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: Gottfried who wrote (318904)	11/19/2016 8:20:45 PM
From: Alex MG	Respond to of 541778

I agree catastrophic coverage should be less than $600 for someone your age and in good health. well the $600 per month is not for catastrophe coverage, it's for pretty decent healthcare, I guess, I haven't really used it much except for regular doctor checkups and it did pay for a colonoscopy my argument is more for younger people, who don't really need anything other than Cat coverage. There should be an option to not assume someone needs $7200 per year in healthcare expenses ($600 per month) I worked for a corporation for 15 years and had great healthcare coverage paid by the employer, but never once needed it (thankfully).. of course now I'd like to opt back in, as I'm getting older, lol I know this is not politically correct, but people who are obese and abuse their bodies in so many ways should have limits to how much they can abuse the system... why should people who are responsible with healthy choices have to pay for peeps who are totally irresponsible?... oops, "death panels" why should an alcoholic who has destroyed his liver and is 70 years old deserve a $400K liver transplant so he can live 6 more months?? of course the bigger question is with all these budget constraints, why are we now all of a sudden going to give the 1% HUGE tax breaks? and stick it to the lower and middle class... greed? surely not, republicons are the "moral majority"