That was a sad story. He should not give up a meal to avoid the other inmates though. As my younger brother tells me " Yeah, but we're still number 1 " , it makes you wonder ?  Why is it that, this kind of delusion is so rampant in our society ?

The sad thing is he probably doesn't even have the grace to be embarrassed. I wonder if he even attempted to seek out charity before running to mommy government? There are many health charities that help with these kinds of situations, and many hospitals have charitable funds themselves to cover essential surgeries. Around here the big one is http://www.surgeryonsunday.org I didn't notice where this guy was from, but I'd be willing to bet that there is some hospital or charity within a days drive that would have helped him. 

Seriously, we treat doctors like they are monsters that demand instant payment or else. They aren't. If you truly need a surgery or medical procedure, most doctors will do what they can to help if you simply ask. If they can't do anything themselves, they can probably at least point you in the right direction to a charity that can help. 

Instead of whining and bitching people ought to simply ask for help rather than run to the government and demand it. If you find yourself in this kind of situation, try asking nicely, you will have a lot more success. Because if you go up to someone and demand that they have to provide you medical care because you need it, well many of us are going to tell you to fuck off. I hope they throw him in the smallest, least furnished prison cell they can find. 

To play the devil's advocate: why? What great moral imperative is there to seek non-governmental aid?

Because by seeking non-governmental aid you are seeking help from people who are giving it willingly. By seeking government aid you are seeking funds that were taken from another person through force. It is the difference between a street bum with a sign asking for help and a mugger. To me, the former deserves help far more than the latter even if the former is a drug addict, alcoholic etc. and the latter is someone with some noble purpose for the money. The ends do not justify the means. I don't care if you need the money to save the cutest kid in the world, taking a gun and putting it to someones head for the purpose of stealing from them is wrong and I don't think a society that permits that kind of behavior on a mass scale is desirable. Rather than using force to collect money for whatever our noble causes are, we should use persuasion. Convince other people through words that our cause is noble rather than through the gun.

People who wouldn't imagine stealing money from another person are for some reason willing to do so when the money is taken by government officials, filtered through a few layers of bureaucrats and then handed to them. IMO, something that is wrong when done by an individual is just as wrong when done by a group and there is little difference between taking the money yourself and asking someone else to take it for you. I find this especially intriguing among social security recipients. I know some who absolutely refuse to accept money from their children/grand children when offered willingly, but when they imagine that some politician might change their social security payments they flip out. Who the hell do they think is paying for their social security? 

If someone asks for my help, I might help them with a smile on my face. They get the help they need, I get that nice warm fuzzy feeling, everyone is happy. If someone mugs me either directly or indirectly using government I am going to resist as much as I can without paying too high of a price, and I am going to have a rather low opinion of them. The world would be a much nicer place if we weren't constantly trying to steal from each other using government as the tool. 

In most states, you have to be a minor child to qualify for medicaid.   They also usually have some slots for the permanently disabled.  This guy's health problems do not qualify as permanent disabilities and he is way too young for medicare.  Having just gone through a period where we were not disabled and now at least one of us is disabled.  6 months ago, we qualified for nothing - now, with the onset of my husband's health problems, we qualify for a lot more.  

Walk into a hospital with a bona fide emergency and they have to treat you.  This guy does not have any health problems that qualify as an emergency.  The lump in his chest?  Not until it is bleeding, exploding out of his chest, or he is screaming in pain is this an emergency.  (and I am not too sure about the screaming part - it may not qualify as an emergency since it probably isn't a heart attack)

So he really had fewer options than you think.  Charities are overwhelmed with children and the permanently disabled at the moment.  Someone who can hold a part time job, and take care of his own needs without assistance, will probably be refused care at the door.  I have seen a number of older men and women holding down temp part time jobs - and obviously are in a lot of pain while limping around the super store.  They probably don't have health care through the store, look to be too young to have medicare, don't make enough to pay for insurance out of pocket, and so must struggle - no hospital or doctor's office will touch them until they drop with something major.

