Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[Arianrhod]

I do drive on them and pay for them.

You paid for the original construction? You're older than I thought.

How much is that food stamp recipient paying in the taxes that fund social welfare.

There's a whole 'nother forum for bitching about food stamps. While they're tangentially related to health (children who are malnourished grow up with a raft of diseases that burden the healthcare system), your OUTRAGE about food stamps might get more feedback in the proper forum.

And by your own definition, you're still a leech for going to public schools.

 

[Conservative65]

I do drive on them and pay for them.

You paid for the original construction? You're older than I thought.

How much is that food stamp recipient paying in the taxes that fund social welfare.

There's a whole 'nother forum for bitching about food stamps. While they're tangentially related to health (children who are malnourished grow up with a raft of diseases that burden the healthcare system), your OUTRAGE about food stamps might get more feedback in the proper forum.

And by your own definition, you're still a leech for going to public schools.

Still making an incorrect claim?

There's something called personal responsibility to pay to exist in society. When are the leeches who get but don't contribute a dime going to do something for the society in which they live. Sticking your hand out expecting others to care for you isn't contributing. The rest of us are tired of supporting good for nothing pieces of shit who work harder seeing how much they can get for nothing than they would have to work to earn a living.

 

[Arianrhod]

Still making an incorrect claim?

So you didn't go to public schools?

There's something called personal responsibility to pay to exist in society.

I agree. And part of it is being a responsible adult who says "My parents' taxes built the bridges and interstates I drive on. Total strangers' taxes paid for my schooling. Jonas Salk refused to patent his polio vaccine, but gave it away so that every child in America could be immunized (until Jenny McCarthy came along). If he'd been like Martin Shkreli, I might have died of complications of polio."

And a few dozen other examples I could give you. Instead, I'll just point out again that you've been paying for other people's healthcare all your life. You've also been lining the pockets of your insurer's stockholders, and getting nothing in return.

The PPACA has made it possible for more people to get insurance, so the pass-through of expenses to hospitals and to you will be less, and your insurer is required by law to spend no less than 80% of your premiums on paying for medical care.

Feel free to try to explain why those are bad things, or just go back to your pre-recorded rant. I'll just sit here and smile benevolently.

 

[Conservative65]

Still making an incorrect claim?

So you didn't go to public schools?

There's something called personal responsibility to pay to exist in society.

I agree. And part of it is being a responsible adult who says "My parents' taxes built the bridges and interstates I drive on. Total strangers' taxes paid for my schooling. Jonas Salk refused to patent his polio vaccine, but gave it away so that every child in America could be immunized (until Jenny McCarthy came along). If he'd been like Martin Shkreli, I might have died of complications of polio."

And a few dozen other examples I could give you. Instead, I'll just point out again that you've been paying for other people's healthcare all your life. You've also been lining the pockets of your insurer's stockholders, and getting nothing in return.

The PPACA has made it possible for more people to get insurance, so the pass-through of expenses to hospitals and to you will be less, and your insurer is required by law to spend no less than 80% of your premiums on paying for medical care.

Feel free to try to explain why those are bad things, or just go back to your pre-recorded rant. I'll just sit here and smile benevolently.

ANYTIME the government sets up where one group is forced to fund something for another group, it's a bad thing. What you need to learn is that one person doesn't owe another person a damn thing.

You mean more like a shit eating grin from puckering up to the Liberal ass.

 

[Arianrhod]

ANYTIME the government sets up where one group is forced to fund something for another group, it's a bad thing.

So in protest, you'll only drive on unpaved roads from now on.

What do you plan to do about mail delivery, sanitation, first responders? Refuse them all? That would be the honest thing to do.

 

[Conservative65]

ANYTIME the government sets up where one group is forced to fund something for another group, it's a bad thing.

So in protest, you'll only drive on unpaved roads from now on.

What do you plan to do about mail delivery, sanitation, first responders? Refuse them all? That would be the honest thing to do.

I pay the taxes that fund those roads. What taxes do the leeches getting a subsidy for healthcare pay that funds the subsidy?

If I pay the taxes that fund something, I use it because I pay for it. When are those using social welfare programs for which they don't pay taxes going to refuse the programs? They aren't. They think it's owed to them even when they don't fund what pays for them.

 

[Arianrhod]

ANYTIME the government sets up where one group is forced to fund something for another group, it's a bad thing.

So in protest, you'll only drive on unpaved roads from now on.

What do you plan to do about mail delivery, sanitation, first responders? Refuse them all? That would be the honest thing to do.

I pay the taxes that fund those roads.

You pay taxes to maintain those roads (unless you're in South Carolina, where the infrastructure just collapsed, making one wonder what that state's legislature was doing with the money), but someone else paid the taxes to construct them.

Total strangers paid taxes so you could go to school.

Others paid taxes long before you were born so that you could have your mail delivered and your trash picked up and first-responders come to your house in an emergency.

