I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been discussed yet. At the last Republican/Tea Party debate, the moderator asked Ron Paul about what should happen to an employed, otherwise healthy, uninsured person that is stricken with an expensive illness (in this hypothetical question, the "illness" was a coma). The basic question is, "What do we do with such a situation?".

As much as I want to like Ron Paul, part of his response sums up why I can't. His answer is essentially that they guy probably SHOULD have had a policy but freedom allows him to not. I'm OK with that. I'm even probably OK if the answer was, "Well, he has no coverage and no money so he gets no treatment." Instead, Paul answers somewhat in between. "We never turned anyone away at the hospital I worked at. The churches took care of them."

Isn't his way of thinking exactly how we got here?




-AP

Life is hard - nobody argues that. Yet many people will never "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", often through factors completely beyond their control. We can't know, so who are we to decide?

Is it better to abandon truly deserving people at the cost of supporting "unworthy" individuals? Who am I to judge? Everybody deserves help. Professional caseworkers make these calls - not you and I.

Personally I would contribute to safety nets that improve the quality of life for those who really need it - even at the cost of some who may not seem to. It's not my business to punish the "unworthy", or protect the weak, or motivate whoever can be encouraged to make their life better on their own. This is each individual's prerogative.

Kaiser---In answer to the title question I say NO. Actually I would say [censored] no but it'll be censored....

How is it OK to believe in Survival of the fittest, and Nature knows best, in everything BUT us??

County hospitals can't refuse service for immediate aid, but that gimmie isn't extended to treatment of long winded diseases.

Government is run by trying to tax you into the poor house and then putting you on a program. In the end they'll get it all.....so be sure to wait until you are old to have fun.........when you no longer can and no longer could afford it either.

My response is to LIFE THREATENING illness or trauma. Poor folks trying to get a free Amberlamps ride to the ghetto can [censored] off.

OK, for those of you that feel we should not let the uninsured die, who gets to pay?

A woman at my wife's work just had surgery; hip replacement, and brain surgery....

She's 94...


hmmmm....

Working men and women.

Working men and women that have insurance? Isn't that what we have now? Those that think ahead and take preventitive steps pay for those that don't.

Legal citizens.

Yup.

So, the status quo? I thought that the majority of us believe that isn't working?

Sol Duc, if you pay for health care like you pay your bets, you really shouldn't participate in this thread.

I believe that what's not working is all the illegals and medicaid phucks that abuse the ER...and system as a whole.

Your question related specifically to "life threatening". That is far from "status quo"....more in the realm of "extenuating circumstances".

That was Hippy weak.

As a corollary to this conversation - My cremation services are available to anyone who needs them.



The idiocy of the status quo is that we deliver these "free" health services to the uninsured via the emergency room - the most expensive way possible to deliver health care.

I'm sure somebody thinks it's great.

I don't.

I'm a cold hearted POS, let him die.

Yes and we need to get rid of health insurance.

and as the PP group merrily enjoys the usual verbiage of incoherent thoughts the real question at the bottom of this pile of crap is ignored as always as ALL insurances, including the biggest rejector Medicaid, even reject many treatments. Oh yes almost forgot the question, where do you draw the line in medical treatment FOR ANYONE when the prognosis is that the disease is terminal or minimal chance of survival?

My wife's cancer treatments extended her life for a year which I cherished greatly. It also cost 250k or 20,800 a month for that year with a 10% chance that she could be cured. Double insured, million max on both sides you go for it but if you think this can continue or expand with medical technology your a bunch of hypocritical fools! So then the question is how in the hell do we all pay for it? Don't even start with the greedy corporation crap either as that is peanuts in this train wreck. The question at the bottom is ............ how do you establish a viable cost benefit ratio for medical treatment?

