# Health Insurance Costs.... Crimony



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Just curious...

For those of you paying for your own medical insurance, how badly are you getting beaten?

For a family of 3 extremely healthy folks ours is close to $500/month. I'm glad we have it when I write the check because it generally causes a few heart palpitations.

Having been out of the corporate world for a bit I'm curious what those with a family plan have to kick in for your share??? On ours, it is light on the bottom end (we're healthy, I pay for little stuff out of pocket but make it iron clad for anything MAJOR).

It's getting pretty ridiculous really. I'm working on a theory that healthcare costs actually CAUSE heart attacks, strokes and alcohol abuse problems.

Sorry... needed to vent.

Anyone know a hospital that needs lots of ties? I'm ready to switch to the barter system.

www.carlofranco.com
Seven Fold Ties
Handmade in Italy


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

The system is crazy.

I was impressed when a friend of mine who has a PhD in Economics and now works for the SEC attempted to figure out which of the health insurance policies offered to him when he started working there offered the best value. His conclusion: it was impossible to know given the sheer complexity and opacity of the system in general and what was being presented to him in particular.

Similarly, I've been trying to help my elderly mother figure out how to save money on prescription meds by comparing various Medicare programs and prescription drug plans. Same result: just figuring out how much my mother pays for any particular drug is proving bizarrely difficult. Nothing has any objective price, it seems.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

You jest.

Your health insurance premiums are lower and the coverage more comprehensive than they were three years ago just like you were told they would be!!



But seriously folks, Healthcare costs more and Health Insurance Premiums (related but entirely differnt things) will continue to increase, just as the efficacy of care has increased significantly in just the last two decades.

In the "good old days" if you got cancer, they'd cut it out and you MIGHT live another year or two.

Have a premature infant, just plan on getting another.

Healthcare costs more because it's better!!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You jest.
> 
> Your health insurance premiums are lower and the coverage more comprehensive than they were three years ago just like you were told they would be!!
> 
> ...


There is some truth to this.


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

$6000 per year to keep your family healthy (and to insure against major illness/injury) sounds pretty reasonable to me, given what you might spend annually on housing, food, transport, entertainment, etc. But no doubt there are huge and costly inefficiencies built into the "system" that make your premium much larger than it could be otherwise.


----------



## Bucksfan (May 25, 2008)

My "share" for my family coverage is 100% of the premium - as a commission-only salesperson and consultant, I don't get many benefits... 2 years ago, the last time I had a "traditional" health policy (now have a high deductible policy) the premiums were $1450 / month. It was a "Cadillac" policy, but I was willing to pay because we needed it, with a young child and one on the way. That policy had basically a $20 copay for everything, and everything was covered 100% after that. 

I now have a $10,000 high deductible policy, which covers 100% of everything after I hit $10k and it costs $254 / month in premium. I also opened a Health Savings Account, and deposited most of the difference into that (a family can contribute $6250 into an HSA this year). The benefit to that is that it is tax-deductible, and if I never have to use it, the balance flows to next year, and eventually can be used as retirement funds if I never need it. All preventative visits are covered 100%. 

2 months ago, my wife went the ER and had a few tests done. (everything came back good and she is fine). The bills just came in:

In total, the hospital charged just under $7,000, which was reduced to about $2500 by the "negotiated discount" my insurance company pre-negotiated with the hospital. The ins. co. lets me take advantage of their negotiated discounts, by virtue of the High Deductible plan. Tests included MRI, CAT scan, etc... Even with this expensive visit, I am still WAY ahead versus paying that high premium for all those months. 

IMO this is a good outcome, and lets me control my costs by taking some of the risk on. If I'd rather have a $5,000 deductible, I'd get that policy, but the premium would be higher. I would rather limit my premium, fund my HSA and essentially "roll the dice" that my family is healthy and I'll come out ahead over the long term. (so far so good)

Now, the really absurd part. As part of the new healthcare law, policies such as mine are no longer allowed after 2013. They are limiting "high deductible" plans to somewhere in the $4,000 range if my memory serves. This will, of course, raise my premiums and reduce my choice in the matter...


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

If we're sharing ER horror stories...

I sliced open the tip of my finger last month and went to the ER after it wouldn't stop bleeding. The care was topnotch so I'm not complaining about that, but I think I saw a total of 5 staff members during the 45 minute visit:

The check-in person took my medical history and vital signs.
The ER nurse diagnosed my condition and started the appropriate remedy.
The ER doc confirmed the diagnosis.
The ER tech applied a splint and bandage to my patched up finger.
The accounts person took my insurance information.
While this parade of professionals walked into and out of my life, I was counting up the dollar signs. The bill eventually came in just north of a grand...of which my share was a very tiny fraction.

