Death Panel: Let Fat Smokers Die

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Death Panel: Let Fat Smokers Die

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    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.

     

     



    If the private insurers have death panels then so does Obamacare. It is the same thing except that with Obamacare you are FORCED to buy insurance. Otherwise you would be free to find the insurer you wanted or pay cash. 

     

     



    No, it doesn't, and no, it really isn't.

     

    Are you saying you have a wealth of health insurance choices with your employer?  Different carriers, a la carte services...?  Really?!

    The alternative is the individual insurance market, which is so underenrolled that the market demands 50-75% higher premiums.

     



    Wait.  I don't need to buy health care?

    For a moment there, I thought part of Obamacare was a requirement that I buy health care.

    Glad we straightened that out.  Now, tell me again:  Why do we need Obamacare?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Death Panel: Let Fat Smokers Die

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    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.

     

     

     

     

    You clearly don't understand the difference between government mandates and the free market.  If smoking is an issue, governemnt withr bans it or refuse you care.

    In the private sector, if there are enough people who smoke that are interested in a particular health care plan, private insurance offers it.

    BTW:   iI didn't say their were death panels.  ms cricket brought it up,  Iwas simply using the same language for clarity.  The left does intend to limit your choices.  That's why we have bans on drinks over 16 oz.  , banning of transfats, sugar, butter, in resteraunts, do you really think it is going to stop there?



    OK, now you're just babbling.  

    Smoking bans exist for those who don't smoke or as healthfully necessary to perform a job (firefighter comes to mind).  There are far more private companies and orgs refusing to hire people who smoke, or demand that they stop as a condition of employment.

    Health insurers impose a surcharge on smokers 1) because they can, 2) because govt lets them, 3) because it helps their bottom line.  Else, why don't they just give non-smokers a rebate?

    See, a REAL conservative would say that the "freedom" to produce (not just eat) any foodstuff at all regardless of the consequences isn't much of a freedom at all.

    (And who bans butter?  No, really??!)

    I won't get into the rampant speculation surely in your mind of where "it's going to stop"... that's your own little rabbit hole.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Death Panel: Let Fat Smokers Die

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    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.

     

     



    If the private insurers have death panels then so does Obamacare. It is the same thing except that with Obamacare you are FORCED to buy insurance. Otherwise you would be free to find the insurer you wanted or pay cash. 

     

     



    No, it doesn't, and no, it really isn't.

     

    Are you saying you have a wealth of health insurance choices with your employer?  Different carriers, a la carte services...?  Really?!

    The alternative is the individual insurance market, which is so underenrolled that the market demands 50-75% higher premiums.

     

     



    Wait.  I don't need to buy health care?

     

    For a moment there, I thought part of Obamacare was a requirement that I buy health care.

    Glad we straightened that out.  Now, tell me again:  Why do we need Obamacare?



    No, you don't.  You can pay a penalty and take your chances...like the tens of millions now who didn't have health care until the ACA is fully enacted. 

    I was saying no to your death panels and simile.  Your employer would certainly prefer you go elsewhere for insurance and might even pay you extra for your trouble.

    And if you really have to ask, you might never know.  You've shown unwillingness to understand insurance underwriting, risk assessment, data pooling, preventive medicine...all in favor to your ideology of know-nothingism.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Death Panel: Let Fat Smokers Die

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    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.

     

     

     

     

    You clearly don't understand the difference between government mandates and the free market.  If smoking is an issue, governemnt withr bans it or refuse you care.

    In the private sector, if there are enough people who smoke that are interested in a particular health care plan, private insurance offers it.

    BTW:   iI didn't say their were death panels.  ms cricket brought it up,  Iwas simply using the same language for clarity.  The left does intend to limit your choices.  That's why we have bans on drinks over 16 oz.  , banning of transfats, sugar, butter, in resteraunts, do you really think it is going to stop there?

     



    OK, now you're just babbling.  

     

    Smoking bans exist for those who don't smoke or as healthfully necessary to perform a job (firefighter comes to mind).  There are far more private companies and orgs refusing to hire people who smoke, or demand that they stop as a condition of employment.

    Health insurers impose a surcharge on smokers 1) because they can, 2) because govt lets them, 3) because it helps their bottom line.  Else, why don't they just give non-smokers a rebate?

    See, a REAL conservative would say that the "freedom" to produce (not just eat) any foodstuff at all regardless of the consequences isn't much of a freedom at all.

    (And who bans butter?  No, really??!)

