What About Jim Smith?

[Avatar4321]

To give up our choices, options, and opportunities and clamor for a 'king' to save us is not the way of a free people.

Especially when the "king" caused the problems we need to be saved from to begin with.

Who are you suggesting created our healthcare mess?

The government, of course, you think this happened absent government interference?

Do you think treatment would cost so much if the Feds weren't always interfering in the development of treatments? Do you think it would cost so much if they didn't require the massive amounts of payments for schooling required to licensed? There are countless regulations and requirements that the government has engaged in that artificially increase the price for medicine?

Do you think it would be as difficult for individuals to pay drs fees or purchase insurance if the government wasn't taking 1/3rd of their income every year?

This problem is caused by the government. Get government out of our lives. Let us be responsible for our own actions. And health care wont cost half as much as it does now.

 

[Dr.House]

Of course not and I know where you're going with this.

The health insurance mandate is necessary to provide a pool of funds to draw from. Obviously, that means that healthy citizens who may not need it for a while would have to pay into it, too, although who's to say a healthy person might suddenly become unhealthy and then need it, too.

There has to be another way that doesn't infringe upon constitutional rights... Massive fraud penalities, tort reform, waste elimination and efficiency gains... Hell, even illegal immigration reform...

And you libs wonder why your ideas aren't popular with the twentysomethings....lol No more hope&change there...

And yeah, I'm totally down with it because I've seen from other countries' examples that it not only works, but doesn't turn them into a cesspool of totalitarianism.

I'll ask you: If it works so well elsewhere, which country are you planning to go to for cancer treatment if you are so diagnosed?

"Massive fraud penalities, tort reform, waste elimination and efficiency gains... Hell, even illegal immigration reform..."

^^^^^^^^
All drops in the bucket.

Bullshit...

As for "infringing on constitutional rights", it's only absolutists like yourself and other extreme righties on here who feel that way to begin with. The idea that this is "unconstitutional" because it's not explicitly spelled out is just a cop-out for not wanting your tax $$$ to go to help other people. That it also doesn't explicitly prohibit it is our counter-argument.

Lots of constitutional law types agree with me, even Clinton appointed judges... Tax dollars weren't intended to buy people who couldn't afford it healthcare...

And for all the examples you can give of people who probably don't deserve that help because they make stupid choices, there are plenty of others where it's no fault of their own.

The solutions I provided are available to all who need medical bill payment assistance... Regardless of whether or not they made stupid choices..

Have I answered your simple questions now, smartass?

Not really, dumbshit... Where you gonna go for cancer treatment?

 

[Avatar4321]

I SO enjoy watching cons trying to justify their mean spirited attitudes . . .

And I completely pity someone who sells his soul.

 

[Dr.House]

In fact the vast majority of people on the right are in favor of the provision the ends denying coverage based upon pre existing conditions...

Won't work without a mandate.

Says you...

 

[Avatar4321]

I SO enjoy watching cons trying to justify their mean spirited attitudes . . .

You going to continue to ignore the ideas presented?

Well, it's not like he has a real strong argument against personal responsibility. It is the Hallmark of a free people.

 

[EriktheRed]

There has to be another way that doesn't infringe upon constitutional rights... Massive fraud penalities, tort reform, waste elimination and efficiency gains... Hell, even illegal immigration reform...

And you libs wonder why your ideas aren't popular with the twentysomethings....lol No more hope&change there...


I'll ask you: If it works so well elsewhere, which country are you planning to go to for cancer treatment if you are so diagnosed?

"Massive fraud penalities, tort reform, waste elimination and efficiency gains... Hell, even illegal immigration reform..."

^^^^^^^^
All drops in the bucket.

Bullshit...



Lots of constitutional law types agree with me, even Clinton appointed judges... Tax dollars weren't intended to buy people healthcare...

And for all the examples you can give of people who probably don't deserve that help because they make stupid choices, there are plenty of others where it's no fault of their own.

The solutions I provided are available to all who need medical bill payment assistance... Regardless of whether or not they made stupid choices..

Have I answered your simple questions now, smartass?

