patrick.net

:)

Mark this in your book, the next president will win on "Undoing" Obama's Vanity reign.

He has two years to stop with his grandstanding monologues and produce results.
This shit is on our dime now.

If there is one thing I'd pick out it all, it's that "pre-existing condition" will no longer be one of the great refuges of insurance companies.

What does it do? Can't hit a search engine? Here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

This bill will form death panels that will pay doctors more to kill unborn babies with pre-existing conditions.

Unfortunately, the rumors have begun. The NY Post (from what I can tell) stated that up to 16,000 new IRS agents will be needed to ensure 'mericans pay the bill. While I doubt this is true, I found 3 pages of sites such as "godfearingproductions" and other bizarre sites running with it.

The last panel of this cartoon strikes a chord, recycling:

rileybryan says

Does anybody have any idea what this health care reform bill actually does

The Senate bill from last December had:

Health insurance will be subsidized for a family of 4 making under $88,000. And carrying health insurance will be mandatory eventually. This is somewhat similar to Medicare in Canada, but without the single payer efficiencies.

There may or may not be a government-run "exchange" where one can shop for insurance from multiple carriers.

Premiums will be based on age and not prior medical history. Hmm, my premiums will probably be going up.

Medicare tax will hit all unearned income over $200,000 IIRC. That's new and is causing much squealing among the piggies on the right.

There will be fines assessed on corporations of more than 50 employees that have "underpaid" workers that get Federal health subsidies.

Man this supposed Twitter feed of John Boehner, the House Republican Leader, this must be a clever prank right? Has choice comments:

So this is how Soviet America begins. The Dems are the REDS -- the real Americans are the WHITES. Tomorrow, we reenact 1918! #tcot #hcr

Crying myself to sleep tonight. #hcr

That flag represents a Socialist country now. Ain't ever saluting or taking my hat off again. #healthcare #killthebill #tcot

GOP John Boehner twitter feed

For all the talk of Republicans running on repeal or general anger over the bill, I think the more sensible among them know that is nonsense. I saw Rove today saying something to that effect, but his body language was telling a different story. FOX news can tell their viewers that America is angry, but that doesn't make it so.

I don't really care much about political horse races, but I think this was a huge win for Democrats. The wingnuts were never going to vote for Dems, and now that the Dems have shown they can actually get something done, the vaguely disgruntled independents I think is very likely to take notice, and of course this will do wonders for the self-esteem of Democrats.

What the house passed today is the Senate bill which passed IN DECEMBER!!!

Clusterfox broadcasts DAILY that Democrats haven’t even had the chance to read the bill

Seriously. The most vocal opponents (and this post looked like a thinly veiled snipe) don't even seem to have much of an idea of what's going on. I've never seen so many political strawmen in my life.

@rileybran
What are "single payer efficiencies"? What do is your definition of efficiencies? The term is unclear. Is it lower costs? More services for less? Better drugs? How does the government achieve these "efficiencies?

Why do we need a government run exchange? The free market is a voluntary exchange between two parties. The government restricts people from buying insurance across state borders which prevents a free markets in health insurance.

Why is basing premiums on age better than medical history? If someone uses more of a service should they not pay for it? Just because someone is old does not mean they should pay more for insurance. What if they are in perfect health and 85. Why should they pay more? What if someone is young drinks, smokes and has a bad crack cocaine habit. Should they not pay more?

What is unearned income? If someone saves, invests smartly and makes money it is "unearned". I can only hope to make huge amounts of unearned income. Also, there will be a tax in rental income which will drive up the price of rents(yes landlords will pass the tax onto tenets) and encourage people to buy homes which will drive up the price of homes. The last time I checked this site was about the housing bubble which this bill will help inflate.

How many new companies over 50 employees will be created in the future? The answer is none. This bill will kill competition in every industry and benefit the Wal-marts of the world. Yes Wal-mart. You may ask how. Well Wal-mart provides an insurance plan the government approves and Target does not so Target will need to spend more on health insurance which force Target to cut costs(aka fire people). I hope you love Wal-mart and other big box chains because there will never be any other choice in the future under this bill.

There are so many bad provisions to this bill it is not funny.

This bill is another example of how Obama and the democrats are slaves to the special interests of the AARP, the AMA, unions, Big Pharma, Health insurance companies, and higher education.

