stuckincincy Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 AThe estimates are that we have 40-45 million people in this country without health care insurance, meaning their access to the "system' is extremely limited. That's sad, that's immoral, that should be criminal. 153426[/snapback] That is a totally false statistic. If you are without insurance for ONE day...you leave a job on Friday, and start a new one on Monday, the folks who tout this trash assume that you are without coverage for the ENTIRE year. The "Homeless Advocates" in this town pull the same garbage...a person avails themself of a shelter on Monday. They come back on Tuesday, Wednesday and so forth. Each time, they get counted as a NEW homeless person. So they scream that there are 80,000+ homeless in Cincinnati. Right. If that were so, you couldn't even travel the sidewalks without being innundated by the prostrate bodies... If you think this is so sad, immoral, and criminal, there is nothing that stops you from selling your tv and other toys and forking it over to the aggreived masses... Sigh. When will people stop thinking that government is their DADDY...
Spiderweb Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 This is so laughable I don't know where to begin. Immoral? IMMORAL? Immoral is allowing corrupt politicians to handle something better handled in the free markets. Immoral is allwoing one portion of society to live off the fruits of another portion's labor. Why the hell should my taxes have to rise to support the healthcare needs of someone who's working a minimum wage job somewhere/ Can't you see where someone might abuse such a system? And what about the 300 pound blob of goo that refuses to lose weight and take care of their health? Why should I pay their burden? It sounds like you just took a page out of Chairman Mao's little red book, Comrade. Immoral? What a joke that post was. Oh, and another thing...Who gives a flying f*ck what Canadians think about us? Without us, they'd still be trapping beavers for a living. 153437[/snapback] And you, are the cause....not the cure... As if you're not already paying for a system that has double digit cost increases year after year when the overall inflation rate is in low single digits during the same period. Ever realize that the cost is already is coming out of your pocket? You don't think your salary isn't effected by the premiums paid by your employer? Laughable? Yes, it is, your already overpaying for a system that's broken. Your so typical of the myoptic views shared by millions of Americans that we're the best, regardless of what the evidence or alternatives may be. What better role can a government play than it the health, welfare, and security of it's people? But hey, lets simply fall back on our "six pack" and not discuss or debate the issues. Lets' instead resort to "comrade" and Chairman Mao remarks or insinuations. Funny how those who know the least about other countries are often the strongest supporters of "our" way of life. Have a 12 pack instead and bury that head in the sand. Reality has no place in your life anyway.
nobody Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Smaller government = less corruption. Simple equation and the truth. 153228[/snapback] Maybe someday bush and the rest of the republicans can get back to this philosophy rather then their current idea of continuing to make it larger and larger. I'm all for less govt, fewer govt mandates and less taxation.
ch19079 Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 yeah Bush raised your NY taxes again Idiot. He also made the Bills loose the 1st 4 games.............................. 153271[/snapback] when are dolphin fans gunna learn how to read the entire post befor responding???
nobody Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 when are dolphin fans gunna learn how to read the entire post befor responding??? 153570[/snapback] When did dolphin fans learn how to read?
Alaska Darin Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 government isn't the problem so much as corruption and incompetence in government. 153186[/snapback]
erynthered Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 153609[/snapback] Like a bad B movie, its so stupid its funny.
Alaska Darin Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Like a bad B movie, its so stupid its funny. 153679[/snapback] Keep in mind he's a college professor. Amazing.