I understand the guy being tired of hurting with no way he can see to get care for damned painful but not emergency health problems. 

Bullshit. I linked directly to one charity in my area that provides free surgery for adults with precisely these types of problems. I can also speak from experience that at least some hospitals will provide care without an immediate means of payment. The Mayo Clinic network for example. They treated me when I first got out of the military with severe pneumonia. I had no insurance (wonderful uncle sam cut me off), no job, no prospects for a job and precious little cash. My problems certainly weren't life threatening in any immediate sense and they kept me there for a week. I spent most of the next four years trying to pay that bill, and they worked with me. Was it because I am good looking and flirted with the receptionist? I doubt it. 

And if he can hold down a part time job then he can pay at least part of the bill can't he? I have never been to a doctor that required 100% payment up front. Usually they treat you then settle the bill afterwards and are always willing to set you up on a payment plan. If you go into a doctor and are honest about your financial situation, they will work with you. Most doctors want to help people, that is why they deal with all the crap they do in the medical profession. They aren't fucking money grubbing monsters that delight in seeing people in pain. If you put some effort into it you can find some charity or some doctor that will be willing to treat you. 

And while I am on the rant, if we fixed medicare, hospitals would have a ton more money to use for charity cases. Right now, medicare pays a small portion of the bill to the hospital and in many cases, the hospital actually loses money treating medicare patients. Now if everyone on medicare was flat broke and had no other options that would be one thing. But they aren't. Medicare goes to everyone without regard to financial status. There is NO reason why someone with a couple hundred grand in the bank should be on medicare. But they are, even if they don't want to be. Make medicare strictly into a welfare program for only those who truly have no other choice. Make people sell off all their assets before they can go on it. Then you could make the program itself solvent, and actually pay doctors for the work that they do. Freeing up more money in hospitals so that can provide better care and more charitable care. 

And another rant for the benefit of any young healthy people out there, getting health insurance through your job is a dumb idea. It might sound appealing, but after 20 years you lose your job you can be major league screwed if you are in poor health. You will find yourself in a position of needing a job to get coverage but perhaps not being healthy enough to work. 

Save yourself the headache, get your insurance privately with an individual policy. It might cost you a few more bucks up front, but it is worth every penny. I would recommend a high deductible HSA (health savings account) plan but Bamacare has basically destroyed those. Get a high deductible plan and save some money on the side. You will get the cheapest insurance rates and your insurance will be secure regardless of your employment situation as long as you continue making payments. Or better yet, just make enough money that you can pay cash for everything because at the end of the day, insurance will always cost more than the average persons medical expenses. Let that money work for you in your own investments rather than the insurance companies investments.  

I don't know what is available in his area, and neither do you.  I do know that some doctors will accept payment plans - my own doctor does.  But - it is only with people who are already her patients.  She does not accept just any body who walks in off the street and treat them for free or on a plan or at reduced cost.  I don't know of any doctor that will.  Yes, you can go to one of the free - or reduced cost - clinics if they are available in your area.  Again, none of us know what is available in his area, what he had tried to do to take care of himself prior to this incident, or anything else about him.  You prefer to make assumptions about all of that, I prefer to wait and see what additional information comes up.  We both know that if there is anything the least bit flaky about this guy, the news will be all over it and we will hear about it.

Pneumonia is life threatening and can be an emergency.  I don't know the details of your case, and I don't need to know.  I do know you don't have to be hospitalized if you have pneumonia, have a place to live, and can take care of yourself and take your meds as prescribed.  Been there, done that.  If you spent a week in the hospital, you got the care you needed when you needed it.  How you paid for it, or not, is what happened for you.  It is not the case that everyone will be in the same situation as you were.

