Kinda health care related but not, should we really want to cover everyone always?
Today working for a news outlet we interviewed people with serious medical pre-existing conditions that couldn't get health care. One had cancer in remission, one had diabetes from childhood, and the last had AIDS. While I can understand treating people who couldn't help their ailments, what about things that could have been easily avoided?

The woman with AIDS had sex without a condom and surprise, surprise. Now she needs $2400 a month worth of medication which would effectively allow her to live with the disease problem free.

Why should "we the people" pay for people who are too dumb to put on a condom before fucking a skanky chick at a party? Why should we pay for the surgery of someone who can't put down the McBacon and go for a walk? Should we pay for the lung cancer and hospital visits of someone who smokes a pack a day? Obviously this is a bit calous (and exaggerated) but why should the responsible pay for the irresponsible?

I'm curious what people think, what other countries do with their universal healthcare, and so forth.

Kinda health care related but not, should we really want to cover everyone always?
Today working for a news outlet we interviewed people with serious medical pre-existing conditions that couldn't get health care. One had cancer in remission, one had diabetes from childhood, and the last had AIDS. While I can understand treating people who couldn't help their ailments, what about things that could have been easily avoided?

The woman with AIDS had sex without a condom and surprise, surprise. Now she needs $2400 a month worth of medication which would effectively allow her to live with the disease problem free.

Why should "we the people" pay for people who are too dumb to put on a condom before fucking a skanky chick at a party? Why should we pay for the surgery of someone who can't put down the McBacon and go for a walk? Should we pay for the lung cancer and hospital visits of someone who smokes a pack a day? Obviously this is a bit calous (and exaggerated) but why should the responsible pay for the irresponsible?

I'm curious what people think, what other countries do with their universal healthcare, and so forth.


Sorry but condoms break, and cigs are addictive... The people can still be stupid though and make us pay for them which I understand is your point. The question is, should the good be let to die along with the bad?, as there is no perfect system.

Why? Because we are humans, all of us. Why should we pay for Jews with Tay-Sachs disease, after all it is something that Jews get. Shouldn't they know better than to have kids?

What about those Blacks with Sickle Cell? They knew there was a risk of a child having that disease, after all they are black.


What about those asthmatics, they muck up the emergency rooms on high pollen and high pollution days.

Then there are those poor people who in order to eat buy that cheap shit food, the 10 cans of Chef Boy-Ardee for $10.00 on sale, the non organic growth hormone filled milk they give their kids. The cheap shit HI-C juice that says it is full of vitamins and iron and has 100% of your daily need of vitamin C...less expensive than the fresh fruit or Organic Orange jiuce my kids get. If only those poor people would just work harder then they could make enough money to eat all healthy and stuff.

There is a little saying that seems to be lacking in our society, particularly among those born into and who grew up in the latter half of the 80s and through the 90's.

"There but for the grace of God go I" Read it, live it. You'll be a far better person for it.

The problem is this:

No, I think the woman who had unprotected sex with an unfamiliar partner should not be covered. Her careless actions should carry a negative consequence.

However, what about the loving wife who gives it up to her husband regularly, only to find out his mistress gave him HIV and now she has it too? Or the child born to an addict mother, or any other number of ways for someone to unknowingly, or unwillingly contract it.

We should not have to pay for people's stupidity, however the only ways to completely eliminate that are going to catch too many 'innocent bystanders" in the culling. So in the end we're going to foot the bill for the retarded as well as the unfortunate.

Even better yet, why are we paying for this scumbag? Dick Armey. He doesn't think anyone should be covered. Watch the video, short and informative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/bill-moyers-tea-party-org_n_291625.html


He has probably done more damage to the image of the Tea Party people than any single person.

If you start down that path, no one would ever be covered for anything, ever. What about people who have a genetic predisposition for a certain type of behavior (Such as alcoholism) but does not take a drink?

"Sorry sir, we'd love to cover you, but your screening shows, you may become an alcoholic some day in the future, and we can't afford to take that risk."

