Obama seeks $634B over 10 years for health care

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

And the wheel keeps rolling. The best part is that this is only half the budgeted cost of Obamacare, and that healthcare costs always increase faster than politicians say they do because we insist on giving Cheney quality healthcare to those who don't merit it.

The only health care Cheney merits is a montly visit to his cell at Guantanamo. :|

If you don't have health insurance, you have the same option as those dumbass Republican governors who would rather let their citizens suffer than accept any Federal assistance -- You can decline to accept any help getting it. If you lose the bet, the world won't miss you.

Well, that's the point exactly. A bunch of the people who don't have health insurance are unprodutives who won't be missed.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Thanks for your insight Hayabusa Rider. I have some relatives who are in healthcare as well and they have told me that UHC wouldn't work.

More of the same (from politicians).

UHC can work, and does work every day in dozens of countries around the world.

Are you trying to say that the greatest country in the history of the world can't do what these people do? Absolute silliness.

You're saying that what works for other countries would definitely work here because all countries have identical societal/political situations?

Please describe the differences in our societies that you think make UHC work there and not here. I'll be very interested to hear them.

PS: Germany does in fact have universal health care.

 

[jpeyton]

I'm not buying this straw man argument anymore, and neither are the ~60 million Americans who elected Obama to make major health care reforms.

This argument about UHC dramatically reducing the quality of the health care we receive, or about how we can't afford it, is complete horse shit.

We already pay more per capita for health care and medication than any other large western nation. The lack of UHC makes our average citizen poorer, taxes the resources of our average company harder, and creates an environment where absolute profit takes a much higher priority than providing the care one needs.

UHC is coming. The Democrats have a strong enough position in government to push it through without significant GOP support.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm not buying this straw man argument anymore, and neither are the ~60 million Americans who elected Obama to make major health care reforms.

This argument about UHC dramatically reducing the quality of the health care we receive, or about how we can't afford it, is complete horse shit.

We already pay more per capita for health care and medication than any other large western nation. The lack of UHC makes our average citizen poorer, taxes the resources of our average company harder, and creates an environment where absolute profit takes a much higher priority than providing the care one needs.

UHC is coming. The Democrats have a strong enough position in government to push it through without significant GOP support.

Because the government runs things so well like public schools. The government will either ration health care or the cost will skyrocket. Right now we can not afford it we have to many free loaders who are in this country illegally who are sucking the system dry. I am still waiting for all the examples of other countries with UHC that have 10s of millions of illegals sucking the system dry.

Who the hell is going to pay for it. The evil rich people don't have enough money and the poor don't pay taxes. You would have to crush the middle class by doubling or tripling their taxes just to get started.

Also we can not get costs down till the public starts to eat better and do some exercise. The biggest reason for our high health care cost is we are a nation of 300 pounds who are on 1000 different meds for the complications of being morbidly obese.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: chess9

""We see people having equitable access to affordable and appropriate health care regardless of geography, income, age, gender," said an Ontario Ministry of Health annual report. And, "In Germany, we operate under the social solidarity principle," explained Johann Fann, a top executive with the Bavarian AOK. "The rich pay for the poor, the young for the old, the well for the sick." Although both Canada and Germany are market-based economies, they have taken health care largely out of the marketplace. Unlike England, they do not have socialized medicine. The government controls overall spending, but hospitals and doctors operate independently of the government."

http://findarticles.com/p/arti.../is_n3_v26/ai_14882974

People abuse all healthcare systems, including our current one. Some people are just whiners. Republicans and Democrats. Regardless, in an NHS style system, you have to take off work, then go and sit for an hour to be waited on. Getting care is not instantaneous, but you'd better be sick because you can be made REDUNDANT in England in a heartbeat in today's economy. You don't want to lose your job because you are a whiner. In fact, they've found most people avoid going to the doctor in England because it is a spot of bother. Disincentives to abuse are easy to find.

Health care should be guaranteed to all human beings. It's a basic right.

-Robert

That's the difference between the United States and Europe. We really don't have such thing as a "social solidarity", at least it's not important in our culture. When you think about it people back in the day got by just fine, and they had no government to help them. I'm not saying that applies today, but I still think that's what makes America unique compared to Europe.

