Very Few people whose company pays for health care insurance would just say, "No Thanks".
But you can't discount or ignore them. You are generalizing the idea. How do you know how many people would rather not have company insurance? You don't know that, you can not prove it.
Unless the data from the Census Bureau is incorrect, and I have no reason to believe that is the case, we have another 2.2 Million Americans with no health care.
I thought you said not all 2.2 million were Americans. Last I checked illegals were not legal citizens of the US. And again you ignore the part where some also chose not to have insurance and you also ignore that some of these people work for companies that don't offer insurance. I worked 12 month from July 2006 till May of 2007 with no insurance cause I was from a temp agency. It was not because it was taken away from me. You also ignore those who have part time jobs that do not offer insurance and those with personal businesses who don't have insurance because they can afford doctors themselves. You only see the foam on top of the beer and ignore the beer itself underneath it.
Thus, the only way that could happen, excluding the increase in illegals, is if employers who formerly offered coverage stop providing insurance or from newly created jobs that do not include health insurance.
Wrong, I already gave you several reason for people not having insurance other than losing it. Ever wonder Col, do you think the Census Bureau follows every single American in the US from Jan 1st 2005 till Jan 1st 2006 day after day after day for 365 days a year? Or does it ever occur to you that chances are many or most of these 2.2 million and maybe even many or most of the other 40,000 plus Americans without insurance might have gotten insurance by the time this report was released? As you like to say, regardless of what you say, you can not prove or this prove this.
Regardless, the census Data says that in ONE YEAR 2.2 million more Americans do not have health insurance. To argue that is a good thing would be ridiculous!
No one ever said it was a good thing, why do you put words in peoples mouths? Why do you make up peoples opinions? You are not a fair, just and sincere.
From Websters Dictionary NEED—to be necessary, to be compelled or required, a condition requiring relief, a condition of poverty.
To argue multi millionaires "NEED" the tax cuts they received from the Bush tax cuts is ludicrous. NEED has NOTHING to do with it. WANT, GREED - YES -NEED Hell NO!
Yea, leave it to you to use dictionary definitions to manage economy and finances. If you wanna get technical here then you would be considered a traitor:
From Websters Dictionary TRAITOR-one who commits treason
From Websters Dictionary TREASON-the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.
To argue Col gene is not a "TRAITOR" is ludicrous.
