Why do I have to pay for society's screw-ups?

[NYcarbineer]

Think what it does to the nation's health bill (insurance premiums, medicare/medicaid costs) that there are lots of super-fat people who have never seen the inside of a gym.

About 150 years ago, doctors began to notice that it was smokers who were much more likely to get lung cancer.

How many druggies and drunks don't bother to pay for health insurance?

How many don't care what they eat, as long as it tastes good? Someone said in that department, americans are walking garbage cans.

How many gays think it's their constitutional right to screw each other w/o protection, and it's the taxpayer who must bail them out by paying for their meds plus zillions of dollars in research on the disease?

This extends of course beyond health related issues.

How many people have worked in maufacturing, not seen the handwriting on the wall for decades that their job will be exported, and don't train themselves for something new, but just go on the public dole when their job finally disappears? Or they stupidly demand government tariffs or the like?

How many mothers with children have to get welfare because the mother made an obviously stupid choice in getting pregnant and then dumped by some creep?

How many geezers didn't provide for their old-age, thinking medicare/social security is supposed to be their retirement plan?

Okay, let's say we deny poor children affordable healthcare. What then? The kids just go without? We, as a society, simply make poor children suffer without healthcare until America's poor 'wake up' and stop having kids?

How would that work, exactly?

Dang, I was so hoping that Patrick would explain to us how his plan would work...

 

[toxicmedia]

NONSENSE! Many states, eg California, have just a few big health care insurerers. It should be obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of economics that such semi-monopolies help keep prices up.

In California...you have Aetna, Assurant Health, PacifiCare, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Clarendon, CPIC Life, Fairmont / TIG, Health Net, Kaiser, and Security Life. None of them have anything approaching a monopoly in the marketplace. Have you forgotten you're discussing California insurers with someone who has worked for 2 of the companies on this list, and is about to accept a position with a 3rd company on that list?..I mean I don't know everything...but what you're saying doesn't jive with the realities of what I have exeprienced day in and day out for years. The marketplace is already shopped down to the point where ANY insurance company, no matter what state they're in, would not be able to undercut the marketplace and create savings, with more robust plans for potential members.

Why are there so many of those expensive exams? Because the recommendation on age of starting them, and frequency of taking them, eg mamography exams, are geared to average disease incidence and age of onset for a POPULATION MANY OF WHOM ENGAGE IN UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES.

Colonoscopies for people over 50 is an unchallenged national industry standard, like prostate exams for men over 30. The ages at which preventive benefits like well baby exams, well woman exams, colonoscopies, diabetes testing, physicals, and just about every other type of preventive beneift would be covered with no copay or deductible have not been influenced by the lifestyle of the population. I thought a hands off approach on obesity, smoking, and not mandating healthy eating habits is something Republicans are in favor of....?

 

[toxicmedia]

For reasons such as paying gigantic liability insurance premiums because of tort lawyer predators, and under-reimbursement by the government for medicare patients.

Malprictice insurance and lawsuits is another relatively small factor, because pills get taken every day, all year some times...but law suits are getting harder to win every year.

My point is...everything I've heard from Republicans won't stop the impending access to care crisis, and what the Democrats are doing won't stop it either.

Lack of tort reform is a GIGANTIC cost driver - because of the lawyers EVERY doctor has to pay big liability insurance premiums, some specialists like neurosurgeons and obgyns have to pay HUGE premiums, and the costs are passed along to their customers, ultimately raising customer insurance pemiums. WHOLE STATES, like eg (if memory serves) west virgimia have practically been emptied of obgyns due to the tort lawyer predator problem.

You're just throwing out the standard schpeel here. Rather that going back and forth with dueling talking points....think about this for a minute.

Malpractice laws and insurance are generally a state issue. Each state has different laws. Are you, as a proponent of smaller government, saying federal laws should be passed standardizing tort reform, and federal regulating agencies should be created, or expansion of the DOJ to regulate?

