Is GOP Finally Going To Screw The Disabled, & The Elderly On Medicare?

[ConHog]

When has rationing taken place? I want the facts not some huffington post or white house talking points.
If a person needed medical care they could not be denied. Those who could not afford healthcare coverage had Medicade Medicare to help them out. So tell me again who has been denied healthcare in America

Pertinent question...I expect an answer...

There was this time in my life when my second wife became sick, We had no healthcare coverage, but she had to go to the hospital they took her in and I set up payments to repay the bill. WHAT A CONCEPT.

The problem is if you end up with a milion dollar hospital bill. How you going to arrange payments for that?

Although I have serious questions about the constitutionality of forcing everyone to have insurance I fully understand the rationale. The question for me, other than the Constitutionality of the bill is why the HUGE costs and so much government involvement? I mean 68 commissions or whatever? Come on.... I could have solved the issue in less than 10 pages and at virtually no cost to the government.

 

[The T]

If the elderly were corporations, Republicans would do everything they could to help them.

Actually, we'd do the same exact thing we are recommending now. Allow them the freedom to take care of themselves. The Federal Government has two main goals: Protect our lives and liberties and Regulate commerce between states.

That's it. It's not supposed to bail us out if we make bad choices and dont plan for our future. It's not supposed to tell us we are helpless and cant do anything for ourselves when we reach a certain age. It's not supposed to tell us we are too big to fail and thus our neighbors are obligated to bail us out with the use of force.

It's supposed to allow us the liberty to succeed or fail according to our own actions. It's supposed to allow us the opportunity to serve and uplifted our neighbors without the use of force. It's not compassion if you give away others money and not your own. It's not compassion if it's forced from you.

I dont know why you have this insane idea that empowering government is a good thing. It's deadly. Everytime its been done it results in mass casualties.

Emboldened for those that MISSED IT...

 

[ConHog]

If the elderly were corporations, Republicans would do everything they could to help them.

Actually, we'd do the same exact thing we are recommending now. Allow them the freedom to take care of themselves. The Federal Government has two main goals: Protect our lives and liberties and Regulate commerce between states.

That's it. It's not supposed to bail us out if we make bad choices and dont plan for our future. It's not supposed to tell us we are helpless and cant do anything for ourselves when we reach a certain age. It's not supposed to tell us we are too big to fail and thus our neighbors are obligated to bail us out with the use of force.

It's supposed to allow us the liberty to succeed or fail according to our own actions. It's supposed to allow us the opportunity to serve and uplifted our neighbors without the use of force. It's not compassion if you give away others money and not your own. It's not compassion if it's forced from you.

I dont know why you have this insane idea that empowering government is a good thing. It's deadly. Everytime its been done it results in mass casualties.

Emboldened for those that MISSED IT...

Emboldened but incorrect.

Pretty sure national defense is also a function of the federal government, there are also other things that we have agreed as a people should be the responsibility of the USG.

 

[HUGGY]

Is GOP Finally Going To Screw The Disabled, & The Elderly On Medicare?


That is so sick. Is there a shortage of queers for them to have sex with?

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, we'd do the same exact thing we are recommending now. Allow them the freedom to take care of themselves. The Federal Government has two main goals: Protect our lives and liberties and Regulate commerce between states.

That's it. It's not supposed to bail us out if we make bad choices and dont plan for our future. It's not supposed to tell us we are helpless and cant do anything for ourselves when we reach a certain age. It's not supposed to tell us we are too big to fail and thus our neighbors are obligated to bail us out with the use of force.

It's supposed to allow us the liberty to succeed or fail according to our own actions. It's supposed to allow us the opportunity to serve and uplifted our neighbors without the use of force. It's not compassion if you give away others money and not your own. It's not compassion if it's forced from you.

I dont know why you have this insane idea that empowering government is a good thing. It's deadly. Everytime its been done it results in mass casualties.

Emboldened for those that MISSED IT...

Emboldened but incorrect.

Pretty sure national defense is also a function of the federal government, there are also other things that we have agreed as a people should be the responsibility of the USG.

What part of national defense is not covered in "Protecting our Lives"?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pertinent question...I expect an answer...

There was this time in my life when my second wife became sick, We had no healthcare coverage, but she had to go to the hospital they took her in and I set up payments to repay the bill. WHAT A CONCEPT.

The problem is if you end up with a milion dollar hospital bill. How you going to arrange payments for that?

