America: “You have the RIGHT to an attorney”.....but not a doctor right guys?

[pknopp]

Double speak.

On the contrary, quite true.

Sure, when your insurance is done paying the doctor will prescribe pain meds to ease your last moments.

Depends on the insurance you buy, a choice you don't get with socialized medicine.

It's not a choice for millions now.

If you make it a priority, you have options.

No you don't.

 

[pknopp]

I've said over and over that we should bring every single soldier home.

Which doesn't address the point, which is that we are subsidizing the nanny states of many European countries.

We begged them to help us out in Iraq.

Which continues to avoid the point, that we are subsidizing their nanny states. You should at least admit that instead of continuing to try to change the subject.

No, you have decided that they need larger armies, not them.

I started that they would have larger armies than they do if we were not there. That is true, and you have failed to refute it, only attempting to divert.

That's your opinion, not theirs.

 

[hadit]

On the contrary, quite true.

Sure, when your insurance is done paying the doctor will prescribe pain meds to ease your last moments.

Depends on the insurance you buy, a choice you don't get with socialized medicine.

It's not a choice for millions now.

If you make it a priority, you have options.

No you don't.

Sure you do. If your employer offers insurance, you can get that. If he does not, you can buy your own private insurance. If you can't afford an expensive one, you can get a cheaper one or go on Medicaid. If you're old enough, you can go on Medicare. You have options. Heck, you can cut a private deal with a doctor to purchase routine services with cash (you can get a hefty discount if he doesn't have to mess with insurance companies and gets paid up front) and buy only a catastrophic care policy.

You have options.

 

[pknopp]

Sure, when your insurance is done paying the doctor will prescribe pain meds to ease your last moments.

Depends on the insurance you buy, a choice you don't get with socialized medicine.

It's not a choice for millions now.

If you make it a priority, you have options.

No you don't.

Sure you do. If your employer offers insurance, you can get that. If he does not, you can buy your own private insurance. If you can't afford an expensive one, you can get a cheaper one or go on Medicaid. If you're old enough, you can go on Medicare. You have options. Heck, you can cut a private deal with a doctor to purchase routine services with cash (you can get a hefty discount if he doesn't have to mess with insurance companies and gets paid up front) and buy only a catastrophic care policy.

You have options.

No discount will allow a person to afford expensive treatment.

 

[hadit]

Which doesn't address the point, which is that we are subsidizing the nanny states of many European countries.

We begged them to help us out in Iraq.

Which continues to avoid the point, that we are subsidizing their nanny states. You should at least admit that instead of continuing to try to change the subject.

No, you have decided that they need larger armies, not them.

I started that they would have larger armies than they do if we were not there. That is true, and you have failed to refute it, only attempting to divert.

That's your opinion, not theirs.

Show me how I'm wrong. It's after WWII. Germany has twice in a few decades attempted to overrun Europe, causing millions of deaths and devastating vast portions of the continent. The US goes back home, leaving no military presence.

You're the leadership of France. What do you do?

1. Build a massively expensive nanny state, assuming there will be no further problems from Germany and Italy. After all, they only did it twice.
2. Beg the US to maintain a military presence in the region to help contain any potential aggression, since the US is emerging as one of the world's true super powers.
3. Rebuild your military to be as strong as possible to ensure that you will never be overrun like you just were.

Go on, pick anything other than 3 and make a logical argument for it. prove me wrong.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Funny how US LAW dictates you are entitled, have a RIGHT to the service of an attorney...when you are accused of a crime. In fact if you cant afford one the govt literally says “one will be provided to you” free of charge. Wow. Thats pretty amazing.

But get sick? OOOOOHHHH NO....now you don’t have the right to someones service.

I get it now. I can CHOOSE to commit a crime, then im entitled to someones service. But I DONT choose to get sick, but when I do, Im no longer entitled to medical services.

And you wonder why PRESIDENT BERNIE SANDERS is going to happen? This is why. And its past due.

You also get what you pay for. Bernie couldn’t live through a first term. Then who takes over?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stacy Abrams.

[emoji2957]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pknopp]

We begged them to help us out in Iraq.

Which continues to avoid the point, that we are subsidizing their nanny states. You should at least admit that instead of continuing to try to change the subject.

