And yet all those donkeys voted for the incumbent.........or at least 85% of those that gave Congree a 29 % favorable score did.

Hey..........maybe they're only 29% favorable because 85% of the goats will vote for them no matter what.

And no Poli-Sci degree, either.

It's amazing how much Aunty beatches, whines, pisses & moans about all her "tax payer dollars" going to waste, yet she vacuums up more taxpayer dollars off the gov't teat than a battalion of welfare moms with a dozen bastage children each. Like I've said before. She's just a big fat sow at the taxpayer trough grunting that more piglets want in on her free dinner.

Don't watch Hannity and haven't heard Rush in 10 years(guy in the shop had him on his radio), you can't add 47 million more people to the current health care provider system without reducing care for those already insured. If in one instant the amount of landscapers increased 25% would that affect your business? Obama himself was the one talking about hospice taking a pill instead of an operation.

Oh, and everyone's in. No exceptions. The system depends on EVERYONE paying in, so the pool of those that don't burden the health care system will cover those that do. But here's a secret.........if you ARE a burden to the health care system, it had better be due to genetics, an accident, or simple bad luck, and NOT due to your laziness.


I agree Dan--- everybody should pay, but that's not how it will be set up.

Coverage for everyone would be a big win for employees. No more will you worry about whopping monthly insurance costs if you lose or quit your job. You'll truly be able to say "take this job and shove it" and not have to worry about paying $500 a month. Corp America loses a big hook.

Here's what I think should happen but won't:

We regulate the insurance industry now. If they want an increase it needs to be approved/justified. That justification comes from the ever rising costs.....drugs, machines, etc. Why not regulate the costs? I had a CT scan. Took about 20 minutes. The bill came to $1,500. Are you kidding me? Machines should be break even not for profit. I was prescribed a drug last year. For me it was a $50 copay for a 90 supply. The total charge, however, was over $2,000. Are you kidding me? Then those little pills ended up swelling up my veins and putting me over night in the hospital with the same symptoms as a heart attack. Co pay to me but total cost for less than 24 hrs in a bed over $15,000. Are you kidding me?

What's truly wrong with our health care system is the raping and pillaging going on and the politicians who condone it.

If the decision-makers on The Great Plan are anything like this clown, we're all doomed

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610&print=on

I looked back to see where I typed anything close to that, but couldn't find it.

Uh, no.

I only included two groups who are a huge burden on the health care system in the interest of time.

But if you'd like to add up the cost of smokers, other tobacco users , and the obese on the health care system, and compare it to the costs of all accidents, illicit drug use and STD's and see how they stack up, fine with me. The comparison borders on asinine.

You mean my bias derived from being a Copenhagen chewer who would be subject to being kicked out of my own plan if I didn't quit?

Yeah.............my bias has everything to do with it, and the burden placed on the health care system by smokers and the obese has nothing to do with it.

For the same reason taxpayers pay for military spouses' care that have health problems due to promiscuity, stupidity or illegal drug abuse.

I thought we'd adopted a Piscatorial Pursuits Philosophy that "stupidity should hurt." Therefore, patients with ailments caused largely or wholly by stupidity should have to pay more.

Aunty, I don't think anyone said smokers are evil. That appears to be something you read into Dan's earlier post. More accurate to say that smokers are drug addicts; just that their drug happens to be legal, whereas some drug users are addicted to drugs deemed illegal. Biochemically they're all the same in that regard. Legal/illegal is a social legal value independent of the biological and chemical attributes of the respective substances. So a smoker is no more evil than a meth head. Both are substance abusers who are hooked. And as Dan points out, the 400,000 US smokers who die from tobacco use each year make the meth deaths a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Sg

My wife's not a military spouse, she's a retiree, and she's taken well enough care of herself that she'll never be near the drain on the system that you are.

Personal attacks before 6 am?!?


Give it a friggin' rest. Go eat some bran flakes or something...

Hankster, the bill I see is from my inurance company and lists the amount paid to the clinic. The contracted rate. $1,500 for a 20 minute CT scan.

So let's do your math:

1.5 mil for the machine and we'll round up to another 1 mil a year for your senior tech working in a major city, radiologist at the highest end, $300k a year for maintenance and we'll leave the doc out since he doesn't see a dime unless there's kickbacks:

$2.5 mil a year / 4,500 hr = 555 hours = 69 days = 13.8 weeks to break even.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

With lots, and lots, and LOTS of sugar.

It's gotta be the heat. Some of you folks are getting on my nerves.

You know what they say

"If you can't stand the heat....there's a drug for that"

Sounds like it is time to take the keys away from Gramma...

There seems to be some kind of a "theme" developing here with this thread...

Same theme that eventually develops in all of 'em...and it seems that most everyone sees it and recognizes it for exactly what it is except for a very few, who either can't see it or are foolish enough to think that no one else can.

Fish on...

Todd