Today was a dark day for freedom in the USA.

John Galt says

Today was a dark day for freedom in the USA.

Such a dark vision of America descending into some mix of Nazism and Stalinism..... incredibly enough under a BLACK man. What happens when people wake up a week from now, a month from now, a year from now..... nope still no concentration camps. This sort of doom rhetoric trends credibility toward zero. But please, do go on....

Single payer efficiencies would include, for example, simplified payment processing. Right now, medical offices and hospitals must employ people whose primary expertise is sifting through the various kinds of paperwork required by various insurance companies for various different plans. While I salute these people for their patience, their hours of work have precious little to do with providing health care. Meanwhile, insurance companies employ other people to look for flaws in claims and seek out possible pre-existing conditions, all so that they can deny claims. Likewise, patients--especially very ill patients--spend hours with phones and forms trying to get their visits and procedures covered by the insurance companies they have been paying for years. Surely all of these people could be doing something more productive with their time.

I have lived in a country with single payer health care, and it was easy to access information and care. Here, by contrast, it feels like a battle. Why on earth would we choose to waste our energy this way?

What is unearned income? If someone saves, invests smartly and makes money it is “unearned”. I can only hope to make huge amounts of unearned income. Also, there will be a tax in rental income

Actually I was wrong. They're raising the medicare tax on everyone making more than $200k, but this time medicare is going to tax unearned income over the threshold (it doesn't apply to any unearned income now).

which will drive up the price of rents(yes landlords will pass the tax onto tenets)

LOL. They can try. LLs aren't shy about taking their victims' surpluses, so we'll see how that goes.

Thanks for your contribution, Mr Galt. I'm sure you and the other 523,713 libertarians/Randroids in this country don't like this policy direction one little bit.

Good thing you're totally irrelevant right now.

Frankly, I am not a fan of this very watered down iteration of health care reform either, but seeing the same tired rags & bones drug out time and time again (ANOTHER John Galt handle? And what's with the cheezy ersatz Nazi propaganda?) really does not serve you well.

John Galt says

Also, there will be a tax in rental income which will drive up the price of rents(yes landlords will pass the tax onto tenets) and encourage people to buy homes which will drive up the price of homes.

The proponents of Prop 13 all said that naturally rents would go DOWN since of course landlords would pass on the tax savings it provided them. However it never materialized as landlords took it as profit. There's a lot of things people CLAIM will happen with rental prices if you jigger X or Y, however rents generally track "what the market will bear" instead of fantasies.

Excellent. Now we must get to work on the inefficiencies in the system.

Using 17% of GDP on health care is ridiculous. We need to work that down to less than 10%, like the rest of the civilized world.

The 7% shrinkage should be re-allocated as manufacturing effort, where we should reclaim as much as possible of what now resides in China.

The winners in this bill are the insurance companies who will make billions from mandatory insurance requirement of young healthy people. The losers will be taxpayers who will be legally obligated to bear the burden of another incompetently run government program. Every social program the government has ever enacted has been a catastrophe, and this will be no exception.

justme says

Excellent. Now we must get to work on the inefficiencies in the system.
Using 17% of GDP on health care is ridiculous. We need to work that down to less than 10%, like the rest of the civilized world.
The 7% shrinkage should be re-allocated as manufacturing effort, where we should reclaim as much as possible of what now resides in China.

I like that concept, bringing manufacturing jobs back to America will stifle the job losses momentarily until we can find new industries to dominate.

Vicente says

John Galt says

Today was a dark day for freedom in the USA.

Such a dark vision of America descending into some mix of Nazism and Stalinism….. incredibly enough under a BLACK man. What happens when people wake up a week from now, a month from now, a year from now….. nope still no concentration camps. This sort of doom rhetoric trends credibility toward zero. But please, do go on….

Most Americans have been fooled into believing that reform is bad and costly by Republican rhetoric....and that we are becoming a Socialist country. Yet, when they fall sick, lose a job they depend on those same services whole heartedly and without a second thought.

At this time, we are in a game of shirts vs. skins my man....shirts just scored the first touchdown.