AP,

I think how we got here is by not having a national health care program. What I object to with Obamacare is that it forces everyone into the private health insurance system and lacks a government option. Critics said gov't. can't do anything efficiently, and that private enterprise can do it better. I tend to agree, but the way to prove that is to also include a gov't. option. If it's as bad as its critics claim it would be, no one would choose it unless they had no other option or simply declined to buy personal health insurance.

I favor having a national health care system, and I think Obamacare - as it's come to be called - was designed to fail.

Getting back to the specific question as it was asked to Ron Paul, the correct answer is to provide emergency service to the uninsured young man and then send him home to die in his coma. The reason is that the man knew what choice America made, i.e., requiring each person to purchase health insurance. The man made a conscious choice to not insure himself, essentially choosing to deny himself live-saving care should he some day need it. When that day arrived, we undermine the purpose and value of society if we avoid the uncomfortable fact that actions have consequences. While hard-hearted, society needs to act in a manner consistent with the principles it claims to have chosen (in this case buy the insurance or suffer the consequences). Of course it wouldn't have been PC popular except among the extremists for Ron Paul to answer that way. Had he done so, my respect for him would have increased significantly.

As a society we refuse to come to terms with those things we find uncomfortable. The undeniable truth is that we cannot save everyone - nobody's getting out of here alive. Further, we cannot even as a society afford to treat every citizen for every condition, yet we avoid the discomfort of addressing that. Take the 94 yr old woman for example. The hip replacement may be reasonable if she was otherwise healthy and mobile. Since she also required brain surgery, clearly she wasn't healthy, and since 94 is a pretty ripe old age, the benevolent death panel (the insurance companies in many cases) should have denied both treatments.

I've read a couple of times that over 90% of a person's lifetime medical expenses occur in the last 6 months of life - trying to postpone the inevitable. Those kinds of medical investments should not be borne by society altho the wealthy are free to try and spend their own fortunes trying to stay alive as long as they can.

An intelligent, benevolent, and rational society would craft a health care plan and system that IDs each medical condition and corresponding treatment and then prioritize them. Then decide how much people - individually and collectively via the national plan - are willing to spend on the nation's health care system. There are approximately 545 conditions and treatments; the money goes a finite distance down the list, and that becomes the limit of public health care. If you want coverage for more conditions, you buy it via private health insurance.

How does this work? Simple things (that prevent subsequent major disease and expense) are covered, like vaccinations, pre-natal care and a host of very treatable conditions and diseases that are likely to return the patient to a productive and rewarding life are all included. Less common and experimental and treatments that are not expected to result in patient recovery are low on that list and not covered. With those conditions the patient gets hospice and morphine and well wishes for the after-life if they believe in one. We can't do it all, and we shouldn't pretend that we can. Instead we create derogatory remarks about death panels while avoiding the rational discussion that we already have them and avoid pointing out that if one has the personal resources they can spend all they want on insurance and treatments that more likely than not will not change the outcome.

Sg

The gov should take the obamacare money and start opening up 24hr. gov run clinics next door to the emergency rooms most used by under or uninsureds. Staff them with Drs. from India. Got to be way cheaper.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is good enough for me...

I've never expected anyone to pay my bills.....

Depends
2022 isnt that far away. Hows our supply of Soylent Green looking.

Nice post on a subject that gets all too many upset one way or the other. There are some very pointed truths in these lines.

In the question, as it was asked to Paul, the guy "makes a good living". So, I think the question was, at the very least, hinting that the guy CHOSE not to be insured. If so, does that even matter?

Salmo, very well stated and I absolutely agree that a public option is REQUIRED to have any change in the system. You also recognized the part of Paul's argument that frustrates me. He wants to be a bad-ass and a man of "personal responsibility" yet he is too much of a pussy to come out and say, "Yeah, he made his bed." Instead, he implies that the guy SHOULD be treated and then, as if by magic, some aspect of society (churches I guess?) would come in with their checkbooks. If that was really the case, we wouldn't be in this mess. He can't have it both ways.

