This just in

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Mary Robinson

No one is denied care in this country (USA). Anyone who goes to a hospital gets treatment, with or without insurance. It's the law. As for insurance, why does everyone insist that the insurance companies are obligated to provide it to everyone who asks for it? They run a business, same as the grocery stores/mini marts who regularly post "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" and the restaurants who "reserve the right to refuse service". As for medical expenses, I know of two situations, one my sister-in-law, diagnosed with skin cancer, who received treatment, she had no insurance and her cost dropped from $25,000 to $5,000 the minute they heard she had no insurance. They also offered to set up a payment plan so she could pay the bill she incurred. The second is one of a friend, who has a rare blood cancer, she received treatment, her expenses, including medication costing $40,000, was covered by her insurance, partially, the pharmaceutical company making the meds, partially and the American Cancer Society, partially. All of these options are available, to all of us. How many people have you seen at the grocery store paying with food stamps as they pull out their cell phones and yak? When did owning a cell phone become a right? When did having cable become a right? So, instead of paying their $40 plus dollar a month cell bill and their $50 dollar a month cable bill, how about shopping at Wal-Mart for school clothes instead of Macy's or Dillard's, how about they stick the money they save into a Health Savings Account and start building toward something that will help them when they need it? I would like to know where in the US Constitution it says everyone has the 'right' to health insurance? Why is there no personal responsibility? If you take drugs or decide to live a homosexual lifestyle, why should the rest of the country and the insurance companies be obligated to cover your expenses when you have put yourself into a situation which is known to have health risks? Auto insurance companies and life insurance companies aren't required to accept you if they don't want to do so and they don't have to insurance you, if you have 10 speeding tickets or accidents without a higher premium? So why do so many feel the health insurance companies should be required to do so? And you can't get life insurance if you smoke or have health issues without higher premiums. If I were an insurance company and I was told I have to insure everyone, regardless of health and I had to do it at a certain rate, I'd shut my doors.

A few other sneaky little things put into this healthcare measure.

Do you really think the young are going to buy health insurance? Or will they just pay the penalty because it's cheaper than purchasing healthcare coverage? (HINT - More tax money to the government... hell, either way the government gets the money .... ding ding ding)

Do you think employers will go with the 15% private insurance cost on payroll or the "dump you" option and pay 8% penalty for not offering insurance? (HINT- GET EVERYONE ON GOVERNMENT PLAN)

Do you think politicians care about your health care? If you answer yes to this, I want to have you as a customer.

Do you think Congress will be mandated to go on this plan?

The government plan doesn't have to make a profit. How will that compete with private insurance?

If the government can tap the taxpayers for virtually unlimited funds (slavery), why wouldn't they operate at a loss indefinitely like the post office and other government agencies... say... Amtrak like. and if the government can operate at a loss, insurance companies can't... so how would they compete? Or is the goal to drive them out of business?

Tell me again this isn't about control and government taking over 20% of the US Economy...

[Mechoption]

Originally Posted by Mary Robinson

No one is denied care in this country (USA).

True, but 'care' is very subjective.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

A few other sneaky little things put into this healthcare measure.

Do you really think the young are going to buy health insurance? Or will they just pay the penalty because it's cheaper than purchasing healthcare coverage? (HINT - More tax money to the government... hell, either way the government gets the money .... ding ding ding)

Do you think employers will go with the 15% private insurance cost on payroll or the "dump you" option and pay 8% penalty for not offering insurance? (HINT- GET EVERYONE ON GOVERNMENT PLAN)

Do you think politicians care about your health care? If you answer yes to this, I want to have you as a customer.

Do you think Congress will be mandated to go on this plan?

The government plan doesn't have to make a profit. How will that compete with private insurance?

If the government can tap the taxpayers for virtually unlimited funds (slavery), why wouldn't they operate at a loss indefinitely like the post office and other government agencies... say... Amtrak like. and if the government can operate at a loss, insurance companies can't... so how would they compete? Or is the goal to drive them out of business?

Tell me again this isn't about control and government taking over 20% of the US Economy...

I still contend its a punishment for letting things get out of hand. We as the general populace are as much at fault as the politicians are in this monster we created. And now that we are faced with this Frankenstein, we asked the government to fix it.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Douglas

I still contend its a punishment for letting things get out of hand. We as the general populace are as much at fault as the politicians are in this monster we created. And now that we are faced with this Frankenstein, we asked the government to fix it.