Vicente says

If there is one thing I’d pick out it all, it’s that “pre-existing condition” will no longer be one of the great refuges of insurance companies.
What does it do? Can’t hit a search engine? Here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

That's the one I'm glad for, too! It's always been arbitrary and illogical. Between the time I received early retirement in 1997 and became eligible for Medicare, I had two or three policies with private companies. The first one paid for skin cancer surgery, then the company stopped selling policies in Texas and I was forced to go to another company. I was initially denied coverage because the 19 or 20 year old twit I was talking to considered a follow-up visit to the doctor following successful surgery to be a pre-existing condition. When I raised hell, I was given the coverage, but the ratchet began working at the end of the first year and by the third year the policy had increased in price over 75% when I hadn't made a single claim. I simply went uninsured until I got Medicare.

I bought my first Medicare supplement policy from Bankers Life, in business over 100 years, started out at $128. At end of first year it was increased to $140, then two months later to $145, then after only one month to $150--I had made two small claims against it, I guess that's why. It took over two months to receive my first reimbursement, and they failed to pay my deductible, which they had to do in another check. I cancelled it and got another policy through Woodmen of the World at a much lower rate--of course I had to go through the gambit of answering their questions, which should be a moot point now.

It's also nice to know that serious medical problems will no longer have the capacity to cause people to become bankrupted due to circumstances beyond their control. Whatever the problems with the legislation, in a country where so many millions of dollars have been concentrated of late in such a few hands, specifically those of ineffective CEO's, some of that wealth should be directed to more productive enterprises.

The part I find most interesting is what is not said. Each side is actually saying only some of its arguments. It's hard to hear what isn't said, but those factors are what voters really use to choose sides.

On the pro-healthcare side, the unsaid arguments are something like this:

* Take that, Republicans! (OK, that one is pretty explicit in the picture at top.)
* Yes, we are going to provide medical care to poor blacks and Hispanics and whites will end up paying for most of it.
* I'm worried there's a real chance that medical costs will bankrupt me personally unless we change something.

On the anti-healthcare side, the unsaid arguments are something like this:

* I'm still mad at that gay/Jew/girl in middle school who made fun of my spelling mistakes.
* OMFG, they're going to make me pay for health care for dark-skinned people.
* My own relative position falls as that of minorities rises. Therefore they are Nazi communists. (I didn't do so good in history neither.)

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but maybe not.

The key factor is shame.

* I’m worried there’s a real chance that medical costs will bankrupt me personally unless we change something.

Actually bankruptcy is hardly unsaid, I heard it frequently. I like this Al Franken clip where he eviscerates someone over the bankruptcy issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcjMoihbIZc

jimhcom says

The winners in this bill are the insurance companies who will make billions from mandatory insurance requirement of young healthy people. The losers will be taxpayers who will be legally obligated to bear the burden of another incompetently run government program. Every social program the government has ever enacted has been a catastrophe, and this will be no exception.

That's nonsense! Over-simplification at best... The only bad thing about GOVT social programs is they are slow to CHANGE and UPDATE... The Post Office is an AMAZING service.. 44 cents to send a letter across the country by HAND.. SIMPLY AMAZING! Show me one company that can do that... The ONLY reason they are losing money is because anyone under 30 doesn't use the mail except for their NETFLIX dvds. I pay all my bills online and never buy stamps. Saying the post office is a failure because technology is rendering it obsolete is hardly a Government problem. How many companies have been around as long as the Postal Service... Just look at how many millions of employees they employee nationwide!

This bill is hardly all good for the Insurance Companies either... It makes them all more accountable.. They won't be able to jack premium rates sky-high and reject people on pre-existing conditions! I like it because now I will confidently be able to go FREELANCE without worries about losing my health insurance. People won't feel trapped in their jobs... won't stick around in crappy jobs where the pay sucks, but they think.. well atleast they give me decent medical insurance. If anything this gives Americans more FREEDOM... And if you think your medical care will deteriorate then go work harder and buy one of those CADILLAC plans... Enough money will still buy you anything you want in this country.. It's still capitalism not socialism!

I think the picture is a little off. It would be more correct to have it be classical conservative tears. Neo-conservatives are much more at peace with the "welfare state" and spending in general, it is more traditional conservatives who are opposed to these things. Remember, Bush himself was not a Neo-conservative, just a lot of his advisers were (Bush's biggest break from neo-Conservatism being his strong emphasis on religion, whereas Neo-conservatives are frequently agnostic, and the movement's founder Strauss was certainly not Christian). The Tea Party movement is much more classically conservative oriented, the Neo-cons are mostly happy that Obama has continued the Bush Doctrine in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that he has continued most Bush era policies regarding banks and businesses.

