The possibility matters to me. However, the fact that there are people who cannot afford health care because they cannot afford insurance matters more.
Think of it this way: there’s a possibility that gold coins will fly out of my ass. However, the fact that shit is the last thing that came out matters more.
When was the last time you saw? (A pretty good general question for you, but I’m using it specifically here.) You really think a parent need spend only about $3,000 per year to raise a kid, and everything above and beyond that is, what? Money spent on luxuries? Which orifice did you pull that number out of? Your credibility was zero, and sinking rapidly.
I still wouldn’t like it; the best solution is a 100% free-market system. But it would be far better than a (single) federal program. At least I would be free to move to a state that had a program I deemed acceptable, or at least tolerable.
Try $118,000 to $250,000. Cite.
ETA: For the cost to raise a kid to age 18, that is.
Here’s another calculator: $266,000.
That’s not what Broomstick said. Emergency personnel (EMTs responding to a call or doctors in the ER) are obligated to treat you, regardless of your ability to pay. Your state of consciousness isn’t an issue.
It’s been amply demonstrated that the SSI benefits that you receive are paid for by other people, not by the money you contributed in the past.
And don’t assume that you paid your way with those contributions. I assume you’re no longer paying into the system if you’re on SSI. Try adding up the amount of money you’ve paid into Social Security, and compare it to the sum of the benefits you’ve received so far plus the benefits you can expect to receive if you attain a normal lifespan.
Heh. Yeah, the oooonly way that anyone could ever have a $100,000+ medical bill is cancer.
My son’s $120k hospital bill was for pneumonia. He wasn’t premature or anything. Just unlucky.
In curlcoat’s universe, that is equivalent to being a shiftless bum.
Well, I suppose that’s possible - where I used to work, though, any corporate credit cards were canceled as the former employee went out the door the last time. As always, YMMV.
Yeah, why doesn’t your son get a fucking job already and pay his own way? Who cares how old he is, he’s obviously going to continue leeching resources from society now that he’s used to being coddled by the system of rewarded laziness we’ve created. :rolleyes:
Correct. (Damn typos!)
HOLY SHIT! When did you see THAT? 1968? Raising a kid is a six-digit cost, you moron.
Actually, the Duggars BOTH worked outside the home and saved their money before Mrs. Duggar turned his vagina into a clown car, and Mr. Duggar still works his ass off and I think he’s got group insurance… they have a shit load of kids but they aren’t on welfare and aren’t the sort of irresponsible you bitch about. I question their wisdom in having so many kids, but if they can take care of them it’s not my place to judge.
Try an example that actually supports your argument.
Anyhow - it is ENTIRELY possible to be employed full time and NOT be offered insurance by your employer. Yes, savings and low debt are preferable, but you can start that way and then have parents lose their job, or an accident happens, or whatever, and that starts the downward slide.
Well, it’s a Ford, not a Chevy, and it doesn’t belch smoke but I’m still driving my 12 year old pickup and I did get laid off… thank Og we had savings and no debt or we’d be bankrupt instead of merely poor. So that’s two of us, right here.
I know why people fall on hard times… and I know damn well that even with the best of plans, most responsible people, and careful foresight people can STILL get the rug pulled out from under them.
Um… no, I don’t care that much. I don’t like to kick people when they’re down. If they’re responsible they’ll pull themselves back up with some help.
Of course not - just that everyone has at least subsistence level of housing, food, transportation (which may well be public transit), and medical care. I have NO objection to people working their ass off an purchasing better than the minimum for themselves.
So - as an example - if you’re single and unemployed you can have a 10x10 studio apartment via the government, but if you want more than that YOU have to pay for it. I don’t know too many people who wouldn’t want more than a 10x10 cell to live in, which should be incentive enough for the vast majority to get off their ass and do better than that.
I think it’s possible… but why do you care? Don’t you maintain you’re middle class? (You’re not, but I’ve given up trying to convince you you’re a rich bitch)
Really? I think she’s lower middle class or possibly broke. She just sounds that way to me.
OK, fair enough.
Is a state based UHC system (systems, actually, since there would be 50) something you could regard as a compromise you can live with, as something between our current system, which so many are dissatisfied with, and a Federal UHC, which you clearly find abominable?
Personally, I could live with either a Federal OR a State based UHC, though I have MANY concerns about how such a program would be implemented.
Well, yeah, that’s possible. She’s clearly clueless about her own household finances, or even where the monthly checks she gets comes from.
I dunno, her husband might have brains enough to keep them doing well, but clearly if it wasn’t for him she’d be in the gutter as she just don’t comprehend how the world works.
She’s just so gleeful about having someone to stomp on. It’s characteristic of a lot of people (like my in-laws) who want desperately to feel superior to someone, anyone because their lives are such miseries.
RR sounds like someone who has never been poor and has gotten every break in the world.
curlcoat sounds like someone who is so embittered they lash out at anyone they think they can hurt or whom they perceive as possibly vulnerable.
Carol is a bored housewife.
Crafter Man is a rageaholic with delusions of grandeur.
Actually, a lot of the “poor people choose to be” attitude is whistling past the graveyard. If poverty can come on the back of random accidents, then THEY might actually be poor someday. If poverty is entirely the fault of the poor, then THEY just won’t make any mistakes or poor choices and therefore they’ll never be poor. They have to keep the idea that a single accident or illness could put them on the street as far away from their minds as possible. They can’t cope with the possibility.
I suppose a state-based system could be seen as a compromise. On the one hand, a government would be controlling your healthcare. This would appease the people with socialistic mindsets. On the other hand, people would have a choice, which would appease the liberty-minded. If for example, you live in a state that has horrible healthcare, and healthcare is extremely important to you, you can consider moving to another state that has better healthcare. Each state would be free to enact any system they want, including no government system.
Some people might say, “What if I don’t want to move?” My response: People move all the time, from state to state, for various reasons (different job, family, etc.) Heck, I personally know people who moved out of their state simply due to their draconian firearm laws.
If good healthcare is a very high priority for you, and your state’s healthcare sucks, you will figure out a way to move. If you don’t move, then it simply means healthcare is less of a priority than other things in your life.
And the ability to opt out together and getcher own insurance as well, although I’m not sure how much meaning that has now that our premiums have been eliminated. I suppose doing so would give Alberta’s libertarian ideologues - both of them - the warm fuzzies, but dropouts are rare.
I’m simply echoing the same sentiments exhibited by many of our founding fathers. Most envisioned a country rooted in individual liberty and freedom. I am confident most would be aghast at idea of the federal government controlling healthcare.
The responsibilities and powers of the federal government are few and far between, and healthcare definitely isn’t one of them. That’s why we have states. If the federal government can do anything it wants, as some people in this thread have implied, there would be no reason to have a federation of states. And no reason to have a federal constitution.
The same founding fathers who limited voting to 21+ year old white male property owners?