Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature...
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All


curt


Sep 13, 2011, 3:45 PM
Post #1 of 108 (2801 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18226

Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature...
Report this Post
Can't Post

Yahoo News wrote:
If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody "
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question...

But they dislike Obama's healthcare program, because (according to them) there will be "death squads" who might have to decide what treatment you could get. Hypocritical fuckers.

Curt


Partner macherry


Sep 13, 2011, 4:32 PM
Post #2 of 108 (2788 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15774

Re: [curt] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

keepin' it classy


veganclimber


Sep 13, 2011, 8:06 PM
Post #3 of 108 (2766 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [macherry] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

All life is sacred. Until you're born, anyways.


byran


Sep 14, 2011, 12:58 PM
Post #4 of 108 (2722 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Posts: 266

Re: [curt] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I like Ron Paul, he's the only one out of the lot that I would even consider voting for over Obama. He will never win the primary however. He never had a chance. Like when asked if he would cut defense spending, he doesn't hesitate to say he'd gut the military and pull back troops from everywhere. Then he goes on to say, the whole reason we were attacked on 9/11 is because we have military bases all over the world and military bases on their holy land. The outrage from the audience was priceless.


Partner cracklover


Sep 21, 2011, 1:49 PM
Post #5 of 108 (2621 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [curt] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Ron Paul is awesome! He's like the clever whack-job you know at the office. Always spouting some new loony idea that has a million things wrong with it, but is still really clever and interesting.

GO


dr_feelgood


Sep 21, 2011, 2:55 PM
Post #6 of 108 (2614 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25628

Re: [curt] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post



hopefully this works.


DougMartin


Sep 21, 2011, 8:24 PM
Post #7 of 108 (2593 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [curt] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

curt wrote:
Yahoo News wrote:
If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody "
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question...

But they dislike Obama's healthcare program, because (according to them) there will be "death squads" who might have to decide what treatment you could get. Hypocritical fuckers.

Curt

Some times I wonder who the ignorant shit is! The guy who takes a statement and makes it much more than it is (Blitzer) or the guy who reacts to the guy who implies a statement says more than it does. Listen to what Paul said, I'll summarize it for you. The government has no business in health care and the government is not responsible for anyone's health. I agree with that statement 100%. What Blitzer did was usual for his callous idiotic ass, He inferred that Paul meant we should, as a society, not care for those that are sick and suffering. Paul never said that, he did say that government should not play any role in it. There are many many other ways for our society to help those that need medical help and can not afford to pay for it. We should allow those organizations to flourish and do what they do, not have Washington do it for them. As a 19 year old with a blood clot in my shoulder, I did not have insurance and I was in the hospital for 7 days. Bill to me was something north of $14,000. Know how much I paid? $147.00. Guess who paid the rest, Catholic Charities and the hospitals charity foundation. Today, I give weekly to those two charities. I feel that is how society should help society, we don't need the federal or any other government organization to do it for us all while taking their two cents from the pie!! Some how I feel that Paul feels the same way!


veganclimber


Sep 21, 2011, 9:28 PM
Post #8 of 108 (2582 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [DougMartin] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
curt wrote:
Yahoo News wrote:
If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody "
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question...

But they dislike Obama's healthcare program, because (according to them) there will be "death squads" who might have to decide what treatment you could get. Hypocritical fuckers.

Curt

Some times I wonder who the ignorant shit is! The guy who takes a statement and makes it much more than it is (Blitzer) or the guy who reacts to the guy who implies a statement says more than it does. Listen to what Paul said, I'll summarize it for you.

This thread has very little to do with Paul. It was the audience that was cheering this guys death.

In reply to:
The government has no business in health care and the government is not responsible for anyone's health. I agree with that statement 100%.

How many doctors pay their own way through school? Most of them can only afford medical school by taking out loans backed up by the government. Going to public schools also helps keep costs down (thanks to government funding). Government funding accounts for about 36% of medical research. Should we cut that off? How about the FDA? Do you really want the government to stay out of it entirely?