@4x,
RE: your last post, last sentence.

I agree. Excellant example. To them (the ruling elite) it really is just a game. To those like me (not wealthy enough to be uneffected by the debt and level of social services) it is a very expensive game.

@4x,
Will the next step for Lord Barry be to remove the term limits for Prez? Or, will he grant legal status to all invaders (not just our southern visitors) first, in order to have the massive votes to make the Prez a lifetime deal for him? I respect your opinion on these two points, as you have shown yourself to be educated in political arenas.

Hmm. A month ago, it looked like the bill was dead.

Since it started coming back to life and was passed, the S&P is up 9%.

The Holy Market has spoken, and has not said it's not a big deal.

Vicente says

Man this supposed Twitter feed of John Boehner, the House Republican Leader, this must be a clever prank right? Has choice comments:

So this is how Soviet America begins. The Dems are the REDS — the real Americans are the WHITES. Tomorrow, we reenact 1918! #tcot #hcr
Crying myself to sleep tonight. #hcr
That flag represents a Socialist country now. Ain’t ever saluting or taking my hat off again. #healthcare #killthebill #tcot

GOP John Boehner twitter feed

Wow! Latest:

"Took down the American flag in my office. I couldn't find any Tea Party flags, so I hoisted old Dixie instead. We'll rise again!"

The part I find most interesting is what is not said. Each side is actually saying only some of its arguments. It’s hard to hear what isn’t said, but those factors are what voters really use to choose sides.
On the pro-healthcare side, the unsaid arguments are something like this:
* Take that, Republicans! (OK, that one is pretty explicit in the picture at top.)
* Yes, we are going to provide medical care to poor blacks and Hispanics and whites will end up paying for most of it.
* I’m worried there’s a real chance that medical costs will bankrupt me personally unless we change something.
On the anti-healthcare side, the unsaid arguments are something like this:
* I’m still mad at that gay/Jew/girl in middle school who made fun of my spelling mistakes.
* OMFG, they’re going to make me pay for health care for dark-skinned people.
* My own relative position falls as that of minorities rises. Therefore they are Nazi communists. (I didn’t do so good in history neither.)
Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but maybe not.
The key factor is shame.

I agree, that seems to be spot on. The underlying comments and subconscious decisions you noted above sure do weigh heavily when a person chooses a side. That being said, I still think the rhetoric being spewed by both Dems and Repubs heavily outweigh the BIASES that we hold here in America against others.

The Dems are selling this as:

Supporting all Americans by adding 32 million more people
Removing pre-existing conditions
etc.

The Repubs are selling this as:

Socialism
Increased Tax Dollars
etc.

Both sides are hell bent on achieving their goal and making the other side look like idiots, however, I side with the Dems for one reason: We need to remove the pre-existing clauses and ability of insurance companies to cut off patients in the middle of treatment. I am not clear why we need 900 billion to accomplish that but seeing that the CBO has stated we will reduce our deficit by 150 billion in 10 years the Republican point is moot so I voted that we move forward with Reform.

4X says

The part I find most interesting is what is not said. Each side is actually saying only some of its arguments. It’s hard to hear what isn’t said, but those factors are what voters really use to choose sides.
On the pro-healthcare side, the unsaid arguments are something like this:
* Take that, Republicans! (OK, that one is pretty explicit in the picture at top.)
* Yes, we are going to provide medical care to poor blacks and Hispanics and whites will end up paying for most of it.
* I’m worried there’s a real chance that medical costs will bankrupt me personally unless we change something.
On the anti-healthcare side, the unsaid arguments are something like this:
* I’m still mad at that gay/Jew/girl in middle school who made fun of my spelling mistakes.
* OMFG, they’re going to make me pay for health care for dark-skinned people.
* My own relative position falls as that of minorities rises. Therefore they are Nazi communists. (I didn’t do so good in history neither.)
Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but maybe not.
The key factor is shame.