I didn't ask the government to do anything. In fact, I'd really prefer the government just quit trying to do so much and fix the crap they've already screwed up.

Barney Frank was recently quoted as saying its the Democrats goal to expand government into every facet of our lives. Why? Why does our government feel a NEED to control every aspect of our daily living? Why does the media accept this as the way it SHOULD be?

I don't think it's our fault any longer. I think we were lied to and have allowed a system to be created that needs a constant power increase to live. The system itself has taken over and we cannot vote anyone into office who can make a difference...because they are all part of the same system to begin with.

This isn't going to get any better. It's too big and already set on its course.

The irony is that our Founding Fathers started a revolution to escape EXACTLY what we're getting ourselves into now. Except I think it's worse today than they ever imagined.

[Douglas]

I agree. I dont want governement involvement in lots of things. They should have some presence in some things, as that is one of their purposes. But its way out of hand. I also agree that we have hit that point where politicians are in this totally for themselves and to keep their system going. How long has it been that way? Thats up for debate. Some of founding fathers may have still been alive when it began. But its gotten to the point you cant trust 99% of them. From city, to county, to state, to national. Very little is different. We vote and hope this time it will be different. Or at least not as bad.

Now thats a sad state of affairs. We hope for better, but at the same time will settle for not worse.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Douglas

I agree. I dont want governement involvement in lots of things. They should have some presence in some things, as that is one of their purposes.

It is one of their purposes. But where do you draw the line?

Based on your arguments, you feel that it's okay for the government to provide healthcare to its citizens. Even at the risk of going too far into people's personal lives. Why is that acceptable while other things aren't?

Should the government be allowed into our sex lives, determining which partners are acceptable for us? The majority of people would say "no", I'm sure. I'd be willing to bet many of those same people would be okay with government run healthcare. So what happens when the government determines that homosexuals aren't allowed to have sex due to the higher risks of HIV/AIDS? It's a healthcare decision with an impact on sex lives.

Or suntanning? Higher risk of skin cancer. Smoking? Drinking?

Where does it end?

Personally, I tend to follow a more Constitution-based approach to government involvement. If it's not specifically ALLOWED in the Constitution, it's a state issue, not federal. Then I have my pick of states to choose where I want to live based on how they match my ideological preferences.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

It is one of their purposes. But where do you draw the line?

Based on your arguments, you feel that it's okay for the government to provide healthcare to its citizens. Even at the risk of going too far into people's personal lives. Why is that acceptable while other things aren't?

Its not that I want them too. Im just dissatisfied with the way things are now. I am going to use the 'E' word, but I do think there are things that Americans are entitled too. If I work hard, earn an honest living and do the best I can, I feel I would be entitled to health care. Obviously, Im not entitled to it free. And I think the cost should equal the service. Normal Joe. Living a normal life. He/She should have a normal cost. If you are an x-gamer type or swim with sharks, a heavy smoker/drinker or something. Then obviously the price should be higher. But to say you cant be covered because you 'might' be a risk?

If the government can provide a system that works, I would accept that. There are other countries around the world that have such a system and it works. Why are we so against it? America in general seems to be that way. We are afraid to switch to something, because there might be work involved. Case in point, the metric system. I think we are the last country in the world that still uses the old system. We are afraid to try something new.

Should the government be allowed into our sex lives, determining which partners are acceptable for us? The majority of people would say "no", I'm sure. I'd be willing to bet many of those same people would be okay with government run healthcare. So what happens when the government determines that homosexuals aren't allowed to have sex due to the higher risks of HIV/AIDS? It's a healthcare decision with an impact on sex lives.

They already do. This is why there are legislations against homosexuals. Like the ones in Florida and California. Why cant they be like a hetero couple and walk down to the courthouse and get married? They can say they are married. Though the law says they arent. And neither does the insurance companies nor any benefit system. And look at Georgia. Anal sex is a crime there. And it isnt a new law.

So they are already in the bedroom.

Or suntanning? Higher risk of skin cancer. Smoking? Drinking?

Where does it end?

Personally, I tend to follow a more Constitution-based approach to government involvement. If it's not specifically ALLOWED in the Constitution, it's a state issue, not federal. Then I have my pick of states to choose where I want to live based on how they match my ideological preferences.

