Don't stop... believin'... Hold on to that feeling...

You guys are missing the big point that hospitals are forced to treat anyone that comes in the doors. So regardless if you can afford care or not, you get it.

Are you saying that's a bad thing and we should pick and choose who lives and dies at the hospital door? Should EMTs carry credit card terminals so you can pre-pay for that emergency laparotomy, anesthesia, and two nights in the hospital? You guys are so removed from reality, it's ridiculous.

You guys got all in a tizzy about death squad for the elderly but now it's cool to let the poor get the shaft?

You guys are conservatives. You're fascists.

Uncle Bob, bmull, bezirk, and the other fascists should start marching on hospitals and demand that they shut their doors to the poor. They should demand the government build separate (but equal) facilities for the well off people with insurance. The dirty Mexican/Black/Trailer Trash hospital can get the leftover equipment (that still works somewhat well), medicine (still works somewhat well even after expiration), and the least qualifed nurses (hey, they're still professionals, right!) to work at Ghetto General. The best part? The only doctors will be ones that have had their license supsended in another state or graduated from some diploma mill out of Guadalajara.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Couldn't agree more. In Oregon, they just had a general election to see if the top earners in the state should have their taxes raised. So 95% of the population that wouldn't see taxes increase, got to vote on what to do with 5% of the people's money. Surprisingly it only passed by about 8%.

Up next, I think voters should require that homeowners are forced to provide one room in their house for free to renters.[/QUOTE]


If you have people that are more wealthy than 95% of other people, then obviously any decisions regarding wealth in a democratic institution are going to be made mostly by those who aren't as wealthy. Fortunately it's extremely easy to make less money if you so choose.
 
[quote name='depascal22']You guys are missing the big point that hospitals are forced to treat anyone that comes in the doors. So regardless if you can afford care or not, you get it.

Are you saying that's a bad thing and we should pick and choose who lives and dies at the hospital door? Should EMTs carry credit card terminals so you can pre-pay for that emergency laparotomy, anesthesia, and two nights in the hospital? You guys are so removed from reality, it's ridiculous.

You guys got all in a tizzy about death squad for the elderly but now it's cool to let the poor get the shaft?

You guys are conservatives. You're fascists.

Uncle Bob, bmull, bezirk, and the other fascists should start marching on hospitals and demand that they shut their doors to the poor. They should demand the government build separate (but equal) facilities for the well off people with insurance. The dirty Mexican/Black/Trailer Trash hospital can get the leftover equipment (that still works somewhat well), medicine (still works somewhat well even after expiration), and the least qualifed nurses (hey, they're still professionals, right!) to work at Ghetto General. The best part? The only doctors will be ones that have had their license supsended in another state or graduated from some diploma mill out of Guadalajara.[/QUOTE]

I'm a registered independent, and it's flattering you took the time to include me in your Ted Kennedy for Sainthood rant.

Anyway, my main issue with the health care system stems from the government's fixed pricing. They require that doctor's charge a minimum amount for services, based on what they bill Medicare for. So this means a doctor can't treat someone at a price they set. As consumers for anything else, we can shop around, and we have viable alternatives. Why not with medicine? Also, why is it acceptable in medicine to get service first, without any sort of an estimate, then get the bill later?

If I could shop around for the Walmart of doctors (sees lots of patients in a day, shorter time with the Doc, maybe lower quality or expertise, but costs less) I would do it in a heartbeat. I go about once every 8 years because the costs are outrageously high. So the government has screwed with the pricing of the system, now they want to take over the rest of it, and fund it through tax increases. That bothers me.

I think the biggest issue isn't how to cover the poor, it's how do we ration something that is finite, like a doctor's available working hours. The hypochondriacs that see a doctor each time they have a runny nose are a huge tax on the system, regardless of social class. Eliminate frivelous trips so the truly needy can get fixed up quickly, and the system is more efficient, more affordable, and I'm happy. And at the end of the day, me being happy is pretty damn important.

I'm also a HUGE fan of the Obama idea of allowing new doctors to practice medicine at free clinics, or other low-prestige facilities in exchange for help with student loans. It is prohibitively expensive to become a doctor, and that's a shame. HUGE fan of that idea.
 
