Willravel

TY, joshbaumgartner. Those were the stats I was looking for.

RB, yes you're right. Frankly it seems like ad hominem after ad hominem. Judge the film, not the filmmaker.

heccubusiv

I actually may have to speak for at least the big pharmacuetical industries, a lot of things they do is bullshit. Ambien CR(wtf) I am looking at the data as we speak and its impossible to tell Ambien from Ambien CR so its just big buisness trying to milk out a few more bucks. The same with Nexium and Prilosec, Celexa and Lexapro both sets of drugs have the same active ingredient but the only difference is that one is a racemate.

To stand up for them, its really expensive to make new drugs and for every drug that comes out about 19 or so fail. So they have to charge extra for the drugs to cover their costs on everything else. And since there is not a perfect drug, because to block a receptor means that something is not going to work and your body is going to compensate i.e Cox-2 blockers. So you have drugs have work really well and because of it are going to increase your cardiovasular risks.

To bash them again, for 1kg of quinapril(powder) in the us it costs 1M and to buy the same drug from spain is around 1,000. That just seems a little crazy

__________________
Fuck Ohio

Willravel

In Sicko, MM walked into a pharmacy in the UK and paid £6.95 ($13.82 US) for all prescription drugs. Unless they were poor. If they're poor they get them for free. In France, they're all free. The tax funded system picks up the tab.

jorgelito

This a great thread and great discussion, really involved.

Host, buddy, you need to relax man. I'm not sure how or why I offended you but you know, Jazz is an insurance professional/expert so it makes sense to seek his opinion. Similarly any doctors, lawyers on the board would contribute greatly to the thread.

This discussion has evolved alot since I last logged in so I don't know if it makes sense to respond to some of the replies to my earlier post. But I will do my best to advance the discussion.

Insurance is a great mystery to alot of us so it helps to get a basic understanding from a proifesisonal on how it works. It's a weird product and almost counter capitalism/consumerism. Ideally, you will be paying for something that hopefully you will never use. I think that screws with most people's economic philosophies.

I want to try and distill the issue further and spread it out a bit.

Some of the reasons people are against "socialized" medicine is because:

1. Fear that the state would be too incompetent or inefficient at administering the service of health care.

2. Raising of taxes.

3. The free rider or sucker principle - people are afaraid that they may pay a lot of taxes for minimal service" or that people who pay less taxes will reap more benefit.

I think somewhere in there, it is very possible that widely available, affordable, and accessible health care would increase the societies' aggregate health and reduce costs over the long run. I also think there would be a huge cost in the beginning but then, in theory, as people access preventive health care and such, then overall costs would start to come down.

Maybe the big hang up is that we are too afraid to give it a shot.

Part of the problem is political. No politician will be in office long enough to gain politically from such a major change and more likely will lose politically because of the long time frame for such an initiative. As a jumpy and impatient society, we need to see "instant results". The very nature of such paradigm shifting initiative implementation runs counter to our politics.

In the Hillary example, it's quite possible that if the Congress had implemented her program back then, then we would be seeing some of the results today, almost 15 years later in the form of better health for our society and lower costs. It's possible but no way to really tell.

Some people here are praising the French model. I would be interested in hearing more about it if anyone is in the know. How much does it cost? How is the quality of care? How is it viable? It sounds too good to be true - cheap/free healthcare for everyone? Surely there has to be a cost somewhere. What do the doctors and hospitals think? Is there insurance in France?

Most of us only hear stories (good or bad) regarding healthcare in other countries such as Canada or UK - it's cheap or free, long lines, poor quality and poor service, cheap or free drugs etc.

I think there has to be a compromise in there somewhere.

Maybe a basic healthcare system for everyone and private healthcare/insurance for those who want it. I think it could be possible to balance an affordable and accessible health care system for everyone. Preventive care goes a long way. EX: filling a cavity today saves you money and pain of a route canal later on. Regular checkups are cheaper (I think) than going to the ER because something you could have prevented got worse.

I think with a good basic healthcare system for everyone, I would still opt to buy a private healthcare plan as I got older, but if someone could not afford it, at least they would get some basic care. 42 million uninsured people having access to health care would go along way in bettering the aggregate health of of our country as a whole. I would guess that it would lead to healthier workers, happier workers and more productive workers.

This is all assuming people would actually use the health care especially for preentive purposes instead of letting things get out of hand or stop taking care of themselves.

Oh yeah, will, thanks for the links, I will look at them.

Also, I wasn't really looking for stats or figures per se, rather I wanted to hear your opinion on the role of the insurance industry in health care more in depth. Despite our differences, I do like to hear your opinion (I wasn't looking for an argument, more of a discussion).

