Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, September 14, 2011
Health Let These Washingtonians Die, Ron Paul?
Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:00 AM
I actually think Wolf Blitzer messed up the lead-in to his now-famous health care question at Monday's Republican debate.
Blitzer asked Paul what he'd do in this situation: "A healthy, 30-year-old young man who has a good job, makes a good living" decides not to pay for health insurance because he's young and healthy—and then something bad happens and this young man suddenly ends up in a coma.
Compelling, sure, but a far more common situation—and one you really don't have to get all hypothetical about given the times—is a young person being uninsured because of a lost job or a lack of available jobs.
We have plenty of people in exactly this non-hypothetical situation in Washington State right now. As the Washington Budget & Policy Center pointed out in a recent blog post, "more than 880,000 Washingtonians currently lack health insurance" and "the rate of uninsured people in Washington increased from 12.5 percent to 14.9 percent since the recession began."
I think Ron Paul's answer would have been the same in either case—whether you're employed without health insurance or unemployed without health insurance, Paul can find a failure of the individual that allows him to say, "Too bad." Hence, a missed opportunity. Imagine how extra outrageous this would have been if Blitzer had gotten Paul to say it about one of those 880,000 non-hypothetical, uninsured Washingtonians, or any of the millions of Americans in the same situation:
3
Like I've always said, RP is crazy, but at least he's consistently crazy. It's less offensive than Bachmann's whole HPV thing.
4
Eli is forgetting that human beings exist only to create profits for corporations. Hence the unemployed are excess human capital of no use to anyone whose opinion matters. They may be held in reserve for a time in case the economic climate changes and their services are required. However, spending a lot of money to preserve the life or health of somebody who is out of work makes no sense. Would you pay to repair an empty warehouse or an idle factory?
5
Yes, Blitzer messed up. Most people who don't have health insurance don't have jobs where health insurance is provided as a benefit - albeit one that the employee kicks in some contribution for.
Ron Paul goes on to say that he practiced medicine before Medicare/Medicaid existed, and the churches took care of things. That was a long time ago. I don't think the churches are up to that task these days.
Ron Paul goes on to say that he practiced medicine before Medicare/Medicaid existed, and the churches took care of things. That was a long time ago. I don't think the churches are up to that task these days.
6
Either you take pleasure in the notion of people's getting what's coming to them, or you don't. I think the pleasure is tied up with a pleasure many take in being able to do what would otherwise be Bad Things with the approval of What's Right---so they're very happy to find a terrible man to whom they can do terrible things, so they're very good at finding ways to decide that a man (or woman, or child) is somehow terrible.
Now, doing something to hurt Bad People is a little different from not doing anything to avoid their being hurt---for one thing, it's a completely different Law of Robotics---and the pleasure might be less, but if you set up a system right, you can be assured of a steady supply of reprobates whose deserved suffering you can observe.
Think of it as the Abominable Fallacy as applied to real life.
Now, doing something to hurt Bad People is a little different from not doing anything to avoid their being hurt---for one thing, it's a completely different Law of Robotics---and the pleasure might be less, but if you set up a system right, you can be assured of a steady supply of reprobates whose deserved suffering you can observe.
Think of it as the Abominable Fallacy as applied to real life.
7
Ron Paul gets socialised medicine paid by taxpayers so he can say fuck you to the sick and dying. Libertarians have absolutely no class. But they are pro-life. Their own.
8
Sorry, but I just don't see him ever saying anything about the person dying or agreeing they should.
9
If you're young, Health, Group Health has $2500 deductible plans starting at $75 a month. Covers all basic health care, checkups, prescriptions, referrals. Open an HSA (tax free!) and put in $100 a month and in two years that high deductible is covered.
So that's less than $200 a month, or probably half of what you spend on beer, coffee and cigarettes every month.
.....ahhh, but that's right. You want someone else to pay for you.
So that's less than $200 a month, or probably half of what you spend on beer, coffee and cigarettes every month.
.....ahhh, but that's right. You want someone else to pay for you.
10
I prefer Blitzer's scenario. The Republicans like to talk about "personal responsibility". Well, not every person is a responsible person, and when they're not, then what?
This is why we have Social Security, so people who didn't plan for old age aren't left with nothing. And this is why we should have a mandated single-payer health insurance system.
