Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sGt HarDKorE

I saw this on another website and thought it was a valid point

---

Here's one major problem with this approach:

How do you diffrentiate the 57 year old mother who needs new knees because she can't lay off the Krispy Kremes, from the 57 year old mother who needs new knees because she was a 5-mile-a-day runner for 45 years? (Like my mother-in-law)

How do you differentiate the 62 year old guy with emphysema and in need of a tripple-bypass from smoking 2 packs a day from the 62 year old guy with emphysema and in need of a tripple-bypass from working in a chemical plant in Houston, Texas for 40 years who never touched a cigarrette? (Like my father-in-law)

Should those who lived a healthy lifestyle pay as much for health care as those who lived and unhealthy lifestyle? Apparently not. But the government is NOT going to be able to tell which is which. The only thing they are going to be able to look at is AGE. And they will make health decisions for you based on age.

They don't know if you smoke, drink, do drugs, or are an avid runner, a health nut, and committed to a healthy lifestyle. How can they?

But they can tell if you're old. And they can make decisions on that basis.

That's scary.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You mean you shouldn't eat ice cream every day?

---

I didn't say that. I'm all for free choice. Eat what you want. It's still a free country... or so we are told.

But others here seem to have a problem with that idea.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I didn't say that. I'm all for free choice. Eat what you want. It's still a free country... or so we are told.

But others here seem to have a problem with that idea.

---

I had no doubt where you stood, Elliot. I was just messin' with Spit. We have this thing here called Blue Bell ice cream and it would be a sin NOT to eat as much of it as you could. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I had no doubt where you stood, Elliot. I was just messin' with Spit. We have this thing here called Blue Bell ice cream and it would be a sin NOT to eat as much of it as you could. :)

---

I've actually had Blue Bell. As I've mentioned, my wife is a TX girl, so I get down there every so often. Believe it or not, Blue Bell's Kosher ("Triangle K" certification I think). They've got some friggin' good ice cream. Their French Vanilla is kick-a$$. You're right about it being a sin to forego.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I've actually had Blue Bell. As I've mentioned, my wife is a TX girl, so I get down there every so often. Believe it or not, Blue Bell's Kosher ("Triangle K" certification I think). They've got some friggin' good ice cream. Their French Vanilla is kick-a$$. You're right about it being a sin to forego.

---

That's right, so you know about Blue Bell. Their Homemade Vanilla is the vanilla I like but man, if you're a fan of chocolate their Triple Chocolate is unbelievable. So is the chocolate chip. Pardon me while I run to the store... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

They don't know if you smoke, drink, do drugs, or are an avid runner, a health nut, and committed to a healthy lifestyle. How can they?

---

Hello El:

How can they?? They can hire investigators. That shouldn't be such a foreign concept to a right winger.. How does the insurance company know you suffered from acne when you were a kid?? THEY hire investigators... What?? You think they GUESS about that stuff... Dude!

excon

Ex, I pay for the investigators with my taxes. The investigators tell big brother, who also takes my tax money, if I'm okay or not whether it's true or not. Then, more of my taxes pay for health insurance that I did not get to choose. This is not freedom.

What is it? What government system is it most similar to? Does that system work?

Hello s:

The Wolverine was suggesting that such and such couldn't happen because how would the government find out stuff? I simply suggested that the government COULD hire investigators... I didn't say the government WOULD hire investigators...

Hopefully they won't go down that slippery slope.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

They want to tax soda to help pay for the health care system. But why stop at soda lets tax that scary clown, BK, Wendy's, etc... Cause lets be honest these are unhealthy products. If we are going to tax the hell out of cigarettes these so called foods (and I use the word food loosely) are just as damaging as cigarettes. Will it deter anyone from eating it, probably not because it is a person right to be a fat unhealthy slob. So I say tax the hell out of it put it towards health care because the people who eat that garbage are going to need that health care.

Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care - WSJ.com

---

Why stop there? There are many unhealthy substances, do not stop at the unhealthy drink but get right to the source of these unhealthy substances,

Sugar
Salt
Nicotine
Caffine
Starch
Gluten
Fat
Alcohol

So what have we determined, the whole food industry is at fault because these are the ingredients in Food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I didn't say that. I'm all for free choice. Eat what you want. It's still a free country... or so we are told.

But others here seem to have a problem with that idea.

Elliot

---

I actually have aproblem with the concept of a free country, If by free you think we should be free to do whatever we want, sure, it seems like a great idea, but if by free you mean that we should be able to engage in any self destructive behaviour and expect someoneesle to pay for it, no, that's not a great idea.

Why does your beloved President want to reform health care? It is really because of all the people engaged in self destructive behaviour who are making the system too expensive. So a little behavioural modification appears in order, and that might mean the loss of few cherished freedoms, such as the freedom to beome a bloated consumer of health services along with a few cherished pounds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hopefully they won't go down that slippery slope.

---

That's a mighty big hope. NSA, FBI, IRS, SS? Medicare is already anal, imagine how anal the health care bureaucracy will get when they hold all the marbles.

Hello again, Steve:

Anal?? How about the health INSURANCE INDUSTRY? They INVESTIGATE their charges... THEY want to find out if their charges had acne and didn't report it, JUST SO they can deny coverage... You don't deny that, do you?

So, for MY part, I don't care WHO is snooping into my past - the INSURANCE COMPANY or the government...