If you start down that path, no one would ever be covered for anything, ever. What about people who have a genetic predisposition for a certain type of behavior (Such as alcoholism) but does not take a drink?

"Sorry sir, we'd love to cover you, but your screening shows, you may become an alcoholic some day in the future, and we can't afford to take that risk."

That is true, besides it being totally irrelevant to the topic. If someone was an alcoholic and drank so much he developed liver disease, I wouldn't think that my medical premiums and my tax money should cover that person's liver transplant surgery. That isn't him not being covered for other medical expenses unrelated to his drinking habits.

Sure, I can certainly see people getting screwed either way. And I'm probably one of the further left bleeding heart liberals on this forum anymore, but its certainly something that should be thought about in my mind and hasn't quite been addressed.

46 million Americans are without health insurance. Half of these are minorities (15 million of those are Hispanic, 7 million of those are African American). Juxtapose this with half a million AIDS/HIV cases in the US, 72% of all HIV/AIDS cases are minority cases, and 60% of those are uninsured/underinsured. Its going to be a huge new expense picked up by the public while potentially causing people to take less steps to prevent themselves from getting sick.

Currently health insurance premiums are dependent on certain factors. If you smoke, it costs more, because you are more likely to get sick. If you are overweight, it costs more. With a universal plan, or a "public option", or anything that provides health care for all, how can we expect health care costs to go down without any disincentive for poor choices?

Much like how if you drive recklessly and accrue points on your license, your health insurance costs go up, only in the health care system there is no equivalent to suspending a license.

Not covering people who are may be at fault for the problem sounds nice, but in reality it's not at all realistic due to how subjective and problematic it would be. Elemak's last line summed it up well.

Much like how if you drive recklessly and accrue points on your license, your health insurance costs go up, only in the health care system there is no equivalent to suspending a license.


Yes there is, it's called death.

Considering you burn in hell for an eternity for wearing a condom, can't blame them!

On a real note, you can still get aids even with condoms, so its not really fair to ignore folks, unless I suppose they are stupid enough to admit it.

The AIDS thing is a tough question and a good point, but it's really insignificant in the big picture. Obesity and its various symptoms is the most expensive health issue in the country and it leads to more deaths than anything else too.

People are always clamoring for a cancer "cure", but if we want to be pragmatists about it, something drastic must be done about obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc. At the rate we're going, it's not unthinkable that our average lifespan will start decreasing.

If someone was an alcoholic and drank so much he developed liver disease, I wouldn't think that my medical premiums and my tax money should cover that person's liver transplant surgery.

What about treatment programs and counseling? maybe medication? or even psycological care that often accompanies the worst of the substance abusers?
Is not the point of requiring coverage instead of flat out denial getting the system pushed towards prevention?

I lol'd Chanur! thats the major problem i have with the Catholic church and thier assanine stance on birth control. can you imagine the positive effects it would have on many third world nations if the Pope whould just come out tell them to wrap that puppy!

There needs to be a way to incentivise healthy lifestyles. The only way you can do that is with cost. Maybe have different levels of co pays for different categories of ailments. A person who needs a lung removed from smoking for 30 years should pay through the nose for it.

I already proposed the car insurance model, but someone poo pooed it for some reason that sounded good but I dont remember what it was.

How can one argue against abortion due to the philosophy that ALL life is sacred, and then make determinations about which lives deserve medical care for their conditions?

How can one argue against abortion due to the philosophy that ALL life is sacred, and then make determinations about which lives deserve medical care for their conditions?

Who did that, exactly?

Sounds to me like a philosophical point that anyone who is pro life must be in favor of equal health care for all.

How can one argue against abortion due to the philosophy that ALL life is sacred, and then make determinations about which lives deserve medical care for their conditions?

I don't subscribe myself, but I think the argument is that an unborn fetus hasn't yet had the chance to screw up and get AIDS through unprotected sex or gorge itself on McD's.