We are back to - just how the heck do you buy personal health insurance if you are working part time for $8-10 an hour?  I agree that is a great way to take care of yourself if you can swing it.  But $10/hour  * 20 hours/week * 52 weeks/year = $10,400 per year gross.  And how are you supposed to keep fed and housed and as well as buy insurance on that?

Get a better paying job, you say.  I'd be willing to bet the guy would love to do that.  Him and me both.   

Also, in favor of (more) privatized care... a person, on average, will get 5 times the benefit out of medicare that they have payed into it in the first place.

This is my issue.  We are wasting money by insisting on private for profit health care.  Let alone the number of lives wasted.

Why is it okay to profit from people's health care?  All health organizations should be mandated non-profit.  All for profit corporations in the US must maximize stockholder returns by law.  A person's health care should not come after share dividends.

Why is it okay to take money for premiums and then deny care?  At least the new law ( "Obamacare" ) disallows the excuses of "pre-existing" conditions and life time caps. 

Preventive care and health education should come first, not last.  I keep seeing people go on about diet and exercise.  Given the food costs lately, a healthy diet costs about twice what we are getting in food stamps.  No, we are not eating steaks every night.  We eat lots of fruit and vegetables - fast food maybe once a month from what little cash we have to spend - whole grains - my husband needs a balanced diet between diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure.  Our sodium intake is so low, the canned low salt soups taste too salty and so we usually make our own.  And so on.  Exercise?  With my arthritis, the doctor told me no running, no bicycling, no stairs, no walking.  And very little swimming.  And so what the heck kind of exercise am I supposed to do?  The osteopathic surgeon didn't have any suggestions.  I'd swim more, but even the public  pools charge money - 

There was a recent study - I will look it up for everyone if you insist - they compared the health of white middle aged Americans and British.  The British were in better health.  Even accounting for smoking and other unhealthy live style choices.  Regular preventive care your entire life - not just childhood and old age - significantly reduces health care costs.  Which reduces costs for everyone, because you will pay.  You will pay for other people's health care, like it or no, willing or not.

Hence why I choose to exercise my freedom to not buy health insurance. I pay for my expenses with cash and go directly to a small practice doctor for most of my needs. If we gave hospitals more freedom to actually pursue patients legally to get at least some payment, it would improve things a little, but by far the largest culprit of unpaid medical bills is medicare. Get the old folks to pay for their own medical care and health insurance rates crash. Until medicare is reformed in some sensible way, meaningful reductions in health care costs will be impossible.

Also there is the little detail that the health insurance market is hardly free in many states. It is extremely highly regulated and some states only have a handful of insurers that have government approval. Allow people to buy any health insurance plan from any company and would make things much more competitive, which means lower rates. 

About the whole "preventative care" issue- if you want it go get it. All you have to do is pay for it. Generally speaking, money isn't the issue that prevents people from getting preventative care. It isn't that expensive, it is certainly cheaper than cell phones, internet and cable tv which virtually every American has. Choose your own priorities. I don't think government needs to be involved in making those decisions for us. 

When you are in poor health it is too late to purchase health INSURANCE, just like if you crash your car it is too late, if your house is flooded or on fire it is too late. Insurance requires that you prepare in advance, that is why it is called insurance, you are insuring your finances against a potentially large bill. With health insurance, your best bet is to get a good plan when you are young and keep your plan unless you are directly swapping from one insurance company to the other. If you failed to plan in advance, I don't see how that is anything other than your own fault. This guy worked a good job for 17 years, but apparently failed to make any plan for the future. Sad, but he was irresponsible and now he is paying the consequences. Hopefully, a few younger people can learn the hard lesson the easy way. 

And what strikes me most is that all of these healthcare discussions what we are talking about is purely financial. There is not a widespread problem with doctors refusing to treat patients for financial reasons. I looked, and I couldn't find any news stories about all the people being thrown on the streets to die. I found plenty bitching about evil insurance companies "denying healthcare", but even when an insurance company turns you down you can pay for it yourself, with charity money or work out a deal with the doctor. So someone fails to have a plan to pay for their medical expenses and has to rely on charity coverage and maybe declare bankruptcy- so what? They get the treatment they need, they continue to survive and hopefully they learned their lesson or people around them learn and plan for the future. 

