Health Care Bill

[newcarver]

just about 180 degree off base.

using your auto-insurance example, this is like saying you can risk a $700 per yr fine and drive about all you want. Then AFTER you "Experiance" an at fault crash resulting in property loss and persoanl injury to others, you "purchase" insurance and the insurance compay is REQUIRED to cover your pre-existing condition

I was pointing out that it is mandated, so will be required. They will probably make a lot of money off of this with coverage being required. Especially from the new younger set of healthy individuals who might be required to have the insurance that wouldn't ordinarily purchase it. There is a reason that the health insurance industry has spend over $625 Million on lobbying in the last 2 yrs and has 8 lobbiest per Congress person. It is going to be more profit for them and probably won't help the average Joe.

btw II, what WERE the cost esimates for medicare at inseption??? what are they now??? why couldn't big-gov simply work to "fix" and possibly "expand" medicare to include these estimated 11m folks???

I think this is where they are going to put the people who don't have insurance and can't afford it that don't currently qualify for Medicare.

[r_starr]

A recent editorial argued that something can't be a "right" if it means taking from someone else. For example someone needs healthcare and if healthcare is a "right" this person can hold the doctor and the pharmacist criminally liable if treatment isn't provided. Essentially the same thing is the scenario of redistribution where an individual's assets are seized via taxes to pay for the alleged healthcare "right" of others.

[bobdea]

In no particular order...

3) Not sure whether it was CNN or Fox last night....but I think an anchor netted it out by saying: "Democrats view healthcare as a moral issue while Republicans view it as a economic issue". I think that sums it up pretty well and might fight through some of the emotion in this thread.

IDK, that's like me saying the majority of conservatives seem think everything is a moral issue including taxation, gun law and letting women and minorities vote.

Most liberals in these parts look at it as both.

[C5 Golfer]

If the US Sentators and Congressmen had to use the same health care plan that we John Doe citizens do -- we would have a great plan in place and it would have been passed in both houses about 50 years ago,

[Dan]

If the US Sentators and Congressmen had to use the same health care plan that we John Doe citizens do -- we would have a great plan in place and it would have been passed in both houses about 50 years ago,

Amen to that.

[Dr D]

1) Govt can't manage medicare or the VA system with anything resembling efficiency or concern for the patient. How does anyone think they can handle this?

2) The Insurance companies and Big Pharma are the problem so why are they the only ones happy about this bill?

3) Many Dems are gonna lose their seats in the next election over this. They knew that when they voted. So WHAT did they get in the bill that was worth losing a cushy fat cat power job like senator of the USA over?

4)As a business owner I can no longer afford the employees I have so guess whats gonna happen to the unemployment rate? (I provide free care for my employees already as a benefit)

5)The whole dammm thing violates the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. The govt is not allowed to force us to buy anything. 12 states at last count lining up to sue over that one.

6) No Tort reform. No FDA fix (most FDA bigwigs are former CEO's and current stockholders of Big Pharma) fox guarding the henhouse.

7) This is an attempt at SICKCARE reform it has nothing to do with health.

8) The free market can do better. breaking up the medical/insuranceco/big pharma monopoly would be a good start. The current system is highly regulated and thoroughly inhibited by govt already.

9) Are you really comfortable with the govt having access to your checking acct? yes actual access to your acct. its in there. medicare providers already deal with this one. The govt can access my acct at anytime to reimburse themselves for "overpayments" under the guise of a direct deposit system.

10) Sofar there is no word on funding and approval for true wellness based care.

11) salaries for healthcare personel will be controled by the govt and will be basically the same regardless of specialty or dollars and yrs spent achieving said specialty. Bottomline in 10 yrs there will be no incentive to go thru 10+ yrs of college to make the same wage as a truckdriver. no more Drs and nurses.

12) my taxes just went up almost 10% and I have absolutely no use for the coverage I may recieve in compensation. I haven't been to a medical doctor 5 times in my 37 yrs. I do however spend out of pocket for many wellness based "alternatives" oh yeah and I will be fined if I dont buy it!

13) your life liberty and pursuit of happiness gets no greater weight than my own. My Liberty should not and Will not take second to your health.

YOu want healthcare reform? start teaching people that THEY are responsible for their own health. Don't whine to me about your lack of coverage while you choke down a sixpack of crispy cremes and a half gallon of neuro toxin laden "diet" soda.