I don't subscribe myself, but I think the argument is that an unborn fetus hasn't yet had the chance to screw up and get AIDS through unprotected sex or gorge itself on McD's.


So it's not really pro life, it's pro fetus?

They aren't bombing abortion clinics because they're worried about the death panels getting grandma.

This all begs the question of if we still want to take the Darwinian approach or not. In the USA as of right now, the more you pay the better your chances are of getting good medical coverage. Even then, the chances are still iffy. There have been plenty of examples the past six months of how many of our nations most wealthy, famous and influential people, with access to the best care......died anyway. If you are impoverished, then you have to be mindful of how your treat your body and the risks you take if you can't afford the fallout of a hospital stay or prolonged illness. If you are poor, well, the smart choice is to not smoke, drink rarely and in moderation when choosing to drink and stay active while carefully selecting the best food for the money. Of course you could choose to smoke 2 packs a day, drink a bottle of cheap booze a night and get by on beanie weenies exclusively. Sorry, but I am not sure if I want to pay tax dollars to keep someone like that alive if they get cancer or cirrhosis. There has to be a limitation. Either people HAVE to clean their act up or not be covered. Granted there is money to be made keeping those alive that really should be left to die as penance for bad decision making.

If it were up to me, the low cost insurance option should require a thorough screening and there should be an appreciable demonstration that a potential recipient has the means to live a somewhat healthy life. Otherwise, pay full cost or go without. Honestly I don't see this health care debate making ANYONE happy in the end. There are too many reasons to let the most hopelessly ill die and way too many reasons to not offer coverage to people who made poor decisions in life. In most of the history of Humanity, the sickly and the weak were a burden and if left to fend for themselves would usually die off and thus remove that weak bit of genetics from the species. Granted we have come a long way as a species and actually DO have the ability to take care of the most sickly of our kind, but should we? The world is rampantly over populated and with all those people whose activities are pumping out carbon and squandering resources then I would just assume offer the chance for a healthy life to those that might actually know how to best take advantage of that gift. Otherwise, consider yourself fucked. We all have to die eventually and if you were stupid or hopelessly unlucky then consider it a gift that anyone even bothered to keep you around to run up a huge tab at all, insurance or not. It was not so long ago when you would just be left for dead.

BTW, I can't be completely heartless in this argument. My own dear ole' dad got lymphoma about 10 years back. I could not think of what it would be like if he did not have a good medical plan because he beat the cancer. Granted he is comfortably well off, but if he wasn't and could not afford to pay for treatment I would find it hard to just let him linger in pain and then die. As far as I know, he is still covered to this day which is a comfort for everyone.

That is true, besides it being totally irrelevant to the topic. If someone was an alcoholic and drank so much he developed liver disease, I wouldn't think that my medical premiums and my tax money should cover that person's liver transplant surgery. That isn't him not being covered for other medical expenses unrelated to his drinking habits.

Sure, I can certainly see people getting screwed either way. And I'm probably one of the further left bleeding heart liberals on this forum anymore, but its certainly something that should be thought about in my mind and hasn't quite been addressed.

46 million Americans are without health insurance. Half of these are minorities (15 million of those are Hispanic, 7 million of those are African American). Juxtapose this with half a million AIDS/HIV cases in the US, 72% of all HIV/AIDS cases are minority cases, and 60% of those are uninsured/underinsured. Its going to be a huge new expense picked up by the public while potentially causing people to take less steps to prevent themselves from getting sick.

Currently health insurance premiums are dependent on certain factors. If you smoke, it costs more, because you are more likely to get sick. If you are overweight, it costs more. With a universal plan, or a "public option", or anything that provides health care for all, how can we expect health care costs to go down without any disincentive for poor choices?

Much like how if you drive recklessly and accrue points on your license, your health insurance costs go up, only in the health care system there is no equivalent to suspending a license.

You bandy around 47 million like that is all and once and permanently...