Not really, dumbshit... Where you gonna go for cancer treatment?

Gemany, Canada, Norway, Sweden...etc.


Now I answered them, Boones Farm.


And show some stat on those cost-cutting things you suggested.

 

[Dr.House]

Gemany, Canada, Norway, Sweden...etc.


Now I answered them, Boones Farm.

Good luck, assmunch...

And show some stat on those cost-cutting things you suggested.

They are broad suggestions of ways to avoid a mandate...

You claimed they were a drop in the bucket... Where are your stats, fucknut?

BTW, "immigration reform" a drop in the bucket?....

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not interested in paying for anybodys anything.

If George and all like minded have no problem and want to help their fellow man they should start their own charity.

Let em Open their wallets. Whip out their checkbooks and have at it.

Of course due to all the freeloaders in America they will be broke in no time but what the hey. They will feel oh so good about themselves.

Agreeing with Claudette.

In 2010, St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital was named the number one children's cancer hospital in the world by U.S. News & World Report. As far as I know, it is a purely private organization receiving no government funding, and has never turned a child away for inability to pay. It is one of the main charities that my husband and I support.

If the government was running or controlling St. Jude's, I can almost guarantee it would not have been the number one children's cancer hospital in that region, much less the USA and/or the world. It is an amazing place.

Another charity we heavily support is a local "Joy Junction" that provides shelter, food, clothing, and other help for the homeless. It absolutely refuses ANY government funding because it wants no strings attached in how it does business. Not only is it housing and feeding the homeless, it is providing job counseling, teaching language and grooming skills, providing spiritual reinforcement, and it is changing lives.

In my opinion to accuse refusal to subject to the 'king', but instead prefering freedom, excellence, and true compassion, as being mean spirited, is a very mean spirited as well as short sighted thing to say.

Using somebody's else's money in order to make oneself feel righteous is not my definition of charity.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why add the words "will never need"? How about they pay for healthcare when they want to or feel they might use it instead?

Great idea, too bad insurance companies were denying millions of people based upon pre-existing conditions. Next great idea?

That has nothing to do with what I said... In fact the vast majority of people on the right are in favor of the provision the ends denying coverage based upon pre existing conditions...

Want to try again?

So whats your point then?

 

[George Costanza]

I SO enjoy watching cons trying to justify their mean spirited attitudes . . .

Does this means you have nothing with which to rebut the arguments in favor of freedom over government controlled medicine? That's the best you can do? "Cons' are mean spirited, hateful, selfish, greedy, and kick puppies?

Is there something in the water liberals drink that requires them to think that if somebody has a different idea of compassion, they are mean spirited?

I would hope you are overstating the mean spiritedness of conservatives by including kicking puppies. I have never seen or heard of a conservative kicking a puppy. On the other hand, I see daily evidence of many of them being mean spirited, hateful, selfish and greedy, right here on this very board.

As I have said - the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "freedom over government controlled medicine." This thread ASSUMES that Republicans have had their way with health insurance. No more suffering the oppressive yoke of governmentally mandated health insurance. Now, everyone is on their own - responsible for their own destinies; just the way Good Republicans like it to be.

And now, someone is about to die because they don't have health insurance. This thread is about one, simple question: what would you Republicans do with Jim Smith in such a situation? Would you engage him in a discussion about "personal responsibility" and then just let him die? From many of the posts I read on this thread, I think that is EXACTLY what you would do.

And if that's true, it says an awful lot to me about those who would do so.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm not interested in paying for anybodys anything.

If George and all like minded have no problem and want to help their fellow man they should start their own charity.

Let em Open their wallets. Whip out their checkbooks and have at it.

Of course due to all the freeloaders in America they will be broke in no time but what the hey. They will feel oh so good about themselves.

But you already do pay for others. Way before Obama was ever elected.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Good Lord you're a bunch of dreary fucks... always with the doom and gloom.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I SO enjoy watching cons trying to justify their mean spirited attitudes . . .

Does this means you have nothing with which to rebut the arguments in favor of freedom over government controlled medicine? That's the best you can do? "Cons' are mean spirited, hateful, selfish, greedy, and kick puppies?

