Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Wars, but no Health care

kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 1:42:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I was listening to an NPR broadcast, and they were talking about how there are lots of people up in arms about the spending of money for the Health care bill, but people barley raise an eyebrow about the billions spent on war every month.

Let me begin by saying that I do not advocate Obama's plan, but it's funny how the party of "NO" has something to say, when they were intricate to the plummeting economy. The financial breakdown started before the Bush administration, but they were the most brazen, and arrogant.

I don't recall many people challenging Bush's spending,how much government expanded under his tenure, and in fact his administration started these stimulus bills before they existed office, yet Obama is being called reckless. I guess this is just politics 101 at it's best.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 1:46:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 1:42:44 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I was listening to an NPR broadcast, and they were talking about how there are lots of people up in arms about the spending of money for the Health care bill, but people barley raise an eyebrow about the billions spent on war every month.
Not on Fox. On all the other channels when any spending is mentioned they always have to point out the war money. Doesn't make it right, just annoying.
Let me begin by saying that I do not advocate Obama's plan, but it's funny how the party of "NO" has something to say, when they were intricate to the plummeting economy. The financial breakdown started before the Bush administration, but they were the most brazen, and arrogant.
Eh.
I don't recall many people challenging Bush's spending,how much government expanded under his tenure, and in fact his administration started these stimulus bills before they existed office, yet Obama is being called reckless. I guess this is just politics 101 at it's best.

Yea, it's funny how hypocritical everyone is about this. I mean, both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats about the war and Republicans about spending money.

Honestly, I don't think either of them were great decisions. However, now they we started the war we have to finish it. If not, all those billions of dollars and thousands of lives were for nothing. I think that in the end it will have a good result but the ends still don't justify the means.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 1:54:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 1:46:44 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 11/30/2009 1:42:44 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I was listening to an NPR broadcast, and they were talking about how there are lots of people up in arms about the spending of money for the Health care bill, but people barley raise an eyebrow about the billions spent on war every month.
Not on Fox. On all the other channels when any spending is mentioned they always have to point out the war money. Doesn't make it right, just annoying.
Let me begin by saying that I do not advocate Obama's plan, but it's funny how the party of "NO" has something to say, when they were intricate to the plummeting economy. The financial breakdown started before the Bush administration, but they were the most brazen, and arrogant.
Eh.

???
I don't recall many people challenging Bush's spending,how much government expanded under his tenure, and in fact his administration started these stimulus bills before they existed office, yet Obama is being called reckless. I guess this is just politics 101 at it's best.

Yea, it's funny how hypocritical everyone is about this. I mean, both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats about the war and Republicans about spending money.

Honestly, I don't think either of them were great decisions. However, now they we started the war we have to finish it. If not, all those billions of dollars and thousands of lives were for nothing. I think that in the end it will have a good result but the ends still don't justify the means.

What will make things even?...Will our country be stuck in a perpetual time capsule?Are we reliving Vietnam again? So it is not a question of how many innocent lives are getting lost on BOTH sides, but how much money we loose.DOesn't register with me. Military industrial complex makes my blood boil.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:03:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 1:54:07 PM, kelly224 wrote:
At 11/30/2009 1:46:44 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 11/30/2009 1:42:44 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I was listening to an NPR broadcast, and they were talking about how there are lots of people up in arms about the spending of money for the Health care bill, but people barley raise an eyebrow about the billions spent on war every month.
Not on Fox. On all the other channels when any spending is mentioned they always have to point out the war money. Doesn't make it right, just annoying.
Let me begin by saying that I do not advocate Obama's plan, but it's funny how the party of "NO" has something to say, when they were intricate to the plummeting economy. The financial breakdown started before the Bush administration, but they were the most brazen, and arrogant.
Eh.

???
Honestly, I'm a little confused on what you're saying. Are you saying that the Republican Party was intricate in the financial breakdown? If so, I was thinking that it was caused by more bi-partisan means.
I don't recall many people challenging Bush's spending,how much government expanded under his tenure, and in fact his administration started these stimulus bills before they existed office, yet Obama is being called reckless. I guess this is just politics 101 at it's best.

Yea, it's funny how hypocritical everyone is about this. I mean, both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats about the war and Republicans about spending money.

Honestly, I don't think either of them were great decisions. However, now they we started the war we have to finish it. If not, all those billions of dollars and thousands of lives were for nothing. I think that in the end it will have a good result but the ends still don't justify the means.

What will make things even?...Will our country be stuck in a perpetual time capsule?Are we reliving Vietnam again? So it is not a question of how many innocent lives are getting lost on BOTH sides, but how much money we loose.DOesn't register with me. Military industrial complex makes my blood boil.

