I disagree with Krauthammer: There's no such thing as a "moral imperative" that compels one to spend other people's money. It's a contradiction in terms.

And can we all be reminded for about the fifty gazillionth time that being without health insurance isn't at all like going without health care? The two aren't at synonymous. In California at least, you show up sick at public hospital, they have to help you. It's the law.

The problem wit having ER's doing the primary care job is that it is expensive and wasteful.

They should encourage more CVS/ pharmacy type clinics with physician assistants. A much more efficient model.

There's more to life (and decency) than efficiency.

I disagree with Krauthammer: There's no such thing as a "moral imperative" that compels one to spend other people's money. It's a contradiction in terms.

I was about to raise the same point. We don't get any moral credit for being forced to do something. The only moral imperative involved is this one: each government should minimize the hurt and misery that it inflicts on the world (and not, to be sure, the hurt and misery that already exists in the world).

Some people (including myself) believe that people have a moral imperative to care for the poor, but government is a bad vehicle to use for that because there is no opt-out, and forcing someone to help is as bad as not helping to begin with. If you desire to contribute your own money to help poor people, you can contribute to organizations that will do so without hurting anybody in the process.

Other than that, Krauthammer's more or less correct: the current proposed health care bills won't achieve their stated aims, much less the other good things that people want in their health care. Reform doesn't require thousands of pages of graft and corruption, and can be handled one item at a time.

Besides—

> The problem wit having ER's doing
> the primary care job is that it is
> expensive and wasteful.

1. I don't believe it. Sez who?

2. So what?

3. It's only wasteful if you presume you should be paying for everyone else's health anyway, such that you're concerned about petty efficiencies... This is not how health care is approached when applied to the pink ass of someone you love, such as self or family.

4. It's not nearly, NEARLY as expensive as it will be with every fucking human being on the surface of this cocksucking globe drops drunk with the fantasy that caring for their health, and PAYING FOR that care, is the responsibility of other people....

...On that day, we are well & truly fucked.

You'll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age.

Or gender. According to the bills currently floating around insurance companies can't "discriminate on the basis of gender" which is a nice way of saying that men should subsidize womans' health care. As if it isn't enough that women already get massive government subsidies for female health issues.

Since women use more health care insurance companies charge them higher premiums. Apparently some people have this crazy idea that you should have to pay for what you use, so; if you use more of something you should have to pay more.

This bill would make imagined discrimination illegal; but, legalize real discrimination. That is forcing younger people to pay more just because of their age, not; because of the amount of health care they use.

The bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool.

Best line ever!

For health insurance, I would like to see a pregnancy opt-out...like, if you aren't covered for that, if you get pregnant, care is a la carte. I am never going to have a baby and I'd sure like to opt out.

I believe that the reason you can't opt out of the pregnancy portion of your health insurance is because of state mandates.

Some states force insurance companies to offer certain types of coverage. The rationale is that medical care related to pregnancy is covered by the state anyway, in the event that a uninsured woman becomes pregnant. So if a female has insurance why not make it mandatory to have pregnancy coverage so that the taxpayer doesn't get stuck with the bill.

This makes sense from a moral hazard point of view. After all if you're covered either way why bother to pay extra for more insurance?

Of course women who cannot have children, or; who have had their tubes tied get screwed. But most of them don't know it, and the ones who do aren't a vocal enough minority to cause any trouble with the politicians who enacted these laws.

Also notice how the creation of a medical entitlement resulted in an unintended consequence; making it necessary to create yet another law that has increased costs and restricted choice.

What really pisses me off is that along with high income individuals the groups that are getting screwed the most with this whole thing are males, and the young. But because they aren't politically powerful you never hear about it.

Yes teen boys and young males in general do have to pay more for car insurance. Because as a group they tend to crash their cars more often, and thus actually use car insurance more often. It's a pretty simply concept, if you use more of something you end up paying more.

Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative.

No, it is not, Mr. Krauthammer. Relying on medical insurance and government programs to cover the cost of every little medical problem is part of what's driving up both insurance AND medical costs, due to demand, IMO.