I'm actually kind of surprised by the compassion shown by the majority of posters. Most people seem to say that we cannot just let people die that are otherwise fixable. Some here seem to distinguish between something like accidents that require immediate care and longterm illnesses. Almost all seem to agree that accidents affecting otherwise healthy people should be treated, regardless of the patient's insurance status. If that is the case, I find it hard to believe that people don't take the next step and want to share those sort of expenses more evenly across the population. It really seems like the only way to do that IS to force people to have a plan so they are participating in covering the costs.

-AP

So how many here choose not to pay for health insurance?
But have cell phones, internet and go fishing which all cost $...
The reason some choose not to buy health insurance is the fact they know they will not be turned down for care in most cases. Let a few die and I bet others will be doing what they can to buy ins.

I choose to pay my $1185.00 a month and cut back on the entertainment dollars. Why should I pay and have the same treatment as the next guy that can pay for ins but chooses not too!

When I was young I never had insurance after I moved out of my parent's house. I even went for many years without car insurance. Considering how I lived, it was a pretty foolish thing to do, but that was how it went down. Of course all those who were/are purchasing insurance pay for those who don't. At some point insurance became important to me and I then worked only for outfits that offered it. Now, of course, everything is different. I need insurance, because I'm falling apart. Fortunately for now, I still work and have pretty good coverage. Life is a gamble at best, and I don't think the gov't has the right to remove that aspect.....even if it is the wise thing to do.

AuntyM,

Like AP pointed out, in the example question to RP, the young man made enough income to afford insurance but chose not to. That's what makes the question a pointed one for legislators debating the issue.

When I said I favor a national health care program, perhaps I should have been more clear to include the public option run by the gov't. It's beyond ludicrous that the world's most affluent nation doesn't have basic national health care. I'm not talking about unlimited health care; we can't afford that. But basic health care for all citizens roughly as I described in my post above would be fitting for a modern affluent civilization. The system we have is more about profit than about a healthy people.

Sg

Funny, isn't it, that the hypocratic oath is somehow circumvented/rationalized when it comes to "First do no harm"?

The drug R and D should be Federalized.....100%, IMO

Simple answer is that I reject the social darwinism of the Ron Paula of this world and have instead always favored a national health insurance system similar to the one enjoyed by our friends and neighbors in Canada.

Perhaps so. But I certainly don't see any better proposals coming from the leaders of either of our two political parties, both of which are beholding to the health insurance industry. I would prefer to first adopt a Canadian style system and THEN work to improve it.

The British national health care system is similar to our VA system. I'm not sure I would favor adopting that system. Instead we could start by essentially having Medicare for all.

Like the blind squirrel and nut, Aunty is right. Do you agree/understand, Timber? If so, why would you not favor such a system?

Aunty is also absolutely correct about the demonization of any real system change, with several large industries (pharma, insurance, for-profit hospitals, etc.) leading the fight against change and using the media to do so. It is frustrating to see an industry (or the govt for that matter) so easily manipulate a group of people to fight against their own best interests.

My personal choice would be for a universal payer system with payers able to choose between private or govt plan. Once in a plan, medical decisions would be determined based on the "value" of the service. Prepare for that to be demonized as "death panels" (honestly, that system already exists in private insurance industry). This would provide the skeleton of health care, similar to Canada and several other nations. The richest would STILL be able to get additional care ON TOP OR IN PLACE OF THIS because $ in hand will always get you what you want.

IMO, basic health care should be as basic a right as clean water. Unfortunately any true remedy will be labeled socialistic. We need to get out of the mind set that all things labeled socialism/socialistic/socialist are evil. There's nothing wrong with "we the people" taking care of "we the people". And where is it written that everything in Amercia must turn a profit? How is it possible that utilities survive? Unfortunately here is how the RRWJ's think:

The U.S. entitlement programs, namely Social Security and Medicare, aren't just financially bankrupt, they're "morally bankrupt." They're also funded by money stolen from hard-working, responsible Americans.

That's the conclusion of Yaron Brook, the president of the Ayn Rand Institute.