I think this cartoon is a clever way to put that number into a more realistic perspective.. BEsides didn't Obamalosi just say it was 30 million in his healthcare speech? Fuzzy math?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon072409.gif

Osg.

From an economic standpoint.. lets say an illegal was in a health care plan and paying the same premiums as everyone else. What would be the downside?

Even if they're paying the premium, their health-care still costs more than that premium when they use it.

Secondly they're not citizens, there has to be some incentive to show up in this country legally.

Who did that, exactly?

Isn't that basically what the (anti-abortion) Republicans are doing when they are making all this noise about illegal immigrants getting medical care?

I am not in favor of having all this illegal immigration going on, but if someone is in need of medical care and they are brought in to a medical facility they should be treated. Then deport them.

The manner in which the Republicans and their friendly neighborhood wing-nuts are coming at the problem, it sounds like they would prefer no care be given to anyone who does not have an ID card proving they are a registered American citizen. And they are calling the administration "fascist"?

Osg.

From an economic standpoint.. lets say an illegal was in a health care plan and paying the same premiums as everyone else. What would be the downside?


I don't understand how they are able to legally work to even be able to buy into a plan in the first place with out a verifiable ID program.. But that just falls into the Employers/illegals/legislation argument....

Oh and as far as pre-existing conditions.. If you were born with it I agree private insurance should cover it.. If is an illness of choice I think maybe companies should be able to deny/drop or adjust rates accordingly.. There should also be a verifiable way to offer coverage for illnesses around medical mistakes.. say Rover was infected with aids after a blood transfusion because he blew up a pectoral muscle in his 50 inch chest.


The manner in which the Republicans and their friendly neighborhood wing-nuts are coming at the problem, it sounds like they would prefer no care be given to anyone who does not have an ID card proving they are a registered American citizen. And they are calling the administration "fascist"?

WHy shouldn't they?

Or it could be a, what did you say a illness of choice? Maybe something like muscle atrophy from inactivity in your trailer. Perhaps it could be an infection caused by your belt buckle rubbing against the underside of your 50 inch gut overhang. But I would never take away your right to be treated for those conditions you currently suffer from.

You bandy around 47 million like that is all and once and permanently...

I think this cartoon is a clever way to put that number into a more realistic perspective.. BEsides didn't Obamalosi just say it was 30 million in his healthcare speech? Fuzzy math?

Speaking of fuzzies, any sources for your numbers that demonstrate all of those categories (except illegals, I agree the gov. shouldn't cover them) are elligable and capable in some way? There's a huge hole in the argument here.

Or it could be a, what did you say a illness of choice? Maybe something like muscle atrophy from inactivity in your trailer. Perhaps it could be an infection caused by your belt buckle rubbing against the underside of your 50 inch gut overhang. But I would never take away your right to be treated for those conditions you currently suffer from.

Thanks I'm 6' and 180.. right at about my target weight.. If not a couple pounds under. Unlike you however there tubby.

Anyone who would deny someone the undeniable right of healthcare because they made a mistake should look REALLY hard in the mirror.

Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE makes mistakes. Unfortunately some pay a far higher price than others.

It is very easy to judge someone when you yourself have yet to be judged.

I can only hope for no one here that when the government starts deciding who gets covered by healthcare and who doesn't get covered never has to experience being on the side of the fence that gets left in the cold. Believe me, as a former insurance salesman who sold private health coverage, watching someone work themselves to the bone to provide insulin for their children because neither person has work benefits and the insurance companies won't cover them because they actually NEED the help breaks your heart! It's one of the many reasons I stopped doing that for a living. Watching companies make billions while good people suffer is WRONG!

Like food and shelter, healthcare should not be a priveledge but a RIGHT!

Thanks I'm 6' and 180.. right at about my target weight.. If not a couple pounds under. Unlike you however there tubby.


Really? That's funny because those photos of you on the Internet show a small skinny pasty guy.

Bin you're partially right.