Nothing will makes things even.
This is different than Vietnam. We already won the war in Iraq, Vietnam we never did.
If we give up now, all those lives and all that money was for nothing. We're getting close, we've almost stabilized Iraq so that we can finally be free of that burden.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:08:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 2:03:01 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 11/30/2009 1:54:07 PM, kelly224 wrote:
At 11/30/2009 1:46:44 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 11/30/2009 1:42:44 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I was listening to an NPR broadcast, and they were talking about how there are lots of people up in arms about the spending of money for the Health care bill, but people barley raise an eyebrow about the billions spent on war every month.
Not on Fox. On all the other channels when any spending is mentioned they always have to point out the war money. Doesn't make it right, just annoying.
Let me begin by saying that I do not advocate Obama's plan, but it's funny how the party of "NO" has something to say, when they were intricate to the plummeting economy. The financial breakdown started before the Bush administration, but they were the most brazen, and arrogant.
Eh.

???
Honestly, I'm a little confused on what you're saying. Are you saying that the Republican Party was intricate in the financial breakdown? If so, I was thinking that it was caused by more bi-partisan means.
I don't recall many people challenging Bush's spending,how much government expanded under his tenure, and in fact his administration started these stimulus bills before they existed office, yet Obama is being called reckless. I guess this is just politics 101 at it's best.

Yea, it's funny how hypocritical everyone is about this. I mean, both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats about the war and Republicans about spending money.

Honestly, I don't think either of them were great decisions. However, now they we started the war we have to finish it. If not, all those billions of dollars and thousands of lives were for nothing. I think that in the end it will have a good result but the ends still don't justify the means.

What will make things even?...Will our country be stuck in a perpetual time capsule?Are we reliving Vietnam again? So it is not a question of how many innocent lives are getting lost on BOTH sides, but how much money we loose.DOesn't register with me. Military industrial complex makes my blood boil.

Nothing will makes things even.
This is different than Vietnam. We already won the war in Iraq, Vietnam we never did.
If we give up now, all those lives and all that money was for nothing. We're getting close, we've almost stabilized Iraq so that we can finally be free of that burden.

You call killing millions of people stabilizing?...It's glamorized for American viewers as if war is glorious. We are MURDERING people, not making solid ground.

How do you win a war four or five years ago, and still fight today?..That does not sound like a win to me.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:19:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 1:42:44 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I was listening to an NPR broadcast, and they were talking about how there are lots of people up in arms about the spending of money for the Health care bill, but people barley raise an eyebrow about the billions spent on war every month.

Let me begin by saying that I do not advocate Obama's plan, but it's funny how the party of "NO" has something to say, when they were intricate to the plummeting economy. The financial breakdown started before the Bush administration, but they were the most brazen, and arrogant.

I don't recall many people challenging Bush's spending,how much government expanded under his tenure, and in fact his administration started these stimulus bills before they existed office, yet Obama is being called reckless. I guess this is just politics 101 at it's best.

Compare the deficits.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:21:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 2:19:57 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Compare the deficits.

Consider if the recession had happened earlier, and Bush was president over it as long as Obama has been - would the deficit be higher, lower, or about the same? Hm?
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:22:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 2:08:21 PM, kelly224 wrote:
At 11/30/2009 2:03:01 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 11/30/2009 1:54:07 PM, kelly224 wrote:
At 11/30/2009 1:46:44 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 11/30/2009 1:42:44 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I was listening to an NPR broadcast, and they were talking about how there are lots of people up in arms about the spending of money for the Health care bill, but people barley raise an eyebrow about the billions spent on war every month.
Not on Fox. On all the other channels when any spending is mentioned they always have to point out the war money. Doesn't make it right, just annoying.
Let me begin by saying that I do not advocate Obama's plan, but it's funny how the party of "NO" has something to say, when they were intricate to the plummeting economy. The financial breakdown started before the Bush administration, but they were the most brazen, and arrogant.
Eh.

???
Honestly, I'm a little confused on what you're saying. Are you saying that the Republican Party was intricate in the financial breakdown? If so, I was thinking that it was caused by more bi-partisan means.
I don't recall many people challenging Bush's spending,how much government expanded under his tenure, and in fact his administration started these stimulus bills before they existed office, yet Obama is being called reckless. I guess this is just politics 101 at it's best.

Yea, it's funny how hypocritical everyone is about this. I mean, both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats about the war and Republicans about spending money.

Honestly, I don't think either of them were great decisions. However, now they we started the war we have to finish it. If not, all those billions of dollars and thousands of lives were for nothing. I think that in the end it will have a good result but the ends still don't justify the means.