I agree, that seems to be spot on. The underlying comments and subconscious decisions you noted above sure do weigh heavily when a person chooses a side. That being said, I still think the rhetoric being spewed by both Dems and Repubs heavily outweigh the BIASES that we hold here in America against others.
The Dems are selling this as:
Supporting all Americans by adding 32 million more people
Removing pre-existing conditions
etc.
The Repubs are selling this as:
Socialism
Increased Tax Dollars
etc.
Both sides are hell bent on achieving their goal and making the other side look like idiots, however, I side with the Dems for one reason: We need to remove the pre-existing clauses and ability of insurance companies to cut off patients in the middle of treatment. I am not clear why we need 900 billion to accomplish that but seeing that the CBO has stated we will reduce our deficit by 150 billion in 10 years the Republican point is moot so I voted that we move forward with Reform.

...I saw this as POOR vs. RICH instead of BLACK vs. WHITE, GAY vs. STRAIGHT, JEWISH vs. GERMAN.

But thats just me. There are those out there who vote along color lines.

Bap33 says

@4x,
RE: your last post, last sentence.
I agree. Excellant example. To them (the ruling elite) it really is just a game. To those like me (not wealthy enough to be uneffected by the debt and level of social services) it is a very expensive game.
@4x,
Will the next step for Lord Barry be to remove the term limits for Prez? Or, will he grant legal status to all invaders (not just our southern visitors) first, in order to have the massive votes to make the Prez a lifetime deal for him? I respect your opinion on these two points, as you have shown yourself to be educated in political arenas.

I think the next step will be to reform NAFTA and bring manufacturing jobs back to the USA a little at a time.

We all know from our past discussions that our governor wont send the undocumented workers home beause it would destroy the CA economy, we would immediately lose 500 million in tax revenues. Lets see how vigorously our president tackles the economy, hopefully the debate gets much more heated than the healthcare reform discussions did. At this point we need to create somewhere around 200k jobs per month for the next 2-3 years in order to get back to 2006 levels.

Vicente says

Hmmm, I would think that this is a very bitter drink. Then again, I really like bitter drinks...

Singapore makes a system like this work but they have a very different society.

I'm not sure how this is a victory in the US as there is very little enforcement against financial crooks here. Forcing me to pay money to insurance companies seems like an idea that has a high chance of a bad outcome.

I grew up with a national health care system and am well aware of the advantages of having this as an option. This was viewed as too hard to even attempt.

So now we have all the same people running the same systems but with the rules changed somewhat.

"Healthcare reform done deal!" - Yea, sure.

http://dgsinclair.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c003953ef0120a64c3697970b-800wi

Another "Mission accomplished"!

Eliza says

Single payer efficiencies would include, for example, simplified payment processing.

Go talk to folks who work on the front lines of customer service in the insurance industry. They don't often speak highly of their companies and the hell of modern corporate management but whoa nelly, they don't speak highly of Medicare either. Set up your account for auto payment via social security? God help you if you swap insurance companies, the SS folks will be 1-2 months behind and changes and will still take the money out of your checks/accounts and pay the old company (who if smart refuse the check/kick it back to fed gov.) anyway until they hear from Medicare that you've changed companies.

The part I find most interesting is what is not said. Each side is actually saying only some of its arguments. It’s hard to hear what isn’t said, but those factors are what voters really use to choose sides.
On the pro-healthcare side, the unsaid arguments are something like this:
* Take that, Republicans! (OK, that one is pretty explicit in the picture at top.)

* Yes, we are going to provide medical care to poor blacks and Hispanics and whites will end up paying for most of it.

* I’m worried there’s a real chance that medical costs will bankrupt me personally unless we change something.
On the anti-healthcare side, the unsaid arguments are something like this:
* I’m still mad at that gay/Jew/girl in middle school who made fun of my spelling mistakes.

* OMFG, they’re going to make me pay for health care for dark-skinned people.

* My own relative position falls as that of minorities rises. Therefore they are Nazi communists. (I didn’t do so good in history neither.)
Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but maybe not.
The key factor is shame.

GAAAA! Its always about race isn't it? That seems to be the only card played anymore. Oh, they're racists or homophobes. Politically correct nonsense.

AltonS says

GAAAA! Its always about race isn’t it? That seems to be the only card played anymore. Oh, they’re racists or homophobes. Politically correct nonsense.