Our current system looks like this.

Tell the sheeple that the govt and the dr are in charge of their health.

sell them garbage food and tell them its healthy because the govt says so

(never mind that monsanto paid for the privelidge)

let them sit on thier collective fat as ses and suck down the artificial sweetners and cornsyrup until they are all obese and sick

Then turn them over to the medical establishment for pharmaceutical bandaids that without exception cure nothing but only prolong death until your insurance is maxed.

Ban many safe natural alternatives so that pharma doesnt have to deal with the competition.

we haven't even discussed what trial lawyers get out of this arrangement.

you want healthcare reform start with this crap. healthcare is CHEAP

Sickcare will cost you your life in this country.

I will stop the rant now but know that I am just scratching the surface here.

[DiveBomber]

So you car breaks down... they're going to give you a bus pass... its an ok bus... breaks down every once in a while.....

But what if i dont want to ride the bus???

YOU WILL RIDE THE BUS...... we'll even give you wheel a chair incase you get too fat

besides we own the company that makes the bus....:lol:

and dont worry the seats on the bus have no seat belts, so you wont suffer in case of a rollover!

your bus driver today: B. Obama:biggthump

your route: Four lefts

arrival time: not in your lifetime!....(you wouldnt remeber where you were going by the time you get there any way so it doesnt matter)

good luck with that!

[Jack M]

1) Govt can't manage medicare or the VA system with anything resembling efficiency or concern for the patient. How does anyone think they can handle this?

2) The Insurance companies and Big Pharma are the problem so why are they the only ones happy about this bill?

3) Many Dems are gonna lose their seats in the next election over this. They knew that when they voted. So WHAT did they get in the bill that was worth losing a cushy fat cat power job like senator of the USA over?

4)As a business owner I can no longer afford the employees I have so guess whats gonna happen to the unemployment rate? (I provide free care for my employees already as a benefit)

5)The whole dammm thing violates the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. The govt is not allowed to force us to buy anything. 12 states at last count lining up to sue over that one.

6) No Tort reform. No FDA fix (most FDA bigwigs are former CEO's and current stockholders of Big Pharma) fox guarding the henhouse.

7) This is an attempt at SICKCARE reform it has nothing to do with health.

8) The free market can do better. breaking up the medical/insuranceco/big pharma monopoly would be a good start. The current system is highly regulated and thoroughly inhibited by govt already.

9) Are you really comfortable with the govt having access to your checking acct? yes actual access to your acct. its in there. medicare providers already deal with this one. The govt can access my acct at anytime to reimburse themselves for "overpayments" under the guise of a direct deposit system.

10) Sofar there is no word on funding and approval for true wellness based care.

11) salaries for healthcare personel will be controled by the govt and will be basically the same regardless of specialty or dollars and yrs spent achieving said specialty. Bottomline in 10 yrs there will be no incentive to go thru 10+ yrs of college to make the same wage as a truckdriver. no more Drs and nurses.

12) my taxes just went up almost 10% and I have absolutely no use for the coverage I may recieve in compensation. I haven't been to a medical doctor 5 times in my 37 yrs. I do however spend out of pocket for many wellness based "alternatives" oh yeah and I will be fined if I dont buy it!

13) your life liberty and pursuit of happiness gets no greater weight than my own. My Liberty should not and Will not take second to your health.

YOu want healthcare reform? start teaching people that THEY are responsible for their own health. Don't whine to me about your lack of coverage while you choke down a sixpack of crispy cremes and a half gallon of neuro toxin laden "diet" soda.

Our current system looks like this.

Tell the sheeple that the govt and the dr are in charge of their health.

sell them garbage food and tell them its healthy because the govt says so

(never mind that monsanto paid for the privelidge)

let them sit on thier collective fat as ses and suck down the artificial sweetners and cornsyrup until they are all obese and sick

Then turn them over to the medical establishment for pharmaceutical bandaids that without exception cure nothing but only prolong death until your insurance is maxed.

Ban many safe natural alternatives so that pharma doesnt have to deal with the competition.

we haven't even discussed what trial lawyers get out of this arrangement.

you want healthcare reform start with this crap. healthcare is CHEAP

Sickcare will cost you your life in this country.

I will stop the rant now but know that I am just scratching the surface here.