Did you just fucking say the Walmart of doctors?

And I didn't say you were an independent, I said you were a fascist.

With medicine, you can get an estimate. You can always go to the receptionist and ask to speak to someone in billing. There you can go over line item by line item what things cost. But again, that's not always an option when you get shot, stabbed, or crushed. You could try to deny something but, if you die, your family is going to sue for not taking every possible measure to save their dumbass baby boy.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Bob is part of the self hating working poor, I bet berz is as well.[/QUOTE]

I'm definitely not wealthy, but I'm far, far from poor. I've been REALLY poor before. Worked two jobs. 1 was a warehouse job, the other was research assistant for one of the world's leaders in freshwater resource management.

Now I'm the sales manager for a multi-million dollar privately owned company, volunteer and work part-time at a local Boys and Girls Club, and do consulting work on the side.

Oh, and I'm also an aquarius I think. Anything else you wanted to know?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Did you just fucking say the Walmart of doctors?[/QUOTE]

Precisely. I haven't pursued copyright on it, but I like the phrase.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Precisely. I haven't pursued copyright on it, but I like the phrase.[/QUOTE]

It's called a free clinic, dude. Every major city has at least one. If you want to get treated by somewhat competent or borderline senile docs, be my guest.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I think the biggest issue isn't how to cover the poor, it's how do we ration something that is finite, like a doctor's available working hours.[/QUOTE]
Why not allow more doctors?
 
[quote name='berzirk']I'm definitely not wealthy, but I'm far, far from poor.[/QUOTE]

Far, far from poor people can afford to go to the doctor more than once every eight years.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Why not allow more doctors?[/QUOTE]

Because the quality goes down. Medical schools can train x amount of doctors per year. Add more students in the mix and that's less hands on training for each student.

The government could start more medical schools but they'll quickly become known as University of Phoenix type schools. The first question, any graduate from those schools will hear is, "So why didn't you get into Harvard, Duke, or hell, even Wright State Medical Schools?"
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Why not allow more doctors?[/QUOTE]

And encourage more to become doctors by having programs to forgive student loans for med school like they forgive student loans for public school teachers after a certain number of years working in high need areas etc.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Because the quality goes down. Medical schools can train x amount of doctors per year. Add more students in the mix and that's less hands on training for each student.

The government could start more medical schools but they'll quickly become known as University of Phoenix type schools. The first question, any graduate from those schools will hear is, "So why didn't you get into Harvard, Duke, or hell, even Wright State Medical Schools?"[/QUOTE]

My primary care physician doesn't need to graduate from Johns Hopkins to give me a physical.

If I have cancer, I want the best care.

If I have the flu, I just need a note for work.

EDIT: Yes, build more schools.
 
As demand goes up, medical schools will expand, hire more faculty to deal with more students, more universities will add medical schools etc.

Those problems will work themselves out. Med schools bring in tons of money to universities since its high tuition and they don't give assistantships often like say the social sciences were most people get paid to get their Ph Ds.

As demand goes up, they'll expand, especially in this economy which is making things tough for universities. They won't turn down chances to make more money by expanding their med programs (or starting med programs for universities that don't have them) to bring in the cash that would bring.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Problem is we don't do the hiring at clinics. Other doctors do and they'll go after university trained docs every time.[/QUOTE]

Aren't all doctors trained at universities?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Far, far from poor people can afford to go to the doctor more than once every eight years.[/QUOTE]

I can afford to spend my money on lots of things, but it's the value I place on the service that would prevent me from doing so. I had to get a physical. They took my blood pressure. They asked if I felt healthy. I said yes. I think they weighed me. Signed my paper, I went home after a $25 co-pay. Saw later that the bill before insurance was $265. That needs to be fixed. I did not get $290 worth of service from that.