My point here is that it's a way more complex issue than just making it harder to sue a doctor. If the feds wanted to pass something on tort reform, beyond just the statute of limitations aspect, which is all we've heard so far from proponents of it...the feds would have to create a criteria for which patients cannot persue legal action. Can you imagine the compexity?...not to mention making government and regulation bigger

 

[Patrick2]

Think what it does to the nation's health bill (insurance premiums, medicare/medicaid costs) that there are lots of super-fat people who have never seen the inside of a gym.

About 150 years ago, doctors began to notice that it was smokers who were much more likely to get lung cancer.

How many druggies and drunks don't bother to pay for health insurance?

How many don't care what they eat, as long as it tastes good? Someone said in that department, americans are walking garbage cans.

How many gays think it's their constitutional right to screw each other w/o protection, and it's the taxpayer who must bail them out by paying for their meds plus zillions of dollars in research on the disease?

This extends of course beyond health related issues.

How many people have worked in maufacturing, not seen the handwriting on the wall for decades that their job will be exported, and don't train themselves for something new, but just go on the public dole when their job finally disappears? Or they stupidly demand government tariffs or the like?

How many mothers with children have to get welfare because the mother made an obviously stupid choice in getting pregnant and then dumped by some creep?

How many geezers didn't provide for their old-age, thinking medicare/social security is supposed to be their retirement plan?

Okay, let's say we deny poor children affordable healthcare. What then? The kids just go without? We, as a society, simply make poor children suffer without healthcare until America's poor 'wake up' and stop having kids?

How would that work, exactly?

Paying for poor children's health care has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether a state-controlled rationing system is implemented.

 

[Patrick2]

Why do you not complain about two unnecessary wars or wall street bailouts that will waste lives and trillions? Your values are anti-American but pro business. Odd.

Why don't you take that nonsense to another thread? And get over your anti-business paranoia. It's business that pays for your welfare check, not the government.

 

[Patrick2]

NONSENSE! Many states, eg California, have just a few big health care insurerers. It should be obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of economics that such semi-monopolies help keep prices up.

In California...you have Aetna, Assurant Health, PacifiCare, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Clarendon, CPIC Life, Fairmont / TIG, Health Net, Kaiser, and Security Life. None of them have anything approaching a monopoly in the marketplace. Have you forgotten you're discussing California insurers with someone who has worked for 2 of the companies on this list, and is about to accept a position with a 3rd company on that list?..I mean I don't know everything...but what you're saying doesn't jive with the realities of what I have exeprienced day in and day out for years. The marketplace is already shopped down to the point where ANY insurance company, no matter what state they're in, would not be able to undercut the marketplace and create savings, with more robust plans for potential members.

Obviously, the number of companies is not the relevent fact, but how concentrated the market share is. You can have 900 companies in a state, and it will still be noncompetitive if just a few have the majority of market share. The only thing I can ever say to lefties is, read up:

http://www.health-access.org/files/...Price for Health Insurance Market Failure.pdf

California’s two
largest health insurers, Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente control 58 percent of the market.2 Under a competition rating system used by the U.S. Justice Department, the California state market is “highly concentrated.”3,4

The top two insurers in the Los Angeles metro
area control over 60 percent of the market. In
smaller markets, the issue is even greater: The
top two insurers control 82 percent of the market
in Salinas, and 79 and 76 percent, of the market
in San Luis Obispo and Redding, respectively.6

The American
Medical Association reports that the number
of health insurance companies has declined by
nearly 20 percent since 2000, and as a result
94 percent of insurance markets in the United
States are now highly concentrated.18

The same Government Accountability
Office study that counted the 27 competitors in
each state’s market for small group coverage also
concluded that there isn’t enough competition.
The median market share for Blue Cross Blue
Shield carriers in 38 states was about 51 percent,
up from 44 percent in 2005 and 34 percent in
2002,

UnitedHealth agreed to pay
$400 million to settle multiple suits alleging
price fixing and other anti-competitive behavior.33,34
The attorney general of New York, Andrew
Cuomo, stated that this was “a huge scam that
affected hundreds of millions of Americans
[who were] ripped off by their health insurance
companies.”35 Numerous other insurers were
implicated in the same scheme, including Aetna
Inc., Cigna Corp. and WellPoint Inc.36

etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Why are there so many of those expensive exams? Because the recommendation on age of starting them, and frequency of taking them, eg mamography exams, are geared to average disease incidence and age of onset for a POPULATION MANY OF WHOM ENGAGE IN UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLES.

