Fat people, drinkers, smokers, engaging in "risky behavior" and must be punished...

[The T]

No...most pedophiles are conservative Christians.

PROVE IT Ravioli...

I wanna see Charts/Graphs, REAL STATS to prove this assertion...BY the numbers...BY Convictions and Poltical Association.

I wanna se articles that PROVE this with REAL Numbers.

Can you do it?

Hell no she can't, because she's talking out her propaganda ass again. It's bull shit.

I agree that the assertion is Bullsqueeze.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Republican/conservative sleeps with 13 year old girl....he's a rapist pedophile.
Democrat/liberal sleeps with a 13 year old girl....he's a Hollywood director who did nothing wrong!!!!

What the fuck is wrong with this country???!!!

and fat ass, alcoholic smokers engaging in risky behavior need to pay for their own goddam healthcare.

 

[ihopehefails]

They don't want to tax those because those are behaviors they don't want to see "controlled" by the government.

 

[keee keee]

the countrys all f-ed up. this is just another way of the government to steal more of our money in this new tax scheme.

 

[frazzledgear]

... With extra taxation, because they are a burden on the medical system and they should PAY for their excesses and risky behavior.

Well....

What about other high-risk activities, such as intravenous drug use, unprotected anal sex --unprotected sex of any kind -- and any other activity that is known to spread AIDS? Shouldn't these folks share the responsibility of the burden their behavior is placing on the system?

Wonder why none of this is addressed in the health care reform proposals?

Discuss.

Why just talk about AIDS? How about Hepatitis? Other STDs?

But, that being pointed out, are you denying that smokers and obese people don't put a large burden on the tax care system?

On the TAX CARE system? What the heck is that? Fat people and smokers pay their taxes just like you. Are they less worthy of the identical rights you have just because they smoke or overeat? If so, I'm pretty sure we can all come up with something YOU do the rest of us don't want to get stuck paying for. The problem with picking out just some vices you think requires the force and power of government to punish others for - is it opens the door to ALL of them and frankly it isn't government's damn business if I smoke or overeat -or sky dive, engage in unprotected sex of any kind, etc. Its MY life -government is not the owner of my life and has no right to try and force me to live it the way some power elite has decided is "best" for me. Not EVER. You either cherish your FREEDOMS to run your own life -or you oppose freedom and believe in using the power of the state to FORCE people to do what YOU want them to do -and punish them if they won't. There is NO in-between on this one. You prefer the totalitarian state or are you someone who understands and cherishes his own personal freedoms? Do you understand that if you value YOUR personal freedoms, it means allowing others to use that same freedom as they see fit?

Healthcare insurance for the vast majority of those who smoke or overeat is NOT coming out of YOUR taxes though. The majority of people have private insurance and many who do smoke or are overweight already pay extra for their insurance -life and health -which is the right of any private insurance company to do. At one time the fact insurance companies charged differently based on lifestyle choices caused OUTRAGE -how dare some company make a decision about the individual's personal choices and attempt to punish them for it? So why would anyone want government to be treating citizens on an unequal footing now? So you can start squealing about how those whose lifestyle you personally disapprove of need to be punished by the state?

And in case you didn't realize it -smokers actually end up saving the system more than they use. Those pretending that we will all live forever if we just all make the identical healthcare choices some elite says is best aren't going to tell you this part. The greatest healthcare costs come during the last couple of years of a person's life, regardless of the cause of their natural death. And that is true however old they may be during those last couple of years. Whether you die of natural causes at 50 or at 70, you will rack up your biggest medical bills during those last couple of years as your body continues to fail and you die.