In reply to:
What Blitzer did was usual for his callous idiotic ass, He inferred that Paul meant we should, as a society, not care for those that are sick and suffering.

He wasn't inferring anything. He was asking a question. A perfectly reasonable question, as Paul doesn't want the government stepping in to help the guy. The question is pretty much inevitable at that point.

In reply to:
Paul never said that, he did say that government should not play any role in it. There are many many other ways for our society to help those that need medical help and can not afford to pay for it. We should allow those organizations to flourish and do what they do, not have Washington do it for them. As a 19 year old with a blood clot in my shoulder, I did not have insurance and I was in the hospital for 7 days. Bill to me was something north of $14,000. Know how much I paid? $147.00. Guess who paid the rest, Catholic Charities and the hospitals charity foundation. Today, I give weekly to those two charities. I feel that is how society should help society, we don't need the federal or any other government organization to do it for us all while taking their two cents from the pie!! Some how I feel that Paul feels the same way!

How many cancer patients can a church help? How about AIDS medication that costs $10,000+ a year? What if the church or other charities can't or won't help. Do we just leave those people to die?


blondgecko
Moderator

Sep 21, 2011, 9:28 PM
Post #9 of 108 (2580 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [DougMartin] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
curt wrote:
Yahoo News wrote:
If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody "
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question...

But they dislike Obama's healthcare program, because (according to them) there will be "death squads" who might have to decide what treatment you could get. Hypocritical fuckers.

Curt

Some times I wonder who the ignorant shit is! The guy who takes a statement and makes it much more than it is (Blitzer) or the guy who reacts to the guy who implies a statement says more than it does. Listen to what Paul said, I'll summarize it for you. The government has no business in health care and the government is not responsible for anyone's health. I agree with that statement 100%. What Blitzer did was usual for his callous idiotic ass, He inferred that Paul meant we should, as a society, not care for those that are sick and suffering. Paul never said that, he did say that government should not play any role in it. There are many many other ways for our society to help those that need medical help and can not afford to pay for it. We should allow those organizations to flourish and do what they do, not have Washington do it for them. As a 19 year old with a blood clot in my shoulder, I did not have insurance and I was in the hospital for 7 days. Bill to me was something north of $14,000. Know how much I paid? $147.00. Guess who paid the rest, Catholic Charities and the hospitals charity foundation. Today, I give weekly to those two charities. I feel that is how society should help society, we don't need the federal or any other government organization to do it for us all while taking their two cents from the pie!! Some how I feel that Paul feels the same way!

So rather than having healthcare funding managed by the government, an organisation that is corrupt but at least somewhat answerable to the people, you'd rather have it be managed by the Catholic Church, an organisation that is corrupt to the core, and answerable to nobody. Good plan, that.


DougMartin


Sep 21, 2011, 10:03 PM
Post #10 of 108 (2568 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [blondgecko] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

[quote "blondgecko"][quote "DougMartin"][quote "curt"][quote "Yahoo News"]If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody "
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question...[/quote]

But they dislike Obama's healthcare program, because (according to them) there will be "death squads" who might have to decide what treatment you could get. Hypocritical fuckers.

Curt[/quote]

Some times I wonder who the ignorant shit is! The guy who takes a statement and makes it much more than it is (Blitzer) or the guy who reacts to the guy who implies a statement says more than it does. Listen to what Paul said, I'll summarize it for you. The government has no business in health care and the government is not responsible for anyone's health. I agree with that statement 100%. What Blitzer did was usual for his callous idiotic ass, He inferred that Paul meant we should, as a society, not care for those that are sick and suffering. Paul never said that, he did say that government should not play any role in it. There are many many other ways for our society to help those that need medical help and can not afford to pay for it. We should allow those organizations to flourish and do what they do, not have Washington do it for them. As a 19 year old with a blood clot in my shoulder, I did not have insurance and I was in the hospital for 7 days. Bill to me was something north of $14,000. Know how much I paid? $147.00. Guess who paid the rest, Catholic Charities and the hospitals charity foundation. Today, I give weekly to those two charities. I feel that is how society should help society, we don't need the federal or any other government organization to do it for us all while taking their two cents from the pie!! Some how I feel that Paul feels the same way![/quote]

