Gene Frenkle Posted January 4, 2010 Posted January 4, 2010 On a more spiritual note, with the nearly miraculous and possibly divine recovery of Rush Limbaugh, I see no reasonable option but to accept the fact that there is a god and that that god is the Christian god. I have been saved and intend on doing some doctor shopping after work to celebrate.
drnykterstein Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/01/03/...rses-obamacare/
keepthefaith Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/01/03/...rses-obamacare/ Republicans support health care insurance for everyone that wants it as long as everybody pays for it and everybody can choose their level of coverage. Choice and personal responsibility. Not difficult concepts to grasp.
Gene Frenkle Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 Republicans support health care insurance for everyone that wants it as long as everybody pays for it and everybody can choose their level of coverage. Choice and personal responsibility. Not difficult concepts to grasp. And if they don't want it and need medical attention they can't pay for, the taxpayers can continue to foot the bill.
Booster4324 Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 Republicans support health care insurance for everyone that wants it as long as everybody pays for it and everybody can choose their level of coverage. Choice and personal responsibility. Not difficult concepts to grasp. I have doubts about the original article, but your response was far from a rebuttal.
keepthefaith Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 And if they don't want it and need medical attention they can't pay for, the taxpayers can continue to foot the bill. Agree, and most in Congress agree. One party, however, feels that it takes a very expensive 2700 page monstrosity to solve the problem for 5% of the population.
pBills Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 Republicans support health care insurance for everyone that wants it as long as everybody pays for it and everybody can choose their level of coverage. Choice and personal responsibility. Not difficult concepts to grasp. PAH-Lease... even if the democrats offered that plan the Party of No would still say... No.
keepthefaith Posted January 6, 2010 Posted January 6, 2010 PAH-Lease... even if the democrats offered that plan the Party of No would still say... No. Actually the Republicans offered a less expensive common sense solution and the Dems said no. What I love about this "party of no" label is that it is the Dems answer to real concerns expressed by Republicans. For example, when the $800 Billion stimulus was on the table, Republicans raised concerns that it was too expensive, was not economically stimulating in nature and would not achieve the results forcasted by the Dems. The Dems answer, "party of no". For health care Republicans have raised concerns that the House plan and Senate plans are very expensive, will not reduce costs, are full of new tax and are not deficit neutral. The Dems answer with "party of no". Seems to me that if the Republican concerns were not well founded then the Dems could respond to Republicans on the merits of their plans. Seems to me that the stimulus would have met their goal of 8% or less unemployment. Seems to me that they wouldn't have to bribe members of their own party to vote for the health care reform bill or resort to 4 years of taxes without any benefits to get the thing anywhere near neutral. Seems to me that they would be clever enough to solve big issues with well crafted solutions that most people could support rather than simply applying the old spend and tax approach to every goal they have.
Recommended Posts