Like I said the care was top notch and the wound has healed, but did I really need to see those 5 folks? Also, if I didn't have health insurance, would I have been tempted to stay at home and let the finger bleed? You bet I would have.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bucksfan said:


> Now, the really absurd part. As part of the new healthcare law, policies such as mine are no longer allowed after 2013. They are limiting "high deductible" plans to somewhere in the $4,000 range if my memory serves. This will, of course, raise my premiums and reduce my choice in the matter...


Silly rabbit.

You don't still think you know what's best for you, do you??


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> ...if I didn't have health insurance, would I have been tempted to stay at home and let the finger bleed? You bet I would have.


If you don't have insurance, you should negotiate for the same discount the insurance company would have gotten. I have out of network providers that give this without asking.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Orsini said:


> If you don't have insurance, you should negotiate for the same discount the insurance company would have gotten. I have out of network providers that give this without asking.


It almost sounds like the medical profession collects its revenues in the same manner as a used car salesman...taking advantage of the ill-informed. We gotta fix this system...I know Obamacare is not the answer, but the current system needs some fixin'.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> It almost sounds like the medical profession collects its revenues in the same manner as a used car salesman...taking advantage of the ill-informed. We gotta fix this system...I know Obamacare is not the answer, but the current system needs some fixin'.


You could always go to Tijuana for your medical care. They have nice, low prices...


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Orsini said:


> You could always go to Tijuana for your medical care. They have nice, low prices...


You may be on to something. If we could introduce legit competition for the healthcare provider's services within the framework of American standards for cleanliness and professionalism (So TJ may be out), then the price of healthcare may go down.

Did I hear that Walmart is considering opening up urgent care centers? That may not be the right answer either, but at least I would like to see how a company known for cost effective solutions would handle the health care dilemma.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Or just fund it with taxation. Works. Just saying.

You pay for the army on your taxes. Why not healthcare.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Or just fund it with taxation. Works. Just saying.


How would funding thru taxation make the process more efficient??

Lets say an insurer returns 85%+ of premiums to payments.

When has the US Government ever worked on such a margin??

What happens when efficiencies aren't realized??

Rationing??

Print more money??


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Or just fund it with taxation. Works. Just saying.
> 
> You pay for the army on your taxes. Why not healthcare.


I have no doubt that a socialized medicine system can work. I'm just not convinced it can work in the USA.

My objections to socialized medicine are based mostly on anecdotal evidence and my biases:

While in the UK last week, I heard a news story that indicated that the number of complaints about GPs (which I assume is general practitioner) was at an all-time high. My biased interpretation of that is this: If a doctor gets the same wage whether he is good or bad, why should he provide excellent service?
All of the Canadians that I've heard say that the socialized medicine is great are young and healthy. I'd like to see a 70 year old with COPD say the same thing.
Is there any country in the world with socialized medicine that has the diverse population (and cultures) as does the USA? I think it would be easier to implement a socialized system if everyone was on the same page.
Depending on the gov't is anathema to this American.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> How would funding thru taxation make the process more efficient??
> 
> Lets say an insurer returns 85%+ of premiums to payments.
> 
> ...


Actually Medicare administrative expenses have run between 2.8 and 3.4%.


----------



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

^ ArK that may be true. 
The problem really is what you get for that 3%. 

Private company's can run on the same margin and not allow the huge amount of fraud that Medicare does. 

Additionally, private companies have to pay for fraud investigations out of pocket while Medicare, being a government entity, can have the Feds legal arm do this. Probably unaccounted for out of there budget so.....


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> Or just fund it with taxation. Works. Just saying.
> 
> You pay for the army on your taxes. Why not healthcare.


LOL. Socialism might work in wee little countries with wee little populations, but we have cities in the US that are more populous than the entire country of Sweden. And it's not just a question of scaling up whatever the Swedes do.

I do love Volvos though...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Pentheos said:


> LOL. Socialism might work in wee little countries with wee little populations, but we have cities in the US that are more populous than the entire country of Sweden. And it's not just a question of scaling up whatever the Swedes do.
> 
> I do love Volvos though...


I could give you France or the UK...

