Maybe Now People Will Take Their Votes More Seriously

ViRedd

New Member
I didn't know that, I thought you picked VI Redd because of your obsession with communism, I figured V for Vladimir I for llyich and redd for commies favorite color. lol I guess i was a little off
^^^^ Good one. :bigjoint:

Now you see, miss ... I appreciate well thought out, humorous verse as displayed above by natrone. You should get a clue yourself. I only attack attackers ... and so far, you are an attacker.

And by the way, miss ... you don't piss me off at all. I just shake my head in disbelief at your stupidity and try to convey a little education your way.

Vi
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
After much thought I have come to the very depressing conclusion that it is some how in my best interests to vote for McCain.

Why couldn't have that dumb ass joined the Democrats like he said he was going to in 2004?
 

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
McCain DID join us -- he's been working for us for the last year. Picking Palin was our idea, so that he'd lose in a landslide. Being a loyal Democrat, McCain has followed our orders perfectly. Now all he has to do is seal the deal, and make the public hate him and his VP pick enough to give Obama that landslide. So far, so good! ;)
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
McCain want to slap an income tax on everyones health insurance. Yep less money in the pockets of taxpayers, that'll give the health care crisis a boost. :bigjoint:



After much thought I have come to the very depressing conclusion that it is some how in my best interests to vote for McCain.

Why couldn't have that dumb ass joined the Democrats like he said he was going to in 2004?
 

ViRedd

New Member
After much thought I have come to the very depressing conclusion that it is some how in my best interests to vote for McCain.

Why couldn't have that dumb ass joined the Democrats like he said he was going to in 2004?
My thoughts exactly. Depressing, isn't it?

Vi
 

ViRedd

New Member
McCain want to slap an income tax on everyones health insurance. Yep less money in the pockets of taxpayers, that'll give the health care crisis a boost. :bigjoint:
There is no "health care" crisis. The "crisis" exists in the average American's diet and lack of exercise.

Vi
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
I beg to differ. I have 2 adult children who both work and pay taxes, social security and medicare tax. Neither one of them has any health care benefits. One of them works for a federally funded agency but gets no health insurance. Neither one of them is paid enough to make ends meet, buy food, gas and private health care.

Just because YOU are using the taxpayer funded medicare system and have health insurance, you are unable to see it. People who are paying for YOUR medicare but can't afford the price of an office call, do feel there is a health care crisis.

Repeating lies does not make them true. Ignoring the rest of the people of the country does not mean they are living high off the hog. How would you feel if you were paying taxes for medical care that you won't qualify for until 50 years go by. Meanwhile you are sick and would like to go see a doctor, but can't afford the office call? You will never understand because you are already of the age to suck of the government titty.
 

ViRedd

New Member
^^^ What does a medical insurance policy cost when it has a high deductable, say a $2500 or a $5000, or even a $10,000 deductable? Go online to explore the options. Here's some links:

http://ezinearticles.com/?High-Deductible-Health-Insurance-Can-Save-You-Lots-of-Money&id=731340

http://www.christianet.com/healthinsurance/highdeductiblehealthinsurance.htm

http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/general/2007/06/07/health-insurance-for-healthy-people.aspx

Yes, I get Medicare benefits ... THAT I PAY FOR. I also have supplemental medical insurance through Blue Cross ... THAT I PAY FOR.

I have NEVER been without medical insurance and my family was/has never been uninsured for medical care.

What "luxuries" do your children have that they could do without? Cable TV? Dinners out? Unnecessary car trips? Vacations? Beer? Cigarettes? Unhealthy foods?

And then there is always the option of taking second jobs. I know it would be a lot easier to have your adult children's next door neighbor pay for their medical insurance, but wouldn't a second job be the more moral option?

Do your adult children go without auto insurance too?

Please list the reasons why your fellow citizens should be paying for your adult children's medical insurance. Thanks ...

Vi
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
I beg to differ. I have 2 adult children who both work and pay taxes, social security and medicare tax. Neither one of them has any health care benefits. One of them works for a federally funded agency but gets no health insurance. Neither one of them is paid enough to make ends meet, buy food, gas and private health care.

Just because YOU are using the taxpayer funded medicare system and have health insurance, you are unable to see it. People who are paying for YOUR medicare but can't afford the price of an office call, do feel there is a health care crisis.

