Yeah, there’s that too. That’s the problem with saying simple fact A leads to simply fact B, since there is rarely anything that simple in the world.
Huh. Interesting view of what you think my life is…anyway. It doesn’t occur to you that we have been throwing money at “poor” people for decades and more children than ever are born in poverty? Wouldn’t you say that just handing things to people doesn’t work?
As for eugenics (is that close enough to Hitler to invoke the law?), I didn’t say that no one can have children unless they earn x per month, not even close. Which of course you know, but what fun is it to not use exaggerations? What I do say is you can have all the children you want as long as you don’t expect me to pay for them. It’s as simple as that. Unfortunately, far too many people see no problem with having children they cannot afford, and far too many people see nothing wrong with expecting me to pay to raise them. So they can go on and have more kids they cannot afford.
Good lord, how old are you? This has nothing to do with entitlement and everything to do with the fact that the government is taxing the middle class out of existence. And since we are getting close to retirement, I am really not interested in being forced to pay yet another tax so that other people don’t have to spend their money. As for entitlement, damn straight Skippy, we are entitled to hold on to our retirement funds and our house. People who cannot be bothered to plan ahead are not entitled to either.
Ohferchissakes, you know that isn’t true. I know this is the Pit and all, but you could at least stay somewhat close to the facts.
Have you taken your own advice? I certainly hope so since I really have no interest in listening to how awful it is that I don’t change my mind simply because you tell me to.
It sure is. What I am referring to is the government’s attempt to tax the middle class to the point that all we have are poor people (the have nots) and rich people (the haves). Such as the case in Mexico for example.
Where in there is a reason why I should pay to give them health insurance and/or raise their baby? If the fundies want to be completely unrealistic, let them pay for insurance and one parent child raising. Where are their parents in all of this?
Congratulations on starting school, but you’re doing things exactly backwards. Why didn’t you get an education and a better job before you had two kids?
Why can’t the kids go on their fathers’ insurance?
You’ve successfully managed to miss the point of my entire post.
Maybe I am doing things backwards, but real life doesn’t follow a manual. You can get a good education and a good job and still have shit things happen and have to start all over.
I did have a good job when I was pregnant with Leo. They cut us and gave our jobs to a call center in Vancouver WA when I was eight months along. My youngest was a surprise (failed birth control). After two traumatic miscarriages, I’m sure as shit not having an abortion to please Curlcoat. I may need help now, but that doesn’t render my children’s existence useless, and ‘throwing money’ at me is doing exactly what it’s supposed to.
My husband’s job does not offer insurance, and he works 60 hours a week so we can make it. My husband goes uninsured. He’s going to school after I finish, so in a matter of three years or less, we will be in a position to pay for our own insurance. Our children will be raised well and we will do all we can to ensure they are hard workers and don’t make some of the mistakes we did. Again, I don’t fight for health care reform to get my insurance paid for and worry about nothing. I fight for it so that my children and I will be treated fairly, and I have no problem paying for that to the absolute best of my ability.
Not so fast there, partner. There are other requirements that must be fulfilled besides the means testing. For instance, in Texas, if you are between the ages of 21 and 65, you can only qualify for Medicaid if you also qualify for TANF OR you qualify for SSI. So, if you are able-bodied and have no dependents, you get NO MEDICAID even if you have ZERO income.
Whoa, again. You’re leaving out another group entirely - those that have no access to a large group plan but have diseases that will prevent them getting individual coverage. Fortunately I live in a state that offers a subsidized risk pool for those people, but the premiums can still be VERY high as you get in the older age brackets - and can be out of reach for anyone not at least middle-class. We’re talking $500-$800 for a middle-aged person opting for the highest deductible available.
I’m pretty sure we’re on the same side here, but please be careful with those “facts”.
And, yeah, that guy did not die of appendicitis because he had no insurance. If these are the type of deaths that made up the 45,000, well that’s just “gross”.
Nobody asks you to “apologize for their existence” nor that they are “worthless”. What we do ask is why it is you don’t want the game stacked against you, yet you have at least two children and apparently no worthwhile education. You have stacked the deck against yourself and now you want me to fund a UHC system for you.
That’s really great that you are willing to sacrifice your entertainment costs in order to buy subsidized health insurance for your children. Again, why is it that you are expecting people like me to pick up the slack?
Healthcare reform encompasses a lot of very different things. The only thing I am against is the government requiring that I pay for a universal healthcare system such as Canada and the UK have. I do support insurance law reform however.
Not at all since you appear to be pretty typical. Somehow, it’s OK for you to have at least two children living at least partially on the taxpayer, yet it is not OK for me to say that I am sick of paying for those things? Why is it OK for you to choose to have at least two children when you cannot afford to raise them? Why do you expect me to agree that your childrens future must be more important than mine?
Oh piffle. I am well aware there are people here that are actually dying and all of that. What you don’t seem to get is that the taxpayer has been handing people things for generations and we have more people actually dying, yadda yadda, than ever before. How about we quit just handing people things?