Also, we have plenty of private care givers. My doctor runs his own clinic. Salaries are not set by the state. Private addon health insurance is possible as well, though not required. Medicin costs are born by the individual up to a certain level (335 $ per year) after that its paid by the state. There are fees for doctors appointments etc. usually around 15$.

Its a hybrid. We just fund it with taxation/social security contributions. It's by no means perfect but it solves a myriad of problems for the individual citizen.

The way it's set up, with a lot of private care givers within the system, it really can't be called socialism. It's not congruent with Marxist or even social democratic ideology. Doctors in Sweden earn a lot of money. Nurses do not. Seems very similar to what you have, really, except we've ruled out these ghastly private insurance companies you have to deal with. Of course, we do have a national social insurance agency one must deal with to get paternity leave, sick leave, etc., and they are not extremely popular.

Your issue seems to be the finance. Since everyone inevitably needs health care, like everyone needs defence, I have no quibble with it being tax funded.

Your states are, individually, really not that huge.

You could just add a national value added tax to pay for it. Which can be a more efficient than direct taxation in my experience. A public finance structure that works and does not eliminate private care givers.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> I could give you France....


 What I have read (and I have read a fair bit on this topic) suggests that France leads the way when you combine outcomes with affordability but to my mind which systems work the best depends so much on one's philosophical perspective that there really can't be one answer. France has a system with some similarities to Sweden's including a mixture of private and public (mostly public) delivery. They also have, of course, some large cities and a substantial population. Compared with other systems it seems to work quite well but I would think those with right of center political views might well loathe it. Both my father and brother have traveled to the US to receive some specialized care and I accompanied my father on one of his visits to the Lahey Clinic near Boston. It was certainly a fancier type joint than we have in Canada and everything seemed to go at a slower, more controlled pace. Even the food was good in the restaurant. He also must have thought the treatment would be better as his illnesses did not require him waiting for such in Canada. A few years later he became sick on a flight to Amsterdam for vacation and wound up spending a few days in hospital there before flying straight back. His takeaway was that it's much better to be sick and middle class in Canada or northern Europe than it is in the US, but better to be rich and sick in the US. If you are poor or lower middle class in America, God help you.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> Actually Medicare administrative expenses have run between 2.8 and 3.4%.


The expenses paid to private concerns for claim processing??

Maybe!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

blairrob said:


> His takeaway was that it's much better to be sick and middle class in Canada or northern Europe than it is in the US, but better to be rich and sick in the US. If you are poor or lower middle class in America, God help you.


At what part during this experience were the poor or lower middle class in America turned away for treatment??

I'm not following you.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> At what part during this experience were the poor or lower middle class in America turned away for treatment??
> 
> I'm not following you.


Sorry, we did not experience being turned away for healthcare or find ourselves unable to pay for it. However...

We do listen to that bastion of centrist:rolleyes2: news reporting NPR too, _and_ we watch PBS up here sometimes, you know. Worse, we often _support_ them :devil:. The (presumed) vagaries of your health system are widely reported here (as is everything else; you are the elephant next door) and thus we know why and what sort of healthcare we would and do travel and pay for, and also, some of the 'faults' that exist within the delivery system. Certainly the majority of the news and documentary reporting we watch and listen to at my house are American so we are both educated and somewhat experienced with it.

My parents also lived in San Fran and Salt Lake City for years.

Perhaps I should have said his takeaway was the result of all of these things, and not the least of which is the journalism coming out of the US.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

There are lots of inconsistencies between the US and other countries that cannot be directly compared. Land mass & population alone make it very difficult to compare us to nearly any other country. Canada has our size (but about a tenth our population), but the UK doesn't, and Sweden isn't even close. When you start talking about the large population countries like China, and India how do they fair on Nationalized or Socialized Medicine? If it can work for them, it can work for us. If it can scale from Sweden to us, it can theoretically scale to them.

You also have regulatory rules which combine with pure capitalism. The US essentially funds the research and development of prescription drugs for the rest of the world, and pays for a solid portion of "global defense." If you want to pay for national healthcare, you have to give up things like world aid, and the "ability" to wage war across the world (both good & bad aspects of that). Maintaining a million sailors, soldiers, airmen, and Marines cost a chunk of change. Before you say good riddance, remember, that means no UN peacekeeping forces (significantly reduced with no imposing shadow behind it) either.

And it's not like we're just letting people die. We may be letting people go bankrupt, but thats a product of the service arm, not the health care arm. There's a huge difference between Healthcare (which is readily available in the US), and Healthcare Insurance (which is a system that could probably use a major overhaul).