And thats one of the problems. We have way too many laws. We have laws that allow us to do one thing and laws that prohibit us to do others. Why do we need laws that allow us to do stuff? Arent those just laws that fix or ammend other laws? Maybe thats why we have a 10000-1 ratio of lawyers in this country versus others (no stats to back that up. But im sure thats probably a good guess. Maybe even low).

This country was founded on less is more when it comes to government, yet how many politicians are in this country? Federal, State, District, County, city. If we were to take every politician out there and put them in one place, we would need probably an entire state to do it.

[Douglas]

Figured this was kind of appropriate:

Obama's Declaration Of Swine Flu Emergency Prompts Pro-Swine-Flu Republican Response | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Obama's Declaration Of Swine Flu Emergency Prompts Pro-Swine-Flu Republican Response


WASHINGTON—Claiming that the president was preying on the public's fear of contracting a fatal disease last week when he declared the H1N1 virus a national emergency, Republican leaders announced Wednesday that they were officially endorsing the swine flu. "Thousands of Americans—hardworking ordinary Americans like you and me—already have H1N1," Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele said during a press conference. "Now Obama wants to take that away from us. Ask yourself: Do you want the federal government making these kinds of health care decisions for you and your family?" Other prominent Republicans opposing Obama's declaration of emergency include Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who urged residents of his state to continue not washing their hands, and radio host Rush Limbaugh, who made a point of dying of the virus during his show on Wednesday

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Its not that I want them too. Im just dissatisfied with the way things are now. I am going to use the 'E' word, but I do think there are things that Americans are entitled too. If I work hard, earn an honest living and do the best I can, I feel I would be entitled to health care. Obviously, Im not entitled to it free. And I think the cost should equal the service. Normal Joe. Living a normal life. He/She should have a normal cost. If you are an x-gamer type or swim with sharks, a heavy smoker/drinker or something. Then obviously the price should be higher. But to say you cant be covered because you 'might' be a risk?

Again, though: why should I have to pay for something YOU believe in but I don't?

This would be a perfect state initiative. The scale is small. The citizens have a choice on living there or moving out to a different state without changing citizenship or learning a new language. Why does it have to be done at the federal level, where it clearly violates everything this country was founded on?

If the government can provide a system that works, I would accept that. There are other countries around the world that have such a system and it works. Why are we so against it? America in general seems to be that way. We are afraid to switch to something, because there might be work involved. Case in point, the metric system. I think we are the last country in the world that still uses the old system. We are afraid to try something new.

Other countries are MUCH smaller. The largest system in place that has been used as a comparison seems to be the Canadian healthcare program, with roughly 33 million citizens. That's 1/10th the size of the US population. And we're already spending thousands more per person compared to them on Medicare/Medicaid with 40 million participants. What happens when it scales up?

We're not afraid of it. Many of us don't WANT it. I don't. My friends don't. My neighbors don't. Yet we're going to be saddled with something we don't want...again...and cost us more money we don't have...again...and put our country further and further into debt....again.

They already do. This is why there are legislations against homosexuals. Like the ones in Florida and California. Why cant they be like a hetero couple and walk down to the courthouse and get married? They can say they are married. Though the law says they arent. And neither does the insurance companies nor any benefit system. And look at Georgia. Anal sex is a crime there. And it isnt a new law.

So they are already in the bedroom.

You're confusing a legal contract with an activity that's not regulated. There is a difference. It's like saying a man and woman have to be married to have sex. Not the case.

As for current sex laws like Georgia's, yeah, check to see how much that has been enforced. That was a political statement. There are all kinds of silly, stupid laws on the books all over the world.

And thats one of the problems. We have way too many laws. We have laws that allow us to do one thing and laws that prohibit us to do others. Why do we need laws that allow us to do stuff? Arent those just laws that fix or ammend other laws? Maybe thats why we have a 10000-1 ratio of lawyers in this country versus others (no stats to back that up. But im sure thats probably a good guess. Maybe even low).

This country was founded on less is more when it comes to government, yet how many politicians are in this country? Federal, State, District, County, city. If we were to take every politician out there and put them in one place, we would need probably an entire state to do it.