Colonoscopies for people over 50 is an unchallenged national industry standard, like prostate exams for men over 30. The ages at which preventive benefits like well baby exams, well woman exams, colonoscopies, diabetes testing, physicals, and just about every other type of preventive beneift would be covered with no copay or deductible have not been influenced by the lifestyle of the population. I thought a hands off approach on obesity, smoking, and not mandating healthy eating habits is something Republicans are in favor of....?

You sort of don't get it. The "industry standard" is based only on the statistical norms from a country full of people who trash their health. The standards aren't pulled out of thin air, but are the reflection of a highly unhealthy population. You are SORT OF right that people have a right to trash their bodies, but then they should have no claim on taxpayers or others to pay for the consequences of their stupidity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Think what it does to the nation's health bill (insurance premiums, medicare/medicaid costs) that there are lots of super-fat people who have never seen the inside of a gym.

About 150 years ago, doctors began to notice that it was smokers who were much more likely to get lung cancer.

How many druggies and drunks don't bother to pay for health insurance?

How many don't care what they eat, as long as it tastes good? Someone said in that department, americans are walking garbage cans.

How many gays think it's their constitutional right to screw each other w/o protection, and it's the taxpayer who must bail them out by paying for their meds plus zillions of dollars in research on the disease?

This extends of course beyond health related issues.

How many people have worked in maufacturing, not seen the handwriting on the wall for decades that their job will be exported, and don't train themselves for something new, but just go on the public dole when their job finally disappears? Or they stupidly demand government tariffs or the like?

How many mothers with children have to get welfare because the mother made an obviously stupid choice in getting pregnant and then dumped by some creep?

How many geezers didn't provide for their old-age, thinking medicare/social security is supposed to be their retirement plan?

Okay, let's say we deny poor children affordable healthcare. What then? The kids just go without? We, as a society, simply make poor children suffer without healthcare until America's poor 'wake up' and stop having kids?

How would that work, exactly?

Paying for poor children's health care has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether a state-controlled rationing system is implemented.

Do you support having Medicaid for poor children or not?

 

[Patrick2]

Malprictice insurance and lawsuits is another relatively small factor, because pills get taken every day, all year some times...but law suits are getting harder to win every year.

My point is...everything I've heard from Republicans won't stop the impending access to care crisis, and what the Democrats are doing won't stop it either.

Lack of tort reform is a GIGANTIC cost driver - because of the lawyers EVERY doctor has to pay big liability insurance premiums, some specialists like neurosurgeons and obgyns have to pay HUGE premiums, and the costs are passed along to their customers, ultimately raising customer insurance pemiums. WHOLE STATES, like eg (if memory serves) west virgimia have practically been emptied of obgyns due to the tort lawyer predator problem.

You're just throwing out the standard schpeel here.

Bullshit. The devastating effect of tort lawyer plundering is well-established.

Rather that going back and forth with dueling talking points....think about this for a minute.

Malpractice laws and insurance are generally a state issue. Each state has different laws. Are you, as a proponent of smaller government, saying federal laws should be passed standardizing tort reform, and federal regulating agencies should be created, or expansion of the DOJ to regulate?

That's right, they are a state issue, but the federal government has all the tools it needs to effect reform. Eg, do tort reform to a minimum standard, or we'll withhold half the federal medicare and medicaid aid to your state. Gosh, that was hard, wasn't it?

My point here is that it's a way more complex issue than just making it harder to sue a doctor.

I made no such assertion - kindly don't put words in my mouth.