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> There are lots of inconsistencies between the US and other countries that cannot be directly compared. Land mass & population alone make it very difficult to compare us to nearly any other country. Canada has our size (but about a tenth our population), but the UK doesn't, and Sweden isn't even close. When you start talking about the large population countries like China, and India how do they fair on Nationalized or Socialized Medicine? If it can work for them, it can work for us. If it can scale from Sweden to us, it can theoretically scale to them.


There have to be differences with any 2 items or groups one compares or it would obviously be pointless, but just as obviously there need to be similarities to develop useful data. The United States itself compiles similar research for it's own purposes and most researchers consider comparisons within the western industrialized nations to be a perfectly appropriate methodology. Whether you do or don't will not negate that fact. While no 2 countries are identical in land mass, common borders, populations, or anything else the fact remains that we can compare and do because it is a very useful tool in planning. And mentioning India or China in this conversation is a bad red herring unless you think that is how far the US has fallen. I don't share that belief and I know you don't either. The US is a great country full of great people.



Apatheticviews said:


> You also have regulatory rules which combine with pure capitalism. The US essentially funds the research and development of prescription drugs for the rest of the world, and pays for a solid portion of "global defense." If you want to pay for national healthcare, you have to give up things like world aid, and the "ability" to wage war across the world (both good & bad aspects of that). Maintaining a million sailors, soldiers, airmen, and Marines cost a chunk of change.


Europe funds an enormous part of prescription medicine so to say the US essentially finds world wide drug research is not correct. 5 of the largest 7 drug companies in the world are European with significant research facilities in Switzerland, Germany, France, and Italy as well as the UK. All western countries decide how to fund things such as defense, global aid, healthcare, etc., and all reap benefits as such, including have an active defense industry, research and healthcare jobs (mostly high paying jobs with spin-off benefits), and increased or decreased access to other markets. I don't believe that America's decision or ability to fund or not to fund national health care is affected by budgetary constraints as much as it is by philosophical and sociopolitical notions. It is the latter 2 which are the most notable differences in how the USA has constructed itself versus other western countries. One of the two basic tenets behind the national pride of the US and France is liberty and both exercise it frequently but in fundamentally different ways. I find it a fascinating commonality and stark contrast simultaneously.



Apatheticviews said:


> Before you say good riddance, remember, that means no UN peacekeeping forces (significantly reduced with no imposing shadow behind it) either.


Disagree. The vast majority of UN peacekeepers come from 3rd world countries. I think we would agree, though, that they are essentially an irrelevant force in today's world. NATO is much more important.



Apatheticviews said:


> And it's not like we're just letting people die.


 But clearly you are. You have the highest rate of infant mortality in the western industrialized world, one that is double that of Sweden and Japan, and that is at least partly if not mostly due to the lower standard of prenatal care available to the poor. On the other had, our mostly socialized system in Canada means that we sometimes forgo investing in very high cost and uncommon medical procedures and drugs that are available to the well insured or wealthy in the US, so both of our countries let people die from medical issues that there are now expensive treatments for. No health system can afford every possible treatment available.



Apatheticviews said:


> We may be letting people go bankrupt, but thats a product of the service arm, not the health care arm. There's a huge difference between Healthcare (which is readily available in the US), and Healthcare Insurance (which is a system that could probably use a major overhaul).


A valid point. I'm not sure that there is any large bureaucratic program anywhere that couldn't use a major overhaul. Institutions seem to institutionalize lethargy and inertia in themselves while strangling healthy progress.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I use the countries above to show differences in scale. It's often said that things work great for them, why can't they work that way for us. Part of that is scale. The bigger things get, the harder they are to manage. Rome proved that. The British Empire proved it AGAIN. The Spanish Empire proved it AGAIN. What is the USA but Rome in the 21st century? The amount of Command & Control that is necessary for 350~ Million people is not 10x that of 30~ Million (Canada), or some linear number from Sweden, and who know's what it would be going to India or China (who are 3x the USA's population). I mention them solely for purposes of scale. Population growth has to be accounted for in any kind of program, otherwise it is doomed to fail in the long run.The thing about prescription drugs is how much you pay to get them, not where they are developed, and who develops them. Americans pay a premium due to regulatory rules. That is where my line of thought (not clearly stated comes from). We pay an upcharge for our medicine here. I take 1 pill a day which, and another as needed. To fill my prescription would be about $500 a month at most pharmacies (I pay about $30 by using Costco). Many countries have laws which prevent the level of profiteering which occurs here. That profit is used to justify R&D globally. Profit is paycheck. People don't develop medicines for altruism. That's why we aren't seeing a whole lot of cures. We do see a whole bunch of medicines to treat the symptoms though....Agree the UN is essentially irrelevant, hence my comment about the "imposing shadow" which is NATO. But who's going to even consider letting the UN in if NATO (US) isn't standing behind them? I know Saddam wouldn't have in the 90's.As for letting people die. People have to be able to make their own choices. We have programs for prenatal care, but we can't force people to go in, just like we can't force people to invest in expensive procedures later in life. Steve Jobs had a fully treatable form of cancer, which was caught early, yet he chose to not take advantage of the medical care which was readily available. Did we let him die? Or did he exercise his personal freedoms, which resulted in an increased number deaths per year. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Health care is readily available in the US. The ability to pay for it (usually health care insurance) however has many restrictions, which can result in issues.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

