<p>But cata, a rich fat person in the insurance pool would contaminate it just as much as a poor fat person would.</p>
<p>Thanks. No, I was buying a barbecue lighter and did not want to go back into the WalMart and wait in a long line. But, it was interesting. </p>
<p>Flossy, do you mind if I ask what state that was?</p>
<p>
If you look back, you’ll see the subject was fat people, not the elderly, CF but the above doesn’t bode well for them either. If they ever muster the will to get around to following through on that rhetoric, I’m thinking VA redux.</p>
<p>My compassionate take is, I have a lot of compassion for someone who adopts five kids, who, since she is a lesbian, were almost surely older, difficult-to-place, difficult-to-parent kids. She must have a big heart.</p>
<p>Yep. Google gives me this:
</p>
<p>So she adopted kids who were 7, 9, 10 and 4, as well as the kid who came to them at 3 1/2 months.</p>
<p>The healthy lifestyle police could have spotted you, Flossy. Maybe assumed you were making bad choices because you are…poor. Heaven forbid you also bought a candy bar. </p>
<p>Yes, maybe that rich fat lady gets fatty liver syndrome. </p>
<p>California</p>
<p>If she’s cute and sweet, like a puppy (and gay to boot), she deserves the transplant sans condemnation for the lifestyle she bought it with?</p>
<p>What if, instead, she managed a Denny’s where there had been a racial complaint? Can we vet every one of these?</p>
<p>Yow.<br>
How is she different than our fat rich lady? Who, for all we now may have some adopted kids she took to a park, too. This is getting sillier. No condemnation for her lifestyle choices? Are you saying the determinant is wealth? A wealthy person can so as she pleases? Deserves more? Gets a bye? What if she didn’t earn her money?</p>
<p>By extension, what about the elderly we all support via Medicare? Do you mind Medicare? Should the elderly be allowed to buy candy on their SS checks which, after all, we all underwrite? Dang.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. Give everybody adequate health care and let God sort it out.</p>
<p>Suspect you’re not reading my posts, LF. That, or I’m not conveying what I think I am.</p>
<p>Tomorrow would be a better day for clearing it up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re not conveying what you think you’re conveying to me, anyway. I find some of your posts elliptical.</p>
<p>on edit: It’s probably that I don’t understand your style of writing, or something. But I often notice that I can’t figure out what your point is.</p>
<p>Point taken, Fang. I’ll aim for bluntness.</p>
<p>Elliptical or blunt, Medicare’s funding and access problems are such that I’m surprised it keeps being brought up. Pointing this out just produces a blank stare and i doubt it’s my writing that’s responsible.</p>
<p>Cat, Medicare’s funding problems are serious. Actually, it’s not so much, IMO, a funding problem as a cost problem. Medical costs are going up much faster than GDP. And we need to do something about that, or Medicare will just suck up all of the money.</p>
<p>Medicare’s access problems? Not so much. Except for psychiatrists, the vast majority of doctors take Medicare. What they don’t take is MediCAID.</p>
<p>I’m reading them. And I do understand we see things differently.<br>
If the Denny’s comment meant some person who seemed good could also have a bad side, not engendering compassion-- it’s just so obvious to me that anyone could say the same about the wealthy fat woman. What is it about her wealth that gets her a pass? She can presumably pay her insurance premiums more easily than a lower income person, but why don;t we hold her equally responsible for her health and the potential costs to the rest of us?</p>
<p>But no, I certainly don’t understand “produces a blank stare and i doubt it’s my writing that’s responsible.” It does sound like a crack at us-? </p>
<p>Medicare access problems-? If you mean access to providers, I am not seeing that, IRL, where I am. </p>
<p>My point about the lesbian with the liver transplant is, initially she might have seemed like a lazy shiftless fat woman. But when we looked closer, we saw that she was a big-hearted woman who took on the superwoman task of mothering five kids out of foster care. </p>
<p>So, maybe this is Pollyannaish, but I believe everyone has intrinsic worth, and it’s not for us to decide to deny health care to someone, just because they made some bad health decisions. I’m willing to bet that every single one of us makes some non-optimal health decisions. All of us. Nobody’s perfect. As to overeating, some of us are lucky enough to be able to overeat and not become obese, but being lucky is not moral superiority.</p>
<p>Fang is right. My Medicare mother has never been turned away by any doctor, and she sees a bunch of them, mostly specialists. No access problems at all.</p>
<p>My mom has had no problem with access, my dad didn’t have any problem with access, and over in the Parents Supporting Parents, where a lot of us talk over issues with our parents, nobody (that I recall) has mentioned that they have had trouble finding doctors who take Medicare for their parents. </p>
<p>MediCAID is a different story. </p>
<p>Exactly. It’s a lot harder to be poor than it is to be old if you want some medical care. </p>
<p>Not only do my parents on Medicare have no access problems at all - their doctors are all at Cleveland Clinic. </p>
<p>I’m one of the 11%. I’ve been polled several times in the last few years and I always answer that I am not happy with ACA. I answer that way because I don’t think it went far enough. There are a lot of people who believe like I do, too. </p>
<p>I also understand the reason some people are opposed to ACA completely. You can dance around it all you want but you are not fooling anyone. </p>
<p>The good news is that, once again, those people are on the wrong side of history. 2014 is not going to change anything. It is not going to be repealed or replaced. </p>