Spiderweb Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 That is a totally false statistic. If you are without insurance for ONE day...you leave a job on Friday, and start a new one on Monday, the folks who tout this trash assume that you are without coverage for the ENTIRE year. The "Homeless Advocates" in this town pull the same garbage...a person avails themself of a shelter on Monday. They come back on Tuesday, Wednesday and so forth. Each time, they get counted as a NEW homeless person. So they scream that there are 80,000+ homeless in Cincinnati. Right. If that were so, you couldn't even travel the sidewalks without being innundated by the prostrate bodies... If you think this is so sad, immoral, and criminal, there is nothing that stops you from selling your tv and other toys and forking it over to the aggreived masses... Sigh. When will people stop thinking that government is their DADDY... 153478[/snapback] Sadly, as I just replied elsewhere, what better role should government have than in the health, welfare and security of it's people. Nah, lets just cut taxes, increase spending and run up massive deficits. Now that's prudent financial management. I'd love to be able to run our household in that manner. Yet we have no problem denying basic human services as to show our "conservative" (spending) side. Sorry, your argument has been debated before. To deny the that our heath care system leaves millions of Americans on the outside looking in is to simply ignore reality. We're talking about people to have meanial jobs, or work for small companies that can't afford health care. We are not simply talking about "homeless" or welfare families. Heck, the welfare families are covered. Maybe if I was commenting on the mess our public schools are in (they are), I'd find a warmer reception but that wasn't what JSP brought up. As for the Daddy comment, do you have a problem with our Daddy being very strong Militarily? If I were a betting man, I'd bet not. If so, we'd then have some common ground.
Alaska Darin Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Sadly, as I just replied elsewhere, what better role should government have than in the health, welfare and security of it's people. Nah, lets just cut taxes, increase spending and run up massive deficits. Now that's prudent financial management. I'd love to be able to run our household in that manner. Yet we have no problem denying basic human services as to show our "conservative" (spending) side. Sorry, your argument has been debated before. To deny the that our heath care system leaves millions of Americans on the outside looking in is to simply ignore reality. We're talking about people to have meanial jobs, or work for small companies that can't afford health care. We are not simply talking about "homeless" or welfare families. Heck, the welfare families are covered. Maybe if I was commenting on the mess our public schools are in (they are), I'd find a warmer reception but that wasn't what JSP brought up. As for the Daddy comment, do you have a problem with our Daddy being very strong Militarily? If I were a betting man, I'd bet not. If so, we'd then have some common ground. 153696[/snapback] There are incredible unintended consequences to such large scale endeavors. Canada has virtually the same percentage of "uncovered" citizens as the US, despite socialized medicine. That doesn't even account for the ridiculous cost associated for a country that has a population smaller than California. One of the biggest reasons health care is so expensive is BECAUSE of government involvement, not in spite of it. We spend more on Medicare/Medicaid than we do on DoD. Basic human right, my ass.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 And you, are the cause....not the cure... As if you're not already paying for a system that has double digit cost increases year after year when the overall inflation rate is in low single digits during the same period. Ever realize that the cost is already is coming out of your pocket? You don't think your salary isn't effected by the premiums paid by your employer? Laughable? Yes, it is, your already overpaying for a system that's broken. Your so typical of the myoptic views shared by millions of Americans that we're the best, regardless of what the evidence or alternatives may be. What better role can a government play than it the health, welfare, and security of it's people? But hey, lets simply fall back on our "six pack" and not discuss or debate the issues. Lets' instead resort to "comrade" and Chairman Mao remarks or insinuations. Funny how those who know the least about other countries are often the strongest supporters of "our" way of life. Have a 12 pack instead and bury that head in the sand. Reality has no place in your life anyway. 153535[/snapback] Did you even read the thread about Tennecare that was posted here? If you had, you'd realize what a colossal blunder a national health insurance Ponzi scheme would be. Hell, even the greatest thievery of the private sector by the government in all of history (Social Security) is failing. Why? BECAUSE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS DON'T WORK!! Learn a little about history. The NRA, the TVA, the Social Security system, Medicare, Welfare, the EPA, the Department of Ed have ALL been massive failures and drains on our economic prosperity. And now you and your short-sighted ilk want to throw an even bigger, more oppressive byzantine mess onto the taxpayers of this country? Only a FOOL would want to give up more of his or her hard-earned paycheck to an already bloated and inefficient governmental mess. Only a complete buffoon would want to feed the leviathan that is the Federal Government more. Government intrusion is what is immoral, not the workings of a free market system.
