ObamaCare…coming soon

[temeculaguy]

[quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

That was an interesting read. Regardless of what happens, at least it is giving Lewis Black some good material

http://comedy.videosift.com/video/Lewis-Black-Destroys-GOP-Talking-Points-on-Health-Care

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

Scarlet: No, it’s not.

Read this, it’s better (and truthful): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/25/some_inconvenient_truths_about_medicare_97617.html

Also, Mark Steyn did his usual inimitable job dissecting the proposed health plan and shredded it in his article in National Review.

The Minyanville article was inarguably short of facts and the constant comparisons to the European, British or Canadian models are, like all comparisons, odious.

50 million uninsured? Really? Do you have the percentages that make up that number? How about 20% of the 50 million being illegal aliens? How about another 20% being in the upper 10% of income earners in the US who are intentionally “opting out” of insurance and choosing to pay their own way? How about another 20% in “transition” between jobs and insurance programs at any given time? Yet another 20% in their early 20s who are either single and childless or married and childless and have not chosen to participate in insured healthcare yet?

There is no doubt that reform is needed, however, not the way it’s being offered now. Look no further than the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) for an objective look at the “real” costs of the program(s) and then make a decision based on facts.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

Scarlet: No, it’s not.

Read this, it’s better (and truthful): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/25/some_inconvenient_truths_about_medicare_97617.html

Also, Mark Steyn did his usual inimitable job dissecting the proposed health plan and shredded it in his article in National Review.

The Minyanville article was inarguably short of facts and the constant comparisons to the European, British or Canadian models are, like all comparisons, odious.

50 million uninsured? Really? Do you have the percentages that make up that number? How about 20% of the 50 million being illegal aliens? How about another 20% being in the upper 10% of income earners in the US who are intentionally “opting out” of insurance and choosing to pay their own way? How about another 20% in “transition” between jobs and insurance programs at any given time? Yet another 20% in their early 20s who are either single and childless or married and childless and have not chosen to participate in insured healthcare yet?

There is no doubt that reform is needed, however, not the way it’s being offered now. Look no further than the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) for an objective look at the “real” costs of the program(s) and then make a decision based on facts.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

Scarlet: No, it’s not.

Read this, it’s better (and truthful): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/25/some_inconvenient_truths_about_medicare_97617.html

Also, Mark Steyn did his usual inimitable job dissecting the proposed health plan and shredded it in his article in National Review.

The Minyanville article was inarguably short of facts and the constant comparisons to the European, British or Canadian models are, like all comparisons, odious.

50 million uninsured? Really? Do you have the percentages that make up that number? How about 20% of the 50 million being illegal aliens? How about another 20% being in the upper 10% of income earners in the US who are intentionally “opting out” of insurance and choosing to pay their own way? How about another 20% in “transition” between jobs and insurance programs at any given time? Yet another 20% in their early 20s who are either single and childless or married and childless and have not chosen to participate in insured healthcare yet?

There is no doubt that reform is needed, however, not the way it’s being offered now. Look no further than the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) for an objective look at the “real” costs of the program(s) and then make a decision based on facts.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

Scarlet: No, it’s not.

Read this, it’s better (and truthful): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/25/some_inconvenient_truths_about_medicare_97617.html

Also, Mark Steyn did his usual inimitable job dissecting the proposed health plan and shredded it in his article in National Review.

The Minyanville article was inarguably short of facts and the constant comparisons to the European, British or Canadian models are, like all comparisons, odious.

50 million uninsured? Really? Do you have the percentages that make up that number? How about 20% of the 50 million being illegal aliens? How about another 20% being in the upper 10% of income earners in the US who are intentionally “opting out” of insurance and choosing to pay their own way? How about another 20% in “transition” between jobs and insurance programs at any given time? Yet another 20% in their early 20s who are either single and childless or married and childless and have not chosen to participate in insured healthcare yet?

There is no doubt that reform is needed, however, not the way it’s being offered now. Look no further than the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) for an objective look at the “real” costs of the program(s) and then make a decision based on facts.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

Scarlet: No, it’s not.