I make good decisions to keep myself healthy. I rarely go to the doctor and rarely get medicine, and I'm thankful for not having anything passed on due to heritage. As I said before I think the risk of having genetically related diseases should be shared amongst the society, but other than that I think subsidizing people who decide to make bad decisions about their health and body is a horrible idea.

The main problem is that we spend a crapload of money of our GDP on healthcare. All the pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, greedy lawyers want to make money. blah blah blah. Americans are too selfish to have something like this work. I for one would not want to pay for someone else's stomach bypass surgery, but maybe some politicians who want to get reelected would since it isn't their money. Unless you start changing people's behaviors towards many things (health being one of them) this WILL make America bankrupt.

As a side: there is a reason why doctors in Germany are leaving in droves because they can make more money elsewhere and the hospitals treat the new doctors like crap.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Please describe the differences in our societies that you think make UHC work there and not here. I'll be very interested to hear them.

PS: Germany does in fact have universal health care.

See the last post about differences between Europe and the US.

Not the same form as is proposed by the Obama administration now. Germans (aside from smoking) in general are much healthier than Americans.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm not buying this straw man argument anymore, and neither are the ~60 million Americans who elected Obama to make major health care reforms.

This argument about UHC dramatically reducing the quality of the health care we receive, or about how we can't afford it, is complete horse shit.

We already pay more per capita for health care and medication than any other large western nation. The lack of UHC makes our average citizen poorer, taxes the resources of our average company harder, and creates an environment where absolute profit takes a much higher priority than providing the care one needs.

UHC is coming. The Democrats have a strong enough position in government to push it through without significant GOP support.

Because the government runs things so well like public schools. The government will either ration health care or the cost will skyrocket. Right now we can not afford it we have to many free loaders who are in this country illegally who are sucking the system dry. I am still waiting for all the examples of other countries with UHC that have 10s of millions of illegals sucking the system dry.

Who the hell is going to pay for it. The evil rich people don't have enough money and the poor don't pay taxes. You would have to crush the middle class by doubling or tripling their taxes just to get started.

Also we can not get costs down till the public starts to eat better and do some exercise. The biggest reason for our high health care cost is we are a nation of 300 pounds who are on 1000 different meds for the complications of being morbidly obese.

I feel like talking to partisan hacks is just wasting your time. People who believe that Democrats (or Republicans) can do no wrong and completely refuses to even try to see where the other side comes from. That's primarily why our government is so dysfunctional.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Because the government runs things so well like public schools. The government will either ration health care or the cost will skyrocket. Right now we can not afford it we have to many free loaders who are in this country illegally who are sucking the system dry. I am still waiting for all the examples of other countries with UHC that have 10s of millions of illegals sucking the system dry.

Who the hell is going to pay for it. The evil rich people don't have enough money and the poor don't pay taxes. You would have to crush the middle class by doubling or tripling their taxes just to get started.

Also we can not get costs down till the public starts to eat better and do some exercise. The biggest reason for our high health care cost is we are a nation of 300 pounds who are on 1000 different meds for the complications of being morbidly obese.

What you should be doing instead is educating yourself on the cost burden of illegal immigrants on the health care system, and realizing that it is not a significant contributor to our problems.

In addition, considering the middle class currently pays about 30% taxes, you are trying to claim we would be paying 60-90% taxes to fund UHC. This is obviously a ridiculous exaggeration. You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that while our taxes would go up, we would then no longer have to pay the trillions of dollars we privately pay each year for health care. As Zebo has linked in the past, obese people are actually cheaper to treat overall as they tend not to live that far into old age, where the vast majority of lifetime health care dollars are actually spent.

And alphatarget, if you can't think of some better reasons then a nebulous appeal to 'social solidarity', you have to admit your argument for why UHC wouldn't work here is mighty, mighty weak.

EDIT: I have seen no credible evidence that would suggest Germans are so much healthier than Americans that we are twice as expensive to keep alive for the same period of time. Do you have any studies to back this up?

 

[Pneumothorax]

Here ya go.

Keep in mind it takes ALOT of pounds to raise a national average BMI level, so we are the sickest/fattest people. Another statistic is that hispanics, on average, a much more susceptible to develop diabetes when being overweight and our fastest growing segment of the population is....

