Political Beliefs 101: Who should pay for Health Care?

[emilynghiem]

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay".

Yeah?

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin.

Yeah.

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin. My Mam gets hers free. She has paid taxes all her life and for that she expects to be looked after. She also gets eye tests ,chiropody and other prescriptions "free".

Of course it isnt free but healthcare is a lottery and it is more just when everyone contributes for the common good. Its wrong that you should be penalised for ill health.

Why did you distort the meaning of my post to create a false impression ? Particularly when I clarify that people do have to pay and explain how they pay.

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

 

[emilynghiem]

Given Beliefs being argued that Health Care is a Right,
who should pay for it?

1. It is a Church Duty: The Churches/religions have a duty as part of charity they preach and teach
2. It is Govt Duty to provide: The Govt has the duty to protect public health and safety and promote general welfare
3. It is Govt Duty to remain neutral - The Govt should protect the right of people to practice this belief, but not establish it.
(ie not violate due process, equal beliefs and liberty/free choice of others who may not share this belief it is a right, or may believe in Constitutional limits on govt that would be violated by federal management of health care choices)
4. It is up to Free Choice: People have free choice to believe and pay for health care as they wish
5. States should manage this democratically to protect public health
6. Parties that advocate Health Care as a Right should provide for their members
7. Companies or Organizations should provide for their Workers or Members
8. Combination of the above or Other (please specify)

Nearly 1/3 of the U.S. population is here by illegal means...most here with illegal roots suck the taxpayer tit dry and drive up all healthcare related costs.
Amend the 14th and make it retroactive...Start rounding up wetbacks and their silver tooth anchor babies by the millions...send them all to Mexico...Only then can we start to bring down the cost of healthcare and help REAL Americans with legitimate subsidization.

Illegals do play a part where there are many. But there are other ways to decrease costs. For one, government needs to pay the full bills for their patients. Currently (and for some time) government only pays about 2/3 of the cost for their patients. Providers have to increase the costs of care so they can recoup some of that lost money. Our private insurance companies pay that cost, and up goes our premiums.

Immediately, we should increase Medicare payroll deductions by at least three times, and increase it as care becomes more expensive.

If .GOV pays the full bill they simply raise taxes to cover the costs...either way America’s Best takes the hit. Some may also say .GOV is the healthcare industry’s best customer...they’d say .GOV deserves a volume discount which obviously leads into the single payer debate.
The real solution is in reducing the number of takers at the bottom...plain and simple.

Dear BrokeLoser What I learned from studying the cooperative models,
it isn't about reducing the number of takers, but organizing them per regional chapter.
Just 1500 per chapter is enough to get group discounts at the same rates as larger groups,
while limiting the cases of higher cost diseases or patients by keeping the groups geographically zoned.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay".

Yeah?

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin.

Yeah.

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin. My Mam gets hers free. She has paid taxes all her life and for that she expects to be looked after. She also gets eye tests ,chiropody and other prescriptions "free".

Of course it isnt free but healthcare is a lottery and it is more just when everyone contributes for the common good. Its wrong that you should be penalised for ill health.

Why did you distort the meaning of my post to create a false impression ? Particularly when I clarify that people do have to pay and explain how they pay.

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah?

Yeah.

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin. My Mam gets hers free. She has paid taxes all her life and for that she expects to be looked after. She also gets eye tests ,chiropody and other prescriptions "free".

Of course it isnt free but healthcare is a lottery and it is more just when everyone contributes for the common good. Its wrong that you should be penalised for ill health.

Why did you distort the meaning of my post to create a false impression ? Particularly when I clarify that people do have to pay and explain how they pay.

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

Really? You know of a place that has medical care with zero problems? Zero problems with cost, zero problems with waiting times, zero problem with getting the best treatment or newest medications, zero problems with government?

 

[dblack]

Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

Still no answer for this. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it? Why is it wrong for people to pay for the health care they need? If it's wrong for people to have to pay for health care, is it wrong for them to have to pay for anything?