In the case of someone with children who have diabetes, no they shouldn't have to work themselves to the bone. But then their kids did *not* participate in risky behavior to cause it. Now say said parent was working him/herself to the bone to provide the AIDS cocktail because their 16 year old daughter decided to act like a whore and bang half the local college team and caught AIDS then they should have to pay for being a bad parent and her piss poor decisions.

Bad decisions *MUST* carry consequences.

Bad decisions *MUST* carry consequences.

You know, that is like saying "I don't think that we should treat those wounded in combat after all volunteering to be sent to a place where people are shooting at you and trying to kill you is risky behavior"

I mean if they would have only eaten better food then they wouldn't have diabetes and if they only had not joined the military they wouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq and would not be suffering from that through and through wound.

There is a huge difference between, hey I'm going to go act like a whore and end up with an STD, and Hey I'm going to serve my country in the military.

While I understand both involve getting paid to get fucked on a regular basis, the fucking you get in the military isn't nearly as fun.

I'm all for consequences, but to what extent? Death, because someone made a bad decision at a party? Or financial ruin for their family? These things become difficult to quantify very quickly.

There is a huge difference between, hey I'm going to go act like a whore and end up with an STD, and Hey I'm going to serve my country in the military.

While I understand both involve getting paid to get fucked on a regular basis, the fucking you get in the military isn't nearly as fun.


Heh...I'll give ya that one.

Kanyli it comes back to my original point:

We should not have to pay for people's stupidity, however the only ways to completely eliminate that are going to catch too many 'innocent bystanders" in the culling. So in the end we're going to foot the bill for the retarded as well as the unfortunate.

If you acquire an illness due to neglect or bad decision making then yes you should face death or financial ruin, or at the very least an increased insurance premium (about the only logical thing I think I've ever seen Phel suggest.)

However, if you acquire your illness/injury because of your job, genetic predisposition, methods that are essentially not your fault. Then no, there should be no added penalty. The problem today is people think, well hey I pay taxes I should be able to act like a complete fucking moron and never pay a dime for it.

When you remove the personal responsibility of things, people see it as a license to act like an idiot. If we really wanted to cut down healthcare costs, we should remove the warning labels from everything and shutdown ERs for about two weeks and let the problem sort itself out. We can provide economic stimulus to the undertakers, lumberjacks, quarry workers (gonna need a lot of headstones) and groundskeepers all in one fell swoop. It'll be better for the enviroment because all the extra natural fertilizer will help the plants grow, and with fewer people on the roads we'll reduce the nation's 'carbon footprint' And hey with all those idiots gone our national test score averages will go up and we'll look better against our foreign neighbors when it comes to education.

WOW, nice assumptions that everyone with HIV is a dangerous and wreckless whore who deserves to be left to rot and die.
but why just stop there fuck grandma and her osteoperosis treatment cause obviously she wasnt dilligent enough with her calcium intake.

Wow way to not read what I wrote at all.

However, if you acquire your illness/injury because of your job, genetic predisposition, methods that are essentially not your fault. Then no, there should be no added penalty.

but why just stop there fuck grandma and her osteoperosis treatment cause obviously she wasnt dilligent enough with her calcium intake.

Which brings us to another issue with health-care.

Preventative medicine. I think if we do anything with government healthcare, preventative medicine should play a huge role. I.E. making sure granny gets her calcium pills and physical therapy/exercise planning early on so she can live to be a ripe old age and not be bed ridden for the last ten years of her life.

Which brings us to another issue with health-care.

Preventative medicine. I think if we do anything with government healthcare, preventative medicine should play a huge role. I.E. making sure granny gets her calcium pills and physical therapy/exercise planning early on so she can live to be a ripe old age and not be bed ridden for the last ten years of her life.


Which brings us to round two of demonization:

"The government is forcing old people to take drugs and forcing strenuous strength draining programs on them so the Obama death panels can get their names and make killing them more efficient"

Another way to reduce health care costs is to put HEALTH back into the public school system. Health classes and physical education should not be elective, but required in all schools; not something to be cut back or eliminated so that more time can be spent training students to pass the mandatory testing for funding.

