Work out? Eat right? You winners of life's lottery . . .

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TGregg, Jun 22, 2010.

  1. TGregg


    . . . are about to pony up even more to "level the playing field" by "paying your fair share" and help those less fortunate. The One wants unlimited health care for all, which means suckers who take care of themselves will pay for the care of drug addled deadbeats. Of course, this is just phase 1 of the plan to make health insurance so damn expensive that most folks cannot afford it. Then it's time for the Big Government Insurance Plan. That should be a lot of fun. Hope you enjoy surgery in an operating room provided by the same methods that give us public restrooms.

    Here's the gory details:

    • A ban on lifetime coverage limits. More than 100 million people are enrolled in plans that currently impose such limits, the White House said.

    • Phasing out annual coverage limits. Starting this year, plans can set annual limits no lower than $750,000. Such limits rise to $2 million in 2012, and will be completely prohibited in 2014.

    • Forbidding insurers from canceling the policies of people who get sick. Unintentional mistakes on application forms cannot be used to revoke a policy.
  2. And what about the people who work out and eat right, but contract a debilitating disease nonetheless? There's genetics and environment to consider. You know, I wouldn't wish something like cancer on anyone. But to the extent that people get sick with cancer or some such, I suppose there is some poetic justice ("karma?") when it happens to people who share your views on health care.
  3. The percentages of those who work out and eat right, yet still get sick are just a *tad* lower than those who neither eat right nor work out.

    If everyone took care of themselves, the portion of sick people would be no where near as expensive as it is today.
  4. Ricter


    In the more socialistic countries would we find a large(r) percentage of health "freeriders"? I mean, have the citizens of those countries abandoned healthy lifestyles since all their healthcare is "taken care of"?
  5. No, and I'm not sure - if you're directing your statement to me - that I said otherwise or even indicated in that direction.
  6. No argument there. But is everyone else to effectively be just written off? And when Obama suggests that people make better lifestyle choices, his critics fall back on that old standby -- the nanny state reference. There's just no pleasing the Right, is there?
  7. We should also get rid of Medicare and Social security.

    If you failed to prepare for retirement, that is your problem not mines.
  8. No, but then again they're not written off currently. Insurance still pays for them getting ill. But removing limits on coverage, either lifetime or otherwise, costs money. You really think that forcing insurance companies to remove limits will make insurance cheaper and easier to get?
  9. I think that adequate health care coverage for a population is more important than the health care business remaining in the private sector. Extrapolate from there. I don't know the numbers, but the more people who pay a reasonable premium into a large pool, the better the costs will be distributed and covered, with the overriding condition being one of universal coverage. The private health insurers don't have to play if they don't want to. But if they want to, then they should play by the new rules.

    In the same way that BP has screwed up the Gulf, private health insurers in the aggregate have screwed up too many lives.
  10. Ricter


    What about in cases of genuine misfortune, particularly for the young who will not have had time to insure their own future?

    Edit: Oh, you're speaking of retirement, I'm thinking of debilitating disease, etc., nm.
    #10     Jun 22, 2010