 

[Flash]

Who should pay for health care? Simple answer; the person receiving health care should pay for it.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. It is your responsibility.

 

[iceberg]

Free Market allows for best choices start to finish. Let free choice best opportunity float to the top.

Accountants don't have in-crowds start to finish is a problem with Marketplaces and big corporations, or if we went straight to the actuaries. Healthcare is weird.

The biggest failure we have in our healthcare system is controlling costs. Everybody has ideas, but nobody ever addresses the cost. The first step to solving this problem is getting the cost down, then figure out how we are going to pay for it. And there are at least a dozen ways to bring down costs, some not costing the taxpayer a dime. But our politicians won't do it.

Hi Ray From Cleveland
What if we
1. prove that given the Cooperative model already being used by direct service or concierge programs cuts the costs in half, and we have the stats to prove these numbers

EX: www.patientphysiciancoop.com

2. then we cite the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calling for anyone in Govt Service to seek the most economical ways of accomplishing tasks:

IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

www.ethics-commission.net

3. could we then compel either govt officials or candidates, precinct or party leaders, to start implementing and adopting these cooperative programs in order to cut costs of medical and health care?

If you don't think all politicians or leaders would respond to this solutions, which people would you recommend, in office or in the media, to promote it and pressure the others to follow suit?

what i so appreciate about your views and responses is the time you put in to examine more than whatever may be your own position and you openly and it would seem equally evaluate other proposals. this "style" is what i love to dive into as it does become an exchange of ideas, not a flogging of emotional outbursts.

now - the question itself simply won't and cannot be resolved by any 1 method. we've gone too far for that.

we can't offer up "free" medicine cause we've blown the cost out of the water with regulations, cost of education and doctors, hospital stays and the like are all way above what most anyone can or should pay. so we bring in insurance. well their mandate is to make money, not reduce healthcare costs. so a war now begins between the medical profession and insurance on what we *should* be billed for services.

in my unemployed years 6 years ago i paid cash for anything needed. my costs at that point were *always* cut in *at least* 1/2 by the provider. reason cited every time? didn't have to go through insurance.

so the middle man we put into save the day is making this so very difficult. for starters, how can we reduce costs in a system not designed nor rewarded to do so? everyone expects a hospital stay to be expensive however, it would now seem buying insurance enables the problem, not resolves it. again, not their mandate to reduce costs but to make money. while pushing for cost reduction is 1 way, it's one of many and insurance companies, like any for profit business, will take the quickest path to money, not problem resolution.

my proposal would be to build an intermediate system of health care, not keep feeding the one we have now and look the other way for answers. if someone wants help going through medical school, sign up to have the gov pay for it and when done, you'll work in a gov hospital for "x" number of years at a set salary with modest increases built in. when your time is done, you've "repaid" the educational loan and you can stay or go. your call.

we also need to work with drug companies to enforce more generics and find a better way to research solutions and offset those costs. if we're going to regulate things then there should be a cap on how much a drug can go up once it's price is set. 10%? if it needs to go up more or more quickly then it needs to be justified as to why it's costing more to produce.

over regulation? maybe. but when drugs can go from affordable to death fearing expensive overnight, then that is a cost control that needs to be examined. while i'm all for capitalism, not at the expense of people dying for profits to another.

so any solution that comes up is going to have to be blended and accessible to all. anything "party driven" is just stupid cause look how we treat the other parties as it is. we'd let people die cause they don't agree with us. we've gotten THAT bad.

but insurance? that's the problem we have today, not health care.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

Still no answer for this. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it? Why is it wrong for people to pay for the health care they need? If it's wrong for people to have to pay for health care, is it wrong for them to have to pay for anything?

You can pay for it out of pocket if you wish to. What is to stop you. ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Who should pay for health care? Simple answer; the person receiving health care should pay for it.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. It is your responsibility.

