So they shouldn't be covered. Then you can't complain and say they should have had health insurance when a medical emergency comes up.
... They should have had health insurance to begin with. What part of this are you not understanding? I'm confused.
Basically what you're saying is that I should be able to NOT have insurance, have a bunch of random sex with chicks, contract AIDS, and then demand that a health insurance company pays for my treatment?
I understand that there are other medical emergencies which are unavoidable that can come up, but this is essentially your basis of opinion, correct? That a health insurance, for-profit
business should be required to pay for a person with a pre-existing condition?
It's reality man. Adults need to make adult decisions, even when it comes to their children. If they are unable to afford the things that their child NEEDS, then they should give that child up for adoption. It's the only humane thing to do.
But unfortunately, we live in this world where people crackheaded mothers apparently think that they should raise kids in the ghetto without the essentials needed for success later in life.
But what it comes down to is that people in America are treated for emergencies already. It's part of the law. Honestly, it's a debatable part of the law when it comes to Constitutionality, but it's part of the law that I would be okay with keeping.
There really isn't a good way to take care of children who are uninsured. If we wanted to say that children (under 18) fall under the "physically or mentally unable to care for themselves" area and are thus automatically eligible for medical care; I'd be cool with that. I think they fall under both physically and mentally unable.
... But when they become the age to take care of themselves, they need to be planning to pay for insurance.
You need to start quoting the things I'm saying and responding to them directly because I don't know what you're talking about right now.
How does it NOT have to do with personal responsibility? In the VAST majority of cases, it does.
... Then you better graduate high school or get your GED, huh?
Again, the overlying theme is
personal responsibility. It's not my fault that this person decided to skip school and/or not try whatsoever in school. I shouldn't have to pay for their negligence.
There is a mentally handicapped guy who makes sandwiches at (one of) the Subways in my city. If he can find a job, I'm pretty sure a motivated, non-mentally handicapped person can do the same.
How is that a terrible argument? I've lived the exact thing I'm saying is possible. It's not difficult.
How is what I said NOT easy to do?
I specifically noted that the reason people now (and people in the future) shouldn't have it is because we can't afford it...
Can't afford it now, can't afford it later.
Again, this isn't opinion. This is fact.
My example works perfectly. You're taking from the future to provide to the current generation. Actually, it's WORSE than the example I gave.
It'd be more like if the meal cost $10 and you have $5... So in order to pay for it, you take out a $5 "I.O.U" in my name that I have to pay back with interest years down the road while you consume the $10 meal now.
I don't even get to have a say in it. I just have to pay for it.
me, right? You want your goddamn sandwich.
Why would I assume that people are going to spend their money on stupid things? Because they live in America, they're mentally handicapped, they don't comprehend how much things actually cost, and
I'm realistic.
I actually know people who DO spend their social security / welfare / unemployment money on "luxury" items, so I don't understand your question here. I'm talking about personal experiences, which don't seem to be good enough for you.
First of all, you said it "only cost me a couple cents," which is
ing absurd, and why I responded with an actual number and not some made up fantasy.
If I wasn't being taxed $1200/mo, I'd probably appropriate a lot more of that money toward charities. In fact, I already do send quite a bit of money to various charities.
But that's not the point. The point is that it's not "a few cents." It's a large sum of money that
I worked for that is now being GIVEN to other people who are NOT working.
Again, I have no problem taking care of people who actually need to be taken care of. But to live with this crazy theory that everyone on social security NEEDS it is
ing absurd and you know it.
And what do you mean by, "supposed to be for me?" All of it. I earned it by working.
Even people who make MINIMUM WAGE can make over $1000/mo., most of which will be tax-free considering how little you're actually making. If you're making $1000/mo. and cannot figure out how to provide yourself with necessities, then you are not responsible.
We can't help people at the current rate because people refuse to do anything that will make that help sustainable. They'd rather get rid of the help than figure out a way to save it.
It's not sustainable in any way, man.
Unless you're looking to create some sort of Communist government where all income is put toward the "greater good," then this is not sustainable.
But there is a reason that a Communist government cannot be setup - because it completely negates all forms of human nature. The survival instincts turn off, the inventive instincts turn off. We all become zombies that just float along like lumps of crap.
The problem is the system itself and that it encourages negligence. If it was revamped to take care of the people who only
need it, we would be able to afford it easily.