(12-27-2009 07:54 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 05:29 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  This kind of thing simply does not happen in other countries. And its embarrassing that we allow it to do so here.

Have you send this gentleman a check to help him out? Or, like most Dems, are you in favor of spending other people's money via taxes and not yours, via charity?

Surveys show that Republicans (conservatives) consistently give more money to charity than Democrats (liberals).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...l_giv.html

This health bill fiasco is not about helping people. It is about income redistribution and the expansion of the dependent class that then vote Democrat ad infinitum.

Thanks Eric Cantor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hqa30inu_A&feature=fvw

Just our move towards governmental control and socialism. Its just sad that so many people just want hand outs and don't want to work hard.

(12-27-2009 08:17 PM)klake87 Wrote:  Just our move towards governmental control and socialism. Its just sad that so many people just want hand outs and don't want to work hard.

Whatever. Socialist, fascist, communist. I get so tired of hearing the same bs talking points over and over again. Can you guys on the right actually come up with YOUR OWN thoughts instead of parroting Rush and Beck? I think what you guys are not understanding is that yes, taxes would probably go up under a good plan(not this one, which appears to be modeled after Massachusetts model which, quite frankly doesn't work because there is no competition to keep costs low) but the premium cost would go DOWN thus making the overall cost to you lower. Of course, they don't mention that on the Blue Cross network(Faux) because it is bad for profits of the healthcare industry and the Republican party.

(12-27-2009 08:17 PM)klake87 Wrote:  Just our move towards governmental control and socialism. Its just sad that so many people just want hand outs and don't want to work hard.

WTF does "working hard" have to do with anything in this debate? You can work your ass off for decades only to get laid off like that guy did and find yourself suddenly without insurance.

(12-27-2009 08:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 07:54 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 05:29 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  This kind of thing simply does not happen in other countries. And its embarrassing that we allow it to do so here.

Have you send this gentleman a check to help him out? Or, like most Dems, are you in favor of spending other people's money via taxes and not yours, via charity?

Surveys show that Republicans (conservatives) consistently give more money to charity than Democrats (liberals).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...l_giv.html

This health bill fiasco is not about helping people. It is about income redistribution and the expansion of the dependent class that then vote Democrat ad infinitum.

Thanks Eric Cantor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hqa30inu_A&feature=fvw

Much like the rest of the Dems, you are become irrelevant because you can't have an intelligent, reality based conversation. It is sad.

(12-27-2009 08:59 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 08:17 PM)klake87 Wrote:  Just our move towards governmental control and socialism. Its just sad that so many people just want hand outs and don't want to work hard.

WTF does "working hard" have to do with anything in this debate? You can work your ass off for decades only to get laid off like that guy did and find yourself suddenly without insurance.

Factcheck - He has insurance.

(12-27-2009 07:54 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Have you send this gentleman a check to help him out? Or, like most Dems, are you in favor of spending other people's money via taxes and not yours, via charity?

Nice of you to change the subject. Personal charitable giving does absolutely f*ck all to address this crisis. To directly answer your question, if increasing taxes would ensure every single American would be guaranteed the most basic human necessity known as medical care without fear of bankruptcy and personal ruin, yes I am 100% in favor of that solution.

Quote:Surveys show that Republicans (conservatives) consistently give more money to charity than Democrats (liberals).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...l_giv.html

Congratulations.

(12-27-2009 09:04 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 08:59 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 08:17 PM)klake87 Wrote:  Just our move towards governmental control and socialism. Its just sad that so many people just want hand outs and don't want to work hard.

WTF does "working hard" have to do with anything in this debate? You can work your ass off for decades only to get laid off like that guy did and find yourself suddenly without insurance.

Factcheck - He has insurance.

OK, he has insurance and he's STILL in financial distress. I guess the situation is actually worse than I made it out to be. Thanks for proving my point.

(12-27-2009 09:11 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 07:54 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Have you send this gentleman a check to help him out? Or, like most Dems, are you in favor of spending other people's money via taxes and not yours, via charity?

Nice of you to change the subject. Personal charitable giving does absolutely f*ck all to address this crisis. To directly answer your question, if increasing taxes would ensure every single American would be guaranteed the most basic human necessity known as medical care without fear of bankruptcy and personal ruin, yes I am 100% in favor of that solution.

Quote:Surveys show that Republicans (conservatives) consistently give more money to charity than Democrats (liberals).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...l_giv.html

Congratulations.