Is there something in the water liberals drink that requires them to think that if somebody has a different idea of compassion, they are mean spirited?

I would hope you are overstating the mean spiritedness of conservatives by including kicking puppies. I have never seen or heard of a conservative kicking a puppy. On the other hand, I see daily evidence of many of them being mean spirited, hateful, selfish and greedy, right here on this very board.

As I have said - the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "freedom over government controlled medicine." This thread ASSUMES that Republicans have had their way with health insurance. No more suffering the oppressive yoke of governmentally mandated health insurance. Now, everyone is on their own - responsible for their own destinies; just the way Good Republicans like it to be.

And now, someone is about to die because they don't have health insurance. This thread is about one, simple question: what would you Republicans do with Jim Smith in such a situation? Would you engage him in a discussion about "personal responsibility" and then just let him die? From many of the posts I read on this thread, I think that is EXACTLY what you would do.

And if that's true, it says an awful lot to me about those who would do so.

I've never heard of Conservatives advocating that people die in the streets either... yet you libs dredge this tired old lie up weekly.

 

[George Costanza]

I'm not interested in paying for anybodys anything.

If George and all like minded have no problem and want to help their fellow man they should start their own charity.

Let em Open their wallets. Whip out their checkbooks and have at it.

Of course due to all the freeloaders in America they will be broke in no time but what the hey. They will feel oh so good about themselves.

"Are there no prisons, no workhouses?"

Ebineezer Scrooge, "A Chirstmas Carol" by Charles Dickens

 

[Mr Natural]

Money, money, money.

That's all these fuckers care about.

 

[EriktheRed]

Gemany, Canada, Norway, Sweden...etc.


Now I answered them, Boones Farm.

Good luck, assmunch...

And show some stat on those cost-cutting things you suggested.

They are broad suggestions of ways to avoid a mandate...

You claimed they were a drop in the bucket... Where are your stats, fucknut?

BTW, "immigration reform" a drop in the bucket?....

Here's one from a partisan, but well-sourced piece regarding tort reform in particualr, one of your faves, I understand:

Annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, Amitabh Chandra, another Harvard University economist, recently told Bloomberg News. Chandra estimated the cost of jury awards at about $12 per person in the U.S., or about $3.6 billion. Insurer WellPoint Inc. has also said that liability awards are not what’s driving premiums.

And a 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office said medical malpractice makes up only 2 percent of U.S. health spending. Even “significant reductions” would do little to curb health-care expenses, it concluded.

A study by Bloomberg also found that the proportion of medical malpractice verdicts among the top jury awards in the U.S. declined over the last 20 years. “Of the top 25 awards so far this year, only one was a malpractice case.” Moreover, at least 30 states now cap damages in medical lawsuits.

The experience of Texas in capping damage awards is a good example. Contrary to Perry’s claims, a recent analysis by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker found that while Texas tort reforms led to a cap on pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which led to a dramatic decline in lawsuits, McAllen, Texas is one of the most expensive health care markets in the country. In 2006, “Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per person enrolled in McAllen, he finds, which is almost twice the national average — although the average town resident earns only $12,000 a year. “Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.”

Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs | The Washington Independent

Btw, you rightwingnut fuck, you never explained how banning pre-existing conditions would work without a mandate in place.

 

[George Costanza]

Does this means you have nothing with which to rebut the arguments in favor of freedom over government controlled medicine? That's the best you can do? "Cons' are mean spirited, hateful, selfish, greedy, and kick puppies?

Is there something in the water liberals drink that requires them to think that if somebody has a different idea of compassion, they are mean spirited?

I would hope you are overstating the mean spiritedness of conservatives by including kicking puppies. I have never seen or heard of a conservative kicking a puppy. On the other hand, I see daily evidence of many of them being mean spirited, hateful, selfish and greedy, right here on this very board.

As I have said - the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "freedom over government controlled medicine." This thread ASSUMES that Republicans have had their way with health insurance. No more suffering the oppressive yoke of governmentally mandated health insurance. Now, everyone is on their own - responsible for their own destinies; just the way Good Republicans like it to be.

