I think everyone is missing Mookie's point. He's exactly right - persons under insurance policies are essentially socializing their healthcare with one another. Plus, they are paying for the overhead of the private insurer. PLUS, they are no doubt contributing to the bottom line black ink.

And, as far as the people who the insurance companies won't insure due to expensive healthcare issues - guess who foots the bill for the emergency care they're entitled to due to the Patient's Bill of Rights?

The insurance companies, of course. Along with the taxpayers, through an artificial inflation in the general cost of healthcare.

Is that the same artificial costs which I must bear for not using our resources here in America? Off shore drilling, AWR drilling, recently found reserves in Montana? The price of gasoline would decrease exponentially if the signal to drill offshore was anounced.

I agree 100%, we should be fully exploiting our resources.

But I don't get what that has to do with the healthcare debate.

Extrapolate. You'll see it.

Umm, I don't see anything. I see you pigeonholing one topic with another without qualifying it whatsoever.

What is your point, and how does it at all relate to the SPECIFIC issue of healthcare?

Well, no, I fully understand his point. He is missing my point. If Obama says I can get my own insurance outside of government insurance I can do so. However, I have to still pay into the government insurance program. That is my point. Why should I pay for Joey Couchpotato who spends his weekend getting his arse kicked at the local bar and spending the night at the local ER on my dime? Just because I pay for the no-insured now via my insurance company does not make me paying into this government program right. You can spend all day attempting to convince everyone you are already getting hosed so it will be ok to get hosed some more from the government. No it is not ok. If I prefer to have stellar insurance for the very best in healthcare that should be my right just as Obama thinks it is everyone right for healthcare. However, I should not have to pay for someone else healthcare sponsored by the government if I'm paying my own from an outside provider. Simple, we being forced into it. No beans about it. Bend over and take it like a man. Forget about the reach around. :doh:


In all reality, those wanting government health insurance should be able to purchase this insurance with their own money. There will be millions who can be on the same policy that premiums will be very low or almost nothing at all. Time for folks to hike up their pants and start contributing instead of waiting for Obama to 'pay their mortgage.'

The bottom line is this how I see it. I don't to pay for people who make bad choices in their lives. People will always die. A supreme court justice even said Roe v. Wade was about removing undesirable folks from the population.

Why would anyone want to support bad policy, even if it revolves around Justice Ginsberg's undesireables, much less those who have made bad choices.??

You smoke don't you? :D I drink! :()1:

Buddahaid

If you count my last joint in 1985 as smoking.

Source: http://www.healthpolicywatch.org/commentary.asp?opedid=2071


....seems a large sum ... Sure, start deciding what doctor's should get paid, that should motivate young med students :)



Yes. That got me to thinking about a lot of people who engage in high risk activities, such as (ahem!) motorcycle riding, for one. It was not long ago I was reading Motorcyle Houston forums, and these guys who buy $12,000 sport bikes and go ripping up the roads at 200 mph; one of them was giving advice about using Ben Taub Hospital in Houston for crash treatments, because Ben Taud does not pursue to collect payment.


Seriously, all we need in this country is more enabling of people who won't take care of themselves and want us to pay for their mistakes.

First off, please try to take this response in the context that, while I am in favor of nationalized healthcare, I think Obama's plan is idiotic.

You raise a valid point, but I think you're missing the middle ground. Indeed, under any nationalized plan the taxes of those covered would also be used to fund healthcare. However, by reducing the overall cost of healthcare and its artificial inflation caused by the current Patient's Bill of Rights, your insurance's company's costs (and, theoretically your costs) should be reduced substantially. Ultimately, you should see a wash under a well-formulated plan.

But that wash goes only wallet-deep. The advantages of a healthy workforce and assuring access to what I believe is a basic human right are incredible. For one, this would be true economic stimulus. You'd instantly raise the buying power of thousands and thousands of people who would otherwise find themselves ruined due to a massive medical problem propping up while being underinsured. Next, states will save BILLIONS in costs for healthcare plans for those at or near the poverty line, helping to offset the costs. Finally, providers will save billions in unpaid invoices - the costs of which are passed upon to the consumer, or the insurance companies as a proxy.

Again, those items are why I'm in support of a national plan. But I am NOT in support of Obama's iteration of one. Ideally, the purpose would be to lower healthcare costs to an acceptable level that the average Joe would be able to just go out and buy superior care if necessary, but will not be left hanging if unable to purchase it. ObamaCare does none of that.

Neal, you're absolutely right in your points.

Alas, however, there is a medium. Personally, I've always advocated excise taxes for those who behave recklessly.

Roads, police, and all common use items are not the same thing as your own personal healthcare. My goodness, ain't it amazing how a fraud like Obama could get elected with people who don't know the difference between the taxpayer-government social contract of reasonable taxation for common use items, and things that are one's personal responsibility like your own personal healthcare. What's next, I owe you a car so you can get to work? Universal single payer auto insurance? What else do you think taxpayers owe you mookie?

Your personal healthcare is not a common use item, as tens of millions don't need a government option. You are infringing on mine and many other citizen's liberties and have no business waving an American flag on July 4th celebrating independance from a tyrranical British government. You obviously don't understand or respect the liberty of the common person as you think you are owed healthcare. Go to work and pay for it yourself.

If "societal benefits" of "universal" healthcare is what the American citizen wants (which they don't), then perhaps those of us who carry the weight should be able to regulate your lifestyle and mandate a diet for you mookie. Would that not be beneficial for society as good health is mandated in that system? It's amazing to me how the only thing you types seem to hear is "free healthcare" but don't understand the issue in any meaningful way or impacts. And you don't understand that there is no such thing as "free" healthcare. Somebody has to pay for it. And that requires the government to seize by force somebody elses liberty and property to provide it.

Excise taxes only empowers government. Reckless behavior often is it's own punishment. Get the government out of that too and let people fail and learn the lessons of life.

Amen to that. Speaking of bad policy.....look what we're in for if this crap passes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html?em

Do you think the nations's liberals can actually learn a lesson here? This state should be utopia for all the taxes it collects and the bloated government services (including healthcare) it attempts to provide. Yet it's a basket case of problems in deficits just like another state (California) I know so well that tries to provide services it has no hope of delivering. Government run healthcare? No thanks. I actually want to be able to visit a doctor and get the services I need when I want them. The heck with this mess.

I read somewhere, Rassmussen perhaps, that the nation is becoming more conservative. The legacy and down fall of a one term president? Or the wishes of a torn nation?

Excise taxes does not only empower government - it can modify behavior as well as offset the costs associated with reckless behavior.

Let's be realistic here: we're not going to become a nation of people dying in the streets or have major injuries uncared for. Further, it would be foolish to suggest that we become such a nation - if you ever want to see a nanny state, just wait until certain behaviors begin to cause an undue burden on the public-at-large. As such, I wholly believe in directed excise taxation ... within limits.

The idea that government always equals bad or always equals good is unrealistic and unproductive.