Stupak: "Legitimate" For BP Escrow Account To Fund Health Care

[WillowTree]

RealClearPolitics - Video - Stupak: "Legitimate" For BP Escrow Account To Fund Health Care

 

[The T]

RealClearPolitics - Video - Stupak: "Legitimate" For BP Escrow Account To Fund Health Care

What this idiot has done has exposed the INTENT of what Obama did unlawfully.

After they bleed BP dry? They'll go after the next victim.

 

[Jeremy]

Are these idiots really that tyranical or are they just stupid? I think both. And is anyone in the media going after him for suggesting that the money should go to anything but aid for the oil spill vicitims? What a greedy backstabbing little FUCK!!

 

[Oddball]

RealClearPolitics - Video - Stupak: "Legitimate" For BP Escrow Account To Fund Health Care

Well, since OASI funds have been used to prop up the socialistic welfare state, it now only follows....

On one hand outrageous. OTOH, quite refreshing to see the Fabian socialist democratics coming out of the weeds to show their true colors.

 

[Ravi]

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): "I think we had to have someone say this is where you can go without limiting your criminal liability or civil liability. For instance, the question is brought up, pay for all of the health care for the people in the Gulf. No, but I think those who lost their job, then lost their health care would be legitimate."

hmmm....say an oysterman loses his business because of the oil spill and can no longer afford health care. Then he has a heart attack and needs immediate attention and therapy.

Why would that not be a legitimate claim against BP?

Your headline is misleading, Willow...but it is no surprise that none of the other "conservatives" called you on it.

 

[Ravi]

Are these idiots really that tyranical or are they just stupid? I think both. And is anyone in the media going after him for suggesting that the money should go to anything but aid for the oil spill vicitims? What a greedy backstabbing little FUCK!!

Case in point. This idiot thinks he is talking about someone not a victim of the oil spill.

And then of course Dud jumps on the bandwagon.

 

[Oddball]

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): "I think we had to have someone say this is where you can go without limiting your criminal liability or civil liability. For instance, the question is brought up, pay for all of the health care for the people in the Gulf. No, but I think those who lost their job, then lost their health care would be legitimate."

hmmm....say an oysterman loses his business because of the oil spill and can no longer afford health care. Then he has a heart attack and needs immediate attention and therapy.

Then, let's say that monkeys fly out his butt and he needs even more therapy?

BTW, nobody ever loses their "health care", per se...They only make a choice as to whether they'll keep up the payments to the third party to pay for any health services that they may receive.

But who ever expects honest semantics form socialist do-gooders?

 

[Ravi]

Loses their ability to pay for health care.

Why would that not be a legitimate claim against BP?

 

[Ravi]

I'm also really having a hard time seeing how making someone pay for what they damaged as being socialism.

 

[Oddball]

No, they only lose the ability for someone else to pay for services rendered.

But it comes as no surprise that such an elementary distinction needs to be 'splained to you.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yeah, OP, read the quote from your own link:

pay for all of the health care for the people in the Gulf. No, but I think those who lost their job, then lost their health care would be legitimate."

Meaning that if people lose their jobs, and therefore the healthcare that those jobs normally provide, then those people, and those people only, should receive an amount from BP to make up for that loss.

Duh. Of course, it's really fun to take people out of context though, isn't it?

 

[Ravi]

No, they only lose the ability for someone else to pay for services rendered.

But it's no surprise that such relatively elementary distinctions need to be 'splained to you.

You really are an asshole.

If they don't have the money to pay for health care insurance and they don't have the money to pay for health care because of BP's fuck up...how is that an illegitimate claim?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I have to lean towards helping those who legitimately had health care coverage and lost it due to the spill. But that doesn't mean I forget that we haven't seen any real leadership from Washington either.

 

[Vast LWC]

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): "I think we had to have someone say this is where you can go without limiting your criminal liability or civil liability. For instance, the question is brought up, pay for all of the health care for the people in the Gulf. No, but I think those who lost their job, then lost their health care would be legitimate."

hmmm....say an oysterman loses his business because of the oil spill and can no longer afford health care. Then he has a heart attack and needs immediate attention and therapy.

Then, let's say that monkeys fly out his butt and he needs even more therapy?

BTW, nobody ever loses their "health care", per se...They only make a choice as to whether they'll keep up the payments to the third party to pay for any health services that they may receive.

But who ever expects honest semantics form socialist do-gooders?

Since a large portion of health care payments are in fact provided by employers as part of employee compensation, that loss of said compensation is the same as any other loss of compensation, like wages.