+10,000

I am a "fiscally conservative libertarian" (abortions, pot, and gay unions all around!) and I consider this a moral and economic issue. Moral in that there is no moral reason that I, as a relative picture of health, being of the ability to make relatively good decisions about how to treat my body, should have to pay one thin dime for the healthcare of the idiots in this country who whine that they cannot afford insurance while they can afford to stuff their face into obesity and diabetes, and to buy cigarettes, scratch tickets, and coffee brandy. These people can go have a coronary in a McDonalds for all I care. It is amazing to me that people with the little Darwin emblems on their Priuses do not believe the same.

I should not have to pay for this.

[utahcarver]

Jack,

I believe this equates to being the Best Post Of The Year. That said, where'd you get this picture of my mother-in-law? She's lost a LOT of weight and has now shaved her full beard. She is the epitome of health!

Mark

[Alaskan Rover]

I guess my biggest gripe about the thing is that entrance into the plan will be mandatory...and then they will have the gall to fine me via the IRS if I don't wanna play.

I wish they would have just been able to do what they were originally going to have, either a single-payer system like Canada's or better, the public option that would have created competition to those HUGE insurance companies and corporate hospital groups like Humana. I wish the tea-party treasonist nutcases would have just shut up....they and the ultra-conservatives screwed up any possibility of getting REAL reform...so what we ended up with is STILL a private system that just made the insurance companies even wealthier. What gives????

Presently, we have among the best health care in the world...you just have to be exceedingly wealthy to afford it.

That's the rip...you either have to be very poor and get free health care (but NOT great health care), or ultra-wealthy and be able to afford it easily. Middle class families just get shafted by the present system.

It is very true...our present system is "SICK CARE" not "Health Care".

A system based upon making profit off of the sick has ABSOLUTELY NO incentive to keep a population healthy!

[Jack M]

Presently, we have among the best health care in the world...you just have to be excedingly wealthy to afford it.

Where the **** do you get this crap? All you need is a decent JAY-OH-BEE. I had full health coverage with my first $29,000 job out of college.

[Jack M]

I wish they would have just been able to do what they were originally going to have, either a single-payer system like Canada's

Yeah, because Canada got it right.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXZaTXDu3Os&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXZaTXDu3Os&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="385"></embed></object>

[BobD]

+10,000

I am a "fiscally conservative libertarian" (abortions, pot, and gay unions all around!) and I consider this a moral and economic issue. Moral in that there is no moral reason that I, as a relative picture of health, being of the ability to make relatively good decisions about how to treat my body, should have to pay one thin dime for the healthcare of the idiots in this country who whine that they cannot afford insurance while they can afford to stuff their face into obesity and diabetes, and to buy cigarettes, scratch tickets, and coffee brandy. These people can go have a coronary in a McDonalds for all I care. It is amazing to me that people with the little Darwin emblems on their Priuses do not believe the same.

I should not have to pay for this.

And when she turns up at the ER, you and I will be paying to treat her chronic conditions, because she hadn't had seen a health care professional for years. If she had had health care insurance she would have been harangued every time she went in for something minor, about living better. At worst her diabetes would have been caught before her foot was amputated and she needed a bypass. All on our dime, because we pay through higher insurance cost, or Medicaid, and SS (as she would be disabled). This health care is going to save us money in the long run. CBO backed that up.

[bobdea]

And when she turns up at the ER, you and I will be paying to treat her chronic conditions, because she hadn't had seen a health care professional for years. If she had had health care insurance she would have been harangued every time she went in for something minor, about living better. At worst her diabetes would have been caught before her foot was amputated and she needed a bypass. All on our dime, because we pay through higher insurance cost, or Medicaid, and SS (as she would be disabled). This health care is going to save us money in the long run. CBO backed that up.

Bob, you can't use that logic with these people. it does not work. government is bad with no exceptions. medicare, medicaid, SS, public schools and the IRS are all marxist plots to take away their guns.

