Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"

For now, but lets hope you never find yourself in a situation where you can't.This is reminds me of the pro-life people, who are only pro-life till they get the wrong chick pregnant, then all of a sudden they become pro-choice (even if they don't come out and say it).Hell, I suspect in some instances they'd abort the baby themselves - like say if a young white girl from a rich family suddenly becomes pregnant by the young handsome well endowed hispanic that cuts the family's grass. How long do you think that innocent Christian fetus will live for? It's easy to stand on one side of an argument when you feel it doesn't involve you, until it does, then eye's get open wide and minds change immediately. This is a fair point. But you say that while you are able to do so. Sadly, many run into situations where they just can't help themselves anymore. It's a sad day when "Americans" would turn their backs on fellow "patriots" who've fallen on hard times. Lets hope you never need it, bro.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Would you rather public funds be stolen by government agencies, lobbyist, politicians, greedy CEO's, etc... or, would you rather it be funneled back into the community from which it came from?- Oni

Great posts, but what do you suggest... So what kind of plan is being suggested that some how reduces the cost of medical bills? Obama's plan (as vague as it may be) actually benefits (in the long run) the Pharm companies who are responsible for the high prices for medical bills. Actually, it really doesn't. By giving everyone healthcare, you actually increase the revenue for the Pharm industries. It's simple - more people insured, more people going to the doctor, more people buying medicine, more people feeding the Pharm companies.What that does is increase the demand for medicine, making the Pharm companies responsible for making more medicine as the demand increases - supply -vs- demand - and now the cost increases due to more demand for medicine because now EVERYONE has healthcare. A demand that wasn't there before everyone had healthcare.Since the Pharm industry has a strong hold on where medicine is bought, they control the pricing of the drugs and the increase in demand will drive the prices up - Which will drive the cost of medical bills up - Which will drive the cost to insure people up - And if we tax payers are covering the cost, guess who has to cover that increase?I'm not saying some universal healthcare plan isn't needed, but all I see is a lot of fancy words and the illusion of caring, but no results or potential results to the crisis at hand. Are you suggesting we need "Change"...? No "side" as of yet has suggested a plan that removes greed from the equation.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

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

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

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

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.

Not as a measure of public opinion per se, especially not as an accurate one. I was just trying to show that CS's type of think, while possibly not in the majority, does draw massive amounts of supporters and doesn't seem to be fading in the least.More so to the point, the opposing side (me, you, us) should not simply disregard this opinion, but try to understand the opinion and where it's coming from. If you say, "Ah, whatever, you guys are fading fast..." you simply try to sweep the problem of under the rug, but that disregard to public opinion will eventually come back to bit you.It is an opinion held by many in this country which needs to be acknowledged as such, and it's not fading and never has faded. It may become less aggressive, or less bigoted, but it will remain part of our diverse system. The point is to understand where the misunderstandings are (on both sides of the opinion) and try to find common ground. Which always seems to be a problem in this country, to find common ground, because one side calls the other side ignorant, while the other side calls the other a bunch of liberal pussies. Which is the same ideology that motivates our news networks, and it serves as a continuous tool to divide Americans. I will argue with anyone over anything, so feel free to discuss whatever you like. I will meet you there to do battle, Jazzns. Not to split hairs, but O'Reilly leads that network and FoxNews has build most of their supporters off of his (insane) opinions.- Oni

