- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Medicade Babies
Yep if we try and redefine things , then it makes it okay? Fascinating to watch people twist and turn to justify their actions.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
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
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Medicade Babies
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Medicade Babies
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Medicade Babies
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
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
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
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
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Medicade Babies
I think Ryan needs to resign !
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content