With the exception of verifiable medical conditions, no child should be obese. By not combating weight problems during adolescence we are increasing the number of diabetics in later life, as well as those with cardio-vascular diseases; all of which is music to the ears of the drug companies, I am sure.

Another way to reduce health care costs is to put HEALTH back into the public school system. Health classes and physical education should not be elective, but required in all schools; not something to be cut back or eliminated so that more time can be spent training students to pass the mandatory testing for funding.

With the exception of verifiable medical conditions, no child should be obese. By not combating weight problems during adolescence we are increasing the number of diabetics in later life, as well as those with cardio-vascular diseases; all of which is music to the ears of the drug companies, I am sure.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winnah!

What we currently have in healthcare is a massive *mis*allocation of resources, which along with relentless profiteering in the interests of 'shareholder value' at every level in our delivery system which creates the *illusion* of unavoidable scarcity which is being used to terrify everyone into thinking that 'we can't afford it' re health care reform and setting populations against each other to grapple over their lump of horseflesh (see this forum and the 'slippery slope' arguments made here regarding what we should pay for).

As Elemak alluded to, we've been penny wise and pound foolish for the past 30 years in health care; the profit motive has resulted in more and more exotic tests, microtweaked-for-new-patent medications, MRI machines in every podunk town, etc, subscribing to as many HMOs as possible because that's where the big renumerations lay; while at the same time starving off preventative care because there was no money in simply spending time with patients and making common sense recommendations - and frequently moral/religious ideology has actively interfered with sensible government policy with regard to things like HIV/AIDS prevention (a few dollars spent on decent sex education and condom/needle distribution saves hundreds of thousands on antiretroviral drugs and hospitalizations later).

On the issue of people being 'at fault' re such things as obesity, diabetes and heart disease, etc, we've ruined American diets by 40 years of bad food policy in this country and the general population can hardly be blamed for eating what in many cases is all they can afford. Regarding the above arguments though, it *is* interesting to see what happens when we start talking as a nation about universal health care - all of a sudden it becomes in the public interest to consider preventative care and calls for responsibility - which has the power to transform our system in a positive way *if* we face up to the fact that health care is a basic resource that people require and consume like food, water, and shelter and that we will be paying for it one way or another, so we might as well provide it efficiently (which is true whether we *believe* it is a fundamental right or not anyway ;) ).

If we *do* actually get meaningful health care reform (and by that I mean not only a meaningful public option, but caps on the profit margin insurance companies can make (they call this the 'medical loss ratio' btw, the percent of premiums they actually spend on health care - Medicare's is 96%, making it extremely efficient, while the major insurance companies have dropped steadily and are now in the low 70s) and reversal of their antitrust exemptions (vitally important if we're going to be saddled with mandates and an overwhelmingly private model), it will be very interesting to see what sort of 'domino effect' changes in *profit* incentivization will lead to with regard to other long standing policies, such as our agriculture subsidies and current public health priorities.

My personal feeling with regard to the 'whoring and AIDS' strawman is that it's much less expensive in every sense of the word to cover people's basic health care needs *even when they are clearly the result of poor judgement*, than to pretend that by ignoring those needs that they go away and that we somehow magically don't pay for them somewhere down the line - not to mention there is the issue of 'who decides?' (speaking of 'death panels' ;) ). I think we've let reactionary and ideological 'thinking' overrule common sense for entirely too long and have had way too much legislation of morality in this country, not to mention implementation of such a scheme would be impossible in a practical sense anyway. (Can you deny a liver transplant to someone who has drank their liver into oblivion? Sure, but how much energy/money/bureaucracy do we as a nation want to spend splitting infinitely fine hairs with regard to cases which will not be so cut and dried?)