What will make things even?...Will our country be stuck in a perpetual time capsule?Are we reliving Vietnam again? So it is not a question of how many innocent lives are getting lost on BOTH sides, but how much money we loose.DOesn't register with me. Military industrial complex makes my blood boil.

Nothing will makes things even.
This is different than Vietnam. We already won the war in Iraq, Vietnam we never did.
If we give up now, all those lives and all that money was for nothing. We're getting close, we've almost stabilized Iraq so that we can finally be free of that burden.

You call killing millions of people stabilizing?...It's glamorized for American viewers as if war is glorious. We are MURDERING people, not making solid ground.
Where are we killing millions of people? We're acting as a police force that is killing terroristic threats. Do I think we should be doing that? Not really, I think that's the job of the Iraqi government.
How do you win a war four or five years ago, and still fight today?..That does not sound like a win to me.

Wait, are you talking about Afghanistan or Iraq? In Iraq we're not really "fighting" anymore. We're just taking out isolated terroristic threats and trying to protect the common Iraqi people.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:23:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 2:21:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/30/2009 2:19:57 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Compare the deficits.

Consider if the recession had happened earlier, and Bush was president over it as long as Obama has been - would the deficit be higher, lower, or about the same? Hm?

Higher, because more time would've gone by and Bush is a sad excuse for a Conservative.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:27:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 2:21:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/30/2009 2:19:57 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Compare the deficits.

Consider if the recession had happened earlier, and Bush was president over it as long as Obama has been - would the deficit be higher, lower, or about the same? Hm?

It would certainly be higher, I don't argue that. But not near to this extent. IMO, the switch to National Healthcare (not that I'm for it) should be done at a point further in the future. Furthermore the situmulus. I really don't have to go on any further about its ineffectiveness. Furthermore when your Federal Reserve chairman warns you that the deficit is too high, there are bound to be problems.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:31:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 2:21:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/30/2009 2:19:57 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Compare the deficits.

Consider if the recession had happened earlier, and Bush was president over it as long as Obama has been - would the deficit be higher, lower, or about the same? Hm?

Yes, let's just consider the hypothetical that if Bush was in office for nine years and that the recession happened earlier. Oh, ya got us there. :P Obama has spent much more than Bush - stimulus, bailouts, and the overall budget was raised by half a trillion.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:33:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
sig update
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:35:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 1:42:44 PM, kelly224 wrote:
I was listening to an NPR broadcast, and they were talking about how there are lots of people up in arms about the spending of money for the Health care bill, but people barley raise an eyebrow about the billions spent on war every month.

Let me begin by saying that I do not advocate Obama's plan, but it's funny how the party of "NO" has something to say, when they were intricate to the plummeting economy. The financial breakdown started before the Bush administration, but they were the most brazen, and arrogant.

I don't recall many people challenging Bush's spending,how much government expanded under his tenure, and in fact his administration started these stimulus bills before they existed office, yet Obama is being called reckless. I guess this is just politics 101 at it's best.

If the Health care bill did not suck so bad, than it would be excepted.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:39:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 2:27:30 PM, johngriswald wrote:
It would certainly be higher, I don't argue that. But not near to this extent. IMO, the switch to National Healthcare (not that I'm for it) should be done at a point further in the future.

Agreed.

Furthermore when your Federal Reserve chairman warns you that the deficit is too high, there are bound to be problems.

Agreed.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 2:39:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 2:33:04 PM, johngriswald wrote:
sig update

14 + 7 =/ 22 but we all know that 2 + 2 = 5.
How do we know? Well, besides George Orwell, if:
you cube 2 you get 8. 8 times 5 equals 40 which when you take the 0 off (as 0 isn't equal to anything) you get 4. However, We all know that 4 doesn't exist so you must go to the next number is 5.
Want more proof? Well here's list of #'s in order from 0-10:
0,1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10
If you count all those numbers up, you get 10.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 3:16:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
They should just scratch this bill and try again.

To force yourself to put a quick timeline on something this big comes across as corrupt or just plain ignorant.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 4:43:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 1:42:44 PM, kelly224 wrote:
there are lots of people up in arms about the spending of money for the Health care bill, but people barely raise an eyebrow about the billions spent on war every month.

This really needed to be said. I've been saying this sense the stupid health care debate started. I'm thinking to myself, why the F*** do people support war, guns, death, and violence, but when the government wants to give health care to poor people, oh no, can't have that. And to the people who say "I don't want my tax dollars paying for their health care." Well, you don't seem to mind that your tax dollars are being used to kill innocent people in Iraq in a useless war.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 4:53:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 2:35:22 PM, comoncents wrote:
If the Health care bill did not suck so bad, than it would be excepted.