No, you have decided that they need larger armies, not them.

I started that they would have larger armies than they do if we were not there. That is true, and you have failed to refute it, only attempting to divert.

That's your opinion, not theirs.

Show me how I'm wrong. It's after WWII. Germany has twice in a few decades attempted to overrun Europe, causing millions of deaths and devastating vast portions of the continent. The US goes back home, leaving no military presence.

You're the leadership of France. What do you do?

1. Build a massively expensive nanny state, assuming there will be no further problems from Germany and Italy. After all, they only did it twice.
2. Beg the US to maintain a military presence in the region to help contain any potential aggression, since the US is emerging as one of the world's true super powers.
3. Rebuild your military to be as strong as possible to ensure that you will never be overrun like you just were.

Go on, pick anything other than 3 and make a logical argument for it. prove me wrong.

The world was intent on Keeping Germany down after WWI. That is what led to WWII. That's what we do in countries all around the world. We destroy them. People who have nothing have nothing to lose.

Unless the desire is to attack and destroy other countries these countries have enough military to protect themselves.

 

[BS Filter]

What Bernie Sanders Isn't Telling You About Canadian Health Care

 

[Ame®icano]

Funny how US LAW dictates you are entitled, have a RIGHT to the service of an attorney...when you are accused of a crime. In fact if you cant afford one the govt literally says “one will be provided to you” free of charge. Wow. Thats pretty amazing.

But get sick? OOOOOHHHH NO....now you don’t have the right to someones service.

I get it now. I can CHOOSE to commit a crime, then im entitled to someones service. But I DONT choose to get sick, but when I do, Im no longer entitled to medical services.

And you wonder why PRESIDENT BERNIE SANDERS is going to happen? This is why. And its past due.

Can you tell us, what happens to your constitutional rights when you get convicted of a crime and you're sent to jail?

 

[pknopp]

What Bernie Sanders Isn't Telling You About Canadian Health Care

The Heritage Foundation? LOL

 

[hadit]

Which continues to avoid the point, that we are subsidizing their nanny states. You should at least admit that instead of continuing to try to change the subject.

No, you have decided that they need larger armies, not them.

I started that they would have larger armies than they do if we were not there. That is true, and you have failed to refute it, only attempting to divert.

That's your opinion, not theirs.

Show me how I'm wrong. It's after WWII. Germany has twice in a few decades attempted to overrun Europe, causing millions of deaths and devastating vast portions of the continent. The US goes back home, leaving no military presence.

You're the leadership of France. What do you do?

1. Build a massively expensive nanny state, assuming there will be no further problems from Germany and Italy. After all, they only did it twice.
2. Beg the US to maintain a military presence in the region to help contain any potential aggression, since the US is emerging as one of the world's true super powers.
3. Rebuild your military to be as strong as possible to ensure that you will never be overrun like you just were.

Go on, pick anything other than 3 and make a logical argument for it. prove me wrong.

The world was intent on Keeping Germany down after WWI. That is what led to WWII. That's what we do in countries all around the world. We destroy them. People who have nothing have nothing to lose.

Unless the desire is to attack and destroy other countries these countries have enough military to protect themselves.

Sigh. You're either terminally dense, determined to avoid the point, or desperately pretending to be dense.

I gave you three choices and you didn't even try to address the question.

I'll make this simple. You're NOT making your case. We ARE subsidizing their nanny states with our military expenditures.

 

[ReinyDays]

Old people are ruining the health care system ... them folks is sick ... sick sick sick ...

 

[pknopp]

No, you have decided that they need larger armies, not them.

I started that they would have larger armies than they do if we were not there. That is true, and you have failed to refute it, only attempting to divert.

That's your opinion, not theirs.

Show me how I'm wrong. It's after WWII. Germany has twice in a few decades attempted to overrun Europe, causing millions of deaths and devastating vast portions of the continent. The US goes back home, leaving no military presence.

You're the leadership of France. What do you do?

1. Build a massively expensive nanny state, assuming there will be no further problems from Germany and Italy. After all, they only did it twice.
2. Beg the US to maintain a military presence in the region to help contain any potential aggression, since the US is emerging as one of the world's true super powers.
3. Rebuild your military to be as strong as possible to ensure that you will never be overrun like you just were.