If the feds wanted to pass something on tort reform, beyond just the statute of limitations aspect, which is all we've heard so far from proponents of it...the feds would have to create a criteria for which patients cannot persue legal action. Can you imagine the compexity?...not to mention making government and regulation bigger

You are looking at it the wrong way - the fed standards could eg limit pain and suffering awards to an absolute max. They need not set up lawsuit criteria.

 

[toxicmedia]

Lack of tort reform is a GIGANTIC cost driver - because of the lawyers EVERY doctor has to pay big liability insurance premiums, some specialists like neurosurgeons and obgyns have to pay HUGE premiums, and the costs are passed along to their customers, ultimately raising customer insurance pemiums. WHOLE STATES, like eg (if memory serves) west virgimia have practically been emptied of obgyns due to the tort lawyer predator problem.

You're just throwing out the standard schpeel here.

Bullshit. The devastating effect of tort lawyer plundering is well-established.



That's right, they are a state issue, but the federal government has all the tools it needs to effect reform. Eg, do tort reform to a minimum standard, or we'll withhold half the federal medicare and medicaid aid to your state. Gosh, that was hard, wasn't it?

My point here is that it's a way more complex issue than just making it harder to sue a doctor.

I made no such assertion - kindly don't put words in my mouth.

If the feds wanted to pass something on tort reform, beyond just the statute of limitations aspect, which is all we've heard so far from proponents of it...the feds would have to create a criteria for which patients cannot persue legal action. Can you imagine the compexity?...not to mention making government and regulation bigger

You are looking at it the wrong way - the fed standards could eg limit pain and suffering awards to an absolute max. They need not set up lawsuit criteria.

I didn't put any words in your mouth...I'm going to take a break here. You seem to getting irritable.

 

[Greenbeard]

Obviously, the number of companies is not the relevent fact, but how concentrated the market share is. You can have 900 companies in a state, and it will still be noncompetitive if just a few have the majority of market share.

And so you're advocating what exactly? Opening up the market to insurers with no existing contracts with providers in the states, few or no local enrollees to offer California providers, and thus virtually no leverage with which to negotiate the lower reimbursements that would be needed to allow them to capture market share?

Your "solution" is simply to try and bump up the number of carriers, yet you argue that the number of carriers isn't the problem.

That's right, they are a state issue, but the federal government has all the tools it needs to effect reform. Eg, do tort reform to a minimum standard, or we'll withhold half the federal medicare and medicaid aid to your state. Gosh, that was hard, wasn't it?

If you're advocating for a federalization of tort law, you're going to run into opposition from far right lawmakers:

At a Judiciary Committee markup, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) accused Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) of proposing legislation that would violate the Constitution.

The panel was considering legislation sponsored by Gingrey, who does not sit on the committee and was not present, that would impose a $250,000 cap on non-economic medical malpractice damages. Poe, a former felony court judge and a member of the House Tea Party Caucus, said that violates the Constitution.

He also warned he'd vote against the measure if it imposes caps on states that don't want them.

"I got problems with that," Poe said. "I think it's a violation of the Tenth Amendment." [...]

[Lamar] Smith, who has made tort reform one of his top five priorities, defended the law, saying tort reform falls under the purview of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

"If Alabama and New York want to be a haven for malpractice suits, it's great for Texas," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). "I'm reticent to allow Congress to impose our will on the states."

And from the states:

A bipartisan association of state lawmakers is urging House Republicans to abandon efforts to overhaul the nation’s medical liability laws — the most prominent piece so far of the GOP's efforts to replace the Democrats' 2010 healthcare law.

The states — and not the federal government — should decide on medical malpractice standards, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) wrote to House members this week.

“The adoption of a one-size-fits-all approach to medical malpractice envisioned in H.R. 5 and other related measures would undermine that diversity and disregard factors unique to each particular states,” the NCSL wrote to the House Energy and Commerce health subpanel.

And from other allies on the right:

Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett accused the GOP of practicing “fair-weather federalism” on the malpractice bill, which would preempt state laws that conflict with its cap on some jury awards.