By the way, it turns out there are a few charities in his area

http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/nc/ncnews/hospitals-openness-charity-care-urged

http://www.unchealthcare.org/site/healthpatientcare/patient/other/financial.htm

took me 20 seconds on google. I imagine that if I was in his situation I would be motivated to search even harder. 

Thank the health insurance industry lobbyists.  I don't know why it is restricted in the first place.  Probably some actuarial table somewhere showed someone where they thought they could save a penny or two.  Some of it is the way the states have their Insurance Commission policies set up.  Or it could have been because some politician or their buddy was defrauded once.

Don't lay it all on me, pookie.  Old people are not the only ones who get catastrophically ill, and old people are way down the actuarial tables when it comes to disabling/life-threatening injuries.  And babies are some of the most expensive when it comes to buying malpractice insurance.  Pat yourself on the back for being childless.

You are paying.  You will continue to pay.  If not in taxes, then in some other fashion.  Health costs affect all of us - rich and poor.  The cost of treating those who can not pay, if not covered in taxes, will be covered in higher costs to the consumer.  Just like shoplifting is covered by higher prices in the stores.

You and me both, I imagine, are waiting for the medicare bubble to explode.

There was one 70ish guy who said that particular program was like a ticking timebomb. This person had every excuse to act like a greedy, unrepentant asshole with regards to his government entitlements. In addition to his age, he was a cancer survivor.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for actual numbers, if not a cite, at the very least. And I don't mean cherry-picked data, either; for example, listing the cost of treating a dental abscess that has reached the heart or the brain vs. the treatment of the initial abscess, but not those costs of other diseases -like the various cancer types, for example.

Here is one web site - http://www.lef.org/Vitamins-Supplements/Blood-Tests/Health-Wellness-Panels.htm

Depends on how healthy you want to be and what you are testing for.  The general ones that cost hundreds but check on a lot of things at one time are what your doctor usually requests for a yearly physical after age 50.  They all seem to believe the warranty on your body runs out about then.

Here is one with the cost of x-rays.  If the guy has back/hip/knee/foot pain, arthritis is a safe bet.  And the doctor would request one or more x-ray for each area.  To repeat what the site says, these costs do not include the radiologist's fees for reading and reporting on the x-rays.  I once had my back x-rayed and paid out of pocket about 7 years ago.  $155 up front.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_do_x-rays_cost

If you have arthritis, the doctor will likely also request an MRI. 

http://blog.remakehealth.com/blog_Healthcare_Consumers-0/bid/6658/How-much-does-an-MRI-scan-cost

Notice, they tried negotiating lower prices and it took 25 calls, about 3 hours on the phone over a 3 day period.  For one 10% reduction, one 20% reduction, and one offer to allow you to pay half up front and the other half later.  No one had MRIs for less than $700 even with discounts.

If you are diabetic?  That is hysterical.  Yes, you can use diet and exercise to attempt to control the disease.  For some unfortunate souls, one of whom I'm married to, this doesn't work.  He is not overweight and walks at least a mile every day.  As I mentioned earlier, we eat healthy and have for years.  Yet, to control the disease, he has to medicate. 

The blood test meters are given away by the manufacturers.  Found a website where if you can afford to sign up for their auto ship program, test strips run just under $30 for 50.  If you test twice a day, that is less than one month's supply.  If you go to Walgreens - from personal experience - they are over $65 for 50.  Needles for insulin - $25-30 for a box of 100.  You also need to buy alcohol wipes - or alcohol and gauze or cotton balls - not much, but just one more thing to keep track of.