This is why we have Social Security, so people who didn't plan for old age aren't left with nothing. And this is why we should have a mandated single-payer health insurance system.
12
The sad part, and the part that should keep you awake at night sweating in terror, is a huge portion of the voting American public agrees that if you don't have insurance you should simply be allowed to die.
But that's something we won't be talking about.
But that's something we won't be talking about.
13
I get what you're saying, but I think the point was to show that this 30 year-old, after 6 months of therapy, could be back in the workforce, making people more money than he's making, and paying taxes, etc. etc. etc.
As sick as it is, I can believe that RP can justify in his mind letting a sick person who will stay sick just die. A lot more so than a sick person who can get healthy.
As sick as it is, I can believe that RP can justify in his mind letting a sick person who will stay sick just die. A lot more so than a sick person who can get healthy.
14
Blitzer didn't mess up. He did exactly what he is paid for, which is frame the plight of the millions uninsured as a matter of choice so that sociopaths like Paul and other GOPers can claim their lack of empathy to be a stance for freedom and responsibility,
15
Oh, well that's because he never did. In fact, Ron Paul said no to the question.
The Stranger is just refining their usual technique here. Usually one writer cherrypicks or misrepresents something from a partisan propaganda source, making it even more partisan and less true. Then he or she writes a headline to their posting that twists even their twisted 'facts.' Then the lefties go into an orgy of righteous fury about something that never actually occured.
Here, Savage posted the lie a day or two ago. Goldstein repeated it a second day, and now Sanders is repeating it yet a third time.
Really, doesn't it insult you folks that these people view your intelligence with such disdain as not only to lie, but not even bother to lie well?
Actually, I guess if your whole political and economic ideology is bound up in a series of patently false and even silly assumptions a lie here or there isn't that important, amiright progressives?
The Stranger is just refining their usual technique here. Usually one writer cherrypicks or misrepresents something from a partisan propaganda source, making it even more partisan and less true. Then he or she writes a headline to their posting that twists even their twisted 'facts.' Then the lefties go into an orgy of righteous fury about something that never actually occured.
Here, Savage posted the lie a day or two ago. Goldstein repeated it a second day, and now Sanders is repeating it yet a third time.
Really, doesn't it insult you folks that these people view your intelligence with such disdain as not only to lie, but not even bother to lie well?
Actually, I guess if your whole political and economic ideology is bound up in a series of patently false and even silly assumptions a lie here or there isn't that important, amiright progressives?
16
Fuck, I so hate agreeing with seattleblues on something, even something so small, but I did say that already.
Should transgendered receive full coverage for everything? If not answered I will assume that all of Seattle agrees with the Republicans on it, and continue my crusade against healthcare providers.
Should transgendered receive full coverage for everything? If not answered I will assume that all of Seattle agrees with the Republicans on it, and continue my crusade against healthcare providers.
17
What is your answer, Eli?
How much in taxes are YOU willing to pay to insure those poor souls?
What is your answer?
How much in taxes are YOU willing to pay to insure those poor souls?
What is your answer?
18
@15 - here you are wrong. His answer, when pressed, was that of course "society" will take care of the man! Of course churches and private individuals will step in. There is no need for any government assistance, because it's never needed, because people are so great at humanity. Especially those ones who shouted out "YEAH!"
19
@18 Sorry, but the screaming could have been for any number of reasons and started long before the question was asked and ended as soon as (safe to assume) everyone realized what was just asked. Going beyond the cut off of the clip helps sometimes. There was no actual cheering to that specific question until the more detailed answer was given .... so if you want to assume that, then it's only fair for them to assume it was actually Democrat supporters trying to make them look bad, which is just as possible and just as likely.
But what would you say to full coverage of transgendered services?
But what would you say to full coverage of transgendered services?
20
I really wish there was a way to set this page up thru a newsgroup reader or something and block some users' posts. Things would be so much more pleasant.
21
@20 Will you answer the question or run from it as well? What would you say to full coverage of transgendered services?
22
As much as I hate that crazy loon Ron Paul, I actually DON'T think his answer "would have been the same in either case."
The libertarian idiots of the GOP are all about "personal responsibility" so someone who could have insurance but chooses not to falls strictly into the "you gets what you gots comin'" class in their minds. Whereas someone without any option of getting health insurance falls into a different class of beast entirely. And that's the real heart of the matter.