Another tidbit, UHC countries DO NOT extend the time people are kept on life support for the whims of the family. I saw this time and time again at county hospitals that basically funded by Medicaid. Family DEMANDS they keep 88 year old aunt bessy alive as long as possible in the ICU. 1. She's no longer conscious as her metastatic breast cancer has spread to her brain causing cerebral edema. 2. The hospital in many cases has to go to court to get the "plug pulled" as the family won't consent to it. Terry Schiavo is another good case of this kind of stuff. (It pissed the hell out of me to see the grandstanding that went on in Washington over this case.)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
Here ya go.

Keep in mind it takes ALOT of pounds to raise a national average BMI level, so we are the sickest/fattest people. Another statistic is that hispanics, on average, a much more susceptible to develop diabetes when being overweight and our fastest growing segment of the population is....

Another tidbit, UHC countries DO NOT extend the time people are kept on life support for the whims of the family. I saw this time and time again at county hospitals that basically funded by Medicaid. Family DEMANDS they keep 88 year old aunt bessy alive as long as possible in the ICU. 1. She's no longer conscious as her metastatic breast cancer has spread to her brain causing cerebral edema. 2. The hospital in many cases has to go to court to get the "plug pulled" as the family won't consent to it. Terry Schiavo is another good case of this kind of stuff. (It pissed the hell out of me to see the grandstanding that went on in Washington over this case.)

Your link doesn't do anything to prove any point one way or the other. There are studies out that say overweight/obese people cost LESS to treat over the course of their life than more fit people, because overweight people tend to drop dead before they reach the years where you consume most of your health care spending. In order to prove what you're trying to do, you will now need to find evidence showing that increased BMI directly relates to larger health care costs over the span of someone's entire life.

Text

With respect to your tidbit, it would appear that you are speaking in favor of rationing health care, a frequent talking point used to fight against UHC.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

And alphatarget, if you can't think of some better reasons then a nebulous appeal to 'social solidarity', you have to admit your argument for why UHC wouldn't work here is mighty, mighty weak.

EDIT: I have seen no credible evidence that would suggest Germans are so much healthier than Americans that we are twice as expensive to keep alive for the same period of time. Do you have any studies to back this up?

I'm not trying to convince any of you that UHC wouldn't work in America. It seems like the sentiment is that people who support UHC thinks that somehow we could fund some sort of system that would allow anyone to get the most expensive procedure to save their lives. You are opening up a huge can of worms after the public has been given the "right" to healthcare.

Basic healthcare like vaccination, going to see a doctor and all of that should be available at a reasonable cost. I have a feeling that with an aging population and politicians wanting to win reelections that the cost of UHC will be astronomical once politicians start promising more and more things and stick the bill to their grand kids.

I don't see the government pushing harder to recommend people to live healthier lives. That would be a rather affordable proposition wouldn't you think if our population becomes less prone to illnesses that are due to poor life choices don't you think? Let's get the cost under control before start promising people more crap we cannot afford. I fully expect that a Democratic congress without oversight will drive us further into debt, and pushing UHC at a time where we as a nation is so broke certainly won't help.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the government runs things so well like public schools.

The public schools and state universities I attended were excellent. To say that 100% of public education is sub-par is ignorant.

The government will either ration health care or the cost will skyrocket.

Costs are already sky high and we don't have UHC. Rationing? Now you sound like Socio.

Right now we can not afford it we have to many free loaders who are in this country illegally who are sucking the system dry.

Quite possibly the weakest argument I've heard yet. I'm not going to suffer without UHC because we can't properly secure our borders.

Who the hell is going to pay for it. The evil rich people don't have enough money and the poor don't pay taxes. You would have to crush the middle class by doubling or tripling their taxes just to get started.

Another straw man. Boogey boogey boo, Obama is going to raise your taxes! I make less than $200,000/year, and my taxes are going down. I'll believe it when I see it.

Also we can not get costs down till the public starts to eat better and do some exercise. The biggest reason for our high health care cost is we are a nation of 300 pounds who are on 1000 different meds for the complications of being morbidly obese.

Read up on Obama's plan for health care reform; it covers this.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
Here ya go.

