cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Medicade Babies

IH what is moral is always and has always been different for different people. Not long ago most white people thought it was OK and 'moral' for a white person to own a person with different skin pigment and even the religionists agreed.

 

Now you want to misuse the definition of a life.

An abortion is of a zygote which is not able to live outside the womb, It is not 'A LIFE'

 

I think society has improved from the depravity of slavery and the discrimination of people who were different than the majority. At least most people in society have improved, but some still discriminate.

 

And just to point out I do value life and support anyone who tries to help people to live a better life and I do not discriminate against others that have different skin pigment, facial features or strange beliefs about magical beings. 

ihtractortherap
Senior Contributor

Re: Medicade Babies

The child has arms, legs and it little heart is beating away . Looks like life to me.
Yep if we try and redefine things , then it makes it okay? Fascinating to watch people twist and turn to justify their actions.


Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Medicade Babies

Yes it is interesting to see people misusing a word to suit their agenda isn't it?

 

Definition of child

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/children

noun, plural children.
1.
a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl:

 

Yes some might use the word to replace fetus but it is misleading.

Most abortions are carried out early in the pregnancy and the fetus is not developed very well and certainly is unable to survive on its own.

 

Is this 'life'?

If so then when does 'life' begin?

Does the mother have a funeral for all the naturally aborted fetus'?

 

Be consistent, do not just pick what suits your agenda

ihtractortherap
Senior Contributor

Re: Medicade Babies

Life begins at conception. It's rather quite simple!
schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Medicade Babies

Tractor, have you seen the figures the CBOhas put out based on the repub replacement?? Seniors weren't going to be denied Heath insurance but the premiums were almost $20K a yr. That is denial by proxy for almost all seniors.
ihtractortherap
Senior Contributor

Re: Medicade Babies

Where do I find this? Thank goodness they pulled the bill if true
jennys_mn
Veteran Advisor

Re: Medicade Babies

You didn't see that IH?  Yes - what schnurrbart said IS in fact true.  That's what we have been talking about the past 3 days.   That's why I was saying we didn't need death panels, the lack of insurance would take care of that, all on it's own.  In addition to the 10 items that the Republicans were going to gut out of the insurance plan at the end, there would've been no reason to carry the insurance.  It wasn't going to cover anything.

 

I think the thought was to force people to work until they were 65, when they could get Medicare.  Problem was IH - was that it still affected all you guys that are self employed.  It was a terrible plan, and the Republicans that were strong enough, to stand up to the pressure and say, "NO!", are to be applauded, not "eliminated" like one of the guys on here suggested.

 

Tick Tock....BONG!!!!!

 

Jen

jennys_mn
Veteran Advisor

Re: Medicade Babies

Here's a part of what I just got off the internet:

 

The AHCA would let insurers charge older enrollees more

Obamacare currently restricts how much insurers can charge their oldest enrollees in the individual market. It says that insurers can only charge the oldest enrollee three times as much as the youngest, which pushes down premiums for those in their 50s and 60s. This used to be a group that faced prohibitively steep premiums on the individual market.

The AHCA would get rid of that regulation, allowing insurers to charge their oldest enrollees as much as they want. This change “increases the overall number of people with coverage, but older people end up falling out of the market as premiums rise,” says Christine Eibner, an economist with the RAND Corporation who has modeled similar changes to Obamacare’s age-rating provisions.

Eibner estimates that this particular policy would lower premiums for a 24-year-old from $2,800 to $2,100. But premiums for a 64-year-old would rise from $8,500 to $10,600.

And while young people might have cheaper premiums and an easier ability to enroll, older Americans could struggle to purchase coverage in this market, where their costs would rise. These are people who tend to have more urgent health care needs and could be in a worse position without health care than a young adult might be.

This worries some Obamacare supporters, who say the goal of insurance reform isn’t just to expand coverage — it’s to expand coverage for people who really need health care.

“If you replace a 60-year-old with a 20-year-old, that doesn’t change the number of people covered, but it changes the value of the coverage and of the program,” says Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who helped the White House model the economic effects of Obamacare.

 

http://www.vox.com/2017/3/6/14829526/american-health-care-act-gop-replacement

 

But there is much more out there on this - you just have to look for it.  It wasn't a secret.

 

Tick Tock.....BONG!

 

Jen

ihtractortherap
Senior Contributor

Re: Medicade Babies

Well I haven't been able to find a,source with real hard numbers, just political congecture and very broad estimates. Post a link.
I think Ryan needs to resign !
ihtractortherap
Senior Contributor

Re: Medicade Babies

Well the risk would be higher in the older people than the younger thus the increase in premium. Not saying its right or wrong. Didn"t see $20,000 premiums in there though. Thats just simple economics in the risk pools. Once again no one is,addressing the high cost of the actual care. Laws are being broken ,the lobbys are big though.