Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"

Not at all, I'm all for anarchy. Seriously though, I don't think such a request is realistic. Once medicine, healthcare and insurance is part of the "free-market," such corruption is unavoidable.Hence my appeal to allocate the money where it would be most beneficial, and not to continue to line the pockets of politicians, lobbyist, CEO's, Pharm Ind., etc - to include Obama (currently) - for the sake of those reading who think this perspective makes me a Democrat supporter.- Oni

As the old saying goes, sunlight really is the best disinfectant.

To be honest, I think the way Obama has been approaching this debate has been wrong. The guy is great and intelligent, but he's being too political. I know he wants to be Lincolnesque, but even Lincoln was wont to do his own thing. I remember a story of Lincoln where his generals told him that Grant was a drunk and should be removed from command. You know what Lincoln said?

quote:

---

I can't spare this man; he fights

---

But to address your concern, preventative care does help. If Americans went to the doctor and found they had high blood pressure, perhaps the doctor could put them on a diet and exercise regimen that would reduce their blood pressure. Reduced blood pressure means a reduced chance for a heart attack. Or as per your example, a person who has diabetes could easily have it treated, depending on the type. Regular insulin injections and a nutritional regimen could work wonders to prevent that person from suffering an emergency later. Preventative care, in order to prevent future illness and problems, is a more efficient and often less expensive way of dealing with problems than waiting until the last minute. I find it is similar to getting an oil change every 2 - 3 thousand miles. The oil change is preventative care. It's a hassle to do and pay for, but if you don't, the repairs to your engine when it finally goes could cost you a lot more.I will says this too. While I don't like the Pharm companies pushing drugs as the cure for all our problems, they at least do research and provide a product. Health insurance companies are just middle men. That would be what the doctors have to decide. Typically, the doctors are the ones prescribing medication. Doctors prescribe medication because, like most people, they feel obligated when the Pharm company takes them out to lunch, sends them to Bermuda, or are otherwise lobbied by the Pharm companies. If we get the Pharm companies out of the doctor's office and let the doctors do their work, then perhaps they'll prescribe less.But that is another problem. Every society changes. My hope is that society changes for the better. That is true. This isn't easy because corporations are an indelible part of politics. I have to check on the decision, but a case was heard before the Court where one side argued that corporations should be allowed to participate in campaign finance, since they count as "individuals." Judicial history has said money counts as speech, and if the corporations are allowed to participate, then you'll find the political landscaped irrevocably altered. Corporations would be the most the powerful voices in government simply because they have the money to sway voters one way or the other. And we know how easily swayed Americans are.

Thanks for the link, greyseal. I don't know how true those stories are, but they don't sound too far-fetched to be completely madeup. True, so this will be my only reply.Abortion topics always remind me of Bill Hicks.- Oni

Well then my own will step up. And if they're gone and I'm helpless, then I'll embrace death over legislatively forcing the others to take care of me. I don't think its ever going to involve me... Here's what he wrote:

quote:

---

You are part of a dying and irrelevant minority in America. The "everyone for himself" crowd. You are pathetic and I feel sorry for someone who can care so little for his fellow human being.

---

When I look aroung me*, all I see is the "everyone for himself" crowd lacking any care for their fellow human beings while looking for the easiest hand-out to get, the one that they have to do the least to obtain. I think that handing out more free shit exacerbates the many extant problems.Overweight people on Medicaid with gold jewelry and $200 hair-dos getting free diabetes medication when all they have to do is get off their fat ass and lose some weight. Nah, lets just give everyone free shit so none of them have try to better themselves. We'll just let them sit around an multiply while we bust our asses and pay for them. I'm all for helping out a fellow who has run into hard times, I do it all the time. But I don't need legislation to force me to help the "everyone for himself" people who refuse to better themselves anyways yet are multiplying the fastest. I think perpetuating that problem is worse for America than letting some of their numbers dwindle through inaction.*St. Louis might not be a great representative sample but that's what I got.

Yeah, when its implemented. Too bad it hardly is. In theory, sure, but have you seen the people on Medicaid and how poorly they treat themselves? Have you seen their cars?They don't change their oil ever and drive around on the donut for weeks after they get a flat tire.Why would I want to help pay for their car insurance (analogously)?

Cool, I can respect that.But think of it, not like we're being forced to take care of you or others, but we're simply taking control of the money that would usually be kept by greedy fucks in Washington, and funneling it back into the community that it came from.Now, it can either go straight back to you (not really helping you out much due to it being a small %), or, it can accumulate as a sort of fund to help those in need. Either way the money is gone. Now either the gov can keep it, or people in need can use it.Would you be cool with that? Ignoring *those people* LOL, would the system I'm suggesting above work in your opinion, and be fair? Careful... you'll have a Michael Richards moment. Just fuck'n with ya... I get what you're saying and I do agree that lazy (fat-asses) don't deserve shit. True, but some aspects of a universal healthcare plan, if done properly, will actually benefit you in the long run. That seems like it helps us all... even the $200 hair *people*.- Oni

Must be nice that YOU can afford that new tire or that oil change.....some people can't, and that's the point.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

What are you describing specifically? Theoretically. How's it going to work? Ignoring the mojority of the people around me!? What community is the money going to be funneled back into then? I'm not just talking about black people (although they do seem to be the only ones with $200 herr-do's). There's plenty of white trash aroud here too. I'm not completely opposed to it... But which aspects will benefit me and how would they have to be done to be proper?