blairrob said:


> But clearly you are. You have the highest rate of infant mortality in the western industrialized world, one that is double that of Sweden and Japan, and that is at least partly if not mostly due to the lower standard of prenatal care available to the poor.
> 
> On the other had, our mostly socialized system in Canada means that we sometimes forgo investing in very high cost and uncommon medical procedures and drugs that are available to the well insured or wealthy in the US, so both of our countries let people die from medical issues that there are now expensive treatments for. No health system can afford every possible treatment available.


1. Prenatal care and access to it is available to every American. We probably don't abort the inconvienient as efficiently as Sweden and Japan and of those live births remaining, I'm confident they are less likely to live in the equivelent of American Ghettos or Appalachia.

2. At least you admit that rationing is part of the plan.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> I use the countries above to show differences in scale. It's often said that things work great for them, why can't they work that way for us. Part of that is scale. The bigger things get, the harder they are to manage. Rome proved that. The British Empire proved it AGAIN. The Spanish Empire proved it AGAIN. What is the USA but Rome in the 21st century? The amount of Command & Control that is necessary for 350~ Million people is not 10x that of 30~ Million (Canada), or some linear number from Sweden, and who know's what it would be going to India or China (who are 3x the USA's population). I mention them solely for purposes of scale. Population growth has to be accounted for in any kind of program, otherwise it is doomed to fail in the long run.The thing about prescription drugs is how much you pay to get them, not where they are developed, and who develops them. Americans pay a premium due to regulatory rules. That is where my line of thought (not clearly stated comes from). We pay an upcharge for our medicine here. I take 1 pill a day which, and another as needed. To fill my prescription would be about $500 a month at most pharmacies (I pay about $30 by using Costco). Many countries have laws which prevent the level of profiteering which occurs here. That profit is used to justify R&D globally. Profit is paycheck. People don't develop medicines for altruism. That's why we aren't seeing a whole lot of cures. We do see a whole bunch of medicines to treat the symptoms though....Agree the UN is essentially irrelevant, hence my comment about the "imposing shadow" which is NATO. But who's going to even consider letting the UN in if NATO (US) isn't standing behind them? I know Saddam wouldn't have in the 90's.As for letting people die. People have to be able to make their own choices. We have programs for prenatal care, but we can't force people to go in, just like we can't force people to invest in expensive procedures later in life. Steve Jobs had a fully treatable form of cancer, which was caught early, yet he chose to not take advantage of the medical care which was readily available. Did we let him die? Or did he exercise his personal freedoms, which resulted in an increased number deaths per year. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Health care is readily available in the US. The ability to pay for it (usually health care insurance) however has many restrictions, which can result in issues.


You might not like this but there is not much I can really argue with you about here. I see your argument around drug companies and might add that the percentage of R&D spending by pharmaceutical company's has declined significantly in North America and has been largely replaced on their income statements by marketing expenses.



WouldaShoulda said:


> 2. At least you admit that rationing is part of the plan.


Gawd yes, there is certainly rationing that occurs in our health system and and typically significant wait times in many specialties, most notably in orthopedics. As well, we too have a multi-tier system in that wealthier patients can more easily afford to travel to the USA and pay for faster treatment there or at the private clinics here, and are more likely to 'know' someone who can help them jump the queue, eg are friends or relatives of doctors.