All insurance schemes work on the basis that you will pay for others and they will pay for you. Thats how insurance works.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yeah.

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin. My Mam gets hers free. She has paid taxes all her life and for that she expects to be looked after. She also gets eye tests ,chiropody and other prescriptions "free".

Of course it isnt free but healthcare is a lottery and it is more just when everyone contributes for the common good. Its wrong that you should be penalised for ill health.

Why did you distort the meaning of my post to create a false impression ? Particularly when I clarify that people do have to pay and explain how they pay.

Because that part is irrelevant, and just a dodge. Of course when you say that they shouldn't have to pay, you mean that taxpayers have to pay. That's obvious. It's an argument you have all typed up for people who say you think health care is free. It didn't apply to my post.

I'm specifically asking you to defend (or abandon) your claim that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin. Why shouldn't they?

You just dont get it. We are talking two different languages.

Try this.

You pay for your health insurance. You might not get sick. But other members of the scheme do and your contributions help towards their treatment. Money is pooled and all members of the scheme are covered. That is the nature of insurance. Those without a problem subsidise those with problems. There seem to be exemptions when it comes to essential treatment like insulin.

The NHS is a large scale insurance scheme that is better than private insurance. We pay in a small amount in our taxes every month and for that small contribution we enjoy cradle to grave treatment. Everybody is covered. Rich and poor.

We dont need a degree in mathematics to work out if we can afford a new hip. We dont get presented with a huge bill when we leave hospital.We get a rehab schedule including drugs (no charge) physio dates (no charge), crutches (no charge), dressings (no charge) and other follow up treatment (no charge).

We arent chased through the courts for money owed to corporations and our homes are not repossessed because we are not covered..

So in light of that your obsession with making Ray pay for his insulin is misplaced. It would not register with a UK diabetic who has, or will, pay for their medication through taxation. The tax is actually called National Insurance and the scheme is demonstrably better than any exploitative scheme you have in the US.

So Ray shouldnt have to pay for insulin because the rest of the world has proven that there is a better way.
I have highlighted that so that you are in no doubt about my views on this.

Try and think of it without using the word free. It is a lot easier to get your head around it.

Dear Tommy Tainant
What the Cooperative group structure is finding
is that most of the Primary Care as well as standardized costs of hospitalization
can be paid by individuals for themselves, without being affected by the health and costs of others. (The way the coops are able to do this, is by paying primary care and network providers on a retainer system, for 1500 members per regional chapter, where the distribution of higher-cost patients never concentrated all in one place still allows predictable costs to stay uniformly low. So this does NOT require pooling everyone over large populations, but only takes 1500 to get the same discounts as a larger group. And organizing 1500 per region ensures that there is never a high concentration of any one disease or excess cost, so the providers are able to take the risk, not the patients, who only pay a uniform rate for just the services they use.)

For the higher "catastrophic" insurance, the insurance companies, that agree to sell plans to Cooperatives
at discount rates, take the risk without jacking up the costs where the Cooperatives are nonprofit.

So this is no longer necessary to "spread the risk" to other members paying.

For the low-income clients receiving services paid for through federal clinics paid by taxes,
this is kept to a minimum, because the majority of health care can be managed the other ways.

The nonprofit Cooperative model I looked at also keeps rates so low,
that just adding $3 a month funds an additional nonprofit fund that can
cover incidental costs such as economic lapses affecting ability to pay.
That's still saves more money than having no safety net where such people end up on poverty rolls at taxpayer expense.

Emily, I appreciate that you see this as a solution but it sounds like an un-necessary construct to a problem that has already been solved by the rest of civilization.

Really? You know of a place that has medical care with zero problems? Zero problems with cost, zero problems with waiting times, zero problem with getting the best treatment or newest medications, zero problems with government?

That doesnt exist Ray. I do know that my Mam is a diabetic and I am grateful that she doesnt have to make sacrifices in order to overpay on insulin.