If it didn't entitle anyone or redistribute wealth to people who claim they can't "afford" it, when they mysteriously can afford a cell phone bill, cable and the internet, long with various other luxuries, and wasn't stuffed full of millions of dollars worth of giveaways states so their respective representative or senator will vote for it, and actually aimed at doing some good, and was written in a coherent matter that only consisted of 5 pages or less, then yes, I'm sure it would be accepted by the public.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 4:57:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 4:43:08 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
This really needed to be said. I've been saying this sense the stupid health care debate started. I'm thinking to myself, why the F*** do people support war, guns, death, and violence, but when the government wants to give health care to poor people, oh no, can't have that. And to the people who say "I don't want my tax dollars paying for their health care." Well, you don't seem to mind that your tax dollars are being used to kill innocent people in Iraq in a useless war.

Apparently you need to get out more and see the world. No one in the US is poor. The only people who are homeless are those to proud to take advantage of the governments various giveaways.

Travel to a country such as Iraq or Afghanistan and witness real poor people, who are not only poor but are being tortured, suppressed, and murdered. Americans are sad sorry excuses for people who are supposedly poor.

Poor in the US basically means you don't own your own home or have more than 1 car.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:01:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 4:57:38 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Apparently you need to get out more and see the world. No one in the US is poor. The only people who are homeless are those to proud to take advantage of the governments various giveaways.

This is a false statement if I've ever seen one. There are many people below the poverty line in the US, let alone homeless, and I for one do not call that satisfying. You may rate how "poor" someone is on the basis of comparison with third-world countries, but no sane person actually follows such results. Poverty is based on the country's own living standards - not the standards of other countries.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:01:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 4:57:38 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Apparently you need to get out more and see the world. No one in the US is poor. The only people who are homeless are those to proud to take advantage of the governments various giveaways.

Travel to a country such as Iraq or Afghanistan and witness real poor people, who are not only poor but are being tortured, suppressed, and murdered. Americans are sad sorry excuses for people who are supposedly poor.

Poor in the US basically means you don't own your own home or have more than 1 car.

That's besides the point. There are people who can't afford health care, regardless of whether you think they're poor or not. Of course people in other countries have it worse than poor people in America, however, that doesn't mean any of it is justified. All it's doing is maintaining a low standard.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:08:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 5:01:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That's besides the point. There are people who can't afford health care, regardless of whether you think they're poor or not. Of course people in other countries have it worse than poor people in America, however, that doesn't mean any of it is justified. All it's doing is maintaining a low standard.

Really? They can't afford it? Really?

You're saying that the people who can't afford it have no:

Cell Phone Bills
Internet Bills
Cable Bills
Mortgage
Car
Computer
TV
Don't on vacation
Don't buy cigarrettes or alcohol
Buy generic food
Accept any government assistance that is applicable
Don't buy any name brand clothing
Don't buy any drugs
Don't go out to eat
Don't spend money on any form of entertainment
etc.

You're really going to tell me there are people who fit the above description who aren't Amish?
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:17:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 5:01:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/30/2009 4:57:38 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Apparently you need to get out more and see the world. No one in the US is poor. The only people who are homeless are those to proud to take advantage of the governments various giveaways.

Travel to a country such as Iraq or Afghanistan and witness real poor people, who are not only poor but are being tortured, suppressed, and murdered. Americans are sad sorry excuses for people who are supposedly poor.

Poor in the US basically means you don't own your own home or have more than 1 car.

That's besides the point. There are people who can't afford health care, regardless of whether you think they're poor or not. Of course people in other countries have it worse than poor people in America, however, that doesn't mean any of it is justified. All it's doing is maintaining a low standard.

Then throw away this bill and provide something that will make it more affordable.

This bill just raises the price of healthcare for people that can not get it.

Several provisions in the Senate bill will cause many people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage, significantly driving up premiums for everyone. These include severely restricting discounts for young people, very low financial penalties for not purchasing coverage, while still requiring insurers to guarantee coverage regardless of preexisting conditions. Many young people, in particular, are likely to pay the nominal fine, rather than purchase coverage that costs far more than the penalty.
Adding the previously uninsured will significantly increase premiums in the individual market. Contrary to CBO, Oliver Wyman, Inc.'s analysis of actual claims' costs in the individual market predicts that the uninsured will actually be 20 percent more expensive to insure than those in the individual market today. Had CBO adopted a similar assumption, their premium impact would have been approximately 30 percent higher.
The impact will vary significantly by state because of regional differences in rating laws today. Oliver Wyman, Inc. found that two-thirds of Americans live in states where the average premium impact will be much higher than a national average.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:17:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 5:08:27 PM, johngriswald wrote:
At 11/30/2009 5:01:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
That's besides the point. There are people who can't afford health care, regardless of whether you think they're poor or not. Of course people in other countries have it worse than poor people in America, however, that doesn't mean any of it is justified. All it's doing is maintaining a low standard.