Responsible real life follows a plan - have you ever had one? Yes, shit happens even to those who plan ahead, but the majority of the people standing around taking taxpayer funded benefits are not those who had a responsible plan.
No, what you did was selfishly think only of what you wanted - you wanted another kid, so you went ahead and had that surprise, and then you kept the baby instead of putting him out for adoption. That has nothing to do with your children and everything to do with what you wanted.
So. Neither you nor your husband has an education but you went ahead and had two children and now complain because you don’t want the deck stacked against you??
FAIRLY??? Are you for real? You think it is fair that you had these two children you couldn’t afford and now want others to help pay to raise?
Yaknow, I think this is the problem right here - everyone wants “fair” and no one wants to actually earn anything any more.
It might actually be that way here too - I know many states couldn’t care less if you drop dead if you have no children.
We don’t have to have a UHC in order to deal with that, tho I’m not sure how big a group that is. For one thing, group insurance offered thru employers are more or less no longer allowed to deny based on pre-exist.
They weren’t facts, they were generalizations. One of the big issues with this is that there are so few actual facts available. Such as this “45,000 die in the US every year due to lack of healthcare” - what does that mean? All of them were denied coverage? All were completely unable to afford coverage? All of them would not have died if they had insurance? Every time some bleeding heart comes up with some study that “proves” that tens of thousands of people are dying in the street because they can’t get insurance, all we see is that they didn’t have insurance. No mention of why.
Wrong. I have been unemployed for a couple of months, and have been receiving $147 in unemployment compensation a week. No other income. My utilities have been cut off once or twice, my phone has been cut off multiple times, and I’ve lived on beans and ramen for the entire time. I am not eligible for Medicaid. I know this, because after a recent ER visit, for which I was charged $1700+, I was instructed to apply for it and did and was rejected. The woman told me flat out that I did not qualify and that I wouldn’t even after the unemployment runs out, unless I got pregnant. Read that carefully now: **I could have zero income, and still not qualify for Medicaid. ** Now that I’ve got a job, I’ll be paying that $1700 a little at a time for probably the next year.
You might be surprised what you can do if the outcome of your actions would financially ruin your family.
One of the things that really annoys me about the “go to the ER they have to treat you anyway” crowd is this notion that you go to the ER, tell them you don’t have insurance, they treat you, pat you on the head and send you home.
Doesn’t work that way. They will treat you, however, they also will send you the bill. Like any bill, if you don’t pay it, your credit is ruined and the debt doesn’t go away.
I’ve read posts (not here) by stalwart conservatives who said, ‘Just give them a fake name and address!’ Yep. These typically ‘law-n-order’ types are advising people to commit fraud and theft – to say nothing about complications that may occur from previous medical conditions, which the ER doctors won’t be able to look up under your false name. (Not that they necessarily can if you give them your real name.)
Airman Doors, I am happy to believe you-- I used to be “one” as well. But I, and presumably you, rolled the dice and came up lucky.
I might just as easily have stepped off a curb and been hit by a truck. Sure, an ER would have cared for my immediate injuries, but in a ward, possibly (depending on location) receiving less than optimum care and resulting in a less than optimum outcome. Or I might have become infected with some exotic disease or infested with some nasty parasite as a consequence of my close contact with wildlife. Symptoms might have taken years of nagging discomfort before developing into full blown disease, and I would not have had early diagnostics, nor acute care, nor possibly life long after care. ERs just don’t do those things.
Had any of these or a million other eventualities come to pass, I almost certainly would not be comfortably typing these words. I might be homeless, or institutionalized, or dead. So might you.
Lack of insurance already costs society a heavy price. We pay this price via costs hidden in every product and every service we buy. Some percentage of the uninsured turn out lucky, like Airman Doors and I. Some other percentage do not. Any actuary could attach real numbers, and we could perhaps then argue substantively about them. Some people, not given to mouth foaming and artificial hysteria, are doing so already. It appears right now that the societal cost of the present system, in money and monetary equivalents, is greater than the cost of providing universal care would be. The best form of universal care to gain the greatest societal benefit at the lowest cost is still amenable to genuine debate.
But for **curlcoat **to characterize your choice and mine as reasonable and intelligent because we got away with it, and characterize someone else’s similar choice as irresponsible because they did not is disgusting.
But wait, I’m doing just that! I’m going to school full time and working part time. I want to finish my education before I have kids.
Except I make about $12k a year, because I only work part time (One of my classes recommends 20 hours a week in study time. I’m taking more than just that class). And I spend about $1100 a year on health insurance and prescriptions, if I don’t get sick, injured, anything. As long as I’m completely healthy, I pay nearly 10% of my income out in medical expenses. God forbid I get sick, because my insurance frankly isn’t that good. And this insurance is through school, so if I got REALLY sick and had to drop out, I’d lose it.
CURLCOAT makes it very clear. He/she does not care about your health care or lack of it. It does not matter if you live or die. What matters is whether it costs CURLCOAT money. That is what is important.
Personally? Whatever it would take. Of course, not being a conservative, I don’t assume this would equal 50% of my disposable income, so maybe I’m naive.