I like this old, but informative link, especially for the comments section: http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2006/07/29/why-dont-doctors-know-how-much-their-services-cost/

I also wish that health insurance premiums were dependent on your level of fitness or lifestyle (I know some are, but expand it, smoker, drunk, crackwhore, etc). I work with a couple of fat asses. If they develop some diseases or health complications because they've neglected their health for years, they should pay more than me, a person who tries to maintain a reasonable level of fitness. I know some of you hate the car analogy, but if I'm a safe driver, or got good grades, my car insurance premiums are lower. I'm considered a good, profitable customer for them. If I got in a car crash monthly, countless tickets, I should be charged more. I'm reckless with my driving.

Just because it's health care we're talking about, I don't think it's fair to remove all comparisons with business, because truly, that's what the insurance companies are, that's what most of the medical facilities are, really the doctors are the closest thing to non-businesspeople that we have in the system, and they can't control their own pricing if they wanted to.
 
I lurk but I must ask.... What's the different between this and Social Security? or Unemployment? Medicare?

We pay those week after week... and I really don't see anyone getting a worry headache on those.

I think the cost of healthcare alone needs to be capped, and they can start by driving down the cost of getting licensed and educated. More Doctors should drive cost down, availbility up and better healthcare. (Hell, I'm interested but not at the price.)

Then fix the cost of practice, too much. Why? Insurance, Mal Practice.

And to top it off, Insurance companies are now found in the "economy-proof" section along with Movie Companies producing films.

Record profits I hear and they still expect your premiums to go up. This sounds like my cable company, but the whole profit part. (Charter has serious debt issues.)
 
There's no doubt costs need to come down. Especially for simple office visits like physicals, quick check up for a cold, flu, sinus infection, just visiting to get a prescription refill once a year (that they won't do with a phone call) for allergy meds etc.

Again, programs to forgive student loans for doctors would probably go a long way in helping that. But there's tons of other factors--tort reform to lower malpractice insurance rates etc. Have to get debt, risk and costs for doctors down if prices on procedures and office visits are going to come down (or at least slow in growth).
 
[quote name='berzirk']I can afford to spend my money on lots of things, but it's the value I place on the service that would prevent me from doing so. I had to get a physical. They took my blood pressure. They asked if I felt healthy. I said yes. I think they weighed me. Signed my paper, I went home after a $25 co-pay. Saw later that the bill before insurance was $265. That needs to be fixed. I did not get $290 worth of service from that.[/quote]
It's a service, which means you're paying for the expertise in the room. You are consuming the time of someone with a 10 years of education and years of residency. Sorry, but that costs money.
I also wish that health insurance premiums were dependent on your level of fitness or lifestyle (I know some are, but expand it, smoker, drunk, crackwhore, etc). I work with a couple of fat asses. If they develop some diseases or health complications because they've neglected their health for years, they should pay more than me, a person who tries to maintain a reasonable level of fitness. I know some of you hate the car analogy, but if I'm a safe driver, or got good grades, my car insurance premiums are lower. I'm considered a good, profitable customer for them. If I got in a car crash monthly, countless tickets, I should be charged more. I'm reckless with my driving.
Click to expand...
Now we're negotiating! I have no problem at all with charging a higher premium for those that engage in reckless behavior.

I smoke cigars. Not often, but often enough to not say I'm a non-smoker. I pay a higher premium for it. I have no issue with that and I think it would be unfair to ask someone with the same history that's a non-smoker to pay what I do.

But we can't even have this grown up discussion about it because outside tort reform, there is no opposition willing to debate any health care issues at all. That's what us liberals are pissed off about. We're dying for good ideas from outside, we just can't find anybody willing to even sit down and have an honest conversation about it.
Just because it's health care we're talking about, I don't think it's fair to remove all comparisons with business, because truly, that's what the insurance companies are, that's what most of the medical facilities are, really the doctors are the closest thing to non-businesspeople that we have in the system, and they can't control their own pricing if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
They are businesses because we thought it was a good idea to let the market set the rates. It's clearly not a good idea to let a for-profit continue to ration our health care.

I'm a business degree that works for a city government entity. We haven't raised rates in 15 years. We are profitable. We deliver products and services that are regularly recognized as among the best in the hemisphere. Our product is the water life cycle. From the ground to the house to the plant to the ground again.