    I won't get into the rampant speculation surely in your mind of where "it's going to stop"... that's your own little rabbit hole.

     




    So, smoking.  Well, companies can discriminate, apparently on things like smoking, 16 oz. drinks, NOT being a minority, but not on other things, apparently, like being the best person for the job.  I see an inconsistency here.

    As far as public employees being banned from smoking:  Well, that's what you get IF government can call the shots, and in what their employees do, the can.  Who cares if a firefighter smokes, as long as they can get their job done.  As soon as they can't get their job done, due to smoking or anything else, dump 'em.  Their inability to carry you down a ladder is a real problem, not that they might enjoy a cigarette, cigar, or pipe now and then.

    What is happening is neither of the above.  What is happening is that government is banning things like 16 oz soft drinks.  That is neither an employment issue for the private sector or the public sector.  That i sbanning EVERYONE from something, not as a condition of ANYTHING, or for the benefit of ANYONE OR ANYTHING.

    I would say that's much different than your example, would you not?

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Death Panel: Let Fat Smokers Die

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    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.

     

     



    If the private insurers have death panels then so does Obamacare. It is the same thing except that with Obamacare you are FORCED to buy insurance. Otherwise you would be free to find the insurer you wanted or pay cash. 

     

     



    No, it doesn't, and no, it really isn't.

     

    Are you saying you have a wealth of health insurance choices with your employer?  Different carriers, a la carte services...?  Really?!

    The alternative is the individual insurance market, which is so underenrolled that the market demands 50-75% higher premiums.

     

     



    Wait.  I don't need to buy health care?

     

    For a moment there, I thought part of Obamacare was a requirement that I buy health care.

    Glad we straightened that out.  Now, tell me again:  Why do we need Obamacare?

     



    No, you don't.  You can pay a penalty and take your chances...like the tens of millions now who didn't have health care until the ACA is fully enacted. 

     

    I was saying no to your death panels and simile.  Your employer would certainly prefer you go elsewhere for insurance and might even pay you extra for your trouble.

    And if you really have to ask, you might never know.  You've shown unwillingness to understand insurance underwriting, risk assessment, data pooling, preventive medicine...all in favor to your ideology of know-nothingism.

     

     



     

    Right. Pay a penalty (eye roll).

     

    So apparently I am free to buy or not buy insurance, but I need to pay a penalty for exercising my right to not buy insurance. Isn't that like a poll tax?

     

    I guess that's the liberal view of freedom isn't really free, it actually costs whatever government wants to fine you for the privilege of exercising your god-given rights.

     

    I understand all the insurance related items you mention. What I don't understand is your inability to understand that government, by compulsion, doesn't fix any of the issues with any of those things.

    Government has been getting more and more involved with insurance and insurance gets more and more expensive as a result. Finally, the solution to control costs is more government, i.e. total government control? What is it that makes you subscribe to such lunacy?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Death Panel: Let Fat Smokers Die

    In response to Newtster's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    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?? 

     



    I don't think liberals ever had a problem with taxing unhealthy foods and tobacco to help pay for shared medical costs.  I don't think liberals have a problem with regulating what can be bought with food stamps, either.  In fact, my guess is the corn industry has more to do with the lack of regulation than any ideology.

     

    The only time any party has been accused of 'letting people die in the streets' is when they try to block legislation designed to help insure the uninsured.  

     

     



    Yeah, liberals have no problem taxing, they have a problem solving the problem to begin with. Plus they do have problems regualting what can be bought with food stamps otherwise EBT cards would never have been used for strip clubs and buying booze and cigarettes.

     

    Do you think liberals would have a problem scrutinizing the eligibility of those those that want government benefits in the same way they scrutinize the income of people whose taxes pay for the benefits??

    If someone gets foods stamps, do you think they should show they are not paying for items like cable TV, cigarettes, booze, lottery tickets, cell phones, etc. before they claim they can't afford food or health insurance, etc? Why should the taxpayer subsidize their irresponsible behavior any more than we should give smokers and fat people pay the same rate for health insurance as people that avoid that unhealthy behavior?

    I mean really, if you are going to go after fat people for being irresponsible, why should the state give benefits to people that allow them to buy crappe that will kill them in the same way???



    I can't speak for all liberals, but I completely agree with you.  I believe in social programs, but they are obviously often abused.  I would much rather give a hungry family food than the money to buy the food.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Death Panel: Let Fat Smokers Die

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    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.