Keep in mind it takes ALOT of pounds to raise a national average BMI level, so we are the sickest/fattest people. Another statistic is that hispanics, on average, a much more susceptible to develop diabetes when being overweight and our fastest growing segment of the population is....

Another tidbit, UHC countries DO NOT extend the time people are kept on life support for the whims of the family. I saw this time and time again at county hospitals that basically funded by Medicaid. Family DEMANDS they keep 88 year old aunt bessy alive as long as possible in the ICU. 1. She's no longer conscious as her metastatic breast cancer has spread to her brain causing cerebral edema. 2. The hospital in many cases has to go to court to get the "plug pulled" as the family won't consent to it. Terry Schiavo is another good case of this kind of stuff. (It pissed the hell out of me to see the grandstanding that went on in Washington over this case.)

Your link doesn't do anything to prove any point one way or the other. There are studies out that say overweight/obese people cost LESS to treat over the course of their life than more fit people, because overweight people tend to drop dead before they reach the years where you consume most of your health care spending. In order to prove what you're trying to do, you will now need to find evidence showing that increased BMI directly relates to larger health care costs over the span of someone's entire life.

Text

With respect to your tidbit, it would appear that you are speaking in favor of rationing health care, a frequent talking point used to fight against UHC.

BMI is also a dreadful way of measuring bodyfat. I have a BMI of 25, but I'm about 11% bodyfat this a.m. But, generally I agree with pneumothorax's post above, particularly about life saving measures. What a waste of time and money and medical talent to do that! Also, Americans are so bloody fat and unfit it's disgusting. My brother wanted to go to Wal-Mart last week, so I drove him over there and couldn't believe my eyes. Do all the world's fattest people congregate there?

And to be poor and fat is downright awful because you are compounding your woes.

Oh, and the number of doctors who are fat fucks is unbelieveable. Sheezh, being fit should be a job requirement for physicians....

-Robert

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Your link doesn't do anything to prove any point one way or the other. There are studies out that say overweight/obese people cost LESS to treat over the course of their life than more fit people, because overweight people tend to drop dead before they reach the years where you consume most of your health care spending. In order to prove what you're trying to do, you will now need to find evidence showing that increased BMI directly relates to larger health care costs over the span of someone's entire life.

Text

With respect to your tidbit, it would appear that you are speaking in favor of rationing health care, a frequent talking point used to fight against UHC.

In my 8 years of practice so far I've done the death certificates on quite a number of 70+ year olds with 35+ BMI's

You asked for some data here you go
25% greater costs for overweight patients, 44% HIGHER for obese patients

same study but in graph form

Text on the bottom is telling: from lean to overweight 28 BMI it's 20% increase in lifetime, ~33 BMI raises it by 50% and morbid obesity ~38 BMI costs are DOUBLE!

So unless you're going to put a "sugar/fat tax" on donuts and big macs, our health will just get alot more expensive. So far, the us population has shown NO reduction in average weight in the last 50 years lol.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Your link doesn't do anything to prove any point one way or the other. There are studies out that say overweight/obese people cost LESS to treat over the course of their life than more fit people, because overweight people tend to drop dead before they reach the years where you consume most of your health care spending. In order to prove what you're trying to do, you will now need to find evidence showing that increased BMI directly relates to larger health care costs over the span of someone's entire life.

Text

With respect to your tidbit, it would appear that you are speaking in favor of rationing health care, a frequent talking point used to fight against UHC.

In my 8 years of practice so far I've done the death certificates on quite a number of 70+ year olds with 35+ BMI's

You asked for some data here you go
25% greater costs for overweight patients, 44% HIGHER for obese patients

same study but in graph form

Text on the bottom is telling: from lean to overweight 28 BMI it's 20% increase in lifetime, ~33 BMI raises it by 50% and morbid obesity ~38 BMI costs are DOUBLE!

So unless you're going to put a "sugar/fat tax" on donuts and big macs, our health will just get alot more expensive. So far, the us population has shown NO reduction in average weight in the last 50 years lol.

So how do you explain the more recent studies that are saying otherwise? I'm just honestly asking. Do you think there was a flaw with their methodology?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
People who believe that Democrats (or Republicans) can do no wrong and completely refuses to even try to see where the other side comes from. That's primarily why our government is so dysfunctional.