The media and the powers that be have divided this country so much that it's become a fight between ourselves.Nobody should be afriad of anybody, but nothing can be accomplished if we assume why people have the opinions they do. Open discourse (something the government fights very hard to avoid) can help everyone find common ground on any and all matters.There is no stable majority when it comes to these opinions. Americans are swayed by the media easily and are never fixed to one single ideology. So instead of dealing with their opinions head on and try to understand one another (because, as you say, we are a country of "WE" even the "we's" we disagree with) you'd rather ignore them?Doesn't that in effect make them feel less like a "we" and more like an "I"...?It seems like your idea of what to do about people who we disagree with is to ignore their opinion and call them a dying minority. Which works counter to your other position that we are a country of "we". Or is it just that we should all be force to one single opinion? Is that the kind of "we" you're talking about, only the "we's" that agree with you?Here's a fact: racism is alive and well in this country, and racist people vote. Ignore them and their opinion all you want; call them a dying minority all you want; call them ignorant and backwards all you want - but they still get to vote. And all you're doing is feeding their racism by making them feel less and less a part of this country.Instead, a better approach might be to talk to people. Find out why they feel "their country is being taken over by n*ggers and f*gs." Maybe they're just miss informed, maybe they're just scared of what the right-wing media keeps telling them, maybe they're upset that their opinions aren't being heard - who knows??? But ignoring them won't help. Ostracizing them from society will only feed their anger, and not making people feel like they're part of the country their parents fought for will cause great descension, breed malitias, cause unwanted violence, etc.They won't "die off" like you're thinking.People are closed off from discourse between people of a different opinion, and it's due to the media feeding everyone lies about what the other side thinks of each other. I travel a lot and meet a lot of people from different backgrounds. And even those who we would consider "backwards" only want good things for everyone around them. The key to a progressive society is to knock down those walls of isolation and bring everyone to the table and try to find common ground.- Oni

No, the money that is currently being paid by you for medicine through your insurance payments.Let me correct it. The money that is being paid by your fellow Americans for medicine (to include you - maybe to a lesser degree) through their insurance payments. We pay ridiculous money for drugs in this country (and not for the good kind either).My kids had their share of illnesses that I had to financially deal with. Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't pay for it, because I will, but not the ridiculous prices these Pharm fucks have jacked it up to. But I'm fucked 'cause I have no option. Either my kids die or I literally make Pharm executives richer... those are my 2 options. I think you're mistaken. All progressive changes that have taken effect (segregation, womens rights, etc.) start off in places like NY and Cali. So what happens there affects you, eventually. Legalized pot will eventually be a country wide thing (IPU willing) and it will be because it helped Cali with tax revenue.Not everyone that cant afford health insurance is a free loading lazy-ass. Keeping in mind that we're not just talking about single coverage CS, I'm talking family insurance. And, what about those who do work, very fuckn hard, but their company doesn't provide insurance? What then? What does someone like that do for their family?Well, they go to the emergency room. And what does that do? Makes you and I pay more medical insurance to cover their cost. What?! For family insurance? I don't think so dude.Back in my 9-5 days, for family insurance, through the company I worked for, was close to $300 per month. Of course, before taxes. I agree. But I don't see how that's relevant. Lets look at the numbers though. Blacks are a minority, and blacks without jobs are also a minority within themselves. So what impact, if any, do a few people who take advantage of a system have on the overall outcome of the system?All that does is make dialogue impossible when anyone without healthcare or the means to afford it is looked down upon automatically without so much as a chance. But you're talking about a minority of people that will always exist, regardless of what kind of plan is out there. How is the current plan helping aviod the situation? It's not is it? Because if it did *they* wouldn't exist. But they do, so clearly the "system" has no impact on what happens.What universal healthcare WILL do is help those who do have jobs but just can't afford health insurance for their family or the high prices of medicine. AND, by giving them healthcare, your own cost to insure yourself (or your family when you have one) will be greatly reduced because YOU aren't paying for other people without insurance. Then we agree. I would then suggest we ALL need to find a system that we can all agree is fair.Open discourse, thats all we need at that point. And I think we can find common ground. Well whatever it is for you personally pay (remembering that it will increase once you start a family, have kids, and hopefully your kids aren't sick children) it would be less, if not completely free.Then with the money you save, you can buy a new gun rack and a "Get-R-Done" hat. - Oni