Regards,
Nydia

And Bylimet is right on with regard to Health classes, Physical education, and for that matter the good old fashioned Home Economics class, a hefty portion of which was centered on appropriate nutrition. The federal government *has* put out some PSAs with regard to 'getting off the couch', etc, and states have started taking action on things like soda machines in schools, but schools over the last decade and a half have largely phased out P.E., recess, Health classes, etc, and the new facilities themselves more often than not lack places for students to exercise or play (schools don't have playgrounds or exterior courts anymore, and the prison-like buildings are locked evenings and weekends).

Our car and consumption-oriented culture doesn't help this, of course, and I'd submit that facing up to our public health elephant is going to exert pressure on us to think in a wide variety of ways on how our patterns of daily living are currently unhealthy and ultimately expensive (for the most part, by design) and what will be involved in reordering our priorities once we realize that the health of our population is in the country's financial interest as well.

Regards,
Nydia

Wow way to not read what I wrote at all.

You posted that between my read/post and I agree with alot of you said there. but i still think it's always going to be a grey and not simply black and white. RL example for you:

Vietnam vet. went through some very bad things in country and was simply unable to cope with it. this led him to a pattern of drug and alcohol abuse that culminated in Herion addiction. He finally managed to get clean, not just from the drugs but from the mental hell as well. he turned his life around got a good job healed his family and became a productive member of society only to be diagnosed HIV+. where do you assign the blame there?

It's pretty easy to feel superior and look down upon people like the crackwhore/prostitutes that litter the streets of every city in this nation and say fuck'em the got what they deserved. as long as your willing to remain blind to the fact the majority of these "whores" have suffered from mental and physical abuse. almost always involving molestation and rape at a young age. dont know about you but i'm going to blame the monsters that break these little girls before i blame them.

So we don't cover, or charge more for those who partake in what is deemed unhealthy behavior.
Imagine how much more we will save if we start genetically testing applicants and making them pay on the perceived risk of cancer, diabetes, addictions ect.

Then those with the best genetic deposition will pay the least and those with indications of genetic bad behaviors pay more.

you know it funny while slowly typing my previos post and watching football it was amazing the commercials they ran.

Eat more Chicken! as long as it the breaded deepfried variety that benifiets teh "Chik-fil-et corporate profit margin and be sure to wash it down with an ice cold Budwieser (ching,ching) but dont worry after your obese diabetic ass devolopes Scirosis and gets denied by your insurance company protecting thier bottom line the goverment will be there with tax money to help you with the drugs you need because big pharma needs thier cut to.

And Bylimet is right on with regard to Health classes, Physical education, and for that matter the good old fashioned Home Economics class, a hefty portion of which was centered on appropriate nutrition. Home ec and shop are already gone from most of the schools in Arizona. PE is on the chopping block right along with fine arts. Just to add more warm yummies to the discussion.

Seriously put congress on the same health plan as your average american, and the problem would disappear over night.

Don't for a second think every time your premiums go up its because of the expenses. There is so much waste and corruption and back room dealing in insurance and the medical field its sickening. They make congress look like bastions of light and purity. They are bending you over because they make the laws and can do so.

Do a little research on political contributions. Minnesota's Michelle Bachman has been deluged with monies from the Insurance and Drug companies, and it is not because she is out there touting the administration's position on reform.

Jesse Ventura was usually little more than a joke, but he was right when he said to follow the money. See what (or who) companies are spending their monies on, and you learn a lot more about those businesses. And remember, those monies have to come from some source: premiums, drug costs, government subsidies, etc.

PE is on the chopping block

OMG dont even get me started..My daughter just entered her freshmen year and was assigned for her required P.E. credit...wait for it!





Walking class!!!WTF??? apparently you show up for roll call and then spend the duration walking around the campus.

OMG dont even get me started..My daughter just entered her freshmen year and was assigned for her required P.E. credit...wait for it!





Walking class!!!WTF??? apparently you show up for roll call and then spend the duration walking around the campus.

ahahaha thats great. Ill take mine at the end of the day and walk on home!

