Premiums Unveiled For Health Overhaul Plans

[Tiddlywinks]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What's so "wow" about that? I fail to see why we should provide goods to a person that is otherwise capable of earning them while maintaining a comfortable existence.

Living paycheck to paycheck is your definition of a "comfortable existence". Where if they were to be fired they would have no savings to fall back on and would most likely end up on unemployment while searching for another paycheck to paycheck job?

God forbid those people get sick and are uninsured or don't have a sold family/friend support system to help them through those rough times. Not to mention all the luxuries I'm sure their paycheck to paycheck jobs is currently affording them.

Not my idea of a "comfortable existence". Then again, they are a member of a certain class, and that is to be expected.

Right?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Tiddlywinks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Living paycheck to paycheck is your definition of a "comfortable existence". Where if they were to be fired they would have no savings to fall back on and would most likely end up on unemployment while searching for another paycheck to paycheck job?

God forbid those people get sick and are uninsured or don't have a sold family/friend support system to help them through those rough times. Not to mention all the luxuries I'm sure their paycheck to paycheck jobs is currently affording them.

Living paycheck to paycheck is not necessarily a "comfortable existence." I was responding directly to Millburn who admitted that while he was check to check, that his existence was "comfortable." In light of his admission, I take exception to the idea that subsidizing his supplies is good policy.

If a person is incapable of meeting their own needs for something, say insulin, there's little objection in a safety net that provides for them for the duration of that inability. I'm not challenging the notion of social spending, I'm challenging the idea that it's somehow good policy to pay for the needs of those who are capable of providing for themselves.

Originally Posted by Tiddlywinks

Then again, they are a member of a certain class, and that is to be expected.

Are you implying that I view diabetics as inferior? What's the equivalent of calling someone a racist, but for medical conditions? Conditionist? Is that what you think I'm being here?

Would I have to get diabetes before my opinion is properly qualified?