Best Health Care, Huh?

[Listening]

U.S. Health Care Is the Best! And the Worst. - NationalJournal.com

"We are very good in treating highly specialized conditions after they have already developed—that's why people come from all over the world to get that treatment," says Paul Starr, a Princeton University sociologist who studies health care. "But we've allocated resources in such a way that we don't provide a lot of the up-front things—primary care, public-health services—that have a much bigger effect on the overall health of the population."

*****************

Which I thought was good perspective.

We have a great system....but our prevention leaves something to be desired.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the whole premise of the question is stupid anyway. You don't just show up at a hospital needing a heart transplant and get, it insurance or not...What kind of idiot would think such a thing? although I'm sure once the federal government fully takes over the healthcare system, if you have political connections you'll be put at the top of the list

Dick Cheney sure got to the top of the list.

Really? He must have been on that list for years with all his heart problems... More cronyism is not good for we commoners, but that's what you'll get with government run healthcare

Cronyism? Dick Cheney's health coverage was through his employer, as a result of his job, just like many Americans. The fact that YOU have never accomplished enough in your life to be able to hold a job with excellent benefits does not mean there's anything crooked or underhanded about someone else having done so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

U.S. Health Care Is the Best! And the Worst. - NationalJournal.com

"We are very good in treating highly specialized conditions after they have already developed—that's why people come from all over the world to get that treatment," says Paul Starr, a Princeton University sociologist who studies health care. "But we've allocated resources in such a way that we don't provide a lot of the up-front things—primary care, public-health services—that have a much bigger effect on the overall health of the population."

*****************

Which I thought was good perspective.

We have a great system....but our prevention leaves something to be desired.

Wow. Unsubstantiated assumptions from an Ivory Tower talking head, stated as fact. That's certainly convincing.

 

[Listening]

U.S. Health Care Is the Best! And the Worst. - NationalJournal.com

"We are very good in treating highly specialized conditions after they have already developed—that's why people come from all over the world to get that treatment," says Paul Starr, a Princeton University sociologist who studies health care. "But we've allocated resources in such a way that we don't provide a lot of the up-front things—primary care, public-health services—that have a much bigger effect on the overall health of the population."

*****************

Which I thought was good perspective.

We have a great system....but our prevention leaves something to be desired.

Wow. Unsubstantiated assumptions from an Ivory Tower talking head, stated as fact. That's certainly convincing.

C'mon Cecilie, I'm on your side.

But I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at how our system could be improved.

I have several doctor friends who all say we are pretty weak on the preventative...but great on the curative.

 

[Cecilie1200]

U.S. Health Care Is the Best! And the Worst. - NationalJournal.com

"We are very good in treating highly specialized conditions after they have already developed—that's why people come from all over the world to get that treatment," says Paul Starr, a Princeton University sociologist who studies health care. "But we've allocated resources in such a way that we don't provide a lot of the up-front things—primary care, public-health services—that have a much bigger effect on the overall health of the population."

*****************

Which I thought was good perspective.

We have a great system....but our prevention leaves something to be desired.

Wow. Unsubstantiated assumptions from an Ivory Tower talking head, stated as fact. That's certainly convincing.

C'mon Cecilie, I'm on your side.

But I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at how our system could be improved.

I have several doctor friends who all say we are pretty weak on the preventative...but great on the curative.

I don't have a problem with improvement. I have a problem with taking our template for improvement from people who have no clue about the real world and the real people who live in it.

And while I have no doubt that doctors would much rather have the bulk of their day made up of routine checkups and physicals rather than having to treat actual problems, that doesn't mean that "preventive" makes nearly as much difference in healthcare spending and quality of life as the promoters of socialist health systems would like us to believe.

It's actually been pretty well proven that increased spending on preventive measures does NOT reduce overall healthcare spending, so that ship has definitely sailed. But it is also necessary to question the automatic assumption that increased spending on preventive measures will improve overall public health, too. And it's further necessary to question the assertion that the United States is penurious when it comes to preventive medical spending. (For me, it's necessary to question damned near ANY assertion.)