As I said: the entire system is broken. Unfortunately, the system has managed to get us to rely on it...and healthcare is just another lever on that reliance. Are you willing to change a system that provides you healthcare, retirement, and other benefits? Why rock the boat? Sure, it limits your freedoms and stifles your opportunities by regulating what you're allowed to do. But you're taken care of, right? So it's all good.

Not a world I want to live in.

[Douglas]

Would be nice if you could just shake it clean like an etch a sketch or hit the reset button.

And a specific example of a sexual law. The military. If you are found out to be a homosexual, you will be kicked out of the military. It doesnt matter what type of soldier you are. Its based on your sexual preference.

And to shift gears, why should we hold on to our current measurement system when we are probably the only country in the world that isnt on the metric system? Why dont people want it? Its usually because they are use to something and dont want to change. Weve tried to convert in the past, but it just falls through. I remember back in the 80's seeing speed limit signs with 55mph and another under it saying 88kph. Havent seen those in years.

Not saying one system is better then another. But we seem to be the last to try things and the slowest to adapt.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Would be nice if you could just shake it clean like an etch a sketch or hit the reset button.

And a specific example of a sexual law. The military. If you are found out to be a homosexual, you will be kicked out of the military. It doesnt matter what type of soldier you are. Its based on your sexual preference.

That's not a law. That's a policy, regulated by the Executive branch. And wasn't your Messiah supposed to be changing all of that? Oh....never mind. Another promise that falls to the wayside.

And to shift gears, why should we hold on to our current measurement system when we are probably the only country in the world that isnt on the metric system? Why dont people want it? Its usually because they are use to something and dont want to change. Weve tried to convert in the past, but it just falls through. I remember back in the 80's seeing speed limit signs with 55mph and another under it saying 88kph. Havent seen those in years.

Not saying one system is better then another. But we seem to be the last to try things and the slowest to adapt.

I regularly use both, depending on my task at the time. I have no issues with either system. Again, that was a political decision based on polling rather than just setting policy and letting it get past the complainers.

I could easily argue the "last to try things", though. New technologies often start here in the US. I think the metric system was more of a cultural pushback.

[Douglas]

Actually, its part of a hate crime bill he signed last night. Read about it on CNN.

Of course, part of that bill is buying the loyalty of those who are trying to kill us. Something like "Switch sides for money!" since most of the terrorists arent doing it for their religion, but for money anyway. Or something like that. I sighed when I read it.

And when I say last to try things, I mean things like the metric system, alternative forms of energy, smaller cars. Things like that. We look at things like the smart car, and all we think is how that wouldnt survive a crash with an suv. Which is true. But they thrive in Europe.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Actually, its part of a hate crime bill he signed last night. Read about it on CNN.

Of course, part of that bill is buying the loyalty of those who are trying to kill us. Something like "Switch sides for money!" since most of the terrorists arent doing it for their religion, but for money anyway. Or something like that. I sighed when I read it.

I have yet to read about a bill that goes through without SOMETHING on it that turns my stomach. All political favors. Sad.

And when I say last to try things, I mean things like the metric system, alternative forms of energy, smaller cars. Things like that. We look at things like the smart car, and all we think is how that wouldnt survive a crash with an suv. Which is true. But they thrive in Europe.

European culture is based on MUCH shorter distances for typical daily life. The Smart Car, while neat, wouldn't be that convenient when driving to Grandma's house that is two hours away. Or trying to carry the kids to school. We don't have good public transportation systems, especially out West. Small cars work in Europe, with shorter distances and smaller roads. I drive down a local street here that has four WIDE lanes and moves 50 mph with big trucks. Why would I want a go kart among that traffic??

And European fuel prices are MUCH higher than the US. If gas had stayed higher last year, we'd see a lot more small cars on the road. It didn't. So we don't. Basic market economics at work.

Alternative forms of energy? Seriously? I'm in the Southwest and you can't drive very far without seeing solar panels on someone's house. I know several people who MAKE money on electricity every month. Windmill farms are in the high country, too. And I live within 80 miles of the largest nuclear power plant in the country. I think you're seeing LOCAL cultural issues there. Big difference.

[Douglas]

Its getting bigger and bigger. But we still lean too much on coal and oil.