I think it's a great example of why health care would work. Sure, everyone in America complains that their water sucks. But when was the last time someone got sick? Doesn't happen. When was the last time there was a spill that polluted a waterway? Doesn't happen. Our product is 100% certifiably perfect every time because it has to be. We're professionals and we demand far more of ourselves than private industry could ever hope to justify on a balance sheet.

And we make money. Just not enough to satisfy an investor. Why can't health care work the same way? Socialist aside: we have much lower rates for seniors and poor people. Rich people subsidize poor people's water! The horror!

Imagine an America with private water and wastewater services providers in a market that wasn't regulated. No rational person wants the profit motive cutting off water access to Americans. So why is the profit motive rationing health services a good idea?

And it's not like we don't already have it. Soldiers have Tri-care. They bitch and whine (like people bitch and whine about water), but it's a shit ton better than any of the 3 private insurers I've had.
 
"And we make money. Just not enough to satisfy an investor. Why can't health care work the same way? Socialist aside: we have much lower rates for seniors and poor people. Rich people subsidize poor people's water! The horror!"

But see, the "rich people" are probably using a lot more water too. They have yards to water, don't find much value in taking shorter showers, have in residence laundry. You use more, you pay more. I love it. And running water to live, is not the same as free health care. If you're poor and want to go to the doctor because you have a cold, you should have to pay for your own bill. You have cancer because the area you live in is a toxic dump, I have sympathy for you. You should get help, and in fact, in most states, they do get help. For a fact, they do in Oregon.

Also, I trust the city and state to manage resources, much more than the feds. Maybe it's the libertarian leaning bias I'm developing, but if your water department is doing a great job at the city level, congrats. You deserve to be profitable. Your rates are determined to be fair, and the quality of your product is high, you're an ideal business.

With the federal government setting a minimum doctors can charge for procedures, and in response, simple procedures being outrageously priced, they are not offering a fair rate, and there's really not much of anything to regulate the quality of the service. My blood pressure check and handshake physical was not worth nearly $300. Had they listened to my lungs, tickled my balls, inspected my ears and throat, maybe I'd feel like they at least offered their expertise to give me a health assessment.

It seems we all agree that costs are too high, we disagree on who to blame for it, we agree that doctors should have access to lower educational costs if it means they volunteer or practice in less desirable areas, we disagree on how to ration health care.

We're having similar that debates that Congress has, liberal/conservative namecalling and all. I truly feel like our elected leaders are so out of touch with their constituents that something drastic needs to happen. Viable third party, shorter term limits, something, because I'm so tired of having pathetic options at the polls, and these lifelong politicians that start campaigning for re-election a day after they're sworn in, rather than doing the people's work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']It's a service, which means you're paying for the expertise in the room. You are consuming the time of someone with a 10 years of education and years of residency. Sorry, but that costs money. [/quote]

Sure, but that doesn't mean a visit that takes 5 minutes or less of the doctors time--say a refill or something--should cost the same as a visit that took 45 minutes to check a host of problems, run some tests etc.

Office visit fees need more flexibility on what the visit is for, rather than having a flat fee that insurance pays for every office visit regardless of length/scope of visit.

Now we're negotiating! I have no problem at all with charging a higher premium for those that engage in reckless behavior.

I smoke cigars. Not often, but often enough to not say I'm a non-smoker. I pay a higher premium for it. I have no issue with that and I think it would be unfair to ask someone with the same history that's a non-smoker to pay what I do.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Smokers should pay higher premiums. I should pay more as I drink a lot of beer. People who's body fat% is a set amount outside the health range for their age/gender should play more.

Make people accountable for their health, and don't make the people with healthy lifestyles pay the same premiums as unhealthy folks for health coverage they seldom use as they keep themselves in good health.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I don't recall agreeing to ration health care to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, health care doesn't need to be rationed.

Giving health care to all doesn't mean rationing health care. Plenty of countries like France, Taiwan etc. have national health care and don't have any long waits to get seen etc.

My girlfriend is from Taiwan and gets tons of check ups when she goes home in the summers with no problems getting appointments etc. And she does it as it's much cheaper than getting it done here, and she's a person that has what would be considered a good insurance plan here in the US.