First of all, it's important to differentiate between spending on preventive medicine and acting on preventive medicine. Too many people don't make the jump from going to the doctor for information on smoking cessation programs - for example - and actually USING the information to quit smoking. I had a call at work the other day from a woman who has been getting two or three different smoking cessation medications from our mail-order pharmacy for the last year. Her call was related to the fact that the doctor had denied our request for a renewal of her prescription because he was requiring her to go in for an office visit and checkup before he would write the new prescription. This means that 1) The woman's insurance paid for at least one office visit with the doctor to acquire the initial prescription, 2) the woman's insurance paid for twelve months worth of two or more prescription-level anti-smoking medications, which are NOT cheap, and 3) was going to be paying for at least one more office visit with the doctor and another three months worth of medications, minimum . . . and she still hadn't kicked the habit.

Second of all, recent studies show that the US has increased its actual spending on preventive medicine, and it makes much more spending available . . . IF people want to use it. That doesn't guarantee that people WILL use it. I myself have a copay of about $3 per office visit when I go to the doctor, and no copayment at all on medications. However, except for yearly PAP smears and mammograms (because my family has a distressingly long history on both sides of people dying from virulent cancers) and the rare times when I'm truly sick, I don't go to the doctor. The preventive spending is available to me, but I don't use it, and I'm hardly unusual among Americans. Studies have shown that people on Medicaid - again, for example - who have a virtually unlimited supply of office visits and screenings for a spectrum of possible ailments and whatnot available to them, comparatively rarely make use of them. By contrast, putting someone on Medicaid does not significantly reduce their use of emergency room and urgent-care visits. Basically, just because you make it possible for someone to see the doctor before they get sick doesn't mean they WILL. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

[Listening]

Wow. Unsubstantiated assumptions from an Ivory Tower talking head, stated as fact. That's certainly convincing.

C'mon Cecilie, I'm on your side.

But I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at how our system could be improved.

I have several doctor friends who all say we are pretty weak on the preventative...but great on the curative.

I don't have a problem with improvement. I have a problem with taking our template for improvement from people who have no clue about the real world and the real people who live in it.

And while I have no doubt that doctors would much rather have the bulk of their day made up of routine checkups and physicals rather than having to treat actual problems, that doesn't mean that "preventive" makes nearly as much difference in healthcare spending and quality of life as the promoters of socialist health systems would like us to believe.

It's actually been pretty well proven that increased spending on preventive measures does NOT reduce overall healthcare spending, so that ship has definitely sailed. But it is also necessary to question the automatic assumption that increased spending on preventive measures will improve overall public health, too. And it's further necessary to question the assertion that the United States is penurious when it comes to preventive medical spending. (For me, it's necessary to question damned near ANY assertion.)

First of all, it's important to differentiate between spending on preventive medicine and acting on preventive medicine. Too many people don't make the jump from going to the doctor for information on smoking cessation programs - for example - and actually USING the information to quit smoking. I had a call at work the other day from a woman who has been getting two or three different smoking cessation medications from our mail-order pharmacy for the last year. Her call was related to the fact that the doctor had denied our request for a renewal of her prescription because he was requiring her to go in for an office visit and checkup before he would write the new prescription. This means that 1) The woman's insurance paid for at least one office visit with the doctor to acquire the initial prescription, 2) the woman's insurance paid for twelve months worth of two or more prescription-level anti-smoking medications, which are NOT cheap, and 3) was going to be paying for at least one more office visit with the doctor and another three months worth of medications, minimum . . . and she still hadn't kicked the habit.

Second of all, recent studies show that the US has increased its actual spending on preventive medicine, and it makes much more spending available . . . IF people want to use it. That doesn't guarantee that people WILL use it. I myself have a copay of about $3 per office visit when I go to the doctor, and no copayment at all on medications. However, except for yearly PAP smears and mammograms (because my family has a distressingly long history on both sides of people dying from virulent cancers) and the rare times when I'm truly sick, I don't go to the doctor. The preventive spending is available to me, but I don't use it, and I'm hardly unusual among Americans. Studies have shown that people on Medicaid - again, for example - who have a virtually unlimited supply of office visits and screenings for a spectrum of possible ailments and whatnot available to them, comparatively rarely make use of them. By contrast, putting someone on Medicaid does not significantly reduce their use of emergency room and urgent-care visits. Basically, just because you make it possible for someone to see the doctor before they get sick doesn't mean they WILL. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Thanks for this information.