Jack is on about having a decent job and you're fine, yeah, that's nice but that's getting harder and harder to find because of multiple reasons. still does not mean **** either. go get sick and see what happens with your insurance, they'll drop you in a heartbeat if they find a way. It happened to my dad he nearly lost the house I'm sitting in. He had owned a insurance agency for awhile too so it was not like he was some idiot with a crap policy from a shady carrier.

amazes me here the right wing talking points in use here.

of course he posts a neocon smear video by stuart browning who is associated with the John Birch society and the cato institute and made this gem http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsuredinamerica.php that just goes out and either twists numbers or completely fabricates them.

the reason many people don't have insurance is because it's not available to them for sane prices, ad to it knowing that if your carrier decides that if you get sick they can drop you it's almost pointless. When I was living in ME I was making 12k a year but to carry a policy it was going to cost me $314 a month. I'd have to be crazy to pay that type of money knowing that they'd probably not pay if I really needed it.

gonna paste in some stuff here debunking stuart browning's work: the guys associated with this website keep showing up too. Stuart Browning writes for several blogs and has made a series of short films dealing with what he calls "health care freedom"--advocating for the maintenance of American health care business as usual and bashing Canadian and other "socialized" systems.

Browning has a unique take on why Americans have a shorter life expectancy than the citizens of other industrialized nations.

Life expectancy averages are determined by a multitude of factors such as ethnicity, culture, and crime rates. Asians live longer than whites. Whites live longer than blacks. Canada has more Asians than blacks.

In other words, our national average is being brought down by black people. I'm sure uninsured and underinsured black Americans will be oh-so-understanding when the defenders of corporate health care explain to them treatment is useless because they're black and will die soon no matter what anybody does.

Browning's lack of depth on the subject of racial inequalities in life expectancy implies he believes they don't live as long because they are black, whereas it seems more likely that they don't live as long because they don't receive adequate health care because American blacks are largely poor.

Another tactic, this one which I've seen over and over again, is to value access to expensive elective procedures like cutting-edge MRI scans for wealthy individuals over cheap basic health care for the broad mass of the people. "It's not hard to find Canadians who have waited months to get an MRI..." But just because you have walk-in MRI clinics in seemingly every shopping mall in the United States doesn't mean you will be able to afford them. MRI scans cost at least a few thousand dollars. So those without the residual cash get to decide whether to get that MRI or get basic care for a year or more.

Browning's efforts are funded by the Moving Picture Institute. On its website, the Institute says of itself that it

...identifies and nurtures promising filmmakers who are committed to protecting and sustaining a free society, and supports their work through grants, travel scholarships, awards, internships, training workshops, and networking opportunities.

To date, the Institute has produced Mine Your Own Business (pro-mining, anti-environmentalist), Freedom's Fury and Hammer & Tickle (both taking a bold stand against Stalinism), Indoctrinate U (trying to revive the old saw of political correctness on American college campuses), and a few others.

The Institute was founded by the hard right "human rights advocate" Thor Halvorssen, Ambassador of Drug Affairs under former Venezuelan President and Bush family friend Carlos Andres Perez. In this position, according to Wikipedia, he acted as "a liaison between law enforcement agencies around the world, working on drug and money-laundering cases." However, the as Christian Science Monitor reported in 1993, "A Miami-based DEA official quoted in the Miami Herald called Halvorssen's drug information 'unreliable, manipulative, and planted.'" A Washington Post article from the same time period was more direct, indicating it was believed that Halvorssen was using his position has Venezuelan drug czar to move Colombian cocaine into the United States. The article also hints at connections with the CIA, all of which has been denied by Halvorssen.

Via the Christian Science Monitor, we learn that in the same year, after President Perez was imprisoned for embezzlement of national funds, Halvorssen was likewise imprisoned on more serious charges--terrorism. Charges were dropped, and Thor left the country.

Now he hangs out with folks from the Council for National Policy, the membership of which substantially overlaps with that of Project for a New American Century. He's also appeared on The Christian Broadcast Network in interviews with Pat Robertson. And, of course, he now funds Stuart Browning's efforts to discredit single-payer insurance.

According to people like Browning and Halvorssen, poor people are just supposed to roll over and accept that they won't get any kind of health care at all. These critics don't speak to me and never will so long as they put corporate profits before my well-being. The big question is, who do they think they're fooling?

[Petrol]

rather then offer opportunities for self-relience, the best the 'progressives' can do is make the poor a bit more comfortable in their poverty, though I think they want us all under their thumb & the creation of increased dependancy is thier method

[lonbordin]

Ask any Canadian if they would swap their system for ours... when you find more than two let me know. :rolleyes: (ooo, I just had an idea for a BOL poll.)