 

[Anathema]

Right now there is someone who requires immediate medical care. That care will only be provided for payment. That someone has no money to pay it. You do. Are you not morally obligated to ensure that they receive the care they need?

NO. HELL NO. Not under any circumstance.

 

[Conservative65]

ANYTIME the government sets up where one group is forced to fund something for another group, it's a bad thing.

So in protest, you'll only drive on unpaved roads from now on.

What do you plan to do about mail delivery, sanitation, first responders? Refuse them all? That would be the honest thing to do.

I pay the taxes that fund those roads.

You pay taxes to maintain those roads (unless you're in South Carolina, where the infrastructure just collapsed, making one wonder what that state's legislature was doing with the money), but someone else paid the taxes to construct them.

Total strangers paid taxes so you could go to school.

Others paid taxes long before you were born so that you could have your mail delivered and your trash picked up and first-responders come to your house in an emergency.

So all roads were built before I started paying taxes? Fool

I've stated I went to private school. What taxes did someone else pay for me to go there? Fool

You really don't have a clue about how the system works. Fool.

Typical bleeding heart dumbass.

 

[Arianrhod]

So all roads were built before I started paying taxes?

Did I say "all"? No, I didn't. But the interstates were built under the Eisenhower administration...before you were born. So stay off the interstates, leech.

I've stated I went to private school.

Not in this forum you haven't. So you went to private school? Well, excuse me, Mr. Trump! Private schools get government grants. And many of their graduates have no clue how the 47% live...or is it the 99% these days?

 

[Conservative65]

So all roads were built before I started paying taxes?

Did I say "all"? No, I didn't. But the interstates were built under the Eisenhower administration...before you were born. So stay off the interstates, leech.

I've stated I went to private school.

Not in this forum you haven't. So you went to private school? Well, excuse me, Mr. Trump! Private schools get government grants. And many of their graduates have no clue how the 47% live...or is it the 99% these days?

When you say someone else paid the taxes to construct them, it doesn't indicate any road being built by taxes I paid.

I pay the taxes to fund the building of new interstates and the taxes to maintain them. When you can keep me off of them, I'll stay off. Willing to try and FAIL? Didn't think so.

You're full of excuses.

I know how the 47% live. They live off taxes I pay to fund their food stamps, welfare, WIC, and any other social program they get for nothing. I went to private school because my parents, both of whom were far from wealthy, sacrificed in order to do so. Unlike many parents today, they gave up lots of things to send me there. Too many parents think their kids deserve what mine funded because I had it. Let their parents pay or let them do without.

 

[Arianrhod]

I know how the 47% live. They live off taxes I pay to fund their food stamps, welfare, WIC, and any other social program they get for nothing.

You have proof that 47% of Americans are on welfare? This I've got to see...

 

[Conservative65]

I know how the 47% live. They live off taxes I pay to fund their food stamps, welfare, WIC, and any other social program they get for nothing.

You have proof that 47% of Americans are on welfare? This I've got to see...

The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare

While, according to my source, 35.4% of Americans get means tested social welfare, 47% or more don't pay income taxes. That means the difference of approximately 12% get benefits from living in a society funded by income taxes they don't pay. You might think that's good but those of us constantly demanded to fund those leeches don't. I'm sorry is someone can't make but $7.25/hour but my parents didn't sacrifice to send me to school in order that I earn more so someone that can't cut it gets a share of it. I don't owe them a damn thing.

 

[Arianrhod]

I know how the 47% live. They live off taxes I pay to fund their food stamps, welfare, WIC, and any other social program they get for nothing.

You have proof that 47% of Americans are on welfare? This I've got to see...

The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare

While, according to my source, 35.4% of Americans get means tested social welfare, 47% or more don't pay income taxes. That means the difference of approximately 12% get benefits from living in a society funded by income taxes they don't pay. You might think that's good but those of us constantly demanded to fund those leeches don't. I'm sorry is someone can't make but $7.25/hour but my parents didn't sacrifice to send me to school in order that I earn more so someone that can't cut it gets a share of it. I don't owe them a damn thing.

35.4% is not 47%, and I wonder how that number would look if you removed Walmart employees. Then if you consider that Walmart has driven every other employer out of some areas so that they're the only game in town (and getting $6 billion a year in tax breaks), you might begin to understand why some people are paid only $7.25 an hour.

However, once there's a federally mandated minimum wage of $15 an hour, that will change.

BTW, I hope you're not voting for Ben Carson. His mother was on welfare and food stamps. Should she have just let him starve?

 

[Conservative65]

I know how the 47% live. They live off taxes I pay to fund their food stamps, welfare, WIC, and any other social program they get for nothing.

You have proof that 47% of Americans are on welfare? This I've got to see...

