Dude loses finger in protest of Health Care reform

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Where is Lorrainna Bobbit when you need her.

[Gene Frenkle]

He would send you to hell in a heartbeat when you die for defending immorality in the name of compassion and tolerance. Oh and don't worry, you won't perish where the "worm dieth not and the flame never extinguisheth".

 

WWJD... maybe you don't know this, but Jesus wasn't very tolerant of bad ideas.

I didn't realize you guys were so tight. You're right - if Jesus was anything he was dis-compassionate and intolerant. He certainly didn't take care of the sick or anything stupid like that.

 

Wait, on second thought, I'd have to say that I'm very likely a more moral person than you seem to be. I love and accept all people just like your lord and savior did and I think we should help the sick, regardless of their ability to pay. I don't try to impose my belief system on anyone else and I'm a relatively (especially here) unselfish person. I certainly don't go around gloating about how I think other people will end up burning in hell for all of eternity. To each his own I guess. Your self-righteous pious claims don't bother me. You're lucky because heaven, hell and the rest of that bullschitt doesn't actually exist. So keep doing your thing and believing your fairy tales and enjoy your intolerance while you wait for the Rapture.

 

You call yourself a Christian and it is absurd.

[Steely Dan]

Yea, if he !@#$ with Bishop, he would've bit his dick off. You go girl!

 

What a great comeback!!!

 

 

WWJD

 

He'd waterboard our enemies and then turnaround and flip off the sick and poor.

 

 

Facts are people are denied all the time and are not eligible for medicare or medicaid so stick that in your... your... wherever you stick things and smoke them..

 

A big problem is the major health care companies refusing to pay for life saving treatments and/or operations.

 

I didn't realize you guys were so tight. You're right - if Jesus was anything he was dis-compassionate and intolerant. He certainly didn't take care of the sick or anything stupid like that.

 

Wait, on second thought, I'd have to say that I'm very likely a more moral person than you seem to be. I love and accept all people just like your lord and savior did and I think we should help the sick, regardless of their ability to pay. I don't try to impose my belief system on anyone else and I'm a relatively (especially here) unselfish person. I certainly don't go around gloating about how I think other people will end up burning in hell for all of eternity. To each his own I guess. Your self-righteous pious claims don't bother me. You're lucky because heaven, hell and the rest of that bullschitt doesn't actually exist. So keep doing your thing and believing your fairy tales and enjoy your intolerance while you wait for the Rapture.

 

You call yourself a Christian and it is absurd.

 

If I had a nickel for every Christian poser on this planet I'd be able to buy the planet.

[blzrul]

So my question is whether the fingerless dude had healthcare to cover the expenses of the stitches and tetanus shot....

[blzrul]

I think you're missing the point. You see, due to that Socialist entitlement program MEDICAID, nobody is denied health care. Don't confuse Teabaggers with facts. Much like Presidents of old they tend to think with their ample guts.

"What planet are YOU living on".

 

I think you're joking. Right? Because if not - That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Today, at last.

 

Because in order to qualify for Medicaid you have to be pretty damned poor.

 

So in other words, I should blow all my money, lose my house and get into some low-income housing (subsidized no doubt by taxpayers) toss in a few food stamps etc and THEN I can also get MEDICAID? And if it doesn't cover me, I'll call 911 when I'm sick, or go to the ER and clog that up. Dang that makes sense - why would we want to reform a system that is so wise.

 

I can see now how stupid I've been paying into my 401k since I was 21, that I never had a debt outside my mortgage, that I took out my own long-term care policy, that I pay all my bills on time and can even afford to send my own kid to college and still afford give money to charity. Why should I be willing to use some of my own income to purchase health-care coverage when I can leech off the taxpayer?

[OCinBuffalo]

First of all most of you don't seem to know the difference between Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, or how any of them were designed and/or work. I will do this as 3 separate posts, so let's start with Medicaid:

 

Medicaid:

Intention:

Originally an FDR idea, and he would have done it, but he couldn't fit it in with the other 20 "stimulus" programs he started. He literally died before he got his chance, Truman(blue dog) took over, Kennedy wanted nothing to do with this, and it wasn't until LBJ got in that this idea got implemented

 

Intended to pay for YOUNG: worker's health care who get disabled permanently while on the job, people with a disability, people who are destitute(remember this one for later) or, in JBJackass fashion, young, unmarried mothers. In this way...glorious LBJ would ensure that families, and especially kids(LBJ's favorite), would not grow up going without health care, or going without in general due to parent's health care bills, thus, a more level playing level playing field(we all know this one), because health care costs would not kill the "afflicted", thus we would end up with less broken families, less crime, and healthier bodies all around.

 

As always with liberal ideas: great, high-minded motives, that hardly anyone who possesses an interest in looking out for other Americans can find fault with.

 

Unintended Consequences:

1. taking away the consequences for, and therefore encouraging irresponsible behavior of young adults, whose direct result is 18 years of additional costs to many if not all other government budgets = additional unwanted kids...who grow up in the exact opposite situation that was intended. Hence, medicaid is partially responsible for creating "motherment", welfare moms, etc. Oh and there WAS a racial component to this = LBJ reasoned that more minority babies = more blacks = less of a minority = less racial strife. So, he told unwed black women to have as many babies as they wanted, and he, meaning we, would care for them all.

 

2. remember that "destitute" thing? Well, when grandma runs out of money, or loses her husband's pension when he dies, or her son comes along and demands all her money now, before she dies, and before her care provider can "steal it" by taking care of her ...grandma now becomes...destitute... and qualifies for Medicaid. Why? Because LBJ in his infinite wisdom thought grandma would be long dead before any of that ever happened, and, he thought that the USA's economic power would never ever again be seriously challenged because at the time, everybody else in the world still had bomb craters in their front yard.

 

Reality = people are living longer, and we don't have spare cash we had in the 60s, both combine to mean: 75% of Medicaid is going to people who are "supposed" to be dead, leaving only 25% for the young injured workers/mothers/disabled it was originally INTENDED to help. And, 50% of that is going for kids who aren't supposed to be alive, since the intention was "covering a single mistake" of one unintended child, not enabling 4-5 "revenue streams" per unwed mother. As such...it has no possible chance of paying for itself as it was designed. Too much going out...not enough coming in. It's really as simple as that.

 

Modern Democrat policy wonks know this, hence the "end of life counseling" aspect of the proposed legislation of today. In essence, "end of life" is there to try to repair this giant F up in the Medicaid laws, and of course, to try to pretend like this giant F up doesn't exist, thus protecting LBJ's legacy. IF they can get more grandma's to choose death, they can make the original Medicaid plan work again = keep their precious, flawed program, instead of REALLY reforming it.

 

If they can't then yes, blzurl is correct: since there is only about 18% of what is supposed to be available for the intended recipients, you have to be EXTREMELY destitute to qualify for something that was intended to get you back on your feet. But she, in her usual fashion, ignores the "how we got here", treats it as meaningless and call us idiots? because her party's program is f'ing broken? WTF?

 

As always with liberal ideas: horrific, child-like/incompetent methods, that hardly anyone who possesses common sense can't find fault with.