You gave no examples of arbitrary cancellation of health coverage. You relayed a few stories about people who were pissed off because they didn't have the coverage they thought they did. I am a consumer just like you are. I did not give you an opinion. I gave you reality. You are the one with the anti- corporate bias.
No. That's the notion that's easiest for you to dismiss, but it's not my notion. What I've said repeatedly is that healthcare "reform" that involves creating new entitlements is not reform. It's redistribution of wealth. Reform would make the system more efficient and effective. What's being rammed down the nation's throat is socialist-inspired pandering. And I call that an opinion. I'm just not seeing what's shortsighted and narrow about liberty and personal accountability. If I don't allow my kids to blame others for their own mistakes or rely on others to give them what they can earn for themselves, why would I want to support that "dependency" kind of philosophy in American government. I made it from the trailer park to my comfortable and secure middle class life without relying on anyone but my family and my own hard work. And I didn't even work as hard as I could've or should've. We expect far too little of some folks who benefit from government largesse. Again- how is personal liberty and accountability a narrow and shortsighted view of the world?
He usually does. If there is a way to apply a tourniquet to a heart he desperately needs this technology STAT! :nope:
It's not ignorant because my family has lived it and I know what I'm talking about from my own personal experience. There will always be some folks who have more than others - or at least, there will be unless we go too far down the road some folks want us on... But that does not equate to some requirement for an underclass that must mooch off of the federal teet. Here's just one of a lot of examples...Everyone knows that sex is what gets girls pregnant - regardless of their socioeconomic status, or even their sobriety for that matter. Everyone knows that condoms are cheap and 99% effective or so, and birth control pills are cheap and in some instances absolutely free. Yet people make decisions that result in teenage pregnancy, something that is 100% preventable. Teenage pregnancy starts a ball rolling that for most of these folks will have dire consequences. If our government makes the consequences go away or otherwise mitigates them, then there's no incentive for these folks to be responsible. It's just one example. And it's not universal. But it's very, very common. In fact, for some of these folks, having kids outside of a traditional family is not only not a problem, it's what they WANT TO DO. Why? Because the government subsidizes it. When you make family units optional through social programs, they become optional. And the government becomes the family unit. Here's another way to describe what I'm talking about. Divorce is relatively common. But, if you have children, divorce can be extremely painful and expensive. Even though some folks with kids still get divorces, imagine how common it would be if the government decided that it wanted to subsidize child support and alimony in order to make sure that the kids involved were cared for. The cost and pain of divorce keeps A LOT of married couples working at the marriage. Government is horrible at taking care of people. Government can barely take care of itself.
This isn't about you. It isn't about government largesse to the poor, either. It's about better and more affordable medical insurance for people who pay for it, which is most of us.
This bill isn't going to fix that. In fact, the CBO says premiums will increase. Once again, lower the cost of health care and the cost of insurance will go down. The opposite will not work.
Not exactly. It will increase for 43% of individual insurance holders (about 10% of the insured) but not for group policy holders (most of us) whose premiums will go down.