Read this, it’s better (and truthful): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/25/some_inconvenient_truths_about_medicare_97617.html

Also, Mark Steyn did his usual inimitable job dissecting the proposed health plan and shredded it in his article in National Review.

The Minyanville article was inarguably short of facts and the constant comparisons to the European, British or Canadian models are, like all comparisons, odious.

50 million uninsured? Really? Do you have the percentages that make up that number? How about 20% of the 50 million being illegal aliens? How about another 20% being in the upper 10% of income earners in the US who are intentionally “opting out” of insurance and choosing to pay their own way? How about another 20% in “transition” between jobs and insurance programs at any given time? Yet another 20% in their early 20s who are either single and childless or married and childless and have not chosen to participate in insured healthcare yet?

There is no doubt that reform is needed, however, not the way it’s being offered now. Look no further than the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) for an objective look at the “real” costs of the program(s) and then make a decision based on facts.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

Scarlet: No, it’s not.

Read this, it’s better (and truthful): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/25/some_inconvenient_truths_about_medicare_97617.html

Also, Mark Steyn did his usual inimitable job dissecting the proposed health plan and shredded it in his article in National Review.

The Minyanville article was inarguably short of facts and the constant comparisons to the European, British or Canadian models are, like all comparisons, odious.

50 million uninsured? Really? Do you have the percentages that make up that number? How about 20% of the 50 million being illegal aliens? How about another 20% being in the upper 10% of income earners in the US who are intentionally “opting out” of insurance and choosing to pay their own way? How about another 20% in “transition” between jobs and insurance programs at any given time? Yet another 20% in their early 20s who are either single and childless or married and childless and have not chosen to participate in insured healthcare yet?

There is no doubt that reform is needed, however, not the way it’s being offered now. Look no further than the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) for an objective look at the “real” costs of the program(s) and then make a decision based on facts.[/quote]

Allan,

Let’s address some of the issues from that article:

1. That medicare has massive unfunded liabilities.

Nobody will deny this, but consider for a moment what the private market would look like if private insurers were only able to insure mostly unemployed people over 65 years of age. They would be instantly insolvent. The reason current public healthcare plans are so distressed is because the govt is responsible for the most expensive patients: the elderly, the indigent, and the very young (especially the poor) who require more visits and where many lifesaving procedures are done on children who may not make it to adulthood.

What we’ve done is socialized all the losses by dumping the expensive patients on the taxpayers, while privatizing all the profits by gifting all the healthy, employed (most likely, because they have health insurance), most able-bodied people to the the private insurers. Gee, I wonder why that’s not working out so well for the taxpayers…

2. That under a govt plan, healthcare providers would not be compensated “adequately,” especially considering the fact that they are so deeply in debt because of their education expenses.

You can thank the AMA for their high debts, and the potential “shortage” of doctors:

Bottom Line: One reason we might have a “health care crisis” due to rising medical costs, and the world’s highest physician salaries is that we turn away 57.3% of the applicants to medical schools. What we have is a form of a “medical cartel,: which significantly restricts the supply of physicians, and thereby gives its members monopoly power to charge above-market prices for their services.

In his classic book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman describes the American Medical Association (AMA) as the “strongest trade union in the United States” and documents the ways in which the AMA vigorously restricts competition. The Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the AMA approves both medical schools and hospitals. By restricting the number of approved medical schools and the number of applicants to those schools, the AMA limits the supply of physicians. In the same way that OPEC was able to quadruple the price of oil in the 1970s by restricting output, the AMA has increased their fees by restricting the supply of physicians.

http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high
—————————

If we want an effective public healthcare program, we should open up many more medical schools, and help pay for the providers’ educations. To compensate, they would work for a minimum number of years at a public hospital that provides healthcare to all citizens of the U.S.

