Unequalityforge

How would you address said scenario? How would you equalize the equation?

By forcibly imposing some unequality. It's the one and only way to address it. Either people are charged different rates based on income, or pay progressive taxes to fund insurance benefits.

Of course the most equal solution for everybody involved is for the one who was responsible and does have health insurance to pay for his counterpart's treatment.

Some people just don't get equality.

My health insurance is currently paid for by my employer. I have however, in the past, been uninsured, purchased private insurance out of my own pocket, and been on COBRA.

COBRA...at least pre-Obama...was ridiculously expensive, and I was able to cut my premiums IN HALF by finding private insurance. Which is good, but going from $1400/month to $700/month means going from Ridiculously Expensive to just Expensive. And this is for a healthy fmaily of four, non-smokers, me & the Mrs. in our mid-40s, kids 14 & 11 years old, with a fairly high deductible!

If Congress wanted to reform Health Care and get a very high approval level from the average citizen, all they'd need to do would be to outlaw insurance exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. I can't imagine anyone other than insurance companies would complain about that!

Usually there's an ombudsman of some sort who performs that function. My agency is currently without such an office, however . . . one of many ways in which it fails its employees.

You question is pointless. You might as well ask "If two people have health insurance and one gets hit with a bus and is instantly killed while the other doesnt' get hit by a bus, are they equal?"

Health insurance can't prevent you from getting hit by a bus, it can prevent you from dying from treatable cancer however.

You're an idiot.

The point is that life is unfair.

You can jigger your little hypothetical scenarios in whatever way you want to make them support your claims.

What if one person has insurance and the other doesn't so the person with insurance gets hit by a bus on the way to the doctor? What if the hospital has asbestos in it and he gets sick from that? What if one person has insurance and the other person is a rhesus monkey. Then a magic frog comes along and turns the person with insurance into a rhesus monkey and the rhesus monkey into a trout...

What if the person is an MBA grad with a constant history of unemployment and lame attempts at starting his own business?

Hmm. Good question. Let me make a couple calls. Can I borrow your cell phone?

Sorry, I don't lend phones to people who construct straw men.

But I do like that your idea of insulting me is by implying that I'm too trusting of people, instead of me just calling you an outright failure.

Don't mind him and the other members of Unequalityforge. They are just butthurt that health care will be given to people who can't afford it. Oh noez teh taxes will goez up!1!!11!1!

Fuck you, parasite.

You're a fucking idiot and a parasite. You go fuck yourself.

Says the guy who works for a telemarketing company.

It shocks - SHOCKS me to find out classichummus lives in San Francisco.

Universal Health care.

I've got some hard news for you Nicky: People who try, fail. They fail a lot more than they succeed. They just try more than they fail.

Thomas Edison? Failure. Look how much he failed in inventing the lightbulb. He went bankrupt numerous times in his life. Donald Trump? He's been bankrupt at least once. Heck, look at your boy, Chris' GM. That failed spectacularly.

Failure is where you learn. Failure is where you grow. If you refuse to try things because you fear failing, there's a word for that. That word is "Diacanu."

Oh now you're Thomas Edison and Donald Trump.

How's the weather on delusional mountain?

Oh no, he played the "telemarketing" card! I am vanquished!



The operative word is "works". I haven't walked away from a job that pays my bills and offers affordable health insurance just because I've decided it isn't exciting, rewarding, or blissful enough.

And now, more than ever, I am asked to work to support people who have and do walk away from perfectly good jobs that don't make them happy.

Fuck happy. Responsibility comes first. Maybe that means you can't have kids. Maybe that means you ride a bike to work, and wait tables when you get there.

If you aren't happy, and you're not working towards happy, why are you still alive? This is a serious question, what is your raison d'etre?

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm a little curious, Little Nicky, how it is that you figure I've failed.

Doesn't really matter what I think, you'll rationalize yourself as Donald Trump or Thomas Edison.

I suppose because my death would make things hard on other people.

I don't think anyone is really HAPPY in this era. But just because one isn't happy doesn't mean depression can overwhelm the body's natural want to stay alive. I get up everyday, go to work, come home, go to bed, just to wake up and do it all over again, just for the same reason UA does.

Life...she is a bitch, and a whore. However, it does explain why suicides are on the up and up.

I'm happy, I'd be happier if I had a woman in my life. But if you're not happy you're doing yourself a disservice.

Sorry, don't buy it. Unless you're Donald Trump there's no way in hell you can possibly be happy in this day in age. As for not being happy...uh...it's not exactly a choice. Life just sucks.

I don't fully subscribe to the notion that wealth = happiness. It would certainly make things easier for me, but I'm of the belief that you have to be willing to work at finding reasons to be happy, rather than pinning it all on some mental checklist of external factors you hope will one day magically fall into place for you. Lately, I just don't care to do either.

Wow Nick. Snarky one-liners, arguing technicalities rather than substance, evasive non-responses. I think you've nearly mastered the Garamet School of Debating. Check the mail. Your monkey wings should be showing up any day now.

If I debate substance, you'll resort to ad hominem attacks, If I argue the technicalities, you'll say I'm not interested in substance. So I'll just do what I want, and if that's the Garamet school of debating, then I guess I'm in.