So rather than having healthcare funding managed by the government, an organisation that is corrupt but at least somewhat answerable to the people, you'd rather have it be managed by the Catholic Church, an organisation that is corrupt to the core, and answerable to nobody. Good plan, that.[/quote]

Again people playing with words to make them fit their needs. At no point did I say catholic charities should handle health care. I did say that catholic charities is an organization, within our society, that helped me, a member of society, with a crisis. I don't care if you feel it better to pan handle for the funds, than use catholic charities. Your medical bills are your responsibility not mine or your neighbors unless I or your neighbor care to help you. It's not our governments responsibility to handle our personal affairs.

It is my responsibility to care for myself and if I can't I need to make the nessacary arrangements through whatever means I can. I my case, catholic charities offered to help in my time of need and I was grateful for the help. In return I offer to help them help others. Pretty simple when you actually think about it. Support who you want to support, help who you want to help not who the government says needs help! I also give to the local Baptist church's food pantry, maybe foodstamps should be thing of the past as well. Then maybe the young mother will not be using yours tax dollars and mine to buy ho-ho's for her six kids at the local gas/conivence store with them. Have a nice discussion.


DougMartin


Sep 21, 2011, 10:27 PM
Post #11 of 108 (2561 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [veganclimber] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

veganclimber wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
curt wrote:
Yahoo News wrote:
If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody "
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question...

But they dislike Obama's healthcare program, because (according to them) there will be "death squads" who might have to decide what treatment you could get. Hypocritical fuckers.

Curt

Some times I wonder who the ignorant shit is! The guy who takes a statement and makes it much more than it is (Blitzer) or the guy who reacts to the guy who implies a statement says more than it does. Listen to what Paul said, I'll summarize it for you.

This thread has very little to do with Paul. It was the audience that was cheering this guys death.

In reply to:
The government has no business in health care and the government is not responsible for anyone's health. I agree with that statement 100%.

How many doctors pay their own way through school? Most of them can only afford medical school by taking out loans backed up by the government. Going to public schools also helps keep costs down (thanks to government funding). Government funding accounts for about 36% of medical research. Should we cut that off? How about the FDA? Do you really want the government to stay out of it entirely?

In reply to:
What Blitzer did was usual for his callous idiotic ass, He inferred that Paul meant we should, as a society, not care for those that are sick and suffering.

He wasn't inferring anything. He was asking a question. A perfectly reasonable question, as Paul doesn't want the government stepping in to help the guy. The question is pretty much inevitable at that point.

In reply to:
Paul never said that, he did say that government should not play any role in it. There are many many other ways for our society to help those that need medical help and can not afford to pay for it. We should allow those organizations to flourish and do what they do, not have Washington do it for them. As a 19 year old with a blood clot in my shoulder, I did not have insurance and I was in the hospital for 7 days. Bill to me was something north of $14,000. Know how much I paid? $147.00. Guess who paid the rest, Catholic Charities and the hospitals charity foundation. Today, I give weekly to those two charities. I feel that is how society should help society, we don't need the federal or any other government organization to do it for us all while taking their two cents from the pie!! Some how I feel that Paul feels the same way!

How many cancer patients can a church help? How about AIDS medication that costs $10,000+ a year? What if the church or other charities can't or won't help. Do we just leave those people to die?

So you prefer to pay for them all out of your paycheck? Or would you prefer to support the organizations that would in your opinion help those that need it most? If we continue with this attitude of everything for everyone, the end result is a society that has no responsibility for itself. You do what you do and give all your compensation to the government and they decide who gets what and when. Medical care and all. I sure as hell don't want that do you?


veganclimber


Sep 21, 2011, 10:33 PM
Post #12 of 108 (2560 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [DougMartin] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
Again people playing with words to make them fit their needs. At no point did I say catholic charities should handle health care. I did say that catholic charities is an organization, within our society, that helped me, a member of society, with a crisis. I don't care if you feel it better to pan handle for the funds, than use catholic charities.

