This should make right-wingers simply "giddy" with joy

[Laz]

WAR ON THE WORKING POOR - MISSOURI'S MEDICAID SHAME: A conservative argument


05/04/2005

HARD WORK, self-sufficiency, independence, economic prosperity, a healthy work force, a thrifty use of resources. These are values shared by most Americans and certainly most conservatives.

When applied to the Medicaid debate in Missouri, these values make a strong conservative argument against cutting off health care to 90,000 Missourians.

The largest group of people that will lose health coverage under the cuts made by Gov. Matt Blunt and the GOP Legislature is working parents. About 68,000 of the 90,000 people losing Medicaid are low-income parents, mostly people working hard at minimum-wage jobs without health benefits.

These aren't slackers. These are the working moms who take our cleaning, flip our burgers and greet us as at the discount store. They're not lazy; they just don't get paid much.

Mr. Blunt has said that Missouri still will have a generous Medicaid program after the cuts and that the reductions are necessary to "protect those who most need the services." But a single mother with two children will lose her health care if she makes more than $292 a month. (That's the third stingiest eligibility level in the nation.)

Think about it: $292 a month; $67 a week; $10 a day. How many people could live on that and still have enough money to buy health care? Surely, these working parents are among "those who most need the services."

How much encouragement does a single parent have to start climbing the economic ladder on the bottom rung of a low-paying job if she knows she will forfeit her health care? Covering single parents with jobs also is relatively inexpensive; it costs only about $1,100 per person in state money. That's a bargain for the security of a healthy work force.


Independence and self-sufficiency


The elderly and disabled people who will lose health care are struggling to hold on to their independence and to stay out of nursing homes. Missouri conservatives should be rooting for them. Independence is important to a person's self-worth. And nursing home care for the elderly and disabled costs the state a lot more than home health services that help the elderly and disabled stay in their own homes.

Already, Medicaid pays for two out of every three nursing home beds. The last thing the state should be doing is forcing more of Missouri's elderly into nursing homes.

It makes no sense at all to pay for wheelchairs but not the expensive batteries needed to operate them. It makes no sense to pay for a prosthetic leg but not for the physical therapy needed to learn how to use it. The absurdity of that kind of logic would be funny if it were not so cruel.

Elderly and disabled people facing a loss of their lifeline to independence can be desperate. One Missouri woman had her teeth pulled because she feared she would lose dental care. Others say they rather would die than give up their independence. Missourians struggling against the unrelenting limitations of age and disability should have all the help we can give them.


Prosperity and economic development


If an entrepreneur had a business opportunity that would pay $3 for every $2 he invested, he would jump at it. Medicaid is analogous for the states. The federal government provides about $3 for every $2 the state spends on the health care of its neediest citizens.

By cutting $250 million in state Medicaid money, Missouri loses nearly $380 million in federal Medicaid money. That kills jobs and hurts the poor rural communities in southeast Missouri where the hospitals and health clinics rely heavily on Medicaid money. At the Ozarks Medical Center in West Plains, Mo., more than one-third of the patients admitted last year were paid for by Medicaid. Yet state Sen. Chuck Purgason, R-West Plains, sponsored the bill cutting Medicaid for his constituents.

At Cross Trails clinic in Marble Hill, Medicaid accounts for about one-third of its revenue. At nearby Southeast Missouri Hospital in Cape Girardeau, Medicaid pays for 42 percent of the babies born there. Yet House Speaker Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill, and Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, have pushed the very cuts that could devastate their hard-working, conservative rural communities.

Two St. Louis University economists estimate that more than 10,000 people will lose their jobs throughout Missouri as a result of the Medicaid cuts. The state will lose $737.4 million in economic activity - a far bigger blow to the economy than the loss of the Ford auto plant in Hazelwood.

The state economy also depends on a healthy work force. Poor working parents who can't afford health care miss workdays or straggle into work sick and infect others, damaging productivity. Businesses also end up picking up part of the tab for the massive cost shifts that occur when people lose their health care and end up in hospital emergency rooms, where the cost of care is high. That makes Missouri businesses less competitive.

In short, Medicaid not only keeps the state's parents and workers healthy and its elderly independent, it also preserves the health of small town communities and helps keep the state's economy afloat. That's in the best interest of all Missourians, regardless of their politics.

[Laz]

Medicaid on the Block
By Tony Pecinovsky

Related stories: Your health 5-23-05, 2:15 pm

Nationally and locally, right-wing Republicans are out to destroy Medicaid. They believe that the public health and medical service program is inefficient and unprofitable. In Missouri, Republican Governor Matt Blunt is hoping to set a national precedent by attempting to eliminate Medicaid in Missouri completely by 2008. Blunt and his right-wing corporate supporters are waging an ideological war against the poor and society’s most defenseless.

Fortunately, there is a strategy to fight against the Republican agenda. Missouri public sector unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Communications Workers of America (CWA) have taken the initiative to help build and fund a statewide coalition, Missourians for Health (MFH). The coalition aims to protect Missouri’s most vulnerable citizens, unite advocates of Medicaid and other health care services and focus the debate so that all government sponsored health care programs are protected.

Medicaid became law in 1965 and is a federally aided, state operated and administered program that provides benefits to low-income, mentally ill and disabled individuals in need of health and medical services. As a social safety-net service, Medicaid provides health and medical services to our most vulnerable citizens and insures that those unable to care for themselves are not only cared for, but are treated with dignity and respect.

Medicaid is one of our nations most efficient programs, far more efficient than traditional private, for-profit health insurance programs. Low administrative costs allow most Medicaid funds to be used for patient care. Medicaid is the nation’s largest provider of nursing home care (around 60 percent), and it provides a buffer in times of recession, as employers cut benefits and increase layoffs.