IMHO, extrapolating from former to the later is of very little use.
The only role such hypothesizing serves is to demonize the opposition -- by painting them as even bigger monsters than the big monsters they actually are -- and leaving those of us on the left feeling gosh-darn good about how very, very noble & altruistic WE are in comparison. In comparision, it should be said, to the overblown, straw-man caricatures we've constructed in our own minds to represent "the opposition".
Meanwhile, the ACTUAL opposition is busy making points and laying out positions that are far more likely to gain mainstream traction and are much more worthy of our energies in their refutation, if you ask me.
(p.s. It should be noted too that Paul, when pressed, DIDN'T actually say the guy should die. The crowd; yes. But Paul; not so much.)
The libertarian idiots of the GOP are all about "personal responsibility" so someone who could have insurance but chooses not to falls strictly into the "you gets what you gots comin'" class in their minds. Whereas someone without any option of getting health insurance falls into a different class of beast entirely. And that's the real heart of the matter.
IMHO, extrapolating from former to the later is of very little use.
The only role such hypothesizing serves is to demonize the opposition -- by painting them as even bigger monsters than the big monsters they actually are -- and leaving those of us on the left feeling gosh-darn good about how very, very noble & altruistic WE are in comparison. In comparision, it should be said, to the overblown, straw-man caricatures we've constructed in our own minds to represent "the opposition".
Meanwhile, the ACTUAL opposition is busy making points and laying out positions that are far more likely to gain mainstream traction and are much more worthy of our energies in their refutation, if you ask me.
(p.s. It should be noted too that Paul, when pressed, DIDN'T actually say the guy should die. The crowd; yes. But Paul; not so much.)
23
Sorry, this is an actual question? Fine, if it'll make you stop posting it every 5 minutes: Why not? If it's something that an individual's doctors agree is necessary to make a person's mental or physical health improve then I'm fine with it. I already subsidize Viagra and antidepressants. Seems like just one more procedure to me.
24
@19 -
It's clear. WB: Do you think society should just let him die?
Audience: YEAH!
RP: Churches will always step in to help.
As for coverage of "transgendered services", I assume you mean hormone therapy, gender reassignment, associated counseling, etc - yes. I think that should be mandated by Federal law, and by state law until that happens.
It's clear. WB: Do you think society should just let him die?
Audience: YEAH!
RP: Churches will always step in to help.
As for coverage of "transgendered services", I assume you mean hormone therapy, gender reassignment, associated counseling, etc - yes. I think that should be mandated by Federal law, and by state law until that happens.
27
Still curious, aren't you folks insulted by the disdain the Stranger writers show you? I mean, they don't think you're even worth a believable lie, they just make stuff up and throw it out there for you.
They sat around and made up bets with each other at some point. Someone got assigned the job of making some absurd hyperbolic statement completely divorced from reality, and must get 150 comments about that topic. So he writes some egregious lie thinking that the outrage at his dishonesty will push the comment numbers up. Lo and behold, all of you folks buy the bs, hook line and sinker.
And thus was Stranger editorial policy born. True story. Well, true enough for the Stranger.
They sat around and made up bets with each other at some point. Someone got assigned the job of making some absurd hyperbolic statement completely divorced from reality, and must get 150 comments about that topic. So he writes some egregious lie thinking that the outrage at his dishonesty will push the comment numbers up. Lo and behold, all of you folks buy the bs, hook line and sinker.
And thus was Stranger editorial policy born. True story. Well, true enough for the Stranger.
28
... Because that's what politicians do? Because most people (myself and pretty much anybody who isn't transgendered) often doesn't have a clear understanding of what's involved? And because paying for things like actual medical emergencies, birth control, and the like still haven't been worked out, so transgender issues are pretty low down the list?
29
@ 22, when pressed? No, immediately Ron Paul said the guy shouldn't be simply left to die and he looked taken aback by the loudly shouted "yeahs!".
And thanks for the rest of your response. It's reasonable and logical and about what's actually going on.
I have to say I'm surprised at how much people here lash out at Paul and completely demonize him when he was on stage with Bachman, Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich. Maybe it's a sign of who is perceived as a real threat in the presidential race but it seems truly outrageous to claim RP said "let them all die!" instead of focusing on the "vaccines cause retardation" statements. Ya know, the stuff that actually happened.
