Who's Cawley?

Where do quotes begin and end?

What therefore do you wish everyone to deduce?

Or is this a dutiful, unvetted delivery?

Where are the moonbat knuckleheads accusing these people of just letting smokers and fat people die in the streets?

Oh, they are probably the hypocrites making this suggestion.

Smokers and fat people definitely cause increased health costs that get thrown into the claims pile with everyone else's. Yes they cause the rest of the pool to pay more than they would otherwise. 

Why are the moonbats suddenly pointing fingers at someone to take responsibility for themselves? When the responsible have to pay extra for layabouts to be covered, where are the moonbats to point fingers then? Nowhere to be found except to call the people that pay for all this "selfish" when they want layabouts to called to account for their responsibilities.

This has been Bail Out Nation for decades - for people and the select corporations. Why stop now? 

Oh, are we running out of money?? 

In response to slomag's comment:

Smokers are heavily taxed and the revenue goes to health programs like SCHIP and Medicaid. I think that's a good approach - if there are foods contributing to our health care costs, tax them to help pay for our health care costs.  No nanny state - you can do what you want, but if it's in the best interest of the country to make a salad less expensive than a whopper, what's the problem?

I agree...I am all for the sin taxes..with the proceeds going to offset health costs for people who choose to live unhealthy lives.

I don't buy soda..or cigarettes..or fast food. Let the people who do these things cover their own health costs.

In response to miscricket's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

Smokers are heavily taxed and the revenue goes to health programs like SCHIP and Medicaid. I think that's a good approach - if there are foods contributing to our health care costs, tax them to help pay for our health care costs.  No nanny state - you can do what you want, but if it's in the best interest of the country to make a salad less expensive than a whopper, what's the problem?

I agree...I am all for the sin taxes..with the proceeds going to offset health costs for people who choose to live unhealthy lives.

I don't buy soda..or cigarettes..or fast food. Let the people who do these things cover their own health costs.

I live the same lifestyle.

However, this is the problem with government being invlvived in health care.  the government should not be in the business of making some lifestyle choices acceptable, others not.  Simply is not the role of government.

That, and the fact that smokers spend less on healht care, and socisla security, and Medicare, because they don't live as long. there is a social security study somewhere that actually bemoans the fact that people are smoking less and therefore living longer, drawing more social security, which will bankrupt the system.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to miscricket's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

Smokers are heavily taxed and the revenue goes to health programs like SCHIP and Medicaid. I think that's a good approach - if there are foods contributing to our health care costs, tax them to help pay for our health care costs.  No nanny state - you can do what you want, but if it's in the best interest of the country to make a salad less expensive than a whopper, what's the problem?

I agree...I am all for the sin taxes..with the proceeds going to offset health costs for people who choose to live unhealthy lives.

I don't buy soda..or cigarettes..or fast food. Let the people who do these things cover their own health costs.

I live the same lifestyle.

However, this is the problem with government being invlvived in health care.  the government should not be in the business of making some lifestyle choices acceptable, others not.  Simply is not the role of government.

That, and the fact that smokers spend less on healht care, and socisla security, and Medicare, because they don't live as long. there is a social security study somewhere that actually bemoans the fact that people are smoking less and therefore living longer, drawing more social security, which will bankrupt the system.

Even if you take the government out of the equation, you still have the same problem with your insurance carrier.  They can't police everybody's intake, and poor diet and lack of exercise does not always manifest in obvious ways (like obesity), but invariably leads to health issues.  With or without the government involved, you wind up paying for the health complications of people who don't take care of themselves.  Only with government involvement can you enforce some measure of accountability. 

In response to slomag's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

In response to miscricket's comment:

In response to slomag's comment:

Smokers are heavily taxed and the revenue goes to health programs like SCHIP and Medicaid. I think that's a good approach - if there are foods contributing to our health care costs, tax them to help pay for our health care costs.  No nanny state - you can do what you want, but if it's in the best interest of the country to make a salad less expensive than a whopper, what's the problem?

I agree...I am all for the sin taxes..with the proceeds going to offset health costs for people who choose to live unhealthy lives.

I don't buy soda..or cigarettes..or fast food. Let the people who do these things cover their own health costs.

I live the same lifestyle.

However, this is the problem with government being invlvived in health care.  the government should not be in the business of making some lifestyle choices acceptable, others not.  Simply is not the role of government.

That, and the fact that smokers spend less on healht care, and socisla security, and Medicare, because they don't live as long. there is a social security study somewhere that actually bemoans the fact that people are smoking less and therefore living longer, drawing more social security, which will bankrupt the system.

Even if you take the government out of the equation, you still have the same problem with your insurance carrier.  They can't police everybody's intake, and poor diet and lack of exercise does not always manifest in obvious ways (like obesity), but invariably leads to health issues.  With or without the government involved, you wind up paying for the health complications of people who don't take care of themselves.  Only with government involvement can you enforce some measure of accountability. 

Once again..I agree. Government in this case has very little to do with how insurance companies set rates based on risk. I know for our company the rates have gone up or down over the years based on the cost of employee claims.

In cases of public health issues that wind up costing everyone more money and affecting the health of citizens then it is appropriate for the government to step in and find a way to pay for it that doesn't affect everyone. Smoking was a problem for everyone.

I actually think Skeeter's comment is kind of funny. Sounds like all for people dying early so that it cost the government less. That sounds more like a death panel to me than anything Obamacare has suggested.

The left sees your freedom to choose for youself as the problem.  That's why they need "death panels", to inform you of the choice they have made for you.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

The refusal to discuss discrete actual things gives the lie to your rants.

You don't have any valid specific complaints, so you abstract out beyond the realm of meaninglessness.

And then, of course, you have to lie about what other people supposedly think to win your shadowboxing match.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

The left sees your freedom to choose for youself as the problem.  That's why they need "death panels", to inform you of the choice they have made for you.

A gross fallacy.  One could just as well say the right proposes allowing the private insurers to make those same choices for you through the market, and that, by raising your premiums, it's just free market capitalism at work.  (like "letting detroit go bankrupt", as it were)

There are no "death panels", except in your imagination...and eventually on the underwriters' drawing boards.  This is a "solution" the private sector is already developing.