Hardly an irrelevant diversion. Ask California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, etc. and I’m sure they’ll tell you how irrelevant the issue is. I do agree that it starts with immigration policy. But how long do you really believe it will take to fix the immigration problem? Ten years, twenty? In the mean time, free health services to illegals must be curbed. An important talking point for reform proponents has been the “47 million” uninsured individuals in the U.S. Most sources I have read compute that between 30-50% of those 47 million are illegal immigrants. Medicare and Medicaid were never meant to cover illegal immigrants. When you throw millions more people into a system that it was never meant to cover, you may have a problem.

Sorry for the tangled thought, but you completely missed the point. You originally stated that those that supported the current system were guilty of trying to kill anything that threatens them. My point was that the “other side”, or those that oppose the current system, can be guilty of the same thing. That is, they will try to kill anything that threatens their cause to change the current system. Imagine this – Irrefutable, hard evidence surfaces that shows that the current system was the best, and that changing said system would be disastrous. Do you think health reform would die? Probably, and absolutely, not. There would still be those that would ignore said evidence and would still push the cause. The opposite is also true. Long story short – both sides are currently guilty of ignoring credible arguments of the other simply for the purpose of posturing.

So it’s fair for the fit individual who never has to see a doctor (due to better health) to pay the same as an obese individual who is always sick (due to poor health)?

Are you serious? So a person who is obese from eating crap all-day-every-day for years is unlucky? So much for personal accountability for one’s actions.

Perhaps, but also consider that those that are for the reform may also ignore facts that do not support their objective. I’m not saying that the statistics are right or wrong, but you blindly accuse this site of trying to kill the measure when the same act that you’re accusing them of is almost certainly being done by the other side.

What are your thoughts on high school valedictorians that attend university on athletic scholarships?

I agree that it’s irrelevant and that’s why I said that I was just curious. I was looking for some background on your insight, and thank you for providing it.

It’s called capitalism. Not that capitalism leads to sports, but that there is an innate sense of competition in humans and especially in Americans. I was trying to support why Americans are so interested in sports, and I believe its their desire for competition which is somewhat greater than most countries.

With regard to sports, I believe that America is in the position that it is in because no other country has created an athletic business like America has. America is built on competition (maybe only for a little longer), and what better display of competition than athletics. People spend money on athletics based the desired utility that they perceive is gained from such expenditures.

Take some time, have a kid, then revisit this topic and consider your comments. Otherwise, the discussion is pointless as your position is irrelevant. It’s basically like a virgin saying that sex sucks.

You guys have all talked about how you would want YOUR insurance structured. How would you want the guy-in-the-next-car’s insurance structured? If he rear-ends you going 70, would you want him to be self-insured or to be backed by some large corporation? I’ve researched the $1 mil umbrella policy before, but I don’t remember what I found. I do remember that there was pretty strict and high primary policy requirements, similar to the 300/300/100 you mentioned.