The private insurers would be kept out of the most basic level of healthcare insurance (which is 100% govt-run and provided by govt employees in public institutions), so that the “needs-based” care is completely socialized. The private insurers could offer coverage for “upgraded” care and facilities, and/or the patients could pay out-of-pocket for whatever they could possibly want. All prices in the private and public markets should be fully transparent, so that people could comparision shop, and do their due dilligence.

Seriously, there is no evidence that shows our system is in any way superior to a “socialized” system. To the contrary, everything I’ve ever seen shows that socialized medicine is superior to our for-profit system. If you or anyone else has **evidence** to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

Scarlet: No, it’s not.

Read this, it’s better (and truthful): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/25/some_inconvenient_truths_about_medicare_97617.html

Also, Mark Steyn did his usual inimitable job dissecting the proposed health plan and shredded it in his article in National Review.

The Minyanville article was inarguably short of facts and the constant comparisons to the European, British or Canadian models are, like all comparisons, odious.

50 million uninsured? Really? Do you have the percentages that make up that number? How about 20% of the 50 million being illegal aliens? How about another 20% being in the upper 10% of income earners in the US who are intentionally “opting out” of insurance and choosing to pay their own way? How about another 20% in “transition” between jobs and insurance programs at any given time? Yet another 20% in their early 20s who are either single and childless or married and childless and have not chosen to participate in insured healthcare yet?

There is no doubt that reform is needed, however, not the way it’s being offered now. Look no further than the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) for an objective look at the “real” costs of the program(s) and then make a decision based on facts.[/quote]

Allan,

Let’s address some of the issues from that article:

1. That medicare has massive unfunded liabilities.

Nobody will deny this, but consider for a moment what the private market would look like if private insurers were only able to insure mostly unemployed people over 65 years of age. They would be instantly insolvent. The reason current public healthcare plans are so distressed is because the govt is responsible for the most expensive patients: the elderly, the indigent, and the very young (especially the poor) who require more visits and where many lifesaving procedures are done on children who may not make it to adulthood.

What we’ve done is socialized all the losses by dumping the expensive patients on the taxpayers, while privatizing all the profits by gifting all the healthy, employed (most likely, because they have health insurance), most able-bodied people to the the private insurers. Gee, I wonder why that’s not working out so well for the taxpayers…

2. That under a govt plan, healthcare providers would not be compensated “adequately,” especially considering the fact that they are so deeply in debt because of their education expenses.

You can thank the AMA for their high debts, and the potential “shortage” of doctors:

Bottom Line: One reason we might have a “health care crisis” due to rising medical costs, and the world’s highest physician salaries is that we turn away 57.3% of the applicants to medical schools. What we have is a form of a “medical cartel,: which significantly restricts the supply of physicians, and thereby gives its members monopoly power to charge above-market prices for their services.

In his classic book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman describes the American Medical Association (AMA) as the “strongest trade union in the United States” and documents the ways in which the AMA vigorously restricts competition. The Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the AMA approves both medical schools and hospitals. By restricting the number of approved medical schools and the number of applicants to those schools, the AMA limits the supply of physicians. In the same way that OPEC was able to quadruple the price of oil in the 1970s by restricting output, the AMA has increased their fees by restricting the supply of physicians.

http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high
—————————

If we want an effective public healthcare program, we should open up many more medical schools, and help pay for the providers’ educations. To compensate, they would work for a minimum number of years at a public hospital that provides healthcare to all citizens of the U.S.

The private insurers would be kept out of the most basic level of healthcare insurance (which is 100% govt-run and provided by govt employees in public institutions), so that the “needs-based” care is completely socialized. The private insurers could offer coverage for “upgraded” care and facilities, and/or the patients could pay out-of-pocket for whatever they could possibly want. All prices in the private and public markets should be fully transparent, so that people could comparision shop, and do their due dilligence.

Seriously, there is no evidence that shows our system is in any way superior to a “socialized” system. To the contrary, everything I’ve ever seen shows that socialized medicine is superior to our for-profit system. If you or anyone else has **evidence** to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

Scarlet: No, it’s not.

