Here is more information, proving my point. When do we stand up for what is right? Check this out:

Sticker shock a side effect of cancer remedies, As chemo prices rise, doctors get first guidelines on discussing affordability

You’ve just been diagnosed with cancer, and the doctor is discussing treatment options. Should the cost be a deciding factor?

Chemotherapy costs are rising so dramatically that later this year, oncologists will get their first guidelines on how to have a straight talk with patients about the affordability of treatment choices, a topic too often sidestepped.

“These are awkward discussions,” says Dr. Allen Lichter of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which is writing the guidelines. “At least we can bring this out in the open.”

Should the cost REALLY be a deciding factor?

Here's an idea whose time is come.

Let's base the cost of health insurance on BMI.

It would be annually calculated on weight, height, waist measurement and blood pressure. There would be 3 categories: healthy, bad, dangerous. There would be no differences between male/female, old/young, past history, etc).

People who are in the healthy category, pay the least. People who are in the dangerous category, pay the most.

Then stand back and watch how fast the obesity epidemic in America changes!

They have proven that eating the right foods and regularly exercising (even if it's only walking)can reverse disease and aging.

"But that doesn't exist in America today anymore."
Anymore? Never. The idea that all classes of people ever got equal treatment under the law in the U.S. is pure mythology. It may be worse now than before, but there has never been equal treatment.

--Jarrod

More examples of class warfare in health care! Check this out!

Free drug samples cost more in the long run

Patients given freebies spend nearly 40 percent more on meds, study says

Who gets the bulk of free meds? The working poor and the uninsured.

Super-Rich Actually See Wealth Grow

Wealth held by rich investors with assets over $1 million is set to grow 50 percent in the next five years to $75 trillion, according to a report published on Thursday.

The study by management consultancy Oliver Wyman found that the annual growth rate of wealth held by high net worth individuals is expected to slow to nine percent in the next five years as tougher market environment bites.

Global wealth held by rich clients grew by an annual 12 percent over the past five years to 2007 to $50 trillion thanks to a bull run in stock markets.

Of course there's justice for all (at differing rates). Having been a trial lawyer for over thirty years, half of my practice is pro bono. Go look it up. I give at the office. I have to lay part of the blame on the judicial system. If a litigant, criminal or civil, is out-gunned by the opposition, the judge is SUPPOSED to level the playing field but, in my experience, that only happens in a very small percentage of cases with a very small percentage of judges from the most complex litigation to the most banal parking ticket.

A great example is traffic court. We've all fought a traffic ticket on occasion. But the general public doesn't really know how simply because they don't know the law. THAT is understandable. If you go into court saying "I wasn't speeding" and the officer says you were, you lose. That's a given today. And for a variety of reasons, it shouldn't be.

But the two most important reasons are 1) in theory, the people (represented by the officer in court) are required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So taking one person's word (the officer) over another (the defendant)with nothing more simply flies in the face of the whole concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (which does, by the way, apply to traffic infractions as well as felony murder cases).

Secondly, judges see these same officers in court every day. Many judges know them by their first name and the very last thing they want to do is decide impartially. The bottom line is that they don't. Period. Also, you have to factor in the economics. Red light camera cases and speeding cases are cash cows for the agency prosecuting them so of course they're biased in favor of the establishment and without an attorney or thoroughly researched law, you don't stand a chance where I usually win over 95% of those cases and it's not because I'm any smarter than you, it's just that I know the law.

But it is, in my view, the judiciary who have seriously dropped the ball in this arena and that's where the "fix" lies.

The latest Phil Spector trial is a great example. He had several million dollar lawyers on his side with unlimited resources who are adept at swaying juries. It's not that the prosecution didn't do a stellar job in that case because they did. But what chance would Joe Schmo have without that million dollar legal boost? Zilch. Nada. And keep in mind we're talking about a defendant who walked out of his house holding the murder weapon, with blood on his clothes and saying to his driver "I think I shot someone". Duhhhhh. And that get's a hung jury? Lucy, you got a lotta 'splainin' to do.

"with liberty and freedom for those who can afford it."

The same can be said about health. If you're wealthy and can afford the best, you're in business. If you're not, well, you know. I recently heard a story (can't remember where at the moment) about a person in a hospital emergency room who was denied emergency treatment and, essentially, allowed to die. Why? Because the HMO she had wouldn't authorize treatment. If it was up to me, every ER person who had anything to do with her non treatment and who followed that "guidance" from the HMO would not only lose their license but would be jailed along with whoever at that HMO who made that decision.