Smokers die on average six years sooner than non-smokers, and they simply hit those last couple of years earlier than non-smokers of the same age. But they SAVE the system six years of expenses that the non-smoker is still going to rack up first before his last couple of years of life. And those with AIDS die on average more than 20 years sooner. The real difference is those greatest expenses are coming at a younger age and LOOKS like it must cost the system more -but without realizing that person won't even be alive when YOU are still receiving healthcare for all those years smokers and people with AIDS won't even be around. And when the time comes YOU will be the one racking up their greatest healthcare bills for their last couple of years. Most people aren't perfectly healthy and then just die in their sleep one night. Your body starts to give out with accumulating problems as it does. No matter how well you ate, no matter how much you exercised, no matter whether you used a condom every time you had sex or not -when your body starts its final decline, you will be racking up your greatest medical bills.

There are trade-offs for everything in life and when it comes to lifestyle choices, those who die earlier because of their personal choices are not costing the system more -because they are already dead at the time everyone else is now sucking up the most resources. I am really big on retaining my personal freedoms which means I am big on others retaining their freedoms as well. I despise big government and history has shown I have every reason to do so. The last thing I want is to see a massive expansion in the size and power of federal government just because some people want to use the power of the state to punish those who made different decisions than they did in life.

 

[Care4all]

Socialists may have some good intentions but too often it ends badly for those who adopt Socialism/Communism. If this legislation passes,our Government will have to actually create a Health Care Gestapo in order to punish citizens who don't buy health insurance. Excessive fines and possible imprisonment for not having health insurance? Just sounds insane to me. This legislation desperately needs to be stopped. Our politicians should be pushing for more Freedom & Liberty for the people not Less. What has happened to our nation?

And yet, you have unbelievable tax breaks for the ultra rich including loop holes that no one else is able to use. They move jobs overseas.

CEOs at health care companies making hundreds of millions in bonuses and stock options. Companies that make nothing and sell nothing. They are only legal becuase congress says they are. But are they? If they are completely unethical, are they really legal?

People can't buy food now. This is a foolish bill if true. You can't make people buy health care. It's not possible. Even it were possible to put them in jail, were are the jails?

Isn't it funny that Health Care companies skim billions off existing policies? They spend less than 70 cents per dollar on patients. They deny claims and cancel policies to sick people and deny them care to pay their CEOs with stock options and corporate jets worth hundreds of million "each", yet scream and cry "foul" when it comes to helping the average American? Why is that? Do they hate the middle class so much?

Okay ... so now it's "attack the CEOs" ... here's the thing, the reason they move jobs over seas is because they can't make a profit (the whole reason for operating a company) over here. If you make it impossible for them to make any profit off that and eventually they will just leave the country completely ... no more US industries at all is the end result of all these "changes".

They can make a profit here, they may not be able to make as much profit so that the CEO's get their 500MILLION in salary like the head of Exxon, but they can make a profit here....as many do.

 

[Ravi]

I like Toro's reasoning. Which is quite different than what MM was insinuating.

And it cracked me up to read the further rails against the entitlement crowd...in reality these people making them think they are entitled to cheap junk food.

 

[chanel]

Does anyone know how much of Medicaid/Medicare is spent on patient care? Z0 cents on a dollar doesn't seem that egregious. Am I being naïve?

 

[Care4all]

Does anyone know how much of Medicaid/Medicare is spent on patient care? Z0 cents on a dollar doesn't seem that egregious. Am I being naïve?

99 cents on the dollar is that figure for Social Security but uncertain on medicare....? let me see if i can find it....

care

 

[Ravi]

I read that administrative costs for medicare are somewhere between 2 and 5.2%...

 

[Care4all]

3% administrative costs for medicare, 6% if you include all peripheral agencies that might cross over.

the heritage foundation, a right wing arm, tries to spin it that medicare costs more per person than outside of the system but shoots themselves in the foot with the argument they try to use, which is seniors cost more so the admin costs are a smaller percentage but if calculated per person it really is higher by a smidgen rhetoric...which simply can not be done that way without also calculating in the elderly have a lot more treatments done per person than those younger than 65 on private insurance, thus more admin to do, paper to file.