That is not changing the subject. That is asking if this issue is important enough that you are willing to make personal sacrifice over it. Apparently, you are not.

A "crisis." The proposed bill creates one, certainly.

This gentleman received a heart transplant, and he's upset about pay for a minor percentage of the bill himself. Under socialized-ration care, especially the sort championed by Rahm's brother, this guy wouldn't even get the surgery. I guess that solves the crisis.

If you want to change the world, put your own time and money where your mouth is. That is the point. Some of us already do that. And, if you do that already, I apologize. If you don't, get started.

(12-27-2009 09:03 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 08:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 07:54 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 05:29 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  This kind of thing simply does not happen in other countries. And its embarrassing that we allow it to do so here.

Have you send this gentleman a check to help him out? Or, like most Dems, are you in favor of spending other people's money via taxes and not yours, via charity?

Surveys show that Republicans (conservatives) consistently give more money to charity than Democrats (liberals).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...l_giv.html

This health bill fiasco is not about helping people. It is about income redistribution and the expansion of the dependent class that then vote Democrat ad infinitum.

Thanks Eric Cantor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hqa30inu_A&feature=fvw

Much like the rest of the Dems, you are become irrelevant because you can't have an intelligent, reality based conversation. It is sad.

Reality is the Republican Party is in disarray and has become more irrelevant than the Democrats(though they are dropping too). Reality is NOT "you can afford insurance if you work hard" or "hey, there are charity organizations for you to get money for cancer treatment". Reality is someone making $9.00/hour for 40 hours makes too much for most/all government programs. At that rate, after taxes, if you are nearing half of your salary just for healthcare(assuming you can't get it through work) then it is about 1/4 of your total income of the year. That is reality.

(12-27-2009 09:18 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  This gentleman received a heart transplant, and he's upset about pay for a minor percentage of the bill himself.

I'm sure you'd be "upset" if you or a loved one were facing bankruptcy due to a medical procedure too.

(12-27-2009 09:26 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 09:18 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  This gentleman received a heart transplant, and he's upset about pay for a minor percentage of the bill himself.

I'm sure you'd be "upset" if you or a loved one were facing bankruptcy due to a medical procedure too.

Upset to a degree, sure, in that no one would like bankruptcy. However, I'd be thanking God every single day that we live in a country where he was able to get that surgery, and that he's still with us/me.

Again, under a system with government enforced rationing, due to his age and overall health, he likely would not get such surgery.

(12-27-2009 09:39 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Again, under a system with government enforced rationing, due to his age and overall health, he likely would not get such surgery.

Its already rationed. We just do in it based on how much you can pay, or how much your insurance will cover, before you pay. No difference there.

(12-27-2009 09:18 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 09:11 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 07:54 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Have you send this gentleman a check to help him out? Or, like most Dems, are you in favor of spending other people's money via taxes and not yours, via charity?

Nice of you to change the subject. Personal charitable giving does absolutely f*ck all to address this crisis. To directly answer your question, if increasing taxes would ensure every single American would be guaranteed the most basic human necessity known as medical care without fear of bankruptcy and personal ruin, yes I am 100% in favor of that solution.

Quote:Surveys show that Republicans (conservatives) consistently give more money to charity than Democrats (liberals).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...l_giv.html

Congratulations.

That is not changing the subject. That is asking if this issue is important enough that you are willing to make personal sacrifice over it. Apparently, you are not.

A "crisis." The proposed bill creates one, certainly.

This gentleman received a heart transplant, and he's upset about pay for a minor percentage of the bill himself. Under socialized-ration care, especially the sort championed by Rahm's brother, this guy wouldn't even get the surgery. I guess that solves the crisis.

If you want to change the world, put your own time and money where your mouth is. That is the point. Some of us already do that. And, if you do that already, I apologize. If you don't, get started.

Why do you guys keep pulling this stuff out of your asses? You have NO idea whether or not it would be covered. How do you know it wouldn't be covered?

(12-27-2009 09:53 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 09:39 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Again, under a system with government enforced rationing, due to his age and overall health, he likely would not get such surgery.

Its already rationed. We just do in it based on how much you can pay, or how much your insurance will cover, before you pay. No difference there.

Not to mention the insurance company may not cover it or your lifetime benefits have lapsed and you no longer have insurance coverage.

(12-27-2009 10:01 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 09:53 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 09:39 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Again, under a system with government enforced rationing, due to his age and overall health, he likely would not get such surgery.