On responsibility, I mean people who "hurt themselves" and thus putting unnecessary strin on the system and/or endangering other people. I realize this is a bit vague and even slippery slopish, but I find it very relevant to the discussion because it implies that extra "unnecessary cost could be placed ona unversal system needlessly. EX: in LA, many ERs were shut down in part because gangbangers keep shooting each other only to get patched up by the ER and then they are back at it again shooting each other only to end back up in the ER only to get patched up and then they are back at it again..... Or drug users that refuse to get help but then end up in the ER. Recover, then end back up in the ER. Or many people who can't afford to have children, do so anyways and go to the ER then keep on having kids and going to the ER. Or smokers who get sick and then end up in the hospital. I am not so sure I like the idea of a smoker getting free (costly) health care to treat something that they caused themselves. In that sense, it would feel like I am paying for someone elses irresponsible behavior. To put another twist on it: imagine free abortions courtesy of the state. So on and so forth.

Willravel

I couldn't agree more. This thread has been really impressive. Thanks to everyone that has contributed, and I cannot communicate how impressed I am that, despite slightly different methods, we all want the current system improved for the good of people.

ubertuber

I think that in a good universal care situation, you could hope that some of this would even out. Emergency Departments aren't swamped because of people getting shot, giving birth, etc. They are swamped because too many people use them in place of primary care - for sore throats, etc. The ED can't really turn those folks away without doing a workup, or else they'd be exposing themselves to horrible lawsuits - remember the little boy whose toothache became a lethal brain infection?

The good thing about universal care, if it were implemented well, is that people would go to their primary care physician for things and get them taken care of before they developed into costly, acute conditions. Not only that, but since people would have access to preventive care (think about heart monitoring, physicals, weight management, diabetic counseling) you could reduce the incidence of serious problems. I'm not imagining utopia, because I realize that laziness is a significant factor in poor health, just as cost of care is. However, if this hypothetical system were well implemented, it might restore balance to the way the medical system ought to be used.

I'm sympathetic to your feelings about responsibility, jorgelito, but I think that in practical terms you have to realize that we're already treating those people when they show up in the ED with conditions that are vastly more serious and costly than they would have been had the person addressed them at the proper time. Not having universal care doesn't get you out of paying for overnight detox for drug addicts, shot gang members, heart attacks in McDonald's addicts, etc.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

joshbaumgartner

Michael Moore's sppech in support of HR 676, which is Kucinich and Conyers' universal health care bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYnad...%2F4652%2Fplay

I've long been pulling for 676, and if this film can raise further support for it, then that is great.

Deltona Couple

OK, am I the only one here who is just curious as to how you know what "ass" tastes like Will?....lol

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Willravel

I went to college with people who like beer, so I've had someone fart in my face before. It's even less pleasant than one would imagine.

The_Jazz

Hippie.

(
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...30#post2269630 )

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

debaser

Just remember that Micheal Moore's skills in sophistry are only topped by Rush Limbaugh...

__________________

reconmike

I havent seen the film and I will not pay for it, so does the great MM mention trial lawyers in this masterpiece?

And how come trial lawyers haven't been mentioned in this thread?

I have a very good friend who is an ob-gyn here in Jersey, his malpractice insurance fee is well over 300k a year, thats right 300k.
Great doctor, delievered my first daughter, never had any real lawsuit brought up against him. Why should he have to pay that? So he can cover his
ass becuase some ambulance chaser sees a quick pay day?

Maybe along with the gnp per cost ratio maybe someone who loves the hell out of google could look up the lawsuit per insurance cost per GNP ratio.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

ubertuber

reconmike: perhaps you somehow missed posts 22 and 26 in your study of this thread. All of the talk about malpractice is really about trial lawyers.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

That's me!!!

Lawyers can be a problem to anyone for any reason. Many are a problem when it comes to health care, of course. There are plenty of frivolous lawsuits out there trying to take advantage of good, honest, hard working doctors who have done nothing wrong. Here's the deal: they can only screw up the system as much as judges allow them. Judges are some of the most important people in a democracy, as the weight of justice sits squarely on their shoulders. It's the judges like the McDonalds coffee judge, who allowed an idiot jury (you heard me, and IDIOT jury) to pay out $2.9 million to a woman who alleged that she didn't know coffee was hot, that really screw up things like health care. Prosecutors are required to do the best for whom they represent, by law. Unfortunately, when some ambulance chaser (that's the first time I've used that term to actually describe an ambulance chaser) sues a doctor who did nothing wrong, they are legally required to do everything within the law to win for their client. It's up to the jury, or if not that the judge to dispense justice.

reconmike

I did miss the 2 small blips on maybe a possibility for our healthcare woes, it must have happened while I had my scroll wheel's supercharger boost up too much.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Willravel

They have, now three times. That's 1 out of every 18 or so posts. The 'blips' covered a point you said wasn't covered. End of threadjack. If you want to discuss the point instead of sit outside throwing stones at the beautiful home we're building, go right ahead. This thread is going so well that no drive-bys can shake it, but we'd do even better if everyone came in here with something to add, discuss, or learn.