Really? They can't afford it? Really?

You're saying that the people who can't afford it have no:

Cell Phone Bills
Internet Bills
Cable Bills
Mortgage
Car
Computer
TV
Don't on vacation
Don't buy cigarrettes or alcohol
Buy generic food
Accept any government assistance that is applicable
Don't buy any name brand clothing
Don't buy any drugs
Don't go out to eat
Don't spend money on any form of entertainment
etc.

You're really going to tell me there are people who fit the above description who aren't Amish?

I can't afford health care. I have a job that allows me to get by with a car loan payment, a car insurance payment, a cell phone payment, and a little bit leftover for food and gas. I can't afford my own place, I can't afford my own health care, I can barely pay my college tuition. I can't afford these things, not because I'm lazy, but because I don't get enough hours and not enough pay. So I legitimately can't afford health care.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:22:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 5:17:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I can't afford health care. I have a job that allows me to get by with a car loan payment, a car insurance payment, a cell phone payment, and a little bit leftover for food and gas.

Use Public Transportation
Sell Your Car
Use a Track Phone
Buy Pasta and Sauce (66 cents a meal)
Find some roommates to split the rent with
Take up a second part time job

Viola
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:24:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 5:17:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I can't afford health care. I have a job that allows me to get by with a car loan payment, a car insurance payment, a cell phone payment, and a little bit leftover for food and gas. I can't afford my own place, I can't afford my own health care, I can barely pay my college tuition. I can't afford these things, not because I'm lazy, but because I don't get enough hours and not enough pay. So I legitimately can't afford health care.

If you're in that state, you're applicable for government aid to cover housing, tuition, and food.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:26:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 5:22:18 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Use Public Transportation

Does not always stretch to areas where he needs to go.

Sell Your Car

Can go to areas where he needs to go.

Use a Track Phone

Those can get fairly expensive over time.

Buy Pasta and Sauce (66 cents a meal)

Point, sort of.

Find some roommates to split the rent with

Definitely not always possible.

Take up a second part time job

Also not always possible.

Viola

Viola, government tells people that they have to tighten their belt because the government is too cheap and stupid (because it obviously doesn't care about its election next year) to fix some of the major problems that cause poverty, which are not always fixable with your rather simple solutions.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:37:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 5:26:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/30/2009 5:22:18 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Use Public Transportation

Does not always stretch to areas where he needs to go.

Rent an apartment close to your work and carpool/bike

Those can get fairly expensive over time.

No they really don't.

Definitely not always possible.

It absolutely is.

Also not always possible.
Mcdonalds and tons of other fast food joints, always hire. Seriously, I know this to be truth.

Viola, government tells people that they have to tighten their belt because the government is too cheap and stupid (because it obviously doesn't care about its election next year) to fix some of the major problems that cause poverty, which are not always fixable with your rather simple solutions.

Yes they are, people are just too stupid/stubborn to utilize them and its easier to beg for help than it is to help yourself.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:46:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 5:37:23 PM, johngriswald wrote:
Rent an apartment close to your work and carpool/bike

Again - not always possible, nor feasible.

No they really don't.

Yes, they really do, especially if your job and your social life depends on it. I am distinctly aware of this conundrum; I went through it years ago, and my roommate is going through it right now.

It absolutely is.

So, you expect Geo to automatically have a willing friend and roommate, one who is trustworthy and bearable 100% of the time, as is the situation with all such roommates and individuals?

Mcdonalds and tons of other fast food joints, always hire. Seriously, I know this to be truth.

Holding two jobs is quite the burden; scheduling conflicts, transportation (especially after your "reforms") and even any useful pay may not be able to cover all of his needs. The standard of living is quite high, you know.

Yes they are, people are just too stupid/stubborn to utilize them and its easier to beg for help than it is to help yourself.

Not their problem, or will you force them to tighten their belts to the point where they can no longer breath? It won't take much.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2009 5:50:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/30/2009 5:17:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

I can't afford health care. I have a job that allows me to get by with a car loan payment, a car insurance payment, a cell phone payment, and a little bit leftover for food and gas. I can't afford my own place, I can't afford my own health care, I can barely pay my college tuition. I can't afford these things, not because I'm lazy, but because I don't get enough hours and not enough pay. So I legitimately can't afford health care.

Then, you don't want this health bill to pass.