Barnett represents the National Federation of Independent Business in its lawsuit challenging the healthcare law’s requirement that most people buy insurance. Opponents of the malpractice bill say those conservative bona fides lend credibility to his criticism.

 

[Cuyo]

Think what it does to the nation's health bill (insurance premiums, medicare/medicaid costs) that there are lots of super-fat people who have never seen the inside of a gym.

About 150 years ago, doctors began to notice that it was smokers who were much more likely to get lung cancer.

How many druggies and drunks don't bother to pay for health insurance?

How many don't care what they eat, as long as it tastes good? Someone said in that department, americans are walking garbage cans.

How many gays think it's their constitutional right to screw each other w/o protection, and it's the taxpayer who must bail them out by paying for their meds plus zillions of dollars in research on the disease?

This extends of course beyond health related issues.

How many people have worked in maufacturing, not seen the handwriting on the wall for decades that their job will be exported, and don't train themselves for something new, but just go on the public dole when their job finally disappears? Or they stupidly demand government tariffs or the like?

How many mothers with children have to get welfare because the mother made an obviously stupid choice in getting pregnant and then dumped by some creep?

How many geezers didn't provide for their old-age, thinking medicare/social security is supposed to be their retirement plan?

Yet I have no doubt you bitch about the individual mandate, which would require people to provide for themselves?

What do you intend to do with people who can't pay for their HC? Deny them services?

 

[Patrick2]

You're just throwing out the standard schpeel here.

Bullshit. The devastating effect of tort lawyer plundering is well-established.



That's right, they are a state issue, but the federal government has all the tools it needs to effect reform. Eg, do tort reform to a minimum standard, or we'll withhold half the federal medicare and medicaid aid to your state. Gosh, that was hard, wasn't it?



I made no such assertion - kindly don't put words in my mouth.

If the feds wanted to pass something on tort reform, beyond just the statute of limitations aspect, which is all we've heard so far from proponents of it...the feds would have to create a criteria for which patients cannot persue legal action. Can you imagine the compexity?...not to mention making government and regulation bigger

You are looking at it the wrong way - the fed standards could eg limit pain and suffering awards to an absolute max. They need not set up lawsuit criteria.

I didn't put any words in your mouth...I'm going to take a break here. You seem to getting irritable.

Yes you did - you implied my conception of tort reform was just making it harder to sue, when I said no such thing.

 

[Patrick2]

Obviously, the number of companies is not the relevent fact, but how concentrated the market share is. You can have 900 companies in a state, and it will still be noncompetitive if just a few have the majority of market share.

And so you're advocating what exactly? Opening up the market to insurers with no existing contracts with providers in the states, few or no local enrollees to offer California providers, and thus virtually no leverage with which to negotiate the lower reimbursements that would be needed to allow them to capture market share?

Obviously they will >>START<< with no enrollees - legal barriers have been created to keep them out of the state! They are like ANY new business, which captures market share by offering lower prices and better service - this isn't quantum mechanics.

Your "solution" is simply to try and bump up the number of carriers, yet you argue that the number of carriers isn't the problem.

It's really getting tiresome to hear people put words in my mouth. The issue is artificial, harmful legal barriers against >>>INTERSTATE COMPETITION<< - blink twice if you get it yet.

That's right, they are a state issue, but the federal government has all the tools it needs to effect reform. Eg, do tort reform to a minimum standard, or we'll withhold half the federal medicare and medicaid aid to your state. Gosh, that was hard, wasn't it?

If you're advocating for a federalization of tort law, you're going to run into opposition from far right lawmakers:

I advocated no such thing, which you would have discerned if you read what I said on that carefully - why don't you go back and reread it?

 

[Greenbeard]

Obviously they will >>START<< with no enrollees - legal barriers have been created to keep them out of the state! They are like ANY new business, which captures market share by offering lower prices and better service - this isn't quantum mechanics.

No, health insurance isn't just like any new business, given the nature of its product and the determinants of its prices.

It's really getting tiresome to hear people put words in my mouth. The issue is artificial, harmful legal barriers against >>>INTERSTATE COMPETITION<< - blink twice if you get it yet.