The_Jazz

Will, things like this REALLY irritate me. You've got the facts of the McDonald's case all mixed up, and it's blatant misrepresentation.

The plantiff originally asked for her medical and dry cleaning bills to be paid. McDonald's refused. She filed suit and specified an amount above $50,000 in damages (a requirement to keep it out of small claims court). The jury awarded punitive damages because they felt that McDonald's had ignored evidence that their coffee was served too hot and in containers that did not provide containment.

The plantiff did not allege that she didn't know the coffee was hot. She alleged that she didn't know that the coffee was 200 degrees. It was suposed to be served at 165 degrees but was much hotter, obviously. You'll also notice that McDonald's has redesigned the lid to their coffee cups recently, and that is a direct result of this case. If you remember, McDonald's used to have a flat white lid that peeled up. It didn't stay on very well. The plantiff alleged that the lid wasn't properly fastened by the employee when he handed it to her and that 200 degree coffee spilled all over her, resulting in 2nd and 3rd degree burns.

She tried to settle out of court. McDonald's told her to go pound sand. She took her case to court. The jury felt that McDonald's acted in bad faith. I don't disagree even though the award directly impacted a good friend of mine negatively (he was the underwriter for McDonald's liability coverage).

The judge did nothing wrong. The jury did nothing wrong. They both did their duties. Mentioning prosecutors is a big red herring since there was never a prosecutor in the courtroom unless one stopped by as an audience member. There were no criminal proceedings.

Back on topic, reconmike, I'm sorry that your doctor friend pays so much for insurance, but I suspect that you don't have the full story. The national average for OB/GYN professional insurance premiums (or malpractice) is $100,000. In New Jersey, it's probably $150,000.

So that leads me to believe at least one of these is true: a) the doctor has had a large judgement paid against him, b) he's getting sued a lot but not paying anything out (the most probable), c) he has a substance abuse problem or d) his practice encompasses more than the average OB/GYN's.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ubertuber

That's just bonkers... So, if you want to make any money, you have to earn $100k before you can start earning for your practice overhead before you can start earning for your salary.

When you look at that and think about the fact that OB/Gyn docs go to 4 years of school and do a residency that is 4+2+(1 to 3), it's no wonder doctors want to get paid.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

The_Jazz

Uber - interestingly (at least to me), the lowest premium is in the undisputed leader of all lawsuits - California. They've put a cap on malpractice payouts there that's been in place for about 25 years (I think) but with mixed results. I've heard that there's some aggitation to remove it from plantiffs and their attorneys, but I can understand that. It's hard to accept when the doctor actually did something wrong that the payment for lifelong care for the injured party won't even get close to making it right.

There are good sides and bad sides to everything.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

reconmike

Sorry Will, what do you mean "no drive-bys" ? I have seen Host do it a couple of times. Slitting throats? Atleast the people with their throats cut will be able to get the finest doctors to sew them up.

Will, you said the French pay 20% of their salary to the cost of socialized medicine, how is that possible here when the bottom 40% of the people in the US do not pay a dime in income tax? Do you propose that we start taxing these people 20% of their income so they can have health insurance?

Someone earning 30k a year would now be taxed 6k to be covered by the government, or will it be just like everything else in this country, the top 50%
will have to carry the burden for the rest?

My recent visit to the ER a few weeks ago, (while washing a pint glass it broke with my hand in it, ripping my hand open and cutting a tendon), when I got there the place was packed, immigrants for a far as the eye could see.
When I was triaged I asked the nurse if it was always this crowded and she told me it was, because they know no matter what they will be treated.
This hospital has set up a "fast track" section to treat the "true" emergencies,
while leaving the people who use the ER as a doctors office to wait.
I am sure the people using this ER as a doctors office contribute to the high cost of the system. Will this hospital ever recoup the money they spent treating these patients? Or will it be passed on to others with insurance and their carriers?

