Who should save his sight?

practical people might sell their 300 thousand dollar home and other property to pay their bill then rent an apartment or move in with family . Check out charity med services , see American doctors inside Americas borders , start a 'go fund me campaign' !!
 

Interesting, blaming others
Lang, a Republican, says he knew the act required him to get coverage but he chose not to do so. But he thought help would be available in an emergency. He and his wife blame President Obama and Congressional Democrats for passing a complex and flawed bill.

“(My husband) should be at the front of the line because he doesn’t work and because he has medical issues,”
So do many others , let us know how it works out for you
 
Lang, a Republican, says he knew the act required him to get coverage but he chose not to do so. But he thought help would be available in an emergency.

Must be that entitlement mentality that we are always hearing about
 
practical people might sell their 300 thousand dollar home and other property to pay their bill then rent an apartment or move in with family . Check out charity med services , see American doctors inside Americas borders , start a 'go fund me campaign' !!


Sure. He could opt to be homeless, give up everything he's worked for his whole life and hope to get enough out of the sale to pay the expenses plus some to live on for a while.

And yes, he could do as that freeloader RW fundie bunch did and start a Go Fund Me. He should be able to get Medicaid but its S Carolina. Yes, he could beg for charity.They get the taxpayers to take care of them but he screwed up. That's what RWs do but if you read the article, you know they won't help him.

He smokes and found enough money to buy his home but doesn't follow doctor's orders for his diabetes.

"Lang, a Republican, says he knew the act required him to get coverage but he chose not to do so. But he thought help would be available in an emergency."
Read more here: Who should save sight of S.C. man who can t afford surgery The Charlotte Observer The Charlotte Observer

One in my household just had cataract surgery in both eyes. We have excellent insurance but even so, the out of pocket was substantial. We planned and saved for just such expenses though. Otherwise, we might have found ourselves in his situation.

We have a family member who recently had a heart attack, is brittle diabetic, heavy smoker, owns her home and is facing a similar problem.

Up until about a year and a half ago, we gave her and another family member money. They're bottomless pits though. They vote against their own best interests (R) and then have their hand out.

But the last part of that article is true.

"... can be easy to defend in an intellectual debate and hard to hold onto when you’re face-to-face with someone who’s going to die – or go blind – when they could be saved."

I don't find this to be an easy dilemma at all.
 
It's amazing that a guy who clearly has the brains to succeed like that would neglect to get health insurance. I'd rather skip out on a few meals than not bother coughing up the dough to pay for it.


I agree.

I HATE insurance. I mean, I REALLY hate it.

But, its a necessary evil and only a fool would willingly live without it.
 
if the guy was a diabetic and thought he did not need ins....than the guy is a fool.....especially as you get older....
 
If he could afford a $300,000 home, he could afford insurance. He could get whatever he wanted! It's not like the middle class people that are expected to pay out hundreds a month, have to pay mortgages, college, car payments, food.... and only net about $70,000/yr. Doesn't matter if he's lib or con...if he thought he could pay his own medical bills...let him. Or go bankrupt.
 

Would it be too outlandish to suggest that that's THEIR decision to make, and not yours to make for them?

I kinda think HE should be the one to save his sight, since HE'S the one who's going to use it, or wish he could use it.
 

Would it be too outlandish to suggest that that's THEIR decision to make, and not yours to make for them?

I kinda think HE should be the one to save his sight, since HE'S the one who's going to use it, or wish he could use it.

And yet he and his wife chose to go public and whine and blame the president , At 300,00 a year he wouldn't have qualified for subsides anyway , notice in the article he didn't have much savings to begin with (He ran up $9,000 in bills and exhausted his savings.). He chose not to buy any medical insurance , and I bet he never had any to begin with years earlier.
 
Last edited:

Would it be too outlandish to suggest that that's THEIR decision to make, and not yours to make for them?

I kinda think HE should be the one to save his sight, since HE'S the one who's going to use it, or wish he could use it.

And yet he and his wife chose to go public and whine and blame the president , At 300,00 a year he wouldn't have qualified for subsides anyway , notice in the article he didn't have much savings to begin with (He ran up $9,000 in bills and exhausted his savings.). He chose not to buy any medical insurance , and I bet he never had any to begin with years earlier.
his house is worth 300 thousand not his income....but anyone with diabetes who can afford medical,but dont think they need it....aint to bright....and if his eyes are that bad he is type 1....which would than make him an even bigger fool for not having any....
 

Would it be too outlandish to suggest that that's THEIR decision to make, and not yours to make for them?

I kinda think HE should be the one to save his sight, since HE'S the one who's going to use it, or wish he could use it.

And yet he and his wife chose to go public and whine and blame the president , At 300,00 a year he wouldn't have qualified for subsides anyway , notice in the article he didn't have much savings to begin with (He ran up $9,000 in bills and exhausted his savings.). He chose not to buy any medical insurance , and I bet he never had any to begin with years earlier.

It didn't say he made $300,000 a year....it was his house that cost $300,000. But whatever, he had to make good money to be able to buy a house like that.

Actually, I blame the president too. It doesn't matter that he made good money...the cost of Obamacare for people that get no subsidies is huge. I have yet to hear of ONE family that has saved $25,000/yr on their insurance as Obama said would happen.
 
just sell the house , save your eyesight if you value your eyesight . Look for some charity , right now some Volunteer doctors are helping third worlders free of charge over in 'nepal' and many 'african' nations . Or , like I said , start a 'Go fund me campaign' !!
 
It appears he may be white so many avenues for assistance may not be available to him.

However, were he to point a finger at a cop and shout "bang" he'd be in prison for 10 or more years and all his medical care would be FREE!
 

Would it be too outlandish to suggest that that's THEIR decision to make, and not yours to make for them?

I kinda think HE should be the one to save his sight, since HE'S the one who's going to use it, or wish he could use it.

Cecilie1200

Where did I say it was my decision to make? Or anyone's but theirs?

I didn't.

:rolleyes:
 

Forum List

Back
Top