Multiple states (e.g. Georgia, Wyoming, Maine) have removed some or all of those barriers, as that's a state power. Write your state legislature.

However, the reality will remain that the proposal isn't a solution to much, other than the circular formulation of "the problem is we have a regulation, ergo removing that regulation solves the problem."

I advocated no such thing, which you would have discerned if you read what I said on that carefully - why don't you go back and reread it?

Yes, clearly "do tort reform to a minimum [federal] standard, or we'll withhold half the federal medicare and medicaid aid to your state" will sit well with the states' rights/Tenth Amendment crowd. Well played.

 

[California Girl]

I see no reason why I should pay the price of reading the OPs constant whining.

 

[Patrick2]

Obviously they will >>START<< with no enrollees - legal barriers have been created to keep them out of the state! They are like ANY new business, which captures market share by offering lower prices and better service - this isn't quantum mechanics.

No, health insurance isn't just like any new business, given the nature of its product and the determinants of its prices.

Yes it is. If it's impossible for new companies to enter a state's market, how did any which are there NOW do it when they were new? Sorry, you're not making any sense.

It's really getting tiresome to hear people put words in my mouth. The issue is artificial, harmful legal barriers against >>>INTERSTATE COMPETITION<< - blink twice if you get it yet.

Multiple states (e.g. Georgia, Wyoming, Maine) have removed some or all of those barriers, as that's a state power. Write your state legislature.

The thrust of the thread was only to describe how government has driven up health care costs, not asking for suggestions as to how to correct it.

I advocated no such thing, which you would have discerned if you read what I said on that carefully - why don't you go back and reread it?

Yes, clearly "do tort reform to a minimum [federal] standard, or we'll withhold half the federal medicare and medicaid aid to your state" will sit well with the states' rights/Tenth Amendment crowd. Well played.

You said I want to federalize tort law. Once more, I said no such thing, but pointed out one example how the federal government can encourage reform by sanctioning states if they don't reform their >>>OWN<<< state law.

 

[toxicmedia]

Bullshit. The devastating effect of tort lawyer plundering is well-established.



That's right, they are a state issue, but the federal government has all the tools it needs to effect reform. Eg, do tort reform to a minimum standard, or we'll withhold half the federal medicare and medicaid aid to your state. Gosh, that was hard, wasn't it?



I made no such assertion - kindly don't put words in my mouth.



You are looking at it the wrong way - the fed standards could eg limit pain and suffering awards to an absolute max. They need not set up lawsuit criteria.

I didn't put any words in your mouth...I'm going to take a break here. You seem to getting irritable.

Yes you did - you implied my conception of tort reform was just making it harder to sue, when I said no such thing.

I wasn't implying anything about what you thought. The reason I made the statement is because that's what most people think tort reform is all about...I don't know if you know that or not. You've been reasonable up to this point, so I'm going to have faith that you'll be resonable enough to accept my word that I wasn't implying what you think I was.

But you know what...in reading through your posts, when I see things like "you sorta don't get it" and "bullshit"..it kind of depleats all my desire to go through the cites you provide, even though I can see how the data on market shares has been spun to imply all sorts of things that I know are attributed to other factors.

It takes alot of time to unwind spin, and I won't invest that time with people who appear to be implacably opposed to considering their position, or parts of it, to be unsound. At this point I will say "good day", and I hope there are no hard feelings.

 

[Patrick2]

I didn't put any words in your mouth...I'm going to take a break here. You seem to getting irritable.

Yes you did - you implied my conception of tort reform was just making it harder to sue, when I said no such thing.

I wasn't implying anything about what you thought.

No actually that's what you said - go back and read it.

The reason I made the statement is because that's what most people think tort reform is all about...I don't know if you know that or not.

I would rather you debate me based on what I say, not on other people's misconceptions. Yes yes - some people may think it can be reformed by federal law. My point is that that it can't is no show stopper - the federal government can twist state's arms with other means.

You've been reasonable up to this point, so I'm going to have faith that you'll be resonable enough to accept my word that I wasn't implying what you think I was.