There's some truth to that; even more, though I think is where people are ideologically driven to assume that each side is 'half right' and won't consider any other possibility.

 

[Draftee]

Spot on eskimospy. There are plenty of UHC systems around the world that work very well. A healthy society means a happier, more productive society. Why wouldn't you want to live like that? Everyone cries "socialism!!" but I don't think they realise the benefits to the individual AND the community, they just get hung up on the ideology.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Your link doesn't do anything to prove any point one way or the other. There are studies out that say overweight/obese people cost LESS to treat over the course of their life than more fit people, because overweight people tend to drop dead before they reach the years where you consume most of your health care spending. In order to prove what you're trying to do, you will now need to find evidence showing that increased BMI directly relates to larger health care costs over the span of someone's entire life.

Text

With respect to your tidbit, it would appear that you are speaking in favor of rationing health care, a frequent talking point used to fight against UHC.

In my 8 years of practice so far I've done the death certificates on quite a number of 70+ year olds with 35+ BMI's

You asked for some data here you go
25% greater costs for overweight patients, 44% HIGHER for obese patients

same study but in graph form

Text on the bottom is telling: from lean to overweight 28 BMI it's 20% increase in lifetime, ~33 BMI raises it by 50% and morbid obesity ~38 BMI costs are DOUBLE!

So unless you're going to put a "sugar/fat tax" on donuts and big macs, our health will just get alot more expensive. So far, the us population has shown NO reduction in average weight in the last 50 years lol.

The most profitable department in our hospital is the bariatric surgery department (i.e gastric bypass surgery). You can make loads of cash off of fat people, tell people to eat less and exercise (and dont flog them for months in the ICU when theyre going to die anyway), youll save loads money on health care.

Do dumbshits realize that since 1980 when indexed for inflation, the average physician salary is down 70% or so? Physician salary isnt the reason for high health care costs, astronomical drug costs, ancillary services, and bureaucratic overhead is largely responsible.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Your link doesn't do anything to prove any point one way or the other. There are studies out that say overweight/obese people cost LESS to treat over the course of their life than more fit people, because overweight people tend to drop dead before they reach the years where you consume most of your health care spending. In order to prove what you're trying to do, you will now need to find evidence showing that increased BMI directly relates to larger health care costs over the span of someone's entire life.

Text

With respect to your tidbit, it would appear that you are speaking in favor of rationing health care, a frequent talking point used to fight against UHC.

In my 8 years of practice so far I've done the death certificates on quite a number of 70+ year olds with 35+ BMI's

You asked for some data here you go
25% greater costs for overweight patients, 44% HIGHER for obese patients

same study but in graph form

Text on the bottom is telling: from lean to overweight 28 BMI it's 20% increase in lifetime, ~33 BMI raises it by 50% and morbid obesity ~38 BMI costs are DOUBLE!

So unless you're going to put a "sugar/fat tax" on donuts and big macs, our health will just get alot more expensive. So far, the us population has shown NO reduction in average weight in the last 50 years lol.

The most profitable department in our hospital is the bariatric surgery department (i.e gastric bypass surgery). You can make loads of cash off of fat people, tell people to eat less and exercise (and dont flog them for months in the ICU when theyre going to die anyway), youll save loads money on health care.

Do dumbshits realize that since 1980 when indexed for inflation, the average physician salary is down 70% or so? Physician salary isnt the reason for high health care costs, astronomical drug costs, ancillary services, and bureaucratic overhead is largely responsible.

Astronomical drugs correspond with astronomical research costs thanks to the lawsuit industry.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
HEALTHCARE!?!

PORKULOUS!!!!

/s

I suppose that was a generous characterization. A planetarium buried somewhere in Chicago might be useful at least if I ever visit.

Health care for unproductives....well...

A friend of mine is an ex-marine. He works a 50 hr/week job that, unfortunately, does not provide health care.

He has applied for health care with every insurance company, but they all denied him. He has a preexisting heart condition. The doctors say it's a minor condition, but no insurance company will cover him anyway. It's not a matter of the rates being too high, they simply deny him outright.

