Mitt Kills at Al Smith Dinner

Should we all have the same access to Corvettes too? What's wrong with paying a fair price for a service? Where in the Constitution does it say I should pay your cardiologist?

lets compare apples to apples....

Healthcare for all is great.....so are heavy winter coats.....good solid toe steeled winter boots.....clean underwear at all times.....a nicve clean shirt everyday......a nice place to live in a nice quiet neighborhood...a computer for all.....

They dont get it...where do you draw the line?

What good is healthcare if you are going to freeze to death?

Good point. Where do you draw the line? Obviously corvettes is ridiculous. Winter coats I could understand to an extent but I don't think qualifies. Sure a case could be made for it, but I believe that just the absolute basics should qualify. That means, food, shelter and healthcare. The other stuff is nice, but not universally necessary for life.

and healthcare is available to all via the emergency room...for free if you cant afford it. It is not cushy...it is not galmaorous...but it is free healthcare and meets the basic need.

So why the need for Obamacare?
 
Seriously???

You claim Conservatives are against barack obama because of his complexion and you don't understand why I use the term "race card"? I really thought you had a bit more intelligence than rdweeb. I guess I was wrong.

Where did I say generalize all conservatives? I said Rabbi. I didn't generalize, I was very specific.

Rabbi is a racist and does not represent the majority of conservatives. If he did, I would have said so.

Is that better?

Rabbi is racist in your mind, only because he opposes a man that you see first and foremost as black. I got news for you, son, he opposes obama's white half too.

Actually, he's racist because he says racist things. And this has nothing to do with Obama or making any inferences about what he says. Actually, his racist statements stemmed from a conversation about Michael Steele.
 
Let me guess he lost your respect when he insisted that all people should be able to get the same access to healthcare. That's what did it, isn't it? I can understand that such a vile action would cause you to lose respect for him.

Is it that you dont get it or is it that you want to make believe you dont get it?

And when I say "it" I am referring to the conservative ideology.

I'm just wondering what action(s) caused him to lose respect. He may not agree with his policies but that's different than losing respect for him. At least it is for me. I didn't care for Bush's policies, but I didn't consider anything he did worthy of losing respect for the president of our country.
It may be my life style, but respect is earned. I tend you give people a fair shake, but tend to look at how they treat others in making my judgment.
I need look no further than barack obama's Senate campaign to judge his character.
 
lets compare apples to apples....

Healthcare for all is great.....so are heavy winter coats.....good solid toe steeled winter boots.....clean underwear at all times.....a nicve clean shirt everyday......a nice place to live in a nice quiet neighborhood...a computer for all.....

They dont get it...where do you draw the line?

What good is healthcare if you are going to freeze to death?

Good point. Where do you draw the line? Obviously corvettes is ridiculous. Winter coats I could understand to an extent but I don't think qualifies. Sure a case could be made for it, but I believe that just the absolute basics should qualify. That means, food, shelter and healthcare. The other stuff is nice, but not universally necessary for life.

and healthcare is available to all via the emergency room...for free if you cant afford it. It is not cushy...it is not galmaorous...but it is free healthcare and meets the basic need.

So why the need for Obamacare?

Really?

Maybe because the ER is designed for basic stabilization and not care. It's ridiculously expensive and tell me the last person you heard of who was able to have their chemo or radiation treatment through the ER.

The ER is probably the most inefficient method of care possible and doesn't even cover off on so many possibilities that ail people every day.

Never mind the cost of care through an ER, you'd think the fiscal conservative in you would want to figure out a more cost effective manner than sending everyone to the ER.

Oh and Obamacare also helps people who were being denied coverage due to preexisting conditions or who had their coverage capped or denied when treatment became expensive.

Obviously we can go on for a long time on this.
 
Good point. Where do you draw the line? Obviously corvettes is ridiculous. Winter coats I could understand to an extent but I don't think qualifies. Sure a case could be made for it, but I believe that just the absolute basics should qualify. That means, food, shelter and healthcare. The other stuff is nice, but not universally necessary for life.

and healthcare is available to all via the emergency room...for free if you cant afford it. It is not cushy...it is not galmaorous...but it is free healthcare and meets the basic need.

So why the need for Obamacare?

Really?

Maybe because the ER is designed for basic stabilization and not care. It's ridiculously expensive and tell me the last person you heard of who was able to have their chemo or radiation treatment through the ER.

The ER is probably the most inefficient method of care possible and doesn't even cover off on so many possibilities that ail people every day.