 

[dblack]

You can pay for it out of pocket if you wish to. What is to stop you. ?

The sky high prices created by those who don't.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Why would it be wrong for people to pay, directly, for the health care they consume? How is that unjust?

Still no answer for this. Anyone else wanna take a crack at it? Why is it wrong for people to pay for the health care they need? If it's wrong for people to have to pay for health care, is it wrong for them to have to pay for anything?

You can pay for it out of pocket if you wish to. What is to stop you. ?

The sky high prices created by those who don't.

The market decides the prices surely ?

 

[dblack]

The market decides the prices surely ?

Not when the government manipulates said market with regulation, subsidies and tax incentives.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The market decides the prices surely ?

Not when the government manipulates said market with regulation, subsidies and tax incentives.

The NHS subsidises private health in the UK.

 

[dblack]

The market decides the prices surely ?

Not when the government manipulates said market with regulation, subsidies and tax incentives.

The NHS subsidises private health in the UK.

??? and?

 

[Flash]

Who should pay for health care? Simple answer; the person receiving health care should pay for it.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. It is your responsibility.

All insurance schemes work on the basis that you will pay for others and they will pay for you. Thats how insurance works.

You hate the idea of paying your own damn bills, don't you? You want the filthy ass government to force somebody else to pay them for you, don't you? Greedy shithead.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Who should pay for health care? Simple answer; the person receiving health care should pay for it.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. It is your responsibility.

All insurance schemes work on the basis that you will pay for others and they will pay for you. Thats how insurance works.

You hate the idea of paying your own damn bills, don't you? You want the filthy ass government to force somebody else to pay them for you, don't you? Greedy shithead.

I pay for my healthcare you ignorant fuck.

 

[Flash]

Who should pay for health care? Simple answer; the person receiving health care should pay for it.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. It is your responsibility.

All insurance schemes work on the basis that you will pay for others and they will pay for you. Thats how insurance works.

You hate the idea of paying your own damn bills, don't you? You want the filthy ass government to force somebody else to pay them for you, don't you? Greedy shithead.

I pay for my healthcare you ignorant fuck.

It is obvious that you are lying. You stupid Moon Bats are always looking to use the government to pay your fucking bills. You think you are entitled to have somebody pay your health care bills because you are alive. Sorry assholes.

If you do pay your own health care bills but think other people are entitled to have their bills paid by somebody else then just go stand on a street corner and hand out your own damn money. Put your money where your mouth is. In the meantime just shut the fuck up about using the filthy ass government to steal money from us that can pay our own way.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Cofiwch Drywern?! Tommy Tainant All I've heard the last few years is Nationalism. Nationalism nationalism nationalism. That would be the belief that Welsh, that little Welsh place, is Better to the Exclusion, and exclusivity, and superiority, of All Other Nations. Just be somebody who looks around at all the geopolitical lines and like it then you can be a Confederate, its simple. All you guys jumped out of the League of Nations, so great, you're stuck with this United Nations, and United Nation Presidents.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Who should pay for health care? Simple answer; the person receiving health care should pay for it.

It is not my responsibility to pay your health care bills. It is your responsibility.

All insurance schemes work on the basis that you will pay for others and they will pay for you. Thats how insurance works.

You hate the idea of paying your own damn bills, don't you? You want the filthy ass government to force somebody else to pay them for you, don't you? Greedy shithead.

I pay for my healthcare you ignorant fuck.

It is obvious that you are lying. You stupid Moon Bats are always looking to use the government to pay your fucking bills. You think you are entitled to have somebody pay your health care bills because you are alive. Sorry assholes.

If you do pay your own health care bills but think other people are entitled to have their bills paid by somebody else then just go stand on a street corner and hand out your own damn money. Put your money where your mouth is. In the meantime just shut the fuck up about using the filthy ass government to steal money from us that can pay our own way.

Its obviously over your head. You dont even understand what insurance is.