While I can't argue with your description of what goes on above, I'd like to see a change in our philosophy regarding preventative medicine.

It has to include incentives and penalties.

As an example, if a person is overweight and headed in the wrong direction, I feel we need to "motivate" them to not become obese. That could be done through a series of financial pentalties for getting to fat. Those penalties would take the form of increased premiums or a rider of some kind.

I have not thought his all the way through....but it would be something like that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wow. Unsubstantiated assumptions from an Ivory Tower talking head, stated as fact. That's certainly convincing.

C'mon Cecilie, I'm on your side.

But I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at how our system could be improved.

I have several doctor friends who all say we are pretty weak on the preventative...but great on the curative.

I don't have a problem with improvement. I have a problem with taking our template for improvement from people who have no clue about the real world and the real people who live in it.

And while I have no doubt that doctors would much rather have the bulk of their day made up of routine checkups and physicals rather than having to treat actual problems, that doesn't mean that "preventive" makes nearly as much difference in healthcare spending and quality of life as the promoters of socialist health systems would like us to believe.

It's actually been pretty well proven that increased spending on preventive measures does NOT reduce overall healthcare spending, so that ship has definitely sailed. But it is also necessary to question the automatic assumption that increased spending on preventive measures will improve overall public health, too. And it's further necessary to question the assertion that the United States is penurious when it comes to preventive medical spending. (For me, it's necessary to question damned near ANY assertion.)

First of all, it's important to differentiate between spending on preventive medicine and acting on preventive medicine. Too many people don't make the jump from going to the doctor for information on smoking cessation programs - for example - and actually USING the information to quit smoking. I had a call at work the other day from a woman who has been getting two or three different smoking cessation medications from our mail-order pharmacy for the last year. Her call was related to the fact that the doctor had denied our request for a renewal of her prescription because he was requiring her to go in for an office visit and checkup before he would write the new prescription. This means that 1) The woman's insurance paid for at least one office visit with the doctor to acquire the initial prescription, 2) the woman's insurance paid for twelve months worth of two or more prescription-level anti-smoking medications, which are NOT cheap, and 3) was going to be paying for at least one more office visit with the doctor and another three months worth of medications, minimum . . . and she still hadn't kicked the habit.

Second of all, recent studies show that the US has increased its actual spending on preventive medicine, and it makes much more spending available . . . IF people want to use it. That doesn't guarantee that people WILL use it. I myself have a copay of about $3 per office visit when I go to the doctor, and no copayment at all on medications. However, except for yearly PAP smears and mammograms (because my family has a distressingly long history on both sides of people dying from virulent cancers) and the rare times when I'm truly sick, I don't go to the doctor. The preventive spending is available to me, but I don't use it, and I'm hardly unusual among Americans. Studies have shown that people on Medicaid - again, for example - who have a virtually unlimited supply of office visits and screenings for a spectrum of possible ailments and whatnot available to them, comparatively rarely make use of them. By contrast, putting someone on Medicaid does not significantly reduce their use of emergency room and urgent-care visits. Basically, just because you make it possible for someone to see the doctor before they get sick doesn't mean they WILL. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

[william the wie]

Actually provably effective preventative healthcare is available at the county health office and teaching hospitals everywhere I have ever lived in the US at low or no cost. There are huge disputes over all other forms of "preventative care".

Prostate exams, angioplasty and bypass operations have always been suspect. In the last two cases EDTA and Serapeptase are over the counter medications that can and sometimes do make limited medical claims without the usual FDA disclaimer for the treatment of cardio-vascular disease. EDTA for example does have FDA approval as a blood thinner and Serapeptase has FDA approval for its use to dissolve plaque. Although usually used only in ERs those approved uses can be cited in advertising.

 

[Cecilie1200]

C'mon Cecilie, I'm on your side.

But I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at how our system could be improved.