BOTTOM LINE...94%-97% of ones healthcare dollar spent in MEDICARE goes towards treatment.

 

[Douger]

... With extra taxation, because they are a burden on the medical system and they should PAY for their excesses and risky behavior.

Well....

What about other high-risk activities, such as intravenous drug use, unprotected anal sex --unprotected sex of any kind -- and any other activity that is known to spread AIDS? Shouldn't these folks share the responsibility of the burden their behavior is placing on the system?

Wonder why none of this is addressed in the health care reform proposals?

Discuss.

I know a couple of fatass Amurkins that moved to New Zealand and they couldn't get residency due to the blubber they were packing.
Residency comes with health care and these idiots were considered a possible burden to the system.


None of this is addressed because Amurkastan is the fatass, rump bumping and junkie capital of the world !

Amurkastan in pictures.
www.peopleofwalmart.com

 

[editec]

... With extra taxation, because they are a burden on the medical system and they should PAY for their excesses and risky behavior.

Well....

What about other high-risk activities, such as intravenous drug use, unprotected anal sex --unprotected sex of any kind -- and any other activity that is known to spread AIDS? Shouldn't these folks share the responsibility of the burden their behavior is placing on the system?

Wonder why none of this is addressed in the health care reform proposals?

Discuss.

Why just talk about AIDS? How about Hepatitis? Other STDs?

But, that being pointed out, are you denying that smokers and obese people don't put a large burden on the tax care system?

I deny it.

Smokers actually put a smaller burden (per capita) on Medicade ad Medicare than non-smokers.

How?

Well, while they do get sick and die younger, they also get sicker and die quicker, thus saving the taxpayers money in the loger ru, because they do not HAVE a long run..

They do not live long enough to demand those new hips, and new knees, or the medical expeses that occur in those countless years of slowly falling apart that non-smokers typically live through.

So....if you love this nation?

Smoke now, and die early for the benefit of the nation.

 

[Dis]

Fat people, drinkers, smokers, engaging in "risky behavior" and must be punished...
... With extra taxation, because they are a burden on the medical system and they should PAY for their excesses and risky behavior.

So....A nice fat grilled steak followed by a nice cold Southern & 7, and a cigarette followed by a couple hours of great sex, followed by another cigarette is a BAD thing?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

... With extra taxation, because they are a burden on the medical system and they should PAY for their excesses and risky behavior.

Well....

What about other high-risk activities, such as intravenous drug use, unprotected anal sex --unprotected sex of any kind -- and any other activity that is known to spread AIDS? Shouldn't these folks share the responsibility of the burden their behavior is placing on the system?

Wonder why none of this is addressed in the health care reform proposals?

Discuss.

Well all this point does is note the purpose of Nationalizing healthcare...

Where one concedes the responsibility for one's life... one concedes the Right...

"He that pays the fiddler, calls the tune..."

This bill; this notion... is the last straw.

Once the Left; representing the collective; OKA: The State, is able to claim resonsibility for one's health... they claim responsibility for one's life... thus are rightfully entitled to determine one's activities...

What you ingest... the activity of your avocations... every facet of your life becomes 'their business' and since they're paying for it... it becomes their call on what is and is not acceptable.

All of those cute little PC notions that spring up... from the virtue of bran, to the vice of coffee will become LAW... the psuedo-science becomes SCIENCE! Anthropologic Global Warming becomes a fact and since they're responsible for your life; you become subject to the whimsy of whatever idiocy happens to be in favor at the moment and thus possess no means to avoid the endless stream of unintended conesquences which will follow each and every one of those fascist legislative feelings.

Remember now... this entire 'healthcare' exercise is to protect the poor and middle class... and the FIRST order of business in the crafting of the bill to help the poor and middle class; was to scratch up a rule which fines people who do not have private coverage... where the penalty for such a failure is more than many of them earn in a year; and years in prison on top of that.

Now who do ya suppose will typically fail to have such coverage? The RICH?