Repeating lies does not make them true. Ignoring the rest of the people of the country does not mean they are living high off the hog. How would you feel if you were paying taxes for medical care that you won't qualify for until 50 years go by. Meanwhile you are sick and would like to go see a doctor, but can't afford the office call? You will never understand because you are already of the age to suck of the government titty.
Yes, and I'm one of those people that have elected not to have Health Insurance, because the benefits do not justify the expense. Yet some how, in the demented world of the left, it is my fault that medical costs are higher than before.

I fail to see how this makes sense. When I go see my optometrist, I pay cash. I cut out a lot of BS paperwork that the doctor would otherwise have to deal with. Provide instant return on work, and leave no outstanding balance. (It averages right around $350/year for two visits to see him.)

Then, on top of that, I'm stuck paying for some one else's medical care. Now the government is trying to add even more people that I'll be stuck paying for.

The left fails to think logically, and clearly, and neglects the fact that Society is comprised of individuals. Thus to strengthen society you must empower an individual by lowering taxes.

They also neglect to mention that the only people that truly benefit from more government are the bureaucrats.
 

ViRedd

New Member
^^^^ Another thing that I've learned over the years is that doctors and hospitals can be negotiated with on their terms and fees.

Vi
 

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
What's your plan if you go into the doc, TBT, and he tells you, "It appears you have a malignant lump in your brain. Surgery and treatment will cost $350,000, and will give you a 70% chance of regaining a normal life." You have $350k cash? Okay, then add a million to it. Got that much cash? And if not? Your plan will have to be one of two things: 1) emergency room treatment at enormous taxpayer expense; or 2) die. Plus bankruptcy, and stiffing your creditors, so that goes onto the back of the taxpayers too, in the form of increased costs that your creditors have to charge to cover the losses you just created.

It's *cheaper* if we give everyone health insurance, because then we'll catch things early, when they cost $5k to fix, instead of not even knowing about the problem until the taxpayer has to eat $200k in costs via emergency room treatment.

The "pray I don't get sick" plan (if you want to call it that) works for some people. But for those it doesn't, we all pay a very steep price for that in increased costs passed along to everyone.

Now, if we eliminate the emergency room treatment of the needy (and just let TBT die instead of attempting costly treatment UNLESS he coughs up the cash FIRST), well, that would save some money. We'd all have to be willing to watch video of dying people being turned away from hospitals. Obviously, some of them would be children too. I'm not sure how long that would go on before someone said, "Hey, ya know, just letting people die because they lack cash...is this really who we are as a people?"
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
What's your plan if you go into the doc, TBT, and he tells you, "It appears you have a malignant lump in your brain. Surgery and treatment will cost $350,000, and will give you a 70% chance of regaining a normal life." You have $350k cash? Okay, then add a million to it. Got that much cash? And if not? Your plan will have to be one of two things: 1) emergency room treatment at enormous taxpayer expense; or 2) die. Plus bankruptcy, and stiffing your creditors, so that goes onto the back of the taxpayers too, in the form of increased costs that your creditors have to charge to cover the losses you just created.

It's *cheaper* if we give everyone health insurance, because then we'll catch things early, when they cost $5k to fix, instead of not even knowing about the problem until the taxpayer has to eat $200k in costs via emergency room treatment.

The "pray I don't get sick" plan (if you want to call it that) works for some people. But for those it doesn't, we all pay a very steep price for that in increased costs passed along to everyone.

Now, if we eliminate the emergency room treatment of the needy (and just let TBT die instead of attempting costly treatment UNLESS he coughs up the cash FIRST), well, that would save some money. We'd all have to be willing to watch video of dying people being turned away from hospitals. Obviously, some of them would be children too. I'm not sure how long that would go on before someone said, "Hey, ya know, just letting people die because they lack cash...is this really who we are as a people?"
Right, and that's happening right now?

Bongulator the problem with your "hypothetical" is that it is such an extreme scenario that it is unlikely.

That, and why the fuck should I have to pay for the insurance of other people, when I CAN NOT AFFORD MY OWN!

This isn't a matter of should we support other people, it is a matter of, should we force other people into slavery for others.

The answer is, and always will be, NO, because slavery is immoral.

Obama isn't CHANGE, Obama is just more of the same old BS Socialist Crap.

And neither of those asshats actually has a plan that will reduce costs.

Supply and Demand, since Demand is continuously going up as the population increases then the only real solution is to increase supply.

Not to try controlling demand (which is what McCain and Obama both want to do).