Although I have serious questions about the constitutionality of forcing everyone to have insurance I fully understand the rationale. The question for me, other than the Constitutionality of the bill is why the HUGE costs and so much government involvement? I mean 68 commissions or whatever? Come on.... I could have solved the issue in less than 10 pages and at virtually no cost to the government.

As long as I paid something on th bill nothing could be done. They could not refuse to give medical care.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives have stacked the courts with Judges whose ideology supports the money = speech. The incumbents weren't all around as the GOP's long term goals were pursued.

You are showing your partisanship again. To be fair, I used to think the same way, until someone sat me down and showed me just how stupid what I was saying is.

The courts have not ruled that money is the same as speech, they just have ruled that restricting the ability to spend money is equivalent to restricting a persons right to speak.

Let us look at some other things money is not.

I know of no liberal who would try to argue that money is abortion, yet every one of them screamed to high heaven when Bush restricted spending money on abortion providers oversees, because they knew that this effectively restricted the access to abortions.

Is money education?

Again the answer is no, but if the government suddenly declared that no one could spend any of their own money on education I think everyone would agree that would restrict everyone's access to education.

If you are running for office, and the law says that you can only spend $5000 dollars to purchase ads, I am not restricting your speech, but I am restricting your ability to make your speech heard. How many TV and/or newspaper ads do you think you can buy with that amount of money?

Citizen's United (the latest case on this issue, and the one Obama mentioned in his State of the Union address) was bad law because it tried to restrict the ability of non profits to spend money in a 90 day window before an election. Congress knew that there could be no possible justification for simply telling a corporation (a group of people) that they could not purchase ads (talk) ever, so they tried to pretty it up by saying that they could not do so with the intention of influencing elections (talk about politics) within 90 days of an election with their own money.

This might sound noble and high minded, but the real meaning is that if I get together with friends I can only talk about the election if someone else pays for it. You might think this is ridiculous, but it is exactly what has happened in some states. Neighborhood groups got together, and were prohibited from using any of their own money to promote a point of view, they could only spend money if they could prove it came from outside sources. This law was designed to directly benefit incumbents, and had no other purpose than to strengthen their hold on office, which is why it actually received bipartisan support.

Restricting how much money I can spend effectively restricts my free speech, because the only way speech is heard is if you pay for advertising. As a result of this law being overturned labor unions were able to spend 10 million dollars in Arkansas to try and defeat Blanch Lincoln. this would have been impossible last year because they would have been unable to spend their money in that 90 day window before the election. (By the way, despite effectively spending their entire war chest on one election that they viewed as key, they were unable to actually purchase the senate seat in Arkansas. Just goes to prove that the predictions of doom were wrong.)

 

[The T]

Actually, we'd do the same exact thing we are recommending now. Allow them the freedom to take care of themselves. The Federal Government has two main goals: Protect our lives and liberties and Regulate commerce between states.

That's it. It's not supposed to bail us out if we make bad choices and dont plan for our future. It's not supposed to tell us we are helpless and cant do anything for ourselves when we reach a certain age. It's not supposed to tell us we are too big to fail and thus our neighbors are obligated to bail us out with the use of force.

It's supposed to allow us the liberty to succeed or fail according to our own actions. It's supposed to allow us the opportunity to serve and uplifted our neighbors without the use of force. It's not compassion if you give away others money and not your own. It's not compassion if it's forced from you.

I dont know why you have this insane idea that empowering government is a good thing. It's deadly. Everytime its been done it results in mass casualties.

Emboldened for those that MISSED IT...

Emboldened but incorrect.

Pretty sure national defense is also a function of the federal government, there are also other things that we have agreed as a people should be the responsibility of the USG.

HOW is it incorrect? What is the First Objective Of a Constitutional Republic? Protect the LIBERTY of the PEOPLE from outside forces...even if it means the Government itself...

What do you think National Defense means? It means above ALL defend LIBERTY of the PEOPLE.

 

[ConHog]

Emboldened for those that MISSED IT...

Emboldened but incorrect.

Pretty sure national defense is also a function of the federal government, there are also other things that we have agreed as a people should be the responsibility of the USG.

What part of national defense is not covered in "Protecting our Lives"?

national defense =/= saving your life

 

[The T]

Emboldened for those that MISSED IT...

Emboldened but incorrect.

Pretty sure national defense is also a function of the federal government, there are also other things that we have agreed as a people should be the responsibility of the USG.

What part of national defense is not covered in "Protecting our Lives"?

