Post by Kliquid on Jul 29, 2011 1:59:57 GMT -5
no, im saying if someone doesnt think they need health insurance they shouldnt be forced into buying it.
COMPLETELY agreed. ObamaCare mandates this, however.
i was asked to provide a reason why anyone wouldnt want health insurance, not a reason why someone should buy anothers.
By all means, people are more than welcome to NOT have health insurance. But with that decision comes the responsibility that you will have to pay for your medical needs out of your own pocket when that time comes.
If you're rich and can afford to take that chance, I say go for it.
But if you're one of the 99.9% of Americans who don't wipe their asses with $100 bills, then you should probably have health insurance. If you decide not to, then don't come crying to me when you have to get your appendix taken out and your bill is $15,000.
where is the proof?
Look around.
Do I really need to prove that there aren't 70 million Americans who are unable to work? Seriously?
Do I need to prove that there aren't flying spaghetti monsters, too? Come on.
Let's be realistic. There are people who really can't help their situations. These people are handicapped and/or very elderly (thus handicapped).
Other than that, get to work, people.
my moms a widow with 5 kids. the survivors benefit we got helped us significantly as far as rent is concerned. but some of the people i went to HS with went through the same thing. a few of my friends went through phases where the only meal they had was the lunch at school. other kids i know had to drop out of high school because they couldnt handle the struggle anymore. and id say out of the 40 guys i played football with, maybe 5 of them actually had both mom and dad at home. hell, most didnt even live with their parents. all im trying to say is that just because someone is struggling does not always mean they did so because essentially, they chose so
I hate to sound harsh, but it does mean that...
Look, your Mom chose to have five children. Your father and her decided that was the right decision for them. That's great. Some people love building families and I think it's awesome.
... But with that, comes responsibility. You have to plan for the unhappy situation that one of the parents dies. Particularly if that parent is the primary bread-winner.
If your parents were planning effectively, they would have put a pretty decent life insurance policy down. Particularly for young people, quite frankly, this is cheap as hell. If your Dad died and didn't have life insurance, then your parents put themselves in that situation by bad decision-making.
Do I feel bad for you? Yes. It sucks. But that doesn't mean other people should be forced to pay for your parents' bad decisions.
I know this is a harsh thing to say, but you need to consider that other people do plan for things like this. Other people do have health, car, home and life insurance.
When you say, "My family doesn't need this," you are making a conscious decision to not plan for the future. 99% of the time, it's probably going to work out fine for you. But that 1% of the time, you're going to get completely crapon. This is why insurance exists. For the unexpected events in life.
although i do realize that San Francisco is an urban area and its more likely to happen here than say, in the suburbs. so i think it makes more sense to localize these programs so that the people who are giving out the money actually know where and to who that money is going to
Like I've said a few times in this thread, I would actually be open to the idea of providing health insurance to children under 18. If we're going with the assumption that you are eligible to receive benefits if you are physically unable to provide for yourself, then I think children fall under that category.
But in order to do that, we have to revamp this system where people like my crackhead aunt receive money for being "injured" (she was never hurt, mind you). She hasn't worked in over 10 years and continues to take in a bigger check than my handicapped friend does.
i agree. charity born out of coercion takes the goodwill out of the act and essentially changes it from charity to theft. id never support scraping SS because there are people who do NEED the checks, though i would support an option whether or not to pay that money out of your paycheck as well as a comprehensive background check as to who receives those checks. itd make things a lot harder, but like i said, the right decision aint always the easiest.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if giving to social security was a voluntary act.
Then again, no one in their right mind would give money to the government to divy out over a reputable charity.