Well, now I know what to do if I get cancer. Stand on a corner and collect change. That should take care of the bills.

In reply to:
Your medical bills are your responsibility not mine or your neighbors unless I or your neighbor care to help you. It's not our governments responsibility to handle our personal affairs.

Most people are barely getting by as it is. Then you get hit with a huge medical bill. What are you supposed to do? Die? I'll keep asking that until you answer it.

In reply to:
It is my responsibility to care for myself and if I can't I need to make the nessacary arrangements through whatever means I can. I my case, catholic charities offered to help in my time of need and I was grateful for the help. In return I offer to help them help others. Pretty simple when you actually think about it.

Pretty simple if you don't think of it too much. I would say that your case was very unusual. No church can make a habit of paying large medical bills on a regular basis. You can't expect the church or other charity to come through and help every sick person out there. So what do you suggest for those that don't receive charity?

In reply to:
Support who you want to support, help who you want to help not who the government says needs help! I also give to the local Baptist church's food pantry, maybe foodstamps should be thing of the past as well. Then maybe the young mother will not be using yours tax dollars and mine to buy ho-ho's for her six kids at the local gas/conivence store with them. Have a nice discussion.

There are about 40 million people on foodstamps in this country. You want to cut that off too? If you had your way the churches would be flooded with sick and hungry people. Far too many for them to handle.


veganclimber


Sep 21, 2011, 10:52 PM
Post #13 of 108 (2552 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [DougMartin] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
curt wrote:
Yahoo News wrote:
If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody "
"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question...

But they dislike Obama's healthcare program, because (according to them) there will be "death squads" who might have to decide what treatment you could get. Hypocritical fuckers.

Curt

Some times I wonder who the ignorant shit is! The guy who takes a statement and makes it much more than it is (Blitzer) or the guy who reacts to the guy who implies a statement says more than it does. Listen to what Paul said, I'll summarize it for you.

This thread has very little to do with Paul. It was the audience that was cheering this guys death.

In reply to:
The government has no business in health care and the government is not responsible for anyone's health. I agree with that statement 100%.

How many doctors pay their own way through school? Most of them can only afford medical school by taking out loans backed up by the government. Going to public schools also helps keep costs down (thanks to government funding). Government funding accounts for about 36% of medical research. Should we cut that off? How about the FDA? Do you really want the government to stay out of it entirely?

In reply to:
What Blitzer did was usual for his callous idiotic ass, He inferred that Paul meant we should, as a society, not care for those that are sick and suffering.

He wasn't inferring anything. He was asking a question. A perfectly reasonable question, as Paul doesn't want the government stepping in to help the guy. The question is pretty much inevitable at that point.

In reply to:
Paul never said that, he did say that government should not play any role in it. There are many many other ways for our society to help those that need medical help and can not afford to pay for it. We should allow those organizations to flourish and do what they do, not have Washington do it for them. As a 19 year old with a blood clot in my shoulder, I did not have insurance and I was in the hospital for 7 days. Bill to me was something north of $14,000. Know how much I paid? $147.00. Guess who paid the rest, Catholic Charities and the hospitals charity foundation. Today, I give weekly to those two charities. I feel that is how society should help society, we don't need the federal or any other government organization to do it for us all while taking their two cents from the pie!! Some how I feel that Paul feels the same way!

How many cancer patients can a church help? How about AIDS medication that costs $10,000+ a year? What if the church or other charities can't or won't help. Do we just leave those people to die?

So you prefer to pay for them all out of your paycheck? Or would you prefer to support the organizations that would in your opinion help those that need it most?

I would prefer that insurance would cover the bills. The governments role is to make sure that insurance is available to everybody (no denying people for pre-existing conditions). I also think that the government should help people who truly cannot afford insurance.

In reply to:
If we continue with this attitude of everything for everyone, . . .

I'd say America has an attitude of everything for the top 1% and the hell with everybody else.

In reply to:
the end result is a society that has no responsibility for itself. You do what you do and give all your compensation to the government and they decide who gets what and when. Medical care and all. I sure as hell don't want that do you?

I don't know where this fear comes from. I really don't. Taxes are the lowest they have been in 50 years.