Agreed.It can even be said that the Middle East is getting more progressive, despite Islamic fundamentalist having semi, and in some case total, control. I am more progressive than my father, and he was more progressive than his. That is a common evolution for social ideologies that is gained ONLY through open dialogue.But, in this case, the opinions of the people are being dictated by the media, as is common for issues where distracting the public is needed. Healthcare is one of those issues. While the Big Dogs divide the money within themselves, behind closed doors, we the "bewildered masses" rip each others throat apart due to misinformation.CS and Phage are misinformed as to the outcome of a (properly run) universal healthcare plan, and I blame the mainstream news outlets for this confusion. But, we can, as fellow Americans, have discussions with them to (possibly) better inform them. Why should we turn our backs on people who've been lied to by the media?You have people on TV calling it socialism! How fuck'n retarded are these people? I'll tell you... they are not retarded at all. In the middle of that hyped up frenzy is a well thought out plan of mass confusion, set up to distract, while others convene and work out the real issues and make sure everyone gets paid.Meanwhile, citizens just get more and more divided.How easy is it to call to arms conservatives? Or liberals? It should really be evident how indoctrinated into a system of media control the US has become, when matters concerning healthcare are divided by party lines. It's as if no one has their own opinion anymore and simply agree with which ever side their particular news channel is on.We can help them though, and we should. Fair enough, he was acting like a bit of a douche. I think he was just trying to push your buttons. IMO, not when the root of the issue is the media misinforming people. The media creates the lies, people believe them, then argue in support of those lies.We can fix that with honest discourse that brings to light the fact that people have been lied to. Exactly. And by showing creationist that the so-called creation scientist are lying to them, you can change peoples minds. Not all, of course, I'm realistic. But ignoring them only gives them a chance to come up with more lies. Again, once people have been lied to and they believe these lies, the only approach at that point is to attack the source of the confusion. The media. Our fights should not be against one another, they should be against the media that continuously lies to people. I agree with you for the most part. I just feel that (both of our) efforts should be targeted to the sole entity responsible for the problem. The media. Some people have been made to feel like they're not a part of this country anymore by the greedy, filthy mainstream media which lies to them. It's not their fault they feel this way, and IMO, it's up to us to change it.- OniPS. You said "tea-baggers"

Really? Start a thread and title it: Pro-choice vs Pro-life, or one titled: Gay marriage vs Traditional marriage, and see what happens.It's very easy to provoke either side IMO. There are hot-button issues that will trigger an emotional uprising from either parties supporters. How could you say that when almost every single issue facing our country is divided right down party lines? And the liberals did the same thing during Bush's term, and neither side EVER adds anything to the debate except more mass confusion. They're not rare at all. It's just that the news media sees no use for them right now and has down-played that whole issue... for now. Until it's needed as a distraction, then they're back on the TV rallying. Give it time and you'll see it happen.The media dictates where the focus is, not the citizens. You don't hear a word about gay-marriage anymore either, do you? Why? Same as the pro-choice people; there's no use for them right now. When there is, they'll be in the spotlight once again. Give it time. That's a good point. But it's the media's job to keep us misinformed of what's going on, so that we can't focus on anything and we just add to the ruckus.The media is the true enemy of progress and we seem to only focus on individual opinions. Meanwhile, the individual opinions are coming directly from what the mainstream media is saying. Like I said, people don't seem to have their own opinions anymore, they just agree with whatever news source they watch.- Oni

Specifically to one another, no.Let me clarify what I meant since you and Izanagi both replied to this. What I meant is that it's easy to get both sides out there to cause a ruckus and add nothing to the debate.Both sides seem motivated by media inspired rethoric (pro-choice/pro-life - gay marriage/anti-gay marriage - pro-gun/pro-gun control, etc, etc, etc). For every one conservative nut job spouting garbage motivated by the media there is his liberal counter-part spouting garbage as well.The point being that each side using this type of propaganda never acheives anything.And it's obvious why the media promotes such acts of stupidity, because that kind of hype sells advertising space on their networks.- Oni