I have several doctor friends who all say we are pretty weak on the preventative...but great on the curative.

I don't have a problem with improvement. I have a problem with taking our template for improvement from people who have no clue about the real world and the real people who live in it.

And while I have no doubt that doctors would much rather have the bulk of their day made up of routine checkups and physicals rather than having to treat actual problems, that doesn't mean that "preventive" makes nearly as much difference in healthcare spending and quality of life as the promoters of socialist health systems would like us to believe.

It's actually been pretty well proven that increased spending on preventive measures does NOT reduce overall healthcare spending, so that ship has definitely sailed. But it is also necessary to question the automatic assumption that increased spending on preventive measures will improve overall public health, too. And it's further necessary to question the assertion that the United States is penurious when it comes to preventive medical spending. (For me, it's necessary to question damned near ANY assertion.)

First of all, it's important to differentiate between spending on preventive medicine and acting on preventive medicine. Too many people don't make the jump from going to the doctor for information on smoking cessation programs - for example - and actually USING the information to quit smoking. I had a call at work the other day from a woman who has been getting two or three different smoking cessation medications from our mail-order pharmacy for the last year. Her call was related to the fact that the doctor had denied our request for a renewal of her prescription because he was requiring her to go in for an office visit and checkup before he would write the new prescription. This means that 1) The woman's insurance paid for at least one office visit with the doctor to acquire the initial prescription, 2) the woman's insurance paid for twelve months worth of two or more prescription-level anti-smoking medications, which are NOT cheap, and 3) was going to be paying for at least one more office visit with the doctor and another three months worth of medications, minimum . . . and she still hadn't kicked the habit.

Second of all, recent studies show that the US has increased its actual spending on preventive medicine, and it makes much more spending available . . . IF people want to use it. That doesn't guarantee that people WILL use it. I myself have a copay of about $3 per office visit when I go to the doctor, and no copayment at all on medications. However, except for yearly PAP smears and mammograms (because my family has a distressingly long history on both sides of people dying from virulent cancers) and the rare times when I'm truly sick, I don't go to the doctor. The preventive spending is available to me, but I don't use it, and I'm hardly unusual among Americans. Studies have shown that people on Medicaid - again, for example - who have a virtually unlimited supply of office visits and screenings for a spectrum of possible ailments and whatnot available to them, comparatively rarely make use of them. By contrast, putting someone on Medicaid does not significantly reduce their use of emergency room and urgent-care visits. Basically, just because you make it possible for someone to see the doctor before they get sick doesn't mean they WILL. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Thanks for this information.

While I can't argue with your description of what goes on above, I'd like to see a change in our philosophy regarding preventative medicine.

It has to include incentives and penalties.

As an example, if a person is overweight and headed in the wrong direction, I feel we need to "motivate" them to not become obese. That could be done through a series of financial pentalties for getting to fat. Those penalties would take the form of increased premiums or a rider of some kind.

I have not thought his all the way through....but it would be something like that.

Sorry, but it's not MY job - and sure as shit not the government's - to "motivate" an adult human being one way or another in regard to his own health. I'm not his momma, and for sure Uncle Sam isn't.

If your response is, "Well, he's going to cost the government for healthcare because he's unhealthy, then", you haven't defined a reason why we need to get more involved in his life; you've defined the reason we're already too involved to start.

 

[Listening]

I don't have a problem with improvement. I have a problem with taking our template for improvement from people who have no clue about the real world and the real people who live in it.

And while I have no doubt that doctors would much rather have the bulk of their day made up of routine checkups and physicals rather than having to treat actual problems, that doesn't mean that "preventive" makes nearly as much difference in healthcare spending and quality of life as the promoters of socialist health systems would like us to believe.

It's actually been pretty well proven that increased spending on preventive measures does NOT reduce overall healthcare spending, so that ship has definitely sailed. But it is also necessary to question the automatic assumption that increased spending on preventive measures will improve overall public health, too. And it's further necessary to question the assertion that the United States is penurious when it comes to preventive medical spending. (For me, it's necessary to question damned near ANY assertion.)

