Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
I dont doubt it was about cost cutting.

However dont you think that an administration which favours public rather than private health insurance would be interested to see what reactions private cover provoked when applied to the most valourised sections of US society?

Just seems like political common sense.
At the risk of their reputation? I don't think it makes much sense at all. Maybe I'm just not seeing where you're going with this.. There are some lines that you don't cross.

You can't tell me that people who stereotypically value their reputation (politicians) are going to put that on the line when it is their very reputation they require to help get the things they want passed in the first place. If I'm a proponent of healthcare reform, and I suddenly see something that makes me think they're being effin shady.. Am I more likely to vote in favor of them or not?

I don't think what you're trying to get at here is justifying what's taken place enough to consider it to be anything but outrageous. In this case, I don't think it's smarter people trying to play on the public's mind.

Quote Originally Posted by Feops View Post
<Devil Advocate>

Would not injuries sustained in a profession one takes up voluntarily be considered an occupational hazard?

</Devil Advocate>
:rolli: Really? I wasn't even going to bring that part up..

One could say that about any profession. Technically, we all "volunteer" to work where ever we want to.. but in the end, we can't all have safe, cushy-jobs because then the ones that are dangerous wouldn't get done. Not to mention there are hundreds upon thousands of different jobs in the military.. and not all of them will land you in dangerous spots. There is such a thing as being volen-told, however, to do dangerous things you never signed up for within that field.