Fine. If I seem touchy, it's because I've noticed there a number of people at this site who from malice or just stupidity misinterpret what one has said.

But you know what...in reading through your posts, when I see things like "you sorta don't get it" and "bullshit"..it kind of depleats all my desire to go through the cites you provide, even though I can see how the data on market shares has been spun to imply all sorts of things that I know are attributed to other factors.

Well, it seems you've just now "gone through" a little with the spun comment. This place is a political bar room, not the Oxford Union - you too shouldn't overreact.

It takes alot of time to unwind spin, and I won't invest that time with people who appear to be implacably opposed to considering their position, or parts of it, to be unsound. At this point I will say "good day", and I hope there are no hard feelings.

hasta la vista

 

[Mr.Nick]

Think what it does to the nation's health bill (insurance premiums, medicare/medicaid costs) that there are lots of super-fat people who have never seen the inside of a gym.

About 150 years ago, doctors began to notice that it was smokers who were much more likely to get lung cancer.

How many druggies and drunks don't bother to pay for health insurance?

How many don't care what they eat, as long as it tastes good? Someone said in that department, americans are walking garbage cans.

How many gays think it's their constitutional right to screw each other w/o protection, and it's the taxpayer who must bail them out by paying for their meds plus zillions of dollars in research on the disease?

This extends of course beyond health related issues.

How many people have worked in maufacturing, not seen the handwriting on the wall for decades that their job will be exported, and don't train themselves for something new, but just go on the public dole when their job finally disappears? Or they stupidly demand government tariffs or the like?

How many mothers with children have to get welfare because the mother made an obviously stupid choice in getting pregnant and then dumped by some creep?

How many geezers didn't provide for their old-age, thinking medicare/social security is supposed to be their retirement plan?

That is the whole point of Obamacare...

Progressives are looking for a Mao type social revolution where young progressives go around clubbing fat people and smokers because they believe they "cost them money."

Of course the government wants to control every aspect of your life...

Also, you think they knew what "lung cancer" was 150 years ago?

Not to mention there is no evidence to suggest smoking CAUSES cancer....

 

[Patrick2]

Think what it does to the nation's health bill (insurance premiums, medicare/medicaid costs) that there are lots of super-fat people who have never seen the inside of a gym.

About 150 years ago, doctors began to notice that it was smokers who were much more likely to get lung cancer.

How many druggies and drunks don't bother to pay for health insurance?

How many don't care what they eat, as long as it tastes good? Someone said in that department, americans are walking garbage cans.

How many gays think it's their constitutional right to screw each other w/o protection, and it's the taxpayer who must bail them out by paying for their meds plus zillions of dollars in research on the disease?

This extends of course beyond health related issues.

How many people have worked in maufacturing, not seen the handwriting on the wall for decades that their job will be exported, and don't train themselves for something new, but just go on the public dole when their job finally disappears? Or they stupidly demand government tariffs or the like?

How many mothers with children have to get welfare because the mother made an obviously stupid choice in getting pregnant and then dumped by some creep?

How many geezers didn't provide for their old-age, thinking medicare/social security is supposed to be their retirement plan?

That is the whole point of Obamacare...

Progressives are looking for a Mao type social revolution where young progressives go around clubbing fat people and smokers because they believe they "cost them money."

Of course the government wants to control every aspect of your life...

Also, you think they knew what "lung cancer" was 150 years ago?

Not to mention there is no evidence to suggest smoking CAUSES cancer....

Sorry, but you have it backwards: Obamacare came about because healthcare costs are high, they're high for a number of reasons but one big reason is how people trash their health. As for cancer, it has been known as a disease since ancient times (obviously, I mean the macroscopic manifestations, not that it is based on cell division) and its name was given by Hippocrates (ca. 460 BC – ca. 370 BC) who called it carcinos. I don't want to tell fat people or smokers what to do (as long as I don't have to breath their exhaust) but then by same token I shouldn't have to pay, even indirectly, for the consequences of their bad habits.