You will also need regular A1C blood tests.  This measures the long term effectiveness of your blood sugar management.  Not terribly expensive if done without other tests.

Getting old sucks.  And there is damn little you can do to avoid the ills that go with.  If you didn't choose your parents to be people free from ills and aches when they aged, you can pretty much forget all the advice about how to take care of yourself when young to avoid your parent's diseases.  I know you don't want to hear this, I sure thought I could avoid them all when I was younger.  Seems to me, the best you can seem to get to is a little less debilitated than your parents were/are.

Rejuv treatments - hurry up with the research already, guys.

On eheathinsurance.comI found for myself (20 year old full time college student) $40 a month with 5500 deductible, 0% coinsurance, and everything else was 0% after I met my deductible. Unlimited lifetime maximum.

For someone who is 60, I found 162 a month (sucks I know) but after a 5500 deductible everything is 0%. Here is the link, it is for Missouri though, I don't know where you are. 

162 a month + 5500 = 7444 per year for all your health insurance if you need more than 5500 in health insurance. 

I really feel for you cj and the bit about diabetes is the one place where insurance fails. Unfortunately, there are millions and millions of people with diabetes and other chronic conditions that they had no choice in having and our health care system treats them very poorly. 

Best of luck to you in finding a job. 

The reason I focused on old people is because that is currently the demographic that pays the least because of medicare. When the government skips out on paying a medicare bill, the hospital simply eats the cost and has very little recourse. If I were to go to a hospital and skip out on the bill they can at least hurt my credit rating, annoy me with phone calls and letters and ultimately sue me to at least attempt to recover some of those costs.

Your comparison with shoplifting is actually a really good one. And we should treat people who skip out on hospital bills just like we would treat people who get caught stealing from a grocery store or skipping out on any other bill for services received. IMO, hospitals should be more proactive in suing people who skip out on their bills. 

Of course, there is going to be a certain segment of society that simply won't pay and hospitals might have to build that into their prices, but as a consumer, I can choose which hospital I want to go to. No doubt, some are better and more efficient than others at collecting money from deadbeats, so they will have lower costs. Just like some grocery stores have lower costs than others. Again, we are talking about a voluntary transaction- the hospital gives me a price and I decide whether or not I am willing to pay it. Quite frankly, I don't care if the price is inflated because of people stealing, the doctors being greedy or the cost of electricity. As a consumer, I generally don't worry about those details. My main concern is whether or not I am willing to pay $X for the services I receive and whether or not a competitor can give me comparable services at a lower cost. Just like you probably don't think about all the costs that are built into running a grocery store. You simply decide whether or not you are willing to pay the price for your goods. 

That is massively different from a system where the government taxes and uses that money to pay for peoples care, especially when it starts paying for the care of people who could otherwise pay for at least part of it themselves.   

It doesn't matter if it is coffee or something else. I chose coffee because I happened to be drinking some at the time I made the post. Fill in your product. Even for essentials like food, market competition exists. I don't know where you live, but I am willing to bet that you have more than one grocery store to choose from. Clothing and shelter? There are choices all over the place that range from the extremely cheap to the exorbitantly expensive. 

Name one product where I don't have a choice. 

Who came out ahead in the coffee example? This is where you are fundamentally wrong. You assume there has to be a winner and a loser. At the most basic level, there isn't. When the government uses force, I can point to specific people who are having something that is theirs taken from them against their will under the threat of jail and ultimately, a gun. With any economic transaction, you can't do the same. 

Even though I'm pretty certain you don't even understand the basic issue of coffee, lets address the heart attack. So you go into a hospital and will die unless several people do something to save you. Now they can probably charge you whatever price they want because if you want to live, you are probably willing to pay every penny you have. Suppose they are complete assholes, and charge $200k for procedures that might usually sell for $50K. In economics, this is what we call inelastic demand, because no matter what the price is, it will have little to no effect on demand.

Now you have four options.