Go on, pick anything other than 3 and make a logical argument for it. prove me wrong.

The world was intent on Keeping Germany down after WWI. That is what led to WWII. That's what we do in countries all around the world. We destroy them. People who have nothing have nothing to lose.

Unless the desire is to attack and destroy other countries these countries have enough military to protect themselves.

Sigh. You're either terminally dense, determined to avoid the point, or desperately pretending to be dense.

I gave you three choices and you didn't even try to address the question.

I'll make this simple. You're NOT making your case. We ARE subsidizing their nanny states with our military expenditures.

LOL.........I gave the correct answer. Just because we want to destroy other countries does not make it right or something other countries wish to pursue.

 

[dblack]

Silly thread.

There's no such thing as a general right to an attorney. The Sixth Amendment is a limitation on government. It says they can't convict you of a crime unless you have legal representation.

That wasn't the argument was it?

Funny how US LAW dictates you are entitled, have a RIGHT to the service of an attorney...when you are accused of a crime. [/i[

Actually, you aren't. That's the point I'm making. You just can't be prosecuted without representation. That's not a right, it's a limitation on government prosecution. It isn't remotely comparable to the supposed "right to health care".

LOL. You can argue that they are different arguments but the OP is correct in what he said about the right to a lawyer. You arent even saying anything different.

Yes. It's the OP's implied conclusions that I'm disputing. The "right" to an attorney, before one can be prosecuted for criminal charges, is in no way comparable to the proposed "right" to the health care. It's a cheap equivocation and not valid comparison.

 

[hadit]

I started that they would have larger armies than they do if we were not there. That is true, and you have failed to refute it, only attempting to divert.

That's your opinion, not theirs.

Show me how I'm wrong. It's after WWII. Germany has twice in a few decades attempted to overrun Europe, causing millions of deaths and devastating vast portions of the continent. The US goes back home, leaving no military presence.

You're the leadership of France. What do you do?

1. Build a massively expensive nanny state, assuming there will be no further problems from Germany and Italy. After all, they only did it twice.
2. Beg the US to maintain a military presence in the region to help contain any potential aggression, since the US is emerging as one of the world's true super powers.
3. Rebuild your military to be as strong as possible to ensure that you will never be overrun like you just were.

Go on, pick anything other than 3 and make a logical argument for it. prove me wrong.

The world was intent on Keeping Germany down after WWI. That is what led to WWII. That's what we do in countries all around the world. We destroy them. People who have nothing have nothing to lose.

Unless the desire is to attack and destroy other countries these countries have enough military to protect themselves.

Sigh. You're either terminally dense, determined to avoid the point, or desperately pretending to be dense.

I gave you three choices and you didn't even try to address the question.

I'll make this simple. You're NOT making your case. We ARE subsidizing their nanny states with our military expenditures.

LOL.........I gave the correct answer. Just because we want to destroy other countries does not make it right or something other countries wish to pursue.

No, you only attempted to avoid the question. It's very simple. I say we subsidize the nanny states in many European countries because our military presence allows them to spend less on their militaries and more on their nanny states. If you don't believe it, back it to with truth and logic. If you don't this time, you've lost and can't recover.

 

[pknopp]

Silly thread.

There's no such thing as a general right to an attorney. The Sixth Amendment is a limitation on government. It says they can't convict you of a crime unless you have legal representation.

That wasn't the argument was it?

Funny how US LAW dictates you are entitled, have a RIGHT to the service of an attorney...when you are accused of a crime. [/i[

Actually, you aren't. That's the point I'm making. You just can't be prosecuted without representation. That's not a right, it's a limitation on government prosecution. It isn't remotely comparable to the supposed "right to health care".

LOL. You can argue that they are different arguments but the OP is correct in what he said about the right to a lawyer. You arent even saying anything different.

Yes. It's the OP's implied conclusions that I'm disputing. The "right" to an attorney, before one can be prosecuted for criminal charges, is in no way comparable to the proposed "right" to the health care. It's a cheap equivocation and not valid comparison.

It's the least a Christian nation should do.

 

[pknopp]

That's your opinion, not theirs.