The author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and other books, Ayn Rand is famous for espousing free markets and self-reliance. Yaron Brook, a former finance professor, shares these beliefs.

Brook believes that our society should eliminate social programs so we encourage citizens to stand up and take responsibility for themselves. He also argues that Social Security and Medicare are "theft" because the money to pay for them is stolen from those who don't believe in or need the programs.

The entitlement programs were created by elected representatives, of course--representatives who could presumably eliminate them if citizens decided they no longer wanted them. So I asked Brook whether the money to pay for the military, police, and other government programs is also stolen.

Brook said no. There is a role for government in our society, he says--protecting the people from crooks and outside attacks--so the money is being put to proper use.

But if the money for Social Security is being stolen from citizens who don't believe in it, why isn't the money to pay for the military also being stolen from pacifists who don't believe in war?

Because, says Brook, the collection and spending of the latter money is in everyone's interests and is therefore justified.

Hmmm. Social Security certainly has its problems, as does the United States as a whole. But it seems inconsistent to suggest that some money collected and spent by the government is "stolen," while other money isn't.

The question about how much emphasis our society should place on self-reliance is a different one. Many Americans still abhor the idea of Social Security, along with minimum wages, Medicare, and other programs designed to extend the wealth and benefits of America to as many Americans as possible.

Here's another option:

We've had quite an Amish community spring up in my extended neighborhood. I've got to know several of them quite well. They don't believe in insurance, and don't buy it. They also don't believe in federal assistance of any type, such as Medicaid/Medicare. They are exempt from paying into Social Security/Medicare, and they also don't get those benefits.

I've seen them rack up some pretty hefty hospital bills, with premature babies, heart surgery, etc. They will go into the hospital billing office and say, ok, we don't have insurance, we will pay cash and usually negotiate the rates down. The family and extended family pay what they can, then they announce in their church service that more money is needed, and the community pitches in. If it goes beyond the communities ability to pay, the call goes out to other Amish communities. The bill gets a write down from what insured costs are, the cash is delivered and life goes on.

That is the RWWJ answer to getting rid of all things they label entitlements. The greedy get out of having to contribute and somehow somewhere someone ELSE will step up with charity to take care of things.

Personally, I buy insurance......and pay taxes and no, people without insurance shouldn't and don't die. But there are other models out there...just sayin'

The other option is becoming Amish?

The fact that they "negotiate the rates down" is absolutely crazy for one of two reasons (probably both). They are getting cheaper rates and others are then forced to pay the difference and/or they are paying cheaper rates because the insurance industry is such a burden to the system that they are largely responsible for jacking rates.

The Amish example is a Ron Paul blow-off "the church will pay for it" answer though. That system actually DOES NOT work. Charity CAN'T cover it all.

Unfortunately many Americans are ignorant of their own history. That's especially true of our economic history. If this were not so there would be very few that would long for, much advocate, a return to the econoic system of the post-Civil War era. And make no mistake: that's exactly what today's Tea Party a.d libertarian conservatives are advocating. There was a reason for the reforms of the Progressive Era that lead to the New Deal. We would all do well to understand this history before attempting to undo those earlier reforms.

I never could understand why we think education is the government's responsibility but not health care. By any standard the current system is a mess. But many buy the B.S. spouted by the health care industry to protect the fat cats sucking us dry. Meanwhile every year our costs shoot up and the number of insured drops.

Dave, I couldn't agree more. Well said.

Profit for whom?

Book publishers and authors?
Medical school professors?
Prevailing Wage construction employees?
University Presidents?
Malpractice insurance companies?
Malpractice attorneys?
Nurses unions?


Or just the doctors and Blue Cross, who doesnt really have any competition in Washington thanks to Debra Senn and others like her.

LB,

Insurance industry, big pharma, maybe hospitals, doctors, attorneys for sure - no fault health care would be a buzzkill for them, probably others I'm not gonna' try to look up. Why do you ask?