And thanks for the rest of your response. It's reasonable and logical and about what's actually going on.
I have to say I'm surprised at how much people here lash out at Paul and completely demonize him when he was on stage with Bachman, Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich. Maybe it's a sign of who is perceived as a real threat in the presidential race but it seems truly outrageous to claim RP said "let them all die!" instead of focusing on the "vaccines cause retardation" statements. Ya know, the stuff that actually happened.
30
@27: Okay, sooo... you don't believe what they write, have no interest in or respect for the writers, you clearly KNOW the articles are written with a leftist slant and as much bias as you'd find on FoxNews, if in the other direction... Why do you read and comment on the articles? I think Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glen Beck are full of shit; therefore, I stay out of their websites. I'm not going to change the mind of any knucklehead who reads the stuff and takes it as gospel. So why bother?
Yes, the article was inaccurate. Ron Paul doesn't want the dude to die; he wants mystical and nonexistent charities to take care of him. Better ethically, certainly, if not in actual practice. The article is opinion on Paul's stance, which is all pretty clear. So again, I ask; why are you bothering? Arguing against an editorial based on its content is like arguing against porn cuz you suddenly saw a dick.
Yes, the article was inaccurate. Ron Paul doesn't want the dude to die; he wants mystical and nonexistent charities to take care of him. Better ethically, certainly, if not in actual practice. The article is opinion on Paul's stance, which is all pretty clear. So again, I ask; why are you bothering? Arguing against an editorial based on its content is like arguing against porn cuz you suddenly saw a dick.
32
I'm in that situation right now. I am about to find myself deciding between utility bills and medicine, which costs me about 400 dollars a month. I have yet to pay one bill to the hospital or clinic, and I still have appointments. I have been trying to get money from the government for over three months now.
I am still sick and unable to work.
I am still sick and unable to work.
33
Have these people ever tried to get private insurance? Check this out:
http://www.pickhealthinsurance.com/
And those rates are assuming you're a healthy 20's something male. Have any sort of chronic or worrying result? They skyrocket.
http://www.pickhealthinsurance.com/
And those rates are assuming you're a healthy 20's something male. Have any sort of chronic or worrying result? They skyrocket.
34
All the advanced nations have found their citizens need government run healthcare. And they work well at keeping down costs and getting care to their people. Ask yourself why we are not worth what is clearly the solution to our expensive and inefficient health care. The answer lies with corruption that permeates the insurance industry and drug industry that are raping the citizens of this country while Ron Paul and his fellow Republicans protects them.
35
@27:
You assume far too much thoughtfulness and scheming for this particular band of hung-over ne'er-do-wells.
They're just ripping off what they saw on the Daily show last night 98% of the time!
You assume far too much thoughtfulness and scheming for this particular band of hung-over ne'er-do-wells.
They're just ripping off what they saw on the Daily show last night 98% of the time!
37
@29 - Bullshit. The question was asked numerous times before that final phrasing. The underlying question - what started it all - was whether a healthy 30 year old who doesn't purchase health insurance should have anyone pay for care due to a major incident.
Ron Paul started out saying he should have bought a medical plan.
He went into saying that there are consequences for not buying a plan.
He was then pressed, to clarify, that he believed the government should do nothing to help this man, and let him die, and that's when the crowd shouted "YEAH!", and he said that churches would do the good work instead.
Ron Paul started out saying he should have bought a medical plan.
He went into saying that there are consequences for not buying a plan.
He was then pressed, to clarify, that he believed the government should do nothing to help this man, and let him die, and that's when the crowd shouted "YEAH!", and he said that churches would do the good work instead.
38
Even if you ignore me now, read this one last message:
Here is the serious problem with health insurance reform and why we need health care reform before anything else. Usiing the transgendered care example because it's the one I know about best.
Even if the current administration includes it, because it is still considered "elective" by many, even psychologists, even those sympathic to the trans community will be easily convinced care does not need to be covered. Our politicians will always be changing, and there is a 100% chance that there will be a lot more who don't want something covered like this they will find a way to remove it. As we see with Obama's administration now, many oppose full coverage for transgendered care. So even if it passes it will be modified later and things like this will likely vanish quickly. Leaving many uncared for and likely increasing the suicide rate to what was seen during the time no one noticed. Then there are the "additional" costs for some of the care, travel expenses and such because of a huge lack of actual surgeons in the US. Not to mention the surgeries run about $50,000 each, and as one urologist said "it's a very easy and simple procedure". That was for male to female, female to male is even more expensive, but it is a little more complicated, still over priced though. Not to mention that many M-F TGs actually would prefer an even simpler procedure but that's not even an option in the US, you have to travel out of the country at even higher expenses.