stuckincincy Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Sadly, as I just replied elsewhere, what better role should government have than in the health, welfare and security of it's people. Nah, lets just cut taxes, increase spending and run up massive deficits. Now that's prudent financial management. I'd love to be able to run our household in that manner. Yet we have no problem denying basic human services as to show our "conservative" (spending) side. Sorry, your argument has been debated before. To deny the that our heath care system leaves millions of Americans on the outside looking in is to simply ignore reality. We're talking about people to have meanial jobs, or work for small companies that can't afford health care. We are not simply talking about "homeless" or welfare families. Heck, the welfare families are covered. Maybe if I was commenting on the mess our public schools are in (they are), I'd find a warmer reception but that wasn't what JSP brought up. As for the Daddy comment, do you have a problem with our Daddy being very strong Militarily? If I were a betting man, I'd bet not. If so, we'd then have some common ground. 153696[/snapback] Firstly, do not use a condescending tone. Very childish, be you a child or an adult. The Framers goal was exactly the opposite of what you seem to advocate. They felt that the Federal government NOT be involved in such. They feared the untoward influence of a strong, overreaching central government, because they experienced it firsthand. There are approximately 45 specific prohibitions in the Constitution against the Congress - they knew full well that Congress, in pursuit of personal power and getting elected, would distort the concept of the government being subservient to the population. And the "provide for the general welfare" statement was subject to much heated debate - some Framers (correctly) predicted that it would be used to coerce and make the population economically beholden to the government, thus guaranteeing the the political class control over the People. Seems they were correct. The Federal's government's intrest regarding the military was obviously recognized by the Framers. and I had a recent chuckle over recent screams that there is not "enough armor for the troops", largely by the same folks who year after year decried military expenditures and attendant appropriations. The left is, if anything, hypocritical. Tax cut reauthorizations? Better take a look at the Congressional Record...'twas a rare Congressman in either party that didn't vote for that. I'll return a condescendation to you. Have you ever read Marx' "Communist Manifesto"? I think you will find yourself looking into a mirror. Report back after you have read it. And, of course, you actually can peel off your own greenbacks to help others...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Sadly, as I just replied elsewhere, what better role should government have than in the health, welfare and security of it's people. Nah, lets just cut taxes, increase spending and run up massive deficits. Now that's prudent financial management. I'd love to be able to run our household in that manner. Yet we have no problem denying basic human services as to show our "conservative" (spending) side. Sorry, your argument has been debated before. To deny the that our heath care system leaves millions of Americans on the outside looking in is to simply ignore reality. We're talking about people to have meanial jobs, or work for small companies that can't afford health care. We are not simply talking about "homeless" or welfare families. Heck, the welfare families are covered. Maybe if I was commenting on the mess our public schools are in (they are), I'd find a warmer reception but that wasn't what JSP brought up. As for the Daddy comment, do you have a problem with our Daddy being very strong Militarily? If I were a betting man, I'd bet not. If so, we'd then have some common ground. 153696[/snapback] Totally agree. You forgot you are talking to strict constructionists here that can't see past the written word in the Constitution.
Alaska Darin Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Totally agree. You forgot you are talking to strict constructionists here that can't see past the written word in the Constitution. 153978[/snapback] Yeah, let's give some faceless bureaucracy control of our health care AND the only guns available to enforce their will. There are the key components of freedom. Read a history book. Idiots.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Yeah, let's give some faceless bureaucracy control of our health care AND the only guns available to enforce their will. There are the key components of freedom. Read a history book. Idiots. 153984[/snapback] Faceless? Faceless? What's not faceless? Actually Darin, you should read the history books. Schools in America have been screwed up for a long time.
Alaska Darin Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Faceless? Faceless? What's not faceless? Actually Darin, you should read the history books. Schools in America have been screwed up for a long time. 153986[/snapback] Try staying on subject. I know it's hard with all the twittering going on inside that flat topped orb that rests on your shoulders.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Oh... I've read the history books and I want to live past 40.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Try staying on subject. I know it's hard with all the twittering going on inside that flat topped orb that rests on your shoulders. 153989[/snapback] Apply it to anything else you want, works the same. No... Because it effs you simple dicks up.
Alaska Darin Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Oh... I've read the history books and I want to live past 40. 153990[/snapback] Who's fear mongering now?
Alaska Darin Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Apply it to anything else you want, works the same. No... Because it effs you simple dicks up. 153994[/snapback] I know it does. Government involvement hasn't eliminated the problems with the school system, it's simply created more of them at tremendous cost.
Recommended Posts