But, to say that the INSURANCE INDUSTRY is NOT investigating you NOW, is disingenuous at best.

excon

Sure, just what we need in these economic times, more taxes... NOT! Government needs to be focusing on cutting taxes, not increasing them. Probably won't happen anytime soon, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Anal?? How about the health INSURANCE INDUSTRY? They INVESTIGATE their charges... THEY want to find out if their charges had acne and didn't report it, JUST SO they can deny coverage... You don't deny that, do you?

So, for MY part, I don't care WHO is snooping into my past - the INSURANCE COMPANY or the government...

But, to say that the INSURANCE INDUSTRY is NOT investigating you NOW, is disingenuous at best.

Excon

---

Perhaps they do after the fact ;but I've been on an employer provided plan for a long time and neither was I denied disclosing preexisiting condition ;nor was may family denied care at the point of service. At the most on occasion I have had to negotiate when they denied coverage ,and perhaps chipped in a couple of bucks... but never was my family denied over preexisting conditions.

There are about 500 families at the place I work (maybe more because we've expanded more than once.) and have yet to hear a case where someone was ill and did not get treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There are about 500 families at the place I work (maybe more because we've expanded more than once.) and have yet to hear a case where someone was ill and did not get treatment.

---

Hello again, tom:

Well, there you go. Tom has never heard of anyone being refused treatment - therefore it doesn't happen... Well, I'VE heard it does - ergo it DOES happen.

Yes, my retort was silly... But, even though you personally may have never heard of people being denied treatment, you're not saying, are you, that the insurance company will PAY for EVERYTHING EVERYBODY has??

No, you're NOT saying that, because you KNOW that coverage is DENIED to SOME people, even if they don't happen to be employed where you are. If you're saying that NOBODY goes up before the insurance company "death panels", you are still being disingenuous.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hopefully they won't go down that slippery slope.

excon

---

There's only one way to make sure they don't. And that is to make sure they don't have the power to do it.

Or... you could give them the power and HOPE they don't abuse it. Just like you HOPE that they don't use your Social Security money for other purposes. But you know they will.

I know which choice I make.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

But, to say that the INSURANCE INDUSTRY is NOT investigating you NOW, is disingenuous at best.

---

I never said that and you're distracting from your 'hope' that the feds won't go down that slippery slope (funny to see you worried about a slippery slope these days)... but they did, they do and they will. You're kidding yourself if you don't think they will hire investigators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Well, there you go. Tom has never heard of anyone being refused treatment - therefore it doesn't happen... Well, I'VE heard it does - ergo it DOES happen.

---

NK claims that there are no problems with the Canadian system because he hasn't heard of anyone being refused threatment either. And you DEFEND HIM when he uses that argument.

What makes Tom's position any different?

Quote:

---

Yes, my retort was silly... But, even though you personally may have never heard of people being denied treatment, you're not saying, are you, that the insurance company will PAY for EVERYTHING EVERYBODY has??

---

Nope. But neither will the government. And if you are on a single payer system and the government says "no" you're screwed. If you are on private insurance and they say "no" you can go out and buy the service out of pocket anyway. That is the difference you refuse to acknowledge.

Quote:

---

No, you're NOT saying that, because you KNOW that coverage is DENIED to SOME people, even if they don't happen to be employed where you are. If you're saying that NOBODY goes up before the insurance company "death panels", you are still being disingenuous.

Excon

---

Again, the difference is in what happens AFTER you have been denied. If you are denied by your insurance, you go and buy the service out of pocket anyway. If the government decides to say no, there is no other option.

Elliot

Quote:

---

But, even though you personally may have never heard of people being denied treatment, you're not saying, are you, that the insurance company will PAY for EVERYTHING EVERYBODY has??

---

Reading comprehension are good.
At the most on occasion I have had to negotiate when they denied coverage ,and perhaps chipped in a couple of bucks .... but never was my family denied over preexisting conditions.

Are there people denied .I'm sure there are . Fraud is a huge problem that drives up costs for one ;and I'm sure there are people denied the ability to obtain insurance also . Your examples of insurance company death panels are exaggerations and you know it (THEY wanna find out if their charges had acne and didn't report it, JUST SO they can deny coverage... You don't deny that, do you?)

Why shouldn't I engage in embellishments when that's the argument forwarded .I'd say my example is closer to the truth . Maybe because I share in the cost with my employer we are getting one of them cadillac deals ?

Maybe instead I should just sign on that gold plated Medicaid system. It's 2+years and counting since my mother in law applied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Again, the difference is in what happens AFTER you have been denied. If you are denied by your insurance, you go and buy the service out of pocket anyway. If the government decides to say no, there is no other option.

---

Hello again, Elliot:

You're wrong again, as usual... You don't really think the black market would let such a valuable service as GALL BLADDER TRANSPLANTS, and the like, go unserved, do you?? Don't you pay attention to ANYTHING related to economic activity?? You're, what - a BANKER?? Dude!

If the government outlaws surgery, then surgery will be available in your back alley. I can here 'em now, as you pass by... The guy whispers... Colonoscopy?? Pap smear?? Right here. Got a dime bag a colonoscopy's and your pap smears - right here

But, back to reality... Out here in the real world, where ordinary people live, when your insurance company turns you down for services, you don't buy ANYTHING out of pocket... You're BROKE!! Therefore, you DIE! Of, if they were to take your earlier advice, they could wheel themselves, with their oxygen tanks, and their IV's right down to their local church, and BEG for money. Maybe they could stand (sorry - sit) on a freeway interchange with a sign...

Now, you're probably going to retort that you could PAY for your hair transplant yourself, as though that's what we're talking about here - but it ISN'T. I don't think you'll address the issue head on because you do better when you deflect...

It's OK. That's why I'M here - to catchy you slippery righty's.

excon