And thats another thing. When I was out there last year, I was surprised to not see solar energy farms. I probably just wasnt in the right place, but I was looking for a solar energy collection area. I wanted to get a shot of one, so I was surprised I never saw one.

[Mary Robinson]

Douglas, I don't understand why you feel you should be 'entitled' or guaranteed the access to benefits via an insurance company, regardless of whether you work or not. Name me one other business (not including, hospitals and EMTs, Police and Firemen that are required by their county, state or city to respond and are all gov't affiliated with the exception of the hosptials or EMTs) that has to give you services? You have to eat to live, but a grocery store or restaurant can deny you access to their wares. The mortgage companies do not have to give you a loan, the landlord of a property does not have to rent to you. A dentist can refuse to treat you. No car dealer has to sell you a car, no bus driver has to accept your patronage, no airline has to accept you as a passenger, no gas station has to sell you gas. The phone company doesn't not have to accept you as a customer, nor does the electric or water company, though they can be pressured into allowing you access to they service if there is enough public outcry, but that still isn't an entitlement or guarantee to the access of the benefits they are offering the public. And for the most part, you would most likely not be denied access to any of these or other services in the normal course of events, but it could happen.

I would not be against reform to help those who need help, however, the proposals thus far from Congress has not included a common sensical solution to any problem presented to them. I want the Congress to get off it's lazy butt and actually do some real work, which I feel I'm paying them handsomely for and find a viable solution to the issues that face us and our children and our grandchildren in the coming decades. And it doesn't include taking what I've worked hard to earn so that some other person, who can't or won't work can have access to what I've sacrificed to get. Nor do I feel because I bust my butt everyday out here on the road, that the insurance company 'owes' me insurance at whatever rate is determined as reasonable. I have choices, Health Savings Account, pay as I go or just simply save money in a bank to cover my expenses. And for anyone looking for help with their meds, google Montel Williams, he has a foundation that works with the drug companies to help with the costs of medications.

[db83]

Originally Posted by cwhite

Yes, he could have refused it but his ego will not let him. Take a good look at this guy beyond the political moves he is making.
He is in the range somewhere of being an Egotist to a Borderline Personality. Neither are good for running a country...

Refuse?

Congratulations, you have been nominated to receive the nobel peace prize for your efforts. There has been much debate over who should get it, but we have decided that you are the winner.

No no, I refuse because I don't think I deserve it, and all you people who do are just plain wrong.


You do NOT spit on that many faces. It's just not right. Best thing to do is what Obama did, which is to make a humble acceptance speech.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Mary Robinson

Douglas, I don't understand why you feel you should be 'entitled' or guaranteed the access to benefits via an insurance company, regardless of whether you work or not. Name me one other business (not including, hospitals and EMTs, Police and Firemen that are required by their county, state or city to respond and are all gov't affiliated with the exception of the hosptials or EMTs) that has to give you services? You have to eat to live, but a grocery store or restaurant can deny you access to their wares. The mortgage companies do not have to give you a loan, the landlord of a property does not have to rent to you. A dentist can refuse to treat you. No car dealer has to sell you a car, no bus driver has to accept your patronage, no airline has to accept you as a passenger, no gas station has to sell you gas. The phone company doesn't not have to accept you as a customer, nor does the electric or water company, though they can be pressured into allowing you access to they service if there is enough public outcry, but that still isn't an entitlement or guarantee to the access of the benefits they are offering the public. And for the most part, you would most likely not be denied access to any of these or other services in the normal course of events, but it could happen.

I would not be against reform to help those who need help, however, the proposals thus far from Congress has not included a common sensical solution to any problem presented to them. I want the Congress to get off it's lazy butt and actually do some real work, which I feel I'm paying them handsomely for and find a viable solution to the issues that face us and our children and our grandchildren in the coming decades. And it doesn't include taking what I've worked hard to earn so that some other person, who can't or won't work can have access to what I've sacrificed to get. Nor do I feel because I bust my butt everyday out here on the road, that the insurance company 'owes' me insurance at whatever rate is determined as reasonable. I have choices, Health Savings Account, pay as I go or just simply save money in a bank to cover my expenses. And for anyone looking for help with their meds, google Montel Williams, he has a foundation that works with the drug companies to help with the costs of medications.