Self-reliance is great, I'm so happy I can live that life but I know people who cannot. One lady I know had a minor operation in her early teens where a series of things went wrong (mostly pharmacological). She came out of that with a condition that makes it so she is in a wheelchair and requires food via the tube to survive. She is trying to get a PhD and at the same time battle the insurance companies who are trying to get out of paying for her liquid diet amongst other things. She is a fighter and a brave person. Braver than you or I but yet I read healthy peoples talk of "self-reliance" and calls of sheeple and it makes me want to

If I have to give up some of my hard-earned cash to help a person like her, sign me up.

[Jack M]

And when she turns up at the ER, you and I will be paying to treat her

Yes, you're right about that, and that is also the problem. But you say that as if there's nothing we can do about that, and that's the end of the argument.

We wouldn't have to pay for her ER visits in most cases, if I were king. Maybe the ER would require insurance, or state-issued proof of uninsurability, or proof of being a valid ward of the state or something, but there would be no open door policy.

Also she'd be more likely to be able to afford insurance in my kingdom, because I'd have enacted tort reform and people like John Edwards would be out of a job.

I simply reject the notion that we should have to pay for people who can afford to eat 6 meals a day, spend $6, $12, $18 A DAY on cigarettes and whatever on booze.

In my kingdom, if you'd rather live like that than take care of yourself and buy insurance, you'll be turned away at the ER. Darwin and I are good chums. If you have a damn good reason for not having insurance, then there would be a safety net for these people. The problem is now, too many people expect and receive the safety net for no good reason.

If able-bodied people knew there was no safety net, they'd be more responsible, or accept the consequences. But as it is, they know that the saps and suckers in this country will provide for them.

This health care is going to save us money in the long run. CBO backed that up.

I hope you're right about that, and it will be a wonderful thing if it does and if it operates efficiently and provides insurance to all. Given the government's track record, I don't see that happening.

[MUD]

All I can say is I hope it makes health care affordable for self employed people. I have a few friends that are self employed, they pay around $800 a month with a $5000 deductible. I know quite a few people that are holding out going out on there own because of this. These are young people with families or just starting families.

Did you know if you give birth within the first 9 months of new insurance it is considered a pre-existing condition and the birth is not covered, they cost around $20000 if all goes well, if not, you are bankrupt.

THESE are the people that need the help in my eyes.

[bobdea]

rather then offer opportunities for self-relience, the best the 'progressives' can do is make the poor a bit more comfortable in their poverty, though I think they want us all under their thumb & the creation of increased dependancy is thier method

wow, paranoid and off the mark.

dude, elvis is dead, oswald killed kennedy and atlas shrugged is fiction, not a documentary.

[Neil Gendzwill]

I should not have to pay for this.

It's not a lot different morally from paying to save your ass after you've crashed into a tree due to the bad decision to take up a dangerous sport. If we follow your logic, everyone should live in a rubber room and eat tofu in order to enjoy universal health care.

[bobdea]

Also she'd be more likely to be able to afford insurance in my kingdom, because I'd have enacted tort reform and people like John Edwards would be out of a job.

why do conservatives think tort reform is a magic bullet?

Even the numbers posted by conservatives have been modest on this, none said it would effect rates by more than 10% most were in the 1% to 5% range that I have seen. some even made a argument that it would cost money, not save it.

Truth be told, republicans would of got tort reform out of this but the party of no wanted play hard ball and lost when it came right down to it http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1895706,00.html

the GOP has no one to blame other than themselves for this, they were thinking they could sink any legislation the dems would try to push through, it was short sighted at best.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf

and from TPM this was posted: CBO's Analysis of Republicans' Big Healthcare Game-Changer: Tort Reform

November 24, 2009, 3:00PM

"I just re-watched my two Senators yapping (with others) about how the Republicans have not had a chance to put their reform proposals forward, how they can "do something", etc. And, through all of the Republican outcry, they keep coming back to how important it is for tort reform to be part of the mix. Although I am philosophically opposed to their decades-long push to cap damage awards in malpractice cases, I began to wonder how much they think it would save us. From the way they talk, you would think enacting their tort reform proposal would eliminate the need for us to address the rest of the system.

Wow! Not only did I not realize how tort reform would NOT save more than either the House or the Senate bills would, but it is just about ALL of the savings that the Republicans want to put forward.

