ALL of it should be covered, birth to death. It's the only true pro life position.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Tampon Tim
- Thread starter sun rise
- Start date
We Never Know
No Slack
Ok So IYO everything should he covered from birth to death.
Does it have stipulations?
Maybe maybe not. It's circumstantial. Like everything.
Most things should be covered minus a few rare exceptions.
But if you want to nit pick, you can find someone else to argue with.
Covered. Get the medical care.
That's interesting. I have wondered what their cut is.Yes. I already, a few weeks ago posted about insurance companies and homes.
Example some are now saying we will insure your house but not your roof.
Insurance companies complain they are going broke but many agents live like kings.
One agent I know has...
-a $500,000 dollar house
-a new mustang
-a new ford F150 shelby edition
-a new 4 door jeep truck
etc etc
I feel sorry for the poor guy
My point is if agents are doing this well, the companies should be doing much better.
We Never Know
No Slack
Not arguing. Just looking for you to clarify.
Stipulations such as
-income
-age
-etc
Or say Bob smokes 3 packs a day, Bill doesn't smoke. They both get diagnosed with lung cancer.
Does Bob get equal coverage as Bill even though Bob's cancer is likely due to his own fault.
We Never Know
No Slack
We Never Know
No Slack
I don't know about you but my auto and home insurance has went up noticeably every year for the last 4-5 years.
When I asked why it was said because of floods and hurricanes, wild fires, tornadoes, etc that everyone else has experienced.
I'm like ok. Sorry for their loss but I haven't had a claim so mine shouldn't change. Well its all tied together. If those others have losses, you help pay for it.
I pay for my insurance, not theirs. But evidently I pay for theirs as well. It didn't used to be that way. They should charge them more, not me.
Last edited:
Yes.
We Never Know
No Slack
I don't agree with that.
Bob has basically lived trying to kill himself with no regard of the consequences(and yes I smoked for over 40 years)
Bill tried to live healthy.
Sorry. But most of the world has dealt with these issues for decades now. It is just easier, less expensive, more compassionate, to offer universal healthcare. It really is only in the U.S. that this is an issue.
But do you really want people dying on the streets, or losing their home to pay for medical bills, just because the had a bad habit?
Ok. I guess that is the American way.
We Never Know
No Slack
Then you are for universal healthcare regardless of lifestyle, wealth, age, etc period?
That's basically what "universal" means. Yes, I am for universal healthcare.
We Never Know
No Slack
Ok just wanted clarification that regardless of wealth, health, age, etc its the same for everyone.
If Bob makes $13,000 per year and Bill makes $13,000,000 per year they are equally covered in universal health care.
Yes. Of course Bill should pay more in taxes, but yes. Universal healthcare is just simpler. You don't need to do an audit before providing care.
Why shouldn't they be?
We Never Know
No Slack
So you want to penalize Bill who works this *** off to be better by making him pay more but reward Bob who doesn't care about his health.
Do you not see how ****ed up that is?
We Never Know
No Slack
That's what I am asking. Why shouldn't they both get the same universal care.
I mean that's what "universal" means.... So I'm confused here.