"Who determines destructive personal choices? "

"
Which do you weight more heavily? The cost on the system or the destructiveness of choice"

Actuaries just as they do now with insurance.

If I want to drive a $100k car that does 200 + MPh and I have 20 tickets I will most likely be unisurable. If I smoke 4 packs a day and have a lump on my liver and 5 other symptoms of smoking related illness I cannot buy life insurance.

A sense of right or wrong does not change statistical outcomes and their related costs.

I you want to somke drink/drug or eat yourself to death you should foot the bill.

tk is al qaeda....he is the enemy and enemys shoud be shot not debated with....debates are for americans and people of free countries.......

Prove it.

I did Fishbear. Go try to buy a life insurance or automobile policy and tell them you smoke, are alcholic and morbidly obese. The actuaries will show a much higher risk and you will be declined or pay a very big premium compared to any of the other example dickhead gave.

TK's constant spin. We went from health care coverage to life insurance.

Both insurance programs and both ruled by actuaries cork soaker. Very few differences between the two.

He is avoiding the real answer which is he wants the subjectivity of who gets insured to change to discriminate against those with medical conditions that he determines are drains on our system. He is pretending that actuaries are in control of this so it is not subjective yet he isn't admitting that someone still draws the line of insurable vs uninsurable. He is pretending!!!

"he wants the subjectivity of who gets insured to change to discriminate against"

You call accountability discrimination. Do I think that able bodied people that are capable of working and taking care of their families should be able to suck off the system by having kids indiscriminatly and passing them off on the system? no! Do I think that people that in spite of all the evidence partake in very destructive behaviors and then want society to bear the burden of their decisions? No it's called account ability something the left hates.


"he isn't admitting that someone still draws the line of insurable vs uninsurable."

No different than you do with how you manage your money. You do not allow somone to redistribute your income without your consent to source? You should go into the healthcare insurance business. lets see how long your bleeding heart stay's in business.

Hold everyone accountable to all their choices and we wouldn't need any health care! You get cancer due to breathing asbestos? You should have chose not to breathe.

My point is and has been that under your logic smokers and obesce folks should get no healthcare because they chose to do that or become that way. Well healthy people who end up needing healthcare have made decisions that have gotten them to the point they need healthcare, why not hold them just as accountable and deny them healthcare as well.

99% of all your arguments if taken to their logical conclusion end up the same way. It is like your analogy of saving lives by having everyone stop driving. If I really wanted to save lives I would prevent births. It's moronic logic and you know it yet you continuously use this defeatist approach to your arguments. It's tired and sophomoric. Maybe when you get out as much as you do you should try and take your blinders off and see the real world!

"My point is and has been that under your logic smokers and obesce folks should get no healthcare because they chose to do that or become that way."

I never said that I said they should pay for their own health care. You choose to take it to the extreeme.

"It is like your analogy of saving lives by having everyone stop driving. If I really wanted to save lives I would prevent births. It's moronic logic"

Again you take it to the maximum extreme. Driving is not require to live. Being born is. Your extreme point is moronic squared.

By your logic we should cover drivers that choose to drink and drive and randomly bash anything that they choose.

I have a better example than the above. Lets take your pal H20. He comes on this site and professes to have made his fortune and will retire on the Olypen. Turns out there is a woman with his kid on medicaid. He has the means by his own admission. Why should his child be on medicaid? Now before you go getting all pissy and emotional this is not about his kid its about him. the kid has no means nor control over his situation. The parents do.

First of all you know nothing about H2o or his kid so you are way out on a limb to begin with.

Second of all I have never seen him claim to have made his fortune and retire out on the Olypen unless it was made in jest. With that said you example is not a good one, try again!

I know the full circumstances and yes his child should be on medicaid!

By the way, your attempt to make this an emotional discussion is pathetic. Excusing yourself from it by saying don't get emotional is trite. I see you have learned something from this administration.

There really is no depth you won't sink to...

All of the info I gave was posted by H20 on this site. Answer the question without emotion.

TK, you have children correct? Do you deduct them as dependants on your taxes? If so then you "chose" to have children and are asking the rest of the tax paying public to subsidize them. Why the hypocrisy?

How so Stlhd? show me how well you understand the tax code.

I already answered the question without emotion. You apparently cannot read.

Do those without children have the same deduction? No. You of all people should not be asking others to reimburse you or give you financial breaks based upon personal choices you have made.

"I think it's fair to say that Eric's son is justifiably on medicaid. It would be nearly impossible to get, or pay for, private insurance due to the severity of his illness."

He may and I support it completely for kids and those really in need. Do not get me wrong on this. I also believe that we as a society need to hold people resopnsible. Two separate issues.
We have a family in our church that has what appears to be the same affliction as H20's son. The father works construction. Does odd jobs they live in a small apt. and have made `1000 choices to stay together and make it on their own. He did not leave the mother and go father another child with another women and take resorces away from his previous responsibility.
My Fil's medical bills are close to a million dollars a year. 15 years ago we made some serious decisions as a family that made that easier to deal with today. We could have said the heck with it use medicaid and had a lot of fun.

"TK, prove H20 said he made his fortune and moved to Forks. I think you read wrong, but feel free to find the post and show us how right you are."

He said it right after I started on this site in 2003 you look it up. He addressed it as well just prior to the last election when he accused Grandpa and I of dissing his son.

You are the one making the accusations he said it, you look it up until then you are a lying sack of poop.