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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (129061)	1/22/2010 7:37:40 PM
From: Travis_Bickle	Respond to of 542010

As a scoundrel with no health insurance I couldn't agree more.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (129061)	1/22/2010 8:29:12 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542010

I suppose a family of 4 with total annual income of $35,000 ...would fall into this category if they don't go and get hc insurance on their own. No, that family would be counted as one that can't afford it. I think that most of the people in that category were healthy singles who wouldn't expect to need health care. What does it matter if the person wo hc insurance is undeserving or perhaps even a complete scoundrel. I don't recall seeing "deserving" used as an antonym for scoundrel. An uninsured billionaire would be an example of someone not deserving of public support. The number should be just the number of people without healthcare insurance. Otherwise you end up with a lot of different numbers. Depends on what you want to use it for. You don't use the same number for various things just for consistency's sake.