Defending the Truth

And they should pay extra too. Insurance companies are dropping people if they pose too much risk. Here's a law...

Insurance bill advances : Local News : Evansville Courier Press
The culprit is a 1947 law, the Uniform Accident and Sickness Policy Provision Law, which allows insurance companies to deny coverage if insured patients have alcohol or intoxicating substances in their systems when injured. Some insurance carriers ignore the 60-year-old law and pay anyway; others enforce it.

What about diabetics? You know, the type that is from overindulgence? Or smokers? They have been getting care for a long time and both cases are hurting your body with substances willingly internalised.

What about them? They should pay grossly inflated premiums or have a specific insurance pool. That's easy. If you can't take care of yourself, why should everybody else foot the bill?

I'm not saying they should. I'm only making a comparison between some people who are insured and your statement that drug addicts wouldn't be insured. Because a smoker, an active overindulger in food or drink, and a drug addict are all the same, addicts. This wasn't about who foots the bill, only the legalisation and the ramifications.

Well, just like speeders pay higher insurance rates, so should they. Food abuse diabetes ain't that hard to diagnose.

Are you a rich smoker or a poor smoker? That is the only question that really matters. Poor smokers with lung cancer will get the neighborhood dump treatment. I mean, why waste precious medical resources on them? They are nothing but disgusting subhuman vermin and drains on society.

PN, your aholeicity trumps mine sometimes. And that's saying something. LOL.

If drugs were legal all those "losers" that use them, like doctors, lawyers, professional athletes, and teachers could be taxed and that money would support the health care system.

The idea isn't to try to create YOUR ideal world by force (where no one takes drugs), but rather to accomidate how the real world and real people actually function (which is anything from "ideal")

As far as employers are concerned I go with the Dennis Leary theory. If they can't tell I'm high I win! (joke)

But that just sounds like you substituting my system for yours. What makes your system "ideal" or "better" than mine?

I am critizing your line of thinking because I think we should be dealing with reality instead of trying to create fantasy. There will always be drug users and prostitutes for example, we might as well get their revenue back into mainstream society and take better care of them in the process (which helps the whole of society).