We had "Wellness" in high school, for a grand total of two semesters. That was a mix of health ed and phys ed. While I feel like I learned a fair bit about taking care of myself, there definitely wasn't enough physical activity to my eyes. However, every student was required to do at least one sport year, I did Fitness (sort of the slacker's sport, mind you) where we learned effective weight lifting, how to set up our own programs and work out, and played shirts and skins type games like ultimate frisbee, soccer, etc to break up the monotony.

Bear in mind, this is within the last decade that I went through high school, so I'm hopeful that health/physical education hasn't pulled a complete vanishing act yet. It always felt like the most understated, important part of the curriculum. Indispensable skills, just never much emphasis put on the fact that they are.

Best P.E. class ever = Volleyball

Well at least when you're the *only* guy in it and both the Varsity and JV girls's teams make up the rest.

Tax the crap food that is put out there (IE: Bars, Chips, Sugary Soda, McDonalds, Wendy's, etc) and use the money from that tax to subsidize farmers and fisherfolk who provide milk, bread, eggs, meat (REAL meat, not this processed crap), fish, vegetables and fruit.

Take the money that people pay to these "Healthcare" Companies and redirect that back to the healthcare system itself. Put that profit back into the system instead of fat cat pockets.

Tax the crap food that is put out there (IE: Bars, Chips, Sugary Soda, McDonalds, Wendy's, etc) and use the money from that tax to subsidize farmers and fisherfolk who provide milk, bread, eggs, meat (REAL meat, not this processed crap), fish, vegetables and fruit.

Take the money that people pay to these "Healthcare" Companies and redirect that back to the healthcare system itself. Put that profit back into the system instead of fat cat pockets.

First off a lot of those foods are already taxed. Second those farmers are already subsidized.

"Sorry sir, we'd love to cover you, but your screening shows, you may become an alcoholic some day in the future, and we can't afford to take that risk." The movie Gattaca went down that road.

There are insurance companies that claim that if your spouse beats you, that itself is a pre-existing condition and will not be covered. But, in DC and eight other states, including Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming, insurance companies have gone too far, claiming that "domestic violence victim" is also a pre-existing condition. Source (http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/domestic-violence-victims-have-a-pre-existing-condition.php)

As a side note, something that has affected me personally. Nearly all insurance companies consider infertility treatments to be elective. Each cycle of IUI costs about $2000. If you have to go beyond that each attempt at IVF is about $10000. Adoptions can run as high as $20000-$30000. You would think that all the pro life people would champion this problem.

You would think that all the pro life people would champion this problem.


Amazing how quickly a crowd of "pro-lifers" will disperse when asked who among them is willing to adopt and raise a child, with the accompanying expenses, to the age of 18.

Amazing how quickly a crowd of "pro-lifers" will disperse when asked who among them is willing to adopt and raise a child, with the accompanying expenses, to the age of 18.

I gotta call bullshit on this one. There's a 15 year waiting list for people who want to adopt children here. They're having to go to China to get their kids because it's only a 5 year waiting list there.

That's one of my biggest beefs with a large population of the political spectrum I tend to be lumped in with.

You can't be pro-life and be anti-contraceptive/anti-education. There has to be one way or the other of avoiding unwanted pregnancies.

I'm all about teaching them the "sack it or whack it" method. And then for the few that still don't get it, stream lining the process of adopting children. It seems like for every one child that ends up it a shit poor situation of a foster home, there like ten great families just hurting to have a child of their own to raise. We go so far to 'protect the children' we end up keeping them out of quality homes, and it seems of late; we end up pushing them into homes where they get locked in cages by people who know how to fool the system.

Oh and FFS! We should put in import ban on starving children from third world countries until all the starving children in our own are adopted. Hell I'm pretty sure you can even get the emaciated model in whatever color you really want these days.

I gotta call bullshit on this one. There's a 15 year waiting list for people who want to adopt children here. They're having to go to China to get their kids because it's only a 5 year waiting list there.

My brother adopted and waited less than a year.

How much did he pay?