Thanks for adding to the discussion CS. This part of my reply is serious. But for the sake of discussion....I think CS has a point, I mean who wants to the legislature to force other people to put out my house when it is on fire? If my house ever catches fire, me and my own will step up. And if I get into a car crash, heck I am the one who made the CHOICE to drive that day. Why should some government agency some "rescue" me?Irresponsible people who accidently leave on their stove or couldn't tell the difference between a 16 and 18 gauge wire when they thoroughly inspected all the electrical wiring in their home before they bought it should just suck it up a break out the hose. I mean COMMON we already have a public water system to deliver water INSIDE their house. Now these greedy selfish people want more handouts. Giving away this stuff for free will just encourage people to continue to care less and less about their own lives and the safety of the people they love. I mean, if you don't have to pay for it, it doesn't have any value right?Back to being serious. You are making a HUGE presumption here CS. You are assuming that most of the people who would benefit from reform would be people who could otherwise take care of themselves. Do you have ANY evidence for this? Is this just something you believe? If it is just something you believe, why should anybody respect this opinion in the wake of people actually dying?Reform helps EVERYBODY including you. YOU suffer when your neighbor cannot work because of a treatable condition. YOU suffer when he goes bankrupt trying to saying a dying child. YOUR costs go up when healthy people who cannot afford coverage leave the private system. Lucky for both you and me, the majority of our fellow citizens see the ironic and dangerous naivety in your kind of thinking and will take the first imperfect steps forward on this issue to both of our benefit.Don't get me wrong, I don't take back what I said. You are part of a dying and increasingly irrelevant minority in this country. The vast majority of Americans across party lines believe we should have a universal health care system and a staunch majority would even be willing to pay more in taxes to make that happen.My generation and the current generation overwhelmingly support progressive principles. The battle for the heart of this country is a long game and the self-righteous "country of me" relics are literally and figuratively passing away.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

You seriously do?You think people should be able to opt-out of fire department services? Even if they were your next-door neighbor?

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Do you really think those are the only people this is for? Have you NEVER heard of an honest, hard working citizen who gets ..say, cancer, and is up to their eyeballs in medical bills? So much so that they have to take out a second mortgage, can no longer work, and can no longer see their regular doctor until they pay up? What about wounded vets? Being ex-army, I sympathize the most with vets who are getting fucked in this system. I'd be glad to pay a portion of my income for my brothers in arms to recover and lead a healthy life.

I don't know how you got the above from my "I can respect that" reply to CS?I don't care what people want to opt-out of, a city service is there whether you like it or not. That has nothing to do with my reply.CS said, "if I'm helpless then I'll accept death." I can respect that, I don't believe when faced with actual death he'll have the same reaction, but I respect his position nonetheless.- Oni

Nothing yet. I'm just suggesting a system that allocates the money that would otherwise be pocketed by los politicos and using that to set up a universal-type healthcare system.Would you be for something like that? Remembering of course that the money is taken from you in either case. Well lets look at the bigger picture and not just isolated situations. I guess I should ask first, overall, do you believe people who can't afford healthcare are lazy freeloaders who are unwilling to get a job?I guess if you see everyone like that (not saying that you do) it's hard to convice people that others need help. And spic-trash too, I know. It's not a race thing, but you seemed like you were going to a specific character, so I called you on it. That's the crux of the issue, IMO. How in fact can it be done properly?Nothing currently is being suggested that works properly. Curretly Obama's plan helps the Pharm industry control drug prices and that will increase insurance and medical bills. It changes nothing in the long run.But if it were done in a way that neither the Pharm industry was dictating drug prices, or the insurance companies bogusly jacking-up prices, and if it were managed so that equal share of the funds are used for all class of people, the way it would benefit you would be in reduced medical bills and drug prices.So the fact that your money is being used to help others actually helps you reduce your current medical and drug costs. Two birds with one stone(r). Remember, the money is taken from you now with high medical costs and high drug prices; you're already losing the money, you're just losing it to CEO's, lobbyist, politicians, etc.That upsets me more than a couple of lazy fat-asses getting $200 herrr-do's.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Wait, are you saying CS (or anyone else) doesn't have the right to opt-out of medical care? Have you taken a look at the ratings for ANY show on FoxNews? They blow most other news shows out of the water, including John Stewart and Colbert.And while this may not put CS's opinion in the majority, it does show that people can appreciate the right-wing concervative opinion. That opinion is not going any where.The media is of course pushing for universal healthcare (the illusionary left-wing networks) and only try to show supporting opinions, but that's only because of interests in the current proposed healthcare plan of the Obama admin which benefits the Pharm industry.But that's another issue all together.In any case, I think you've grossly misunderstood CS's point. And I say this while I disagree with him as well. Maybe you should try a little less emotion and a bit more comprehension, that might help...- OniHere's some Nielsen ratings: FoxNews ratings

quote:

---

For his Thursday show, Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel scored his highest ratings of the year in the all-important 25-to-54 demographic. He had 1.1 million viewers in that age group and 3.7 million overall, Nielsen Media Research reported.

​

Fox News also was the overwhelming leader in prime time Thursday, averaging nearly 2.9 million viewers. Here's how the competition fared: MSNBC with 1 million, CNN with 718,000 and HLN with 496,000.

​

O'Reilly is the big leader in the cable news race. And yet, it's not always just about being the leader.

---

Ratings for Daily Show and Colbert: source.

quote:

---

A Daily Show, Monday, January 7, 2008
Rating: 1.1 (-11%)
Viewers: 1,445,000 (-10%)
18—49: 978,000 (-7%)

​

The ColberT ReporT, Monday, January 7, 2008
Rating: 1.0 (+11%)
Viewers: 1,297,000 (+12%)
18—49: 889,000 (+11%)

---

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.