DougMartin


Sep 21, 2011, 10:54 PM
Post #14 of 108 (2549 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [veganclimber] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

veganclimber wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
Again people playing with words to make them fit their needs. At no point did I say catholic charities should handle health care. I did say that catholic charities is an organization, within our society, that helped me, a member of society, with a crisis. I don't care if you feel it better to pan handle for the funds, than use catholic charities.

Well, now I know what to do if I get cancer. Stand on a corner and collect change. That should take care of the bills.

In reply to:
Your medical bills are your responsibility not mine or your neighbors unless I or your neighbor care to help you. It's not our governments responsibility to handle our personal affairs.

Most people are barely getting by as it is. Then you get hit with a huge medical bill. What are you supposed to do? Die? I'll keep asking that until you answer it.

In reply to:
It is my responsibility to care for myself and if I can't I need to make the nessacary arrangements through whatever means I can. I my case, catholic charities offered to help in my time of need and I was grateful for the help. In return I offer to help them help others. Pretty simple when you actually think about it.

Pretty simple if you don't think of it too much. I would say that your case was very unusual. No church can make a habit of paying large medical bills on a regular basis. You can't expect the church or other charity to come through and help every sick person out there. So what do you suggest for those that don't receive charity?

In reply to:
Support who you want to support, help who you want to help not who the government says needs help! I also give to the local Baptist church's food pantry, maybe foodstamps should be thing of the past as well. Then maybe the young mother will not be using yours tax dollars and mine to buy ho-ho's for her six kids at the local gas/conivence store with them. Have a nice discussion.

There are about 40 million people on foodstamps in this country. You want to cut that off too? If you had your way the churches would be flooded with sick and hungry people. Far too many for them to handle.


Do you have any idea how much of your income goes to supporting government and it's activities? From the 40+ cents a gallon in federal taxes we pay on gasoline to the yearly property tax to the friction $5 I pay in federal taxes on my cable bill. Taxes taken after taxes eat a large percentage of our take home pay. If you and I and everyone else had that money in our pockets each and everyone of us would be better of and better prepared to give aid when one is in need. Can you give thousands to help your neighbor? Most can not, however shrinking government to a small percentage of what it currently is would reduce the funding required to maintain it. That alone increases the available funds for charity work because it puts more money in your pocket your neighbors pocket and my pocket a $14000 hospital bill may not be disastrous if my pay was nearly double. I may have been perfectly able to pay it without any help. And as far as $10000 aids meds, how much would they cost if the government was not involved with regulating them?

It's a never ending battle between those that take responsibility and those that do not. Last point on you question of a large medical bill and dying, our government in one of it's actual good decisions made a law that Requires medical personnel and hospitals to provide medical care to those in need regardless of their ability to pay for it. So you just go to the hospital they won't let you die!


blondgecko
Moderator

Sep 21, 2011, 10:56 PM
Post #15 of 108 (2542 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [veganclimber] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Here in Australia the Government does decide who gets what and when, when it comes to lifesaving medical care. Know what they decided? Everyone, and whenever they need it. Strangely, every country in the world with socialised medicine has decided similarly, and has yet to go broke because of it.


veganclimber


Sep 21, 2011, 11:13 PM
Post #16 of 108 (2534 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [DougMartin] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
Do you have any idea how much of your income goes to supporting government and it's activities? From the 40+ cents a gallon in federal taxes we pay on gasoline to the yearly property tax to the friction $5 I pay in federal taxes on my cable bill. Taxes taken after taxes eat a large percentage of our take home pay. If you and I and everyone else had that money in our pockets each and everyone of us would be better of and better prepared to give aid when one is in need. Can you give thousands to help your neighbor? Most can not, however shrinking government to a small percentage of what it currently is would reduce the funding required to maintain it. That alone increases the available funds for charity work because it puts more money in your pocket your neighbors pocket and my pocket a $14000 hospital bill may not be disastrous if my pay was nearly double. I may have been perfectly able to pay it without any help.

Sure, if there were no taxes we would all have a lot more money to give to charity. We would also have no roads, public education, scientific research, police, military, . . .