Sg

It isnt. Its the parents responsibility. Someone sold them an idea and then unioniized the teachers. Henry Ford built his own school. Andrew Carnagie helped create the public library system through his donations. Most of the elite in Washington use private schools along with the very rich and some teachers. That probably increased after the state mandated that rich neighborhoods, say like Mercer Island were given the same funding as neighborhoods like Renton, but did nothing about the disparity in property taxes. So much for shoping for the best school.

Does it ever make you wonder how the entities most involved with government are the most screwed up?
Education and health care.

Yeah, like the military, the police, fire fighters...

Nobody gets to keep all the money.

I forgot big pharma who has to spend all the time, and money for testing on a drug that either fails or when approved is then often litigated to death. How much of that price goes to subsidize the prices in Canada and Mexico?

Overall, there are so many hands in the pot, its no wonder its expensive. Every pre-existing condition or mandatory coverages that protects the few is paid for by those who dont use it. The doctors and hospitals get the brunt because they charge for all the books, teachers and prevailing wages, professors that raise the cost of medical school.

Ironically, I ran into a case similar to the one described. I dont have insurance at work and I choose not to spend 400-600 a month for it. Another guy, who makes less, has two jobs and a fondness for illegal drugs, pulled up his shirt for a variety of people one day and from the looks of it, its a melanoma [sp] and its about the size of a quarter. I told him to get it tested at harborview. He wont even go, cause he thinks he will have to spend money. Is 50 bucks to much? It seems that some folks do not value their own life very much.

Read the post again. I never said [censored] about not providing anyone with an education or using tudors. The issue is private vs public and a lot of people have been home schooled and still are. The year is 2011 not 1883 when Wilder began to teach. My issues with public school are the same as those who find it to be a rip off. Teachers are well paid and not allowed to strike in this state, yet graduates lack the ability to read and do math and the dropout rate is horrible. Its an important issue. They dont try to attract people like Bill Gates to teaching. Based on "Waiting for Superman" public schools need a lot of help the unions wont allow. That is for your clarification. I dont give a phk if we agree or not.

I'm kinda surprised no one here has mentioned why Ron Paul got asked this question. (If it was mentioned I missed it).

A high up in Ron Paul's previous presidential campaign died from pneumonia. After a 2 month stay in the hospital, he racked up $400,000 in medical bills. He had no money to pay and no insurance. He was young, about 49 years old. The man had been an executive in a CA company for 9 years before leaving CA and re-settling in Texas where he eventually went to work for the Paul Campaign. The man in question had a college degree and a Masters degree but he died penniless and had no health insurance. The media glosses over the fact that he had a pre-existing condition that made insurance too expensive. That pre-existing condition: several internet sites report it to have been AIDS.

I didn't watch the debate but I doubt it was a coincidence that Ron Paul got this question.

I didn't know the English monarchy provided help to slow students.

Every pre-existing condition or mandatory coverages that protects the few is paid for by those who dont use it.

Dang, I think he understands how insurance works.

The doctors and hospitals get the brunt because they charge for all the books, teachers and prevailing wages, professors that raise the cost of medical school.

Damn - just damn.

There will never, ever be socialized medicine in America until we decide we want to pay $40 for a 12 pack of Schmidt and $60 for a 5th of monarch vodka.



....like Canadians have to.

Sweet! I've been replaced

But we won't.

No difference. Like most distinct groups, you could say they consider themselves 'the people'. Thus, when they have a need, "we, the people", take care of it. There's some idiots on here like stealhead that don't quite get it and think that's some kind of a RWWJ plot.

And as far as negotiating rates down, every time I've been to a hospital or Dr., there's a different rate for cash vs. insurance payments. Again, how is that somehow part of a RWWJ plot?

Whoa, this is why I shouldn't be breaking my vow to never argue with idiots.