Its already rationed. We just do in it based on how much you can pay, or how much your insurance will cover, before you pay. No difference there.

Not to mention the insurance company may not cover it or your lifetime benefits have lapsed and you no longer have insurance coverage.

One last time. In our system, health insurance is not the same as healthcare. You can have no insurance coverage in this country and still get treated.

Rationing is a conscious effort to control and reduce supply. It is not the same as someone refusing to provide a service if they are not compensated.

(12-27-2009 09:58 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 09:18 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 09:11 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 07:54 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Have you send this gentleman a check to help him out? Or, like most Dems, are you in favor of spending other people's money via taxes and not yours, via charity?

Nice of you to change the subject. Personal charitable giving does absolutely f*ck all to address this crisis. To directly answer your question, if increasing taxes would ensure every single American would be guaranteed the most basic human necessity known as medical care without fear of bankruptcy and personal ruin, yes I am 100% in favor of that solution.

Quote:Surveys show that Republicans (conservatives) consistently give more money to charity than Democrats (liberals).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...l_giv.html

Congratulations.

That is not changing the subject. That is asking if this issue is important enough that you are willing to make personal sacrifice over it. Apparently, you are not.

A "crisis." The proposed bill creates one, certainly.

This gentleman received a heart transplant, and he's upset about pay for a minor percentage of the bill himself. Under socialized-ration care, especially the sort championed by Rahm's brother, this guy wouldn't even get the surgery. I guess that solves the crisis.

If you want to change the world, put your own time and money where your mouth is. That is the point. Some of us already do that. And, if you do that already, I apologize. If you don't, get started.

Why do you guys keep pulling this stuff out of your asses? You have NO idea whether or not it would be covered. How do you know it wouldn't be covered?

Please read about Ezekiel Emmanuel's opinions on withholding healthcare from the aged, the infirm, the challenged, etc. This is a paper he co-authorized. Look under the Complete Lives section.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

He is the leading healthcare advisor in the White House.

Here is what the Senate bill will mean in real terms:

(12-27-2009 11:11 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  Here is what the Senate bill will mean in real terms:

Do you have a link? I am single with no kids and currently make under 20,000 a year.

(12-27-2009 05:29 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(12-27-2009 04:08 PM)Rock Bottom Wrote:  Notice niuhuskie84 still hasn't listed the name of the country that had healthcare so much better than the U.S.'s that it was the "sole reason" his friends left the U.S. I'm sure we'll be waiting a LONG time!

Excuse me for having a life outside of this board and that I cannot be at your beck and call to reply to a post when YOU demand it. Now I seem to remember why I stopped coming here.

If you had actually read my original post, you would have seen that my friends moved to the UK. Im not going to do your homework for you. The information regarding their system is freely available if you truly wish to find out about it. And yes, believe it or not, some people have been unfortunate enough in life to have been saddled with medical bills that they simply cannot afford in this country. Put yourself in that situation, and suddenly an overseas move to a place with a far more affordable system dosent seem so bizarre after all.

Timely article in the Trib....

Quote:Health care reform: Elgin man with heart troubles has change of heart
Job loss, medical issues lead to a new perspective

Until about a year ago, Tim Fraas was largely indifferent to the debate over health care reform.

The Elgin man was employed as a land surveyor, and his health insurance covered most of the medical bills related to his heart troubles.

"My attitude was: If it's not hitting me on the head, I'm not thinking about it," said Fraas, 52. "And honestly, if it was going to cost me money, I wouldn't have been in favor of it."

Since then, however, a heart transplant and the loss of his job have given Fraas a new perspective, teaching him that insurance offers incomplete protection to someone with a catastrophic illness.

Today, Fraas speaks publicly about the need for reform, citing his experience. Once solidly middle-class, this burly, plain-spoken man has depleted his 401(k) savings account, taken out a home equity loan, accepted charity from family and friends, and even asked his dad for help.

Unlike many people who fall out of the work force, Fraas has affordable health care coverage through his wife's employer. But with co-payments for each doctor's visit, medical test, hospital stay and prescription, mounting costs can easily overwhelm someone with a limited income...

This kind of thing simply does not happen in other countries. And its embarrassing that we allow it to do so here.

I have a life outside of this board too -- so I read too quickly and did miss that they moved to the UK - my apologies. So, they'd rather pay a much larger portion of their income in taxes and wait a lot longer for various medical procedures by moving to the U.K.? Well, that's their choice, and that is great for them, but I don't want the Government making that choice for me and making the U.S. like the U.K.