In reply to:
And as far as $10000 aids meds, how much would they cost if the government was not involved with regulating them?

This question is meaningless, as we wouldn't have these drugs to begin with if the government didn't fund the research. As far as regulating them, that does add to the cost. It also helps keep worthless and dangerous drugs off the market.

In reply to:
It's a never ending battle between those that take responsibility and those that do not.

How do you take responsibility for your health care when you cannot get insurance because of a pre-existing condition? How about if you are working full time and can't afford the payments?

In reply to:
Last point on you question of a large medical bill and dying, our government in one of it's actual good decisions made a law that Requires medical personnel and hospitals to provide medical care to those in need regardless of their ability to pay for it. So you just go to the hospital they won't let you die!

Hospitals can turn you away if you are not in immediate need of care.


veganclimber


Sep 21, 2011, 11:19 PM
Post #17 of 108 (2532 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [blondgecko] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
Here in Australia the Government does decide who gets what and when, when it comes to lifesaving medical care. Know what they decided? Everyone, and whenever they need it. Strangely, every country in the world with socialised medicine has decided similarly, and has yet to go broke because of it.

http://www.photius.com/...ngs/healthranks.html

The US is ranked 37 by the world health organization, and we pay far more per capita than anybody else.


I_do


Sep 22, 2011, 12:13 AM
Post #18 of 108 (2521 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232

Re: [DougMartin] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
Again people playing with words to make them fit their needs. At no point did I say catholic charities should handle health care. I did say that catholic charities is an organization, within our society, that helped me, a member of society, with a crisis. I don't care if you feel it better to pan handle for the funds, than use catholic charities.

Well, now I know what to do if I get cancer. Stand on a corner and collect change. That should take care of the bills.

In reply to:
Your medical bills are your responsibility not mine or your neighbors unless I or your neighbor care to help you. It's not our governments responsibility to handle our personal affairs.

Most people are barely getting by as it is. Then you get hit with a huge medical bill. What are you supposed to do? Die? I'll keep asking that until you answer it.

In reply to:
It is my responsibility to care for myself and if I can't I need to make the nessacary arrangements through whatever means I can. I my case, catholic charities offered to help in my time of need and I was grateful for the help. In return I offer to help them help others. Pretty simple when you actually think about it.

Pretty simple if you don't think of it too much. I would say that your case was very unusual. No church can make a habit of paying large medical bills on a regular basis. You can't expect the church or other charity to come through and help every sick person out there. So what do you suggest for those that don't receive charity?

In reply to:
Support who you want to support, help who you want to help not who the government says needs help! I also give to the local Baptist church's food pantry, maybe foodstamps should be thing of the past as well. Then maybe the young mother will not be using yours tax dollars and mine to buy ho-ho's for her six kids at the local gas/conivence store with them. Have a nice discussion.

There are about 40 million people on foodstamps in this country. You want to cut that off too? If you had your way the churches would be flooded with sick and hungry people. Far too many for them to handle.


Do you have any idea how much of your income goes to supporting government and it's activities? From the 40+ cents a gallon in federal taxes we pay on gasoline to the yearly property tax to the friction $5 I pay in federal taxes on my cable bill. Taxes taken after taxes eat a large percentage of our take home pay. If you and I and everyone else had that money in our pockets each and everyone of us would be better of and better prepared to give aid when one is in need. Can you give thousands to help your neighbor? Most can not, however shrinking government to a small percentage of what it currently is would reduce the funding required to maintain it. That alone increases the available funds for charity work because it puts more money in your pocket your neighbors pocket and my pocket a $14000 hospital bill may not be disastrous if my pay was nearly double. I may have been perfectly able to pay it without any help. And as far as $10000 aids meds, how much would they cost if the government was not involved with regulating them?

It's a never ending battle between those that take responsibility and those that do not. Last point on you question of a large medical bill and dying, our government in one of it's actual good decisions made a law that Requires medical personnel and hospitals to provide medical care to those in need regardless of their ability to pay for it. So you just go to the hospital they won't let you die!