The system needs something, whether it is socialized or not will be the big debate, but it somehow needs to be reformed.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Willravel

I meant that you jump in to a thread and post something short and snarky that doesn't add anything to the thread.
Host doesn't do short posts. Also, if people bothered to read his posts, they'd realize that he usually brought all necessary information about the thread subject to the table in one post.
Do you have a link explaining that the bottom 40% of Americans don't pay any income tax? Also, no one is suggesting we use the French system, which is way too expensive. I suspect we're doing something more similar to the UK or Canada systems, which are less expensive.
Oh good, I was hoping someone would bring up 'immigrants' in here. How dare they get medical treatment!!! They're dirty and foreign, and they aren't desperately capitalist like we are!

The current system was screwed up in that it assumes only people with money deserved to get medical treatment. Then people realized that wasn't fair at all and now hospitals are required to treat everyone.

Under socialized medicine everyone pays a little and everyone gets treatment. It's just like the taxes we all pay for fire protection.
Exactly.

Cynthetiq

Really? I'm curious because EMS services don't work that way.

Then I shouldn't have been given an invoice for a call from NYFD. Also there wouldn't be so many volunteer firemen and EMS services across the country.

Here in NYC I can call 911 and FDNY EMS shows up, they will send me a bill.

I can also call Hatzallah a volunteer Jewish organization. They will show up, and maybe ask for a donation. I say maybe because I don't know for sure.

I do know when I was run over on my motorcycle in Northern NJ, I was picked up by volunteer EMS called by the local city PD, and was told that I didn't have to pay for it.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

EMS = paramedics. Firefighters aren't EMS. That's why I said 'fire protection' and not 'EMS'.

Under socialized medicine, usually paramedics would be covered by the program.

reconmike

So rising up and slicing throats contributes to this discussion or any for that matter?

Here is a link showing 2004 stats, I read that tax year 2006 was 40% but until
I can find the stats I'll amend my statement and say 32% do not pay any income tax. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

I never said how dare they get treatment, I said they use the ERs as a normal
doctors visit, why because they know if they have a cold the ER will treat them for it. And bringing up immigrants is a very legitimate topic. If they do not pay into any system or pay for the services they recieve, someone else will have to pay for it.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Cynthetiq

Now I had to look because I recall being asked to suppor the fire department at one time, but Suffolk County and Nassau County, both very high property taxes all have Volunteer Firemen to cover their territory. It is ALL of Long Island.

So when I lived there I didn't pay for fire protection. The local fire departments had to raise funds to cover their firehouses.

Many fire protection services in the Northeast are volunteer organizations.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

I didn't make you drive by. I'm trying to keep this thing going, and I don't want to see a whole bunch of yellow mod messages because people can't contribute.
I wonder how many of those 32% have poor or don't have medical coverage.
Which is why socialized medicine makes sense. Imagine that part of income tax goes to pay for all medicine. That means everyone, citizen or undocumented guest worker, pays for medical.

Cynthetiq

where did they pay if those 32% did not pay federal taxes? I'll shelve the immigrants since there are a number that "pay" taxes or have them withheld from their wages and do not file for them at the end of the year.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Honestly? Either everyone should pay income taxes of some kind or no one should. Lower income people should pay lower taxes, of course, but they should still pay. OR. No one should pay any income tax, and sales tax should increase. Either way it's about everyone paying into a mutually beneficial system.

Again, sales tax is something everyone pays. It would seem fair that if everyone is going to be given access to a health care system, everyone should pay something.

host

IMO, sales taxes are akin to abortion restriction. The wealthy have the option to travel outside the jusrisdiction of both the tax, and the restriction. They can opt to make their big ticket purchases or obtain safe clinical abortion where the taxes are low, or where abortion is legally unrestricted.

The only way to collect taxes is on the record of receipt of income. We enjoyed deficit reduction by the end of 1999, that saw only an $18 billion annual treasury debt increase, that year....compared to an average of $412 billion per year, since the Cheney driven, $1.3 billion tax cut was passed by a republican controlled congress and executive branch.

In addtion, the wealthy cease to experience 7-3/4 percent FICA withholding on income above $100K, each year. The poor pay FICA withholding on every dime that they earn. The wealthy have access and influence over elected officials, access to the best legal defense and protections, hedge fund access, etc., etc......and the best tax attorneys and accoutants...and everyone else does not.

I cannot agree with you, Will. Not when half the country owns just 2-1/2 percent of all of the assets, and the top marginal rate on income above $400k per year has been reduced from 90 percent in 1960, to less than 40 percent, today. A progressive tax that is just a bit higher than the certainly reasonable income tax structure that was in place in 1999, would cause no hardship and it would help to lower the deficit. A 7-3/4 percent withholding from folks who make less than ten bucks an hour, is already quite enough, IMO.....