The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare

While, according to my source, 35.4% of Americans get means tested social welfare, 47% or more don't pay income taxes. That means the difference of approximately 12% get benefits from living in a society funded by income taxes they don't pay. You might think that's good but those of us constantly demanded to fund those leeches don't. I'm sorry is someone can't make but $7.25/hour but my parents didn't sacrifice to send me to school in order that I earn more so someone that can't cut it gets a share of it. I don't owe them a damn thing.

35.4% is not 47%, and I wonder how that number would look if you removed Walmart employees. Then if you consider that Walmart has driven every other employer out of some areas so that they're the only game in town (and getting $6 billion a year in tax breaks), you might begin to understand why some people are paid only $7.25 an hour.

However, once there's a federally mandated minimum wage of $15 an hour, that will change.

BTW, I hope you're not voting for Ben Carson. His mother was on welfare and food stamps. Should she have just let him starve?

Take into account those on unemployment and non means tested programs and it's almost 50%. I see you didn't read the link.

Walmart employees are paid $7.25 because they have to be paid that. The law, not their skill level, dictates it.

Are you saying that paying someone $15/hour will help the situation? Perhaps you should look at what happened in Seattle when the wage went up. Instead of people doing what you idiots claim they wanted to do and earn a living, many asked for reduced hours so their benefits wouldn't get cut.

 

[Arianrhod]

Take into account those on unemployment and non means tested programs and it's almost 50%. I see you didn't read the link.

You assume I didn't read the link. Not quite the same thing.

Walmart employees are paid $7.25 because they have to be paid that. The law, not their skill level, dictates it.

You mean they can't be paid less than that. Because if Sam Walton's grandkids could figure out a way to pay them less, they would. Instead, they make the taxpayer pay the difference.

Are you saying that paying someone $15/hour will help the situation? Perhaps you should look at what happened in Seattle when the wage went up.

I suspect you're using data from when the law was passed, almost 18 months ago.

And remember, under your rubric, Ben Carson would have starved.

 

[Conservative65]

Take into account those on unemployment and non means tested programs and it's almost 50%. I see you didn't read the link.

You assume I didn't read the link. Not quite the same thing.

Walmart employees are paid $7.25 because they have to be paid that. The law, not their skill level, dictates it.

You mean they can't be paid less than that. Because if Sam Walton's grandkids could figure out a way to pay them less, they would. Instead, they make the taxpayer pay the difference.

Are you saying that paying someone $15/hour will help the situation? Perhaps you should look at what happened in Seattle when the wage went up.

I suspect you're using data from when the law was passed, almost 18 months ago.

And remember, under your rubric, Ben Carson would have starved.

By the law requiring they get paid $7.25/hour, it means they make more than the skills to do their jobs are worth.

The taxpayers shouldn't be funding anything for them. If their skill level is so low they can't make it, the taxpayers shouldn't be funding it. Blame the bleeding hearts. They make it where a low skilled worker of their own doing gets a handout.

Under my rubric, Ben Carson overcame poverty. He didn't simply accept someone supporting him like so many multi-generational social welfare leeches. He decided it wasn't the way to go. Wish more were like him.

 

[Conservative65]

Take into account those on unemployment and non means tested programs and it's almost 50%. I see you didn't read the link.

You assume I didn't read the link. Not quite the same thing.

Walmart employees are paid $7.25 because they have to be paid that. The law, not their skill level, dictates it.

You mean they can't be paid less than that. Because if Sam Walton's grandkids could figure out a way to pay them less, they would. Instead, they make the taxpayer pay the difference.

Are you saying that paying someone $15/hour will help the situation? Perhaps you should look at what happened in Seattle when the wage went up.

I suspect you're using data from when the law was passed, almost 18 months ago.

And remember, under your rubric, Ben Carson would have starved.

I'm using data from less than 18 weeks ago when the stories began coming out that Seattle workers were asking for less hours.

The date of this source is 7/26/2015. After Getting $15 Minimum Wage, Seattle Employees Now Want Less Hours So They Can Stay On Welfare

 

[Arianrhod]

By the law requiring they get paid $7.25/hour, it means they make more than the skills to do their jobs are worth.

The CEO of Costco disagrees. But what does he know?

The taxpayers shouldn't be funding anything for them.

But you are. Actually, given that recent $6 billion tax break, you're funding the Waltons.

Say more about "leeches."

 

[Conservative65]

By the law requiring they get paid $7.25/hour, it means they make more than the skills to do their jobs are worth.

The CEO of Costco disagrees. But what does he know?

The taxpayers shouldn't be funding anything for them.

But you are. Actually, given that recent $6 billion tax break, you're funding the Waltons.

Say more about "leeches."

I've said all I need to say about leeches like you.

The CEO of Costco can disagree. It's his choice. I don't have a choice but to subsidize leeches. Bleeding hearts like you mandate it. You're ruining this country and are too fucking stupid to realize it.