Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
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!"
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.
Doesnt matter how much it costs. It's his responsibility. Not anyone elses.
If someone chooses to help them. Great. In fact, I encourage charity, real charity not this entitlement bullcrap. We all have trials. The idea that someone else should be responsible for fixing them or getting us through those trials is a damning lie.
The problem with this nation is that too many people are trying to pretend that their choices have no consequences and will do anything to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. There is only one person responsible for my health - me. So if I intend to maintain it, it has to occur through my own choices.
Medications and treatments wouldn't cost nearly so much if the government wasn't interfering with the costs to begin with.
LOL, of course it matters, and that right there proves you have no interest in actually listening to what the issue is.
So answer this, when you had no insurance how would you have paid off your hospital bills if you say were diagnosed with brain cancer? Are you going to rely on charity to pay $100k, $250k, $500k+ for you? I'd like to hear your honest solution to this very real world problem. Pie in the sky solutions and rhetoric don't pay bills.
Charities That Will Help Pay Medical Bills | eHow.com
Medical Debt, Medical Bills: Summary of Options to Resolve Unpaid Medical Bills
Sources of Financial Assistance - Fact Sheet | CancerCare
So, people should set up charity in advance of their accident, heart attack or stroke?"Plans for receiving care using this charitable program should be made in advance of treatment.
"
"Discounts are given on a sliding scale, typically covering between 20 to 60 percent of the billed amount"
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?
What do I do? I will gladly participate in a health care plan that provides universal health care for everyone in this country. If that means I pay higher taxes, so be it.
How about you, Foxy? You willing to do that?
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?
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!"
So it's Universal Health Care or you advocate letting people die in the streets? See... here's the problem...
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
Money, money, money.
That's all these fuckers care about.
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!"
So it's Universal Health Care or you advocate letting people die in the streets? See... here's the problem...
Money, money, money.
That's all these fuckers care about.
So why do you support the politicians who care nothing about the people but merely want to play with your money?
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?
It wasn't pre-existing conditions, now was it?
Look back and if you're still stuck I'll help you out...
And they got the gall to call themselves Christians.
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!"
So it's Universal Health Care or you advocate letting people die in the streets? See... here's the problem...
They cant think critically. Either that, or they are notorious liars. Because if false dichotemies are the extent of their argument, they can only be doing one of the two.
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!"
So it's Universal Health Care or you advocate letting people die in the streets? See... here's the problem...
They cant think critically. Either that, or they are notorious liars. Because if false dichotemies are the extent of their argument, they can only be doing one of the two.
And they got the gall to call themselves Christians.
Could you point to any Christian teaching, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, that indicates that we are supposed to be irresponsible and take money through the force of Ceasar to enslave our fellow man?
I don't understand. Please explain to me in simpler terms why you are against solving a problem facing the country today based upon the fear of an absurd problem that will never actually happen one day down the road. Go ahead and break it down for me.
So for the record, you are totally down with the government mandating the purchase of products or services under threat of penalty if you don't whether you desire or need them?
Are those goalposts heavy?
See, Jim Smith is a Liberal, he has no family or friends, he is merely a straw man and doesn't even have a prostrate!
And they got the gall to call themselves Christians.
Could you point to any Christian teaching, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, that indicates that we are supposed to be irresponsible and take money through the force of Ceasar to enslave our fellow man?
Could you be any more dramatic?
The scenario was cancer treatment... I'm sure a simple google search will find oither medical bill assistance...LOL, of course it matters, and that right there proves you have no interest in actually listening to what the issue is.
So answer this, when you had no insurance how would you have paid off your hospital bills if you say were diagnosed with brain cancer? Are you going to rely on charity to pay $100k, $250k, $500k+ for you? I'd like to hear your honest solution to this very real world problem. Pie in the sky solutions and rhetoric don't pay bills.
Charities That Will Help Pay Medical Bills | eHow.com
Medical Debt, Medical Bills: Summary of Options to Resolve Unpaid Medical Bills
Sources of Financial Assistance - Fact Sheet | CancerCare
Haha, I said real world solutions. Taken from your own link -
So, people should set up charity in advance of their accident, heart attack or stroke?"Plans for receiving care using this charitable program should be made in advance of treatment.
"
"Discounts are given on a sliding scale, typically covering between 20 to 60 percent of the billed amount"
Even in the best case scenario, charities will still leave you with 40% of the bill to pay. If you can't afford health insurance to begin with how will you be able to pay 40% of 200k or more?
I'm still waiting to hear real world solutions. Something that not one of you can provide.