Cynthetiq

so either way then everyone has less money in their pockets. am I correct in that assessment? either taxes are taken out from everyone or national sales tax. I'm making sure you are in agreement, that people across the board will have less money in their pockets, especially the poor. yes?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Well this thread is about correcting bullshit things like that. The rich don't get a pass. Everyone pays, and if you don't you go to pound me in the ass prison. I don't have a solution to the outside the US tax thing, but that hardly means there is no solution.

This is about planning for progress.
Then we need to hold these elected officials to the fire. If you bribe someone, the government ceases your assets and starts a college fund.
Completely, totally, wholly, and utterly wrong. Everyone will get heath care, and they'll get it dramatically cheaper than it is now. Those who can't afford health care now, when they become sick or need medical assistance, pay through the nose for it. They won't be paying that anymore. Everyone saves a lot of money for health care from the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor.

Cynthetiq

I did not note any amounts, especially the poor implies that you are removing their ability to chose to forgo the costs. When I was younger and didn't have as many medical conditions, I saved that money by not paying into any insurance plan. It made the difference of having money to pay all the bills or not.

I'm just making sure that we agree that no one is getting a free ride. Since if it is cheaper for the poor it will also be cheaper for the rich.

so either way then everyone has less money in their pockets.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Choosing for forgo those costs? This isn't bubble-gum or something. While you never had any medical conditions when you were younger, did you ever see the doctor? Ever get a cold, chicken pox, or a flu? Ever need prescription drugs? Everyone gets sick; be they poor or rich. Everyone needs health care available to them.

I, personally, think it would only be fair if everyone paid into the program, but the poor paid less. If you make $300k a year, paying a higher percentage isn't as detrimental as it is if you make $20k a year.

The bottom line is that everyone has more money in their pockets and everyone has health coverage.

Cynthetiq

Sure, when I was a child. But once I hit 23 and was not in college, I had no medical coverage until I was 27.

No I did not go to the doctor. I did not go to any hospital, I did not get any prescription drugs. Medical insurance does not cover buying Tylenol nor Nyquil. So explain to me how I would have more money in my pocket if I paid into a system that I did not want pay into? I wanted to pay my bills at that time, choosing insurance was $50 out of my paycheck every 2 weeks, $100 each month. When I was making $700 take home a month, how is paying $100 having more money in my pocket?

Again, I CHOOSE to forgo participating in the system. How is that fair to be forced to participate where I don't want to?

Edit: Sorry I forgot when I was 23 and had no insurance I was run over on Route 4 in NJ on my motorcycle. My bills were paid for by the person's insurance that hit me.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

reconmike

Host in 1960 that tax law was crazy, so in 1960 if I earned 400k I would net 40k for the year, while someone earning 60k would net more? No wonder it was changed, not only wasn't it fair but completely asinine.

And the people earning $10 dollars an hour have fica withheld so they have that little safety blanket called social security when the retire or they die trying and their spouses need it.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Willravel

So because you've been fortunate, you clearly have no need for medical treatment in the future and everyone else gets your middle finger.

Think about that. Does that really make sense to you?

Cynthetiq

No I made CHOICES. Had I been unfortunate, then it would be my fault. It was my gamble and it paid off for me.

Today I cherish my healthcare coverage because the 3 times I have been hospitalized would have financially ruined me. But I pay for that system, I also CHOOSE my employment based on criteria like health care benefits.

I'm stating that you have stated in other threads about freedom of choice, but here I cannot chose to opt out of a health care system? Think about that for a moment. How is THAT freedom?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

The_Jazz

As I've stated previously in this thread, going without health insurance is stupid, as you almost found out.

That said, you've (the plural) got a right to be a moron as long as it only affects you.

And just because I said that you're a moron doesn't make it so.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

'Freedom of choice'? What the hell does that mean?

You keep pretending like this is a 'freedom to choose' for yourself. It's not. You're making the call for the 45 million Americans who don't have coverage. Maybe you can explain to those who cannot afford it but need it how your decision is about your own 'freedom of choice'.

Cynthetiq

My own freedom to chose to NOT belong to an encompassing system. What if I don't want to? Just like I chose to not to pay into any health care coverage. I'm not making the call for no 45 Million other people. I'm talking about my own decision for my own life and my money.


You are stating that I'd have to all pay into a system. I've shown you that if I paid into a system back in the day when I chose not to it saved me $100/month. It made the difference between having enough money for all my bills and not having enough money.

Where is my freedom to choose under your socialized medicine? I don't want to participate in it. Can I not participate?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.