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.
Who do you think is funding the health insurance that covered Bristol's delivery and is also now covering Bristol's baby?
If it were my daughter, it would be me. I wouldn't expect "the people" to pay for it. Are you quite sure about that, that is if I'm "reading" your post correctly.
If it were my daughter, it would be me. I wouldn't expect "the people" to pay for it. Are you quite sure about that, that is if I'm "reading" your post correctly.
Well I don't know of either Bristol or the baby's father as having a job. I doubt that neither of them could afford their own heatlh insurance or to pay out-of-pocket. My guess is that Bristol and the new baby are covered under whatever insurance the state of Alaska provides to the Governor and family. Therefore, the state of Alaska is indirectly picking up the tab. Welfare under another name.
Who do you think is funding the health insurance that covered Bristol's delivery and is also now covering Bristol's baby?
Well Bristol is 18 and still in school according to her mother. Therefore I would assume her mother's health insurance will cover the birth and probably the baby until Bristol is out of college or until she reaches 23 years of age. Unless she gets married.
Well Bristol is 18 and still in school according to her mother. Therefore I would assume her mother's health insurance will cover the birth and probably the baby until Bristol is out of college or until she reaches 23 years of age. Unless she gets married.
So would you not agree that running a state should have the benefit (mind you that many many others have including McDonalds) health insurance?
Does health insurance policies not usually care for the family....I mean that's been the run of the mill for my work career....and usually one of the huge factors for people who are looking for a job in the acceptance of a job.
IDK the policy but I'm sure if she had never been elected (by the people) she would not have been giving the benefit of getting that job.
If She worked for Exxon it would be Exxon, Alaska happens to be the employer, what's the big deal?
The mantra of consevatives is "personal responsibility" isn't it? Wouldn't that mean that the welfare of the baby including healthcare costs should be the responsibility of the father?
I will bet that they WILL NOT MARRY until Bristol is no longer eligible under her mother's healthcare policy. Once they marry, if they do, she no longer would be eligible to be covered. I doubt that the baby's father has the ability to provide any support. Therefore it is welfare in a high class arena. The taxpayers, instead of the parents, are providing the support for healthcare.
The big deal is that 60% of jobs no longer provide health insurance benefits to these same citizens who pay, through taxation, for elite welfare medical insurance.
This right here is the perfect example of unhealthy obsession over anothers family.
I guess you get paid from your job so your personal responsibility is gone also.
????? No, this is an example of how our system works here in America.
Your posted reply makes no sense at all.
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.