First of all, it's important to differentiate between spending on preventive medicine and acting on preventive medicine. Too many people don't make the jump from going to the doctor for information on smoking cessation programs - for example - and actually USING the information to quit smoking. I had a call at work the other day from a woman who has been getting two or three different smoking cessation medications from our mail-order pharmacy for the last year. Her call was related to the fact that the doctor had denied our request for a renewal of her prescription because he was requiring her to go in for an office visit and checkup before he would write the new prescription. This means that 1) The woman's insurance paid for at least one office visit with the doctor to acquire the initial prescription, 2) the woman's insurance paid for twelve months worth of two or more prescription-level anti-smoking medications, which are NOT cheap, and 3) was going to be paying for at least one more office visit with the doctor and another three months worth of medications, minimum . . . and she still hadn't kicked the habit.

Second of all, recent studies show that the US has increased its actual spending on preventive medicine, and it makes much more spending available . . . IF people want to use it. That doesn't guarantee that people WILL use it. I myself have a copay of about $3 per office visit when I go to the doctor, and no copayment at all on medications. However, except for yearly PAP smears and mammograms (because my family has a distressingly long history on both sides of people dying from virulent cancers) and the rare times when I'm truly sick, I don't go to the doctor. The preventive spending is available to me, but I don't use it, and I'm hardly unusual among Americans. Studies have shown that people on Medicaid - again, for example - who have a virtually unlimited supply of office visits and screenings for a spectrum of possible ailments and whatnot available to them, comparatively rarely make use of them. By contrast, putting someone on Medicaid does not significantly reduce their use of emergency room and urgent-care visits. Basically, just because you make it possible for someone to see the doctor before they get sick doesn't mean they WILL. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Thanks for this information.

While I can't argue with your description of what goes on above, I'd like to see a change in our philosophy regarding preventative medicine.

It has to include incentives and penalties.

As an example, if a person is overweight and headed in the wrong direction, I feel we need to "motivate" them to not become obese. That could be done through a series of financial pentalties for getting to fat. Those penalties would take the form of increased premiums or a rider of some kind.

I have not thought his all the way through....but it would be something like that.

Sorry, but it's not MY job - and sure as shit not the government's - to "motivate" an adult human being one way or another in regard to his own health. I'm not his momma, and for sure Uncle Sam isn't.

If your response is, "Well, he's going to cost the government for healthcare because he's unhealthy, then", you haven't defined a reason why we need to get more involved in his life; you've defined the reason we're already too involved to start.

You are right that it isn't our jobs. And I certainly DON'T want government anywhere near this kind of thing (with the possible exception of running public service adds).

What I am saying is that people who are fat should pay more for health insurance because they belong to a high risk group and being fat, by and large, is a CHOICE.

The same for smokers, drinkers, and others who have high risk behaviour.

It's simple economics. He's not going to cost the government....he or she is going to cost me and I don't feel I should pay for people's poor decisions. So if you are fat...you should start paying now for the diabetes medicines you'll probably be consuming sometime later on.

 

[Politico]

Cronyism? Dick Cheney's health coverage was through his employer, as a result of his job, just like many Americans. The fact that YOU have never accomplished enough in your life to be able to hold a job with excellent benefits does not mean there's anything crooked or underhanded about someone else having done so.

LOL Cheney hasn't had an employer for years. His heart transplant was paid for by the taxpayers.

 

[Meister]

Thanks for this information.

While I can't argue with your description of what goes on above, I'd like to see a change in our philosophy regarding preventative medicine.

It has to include incentives and penalties.

As an example, if a person is overweight and headed in the wrong direction, I feel we need to "motivate" them to not become obese. That could be done through a series of financial pentalties for getting to fat. Those penalties would take the form of increased premiums or a rider of some kind.

I have not thought his all the way through....but it would be something like that.

Sorry, but it's not MY job - and sure as shit not the government's - to "motivate" an adult human being one way or another in regard to his own health. I'm not his momma, and for sure Uncle Sam isn't.

If your response is, "Well, he's going to cost the government for healthcare because he's unhealthy, then", you haven't defined a reason why we need to get more involved in his life; you've defined the reason we're already too involved to start.