     

     



    If the private insurers have death panels then so does Obamacare. It is the same thing except that with Obamacare you are FORCED to buy insurance. Otherwise you would be free to find the insurer you wanted or pay cash. 

     

     



    No, it doesn't, and no, it really isn't.

     

    Are you saying you have a wealth of health insurance choices with your employer?  Different carriers, a la carte services...?  Really?!

    The alternative is the individual insurance market, which is so underenrolled that the market demands 50-75% higher premiums.

     

     



    Wait.  I don't need to buy health care?

     

    For a moment there, I thought part of Obamacare was a requirement that I buy health care.

    Glad we straightened that out.  Now, tell me again:  Why do we need Obamacare?

     



    No, you don't.  You can pay a penalty and take your chances...like the tens of millions now who didn't have health care until the ACA is fully enacted. 

     

    I was saying no to your death panels and simile.  Your employer would certainly prefer you go elsewhere for insurance and might even pay you extra for your trouble.

    And if you really have to ask, you might never know.  You've shown unwillingness to understand insurance underwriting, risk assessment, data pooling, preventive medicine...all in favor to your ideology of know-nothingism.

     

     



     

    Right. Pay a penalty (eye roll).

     

    So apparently I am free to buy or not buy insurance, but I need to pay a penalty for exercising my right to not buy insurance. Isn't that like a poll tax?

     

    I guess that's the liberal view of freedom isn't really free, it actually costs whatever government wants to fine you for the privilege of exercising your god-given rights.

     

    I understand all the insurance related items you mention. What I don't understand is your inability to understand that government, by compulsion, doesn't fix any of the issues with any of those things.

    Government has been getting more and more involved with insurance and insurance gets more and more expensive as a result. Finally, the solution to control costs is more government, i.e. total government control? What is it that makes you subscribe to such lunacy?




    Government, by compulsion, addresses the issue of certain individuals being unable to purchase health insurance.  

    I'd guess that most liberals don't really want Obamacare - they want single-payer.  The things you see as infringement on your rights are the result of getting the best deal possible in the current political climate.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Death Panel: Let Fat Smokers Die

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to Newtster's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    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.

     

     



    If the private insurers have death panels then so does Obamacare. It is the same thing except that with Obamacare you are FORCED to buy insurance. Otherwise you would be free to find the insurer you wanted or pay cash. 

     

     



    No, it doesn't, and no, it really isn't.

     

    Are you saying you have a wealth of health insurance choices with your employer?  Different carriers, a la carte services...?  Really?!

    The alternative is the individual insurance market, which is so underenrolled that the market demands 50-75% higher premiums.

     

     



    Wait.  I don't need to buy health care?

     

    For a moment there, I thought part of Obamacare was a requirement that I buy health care.

    Glad we straightened that out.  Now, tell me again:  Why do we need Obamacare?

     



    No, you don't.  You can pay a penalty and take your chances...like the tens of millions now who didn't have health care until the ACA is fully enacted. 

     

    I was saying no to your death panels and simile.  Your employer would certainly prefer you go elsewhere for insurance and might even pay you extra for your trouble.

    And if you really have to ask, you might never know.  You've shown unwillingness to understand insurance underwriting, risk assessment, data pooling, preventive medicine...all in favor to your ideology of know-nothingism.

     

     



     

    Right. Pay a penalty (eye roll).

     

    So apparently I am free to buy or not buy insurance, but I need to pay a penalty for exercising my right to not buy insurance. Isn't that like a poll tax?

     

    I guess that's the liberal view of freedom isn't really free, it actually costs whatever government wants to fine you for the privilege of exercising your god-given rights.

     

    I understand all the insurance related items you mention. What I don't understand is your inability to understand that government, by compulsion, doesn't fix any of the issues with any of those things.

    Government has been getting more and more involved with insurance and insurance gets more and more expensive as a result. Finally, the solution to control costs is more government, i.e. total government control? What is it that makes you subscribe to such lunacy?

     




     

    Government, by compulsion, addresses the issue of certain individuals being unable to purchase health insurance.  

    I'd guess that most liberals don't really want Obamacare - they want single-payer.  The things you see as infringement on your rights are the result of getting the best deal possible in the current political climate.

     



    Why does everyone have to be able to buy health insurance? Are we not already providing health insurance for the poor(Medicaid) and the old (Medicare), veterans (va).

    is being able to afford health insurance a right?

    if so, I am declaring ownin a nice Jaguar as a right. After all, it is something I can't afford, and I am certain it is within my rights. Do I send the bill directly to Obama?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share