If we approached it from the ground up, pushing to get medical care cost regulated and doctors who do too little penalized more severely the insurance is no longer needed in many cases. This would encourage the care to be taken more seriously by the doctors as well, meaning that the transgendered persons would not need to see a million doctors just to get the right care. This would save a fortune in public health insurance, cut down on suicides and emergency room care for these people, as well as benefit many other people who need care that is considered elective in spite of the proof saying otherwise.
So our choice is having insurance coverage that can be altered to single out people with no alternatives to choose, or medical care reform that will effect everyone equally no matter what the need is. Which do you prefer? Would you like to be the one who needs a life saving procedure only to be told "now you have to pay the full amount yourself because the only insurance in the country does not cover it" just because a few politicians decide it's no longer considered important, and have that cost the same or higher than it would be today, or would you like to pay what other countries do, countries that do actually tell doctors to shape up or ship out. Their doctors come here because of that, yes, which is why (got an email today from a doctor) some of the truly caring doctors would prefer having stricter and more sane regulations on costs as well as a minimum of care but no cap on maximum. As patients we already have the right to say that we don't want more care with only a few exceptions, why is there a maximum coverage in the current public insurance now?
Let's look for a bill that can't be used to single people out, Obama's heart is in the right place, but this is what I feared when he was running would happen. Short lived solutions that can be destroyed by the next administration, and knee jerk bills to cover his ass. Notice how the medical bill insurance bill is already being modified? It's not a permanent solution, it's not even long term. What's there today may not be there tomorrow, and opposition is not just the Republicans, Democrat politicians are also against it. Take advantage of the full on opposition before it gets to "just right to please everyone" or you will not like the final outcome.
More...
Here is the serious problem with health insurance reform and why we need health care reform before anything else. Usiing the transgendered care example because it's the one I know about best.
Even if the current administration includes it, because it is still considered "elective" by many, even psychologists, even those sympathic to the trans community will be easily convinced care does not need to be covered. Our politicians will always be changing, and there is a 100% chance that there will be a lot more who don't want something covered like this they will find a way to remove it. As we see with Obama's administration now, many oppose full coverage for transgendered care. So even if it passes it will be modified later and things like this will likely vanish quickly. Leaving many uncared for and likely increasing the suicide rate to what was seen during the time no one noticed. Then there are the "additional" costs for some of the care, travel expenses and such because of a huge lack of actual surgeons in the US. Not to mention the surgeries run about $50,000 each, and as one urologist said "it's a very easy and simple procedure". That was for male to female, female to male is even more expensive, but it is a little more complicated, still over priced though. Not to mention that many M-F TGs actually would prefer an even simpler procedure but that's not even an option in the US, you have to travel out of the country at even higher expenses.
If we approached it from the ground up, pushing to get medical care cost regulated and doctors who do too little penalized more severely the insurance is no longer needed in many cases. This would encourage the care to be taken more seriously by the doctors as well, meaning that the transgendered persons would not need to see a million doctors just to get the right care. This would save a fortune in public health insurance, cut down on suicides and emergency room care for these people, as well as benefit many other people who need care that is considered elective in spite of the proof saying otherwise.
So our choice is having insurance coverage that can be altered to single out people with no alternatives to choose, or medical care reform that will effect everyone equally no matter what the need is. Which do you prefer? Would you like to be the one who needs a life saving procedure only to be told "now you have to pay the full amount yourself because the only insurance in the country does not cover it" just because a few politicians decide it's no longer considered important, and have that cost the same or higher than it would be today, or would you like to pay what other countries do, countries that do actually tell doctors to shape up or ship out. Their doctors come here because of that, yes, which is why (got an email today from a doctor) some of the truly caring doctors would prefer having stricter and more sane regulations on costs as well as a minimum of care but no cap on maximum. As patients we already have the right to say that we don't want more care with only a few exceptions, why is there a maximum coverage in the current public insurance now?