You are right that it isn't our jobs. And I certainly DON'T want government anywhere near this kind of thing (with the possible exception of running public service adds).

What I am saying is that people who are fat should pay more for health insurance because they belong to a high risk group and being fat, by and large, is a CHOICE.

The same for smokers, drinkers, and others who have high risk behaviour.

It's simple economics. He's not going to cost the government....he or she is going to cost me and I don't feel I should pay for people's poor decisions. So if you are fat...you should start paying now for the diabetes medicines you'll probably be consuming sometime later on.

Perhaps people that are older should have to pay a higher premium than those that are younger? Where does it stop?

 

[Listening]

Sorry, but it's not MY job - and sure as shit not the government's - to "motivate" an adult human being one way or another in regard to his own health. I'm not his momma, and for sure Uncle Sam isn't.

If your response is, "Well, he's going to cost the government for healthcare because he's unhealthy, then", you haven't defined a reason why we need to get more involved in his life; you've defined the reason we're already too involved to start.

You are right that it isn't our jobs. And I certainly DON'T want government anywhere near this kind of thing (with the possible exception of running public service adds).

What I am saying is that people who are fat should pay more for health insurance because they belong to a high risk group and being fat, by and large, is a CHOICE.

The same for smokers, drinkers, and others who have high risk behaviour.

It's simple economics. He's not going to cost the government....he or she is going to cost me and I don't feel I should pay for people's poor decisions. So if you are fat...you should start paying now for the diabetes medicines you'll probably be consuming sometime later on.

Perhaps people that are older should have to pay a higher premium than those that are younger? Where does it stop?

You raise a good point. Especially since something like 30% of all health care is for people in the last year of life. My wife can tell stories of people who wanted to be left alone to die, but whose families insisted that the DNR not be honored and that everything be done to keep granny alive (for what purpose was still not clear).

That is why I like individual SS accounts (not private accounts, but accounts with actual balances in them). Someone in later years could then draw from those in the cases where questionable expenses could be incurred. Someone could chose to spend a bunch of money to live a little longer or chose instead to pass it along.

Choice is such a nice word.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks for this information.

While I can't argue with your description of what goes on above, I'd like to see a change in our philosophy regarding preventative medicine.

It has to include incentives and penalties.

As an example, if a person is overweight and headed in the wrong direction, I feel we need to "motivate" them to not become obese. That could be done through a series of financial pentalties for getting to fat. Those penalties would take the form of increased premiums or a rider of some kind.

I have not thought his all the way through....but it would be something like that.

Sorry, but it's not MY job - and sure as shit not the government's - to "motivate" an adult human being one way or another in regard to his own health. I'm not his momma, and for sure Uncle Sam isn't.

If your response is, "Well, he's going to cost the government for healthcare because he's unhealthy, then", you haven't defined a reason why we need to get more involved in his life; you've defined the reason we're already too involved to start.

You are right that it isn't our jobs. And I certainly DON'T want government anywhere near this kind of thing (with the possible exception of running public service adds).

What I am saying is that people who are fat should pay more for health insurance because they belong to a high risk group and being fat, by and large, is a CHOICE.

The same for smokers, drinkers, and others who have high risk behaviour.

It's simple economics. He's not going to cost the government....he or she is going to cost me and I don't feel I should pay for people's poor decisions. So if you are fat...you should start paying now for the diabetes medicines you'll probably be consuming sometime later on.

Dear, people who are obese already DO pay more for health insurance, as do people who smoke, and people who have pre-existing conditions. Do you think you're coming up with some brilliant, innovative idea that the insurance company underwriters haven't already covered to a faretheewell in their premium schedules? Please.

It's simple logic. WHY is he going to cost you and me money? Because some group of dumbshits voted in another group of pandering cretins who passed laws making him our financial responsibility, that's why. They put him on the public dole and raised a huge outcry against "punishing" people with pre-existing conditions and indicators and demanding that we subsidize that shit. For a group of people who swear by Darwinist evolution, the American political left sure does seem determined to counteract natural selection and survival of the fittest.