Read this, it’s better (and truthful): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/25/some_inconvenient_truths_about_medicare_97617.html

Also, Mark Steyn did his usual inimitable job dissecting the proposed health plan and shredded it in his article in National Review.

The Minyanville article was inarguably short of facts and the constant comparisons to the European, British or Canadian models are, like all comparisons, odious.

50 million uninsured? Really? Do you have the percentages that make up that number? How about 20% of the 50 million being illegal aliens? How about another 20% being in the upper 10% of income earners in the US who are intentionally “opting out” of insurance and choosing to pay their own way? How about another 20% in “transition” between jobs and insurance programs at any given time? Yet another 20% in their early 20s who are either single and childless or married and childless and have not chosen to participate in insured healthcare yet?

There is no doubt that reform is needed, however, not the way it’s being offered now. Look no further than the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) for an objective look at the “real” costs of the program(s) and then make a decision based on facts.[/quote]

Allan,

Let’s address some of the issues from that article:

1. That medicare has massive unfunded liabilities.

Nobody will deny this, but consider for a moment what the private market would look like if private insurers were only able to insure mostly unemployed people over 65 years of age. They would be instantly insolvent. The reason current public healthcare plans are so distressed is because the govt is responsible for the most expensive patients: the elderly, the indigent, and the very young (especially the poor) who require more visits and where many lifesaving procedures are done on children who may not make it to adulthood.

What we’ve done is socialized all the losses by dumping the expensive patients on the taxpayers, while privatizing all the profits by gifting all the healthy, employed (most likely, because they have health insurance), most able-bodied people to the the private insurers. Gee, I wonder why that’s not working out so well for the taxpayers…

2. That under a govt plan, healthcare providers would not be compensated “adequately,” especially considering the fact that they are so deeply in debt because of their education expenses.

You can thank the AMA for their high debts, and the potential “shortage” of doctors:

Bottom Line: One reason we might have a “health care crisis” due to rising medical costs, and the world’s highest physician salaries is that we turn away 57.3% of the applicants to medical schools. What we have is a form of a “medical cartel,: which significantly restricts the supply of physicians, and thereby gives its members monopoly power to charge above-market prices for their services.

In his classic book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman describes the American Medical Association (AMA) as the “strongest trade union in the United States” and documents the ways in which the AMA vigorously restricts competition. The Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the AMA approves both medical schools and hospitals. By restricting the number of approved medical schools and the number of applicants to those schools, the AMA limits the supply of physicians. In the same way that OPEC was able to quadruple the price of oil in the 1970s by restricting output, the AMA has increased their fees by restricting the supply of physicians.

http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high
—————————

If we want an effective public healthcare program, we should open up many more medical schools, and help pay for the providers’ educations. To compensate, they would work for a minimum number of years at a public hospital that provides healthcare to all citizens of the U.S.

The private insurers would be kept out of the most basic level of healthcare insurance (which is 100% govt-run and provided by govt employees in public institutions), so that the “needs-based” care is completely socialized. The private insurers could offer coverage for “upgraded” care and facilities, and/or the patients could pay out-of-pocket for whatever they could possibly want. All prices in the private and public markets should be fully transparent, so that people could comparision shop, and do their due dilligence.

Seriously, there is no evidence that shows our system is in any way superior to a “socialized” system. To the contrary, everything I’ve ever seen shows that socialized medicine is superior to our for-profit system. If you or anyone else has **evidence** to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

Scarlet: No, it’s not.

Read this, it’s better (and truthful): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/25/some_inconvenient_truths_about_medicare_97617.html

Also, Mark Steyn did his usual inimitable job dissecting the proposed health plan and shredded it in his article in National Review.

The Minyanville article was inarguably short of facts and the constant comparisons to the European, British or Canadian models are, like all comparisons, odious.

50 million uninsured? Really? Do you have the percentages that make up that number? How about 20% of the 50 million being illegal aliens? How about another 20% being in the upper 10% of income earners in the US who are intentionally “opting out” of insurance and choosing to pay their own way? How about another 20% in “transition” between jobs and insurance programs at any given time? Yet another 20% in their early 20s who are either single and childless or married and childless and have not chosen to participate in insured healthcare yet?