And it's not just medicine, but also dental care and vision care etc., all that stuff is much cheaper there do to the government covering much of it.

There are ways to expand health coverage--even to everyone--and not overwhelm the system. It will be challenging in the US since our system is such a mess already, but it can be done.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Now we're negotiating! I have no problem at all with charging a higher premium for those that engage in reckless behavior.

I smoke cigars. Not often, but often enough to not say I'm a non-smoker. I pay a higher premium for it. I have no issue with that and I think it would be unfair to ask someone with the same history that's a non-smoker to pay what I do.

But we can't even have this grown up discussion about it because outside tort reform, there is no opposition willing to debate any health care issues at all. That's what us liberals are pissed off about. We're dying for good ideas from outside, we just can't find anybody willing to even sit down and have an honest conversation about it.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you'll find a whole lot of argument on the idea that individuals who live an unhealthy lifestyle should pay more for insurance if they wish to get it. Two things though:

First, (a little bit of slippery slope) - in a world where the US government provides insurance (which is what so many people want) who gets to determine what is and isn't a "healthy lifestyle"? Oh, you drank two sodas today... 10% increase in your payments! Oh, hey, what's this? Pepsi just showed me these great studies that show drinking Pepsi is better for you than drinking Coke. So if you drank two Pepsi products, you only have to pay a 5% penalty. 15% for Coke Products. Pay no attention to that man in the Pepsi outfit depositing money into my re-election account.

Second - Too many people are suggesting that the amount paid in for insurance should be connected to the amount of money someone has. In fact, wealthy people (in general, I'm not talking about brain-dead celebrities who drug themselves out or some crap) tend to lead healthier lives than poorer folks (who do things like eat fast food because it's cheaper/more convenient to do between their two jobs, get less sleep, etc., etc.) This is pretty much the exact opposite if what you're saying you are for...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']First, (a little bit of slippery slope) - in a world where the US government provides insurance (which is what so many people want) who gets to determine what is and isn't a "healthy lifestyle"? Oh, you drank two sodas today... 10% increase in your payments! Oh, hey, what's this? Pepsi just showed me these great studies that show drinking Pepsi is better for you than drinking Coke. So if you drank two Pepsi products, you only have to pay a 5% penalty. 15% for Coke Products. Pay no attention to that man in the Pepsi outfit depositing money into my re-election account.[/quote]
Actuaries and statisticians have long since figured it out.
Second - Too many people are suggesting that the amount paid in for insurance should be connected to the amount of money someone has. In fact, wealthy people (in general, I'm not talking about brain-dead celebrities who drug themselves out or some crap) tend to lead healthier lives than poorer folks (who do things like eat fast food because it's cheaper/more convenient to do between their two jobs, get less sleep, etc., etc.) This is pretty much the exact opposite if what you're saying you are for...
Click to expand...
That's a more difficult question. There would need to be a balance struck so food stampers aren't being killed by the fact that it's cheaper to eat crap while incentivizing healthy living.
 
Food stamps need to flat go away and be replaced with a WIC-like program where consumers are approved for certain items only. I.e.: This coupon is good for one 12oz Box of Rice Krispies. Not the 21 oz box - not Cocoa Krispies - this exact item. (Obviously, I'd rather it be a list of approved cereals with no substitutions... something that could include store brands...)

Actuaries and statisticians have long since figured it out.
Click to expand...
So.... remind me again, are eggs healthy now? What about milk? Hell, "clinical studies" have shown DanActive yogurt strengthens your immune system and makes you impervious to bullets... does that mean people who eat DanActive should get cheaper benefits?

You can ask 12 different "experts" and get 12 different answers on what makes for a healthy lifestyle. That's not to say we can't agree on things like not smoking, exercise, etc., etc... but there's a whole lot of gray area that, frankly, I don't trust politicians to make an honest effort at making those choices.
 
Don't do it by what people eat. Do it by things like their body fat %, their blood pressure, their cholesterol level etc.

Stuff doctors can measure in a yearly physical paid for and required by insurance companies with results setting premiums for the next year--go up if you're beyond the specified cutoffs etc.