And now, someone is about to die because they don't have health insurance. This thread is about one, simple question: what would you Republicans do with Jim Smith in such a situation? Would you engage him in a discussion about "personal responsibility" and then just let him die? From many of the posts I read on this thread, I think that is EXACTLY what you would do.

And if that's true, it says an awful lot to me about those who would do so.

I've never heard of Conservatives advocating that people die in the streets either... yet you libs dredge this tired old lie up weekly.

Read some of the posts on this thread, Soggy. More than a couple of conservatives here would let Jim Smith die, rather than participate in universal health care. After all, THEY are "responsible" for themselves, THEY can afford health insurance. Why should they care about Jim Smith.

"Ive got mine - screw you!"

 

[Foxfyre]

I SO enjoy watching cons trying to justify their mean spirited attitudes . . .

Does this means you have nothing with which to rebut the arguments in favor of freedom over government controlled medicine? That's the best you can do? "Cons' are mean spirited, hateful, selfish, greedy, and kick puppies?

Is there something in the water liberals drink that requires them to think that if somebody has a different idea of compassion, they are mean spirited?

I would hope you are overstating the mean spiritedness of conservatives by including kicking puppies. I have never seen or heard of a conservative kicking a puppy. On the other hand, I see daily evidence of many of them being mean spirited, hateful, selfish and greedy, right here on this very board.

As I have said - the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "freedom over government controlled medicine." This thread ASSUMES that Republicans have had their way with health insurance. No more suffering the oppressive yoke of governmentally mandated health insurance. Now, everyone is on their own - responsible for their own destinies; just the way Good Republicans like it to be.

And now, someone is about to die because they don't have health insurance. This thread is about one, simple question: what would you Republicans do with Jim Smith in such a situation? Would you engage him in a discussion about "personal responsibility" and then just let him die? From many of the posts I read on this thread, I think that is EXACTLY what you would do.

And if that's true, it says an awful lot to me about those who would do so.

So we 'cons' have all agreed that he should get the treatment but should be expected to pay for it. And that by your definition is mean spirited, hateful, greedy, and selfish. Most of us are willing to help out with contributions or a fund drive too.

So what do YOU do George. Do you drive him to the hospital and sign a guarantee of payment for him? What if you have to put up your car and house as collateral? Do you do that? No? Does that make you mean spirited, hateful, greedy, and selfish? If not, why not?

So I don't want to put my own car and house at risk on Jim's behalf but I am perfectly willing to make George pay the bill. So now I am somehow NOT mean spirited, hateful, greedy, and selfish? If not, why not?

 

[George Costanza]

Money, money, money.

That's all these fuckers care about.

Absolutely. I'll say it again: "I've got mine - SCREW YOU!"

 

[Mr Natural]

I would hope you are overstating the mean spiritedness of conservatives by including kicking puppies. I have never seen or heard of a conservative kicking a puppy. On the other hand, I see daily evidence of many of them being mean spirited, hateful, selfish and greedy, right here on this very board.

As I have said - the purpose of this thread is not to discuss "freedom over government controlled medicine." This thread ASSUMES that Republicans have had their way with health insurance. No more suffering the oppressive yoke of governmentally mandated health insurance. Now, everyone is on their own - responsible for their own destinies; just the way Good Republicans like it to be.

And now, someone is about to die because they don't have health insurance. This thread is about one, simple question: what would you Republicans do with Jim Smith in such a situation? Would you engage him in a discussion about "personal responsibility" and then just let him die? From many of the posts I read on this thread, I think that is EXACTLY what you would do.

And if that's true, it says an awful lot to me about those who would do so.

I've never heard of Conservatives advocating that people die in the streets either... yet you libs dredge this tired old lie up weekly.

Read some of the posts on this thread, Soggy. More than a couple of conservatives here would let Jim Smith die, rather than participate in universal health care. After all, THEY are "responsible" for themselves, THEY can afford health insurance. Why should they care about Jim Smith.

"Ive got mine - screw you!"

And they got the gall to call themselves Christians.