Gene Frenkle

Well, the way I see it: (More people who have health insurance) = (Fewer uninsured, un-paying people who receive health care) (Fewer uninsured, un-paying people who receive health care) = (Fewer tax dollars from the general population) Bottom line:The more people who pay for their own health insurance, the less I have to pay for their lack of health insurance. Is that right or am I missing something?

Guns don't kill people. Marvin Harrison kills people.

More like the same people who pay for it now. Hmmm....

right...

That has little to do with my question.

In all seriousness, if someone is able to opt out of mandatory health care, who foots the bill when they receive medical treatment that they cannot pay for out-of-pocket?

Don't forget about the Trailer Park Amish.

Did you read the article?

I guess. I do see a lot of rooting for the laundry though. My ridiculous cable news network is less awful than yours.

Holy crap!

Any relation to Joe the Plumber?

Why do you need your news pre-spun? You don't really gain anything by reinforcing what you already think you know. You become nothing more than a herd animal.

For those defending Fox News, just face it. You are all funking sheep. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Yes, what a shock. Pat Robertson is still a deluded a-hole.

Seriously?

Was Avatar no good, did you see it in 3D and what didn't you like about it?

Which is another way of saying that you're a !@#$ing idiot for getting your "news" from any of them.

The last thing we need now is an extended Dick.

Relatively speaking, CNN isn't on the same level as the other two.

It's ok to lie if everyone else is doing it?

I'll go with my initial response to the ridiculous PC crap going on in this article: !@#$ing gay.

Unfortunately, human nature does not seem to back up your idealistic sentiment. If it were as easy as that, we'd have to find another fundamental principle to argue about.

In my opinion, this is the core difference between middle to upper class Libs and Cons. If I'm out-of-line brining it up here, the board is just PP.

Don't be so SENSITIVE. It was tongue-in-cheek. I have been unemployed for a total of 2 months (in 2000) since graduating college in 1998. During that time I opted not to collect unemployment because I didn't feel right about taking it. I do not personally want or need your money. I realize that I had a lot handed to me in life. I had a good upbringing and was provided a good education. I worked hard to get where I am now, but I realize that I would not be in as good a situation if I was not given a decent start. I have a supportive family and a good job with a relatively bright future. The difference is that I don't think the world revolves around me. I realize that there are people who are less fortunate than me. I realize that to whatever extent I prosper, I do so in a system that is comprised of people like me, people who are more 'advantaged' and people who are less 'advantaged'. The system could not exist without all of its parts. In other words, the system itself breeds a certain percentage of people who cannot or do not take care of themselves for whatever reason. In a better system, there would be fewer of these, just as in a worse system there would be more. In my opinion, those who thrive in such a system should help to take care of those who do not. It's the right and moral thing to do.

Don't be a dick. Did you read the article? Pretty sure it was 'disadvantaged'.