Unless you are going to pull a ChuckBane and start saying we should kill people Bongulator?
 

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
So, your solution for those who can't afford healthcare is to let them die? I'm trying to understand your position here. Emergency room visits are a very expensive form of universal health care. ANYBODY can go to an emergency room and by law must receive treatment. (That they are sometimes ditched on Skid Row can be ignored, as that's a law enforcement issue, and isn't currently legal.)

If you're against emergency room treatments for those without healthcare, then you are advocating for killing poor children who need treatment. If you think those children should be treated, then you are advocating for a poorly-implemented and outrageously expensive form of universal healthcare in the form of emergency room treatment.

Which is it?
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
So, your solution for those who can't afford healthcare is to let them die? I'm trying to understand your position here. Emergency room visits are a very expensive form of universal health care. ANYBODY can go to an emergency room and by law must receive treatment. (That they are sometimes ditched on Skid Row can be ignored, as that's a law enforcement issue, and isn't currently legal.)

If you're against emergency room treatments for those without healthcare, then you are advocating for killing poor children who need treatment. If you think those children should be treated, then you are advocating for a poorly-implemented and outrageously expensive form of universal healthcare in the form of emergency room treatment.

Which is it?
I'm not saying that, or anything like that.

I'm saying that the government should stop trying to control demand, and focus on increasing supply.

We need more doctors, to encourage more competition. We need to free doctors up to find new treatment methods. We need to get government out of medicine.

Why the hell do we have doctors answering to bureaucrats in D.C. about their treatments?

Why do we see so many doctors unwilling to try alternative medicine, due to idiotic government meddling. How will we learn what alternatives work with out letting the doctors use them?

Things like medical maggots and bacteriophage therapy.

Why are we supporting a government that seems to only want to push more and more drugs on us?

Why are we allowing teachers dictate to us that we need to force "hyper active" children take Ritalin.
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
So, your solution for those who can't afford healthcare is to let them die? I'm trying to understand your position here. Emergency room visits are a very expensive form of universal health care. ANYBODY can go to an emergency room and by law must receive treatment. (That they are sometimes ditched on Skid Row can be ignored, as that's a law enforcement issue, and isn't currently legal.)
Speaking of,
In Texas, illegals are going to the emergency room to receive free treatment instead of going to the local medstop for their minor ailments where they have to pay. The emergency rooms are overloaded and Americans cannot get timely emergency room sevice.

When you subsidize something you get more of it. - Dr Ron Paul
 

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
Yep, doctors take an oath to help the sick, so that's what they do. The oath doesn't require them to help only the paying sick; they have to help ANYONE sick, at least if they take their oath seriously, and most do. That's just part of being a doctor. If we get rid of all the doctors then we could run the medical care establishment differently and turn away anyone without insurance or cash. Of course, there being no doctors might have an impact on the quality of the care.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Hey, Bong ...

True story: I have a friend who drinks between 12 and 20 beers a day. He chews tobacco like its going out of style. His idea of a nutritious meal is a Stoffer's frozen dinner. He never exercises and complains about feeling like shit all the time. He makes enough money to pay for health insurance but opts not to. See, if he pays for insurance, he wouldn't be able to afford the beer and chew.

Please list the reasons why I should pay for his freakin' insurance. Thanks ...

Vi
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
Because right now I'm being jacked for "medicare tax" which is paying for YOUR medical care. Please list the reasons why I shouldn't be pissed about being jacked for Medicare tax when we all know 30 years from now when it's MY turn to get medicare it will be flat broke and disbanded.

Both my adult children are paying for medicare tax. If medicare is going to be broke and disbanded in 30 years, just imagine how they feel. They get no health insurance but they get to pay for YOURS. Please explain why they should give a shit if you get health care.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Because right now I'm being jacked for "medicare tax" which is paying for YOUR medical care. Please list the reasons why I shouldn't be pissed about being jacked for Medicare tax when we all know 30 years from now when it's MY turn to get medicare it will be flat broke and disbanded.

Both my adult children are paying for medicare tax. If medicare is going to be broke and disbanded in 30 years, just imagine how they feel. They get no health insurance but they get to pay for YOURS. Please explain why they should give a shit if you get health care.
The Free Market solution is to abolish the damn thing.

I don't know, but I've always been of the opinion that individuals know best how to take care of their own interests, and that entrusting government to do so is just a recipe for disaster.
 
Top