There is no doubt that reform is needed, however, not the way it’s being offered now. Look no further than the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) for an objective look at the “real” costs of the program(s) and then make a decision based on facts.[/quote]

Allan,

Let’s address some of the issues from that article:

1. That medicare has massive unfunded liabilities.

Nobody will deny this, but consider for a moment what the private market would look like if private insurers were only able to insure mostly unemployed people over 65 years of age. They would be instantly insolvent. The reason current public healthcare plans are so distressed is because the govt is responsible for the most expensive patients: the elderly, the indigent, and the very young (especially the poor) who require more visits and where many lifesaving procedures are done on children who may not make it to adulthood.

What we’ve done is socialized all the losses by dumping the expensive patients on the taxpayers, while privatizing all the profits by gifting all the healthy, employed (most likely, because they have health insurance), most able-bodied people to the the private insurers. Gee, I wonder why that’s not working out so well for the taxpayers…

2. That under a govt plan, healthcare providers would not be compensated “adequately,” especially considering the fact that they are so deeply in debt because of their education expenses.

You can thank the AMA for their high debts, and the potential “shortage” of doctors:

Bottom Line: One reason we might have a “health care crisis” due to rising medical costs, and the world’s highest physician salaries is that we turn away 57.3% of the applicants to medical schools. What we have is a form of a “medical cartel,: which significantly restricts the supply of physicians, and thereby gives its members monopoly power to charge above-market prices for their services.

In his classic book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman describes the American Medical Association (AMA) as the “strongest trade union in the United States” and documents the ways in which the AMA vigorously restricts competition. The Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the AMA approves both medical schools and hospitals. By restricting the number of approved medical schools and the number of applicants to those schools, the AMA limits the supply of physicians. In the same way that OPEC was able to quadruple the price of oil in the 1970s by restricting output, the AMA has increased their fees by restricting the supply of physicians.

http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high
—————————

If we want an effective public healthcare program, we should open up many more medical schools, and help pay for the providers’ educations. To compensate, they would work for a minimum number of years at a public hospital that provides healthcare to all citizens of the U.S.

The private insurers would be kept out of the most basic level of healthcare insurance (which is 100% govt-run and provided by govt employees in public institutions), so that the “needs-based” care is completely socialized. The private insurers could offer coverage for “upgraded” care and facilities, and/or the patients could pay out-of-pocket for whatever they could possibly want. All prices in the private and public markets should be fully transparent, so that people could comparision shop, and do their due dilligence.

Seriously, there is no evidence that shows our system is in any way superior to a “socialized” system. To the contrary, everything I’ve ever seen shows that socialized medicine is superior to our for-profit system. If you or anyone else has **evidence** to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Rt.66]Read this, it’s good.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/hum-unh-AET-ci-HS/index/a/23705%5B/quote%5D

Scarlet: No, it’s not.

Read this, it’s better (and truthful): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/25/some_inconvenient_truths_about_medicare_97617.html

Also, Mark Steyn did his usual inimitable job dissecting the proposed health plan and shredded it in his article in National Review.

The Minyanville article was inarguably short of facts and the constant comparisons to the European, British or Canadian models are, like all comparisons, odious.

50 million uninsured? Really? Do you have the percentages that make up that number? How about 20% of the 50 million being illegal aliens? How about another 20% being in the upper 10% of income earners in the US who are intentionally “opting out” of insurance and choosing to pay their own way? How about another 20% in “transition” between jobs and insurance programs at any given time? Yet another 20% in their early 20s who are either single and childless or married and childless and have not chosen to participate in insured healthcare yet?