You can't base it on what items someone eats or their lifestyle etc. Has to be on things that can be measured with tests so it can be objective.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Don't do it by what people eat. Do it by things like their body fat %, their blood pressure, their cholesterol level etc.

Stuff doctors can measure in a yearly physical paid for and required by insurance companies with results setting premiums for the next year--go up if you're beyond the specified cutoffs etc.

You can't base it on what items someone eats or their lifestyle etc. Has to be on things that can be measured with tests so it can be objective.[/QUOTE]

So - smokers should pay the same rates as non-smokers if they have the same body fat %, blood pressure, etc?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So - smokers should pay the same rates as non-smokers if they have the same body fat %, blood pressure, etc?[/QUOTE]

That's a far cry form eating sugary cereal etc.

Smoking is easily detected in a physical. Lung condition, tar on the teeth, fingers, the smell etc.

Can't tell if they eat Special K or Sugar Crisp for breakfast during a physical, just whether they're body fat is to high etc.
 
'eh, I think you're trying to define lines around a really, really gray area.
In theory, I agree with what you're saying. In practice, I just don't trust our government to do it.
 
Which is why you minimize the gray and make it more black and white and have clear measurable standards like body fat, cholesterol etc. that are set by a panel of medical experts, based on research etc.

Leave behavior out of it if it's not something easily and objectively detectable to like smoking.
 
You guys do realize that smoking lowers healthcare costs?

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1052
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.[/FONT]

There was a big article in last week's Time magazine as well. If I remember correctly if every single person quit smoking it would cost our health care system extra 68 billion dollars or some absurd number like that.

Obesity is the serious money drain on health care. Due to the fact that people under the age of 40 suffer for decades with it and it leads to lots of medication, surgeries, doctor's visits, er visits etc for 20 or 30 years. Smokers usually get terminally ill (lung cancer) from smoking late in their life....find out about year or less about cancer then die relativity early (early 70s)
 
Oh I agree, obesity is a far bigger concern.

But mykes right, your point is bunk since we can make smokers pay more while they're alive and they'll check out earlier and not have the couple decades of higher costs toward the end of life. So they're higher premiums can help subsidize the longer lives on average of non-smokers. :D
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I suppose - paying high premiums and checking out early is a winning financial strategy.[/QUOTE]


Nice little scam the insurance company runs....

But nobody's going to defend those dirty stupid smokers. Even though the insurance company is essentially exploiting someone's addiction and playing off non-smokers visceral reaction to the cost of the addiction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Aren't all doctors trained at universities?[/QUOTE]

You said build more schools. The new schools will be like big red flags on any resume. Oh, you went to Devry Medical School? Hmm....
 
[quote name='depascal22']You said build more schools. The new schools will be like big red flags on any resume. Oh, you went to Devry Medical School? Hmm....[/QUOTE]

I'm sure those schools could be certified in some way, but I'll repeat.

If I have the flu, I just need a note from a doctor so I don't get fired from work. I don't care if the doctor was schooled in this country or not. I don't care if the doctor would be considered "good" by other doctors. I just need a note from a doctor. Dmaul could write me the note for all I care.
 
Yep, and you'd likely be going to a family doctor with their own clinic etc. to get the note.

It doesn't matter that a good hospital wouldn't hire them if they were from the first graduating class from a new med school. You don't need a degree from a top school to open your own clinic. Most patients don't look up where their family doctors degree is. The pick the doctor on their insurance plan that's closest/most convenient to their residence or work place and stick with them if they like him/her ok during office visits.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Don't do it by what people eat. Do it by things like their body fat %, their blood pressure, their cholesterol level etc.

Stuff doctors can measure in a yearly physical paid for and required by insurance companies with results setting premiums for the next year--go up if you're beyond the specified cutoffs etc.

You can't base it on what items someone eats or their lifestyle etc. Has to be on things that can be measured with tests so it can be objective.[/QUOTE]


Yes, I'm glad you can admit that it will be the government's responsibility to mandate how much body fat we're allowed to have. That we can have an objective accounting of our behavior and life choices to ensure they are within government limits. Bye bye freedom, buy bye peanut butter cups - we hardly knew ya.