WouldaShoulda said:


> 1. Prenatal care and access to it is available to every American. We probably don't abort the inconvenient as efficiently as Sweden and Japan and of those live births remaining, I'm confident they are less likely to live in the equivalent of American Ghettos or Appalachia.


I suspect it is true that the majority of pregnancies terminated are those of less affluent women but I also have no doubt that the affluent have inconvenient pregnancies and that the very poor have less access to abortion services than those more affluent.

While prenatal care is perhaps available in theory to all Americans it is not in practice, and neither is it always of the same quality.

Per the 'US _Health Resources and Services Administration_': "prenatal care and postpartum checkups appear to be more accessible in commercial (private) plans than in public-sector plans financed by Medicaid", and 
_"_this discrepancy of the degree to which disadvantaged and advantaged populations use prenatal care service can be explain by social factors such as the limited availability of providers, inefficiency, poor organized health care delivery systems, and inadequate insurance coverage"..."populations in urban inner-city settings have an increased risk of substandard prenatal care" from the U of Washington Med school's '_Social network structure and prenatal care utilization_'.

While there is a combination of factors that leads to poor or non-existent prenatal care, including cultural and educational ones, socioeconomic is greatest factor.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

blairrob said:


> While there is a combination of factors that leads to poor or non-existent prenatal care, including cultural and educational ones, socioeconomic is greatest factor.


By socioeconomic, you mean not having a husband to drive you to the doctor or just skipping it and going to the liquor store instead??

I'd buy that.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1. Prenatal care and access to it is available to every American. We probably don't abort the inconvienient as efficiently as Sweden and Japan and of those live births remaining, I'm confident they are less likely to live in the equivelent of American Ghettos or Appalachia.
> 
> 2. At least you admit that rationing is part of the plan.


Abort the inconvenient? What's wrong with you? 

Feel free to back that up.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Abort the inconvenient? What's wrong with you?
> 
> Feel free to back that up.


I'm sorry I may have spoken out of turn. Though recent hard statistics are hard to come by, it appears the USA does dispose of/abort the inconvenient more successfully than Japan or Sweden.

So we are still #1!!

USA!! USA!! USA!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Isn't it "America #$%# Ya!" now?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm sorry I may have spoken out of turn. Though recent hard statistics are hard to come by, it appears the USA does dispose of/abort the inconvenient more successfully than Japan or Sweden.
> 
> So we are still #1!!
> 
> USA!! USA!! USA!!


My god. You're turning into the French...


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> By socioeconomic, you mean not having a husband to drive you to the doctor or just skipping it and going to the liquor store instead??
> 
> I'd buy that.


You have a nasty sense of righteousness in you that I quite like.

I'm sure it is true that some issues arise from some sort of self apathy, but surely some must stem from mental illness, costs of transportation and lack of local neonatal care... That certainly seems to be what the literature suggests, not _all_ of which comes from liberal sources.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

blairrob said:


> You have a nasty sense of righteousness in you that I quite like.
> 
> I'm sure it is true that some issues arise from some sort of self apathy, but surely some must stem from mental illness, costs of transportation and lack of local neonatal care... That certainly seems to be what the literature suggests, not _all_ of which comes from liberal sources.


1) Thank you. I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to language twisting and defining terms, but don't consider myself righteous. For instance "Reproductive rights" are not rights of reproduction at all. Birth control and abortion supress reproduction. That's may not be a bad thing, I just object to the misleading phrase.

2) I never deny that there are needy among us. But I am suspicious about just what constitutes "needy" and the most efficient way to encourage self-help as opposed to continued dependence, or making poverty more comfortable.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Thank you. I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to language twisting and defining terms, but don't consider myself righteous. For instance "Reproductive rights" are not rights of reproduction at all. Birth control and abortion supress reproduction. That's may not be a bad thing, I just object to the misleading phrase.
> 
> 2) I never deny that there are needy among us. But I am suspicious about just what constitutes "needy" and the most efficient way to encourage self-help as opposed to continued dependence, or making poverty more comfortable.


Ah! We agree...

You're still turning into the French


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Now that you mention it, I do like beaujolais and brie!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Now that you mention it, I do like beaujolais and brie!!


Who doesn't?! And cote du rhone and freedom fries


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

The bottom line is this: The rich get richer, the poor have children.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

burnedandfrozen said:


> The bottom line is this: The rich get richer, the poor have children.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Shouldn't you have used a Romney family photo?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> The system is crazy.


I wonder Toq, has anyone else pointed out to you that you responded to the single and opening post of a SEVEN year old thread?


----------