First bold; fuck you, I take responsibility for myself and all of society even those not in a position or without the common sense to take care for themselves by paying into a government system I believe in.

second bold; so now you do expect the government to help people that do need take care of themselves, do you want them to or not? Make up your mind.

Third; you DIDN'T take care of yourself, you were fortunate enough to have an outside organization help you out, not a good example for your own system.

You are so full of shit.


Partner rrrADAM


Sep 22, 2011, 3:55 AM
Post #19 of 108 (2507 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [DougMartin] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
I my case, catholic charities offered to help in my time of need and I was grateful for the help.

So, if NOBODY offered to help you, then what? Let's make a reasonable extension to this, and suppose that you, again at 19 years young, had a treatable cancer but no way to pay for treatment yourself, and NOBODY offered to help you... Then what? Should you have been allowed to die?

I look forward to your reply to my direct questions... Note that there are two question marks in the above.


(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Sep 22, 2011, 3:56 AM)


Partner rrrADAM


Sep 22, 2011, 4:06 AM
Post #20 of 108 (2504 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [DougMartin] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
Last point on you question of a large medical bill and dying, our government in one of it's actual good decisions made a law that Requires medical personnel and hospitals to provide medical care to those in need regardless of their ability to pay for it. So you just go to the hospital they won't let you die!

Hmmm... So, do you think treating people who have not been able to get preventative care when a disease was manageable, and let it get to the point that it is life threatening makes good fiscal sense?

Example:
Someone has diabetes, which is easily manageable with insulin and diet... However, one cannot afford to go to a doctor to get examined, prescribed insulin, and counciled on diet... Therefore, they are going blind, and have ulcers in their feet, now requiring emergent care to amputate their feet, and treat what is now "life threatening" stuff. Not to mention that now they will likely be on disability, and unable toi work, being a further drain on the system.

So, in this example, what do you think is cheaper: Paying for preventative care, or requiring hospitals to not turn them away once it is life threatening?


In other words, what you seem to be OK with is... Pay for "emergency room stuff", even when it could have been taken care of long before with "preventative medicine" that would have been MUCH cheaper, and with a much higher success rate.


(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Sep 22, 2011, 9:14 AM)


ubu


Sep 22, 2011, 4:31 AM
Post #21 of 108 (2496 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1476

Re: [rrrADAM] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rrrADAM wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
I my case, catholic charities offered to help in my time of need and I was grateful for the help.

So, if NOBODY offered to help you, then what? Let's make a reasonable extension to this, and suppose that you, again at 19 years young, had a treatable cancer but no way to pay for treatment yourself, and NOBODY offered to help you... Then what? Should you have been allowed to die?

I look forward to your reply to my direct questions... Note that there are two question marks in the above.

Yes Doug, please do give a direct answer to these questions. If you don't I will have to agree with I_do that you are, indeed, a hypocrite who is full of shit.


ubu


Sep 22, 2011, 4:39 AM
Post #22 of 108 (2492 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 1476

Re: [rrrADAM] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rrrADAM wrote:
In other words, what you seem to be OK with is... Pay for "emergency room stuff", even when it could have been taken care of long before with "preventative medicine" that would have been MUCH cheaper, and with a much higher success rate.

This is the thing that kills me about the Ron Paul mentality. If you truly believe in the Libertarian (and now apparently mainstream Republican) mantra that sick uninsured people should be left to suffer, cheered by the masses to their death beds, then for fuck's sake you should first lobby for eliminating laws requiring no-questions-asked emergency room care. But of course this won't happen, because Paul and his ilk do realize that you need a safety net, and the emergency room serves as a nice backdoor to this problem that let's them avoid killing off the most vulnerable without appearing to compromise their bullshit "values".

Fucking hypocrites, one and all.