From Yahoo new story--

Just look at the past weekend: Thousands of Tea Party protesters descended on Washington in an attempt to "kill the bill." It was an impressive turnout for a quickly organized protest—but coverage of the event soon was dominated by reports that some demonstrators had hurled racial and homophobic epithets at Democratic lawmakers as they entered the Capitol.

It's all nonsense, though--right?

ahasuerus99 says

The Tea Party movement is much more classically conservative oriented, the Neo-cons are mostly happy that Obama has continued the Bush Doctrine in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that he has continued most Bush era policies regarding banks and businesses.

Agree, the only problem with the "Tea Party" is that they, like all good Americans, do not know how to brew a good tea. They use prepacked tea bags with all the glue, dirty paper, and artificial colors in them.

michaelsch says

“Healthcare reform done deal!” - Yea, sure.
http://dgsinclair.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c003953ef0120a64c3697970b-800wi
Another “Mission accomplished”!

The only outcome the GOP can achieve by digging in their heels further and fighting this to the bitter end will be like Custer deciding to stand and fight. They'd do best to cut their losses and move on. Probably they won't.

Truly the rhetoric of people like Rush have been their worst enemy. Unless you are a HARDCORE conservative that spends all day being angry and having it reinforced by FoxNews and AM radio, all this "Nazi" imagery just makes 'em look like loons. The hardcore people in fact are not even a majority of Republican voters. But GOP leadership has become so VERY strident and unaccepting of any variation from rigid party line, that anyone who disagrees in the minutest detail is just a "RINO fool". This was one of the things that led to my disaffection and change of party before last election.

WORK HARDER NOT SMARTER.....wait that doesn't sound right....

tatupu70 says

but coverage of the event soon was dominated by reports that some demonstrators had hurled racial and homophobic epithets at Democratic lawmakers as they entered the Capitol.
It’s all nonsense, though–right?

Maybe, is it? Were the majority of protestors doing this, or just a couple? The article you quote states that the coverage of the event was dominated by reports that some demonstrators had done this. Do you translate this to mean that the event was dominated by demonstrators who did that? I wonder what you would have thought of Iraq war protests if coverage of the events were dominated by reports that they were organized by real socialists and some protestors had signs saying "we support our troops who shoot their officers...?" I was in NYC for RNC 2004 in a non-political/non-media role. "Coverage" could have easily been "dominated by reports" that "some" demonstrators had done all sorts of things, including bomb threats... Instead, "Coverage" was "dominated by reports" that protestors were arrested and complaining that their rights were violated....

Paralithodes says

Were the majority of protestors doing this, or just a couple?

Oh, is it OK if it's only a couple? Exactly how many people does it take until it's not OK?

Paralithodes says

I wonder what you would have thought of Iraq war protests if coverage of the events were dominated by reports that they were organized by real socialists and some protestors had signs saying “we support our troops who shoot their officers…?”

Huh?? Is that the best hypothetical you could come up with?

Apparently the fringe that is currently dominating the Republican party is now trying to mount a bunch of legal challenges and amendments to state constitutions to try and fight the legal mandate in the bill. Ironic, especially since the one true example of a system of mandated universal insurance in the U.S. was instituted under and championed by Mitt Romney in MA.

Of course, any healthcare economist will tell you that the only way to keep insurers from discriminating based on preexisting conditions is to mandate coverage (otherwise people will wait until they are sick to buy insurance, and the whole system collapses).

But just as importantly, our emergency rooms are nearing collapse due to the huge numbers of uninsured who use them as doctors of last resort - and under the current law, they can't be turned away if they are in danger of dying. This leads not only to insanely crowded emergency rooms and ambulances being turned away repeatedly from full ERs, but it also leads to the rest of us paying for those who either can't afford insurance, are barred from buying insurance due to preexisting conditions, or who are those irresponsible jerks who don't buy insurance because they think they can get free care "in an emergency".

Now there IS a truly ultra conservative approach to this situation. Simply pass a law that anyone without insurance (or cash upfront) will be denied any and all medical care. Get hit by an uninsured driver? Tough luck. Slice open your artery in a game of hockey? You might want to try super glue. This is true freedom - the freedom to die from denial of care from even the most treatable of conditions. Sounds like an ultra-conservative utopia, doesn't it? Hmm, wonder why none of the tea partiers are proposing this?