But let's not kid ourselves and believe that people will be paying higher premiums for violations. Your entire premise of taking care of all Americans dictates that most will be receiving care for free, no matter what their health condition is. This is not an insurance policy, it's a care services policy, given to those who display need, which will inevitably lead to a disproportion to those who can actually pay.

So the poor that don't eat healthily will require more care, pay no premiums, and receive the most care. What are the penalties for those that do not comply with health requirements? Increased premiums? Increases in price for those that pay nothing is still nothing. Who pays for it? I do. The healthy, productive middle class. The new taxes will not affect the rich, nor the poor who are not even required to fund the pool.

Out of touch with america? I hardly think so. The healthy, premium paying middle class are more in touch with american values and can see exactly what the communist left agenda requires of us - submission to the collective. It's something most of the mind-numbed left can't even see for themselves while they believe they're just being compassionate.
 
because class is a suitable proxy for health, and effort a suitable proxy for class, and wealth a suitable proxy for effort, and health a suitable proxy for class.

since the market dictates our earnings, and we believe in the infallible fairness of the market.

oh, bmulligan, your posts would be delightful philosophy, detached from the way the world operates by virtue of a fear of facts and real-world applications comparable to an infant's fear of the depth of the kiddie pool, and your unadulterated love for idealistic simplistic visions of invisible hands and free markets comparable to a love a child has for its mother before it gets hit for the first time.

would be. if they weren't done, and done better half a century ago. you might as well be singing "i wanna hold your hand" and trying to pass that off as your original work, too, and not that of the beatles.

i'm in the middle of bioshock 2 right now, and I feel like the plot of the game is a hamfisted approach to "video game bipartisanship." like it's 2K studios saying "ok, we're sorry for creating a Randian dystopia, so we're gonna cram Marx and Engels into Rapture now and present the same story." But it feels so forced, like it was in response to a letter-writing campaign by outraged gamers - the sort who are so spun in how impressed they are with their depth of thought (heh) that they can't fathom criticisms of it, let alone suggestions that collectivist philosophy is superior. ZOMG.

Anyway, I can totally see you hunched over your typewriter (no, no, not a computer) and hashing out a furious letter demanding equal treatment from the video-game-media-liberal-commufascistmarxistprogressosoup conspriatorium. And consequently hopping on CAG or another website and hammering out some kind of anti-fairness doctrine screed.

I blame you for this game's mediocrity, by the way. Bioshock 3's going to tackle monarchy, I hear.

EDIT: The 2000-page version of the bill included an anti-peanut-butter cup provision. Barney Frank made some backdoor deals (hi-YO!) and got it removed from the final version. He loves the little buggers (that's TWO-COUNT-EM-TWO puns! please stay for the fish!).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Which is why you minimize the gray and make it more black and white and have clear measurable standards like body fat, cholesterol etc. that are set by a panel of medical experts, based on research etc.[/QUOTE]

So, what happens to people that have higher body fat due to side effects from a medication that they need to take due to medical condition - i.e. lyrica (chronic pain, fibromyalgia, etc) or most antipsychotics (schizophrenia, schizoaffective d/o, severe bipolar d/o, etc)? Some of these medications stimulate the part of the brain that make you hungry while simultaneously blocking the signals that tell you that you are full - but they can make life much more functional for some people. People on these meds need to exercise 5x/wk just not to weigh 300+lbs nevermind be "fit"... fuck 'em?

Also, what about partially or fully disabled people? They may be limited in what they can eat/exercise. fuck 'em, too?

Finally, the way body fat is usually measured (BMI height vs weight) is massively inaccurate since muscle weighs more than fat!

I think its a bad idea, you cannot claim all people are heavy due to something that is easily controllable as seen by the above examples. There is also the more obvious issue that genetics play a significant role in weight.
 
[quote name='Strell']/wonders how many people who were angry 1.5 months ago bothered to watch anything from the recent televised debate[/QUOTE]
Don't bother. They'll lie.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"If someone promises to do something you don't care about, then doesn't do it, is it still a lie?"[/QUOTE]
Well, it being your thread and all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top