Partner rrrADAM


Sep 22, 2011, 5:36 AM
Post #23 of 108 (2476 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [ubu] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Doug,

Or, to drive the point home, PLEASE read this story about my son's best friend:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1822637#1822637

Just the first two posts about him... Then, tell me how all of his care would have been taken care of, if his parents hadn't had insurance, in accordance with your ideas of how it "should be done". Note that NONE of his care was "emergency room" type stuff, up until the end... AND, being a child, he had no input into whether his parents have insurance, or even a job, so he was lucky there... But there are many children who are not as lucky to have parents with insurance, through no fault of their own. Not to mention all the kids who's parents no longer have insurance since they lost their jobs years ago (you do know about the 'jobs' situation, right?), and haven't been able to get another one.


(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Sep 22, 2011, 9:16 AM)


DougMartin


Sep 22, 2011, 7:25 AM
Post #24 of 108 (2458 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 28, 2011
Posts: 138

Re: [I_do] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I_do wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
DougMartin wrote:
Again people playing with words to make them fit their needs. At no point did I say catholic charities should handle health care. I did say that catholic charities is an organization, within our society, that helped me, a member of society, with a crisis. I don't care if you feel it better to pan handle for the funds, than use catholic charities.

Well, now I know what to do if I get cancer. Stand on a corner and collect change. That should take care of the bills.

In reply to:
Your medical bills are your responsibility not mine or your neighbors unless I or your neighbor care to help you. It's not our governments responsibility to handle our personal affairs.

Most people are barely getting by as it is. Then you get hit with a huge medical bill. What are you supposed to do? Die? I'll keep asking that until you answer it.

In reply to:
It is my responsibility to care for myself and if I can't I need to make the nessacary arrangements through whatever means I can. I my case, catholic charities offered to help in my time of need and I was grateful for the help. In return I offer to help them help others. Pretty simple when you actually think about it.

Pretty simple if you don't think of it too much. I would say that your case was very unusual. No church can make a habit of paying large medical bills on a regular basis. You can't expect the church or other charity to come through and help every sick person out there. So what do you suggest for those that don't receive charity?

In reply to:
Support who you want to support, help who you want to help not who the government says needs help! I also give to the local Baptist church's food pantry, maybe foodstamps should be thing of the past as well. Then maybe the young mother will not be using yours tax dollars and mine to buy ho-ho's for her six kids at the local gas/conivence store with them. Have a nice discussion.

There are about 40 million people on foodstamps in this country. You want to cut that off too? If you had your way the churches would be flooded with sick and hungry people. Far too many for them to handle.


Do you have any idea how much of your income goes to supporting government and it's activities? From the 40+ cents a gallon in federal taxes we pay on gasoline to the yearly property tax to the friction $5 I pay in federal taxes on my cable bill. Taxes taken after taxes eat a large percentage of our take home pay. If you and I and everyone else had that money in our pockets each and everyone of us would be better of and better prepared to give aid when one is in need. Can you give thousands to help your neighbor? Most can not, however shrinking government to a small percentage of what it currently is would reduce the funding required to maintain it. That alone increases the available funds for charity work because it puts more money in your pocket your neighbors pocket and my pocket a $14000 hospital bill may not be disastrous if my pay was nearly double. I may have been perfectly able to pay it without any help. And as far as $10000 aids meds, how much would they cost if the government was not involved with regulating them?

It's a never ending battle between those that take responsibility and those that do not. Last point on you question of a large medical bill and dying, our government in one of it's actual good decisions made a law that Requires medical personnel and hospitals to provide medical care to those in need regardless of their ability to pay for it. So you just go to the hospital they won't let you die!

First bold; fuck you, I take responsibility for myself and all of society even those not in a position or without the common sense to take care for themselves by paying into a government system I believe in.

second bold; so now you do expect the government to help people that do need take care of themselves, do you want them to or not? Make up your mind.

Third; you DIDN'T take care of yourself, you were fortunate enough to have an outside organization help you out, not a good example for your own system.

You are so full of shit.

Mama taught me never to argue with an idiot and you sir are!


traddad


Sep 22, 2011, 7:32 AM
Post #25 of 108 (2451 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129

Re: [DougMartin] Tea Party accidentally reveals their true nature... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

DougMartin wrote:
Mama taught me never to argue with an idiot and you sir are!

Complete coward.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$14.36 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)
$26.96 (10% off)
$144.71 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook