Employer healthcare plans should be abolished. Privatize it all the way.

[debbiedowner]

Why is it wrong to charge an unhealthy person 12 or even 20 times as much for healthcare as a healthy person if he is 12 or 20 times the risk? It is based on risk and potential expenses.

If you're an unhealthy person and you want to pay more for an individual plan than your employer
will charge you, you should definitely do that.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

You do have the right to go out and purchase an unregulated policy. Who is forcing you to take the employer group plan?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

You do know that the law says that you can only charge 3 times the amount you charge the youngster right?

Pretty sure what he's complaining about is that as things stand now, if they work for the same employer, they probably have the same health plan and the same premium because the kid doesn't have a choice. It's the employer who decides what the plan will be, not the person being insured.

I can think of a few things I would like about a system where we purchase our healthcare and our health insurance the way we shop for and purchase other things. I would like insurance companies and health providers to have to compete for the business of the actual patients. I think we would be seeing an explosion of innovative new options, pricing, payment plans, etc. in no time.

People do not and have never haggled over medical expenses. The medical industrial complex just charges whatever the traffic will bear.

People do shop, and have shopped, around for healthcare when they have a reason to, just like anything else. The healthcare industry charges what the market REQUIRES, and the biggest problem is that "the market" is NOT the people who are actually going to use the services.

 

[BluesLegend]

We use our greedy corporate muscle and billions in annual revenue to force insurance companies to give us high quality health insurance at low rates. So forget it.

 

[dblack]

Why is it wrong to charge an unhealthy person 12 or even 20 times as much for healthcare as a healthy person if he is 12 or 20 times the risk? It is based on risk and potential expenses.

If you're an unhealthy person and you want to pay more for an individual plan than your employer
will charge you, you should definitely do that.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

You do have the right to go out and purchase an unregulated policy. Who is forcing you to take the employer group plan?

The state. It's an indirect kind of force, but it's definitely force. When the government fucks around with the tax laws to push us all into corporate insurance, that's force.

 

[RandomPoster]

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people.

If you can get a cheaper, un-pooled rate, by getting a plan outside your employer, go for it.

I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance

No one is stopping you. Go price some policies and post your findings.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Duh!

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

Yeah, sure thing.

Now go price some policies and post your findings.

I would have more of my money if my employer spent zero on social spending. Additionally, stop the oppressive government interference with the free market insurance companies, who are desperately trying to provide a valuable service to paying customers. The government forces insurers to cover a ridiculous array of health ailments in order to drive up the price on any plan so everyone is paying more of the same. Let me purchase bare bones insurance and if you need some unusual coverage, you pay for it.

I would have more of my money if my employer spent zero on social spending.

Great. Work at a company that offers no benefits.

You price those policies yet?

Additionally, employers create group health plans and communists in our country passed legislation preventing employers from refusing to hire people based on having pre-existing conditions. They can not refuse to hire you because you have gout or Krohn's disease or high blood pressure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you're an unhealthy person and you want to pay more for an individual plan than your employer
will charge you, you should definitely do that.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people.

If you can get a cheaper, un-pooled rate, by getting a plan outside your employer, go for it.

I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance

No one is stopping you. Go price some policies and post your findings.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Duh!

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

Yeah, sure thing.

Now go price some policies and post your findings.

Do you have no problem with paying extra for 911 service to cover some freeloader who pays nothing? He pays nothing except gets the same ambulance service as you. If you want to give him a ride to the hospital, go ahead, except don't ask me to pay more taxes to cover it.

Do you have no problem with paying extra for 911 service to cover some freeloader who pays nothing?

I pay on my phone bill. How do you pay?

He pays nothing except gets the same ambulance service as you.

How does he call 911 with no phone?

If you want to give him a ride to the hospital, go ahead, except don't ask me to pay more taxes to cover it.

You should stop paying those 911 taxes. Right after you price those policies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people.

If you can get a cheaper, un-pooled rate, by getting a plan outside your employer, go for it.

I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance

No one is stopping you. Go price some policies and post your findings.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Duh!

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

Yeah, sure thing.

Now go price some policies and post your findings.

I would have more of my money if my employer spent zero on social spending. Additionally, stop the oppressive government interference with the free market insurance companies, who are desperately trying to provide a valuable service to paying customers. The government forces insurers to cover a ridiculous array of health ailments in order to drive up the price on any plan so everyone is paying more of the same. Let me purchase bare bones insurance and if you need some unusual coverage, you pay for it.

I would have more of my money if my employer spent zero on social spending.

Great. Work at a company that offers no benefits.

You price those policies yet?

Additionally, employers create group health plans and communists in our country passed legislation preventing employers from refusing to hire people based on having pre-existing conditions. They can not refuse to hire you because you have gout or Krohn's disease or high blood pressure.

They can not refuse to hire you because you have gout or Krohn's disease or high blood pressure.

How would they know if I have any of those?

 

[RandomPoster]

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Duh!

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

Yeah, sure thing.

Now go price some policies and post your findings.

I would have more of my money if my employer spent zero on social spending. Additionally, stop the oppressive government interference with the free market insurance companies, who are desperately trying to provide a valuable service to paying customers. The government forces insurers to cover a ridiculous array of health ailments in order to drive up the price on any plan so everyone is paying more of the same. Let me purchase bare bones insurance and if you need some unusual coverage, you pay for it.

I would have more of my money if my employer spent zero on social spending.

Great. Work at a company that offers no benefits.

You price those policies yet?

Additionally, employers create group health plans and communists in our country passed legislation preventing employers from refusing to hire people based on having pre-existing conditions. They can not refuse to hire you because you have gout or Krohn's disease or high blood pressure.

They can not refuse to hire you because you have gout or Krohn's disease or high blood pressure.

How would they know if I have any of those?

Some employers were using a health screen to avoid letting unhealthy people drive up costs on their health plan and increase the amount they had to contribute by find other excuses to not hire them. Communists passed regulations to stop them.

 

[Care4all]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

You do know that the law says that you can only charge 3 times the amount you charge the youngster right?

Pretty sure what he's complaining about is that as things stand now, if they work for the same employer, they probably have the same health plan and the same premium because the kid doesn't have a choice. It's the employer who decides what the plan will be, not the person being insured.

I can think of a few things I would like about a system where we purchase our healthcare and our health insurance the way we shop for and purchase other things. I would like insurance companies and health providers to have to compete for the business of the actual patients. I think we would be seeing an explosion of innovative new options, pricing, payment plans, etc. in no time.

People do not and have never haggled over medical expenses. The medical industrial complex just charges whatever the traffic will bear.

Of course, because no one is paying for their own health care. We've created a system where the whole game is getting someone else to pay the bills. What could go wrong?

Actually, everyone is paying for their own healthcare, even if it seems like their employer is paying for the most of it, right?

It comes out of your gross compensation.... only it is taken from you, before you even see it, so the employer can buy it for you, and even though you are paying for it in full, you get no choice in the plan.

The reason I say this, is when I did work for a major corporation, at the end of the year, my employer sent us a statement of what we were compensated for the year....

It had what the employer paid in life insurance, in healthcare, your salary, your bonuses, your dental care, disability insurance, the employer portion of your social security and medicare matches and maybe a few other things on there, and then gave you a yearly total compensation number.

 

[debbiedowner]

Pretty sure what he's complaining about is that as things stand now, if they work for the same employer, they probably have the same health plan and the same premium because the kid doesn't have a choice. It's the employer who decides what the plan will be, not the person being insured.

I can think of a few things I would like about a system where we purchase our healthcare and our health insurance the way we shop for and purchase other things. I would like insurance companies and health providers to have to compete for the business of the actual patients. I think we would be seeing an explosion of innovative new options, pricing, payment plans, etc. in no time.

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

If you are against each state regulating their insurance markets then you must be for government regulating it? Does this sound familiar?

 

[RandomPoster]

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people.

If you can get a cheaper, un-pooled rate, by getting a plan outside your employer, go for it.

I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance

No one is stopping you. Go price some policies and post your findings.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Duh!

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

Yeah, sure thing.

Now go price some policies and post your findings.

Do you have no problem with paying extra for 911 service to cover some freeloader who pays nothing? He pays nothing except gets the same ambulance service as you. If you want to give him a ride to the hospital, go ahead, except don't ask me to pay more taxes to cover it.

Do you have no problem with paying extra for 911 service to cover some freeloader who pays nothing?

I pay on my phone bill. How do you pay?

He pays nothing except gets the same ambulance service as you.

How does he call 911 with no phone?

If you want to give him a ride to the hospital, go ahead, except don't ask me to pay more taxes to cover it.

You should stop paying those 911 taxes. Right after you price those policies.

911 should be an insurance fee you pay to a private company. You don't pay, don't bother calling the police, fire department, or ambulance for you or your family.

 

[iceberg]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

fuck off. i'm happy with what i have. why take it away cause you feel like moving shit around?

 

[debbiedowner]

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

and how do you propose to fix that?

Should the Fed Govt override the rights of the state?

No one should regulate it. Let the free market take care of it.

No one? You're opening yourself up to every scam going around at any particular time.

 

[RandomPoster]

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

If you are against each state regulating their insurance markets then you must be for government regulating it? Does this sound familiar?

No. I am in favor of the government stopping employers from enforcing brutal socialism on the healthy and productive. Free market 100%.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

If you are against each state regulating their insurance markets then you must be for government regulating it? Does this sound familiar?

No. I am in favor of the government stopping employers from enforcing brutal socialism on the healthy and productive. Free market 100%.

once again, nobody forces you to use the employer provided healthcare. It is your choice

 

[RandomPoster]

Outlaw labor unions as well.

 

[RandomPoster]

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

If you are against each state regulating their insurance markets then you must be for government regulating it? Does this sound familiar?

No. I am in favor of the government stopping employers from enforcing brutal socialism on the healthy and productive. Free market 100%.

once again, nobody forces you to use the employer provided healthcare. It is your choice

Once again, it reflects on my wages because the employer spends a huge amount of money on it. There is no way some of the people shouldn't be getting charged over 10,000 a month for health insurance. Yet, they go on a company plan and drive up everyone else's costs. That is socialized medicine. Let the healthy 18 year old pay 100 dollars a month and let the extremely unhealthy person with an expensive medical condition pay thousands a month and stop socializing it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

If you are against each state regulating their insurance markets then you must be for government regulating it? Does this sound familiar?

I can tell you that it doesn't require the amount of regulation it currently has.

That being said, we don't have trouble managing regulations for other businesses that market across state lines, so I fail to see a reason why the same could not hold true for health insurance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people.

If you can get a cheaper, un-pooled rate, by getting a plan outside your employer, go for it.

I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance

No one is stopping you. Go price some policies and post your findings.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Duh!

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

Yeah, sure thing.

Now go price some policies and post your findings.

Do you have no problem with paying extra for 911 service to cover some freeloader who pays nothing? He pays nothing except gets the same ambulance service as you. If you want to give him a ride to the hospital, go ahead, except don't ask me to pay more taxes to cover it.

Do you have no problem with paying extra for 911 service to cover some freeloader who pays nothing?

I pay on my phone bill. How do you pay?

He pays nothing except gets the same ambulance service as you.

How does he call 911 with no phone?

If you want to give him a ride to the hospital, go ahead, except don't ask me to pay more taxes to cover it.

You should stop paying those 911 taxes. Right after you price those policies.

911 should be an insurance fee you pay to a private company. You don't pay, don't bother calling the police, fire department, or ambulance for you or your family.

Yes, public safety should be a bought-and-paid-for commodity. Because who gives a shit if poor people get killed, right?

 

[debbiedowner]

I want a discount, cash/no paperwork option from my doctor. I'm willing to sigh a waiver promising not to sue him for malpractice if my cough turns out to be lung cancer.

"No paperwork" in what sense, exactly? Which paperwork are you objecting to?

Insurance reimbursement forms.

Yeah, uh, that's not your doctor's thing to control and decide. That's up to your insurance company.

I want to pay the doctor a reasonable fee for an office visit with cash, no insurance.

What about that by pass? Cancer treatments? A couple weeks in the hospital?