1. You can pay the $200k and live

2 You can refuse to pay and die

3. You can have someone with a gun force the nurses and doctors to save your life

4. You can use a gun to go take money from some third person to pay for the 200k.

I think we can agree that option 2 isn't really an option for anyone who wants to live. I frown on option 3 and 4 because you are using force. You are using violence to force another person to do something for you or to take from another person. You are no longer talking about an economic transaction where one party trades their labor for the labor of another party at a mutually agreed price.

Now you are arguing that option 1 is the same type of violence because when your life is in danger, you will pay any price to save it. But the doctors and the nurses are not forcing you to do anything for them. You are the one who is reliant on their efforts. You are the one demanding that they perform labor for you. The only thing they are demanding is that you pay them for their labor. The fact that their labor is so important to you that you are willing to essentially write a blank check is irrelevant. If it was my life, I would gladly pay whatever they asked, even if it meant I had to give up everything I own because my life is more important to me. That labor that saves my life, is more important to me than all the other labor I could pay for with that money. Now having been overcharged, I would probably try to go elsewhere when I need future services. I might even badmouth them a little bit. But  it can hardly be considered violence used against me. I was the one making the demand of their labor.

In reality, hospitals don't take advantage of these types of situations. In the real world, doctors and nurses are pretty nice people. They treat you in emergency situations regardless of your ability to pay. Right now, it is codified in law, but I am willing to bet that even without the law, hospitals would treat true emergencies and sort out the money afterwards.  

Signature worthy material, that is. Though I thought in all fairness I should point out that eloise's tax dollars goes to a different government than ours, if you aren't already of aware of that.

Than you've never heard of a limousine (neo)liberal...

Just aside, you do realise that the point of paying tax dollars is to recieve services, don't you? Its here almost as though you're saying that taxes equate definitionally to demanding something for nothing*, is the irony of such thinking lost on you forever?

A trader can have you penalised if you refuse payment for their services, in exactly the same sense, on principle**, that the government would do the same to you for not paying your taxes. Fundamentally there is no difference in how and on what grounds a trader and a government will use legal recourse to claim money from you, that is my point.

Additionally, it is patently false to say you "can't" pick and choose which programs your money pays for, yes even in an ideally working democracy your powers are limited to a single vote in favour of or against a package of programs but this is not the same as having no choice at all.

*Definition of PROFIT fro Merriam-Webster (NB the highlighted section)

**(I do realise that there is a hefty degree of barminess going on with taxes in todays world, but for arguments sake lets say both competing systems are in their ideal state and compare them on principles)

Your not paying tax dollars to receive services if you are not the person who is receiving said services. My gripe is about paying tax dollars for services that are solely received by other people. For example, I have no complaints about the gas tax because the funds collected through the gas tax are used to build and maintain the roads and the amount of gas tax I pay is directly related to how much I use that service. If all government taxes were structured as a fee for use system, I would be very satisfied. But when it comes to healthcare issues, we are not talking about fee for use. We are talking very specifically about taking money from one group of people, and giving it to another group simply because the receiving group is larger. That is wrong.

Now with all these social programs medicare, social security etc. I have said before, and will say again, I would be perfectly happy if participation was voluntary. If I could choose not to participate and therefore, not receive the benefits or pay the taxes, I would have no problems with the programs. They aren't voluntary and I have to pay for them regardless of whether or not I will receive any benefit from them at all.  

No, it isn't the same. The trader cannot force you to take their product. Yes, if you steal from someone you will face legal penalties, but from any trader, you are free to walk away having purchased nothing. With the government, you are not free to walk away. It takes your money whether you like it or not and whether you want the services or not. 

Except that I will never be in the majority. It is all fine and dandy that I can vote, that doesn't change the problem of a majority of people would like to take from me and they vote for politicians that want to take from me. The only permanent solution I can imagine to the problem of the majority simply stealing from the minority is an agreement that we won't use government force to steal from one another. As you can see, I am in a distinct minority in wanting that type of agreement, but I will continue to push the issue as long as I can and maybe eventually a majority of people will see that theft through government is as wrong as direct theft.  