Never mind the cost of care through an ER, you'd think the fiscal conservative in you would want to figure out a more cost effective manner than sending everyone to the ER.

Oh and Obamacare also helps people who were being denied coverage due to preexisting conditions or who had their coverage capped or denied when treatment became expensive.

Obviously we can go on for a long time on this.

I've heard the President claim that ObamaCare is largely based on RomneyCare, in Massachusetts.....

....did you know that as a result of RomneyCare, ER visits have increased?
 
and healthcare is available to all via the emergency room...for free if you cant afford it. It is not cushy...it is not galmaorous...but it is free healthcare and meets the basic need.

So why the need for Obamacare?

Really?

Maybe because the ER is designed for basic stabilization and not care. It's ridiculously expensive and tell me the last person you heard of who was able to have their chemo or radiation treatment through the ER.

The ER is probably the most inefficient method of care possible and doesn't even cover off on so many possibilities that ail people every day.

Never mind the cost of care through an ER, you'd think the fiscal conservative in you would want to figure out a more cost effective manner than sending everyone to the ER.

Oh and Obamacare also helps people who were being denied coverage due to preexisting conditions or who had their coverage capped or denied when treatment became expensive.

Obviously we can go on for a long time on this.

I've heard the President claim that ObamaCare is largely based on RomneyCare, in Massachusetts.....

....did you know that as a result of RomneyCare, ER visits have increased?

Interesting, please tell me more.
 
Let me guess he lost your respect when he insisted that all people should be able to get the same access to healthcare. That's what did it, isn't it? I can understand that such a vile action would cause you to lose respect for him.

Should we all have the same access to Corvettes too? What's wrong with paying a fair price for a service? Where in the Constitution does it say I should pay your cardiologist?

No, because a Corvette has nothing to do with life and death. Try harder. A corvette is a luxury item (to rednecks but that's a different argument) and healthcare is, I feel as do many others, a basic necessity.

There is nothing wrong with paying a price for a service. Where did I say there was?

Health care is a service as is dining in a fine restaurant. We only go to Sardi's if we can afford it. If we can't, we go to McDonald's.
Sure, it is life and death, but your health care is no more my concern than where you dine.
 
Should we all have the same access to Corvettes too? What's wrong with paying a fair price for a service? Where in the Constitution does it say I should pay your cardiologist?

No, because a Corvette has nothing to do with life and death. Try harder. A corvette is a luxury item (to rednecks but that's a different argument) and healthcare is, I feel as do many others, a basic necessity.

There is nothing wrong with paying a price for a service. Where did I say there was?

Health care is a service as is dining in a fine restaurant. We only go to Sardi's if we can afford it. If we can't, we go to McDonald's.
Sure, it is life and death, but your health care is no more my concern than where you dine.

Well that's where we differ. You are equating something trivial (eating at a fine restaurant) to being able to access healthcare. You obviously feel that only those with money should be able to get medicine and treatment, where I think that's something everyone should be able to get access to, despite the size of their bank account.

In your example if you can't afford Sardi's you still can go somewhere to get food. If someone can't afford their chemo treatment or is denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, they really don't have other options. Nothing reliable at least.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I googled that and saw what you were talking about. However I found that there is more recent evidence that suggests that ER visits have been dropping now.

Emergency Department Visits Down For First Time Since Health Reform, Survey Finds | CommonHealth

I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in the report you found....it claims drop in usage from 2006-2010...

...but that is far from what the Boston Globe reported.

Questions raised about healthcare law's impact on overuse

By Liz Kowalczyk
Globe Staff / April 24, 2009


More people are seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17 percent over two years, despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
 
No, because a Corvette has nothing to do with life and death. Try harder. A corvette is a luxury item (to rednecks but that's a different argument) and healthcare is, I feel as do many others, a basic necessity.

There is nothing wrong with paying a price for a service. Where did I say there was?

Health care is a service as is dining in a fine restaurant. We only go to Sardi's if we can afford it. If we can't, we go to McDonald's.
Sure, it is life and death, but your health care is no more my concern than where you dine.

Well that's where we differ. You are equating something trivial (eating at a fine restaurant) to being able to access healthcare. You obviously feel that only those with money should be able to get medicine and treatment, where I think that's something everyone should be able to get access to, despite the size of their bank account.

In your example if you can't afford Sardi's you still can go somewhere to get food. If someone can't afford their chemo treatment or is denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, they really don't have other options. Nothing reliable at least.

