nice article thanks alot

than you so much

Is this a matter of gender disparity or is this about women who use health care insurance more, and paying higher premiums for that use? If you use the system far more often, shouldn't you be paying higher premiums for that care?

And cancer patients too, right? i mean, they are using the system more. And children with birth defects, charge them more too. The elderly? Hike up the rates! Jackholes from Texas? Charge them more since Texas is bigger than any other state!

You do see how your reasoning breaks down once it's expounded upon, right? Or are you really just a callous twit?

How my reasoning breaks down? Seemed to be a straight forward question. If your using the system more shouldn't you be paying more? Or did you think that was everybody else's responsibility?
Let's expand on your reasoning. The people not using the system but, are paying into it should be charged more to cover those that are using it more? Is that your reasoning? The "spread the wealth", BS Obimbicile is pushing?
Children are covered under Medicaid, the elderly are covered under Medicare. Once you start breaking down your reasoning, it makes no sense, does it? Those that use the system more should be paying more, it's just a matter of common sense.

Children under Medicaid = a system you pay for but will never benefit from, and you're ok with that? But allowing that same comfort to everyone? You just can't stomach that?
And even more to address your "point". People that choose to walk vs. drive still pay for roads. People that never need the assistance of the fire dept. or the police still pay for those. People that never have children still pay so that yours may attend public school. Heck, even those of us that send our kids to private school still pay for others kids to go to public school. AND I have NO problem with that. People that never borrow a book still pay for the library. You act like this is an idea that has no other examples. Hey bub, if you are able to look yourself in the mirror and be at peace with what faces you back, then fine. Me? I have no need to deny those less fortunate than me access to a basic human right, like decent health care.

Yes, I'm OK with contributing to the health care needs of legal American children whose parents can't afford insurance. I'm also in favor of contributing to Seniors, and people with mental and physical problems, who have no one taking care of them.
I'm not in favor of anyone capable of working and taking responsibility for their own health care needs, sucking off the taxpayer-pool. I also have a huge problem with allowing the children of illegal aliens taking the limited educational resources from our children.
The problem with your examples is, most of the examples actually pay for themselves, and more, and do not apply to health care. Basic health care should be available to every legal American citizen, and in fact, is available. If you want to contribute to a charity that pays for health care for the indigent, that's should be your privilege, just don't try forcing me to pay for that small segment of society that will do nothing to help themselves.

Yeah, I'm all about spreading it around. I got plenty, and my Momma, and Jesus Christ, taught me it was good to share. Do you consider yourself to be Christian? I bet you do. Yet you find it convenient to ignore the most important of Christ's teachings, "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Hypocrite.

I'd love to live in your world where everybody has plenty and no one has to work to survive, and absolutely everyone helps everyone else. The problem is, we don't, we live in the real-world were resources do have limits, people must work, and not all people are willing to be responsible for themselves, and will never help anybody else. I'm not being hypocritical, I'm trying to be a realist. We have an obligation to take care of those unable to care for themselves. We do not have an obligation to care for those capable of caring for themselves. That makes no sense, economically or morally.

so when YOU come down with cancer, you agree that your premiums should skyrocket?

If I have insurance PRIOR, to developing cancer, that insurance policy should cover any, and all medical treatments required to help me without an increase in premiums. That's the definition of insurance. Insurance is a legal promise of compensation for FUTURE-LOSS! Once that future loss has been incurred, no insurance company should be able to force you to pay higher premiums for that specific ailment or any future ailment that is directly attributable to the initial ailment.
That's what health care insurance reform can accomplish. That should be the only involvement this government should be allowed to have in our private lives.

Your own insurance company will most likely find a pre-existing condition that increased your probability for cancer. Then they will drop your coverage. Then you will know what it is like to not be able to "suck off the teat" of the taxpayers that would have been more than willing to pay for your treatment had the public option been in play.

The problem with "teat-suckers" is, they actually think, we the taxpayer, want to pay for the teat-sucking parasites. The "public option", is just another entitlement program payed for by taxpayers, against their will, to support an ever growing number of bottom-feeders who think they are owed something.
I suggest you re-think your opinion of, "spreading the wealth".