It's not about a church, it's about a group of people who have decided what they will do with their own lives, preferably without interference from government. It's about people taking care of people, and their system actually does work, from what I've seen of it. It's not charity, it's their social and religious responsibility to care for one another.

As far as negotiating rates down being 'crazy', are you nuts, or just been smoking too much horse manure? The whole point is that the cost of dealing with insurance creates incentives for medical providers to work around it!

Health care reform (what an euphemism) has done nothing to reform health care or contain costs. In fact, health care costs are only going to continue to rise. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Why not try something different?

You ARE an idiot.

For some reason the religious right and sheep-fvckers like Alan MiKKKelson think that since Jesus is their golfin' buddy, they get to cherry pick what laws actually apply to them. The upshot is they say retarded schit like:

"I live in a bunker and force my wife to wear prairie dresses and only allow my children to recite bible verse for fun. Therefore, I should not have to contribute to social security, the up-keep of the roads I use, or the defense of my nation."

And:

"Social Security is a Ponzi scheme!"

And:

"The churches will pay for it."

And:

"Corporations are people."

My grandfather, a Republican and small businessman, had a saying:

"You've never been screwed until you've been screwed by a 'good christian.' There's no limit to what they can do to you when God is on their side."

"No difference. Like most distinct groups, you could say they consider themselves 'the people'. Thus, when they have a need, "we, the people", take care of it. There's some idiots on here like stealhead that don't quite get it and think that's some kind of a RWWJ plot."

Wow. Your question went right over his wittle head.

"And as far as negotiating rates down, every time I've been to a hospital or Dr., there's a different rate for cash vs. insurance payments. Again, how is that somehow part of a RWWJ plot?"

Obviously you have no idea why hospitals have different rates. There's the private insurance rate. There's the rate for the rich who have dough. Then there's the highest rate which is what they charge your govt for providing socialized medicine to thos who do not have insurance or dough.

"Whoa, this is why I shouldn't be breaking my vow to never argue with idiots."

Arguing with the mirror again? You should negotiate for some pills.

"Health care reform (what an euphemism) has done nothing to reform health care or contain costs. In fact, health care costs are only going to continue to rise."

Yeah since it hasn't kicked in yet. Doh.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

See the mirror comment above.

Wow, haven't stolen enough head lately?
I leave the sheep to folks like you and KKK.
I don't golf, not sure whether Jesus does or not.
The Amish pay taxes that support roads and pay for national defense.
Al Yankovitch has a pretty funny song about Amish, prairie dresses, etc.
I sure hope Social Security isn't a ponzi scheme. I'd like to get a bit of my money back.
Not sure what the churches will pay for. The Amish pay as individuals. The Amish religion has no centralized authority.
Well, I've never shaken hands with a corporation...
And your grandfather was right. But, there's plenty of secular idiots, too...

Alan, thanks for the insult.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly enough? Even those Amish people that are paying their bills are essentially also paying for someone else's bills. in fact, ANYONE that actually pays their bills is paying for their own care PLUS the care of everyone else that will not/cannot pay their bills. So, in my world, those non-payers are the ones interfering. I'd actually favor government interference in this because it would get some of the deadbeats to actually pay up.

The general idea of what you are describing with the Amish is a good one but it is essentially a form of collective "insurance", correct?

Do you favor mandatory liability insurance for drivers of cars in Washington? I think it provides an analogy.

-AP

Did anyone mention the word reimbursement besides you? Nice twist.
Rates charged for illegals or your dine-n-dash'ers are the non-negotiated highest rate. And it's obvious we are talking hospitals not private practice.

http://www.accessproject.org/hospital.html

"Hospitals have been criticized for their billing and collection practices regarding low-income uninsured patients. Reports by The Access Project and others led to news reports detailing harsh billing and collections practices directed at these patients – including failing to inform people about eligibility for charity care, foreclosing on homes, garnishing wages, and even putting people in jail."

