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.
Because you said COBRA is expensive. So what? The reason COBRA is expensive is if you are racking up huge costs. If you use a lot of insurance -- for anything -- guess what happens? Your rates go up. If at some point they're too high for you ...that's your problem again. There is a mechanism in place to keep you covered, however that doesn't mean it has to be at a rate you choose.
The reason COBRA is expensive is because the employer is no longer contributing. The former employee is now paying the full cost of the employer provided insurance.
The reason COBRA is expensive is because the employer is not longer contributing. The former employee is now paying the full cost of the employer provided insurance.
Agreed, but my point was that everyone's COBRA bill is different because everyone has a different policy. She clearly opted for a policy that was more expensive because she knew that she'd be using it a lot. So there you go.
I'm deflecting? All I said was that doctors in Canada like to come to America. Does that upset you? By the way, doctors in America don't like to go to Canada. Oooooo, Caaaaanadaaaaa.
Sure, doctors are paid more in a private For-Profit system.
Quelle surprise.
Still however, the US has fewer doctors per capita than other socialized HC countries.
France has the most.
Why is that?
Cartelism in the US perhaps?
Or perhaps there are fewer doctors world wide that desire money over all else so don't bother going to the US? Perhaps the US is such a HC nightmare that no doctor worth his or her salt would bother? (i suppose with the exception of a few Canadian ones?)
FEMA has been subsidizing private homeowners' flood insurance for decades using government funds, so it wouldn't cost homeowners what they should be paying.
That actually isn't true. FEMA flood insurance hasn't been subsidized at all since 2012. And even before then, only 20% of the flood policies were ever subsidized (only buildings constructed pre-FIRM qualified for subsidies. FIRM: Flood Insurance Rate Maps, originating in the 1970s).
And all a man has to do is "pop on" a condom.....that's a choice too.
And if the man won't "pop one on," it's the woman's CHOICE to go ahead and have sex anyway. You make that choice? You pay for the outcome. Don't saddle society with the cost of paying for that personal choice for 18 or more years.
And if the man won't "pop one on," it's the woman's CHOICE to go ahead and have sex anyway. You make that choice? You pay for the outcome. Don't saddle society with the cost of paying for that personal choice for 18 or more years.
This is a delicate balance.
On the one hand you are 100% correct (and I've echoed similar sentiments) in that it is ridiculous to basically force the US taxpayer to subsidize ignorant people and their poor decisions.
On the other hand we cannot just say, sorry kid, your mom is a sorry individual, and you're probably not gonna live very long.
I don't know what the answer is, but I'd like to see SOME sort of consequences for choosing to living off the taxpayer.
On the one hand you are 100% correct (and I've echoed similar sentiments) in that it is ridiculous to basically force the US taxpayer to subsidize ignorant people and their poor decisions.
On the other hand we cannot just say, sorry kid, your mom is a sorry individual, and you're probably not gonna live very long.
I don't know what the answer is, but I'd like to see SOME sort of consequences for choosing to living off the taxpayer.
On the one hand you are 100% correct (and I've echoed similar sentiments) in that it is ridiculous to basically force the US taxpayer to subsidize ignorant people and their poor decisions.
On the other hand we cannot just say, sorry kid, your mom is a sorry individual, and you're probably not gonna live very long.
I don't know what the answer is, but I'd like to see SOME sort of consequences for choosing to living off the taxpayer.
Nothing wrong with providing dorm or barracks-style housing for those who cannot support themselves and their dependent children, and requiring a certain amount of work to maintain the facilities in exchange for receiving those '3 hots and a cot.' There are no equal outcomes, and it's ridiculous to even attempt such. That's why the limousine liberals in Hollywood and pro athletes earn millions, while others only earn minimum wage at part time jobs if they even work at all.
Uh huh, and I didn't make the choice to not be Barbara Streisand. So where are the millions of dollars society "owes" me because I'm a victim of inequality through no choice of my own?
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.
Does that upset you? By the way, doctors in America don't like to go to Canada. 
