Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're speaking truth to power, but don't expect the touchy-feely liberals to comprehend the reality of what you've said.
Humans are NOT immune to the laws of natural selection. It is egregiously arrogant to believe otherwise.
This is known as Mad Scientist rationalization by those who ever watched a Bond movie or read a comic book where a villain used this same "hard" justification for his plan to kill off half the worlds population.
Way to go internet tough guys! Living the trope!
It was also used by the Nazis. But that's not so funny.
It's bad and wrong to suggest there has to be a limit to compassion. And that you can define it.
Your corporate thinking is going to bite you in the a$$ when you need it most.
I'm not getting the "corporate thinking" reference, but here are a few facts that should be pretty eye-opening...
HCSG, the 4th largest health insurer in the US and a parent group of BC/BS in several states with Illinois and Texas accounting for 83% of its business, only has a profit margin of 5.15%.
This is known as Mad Scientist rationalization by those who ever watched a Bond movie or read a comic book where a villain used this same "hard" justification for his plan to kill off half the worlds population.
Way to go internet tough guys! Living the trope!
Nope, living the reality. Or have you never done the biology 101 experiment in which an organism over-reproduces, hence overpopulates, and as such consumes all the available resources? This is also commonly seen when governments artificially interfere in species populations such as limiting hunting, or introducing a non-native species for perceived benefits that turn out to be invasive.
Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.
Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?
No disrespect intended, but I think your view of insurance is rather "strange."
All insurance is a mathematical calculation that balances risk, premiums in, and payments out. You can insure anything against any peril. It's all a pure numbers exercise.
If insurance companies are required to insure pre-existing conditions, then they do the math. If the numbers show risk goes up then premiums go up. The math is the math. Whether or not higher premiums to cover pre-existing conditions is good for the public is NOT an insurance question. It is strictly a political question or public policy question.
And that was because McConnell refused to even consider any court pick Obama made. You remember how absurd that was?
Every Obama pick was for people who would make leftist decisions - that is, unconstitutional decisions - on cases of great import. I remember how absurd THAT was.
McConnell did the right thing. We are a Republic so that we can elect representatives (including Senators) who will keep a closer eye on government affairs than we normally do, and make decisions based on their close scrutiny. A policy that paid off in spades when it came to Obama appointments to the Supreme Court.
The Constitution requires that the President get "advice and consent" of the Senate before his appointments can be seated. He got it: The Senate rejected his appointments. Maybe he should have tried appointing people who would obey and uphold the Constitution for a change. The outcome would have been much different.
Keep in mind that the Senate was originally intended to protect the States from an expanding, intrusive Big Government. That's why Senators were originally appointed by their state legislatures (elected by the people of the state), not directly elected as the House was. It was one of the first things the liberals went after when they began to gain power in the early 1900s, passing the 17th amendment.
Nope, living the reality. Or have you never done the biology 101 experiment in which an organism over-reproduces, hence overpopulates, and as such consumes all the available resources? This is also commonly seen when governments artificially interfere in species populations such as limiting hunting, or introducing a non-native species for perceived benefits that turn out to be invasive.
We are far enough from having exhausted all our resources (or advances in efficiency) that we don't have to let people suffer using resource scarcity as the rationalization.
Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.
Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?
If you have a medical condition, you'll never be able to find a new job, because the new insurance would reject your application due to your pre-existing condition.
Every Obama pick was for people who would make leftist decisions - that is, unconstitutional decisions - on cases of great import. I remember how absurd THAT was.
...
Nope, living the reality. Or have you never done the biology 101 experiment in which an organism over-reproduces, hence overpopulates, and as such consumes all the available resources? This is also commonly seen when governments artificially interfere in species populations such as limiting hunting, or introducing a non-native species for perceived benefits that turn out to be invasive.
Yesterday you argued we should do nothing to prevent floods of unwanted babies, and today you are concerned about overpopulation.
We are far enough from having exhausted all our resources (or advances in efficiency) that we don't have to let people suffer using resource scarcity as the rationalization.
If so, how does everyone else's health care get funded?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
to comprehend the reality of what you've said. 
Yesterday you argued we should do nothing to prevent floods of unwanted babies, and today you are concerned about overpopulation.