These are at the full rate Hankster.

salmosalar......There's no way of knowing the whole story and all of its ramifications without living through it, but I can say that your brother is lucky to have you. I don't know if it helps any, but I have known people who have had some serious hospital debts forgiven.
Sounds like you have some great family ties going, with your concern for your brethren and kids. Good Luck.

Boo fricken hoo Salar, I will see your story and raise you one. My aunt's husband died of brain cancer leaving her big medical bills and two young kids to raise on a HS education. She never declared banko or borrowed a dime and paid off all the debts and paid of herself and her kid’s medical bills along with everything else that costs $$ in life, all by her little lonesome. She did it by foregoing life’s little pleasures , she walked or rode the bus and still does, makes all her own clothes always has, grows a garden and picks fruit and cans etc. Sounds like your bother liked the bottle and ate a high fat diet and earned his pancreatic the old fashioned way, life style choices. I have no problem paying for medical for those truly in need but not if they have and want life’s luxuries on the taxpayers back. And yes booze, a car and new store bought clothes are luxuries in every country in the world.

I worked with a guy who went home not feeling well and died in emergency that night from pancreatitis. He thought he had food poisoning.

"It's often hereditary. Look it up jackass."

It is more often than not related to suckin on the bottle, look it up yerself jack wagon.

Please describe your diet and exercise regime, do you smoke?

Put a sock in it, TJ.

It's the "Empathy -Free Hour with Tom Joad", ladies and gentlemen.



And paid off a six-figure bill? By making her own clothes and canning fruit and vegetables?

I was going to join in on the Empathy-Free Hour and say a bunch of mean sh!t, but then I realized it would only lead to me looking like a dick.

TJ

What would your aunt have done had she had a major heart attack while working so hard to pay off those bills? Or if one of her kids needed an extended hospitalization?

The fact is many middle income families are left destitute by major illnesses. There is no way a family of four making a median income can EVER pay off the massive bills that result from a major illness or trauma,000 in hospital bills. I don’t give a shait how frugal they are.

As to the cause of their illnesses who gives a shait if they contributed? Most Americans eat too much, smoke too much, drink too much or exercise too little. I guess we should toss them all under the buss too.

What total and complete B.S.

BTW my daughter hs had pancreatitis twice as a result of surgeries for other problems. She has never drunk alcohol. She tried for years to pay off her huge hospital bills but gave up after they refused to accept a payment plan and garnished her saving account where she had $3,000 saved for my grandson’s college.


I guess we should care for the fortunate and let the less fortunate die or be destitute for life.

I was going to join in on the Empathy-Free Hour and say a bunch of mean sh!t, but then I realized it would only lead to me looking like a dick.

Oh hell DS ain't no way that could happen. You have all ready cemented your reputation in place! The description of a dick is accurate but then one should be upwardly mobile.

Dan---Sometimes your little nuggets enlighten me. Gawd dam....I'm gonna' buy some more "indulgences", make my own clothes and be nice when I don't wanna' be.

I say mean chit when I don't even mean it mean....whatever the phvck that means.

DV,
"As to the cause of their illnesses who gives a shait if they contributed?'

I do if I am paying for it and everyone paying for it should care. As it sits now people that did zero to contiribute to their health problems suffer from lack of care because someone who sucked down 4 packs a day for 30 years is tying up resources.

I have no problem paying for people that really need it, none what so ever and I give freely to support that need. Did your parents and grandparents have health insurance ? no? yiou mean they had to plan accordingly?. Throwing money in the form of free healthcare at the US population is a mistake just as any other entitlement program. Fixing the problem is a mix of accountability and charity.

TJ:

And who will be the judge of weather the injured/ill were at least in part to blame? If you are 20 pounds overweight and have a heart attack do we cover that or just let you die? Maybe we need death panels?

It is already being handled correctly Re life insurance. The person 20lbs over weight would pay more for coverage than the person of normal weight. Letting people die is the strawman in the debate and you know it . We don't let people die and we never have. Regardless of your feelings nature always provide consequences for ones actions and the system should consider that as well.