They need a reasonable excuse to deny you coverage. The examples I used earlier about the 2 different kids, 1 denied for being underweight and the other for being overweight when they were like 2 years old is crazy. If a person is in reasonable good health, and has the money to pay the premium, why should they deny them coverage? insurance companies are the only ones who can get away with this. No ones going to be kicked out of a store or resterant unless they are being a disruption. Just like they wont not sell you something that you have the money to pay for. You pay an insurance company under the belief that if you need that benefit, it will be there for you. Yet Doctors will prescribe a course of legitimate treatment (im not including fraudulent) and an insurance company can deny it.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Douglas

And thats another thing. When I was out there last year, I was surprised to not see solar energy farms. I probably just wasnt in the right place, but I was looking for a solar energy collection area. I wanted to get a shot of one, so I was surprised I never saw one.

Most people don't want to see one. Aside from Tempe, I've only seen one other out in the middle of nowhere or next to another power plant.

Here are 30 that APS runs.

[Mary Robinson]

Douglas, the 2 yr underweight old girl you cite is from Colorado, she was denied coverage from one particular company operating in Colorado. She had previously been covered under her father's policy with the company that he had been working for in Colorado. She was being treated for a medical condition which was related to her being underweight some sort of gag reflex. Her father quit the job and started his own business and went searching for insurance on his own. Now in Colorado you are guaranteed to be able to get health insurance regardless of your health status and you will pay much less for an underwritten policy. People with a history of more serious health conditions like cancer, heart problems, or diabetes unfortunately won't qualify for an underwritten health insurance policy in Colorado. They are required to get a guarantee issue policy like Cover Colorado, but guaranteed issue policies cost quite a bit more. With a Cover Colorado policy, he would have his choice of deductibles and plans and it is comprehensive medical coverage for individuals with pre-existing health conditions. Granted this would have cost him more than standard policy. So his options are to pay more or keep searching for a company that would cover the family, including his daughter.

As for the overweight child, I wasn't able to find anything on that, so perhaps you could point me in the direction of some news story you'd found concerning that incident?

And while it isn't fair or just or nice or anything else that the girl was denied for such a minor thing, life isn't fair, private companies aren't always fair or nice or just. It isn't fair that people lose their jobs or one person gets cancer and another doesn't. But it is a fact in all of these instances.

So what does one do, Douglas? Do what countless other Americans have done, if there's a void, fill it. Go start your own insurance company so you can run it how you see fit.

I'm 100 percent sure what the answer isn't, for gov't to take over every aspect of my life, telling me when, how and why I will do things their way, take every cent I have earned, which they will in turn use to promote their puffed up idea of what is good for the country, whilst it is not good enough for them or their families and then fining and throwing my butt in jail because I disagree with their decisions on how my life should be run.

[Douglas]

Would of responded sooner, but I had to destroy my wireless adapter and didnt have access to the net this weekend.

Anyhow, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, Mary. I dont think an insurance company is on the same level as a grocery store or a gas station. They should be considered on a different level. They arent just another money making machine. They deal with people's lives. I expect them to pay for any non elective medical procedures. If you want to go from Chastity to Chaz, thats on your nickle. Same with most plastic surgery. If you want bigger boobs or Angelina lips, pay for it yourself. But you think its ok if a business decision is that a procedure would be too costly to the bottom line, so it shouldnt be allowed?

How many stories have we heard where someone was in the hospital, and the insurance company said the person needed to go home, and not the doctor? I can give you 2. My mother and father. Both due to their own lifestyle (smoking) ended their lives going in and out of the hospital the last year or 2 of their lives. My father would be sent home and then need to go back by ambulance either the next day or the same day. And the doctor knew this. But the insurance company had rigid rules about hospital stays. My mother, who had lung cancer, died literally the day before we were to sign paperworkt hat would of moved her out of the hospital because the insurance company didnt feel she should be there anymore. Im sorry if they were hurting your profits by actually being sick.

But if I need medical attention, I dont want to hear what you arent paying for. If they arent paying for it, it better be considered a write off (barring any copay/deductable, of course).

As for the underweight girl, thats what should of happened. If you have a pre-existing condition, you should expect to pay more. Im not saying they should hand policies out willy nilly and be all cheap. But the option should be there. Should the father not have tried to start his own business? Isnt that the American dream, to be your own boss?

Ill try to look up the one that was overweight. I heard it on the news here about a month ago.