Yes, profit is the money you make over your investment. You are ignoring the step where you do something to make the good worth more. It is exceedingly rare to find a situation where you can purchase a good and turn around and immediately sell it for a profit. Usually you have to improve it (as in a factory that buys steel and makes it into a car), transport it somewhere where it is more valuable (like a grocer), or store it until it becomes more valuable. So it does not translate directly into your initial claim that one side is necessarily taking advantage of or getting the better of the other.  

I keep telling you and you keep not hearing.  You will pay - you will pay in higher costs from your provider(s).  All those people who get emergency care but can't pay - your costs just jumped.  All those people who could have prevented an emergency room visit if they had been able to afford preventive care - your costs just jumped.  Epidemics, drug resistant bacteria - your costs just jumped.   And the last also affect your personal health risks.  You pay.

You will pay in higher costs for higher numbers of prison inmates - not only because of a few people like this guy, but also because when people can't get the care they need, some of them wind up in jail.  Some because they haven't been taking meds or going to therapy sessions and so they act out.  Some because hopelessness is associated with increased crime and domestic violence.

Willing or not, you pay.  Taxes or higher costs, you pay.  If you don't like it, you might want to research why you are paying what you are and how to reduce provider's costs so your costs are reduced.

It is very similar to you paying for shoplifting.  You pay higher costs for goods because of the store's losses and you pay higher taxes to put people in jail.  You pay.  You want to reduce what you pay, you need to look at what are the real causes and not what you think the causes might be.

We had far less of a pay gap and far less poverty and far less people on the government dime when we had a higher tax rate on the rich.

Seriously, anyone who owns a mansion can suck my dick if all they give a shit about is themselves. I am not impressed with McDonalds creating more poverty by providing 50 thousand minimum wage jobs. And why? So their shareholders and CEOs can get rich while the public gets fatter?

Like I said, business is one thing, I will never be against private business ownership. I will always be against monopolies and exploitation.

WE DONT NEED MORE McDonalds or Wal Marts. We need more manufacturing, more innovation, more reasonable higher education costs and less of a pay gap. And most certainly we don't need our high health care costs.

A slash and burn economy is what we have. One that does not care about what it does to make a buck. I care, and I hope someday you see what is going on.

Not any more, and I will give no such break. But I thought you said you were against pigeon-holing. Out of curiosity, what is this in reference to anyways?

Those parents were free to choose whatever crib they deemed proper.

Incorrect.

Seat belts, and crash rating minimums were mandated by the government for the same reason that speed limits were mandated; because of payouts by insurance companies for deaths.

Ya, uh huh, and unions had nothing to do with affecting the 'bottom line' of the car companies?

Puhleeze...

They didn't murder any babies. There was a flaw in the design. Hindsight is 20/20.

Find some gross negligence, and then you might have a case to string them up from the nearest tree.

Are we going to start holding the makers of pavement accountable for not making the coefficient of friction of the pavement high enough to prevent cars from skidding off roads in the rain?

What about all the babies that die in those instances?

Maybe go after the tire manufacturers?

Oh yeah, that's right. Soft compound tires with much higher grip are available from tire companies. Except they cost 3-4 times as much.

Damn free market capitalists!...

this is ridiculous im sorry, to say we have some sort of free market in healthcare is beyond bizarre, about 50 cents of every dollar in healthcare comes from the govt, how on earth can someone even claim this to be remotely free market?

what we have is corporate medicine, where large business and govt are in bed together, hell pfizer and pharma were big supporters of obamacare

what we need is an actual free market in healthcare, we need to fix the ridiculous tax structure, ease licensing regulations, and probably the biggest thing that could be done would be to fix monetary policy and stop price inflation