property occurs simultaneously. So not only do they have the expense of finding another home, they might experience a stretch without a paycheck and might even lose their job.
So, even though the US is primarily capitalistic and profit friendly, it's too cruel to gouge customers, the government has determined, when they are in such situations. Declared States of Emergency fixes prices by law. Most do not complain and consider it to be expected.

Now think about this in terms of someone not in the midst of a catastrophic natural disaster, rather, experiencing an illness which threatens their livelihood, their life and is something they cannot flee from. It is indeed an emergency for anyone experiencing these crises and together they form a body of people, or a state. So why is it they are not allowed a consistent State of Emergency that lowers their medical expenses during such times, consistent with the State of Emergency model? What's the difference in outcome? Both experience devestation yet one group, those with illnesses, are not protected from unreasonable expense.

The majority in such societies may be selfish and not at all bother with the minority who get sick at any one time simply because they are not (currently) within that group... like trying to ask a warm person to understand a cold one.

It would be nice if the US adopted national health insurance.

Because states of emergency also bring great cost. Governement seizes control of all infrastrusture and can decare martial law. They have many, many powers under that atate that can be used to infrinde upon everyone personal liberties.


People need to stop waiting for the government to save them and save themselves. Be prepared for emergencies before the become.an emergency. Its no ones responsibilty but your own. If you fail to its your fault, not the governments.

Where I live, it's a mixture of both government and civilians who help after a natural disaster. If it were only civilians, it would be much more difficult due to lack of support. However, those around here are on call and have priorities so they respond really quickly which others have noted doesn't always happen where they live. I don't view US government as automatically evil just because it's government. To me, lack of accountability is what causes any organization to do harm without ever answering for it.

Saving oneself is not always possible during a natural disaster but I agree, if evacuation is suggested, people should just do it. Why be stubborn and mistrustful of evacuation orders? Still it is stressful, evacuating. I would hate having to do it and would be reluctant myself just because of the hassle involved. The only way to save oneself during a hurricane in flood prone areas is to leave.

A medical state of emergency doesn't necessarily imply seizing infrastructure and martial law. It would be modified to fit needs of a medical emergency so it wouldn't necessarily be as costly as other states of emergency. It would help alleviate the sufferings of those in crises which imo should be a goal of civilization.

In other words, take the focus off what the government is doing and put it on what insurance companies do. Right now Obamacare is being used as a massive deflection, maybe that's why it was passed in the first place, to take the heat off the private sector? No longer are HMOs being scrutinized and despised. Officer's salaries are no longer being complained about. Now, everyone is blaming the government solely when evidence exists premiums would be even higher without Obamacare. The fundamental problem will always be how expensive it is for one person to see a doctor.

Obamacare is only abysmal because it didn't control costs enough. As far as accessibility, it did help with that. Years ago, however, experts were telling us it doesn't go far enough so it's no surprise. It's about HMOs fighting for market share. This can send prices in the opposite direction which can mean chaos, but with so much gouging, quotas manage to be met and they do not experience the fiscal losses.