Let's look for a bill that can't be used to single people out, Obama's heart is in the right place, but this is what I feared when he was running would happen. Short lived solutions that can be destroyed by the next administration, and knee jerk bills to cover his ass. Notice how the medical bill insurance bill is already being modified? It's not a permanent solution, it's not even long term. What's there today may not be there tomorrow, and opposition is not just the Republicans, Democrat politicians are also against it. Take advantage of the full on opposition before it gets to "just right to please everyone" or you will not like the final outcome.
39
@37 actually the question was should *society* let him die. the people who yelled "yeah!" don't think anyone should help, not just the government. people without insurance deserve to die, plain and simple.
40
Now imagine that the 30yo was a house who caught on fire and the owner had neglected to pay for the fire department.
41
@15: Ron Paul's stance was softer only in that he said he thought churches should take care of people who can't afford their medical care. Which is a polite way of saying that only people who happen to belong to the right religion should get it.
@38: I agree with your overall point, but I'd like to note for the record that your cost figure is high, at least if we're talking about MTF surgery. I know someone who had this done a couple years ago by a very reputable US surgeon, and the total cost including the hospital stay was $25,000.
That quibble aside, I agree that it should be covered; unfortunately I don't see procedures like this, which are generally thought of as elective, being covered any time soon when we can't even agree on covering life-threatening conditions. There are also problems of religious and social prejudice against transgendered people, making it politically difficult; it's not fair but it's there, to the point where many would consider transgender care a poison pill for any health care bill. I hope to see that change in my lifetime.
In Canada it's a different story, of course. Most provinces there provide at least some coverage for transgender treatment. They're less beholden to conservative religious bigotry than we are here.
@38: I agree with your overall point, but I'd like to note for the record that your cost figure is high, at least if we're talking about MTF surgery. I know someone who had this done a couple years ago by a very reputable US surgeon, and the total cost including the hospital stay was $25,000.
That quibble aside, I agree that it should be covered; unfortunately I don't see procedures like this, which are generally thought of as elective, being covered any time soon when we can't even agree on covering life-threatening conditions. There are also problems of religious and social prejudice against transgendered people, making it politically difficult; it's not fair but it's there, to the point where many would consider transgender care a poison pill for any health care bill. I hope to see that change in my lifetime.
In Canada it's a different story, of course. Most provinces there provide at least some coverage for transgender treatment. They're less beholden to conservative religious bigotry than we are here.
42
“If you think you have a right to force me to pay for your health care, then why don't you have a right to force me to pick your cotton?” – Jeffrey Quick
43
The great thing about @42 is it's like a straw man Mad Lib. you can insert whatever thing government does that you don't like into the blank.
"If you think you have a right to force me to pay for your war in Iraq, then why don't you have a right to force me to pick your cotton?"
"If you think you have a right to force me to pay for your deep-bored tunnel, then why don't you have a right to force me to pick your cotton?"
"If you think you have a right to force me to pay for your farm subsidies, then..."
It's a fun political party game that anyone can play!
"If you think you have a right to force me to pay for your war in Iraq, then why don't you have a right to force me to pick your cotton?"
"If you think you have a right to force me to pay for your deep-bored tunnel, then why don't you have a right to force me to pick your cotton?"
"If you think you have a right to force me to pay for your farm subsidies, then..."
It's a fun political party game that anyone can play!
45
The question was misleading; Blitzer should have used a different scenario. What if a 30yr old man who recently lost his job and is unable to afford insurance were to become ill, what would Paul recommend the man do at that time. What about those who DO work hard and are trying their best to make it in this economy but lose the ability to provide themselves with health insurance? I somewhat agree with Paul’s answer but because how the question was asked.
"A healthy, 30-year-old young man who has a good job, makes a good living" DECIDES NOT TO PAY for health insurance because he's young and healthy—and then something bad happens and this young man suddenly ends up in a coma.”
He choose not to pay for insurance, not that he couldn’t pay for it. Why should that burden be put on the rest of us. But for those who can't afford it, that is a different story.
"A healthy, 30-year-old young man who has a good job, makes a good living" DECIDES NOT TO PAY for health insurance because he's young and healthy—and then something bad happens and this young man suddenly ends up in a coma.”
He choose not to pay for insurance, not that he couldn’t pay for it. Why should that burden be put on the rest of us. But for those who can't afford it, that is a different story.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (45) RSS