There is no doubt that reform is needed, however, not the way it’s being offered now. Look no further than the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) for an objective look at the “real” costs of the program(s) and then make a decision based on facts.[/quote]

Allan,

Let’s address some of the issues from that article:

1. That medicare has massive unfunded liabilities.

Nobody will deny this, but consider for a moment what the private market would look like if private insurers were only able to insure mostly unemployed people over 65 years of age. They would be instantly insolvent. The reason current public healthcare plans are so distressed is because the govt is responsible for the most expensive patients: the elderly, the indigent, and the very young (especially the poor) who require more visits and where many lifesaving procedures are done on children who may not make it to adulthood.

What we’ve done is socialized all the losses by dumping the expensive patients on the taxpayers, while privatizing all the profits by gifting all the healthy, employed (most likely, because they have health insurance), most able-bodied people to the the private insurers. Gee, I wonder why that’s not working out so well for the taxpayers…

2. That under a govt plan, healthcare providers would not be compensated “adequately,” especially considering the fact that they are so deeply in debt because of their education expenses.

You can thank the AMA for their high debts, and the potential “shortage” of doctors:

Bottom Line: One reason we might have a “health care crisis” due to rising medical costs, and the world’s highest physician salaries is that we turn away 57.3% of the applicants to medical schools. What we have is a form of a “medical cartel,: which significantly restricts the supply of physicians, and thereby gives its members monopoly power to charge above-market prices for their services.

In his classic book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman describes the American Medical Association (AMA) as the “strongest trade union in the United States” and documents the ways in which the AMA vigorously restricts competition. The Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the AMA approves both medical schools and hospitals. By restricting the number of approved medical schools and the number of applicants to those schools, the AMA limits the supply of physicians. In the same way that OPEC was able to quadruple the price of oil in the 1970s by restricting output, the AMA has increased their fees by restricting the supply of physicians.

http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high
—————————

If we want an effective public healthcare program, we should open up many more medical schools, and help pay for the providers’ educations. To compensate, they would work for a minimum number of years at a public hospital that provides healthcare to all citizens of the U.S.

The private insurers would be kept out of the most basic level of healthcare insurance (which is 100% govt-run and provided by govt employees in public institutions), so that the “needs-based” care is completely socialized. The private insurers could offer coverage for “upgraded” care and facilities, and/or the patients could pay out-of-pocket for whatever they could possibly want. All prices in the private and public markets should be fully transparent, so that people could comparision shop, and do their due dilligence.

Seriously, there is no evidence that shows our system is in any way superior to a “socialized” system. To the contrary, everything I’ve ever seen shows that socialized medicine is superior to our for-profit system. If you or anyone else has **evidence** to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

[CA renter]

I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.

[CA renter]

I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.

[CA renter]

I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.

[CA renter]

I also have to address the notion that you can avoid health problems by “eating right and getting exercise.”

We’ve known a surprisingly large number of young people (under 50 years old) who’ve been diagnosed with cancer — just estimating, maybe ~20 people or so. The first overweight person is this group was a cousin of mine who died from colon cancer this year. Every single other person was young, fit, and very health-conscious, even to the extreme of only eating organic foods and running/riding bikes 15+ miles per day. Many of these people had the same arrogant attitude toward overweight people and sickness that I see here. I’m not saying it’s healthy to be overweight, and it’s certainly not healthy to be obese, but too many people seem to miss the fact that genetics are a much bigger risk factor than simply being overweight (and obesity is most certainly genetic, in many cases, BTW). Don’t forget accidents and illnesses that are caused by other risky behaviours like drinking, smoking, or having unprotected sex. Add to that the expensive surgeries required by athletes who are injured while participating in sports (we know a number of these, too!). Don’t forget those who get in car or motorcycle accidents, or who fall off a ladder when doing home repairs, etc.

Anecdotally, another good friend who has always exercised religiously and “taken good care of herself” had a stroke earlier this year. She was in her 30s. Another very fit friend in his 40s just recently had a heart attack…while exercising.

Trying hanging around a chemo room someday. You’ll see very few “obese” people. Sadly, you’ll see a surprising number of very young, very fit people in there.

People who think they control their own fate WRT their health are very naive. If you remain uninsured simply because you are young or fit, you’re asking for serious problems, IMHO.

[Author]

Posts