Exactly. There is NO 'Wiggle Room'. The task is clear.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To answer the question, yes. The GOP, and the government in general, only cares about corporations. Hence the bailouts for banks and automotive. In the meantime, grandma can't buy her medicine nor anything to good to eat.



Amerikah.

The GOP and the Government? I find it strange and odd that you just Identify only the GOP but for some reason forget who has been in controll for the last 4 years. Or was that your attempt when you said the government? I forget wasn't it a democratic controled congress in 2008 with obama as Senator obama that voted to give the corporations and Banks a bailout of tax payers money? Why is it that you identified just the GOP and not the democrats?

 

[ConHog]

To answer the question, yes. The GOP, and the government in general, only cares about corporations. Hence the bailouts for banks and automotive. In the meantime, grandma can't buy her medicine nor anything to good to eat.



Amerikah.

Psst, which party was in charge of Congress when the bailouts were pushed through?

 

[The T]

To answer the question, yes. The GOP, and the government in general, only cares about corporations. Hence the bailouts for banks and automotive. In the meantime, grandma can't buy her medicine nor anything to good to eat.



Amerikah.

The GOP and the Government? I find it strange and odd that you just Identify only the GOP but for some reason forget who has been in controll for the last 4 years. Or was that your attempt when you said the government? I forget wasn't it a democratic controled congress in 2008 with obama as Senator obama that voted to give the corporations and Banks a bailout of tax payers money? Why is it that you identified just the GOP and not the democrats?

it's EASY my friend...the poster MEANT TO SAY...BOOOOOOSH!

 

[Avatar4321]

Emboldened but incorrect.

Pretty sure national defense is also a function of the federal government, there are also other things that we have agreed as a people should be the responsibility of the USG.

What part of national defense is not covered in "Protecting our Lives"?

national defense =/= saving your life

Then why on earth are we spending so much money on it?

 

[ConHog]

What part of national defense is not covered in "Protecting our Lives"?

national defense =/= saving your life

Then why on earth are we spending so much money on it?

Uh, cuz some things are worse than death.

 

[The T]

What part of national defense is not covered in "Protecting our Lives"?

national defense =/= saving your life

Then why on earth are we spending so much money on it?

Or Much to a more realistic point? WHY are Funds being diverted from the Military for those that have their hands out that have NO Clue...Never studied...?

Defer to their Own stupidity? Why are Funds less for the Military than Domestic Socialistic Programs?

And I don't mean YOU directly. I am speaking in general terms...WHY is the military being CUT by Every So-Called Democrat that comes into Office...and Socialistic programs RISE? Follw it From Carter on UP...and Who was it thatHAD to rebuild it for shortsightedness of the preceeding Democrat Statist?

Begin with Reagan...Follow with GW Bush and 9/11 and the complaints of Democrats that 'Armour wasn't enough'....

 

[The T]

national defense =/= saving your life

Then why on earth are we spending so much money on it?

Uh, cuz some things are worse than death.

What things might those be? Inherited Slavery Courtesy of the Statist Democrats...and their Social Programs that have NEVER panned out? Look at Wilson? FDR? Truman? LBJ? Carter?Clinton? Obama?

Whom had to take up the slack? Same Failed Statist Horseshit...

It won't Happen under MY watch.

 

[Yurt]

Which screws the Elderly more?

Making them false promises of support when we don't have the money and refusing to make adjustments until we have no money and they have to drop dead because of that?

Being honest with the fact that we don't have money and encouraging people to make alternative means of taking care of themselves?

You make these problems by lying to people amd somehow we are the uncompassionate people.

Screwing the elderly and disabled is a GOP family value. Before FDR, and after, the GOP always wanted to throw the elderly and disabled under the bus.

don't take my word for it, look at their votes in Congress and the GOP Presidents who fought Medicare. What was life like for the elderly and disabled in America before liberals gave them a safety net?

this says it all....

government can take care of you....you don't need family, friends or anything else...pay taxes, lots of taxes...and life will be 'better'

 

[ConHog]

Then why on earth are we spending so much money on it?

Uh, cuz some things are worse than death.

What things might those be? Inherited Slavery Courtesy of the Statist Democrats...and their Social Programs that have NEVER panned out? Look at Wilson? FDR? Truman? LBJ? Carter?Clinton? Obama?

Whom had to take up the slack? Same Failed Statist Horseshit...

It won't Happen under MY watch.

Hey, I'm fairly certain we're on the same side here. I'm just pointing out that national security entails a whole lot more than just "protecting your life"

 

[2Parties]

Yeah. It entails "killing their kids".

But we don't want to talk about that stuff...