TJ

The following and many other studies do in fact show significantly higher mortality among the uninsured.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/4/223.full

Now you say we should charge a higher premium to the slightly overweight. How does that work with the fact many are dropping health insurance becasue it is unaffordable?

I just saw a report that processed meats such as pepperoni are linked to strokes. So are you going to monitor who orders their pizza with pepperoni?


Wow! Talk about big brother.

DV,

All the studies show is that people die without health insurance. Go do the study in Bangladesh and you get the same result. The real question is why are they dying and how much did lifestyle choice contribute to their deaths. My neighbor dropped dead from a heart attack in July, he worked as a Metro bus driver and held one of the best medical insurance policies available. He was proud of the fact that he never went to the Dr. I don't go to the Dr. by choice. Many of the uninsured make the choice to put their health care at the back of the line in terms of the needs and wants in their lives.

The system works pretty good for driving and I don't see it as intrusive. If I get 5 tickets this year guess what happens my insurance rates blow through the roof or canceled and I cannot drive anymore. I get a physical every year as a condition of my life insurance. I gain 20lbs or start drugging and boozing and my liver function shows it, guess what happens? Pepperoni is the second straw man you have drug out of the closet.

So now we are all well aware that TJ has never had alcohol pass his lips. Has never done an illegal substance. Has never tasted food that isn't good for you. Has never participated in an activity where there was potential to harm himself. And of course has never had unprotected sex not even to bear children. TJ = loser.

Irrelevant as most of your points S-Head. I pay my own way. I could have one of the nicest fishing boats in the state and fish many more day's for what I pay to insure that others do not have to pay for my choices in life. I could have another nice fishing boat for what I pay in private conributions to help those less fortunate than I. I do not own a fishing boat how about you?

What choices do you really have...rice cakes? You don't want to be a drag on the others in the insurance pool do you? I'm willing to bet in your insurance pool there is at least one member paying the same as you and making even better life style choices. You are dragging him/her down and should be required to pay more.
I sure do own a fishing boat. But I'm not on my pulpit so it's OK. If I were in agreement with you I'd say you should not participate in fishing activities as people do get injured or even die some times. Don't be a hypocrite. You need to be leading a bit more delicate of a life style than the rest of us.

It would have been easier for you to say that you do not understand insurance at all and certainly have no idea how a pool works and just insulted me directly out of hand. Ihen I could at least respect your honesty.

"The system works pretty good for driving and I don't see it as intrusive. "


Are you the A number one exemplary lifestyle choice model or not?

BTW, how is your DNA? Any flaws? We know a relative had brain cancer. Was that genetic, a life style choice or did someone hold him down and inject him with cancer? In the new TJ world we need to know these things in order to properly categorize you.

How can my Aunts husband affect me genetically? If it was a blood relative would I not have called him my Uncle? Not too bright are you ?

"Well, you may not be too bright when it comes to life insurance. My husband and I both have had the same policy for 15 years, and I doubt they have any idea what his or my weight is. What they care about is that the premiums are paid before the due date every month.'

You make this statement and you say I am not too bright about life insurance . What do they say about not knowing what you don't know?

The rest is irrelevant after that.

"How can my Aunts husband affect me genetically? If it was a blood relative would I not have called him my Uncle? Not too bright are you ?"

By marriage or by birth your aunts husband is your uncle dim bulb. Since we've now established that your Aunt is the blood relative did she give him cancer? Are you genetically cancer carriers?

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

If that's the case, I think Dan should reconsider sayin' a bunch of mean sh!t. Afterall, if it's about Elvis, ya can't really look like a dick.

Well thanks KK but should I not be knighted before you name me a king?

It's only tin foil. He doesn't invest well enough to afford the heavy duty stuff.

Is that like the tin foil hats some folks wear to keep people or the Gubn'nt from reading their thoughts?

Kinda, only it's of the type that keeps rational thought and reality out of the wearer's head.

Fish on...

Todd