{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/9/2014 4:59:35 PM
8
Either public or private. Insurance mandate = shit, the other 2 are better.
English
-
Yes, when unable to institute a single payer system, it's definitely preferable to have the poor and sick simply go without so that we can maintain the level of comfort the upper class is used to.
-
[quote]the poor and sick simply go without[/quote] I'm guessing charity is missing from your dictionary.
-
If you think charity can simply solve the problems of poverty then you're deluded.
-
If you think government action can solve the problems of poverty without creating a class of leeches you're deluded.
-
I am well aware that welfare programs create a disincentive on the margins when it comes to working, but I'm also aware that you can't just escape poverty through incentives. Welfare is an integral part of a safety net to ensure a minimum standard of living. Of course, this isn't welfare - the insurance mandate doesn't give money to anybody, it incentivises healthier people to join the risk pool to spread out the cost of covering those with preexisting conditions who would otherwise be unlikely to be able to afford health care. So, yeah, what you're arguing here doesn't really make much sense.
-
The poor can use it, they can just go into debt in the process.
-
No they won't because the middle class has to pay there taxes
-
And the better option is to make people pay for stuff they don't use? I thought people wanted equality.
