Iserious international dating site
Speaking of irresponsibility: The more religious the state, the higher the rates of teen pregnancy. She's either referring to the "haves" as those with insurance and the "have nots" as those without insurance and saying that by forcing people to pay for insurance we're creating a wider gap between the two, which is just completely illogical.
( If only we became a nation of athiests, everyone would buy health insurance like they should. ) people without insurance CAN afford it, but just choose to spend their money on yachts & i Pods and such. Or she's saying that the "haves" are those who choose to spend money on frivilous things and the "have nots" do the responsible thing and buy insurance and by forcing those who choose not to buy insurance to buy insurance you're widening the gap there. Basically I can't really find any way to read a sentence that talks about putting people on a level playing field as the action that will widen the gap between groups. Can we not turn this into yet another curlcoat show?
We also sacrificed thousands of our own soldiers lives.
If we can find money to kill people, we can find money to help people. It's shameful that it has taken until 2009 before reform has become a possibility (not even a sure thing, just a possibility). An equivalent number of our people are dying every 25 days.
I'll also note that a universal mandate would force everybody who is financially able to do so to pay for insurance, and thus would increase the number of responsible people, not decrease it.
It depends on which version of the healthcare bill gets adopted. p=354) is the Senate Finance Committee Bill: According to CBO and JCTs assessment, enacting the Chairmans proposal would result in a net reduction [emphasis mine] in federal budget deficits of billion over the 20102019 period.
If I would have died then, I would have been part of a statistic of uninsured and dead - but NOT because of it. I have also supported a public option akin to Medicare / Medicaid / Tricare with a sliding scale for buy-in based on income. How much more do we need to pay out so the irresponsible can do whatever they want whether they can afford it or not? He had a baby on the way and was worried what an ER visit would do to his family financially.
Another bit that I read today (can't recall where) blames a death from appendicitis. How much bigger do you want the gap to be between the haves and the have nots? Another bit that I read today (can't recall where) blames a death from appendicitis. He waited and waited until it was finally too late. When people do not have insurance, they often forgo care that would identify problems treatable now, but perhaps fatal if not caught. ) people without insurance CAN afford it, but just choose to spend their money on yachts & i Pods and such. People who truly have no money are covered by Medicaid.
What else do you want to protect people from that they bring on themselves?OK, lets say that it is actually true that all of these people died only because they didn't have insurance.What else do you want to protect people from that they bring on themselves? ) people without insurance CAN afford it, but just choose to spend their money on yachts & i Pods and such.Perfect example - what the hell was he doing having a baby when he couldn't afford insurance, or a trip to the ER?It's funny you should ask that question, because the Congressional Budget Office has quite detailed information on this.
Do you really believe that people without insurance -- all people? even some smaller but significant percentage of people? The guy with appendicitis was having symptoms for ages. Then we have people who have money and use some of it to buy insurance. That's right - people who have money but choose to use it to buy other things.