Oh but I guess he's an unproductive, fuck him

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Your link doesn't do anything to prove any point one way or the other. There are studies out that say overweight/obese people cost LESS to treat over the course of their life than more fit people, because overweight people tend to drop dead before they reach the years where you consume most of your health care spending. In order to prove what you're trying to do, you will now need to find evidence showing that increased BMI directly relates to larger health care costs over the span of someone's entire life.

Text

With respect to your tidbit, it would appear that you are speaking in favor of rationing health care, a frequent talking point used to fight against UHC.

In my 8 years of practice so far I've done the death certificates on quite a number of 70+ year olds with 35+ BMI's

You asked for some data here you go
25% greater costs for overweight patients, 44% HIGHER for obese patients

same study but in graph form

Text on the bottom is telling: from lean to overweight 28 BMI it's 20% increase in lifetime, ~33 BMI raises it by 50% and morbid obesity ~38 BMI costs are DOUBLE!

So unless you're going to put a "sugar/fat tax" on donuts and big macs, our health will just get alot more expensive. So far, the us population has shown NO reduction in average weight in the last 50 years lol.

The most profitable department in our hospital is the bariatric surgery department (i.e gastric bypass surgery). You can make loads of cash off of fat people, tell people to eat less and exercise (and dont flog them for months in the ICU when theyre going to die anyway), youll save loads money on health care.

Do dumbshits realize that since 1980 when indexed for inflation, the average physician salary is down 70% or so? Physician salary isnt the reason for high health care costs, astronomical drug costs, ancillary services, and bureaucratic overhead is largely responsible.

Astronomical drugs correspond with astronomical research costs thanks to the lawsuit industry.

The drug industry spends more on marketing than R&D.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
The drug industry spends significantly more on marketing and lobbying than R&D.

Fixed

 

[roboskier]

Originally posted by: winnar111
What else is in these bills?

1. $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa
2. $2 million ?for the promotion of astronomy? in Hawaii - because nothing says new jobs for average Americans like investing in astronomy
3. $332,000 for the design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas - not enough $ for schools in the stimulus?
4. $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York - quick peel me a grape.
5. $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi
6. $1 million for mormon cricket control in Utah - is that the species of cricket or a game played by the brits?
7. $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center - enough said
8. $200,000 ?tattoo removal violence outreach program to could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past? REALLY?
9. $475,000 to build a parking garage in Provo City, Utah
10. $1.7M ?for a honey bee factory? in Weslaco, TX

10million dollars! Thats pretty important when its one and a half thousenths of a percent of the total cost...

And while you're bitching about pork, 5/8 of the states you cited, and both Texas and Utah twice, are republican. Damn republicans taking YOUR money...

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: BigDH01
The drug industry spends significantly more on marketing and lobbying than R&D.

Fixed

That is true, which is why the first thing to do is to ban direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
HEALTHCARE!?!

PORKULOUS!!!!

/s

I suppose that was a generous characterization. A planetarium buried somewhere in Chicago might be useful at least if I ever visit.

Health care for unproductives....well...

A friend of mine is an ex-marine. He works a 50 hr/week job that, unfortunately, does not provide health care.

He has applied for health care with every insurance company, but they all denied him. He has a preexisting heart condition. The doctors say it's a minor condition, but no insurance company will cover him anyway. It's not a matter of the rates being too high, they simply deny him outright.

Oh but I guess he's an unproductive, fuck him

He should be able to get health care at the VA. I've been insured but use the VA facility for a lot of stuff 'cause it's cheaper. I also like talking to the older vets. Yeah, there are guys older than me.

No ex-Marine should be denied health care coverage! At least not since the battle for the Gilbert Islands and TARAWA. You guys have no idea what the Marines are asked to do, which is essentially to take the biggest risks in a conflict. Fuck all the right wing whiners complaining about socialism. The VA is socialism. Your military is socialism. Do you want to kiss them goodbye? If so, then kiss your sorry ass goodbye.

Only in America have we failed to realize the importance of universal health care. We are supposedly the most religious nation among the industrialized nations yet we don't care for our brothers? The right wing wants to be selfish pigs, and there is no other reason for their conduct.

I don't think one party has a lock on morality in government, but the Republicans are completely out of control with no meaningful agenda. We can hang them, ignore them, or medicate them, but we can't listen to them!

-Robert