So, once again, the answer isn't to get even MORE involved in his ******* life by taking him by the scruff of his fat neck and dragging him away from the dinner table. The answer, to be brutally honest, is to get LESS involved and let the fat ****** eat himself to death so that he's out of everyone's way.

 

[Listening]

Sorry, but it's not MY job - and sure as shit not the government's - to "motivate" an adult human being one way or another in regard to his own health. I'm not his momma, and for sure Uncle Sam isn't.

If your response is, "Well, he's going to cost the government for healthcare because he's unhealthy, then", you haven't defined a reason why we need to get more involved in his life; you've defined the reason we're already too involved to start.

You are right that it isn't our jobs. And I certainly DON'T want government anywhere near this kind of thing (with the possible exception of running public service adds).

What I am saying is that people who are fat should pay more for health insurance because they belong to a high risk group and being fat, by and large, is a CHOICE.

The same for smokers, drinkers, and others who have high risk behaviour.

It's simple economics. He's not going to cost the government....he or she is going to cost me and I don't feel I should pay for people's poor decisions. So if you are fat...you should start paying now for the diabetes medicines you'll probably be consuming sometime later on.

Dear, people who are obese already DO pay more for health insurance, as do people who smoke, and people who have pre-existing conditions. Do you think you're coming up with some brilliant, innovative idea that the insurance company underwriters haven't already covered to a faretheewell in their premium schedules? Please.

It's simple logic. WHY is he going to cost you and me money? Because some group of dumbshits voted in another group of pandering cretins who passed laws making him our financial responsibility, that's why. They put him on the public dole and raised a huge outcry against "punishing" people with pre-existing conditions and indicators and demanding that we subsidize that shit. For a group of people who swear by Darwinist evolution, the American political left sure does seem determined to counteract natural selection and survival of the fittest.

So, once again, the answer isn't to get even MORE involved in his ******* life by taking him by the scruff of his fat neck and dragging him away from the dinner table. The answer, to be brutally honest, is to get LESS involved and let the fat ****** eat himself to death so that he's out of everyone's way.

Actually, I was not aware of what you describe in your first paragraph. Thanks for the info.

Can't argue the second paragraph.

Totally agree with the third....as long as we all agree that when said fatty blows the top off his max that we don't come to his rescue. Either his family puts up or he goes away.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, but it's not MY job - and sure as shit not the government's - to "motivate" an adult human being one way or another in regard to his own health. I'm not his momma, and for sure Uncle Sam isn't.

If your response is, "Well, he's going to cost the government for healthcare because he's unhealthy, then", you haven't defined a reason why we need to get more involved in his life; you've defined the reason we're already too involved to start.

You are right that it isn't our jobs. And I certainly DON'T want government anywhere near this kind of thing (with the possible exception of running public service adds).

What I am saying is that people who are fat should pay more for health insurance because they belong to a high risk group and being fat, by and large, is a CHOICE.

The same for smokers, drinkers, and others who have high risk behaviour.

It's simple economics. He's not going to cost the government....he or she is going to cost me and I don't feel I should pay for people's poor decisions. So if you are fat...you should start paying now for the diabetes medicines you'll probably be consuming sometime later on.

Perhaps people that are older should have to pay a higher premium than those that are younger? Where does it stop?

People who are old enough get Medicare, which is a damned good deal in exchange for not having died, FYI.

Who says it SHOULD stop? Is there some particular reason that your expenses for health insurance - or any insurance - SHOULDN'T be calculated by how much you are, in turn, going to cost? Makes sense to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are right that it isn't our jobs. And I certainly DON'T want government anywhere near this kind of thing (with the possible exception of running public service adds).

What I am saying is that people who are fat should pay more for health insurance because they belong to a high risk group and being fat, by and large, is a CHOICE.

The same for smokers, drinkers, and others who have high risk behaviour.

It's simple economics. He's not going to cost the government....he or she is going to cost me and I don't feel I should pay for people's poor decisions. So if you are fat...you should start paying now for the diabetes medicines you'll probably be consuming sometime later on.