So, yes, people do "lose their health care", or at least the portion that was formerly paid by the employer.

And it's not "Socialism" to seek repayment for losses, it's called "Justice".

 

[Oddball]

^^^^
Yet another one who purposefully supplants a lack of third party payer for services rendered in the guise of "health care".

Is there no end to this intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Rozman]

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): "I think we had to have someone say this is where you can go without limiting your criminal liability or civil liability. For instance, the question is brought up, pay for all of the health care for the people in the Gulf. No, but I think those who lost their job, then lost their health care would be legitimate."

hmmm....say an oysterman loses his business because of the oil spill and can no longer afford health care. Then he has a heart attack and needs immediate attention and therapy.

Why would that not be a legitimate claim against BP?

Your headline is misleading, Willow...but it is no surprise that none of the other "conservatives" called you on it.

I totally agree....But I think we need to take this a step further.

Let's say Oysterman can't work and because of this he starts to feel depressed so he starts to drink again,then he feels lonely and unloved so he calls a few buddies and goes to a strip club that he normally would not visit.He ends up closing the place down and leaves with one of the strippers called Joe.Well he thought this lady was the cutest thing and who can blame him since he drank 13 beers and a few shots.Well as it turns out Joe was really not short for Josephine it was short for....well it was short for Joe.So he ends up in divorce court and becomes the talk of the town...Well BP is responsible right.

Or how bout this. I am starting to feel out of sorts because of all this and will start to look for a lib lawyer to represent me...I wonder what John Edwards is up to...

Stay tuned I have a bunch of What if's for Oysterman.
Typical libs always looking for ways to spend other peoples money.

 

[Ravi]

^^^^
Yet another one who purposefully supplants a third party payer in the guise of "healthy care".

Is there no end to this intellectual dishonesty?

Coming from you? No.

 

[Oddball]

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): "I think we had to have someone say this is where you can go without limiting your criminal liability or civil liability. For instance, the question is brought up, pay for all of the health care for the people in the Gulf. No, but I think those who lost their job, then lost their health care would be legitimate."

hmmm....say an oysterman loses his business because of the oil spill and can no longer afford health care. Then he has a heart attack and needs immediate attention and therapy.

Then, let's say that monkeys fly out his butt and he needs even more therapy?

BTW, nobody ever loses their "health care", per se...They only make a choice as to whether they'll keep up the payments to the third party to pay for any health services that they may receive.

But who ever expects honest semantics form socialist do-gooders?

Since a large portion of health care payments are in fact provided by employers as part of employee compensation, that loss of said compensation is the same as any other loss of compensation, like wages.

So, yes, people do "lose their health care", or at least the portion that was formerly paid by the employer.

And it's not "Socialism" to seek repayment for losses, it's called "Justice".

Bullshit...In this case, it's called "mooching".

 

[Oddball]

No, they only lose the ability for someone else to pay for services rendered.

But it's no surprise that such relatively elementary distinctions need to be 'splained to you.

You really are an asshole.

If they don't have the money to pay for health care insurance and they don't have the money to pay for health care because of BP's fuck up...how is that an illegitimate claim?

Life's tough...Shit happens...Wear a helmet.

 

[Ravi]

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): "I think we had to have someone say this is where you can go without limiting your criminal liability or civil liability. For instance, the question is brought up, pay for all of the health care for the people in the Gulf. No, but I think those who lost their job, then lost their health care would be legitimate."

hmmm....say an oysterman loses his business because of the oil spill and can no longer afford health care. Then he has a heart attack and needs immediate attention and therapy.

Why would that not be a legitimate claim against BP?

Your headline is misleading, Willow...but it is no surprise that none of the other "conservatives" called you on it.

I totally agree....But I think we need to take this a step further.

Let's say Oysterman can't work and because of this he starts to feel depressed so he starts to drink again,then he feels lonely and unloved so he calls a few buddies and goes to a strip club that he normally would not visit.He ends up closing the place down and leaves with one of the strippers called Joe.Well he thought this lady was the cutest thing and who can blame him since he drank 13 beers and a few shots.Well as it turns out Joe was really not short for Josephine it was short for....well it was short for Joe.So he ends up in divorce court and becomes the talk of the town...Well BP is responsible right.

Or how bout this. I am starting to feel out of sorts because of all this and will start to look for a lib lawyer to represent me...I wonder what John Edwards is up to...

Stay tuned I have a bunch of What if's for Oysterman.
Typical libs always looking for ways to spend other peoples money.

That was somewhat amusing but is it your opinion that there are no legitimate claims against BP?