In the style of the esteemed PantherLotus, allow me to suggest that you find a Utopia Thread to go post in.
you appear to hold that conjuring up instances or young people with outsize medical bills should cause us to reflect differently on actuarial truths about the cost of insuring that cohort.
Yes. Although I'm not quite sure how to conjure young people.
Conjour-
Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic.
Righght, I drove home and the bill was sitting on the living room table, pure, unexpected, magic.
Your reaction reminds me of the reaction of many women's groups to the announcement that most women were getting too many mammograms, or men's groups to the comparable announcement about prostate
OK, first, um what? Second, what was the reaction of women's groups to being told they get too many mammograms? That they didn't want old, white, men in Washington telling them what to do? I don't honestly follow that particular current event, but I can at least understand why women might be upset at being told not to do something preventative, even if it is statistically fruitless. And third I don't recall "Men's Group's" forming up around this subject, I feel like you mentioned it to not sound sexist.
My prior post wasn't a "reaction" it was a statement of my thoughts. I fail to see how my musings about 30 year old's often having high medical bills relates to women's reactions to reduced preventative care for breast cancer.
I only favor single payer because it would drive down overall costs. The upcoming mandate is just forcing more people to eat the shit sandwich.
Ahh common ground, it's nice isn't it? The only thing is, Obamacare, even if it is the worst things people say about it, is still good for one reason; it finally sets us on a (long) road to single-payer health care. For that spark alone, I can never be too mad.