Dear, people who are obese already DO pay more for health insurance, as do people who smoke, and people who have pre-existing conditions. Do you think you're coming up with some brilliant, innovative idea that the insurance company underwriters haven't already covered to a faretheewell in their premium schedules? Please.

It's simple logic. WHY is he going to cost you and me money? Because some group of dumbshits voted in another group of pandering cretins who passed laws making him our financial responsibility, that's why. They put him on the public dole and raised a huge outcry against "punishing" people with pre-existing conditions and indicators and demanding that we subsidize that shit. For a group of people who swear by Darwinist evolution, the American political left sure does seem determined to counteract natural selection and survival of the fittest.

So, once again, the answer isn't to get even MORE involved in his ******* life by taking him by the scruff of his fat neck and dragging him away from the dinner table. The answer, to be brutally honest, is to get LESS involved and let the fat ****** eat himself to death so that he's out of everyone's way.

Actually, I was not aware of what you describe in your first paragraph. Thanks for the info.

Can't argue the second paragraph.

Totally agree with the third....as long as we all agree that when said fatty blows the top off his max that we don't come to his rescue. Either his family puts up or he goes away.

Hey, I'm all over that like white on rice. It's not that I have a problem, in theory, with having a social safety net for emergencies. I get that shit sometimes happens to people, and we're not animals. But when the "shit" happening to someone is their own stupidity, then I honestly have to question what benefit there is to society in keeping someone that dumb, useless, and self-destructive around, at no expense to him. It's YOUR health and YOUR life, and YOU should be the one paying to maintain it, or the people who actually want you around should. Those of us who will never notice or care if you die should not be charged as though your existence is a public utility.

 

[william the wie]

Obamacare in all but name will implode sooner or later.

 

[Listening]

Dear, people who are obese already DO pay more for health insurance, as do people who smoke, and people who have pre-existing conditions. Do you think you're coming up with some brilliant, innovative idea that the insurance company underwriters haven't already covered to a faretheewell in their premium schedules? Please.

It's simple logic. WHY is he going to cost you and me money? Because some group of dumbshits voted in another group of pandering cretins who passed laws making him our financial responsibility, that's why. They put him on the public dole and raised a huge outcry against "punishing" people with pre-existing conditions and indicators and demanding that we subsidize that shit. For a group of people who swear by Darwinist evolution, the American political left sure does seem determined to counteract natural selection and survival of the fittest.

So, once again, the answer isn't to get even MORE involved in his ******* life by taking him by the scruff of his fat neck and dragging him away from the dinner table. The answer, to be brutally honest, is to get LESS involved and let the fat ****** eat himself to death so that he's out of everyone's way.

Actually, I was not aware of what you describe in your first paragraph. Thanks for the info.

Can't argue the second paragraph.

Totally agree with the third....as long as we all agree that when said fatty blows the top off his max that we don't come to his rescue. Either his family puts up or he goes away.

Hey, I'm all over that like white on rice. It's not that I have a problem, in theory, with having a social safety net for emergencies. I get that shit sometimes happens to people, and we're not animals. But when the "shit" happening to someone is their own stupidity, then I honestly have to question what benefit there is to society in keeping someone that dumb, useless, and self-destructive around, at no expense to him. It's YOUR health and YOUR life, and YOU should be the one paying to maintain it, or the people who actually want you around should. Those of us who will never notice or care if you die should not be charged as though your existence is a public utility.

And that becomes the crux of the disagree with the other side.

When you tell others to "take care of themselves", you have to take a risk that they won't.

And if you bail them out, you become an enabling society.

I am all for a safety net for those who are trying.

But I am all to aware of situations where the system is being scammed. And I am not afraid to speculate that is happening in huge chunks.

I am also willing to live with that risks. But, I've seen communities do some pretty great things. In one small Idaho town, they raised 200,000 back in the early 80's for a liver transplant that a kid's family could not afford. I know the town and they'd have done it for ten kids even though they are not rolling the dough.

 

[Listening]

Obamacare in all but name will implode sooner or later.

If they ditch the employer mandate....do you think the law could be challenged again.

Maybe we will still have the best health care after all.

We can only hope.

I know this will piss off Schillian since she hates America.