All I'm saying is it isn't equitable for one person (who could have not worked a day in their life) to be handed health care on a silver platter while I work the better part of a week to pay for it for my family. Do you not understand many on public health care don't have to work for the better part of a week to receive benefits, and never have? I'm not talking about old people who spent 40 years paying into the system.

If you continued working the same job you have now, but at $7.50/hr, would it be fair to characterize your receiving the same health care you receive now as being handed to you on a silver platter?

And nothing says generous and polite by making the lying, vicious claim that I've assumed ' the poor in America aren't working hard' and that I implied 'that poor people should just work harder and make more money!' It's purely fiction designed to paint me as the evil denigrator of the poor.

>The fact is that plenty of the "poor" work as much as you do, but you think they're somehow enslaving you because you get paid more.

'The fact' that both of you have to put words in my mouth (or alleged thoughts) to make your argument speaks volumes here.

>If you continued working the same job you have now, but at $7.50/hr, would it be fair to characterize your receiving the same health care you receive now as being handed to you on a silver platter?

By handed on a silver platter I was referring to someone capable of working, but who requests (and is handed) health care for free without performing any labor at all at the expense of someone working and paying an involuntary tax. I never said that was all or even most poor. I'm not referring to the poor person making 7.50 buying their own private health insurance. There's probably an argument from some perspective that 'equitable' could mean everyone works the same amount of labor (20 hours or whatever) per month to pay for healthcare, although I'm not sure even that would precisely be equitable. One able bodied person of equal insurance risk pool to another working BOTH more hours AND paying more for same insurance would certainly sound inequitable.

> One person being handed health care on a silver platter while I work the better part of a week to pay for it for my family doesn't sound equitable to me. reply

This exactly implies that if only those poor people worked a "better part of a week to pay for it" like you did, they wouldn't be getting their health care served on a silver platter. Not a straw man.

Of course if you compensate providers for health care through the fruit of your labor and investments, you've earned it and it hasn't been provided to you on a silver platter; I don't think anyone is disputing that.

>This exactly implies that if only those poor people worked a "better part of a week to pay for it" like you did, they wouldn't be getting their health care served on a silver platter.

See my response below:

By handed on a silver platter I was referring to someone capable of working, but who requests (and is handed) health care for free without performing any labor at all at the expense of someone working and paying an involuntary tax. I never said that was all or even most poor. I'm not referring to the poor person making 7.50 buying their own private health insurance. There's probably an argument from some perspective that 'equitable' could mean everyone works the same amount of labor (20 hours or whatever) per month to pay for healthcare, although I'm not sure even that would precisely be equitable. One able bodied person of equal insurance risk pool to another working BOTH more hours AND paying more for same insurance would certainly sound inequitable.