You just can't help continuing to make a fool of yourself, can you? Insurance does not work like car washes. Again, it's all about risk.

By the way, here's someone else bashing the fat:

http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/2009/08/14/health-care-reform-full-article/

Foul liberal scum, talking about how many of the healthcare problems are caused from obesity. He just wants UHC so everyone else can pay for his healthcare.

Yes, it is about risk, it is also about what the market will stand. The risk of you getting cancer from drinking water is low in America but high in other countries where they don't have good water. So if a person from the Philippines comes here to live they have a higher risk of cancer but that risk is not something the insurance companies look at. The risk of a fat person getting sick is higher than a normal sized person but lower than a very thin person. Why is it that we don’t have a tax on the thin? The health risks are the same for both fat and thin but we are only picking on the fat. Is that fair to you? Black people have higher rates of heart disease and high blood pressure that leads to strokes. Should we charge extra to insure a black person? You seem happy to pick on fat people for now but just remember that as soon as we allow this all the other groups that have high risk factors come into play, gays, and blacks to get started. They already charge more for smokers, and people who take antidepressants, where does it stop? It stops when people stop getting insurance and self insure. It stops when doctors stop taking insurance. I know a few that have stopped already. They charge less for a visit to them because they get paid in cash and don’t have to wait for the insurance company to pay them.

Uh, no - his op-ed article was against UHC.  You must have just assumed that, in an 'instant.'

Its that reading comprehenson thng, When one is  blind to facts everything they read goes their way if there is a hink that it might. Notice how he edited the article down to just what he believed it should mean and say. Going out of context like most liberals do. That is why I ignored that part of it because if he is quoting it in this way he is either lieing to himself or he is trying to mislead us by chaning the context of the article. Mayvbe he was hoping that we would not read it and just assume that was all it said. Either way he is not trustworthy on this issue. Or maybe he got it off a liberal site and did not read the article himself.

It's funny enough when one person makes a complete fool of themself, but when two people do it independently, with neither of them realising, it's hilarious!

Oh, we aim to please, no doubt.  Glad to feed your ego.