And don't even THINK about the predictable, natural effects of legislating the massive increase in demand for a product... which is of course, to drive the cost fot aht product UP!

Those with REALLY short memories should try and recall last years economic CRASH; which was a direct result of legislation wherein the Left forced the mortgage industry to give mortgages to those who were otherwise not qualified for such... which drove the value of that which mortgages secure beyond the means of the market to sustain such...

There is however one legislative solution to the high cost of healthcare... and that is to abolish "healthcare insurance" PERIOD!

Within 90 days of such a law... Doctors, hospitals, clinics... the entire healthcare industry would be in catastrophic free fall... there would be no top dollar billing to turn in... There would be no need for armies of administrators to weave through the maze of bureaucratic red tape...

The result would be cash registers sitting on the front desk of clinics... There'd be loan counselors setting up long term contracts for patients that need this or that expenseive treatment...

There'd be signs on the wall and ad's on TV and Radio and all over the internet for "The Lowest cost Heart by-pass, knee surgery" etc...

"IF your love one is hurt in an accident, be sure to tell the ambulance to take you to "MERCY Hospital... the lowest cost, best value for your medical dollar.."

You'd know what the costs were for an hour of the Doctors time... the operating room and the necessary sub-structure of staff... and if you NEEDED Brain surgery... then you would choose... to pay the hospital in cash... of take out a loan. And if you couldn't afford a $500,000 operation and treatment; you could afford the $50,000 operation by the folks down the street. Or... you'd just choose to go without.

Now for those that made it this far... enjoy the wringing of hands as the advocates of "NEED" lament just how AWFUL it is, that someone would be forced to go to a lower cost provided of healthcare, when others could afford better, more expensive healthcare...

And understand the idiocy of National healthcare which CAN ONLY RESULT IN HEALTHCARE OF THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR; AND IS PRESENTLY CLAIMING TO BE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO PROVIDE LOWER COST HEALTHCARE.

 

[rdean]

... With extra taxation, because they are a burden on the medical system and they should PAY for their excesses and risky behavior.

Well....

What about other high-risk activities, such as intravenous drug use, unprotected anal sex --unprotected sex of any kind -- and any other activity that is known to spread AIDS? Shouldn't these folks share the responsibility of the burden their behavior is placing on the system?

Wonder why none of this is addressed in the health care reform proposals?

Discuss.

I know a couple of fatass Amurkins that moved to New Zealand and they couldn't get residency due to the blubber they were packing.
Residency comes with health care and these idiots were considered a possible burden to the system.


None of this is addressed because Amurkastan is the fatass, rump bumping and junkie capital of the world !

Amurkastan in pictures.
www.peopleofwalmart.com

You actually "know" them or it's a rumor. Usually, people don't broadcast something this embarrassing.

 

[Thinman]

There is however one legislative solution to the high cost of healthcare... and that is to abolish "healthcare insurance" PERIOD!

You know, that's really not a bad idea. Or, castastrophic coverage only.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

why not just tax old people, they get old and die.

its obviously their fault

next smokers: because nicotine isnt addictive

oh and people with eating disorders: because if they could just eat, or stop eating, they wouldnt be a problem

Pig headed retards

 

[Si modo]

And I cannot believe that A-type personalities aren't taxed at a higher rate. Their heart and blood pressure problems are a burden on the system. They forget to eat properly, too. Ambition cannot be tolerated as it drains the healthcare system.

 

[NYcarbineer]

... With extra taxation, because they are a burden on the medical system and they should PAY for their excesses and risky behavior.

Well....

What about other high-risk activities, such as intravenous drug use, unprotected anal sex --unprotected sex of any kind -- and any other activity that is known to spread AIDS? Shouldn't these folks share the responsibility of the burden their behavior is placing on the system?

Wonder why none of this is addressed in the health care reform proposals?

Discuss.

How do you plan to determine who's having unprotected anal sex? and put a tax on it?