Would I rather everyone have access to the best medical care? Of course.
Do I think YOU should pay for the consequences of MY life style? Nope.

I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. If and when, I get lung cancer, I absolve you of responsibility, OK?
 
He lost my respect when he changed his position on public financing.....when he saw how much money he could bring in.

Fair enough. That's a valid reason. I too lost some respect for him for that as well.

I was watching him in the primaries...I was a Hillary fan believe it or not....I still am.....but I was enamored by his presence...like many were....and I was interested in his vision...and I believed he may be different...honest.....

The he flip flopped when he saw he could rake in the big bucks.

And that was the end of that.





You're a HIlary fan? After Benghazigate? Really? Wow!
 
Actually, I googled that and saw what you were talking about. However I found that there is more recent evidence that suggests that ER visits have been dropping now.

Emergency Department Visits Down For First Time Since Health Reform, Survey Finds | CommonHealth

I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in the report you found....it claims drop in usage from 2006-2010...

...but that is far from what the Boston Globe reported.

Questions raised about healthcare law's impact on overuse

By Liz Kowalczyk
Globe Staff / April 24, 2009


More people are seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17 percent over two years, despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

So your story from 2009 is credible but the one I posted from June of 2012 is not?

Your data is out of date. What I posted acknowledged that the numbers weren't dropping previously, but now they are.

This is why people don't take you seriously. You can't be honest long enough to have a real conversation.
 
Should we all have the same access to Corvettes too? What's wrong with paying a fair price for a service? Where in the Constitution does it say I should pay your cardiologist?

lets compare apples to apples....

Healthcare for all is great.....so are heavy winter coats.....good solid toe steeled winter boots.....clean underwear at all times.....a nicve clean shirt everyday......a nice place to live in a nice quiet neighborhood...a computer for all.....

They dont get it...where do you draw the line?

What good is healthcare if you are going to freeze to death?

Good point. Where do you draw the line? Obviously corvettes is ridiculous. Winter coats I could understand to an extent but I don't think qualifies. Sure a case could be made for it, but I believe that just the absolute basics should qualify. That means, food, shelter and healthcare. The other stuff is nice, but not universally necessary for life.

And you think it's fine for 50% to work and slave to provide it free of charge to the other 50% I suppose?
 
Health care is a service as is dining in a fine restaurant. We only go to Sardi's if we can afford it. If we can't, we go to McDonald's.
Sure, it is life and death, but your health care is no more my concern than where you dine.

Well that's where we differ. You are equating something trivial (eating at a fine restaurant) to being able to access healthcare. You obviously feel that only those with money should be able to get medicine and treatment, where I think that's something everyone should be able to get access to, despite the size of their bank account.

In your example if you can't afford Sardi's you still can go somewhere to get food. If someone can't afford their chemo treatment or is denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions, they really don't have other options. Nothing reliable at least.

Would I rather everyone have access to the best medical care? Of course.
Do I think YOU should pay for the consequences of MY life style? Nope.

I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. If and when, I get lung cancer, I absolve you of responsibility, OK?

So you're going to pay for your treatment out of pocket in full?

Are you implying that a majority of people with cancer brought it on themselves?
 
lets compare apples to apples....

Healthcare for all is great.....so are heavy winter coats.....good solid toe steeled winter boots.....clean underwear at all times.....a nicve clean shirt everyday......a nice place to live in a nice quiet neighborhood...a computer for all.....

They dont get it...where do you draw the line?

What good is healthcare if you are going to freeze to death?

Good point. Where do you draw the line? Obviously corvettes is ridiculous. Winter coats I could understand to an extent but I don't think qualifies. Sure a case could be made for it, but I believe that just the absolute basics should qualify. That means, food, shelter and healthcare. The other stuff is nice, but not universally necessary for life.

And you think it's fine for 50% to work and slave to provide it free of charge to the other 50% I suppose?

You tell me. You're one of those not working.
 
Actually, I googled that and saw what you were talking about. However I found that there is more recent evidence that suggests that ER visits have been dropping now.

Emergency Department Visits Down For First Time Since Health Reform, Survey Finds | CommonHealth

I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in the report you found....it claims drop in usage from 2006-2010...

...but that is far from what the Boston Globe reported.

Questions raised about healthcare law's impact on overuse

By Liz Kowalczyk
Globe Staff / April 24, 2009


More people are seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17 percent over two years, despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

So your story from 2009 is credible but the one I posted from June of 2012 is not?

