Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (1953)	9/1/2007 3:55:18 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

I gave you a link. I had already looked it up before I posted the basis for my definition. The government doesn't have a definition of poor. They have poverty. Yes, and they define "poverty" to set an eligibility threshold for programs for the poor. Listen, I understand that you don't give a shit that uninsured people get raped by the system. That is an unfounded conclusion. I never said nor suggested that. So lets end this conversation with our mutual disrespect intact. Whatever. It is not helpful to conflate "poor" and "uninsured." Lots of poor people are effectively insured. They have Medicaid, for example, or Medicare. Lots of uninsured are not poor. Do you really think that Bill Gates uses Kaiser or Blue Cross? You can't solve a problem if your demographics are fuzzy. I have a great deal of sympathy for the demographic I think, after this long colloquy, you have in mind. But it is neither the "poor" nor the "uninsured." Perhaps the "unintentionally uninsured." I do not personally know any "unintentionally uninsured." All the poor people I personally know have Medicare.