My conclusions are based primarily upon the CBO/JCT's Nov. 4 evaluation of the House Republicans' proposed amendment. Verbatim, here is what the CBO/JCT letter said:

Limits on costs related to medical malpractice ("tort reform"), including

capping noneconomic and punitive damages and making changes in the

allocation of liability. CBO expects that those limits would reduce health

care costs directly--by reducing premiums for medical liability insurance

and associated costs--and indirectly by slightly reducing the utilization of

health care services. Over the 2010-2019 period, those changes would

reduce spending on mandatory programs by about $41 billion and would

increase revenues by $13 billion as an indirect effect of reducing the costs of

private health insurance plans (which would result in a shift of some

workers' compensation from nontaxable health insurance benefits to taxable

wages).

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf (emphasis added)

So, the tort reform proposal (which I am assuming is similar to the ones that Republicans have been unable to pass when they had control of the House/Senate/White House) does account for 79% of their plan ($54B out of $68B), but it pales in comparison to the $81B or the $104B which the Senate Finance proposal or the House-passed bill, respectively, reduce the federal budget deficit in the first 10 years. (To say nothing of the savings to the states or to individuals.)

Next time you hear the GOP tout tort reform as a magic pill for our healthcare system, give them the CBO/JCT's second opinion."

the above is right on most points from what I can find but that said, I personally am not against tort reform. thing is, the benefits are minor and to focus solely on it is kind of silly.

[Jack M]

It's not a lot different morally from paying to save your ass after you've crashed into a tree due to the bad decision to take up a dangerous sport. If we follow your logic, everyone should live in a rubber room and eat tofu in order to enjoy universal health care.

It's a lot different morally. I have health insurance, and I wouldn't snowboard without it. If I was stupid enough to go snowboarding without insurance, then I should be SOL.

Bottom line is personal responsibility. Sure there are people who truly need and deserve the safety net. But it's a much smaller number than a lot of people would like to believe.

(tangent: I can't even count how many houses I drive past on the way to the mountain where the people are obviously poor, like, half the house is missing siding, but hey, there's the DirecTV dish mounted on the roof! )

[Steve Prokopiw]

It's a lot different morally. I have health insurance, and I wouldn't snowboard without it. If I was stupid enough to go snowboarding without insurance, then I should be SOL.

Bottom line is personal responsibility. Sure there are people who truly need and deserve the safety net. But it's a much smaller number than a lot of people would like to believe.

(tangent: I can't even count how many houses I drive past on the way to the mountain where the people are obviously poor, like, half the house is missing siding, but hey, there's the DirecTV dish mounted on the roof! )

With the kind of judgemental jackass comments you make is the definition of oxymoron.Perhaps the uninsured among the populace should stop doing anything physically active or fun for that matter, so they can keep you and your kind sitting at the top looking down on them from your pedestal while they clean your toilets and scrub your floors.What a jackass.

[Jack M]

With the kind of judgemental jackass comments you make is the definition of oxymoron.Perhaps the uninsured among the populace should stop doing anything physically active or fun for that matter, so they can keep you and your kind sitting at the top looking down on them from your pedestal while they clean your toilets and scrub your floors.What a jackass.

Great idea!!! ;)

Hey, this is OT. It is largely unmoderated. Almost anything goes. Hmm, well, you did just violate rule #1 in this forum, but, meh.

Why is it so hard for you to see how engaging in risky or stupid activities like smoking and over-eating without insurance is irresponsible?

I agree if you injured yourself doing something in the pursuit of physical fitness or if you were a victim of an accident and you didn't have insurance, that's one thing. But engaging in self-destructive irresponsible behavior and then expecting other people to pick up the tab just doesn't fly with me.

[bobdea]

Great idea!!!

Hey, this is OT. It is largely unmoderated. Almost anything goes. Hmm, well, you did just violate rule #1 in this forum, but, meh.

Why is it so hard for you to see how engaging in risky or stupid activities like smoking and over-eating without insurance is irresponsible?

most people do I think.

that's beside the point though. the issue is insurance costs are high and they don't mean anything because your claim could be denied. not to mention the cost of actual care. there's more than one single problem.

as far as insurance goes you're essentially denied what you pay for OR it's financially out of reach in the first place.