Show me how I'm wrong. It's after WWII. Germany has twice in a few decades attempted to overrun Europe, causing millions of deaths and devastating vast portions of the continent. The US goes back home, leaving no military presence.

You're the leadership of France. What do you do?

1. Build a massively expensive nanny state, assuming there will be no further problems from Germany and Italy. After all, they only did it twice.
2. Beg the US to maintain a military presence in the region to help contain any potential aggression, since the US is emerging as one of the world's true super powers.
3. Rebuild your military to be as strong as possible to ensure that you will never be overrun like you just were.

Go on, pick anything other than 3 and make a logical argument for it. prove me wrong.

The world was intent on Keeping Germany down after WWI. That is what led to WWII. That's what we do in countries all around the world. We destroy them. People who have nothing have nothing to lose.

Unless the desire is to attack and destroy other countries these countries have enough military to protect themselves.

Sigh. You're either terminally dense, determined to avoid the point, or desperately pretending to be dense.

I gave you three choices and you didn't even try to address the question.

I'll make this simple. You're NOT making your case. We ARE subsidizing their nanny states with our military expenditures.

LOL.........I gave the correct answer. Just because we want to destroy other countries does not make it right or something other countries wish to pursue.

No, you only attempted to avoid the question. It's very simple. I say we subsidize the nanny states in many European countries because our military presence allows them to spend less on their militaries and more on their nanny states. If you don't believe it, back it to with truth and logic. If you don't this time, you've lost and can't recover.

I have. "You say".......I really do not care what "you say". You assume they want to attack multiple countries over lies also.

 

[dblack]

Silly thread.

There's no such thing as a general right to an attorney. The Sixth Amendment is a limitation on government. It says they can't convict you of a crime unless you have legal representation.

That wasn't the argument was it?

Funny how US LAW dictates you are entitled, have a RIGHT to the service of an attorney...when you are accused of a crime. [/i[

Actually, you aren't. That's the point I'm making. You just can't be prosecuted without representation. That's not a right, it's a limitation on government prosecution. It isn't remotely comparable to the supposed "right to health care".

LOL. You can argue that they are different arguments but the OP is correct in what he said about the right to a lawyer. You arent even saying anything different.

Yes. It's the OP's implied conclusions that I'm disputing. The "right" to an attorney, before one can be prosecuted for criminal charges, is in no way comparable to the proposed "right" to the health care. It's a cheap equivocation and not valid comparison.

It's the least a Christian nation should do.

Whatever. We rejected theocracy. We need to reject socialism - for the same reasons.


No one has a "right" to the labor of someone else.

 

[pknopp]

That wasn't the argument was it?

Funny how US LAW dictates you are entitled, have a RIGHT to the service of an attorney...when you are accused of a crime. [/i[

Actually, you aren't. That's the point I'm making. You just can't be prosecuted without representation. That's not a right, it's a limitation on government prosecution. It isn't remotely comparable to the supposed "right to health care".

LOL. You can argue that they are different arguments but the OP is correct in what he said about the right to a lawyer. You arent even saying anything different.

Yes. It's the OP's implied conclusions that I'm disputing. The "right" to an attorney, before one can be prosecuted for criminal charges, is in no way comparable to the proposed "right" to the health care. It's a cheap equivocation and not valid comparison.

It's the least a Christian nation should do.

Whatever. We rejected theocracy. We need to reject socialism - for the same reasons.


No one has a "right" to the labor of someone else.

Outside of bankers, employers and corporate farms.

 

[dblack]

Actually, you aren't. That's the point I'm making. You just can't be prosecuted without representation. That's not a right, it's a limitation on government prosecution. It isn't remotely comparable to the supposed "right to health care".

LOL. You can argue that they are different arguments but the OP is correct in what he said about the right to a lawyer. You arent even saying anything different.

Yes. It's the OP's implied conclusions that I'm disputing. The "right" to an attorney, before one can be prosecuted for criminal charges, is in no way comparable to the proposed "right" to the health care. It's a cheap equivocation and not valid comparison.

It's the least a Christian nation should do.

Whatever. We rejected theocracy. We need to reject socialism - for the same reasons.


No one has a "right" to the labor of someone else.

Outside of bankers, employers and corporate farms.

No, not for them either. Why would you want that?