Your data is out of date. What I posted acknowledged that the numbers weren't dropping previously, but now they are.

This is why people don't take you seriously. You can't be honest long enough to have a real conversation.

Stop yer whining.

PoliticalChic stole your lunch, ate it in front of you, threw the empty brown paper bag in your face and made you clean up the crumbs.

Get over it.
 
Actually, I googled that and saw what you were talking about. However I found that there is more recent evidence that suggests that ER visits have been dropping now.

Emergency Department Visits Down For First Time Since Health Reform, Survey Finds | CommonHealth

I wouldn't put a great deal of faith in the report you found....it claims drop in usage from 2006-2010...

...but that is far from what the Boston Globe reported.

Questions raised about healthcare law's impact on overuse

By Liz Kowalczyk
Globe Staff / April 24, 2009


More people are seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17 percent over two years, despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data. ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe
ER visits, costs in Mass. climb - The Boston Globe

So your story from 2009 is credible but the one I posted from June of 2012 is not?

Your data is out of date. What I posted acknowledged that the numbers weren't dropping previously, but now they are.

This is why people don't take you seriously. You can't be honest long enough to have a real conversation.

1. Boston Globe....state data.
Up 17%.
A liberal paper quoting state data...and the conclusion nowhere near your article.
That's why.

2. "This is why people don't take you seriously. You can't be honest long enough..."
Really? Did you interview every one ?
Or is this "reporting" on the level of elementary-school gossip: "Everyone hates you"?


Clearly your juvenile complaint is the kind one uses upon realizing they have lost the argument.


3. And....let's add more fuel to the fire:

a. 50 days to see a doctor in Boston…Is Massachusetts’ universal coverage laws the cause?
June 9, 2009 in Current Events, Health Insurance, Supply of Medical Services, Wait Times
From the USA Today, here are the wait times to see a doctor in the following cities:
• Boston: 49.6
• Philadelphia: 27
• Los Angeles: 24.2
• Houston: 23.4
• Washington, D.C.: 22.6
• San Diego 20.2
• Minneapolis: 19.8
• Dallas: 19.2
• New York: 19.2
• Denver: 15.4 days
• Miami: 15.4 days

50 days to see a doctor in Boston…Is Massachusetts’ universal coverage laws the cause? « Healthcare Economist


b. Advocates promised that the Massachusetts plan would make health insurance more affordable, but according to a Cato study, insurance premiums have been increasing at nearly double the national average: 7.4 percent in 2007, 8 percent to 12 percent in 2008, and an expected 9 percent increase this year. Health insurance in Massachusetts costs an average of $16,897 for a family of four, compared to a national average of $12,700.

The costs to the taxpayers are rising, too, and one tax increase has not satisfied the appetite of the hungry plan. The prospect of huge deficits has elicited discussion of cuts in reimbursements to providers and the imposition of a "global budget," which is a euphemism for rationing.
Massachusetts Health Care: A Model Not to Copy


c. The results hold important lessons for the legislation moving through Congress, say Yelowitz and Cannon. As in Massachusetts, there has been no effort to estimate the cost of the private health insurance mandates that legislation would impose on individuals and employers. The costs may therefore be far greater than legislators and voters believe, while the benefits may be smaller than the conventional wisdom about Massachusetts suggests.
Source: Aaron Yelowitz and Michael F. Cannon, "The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain," Cato Institute, Policy Analysis no. 657, January 19, 2010.
For text:
The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain | Aaron Yelowitz and Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis


d. . Massachusetts Health Care Law Does Not Curb Costs
Five years after Gov. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' groundbreaking health care legislation, it has met its chief goal of extending insurance coverage to most residents -- but with costs rising faster than inflation, lawmakers face the challenge of how to pay for it all. Although the law has extended coverage, it has done little to fundamentally change the way consumers shop for health care, which analysts say is the only lasting solution to ballooning costs, reports the Washington Times.

Now, both plans face questions over how to pay for their reforms over the coming decades.
Source: Paige Winfield Cunningham, "Health Coverage, Rates Rise in Massachusetts," Washington Times, August 16, 2011.
For text:
Health coverage, rates rise in Massachusetts - Washington Times



And this is the plan that you and Obama tout as the model???
One of you is a dim-wit, the other a liar.




You see, the above is the reason you make the bogus claim "This is why people don't take you seriously."

You hide behind said claim because I can roll you up and smoke you like a Cuban cigar.
 

Forum List

Back
Top