Utter nonsense. Millions choose only to buy a minimal amount of health care or none because they are young and healthy. There are better ways to get people with pre-existing conditions health care access without screwing up everyone else's health care access a la Ocare.
Dude by the time the average abortion is performed the around week 10, the only difference between it and a new born is size and lung capacity everything else is already functioning. It is a human being by every measure you care to name. Sorry that doesn't at all contradict what I said.
Better ways than actually providing that healthcare? What would that be? Because the risk pools proposed would be inordinately expensive (and of course are vastly underfunded). SOMEONE has to pay for that and the people who need that kind of insurance sure can't afford it.
I think it preferable to keep Big Government out of the womb as much as possible, and let a woman make her decisions with the help of those she trusts. Surrendering such personal choices to politicians, most older males, is repugnant. At ten weeks into gestation, a brain has not developed and a fetus is the size of a strawberry. After the first trimester (Most abortions are performed within the first 8 weeks) the State has a responsibility to become involved. There are fools who would rush in at the instant of conception and insist that a mindless, microscopic entity is a person, but we cannot let those extremists use draconian, coercive laws to impose their odd notions any more than those of the antipodean extreme that would insist society has no vested interest before birth. Science, reason, respect for personal decisions, and common decency must prevail. Roe v Wade strikes a thoughtful balance, and is supported by most Americans.
Here's a better question. Should people in a rich civilized country be allowed to get sicker and die because they can't afford healthcare insurance?
Nonsense. There are brain waves at ten weeks. Common decency prohibits murder for the sake of convenience and the Notion that the woman is the primary decision maker is at variance with reality.
You are a zealot for Big Government intrusion into a woman's most private matters, and wish for everyone to be forced to obey your dictates, but your extremist agenda will not be rammed down the throats of Americans. Your fanaticism is derailing this thread. Please respect the topic. Should all "subsidies" - such as the annual $250 billion tax break that sustains employer-administered healthcare plans - be eliminated? Should each individual negotiate directly with "for profit" companies for private coverage for his family, and insurance companies be allowed to reject everyone with pre-existing conditions, and should all such uninsured individuals have their medical expenses (after they have bankrupted those families) dumped on the taxpayer? All the most advanced nations have adopted an inclusive, far more economical approach, but it appears that there are ideologues whose dogma does not allow for the pragmatic solution - opting for what has been repeatedly demonstrated to work best.
AS if there are no other choices. Sorry I don't want the federal government at all involved in the abortion debate. It isn't a federal issue it is a local or at most state issue. And Please note at the time of Roe V Wade abortion exceptions for rape, incest and the mother's life and health existed in thirty-eight states and the mothers life in all fifty states. And the movement was going towards the thirty-eight. I would prefer that the federal government transferred the subsidies - that is tax write-offs - to individuals, rather than to companies. Tying your health care access to your employer had the unintended consequence of converting workers into serfs.
The CBO estimated the ACA would to reduce the number of non-elderly people without health insurance coverage by 30 million to 33 million in 2016 and subsequent years. If we agree that the federal government should not insinuate itself into the private, personal choices that Americans make for themselves, and that subsidized employer-administered medical plans should be eliminated, we have found common ground.
How does the fact you cannot afford goods and services entitle you to have those goods and services paid for by others?
You continue to avoid the question. I'll ask again: How does the fact you cannot afford goods and services entitle you to have those goods and services paid for by others?
You know this is unsupportable nonsense; EVERYTHING in health care is a goods or a service. All of it. 100% And so, as you continue to avoid the question, I'll ask again: How does the fact you cannot afford goods and services entitle you to have those goods and services paid for by others?
And so, as you continue to avoid the question, I'll ask again: How does the fact you cannot afford goods and services entitle you to have those goods and services paid for by others?
Uhh... when it comes to CBO predicting enrollments, they aint none to swift! Here is the CBO's history of Healthcare enrollment forecasts...