It is commonly believed that Medicaid only provides benefits to low-income elderly individuals; in fact, the program provides benefits to all low-income age groups with severe health or medical needs. Nationally, Medicaid provides health or medical services to 50 million people, making it the largest source of funding for health and medical services for low-income families. In Missouri, nearly one million people, around 20 percent of our population, receive Medicaid benefits, including 550,000 children or nearly one out of every three children in the state.

The attack

The attack on Medicaid isn’t just about denying society’s most vulnerable citizens access to health and medical services, it is also part of a long-term ideological agenda to destroy social safety-net services completely and eliminate all government sponsored health programs.

Due to Missouri’s current budget deficit, Governor Blunt claims he has cut state and federal funds for Medicaid by more than $626 million. This will not only eliminate Medicaid services for at least 130,000 state residents and limit medically necessary services for hundreds of thousands of others, but will cause Missouri to lose about 10,000 jobs and $737 million in economic activity as well.

While many of the Medicaid cuts will be achieved by direct reductions in coverage and services to individual recipients, Blunt and the Republican state legislature also want to close public health care facilities and let private, for-profit facilities take over.

For example, the Bellefontaine Rehab Center has 342 clients and employs over 900 state workers, members of SEIU and AFSCME. The center costs the state $286 per day, per client and of that $286 the federal government reimburses the state 61 percent. The actual cost to the state per day, per client is $111.54. Currently, Missouri is allocating $288 per day, per client to private facilities; two dollars more per day, per client than in public facilities. Governor Blunt says closing the Bellefontaine facility will save $13 million a year. In reality, closure will cost taxpayers more.

Not only are Missouri residents paying more per day, per client, subsidizing the private facility’s profit margins, but they are also footing the bill by what is called "cost-shifting."
Do you subscribe to Political Affairs?
click image to find out how


The Church at the Crossroads

Cutting people off of Medicaid will not eliminate their need for medical care. Without health insurance and with little or no money to pay for care, the cost of these services will be shifted to doctors, hospitals, other safety net providers, families, correctional facilities, employers and emergency rooms, i.e. to taxpayers. Eventually, cost will be passed on to those with health insurance through higher premiums.

Blunt’s plan doesn’t stop at cutting services to Missouri’s citizens. He wants to destroy Medicaid in Missouri forever. The Republican controlled House and Senate have passed Senate Bill 539 for just that purpose. The bill establishes a Medicaid Reform Commission whose sole purpose is to end Medicaid as we know it by 2008.

According to the bill, the commission will consist of 10 members, five from the House and five from the Senate. Six of the 10 members can come from the same party and are nominated by the majority leadership in each chamber, both currently Republican. The commission will make recommendations to the General Assembly by January 1, 2006 on "reforming, redesigning and restructuring a new innovative healthcare delivery" system to "replace the current state Medicaid system."

According to MFH, the reform commission will end Medicaid whether or not an acceptable or legal alternative is developed. Low-income Missourians and seniors will be left with no plan for how they will receive health insurance or their long-term care. In fact, finding ways to improve the existing Medicaid program is not one of the options to be studied by the commission.

Over one million Missourians could lose Medicaid coverage, around 25 percent of Missouri’s total population. If the reform commission is successful it will set a dangerous precedent for other states to follow and the most vulnerable sections of our society will be left without access to health and medical services.

Fighting Back

Missouri’s public sector unions, SEIU, AFSCME and CWA have initiated a strategy to fight back. They have brought together and funded the largest health care coalition in the state, Missourians for Health (MFH). MFH is not only made up of traditional union allies, but also includes organizations such as the Arthritis Foundation, the Foster-Adoptive Care Coalition, the Save First Steps Coalition, Paraquad and many others.

The broad spectrum of health and medical service advocates brought into the coalition link the fight to protect all government sponsored health programs – programs that are significant to all Missourians, not just low-income Missourians – to the fight to save Medicaid.

In order to broaden the coalition, MFH has focused on health and medical services in general, but it has not forgotten about the Bellefontaine Rehab Center, nor the 900 union members who work there. Union members at the Bellefontaine Rehab Center have been working with the Center’s Parents Association and others to collect petition signatures demanding that Blunt keep the facility open. Union members have highlighted the fact that allegations of abuse at private facilities are often covered up or ignored, that accountability and public oversight are almost impossible and that administrative costs at private facilities are many times higher than those at public facilities, which increases costs for consumers. According to the Parents Association, "even if clients could survive the traumatic transition, most families can’t afford care from a private facility."

The 900 union members who work at Bellefontaine earn an average of $17,000 a year and would lose their jobs if the center closes. The MFH’s fight to protect Medicaid and other health and medical service programs is tantamount to preserving union jobs and insuring that the clients at Bellefontaine receive the type of treatment and care they deserve.

MFH coalition member, Missouri Pro-Vote, has suggested that the state legislature close corporate tax loopholes as one way of funding Medicaid and other health and medical service programs. As of 2002, ninety of Missouri’s biggest corporations – those with $50 million in taxable income – didn’t pay a penny in state taxes and more than 16,000 of the state’s most profitable corporations paid less in taxes than the average Missourian. Closing these loopholes could generate nearly $200 million for the state budget, money that could be spent on Medicaid and other health and medical service programs. While closing corporate tax loopholes won’t solve all of the problems, it will place the argument in context and encourage others to ask the question: Why are corporations and wealthy individuals getting tax breaks while Missouri’s most vulnerable citizens are forced to sacrifice?

A Fight We Can’t Afford to Lose

Right-wing Republicans control the Missouri House, Senate and executive office. Eliminating Medicaid is part of their long-term, ideological strategy, put in motion during the Reagan administration, to weaken and cripple social service safety-nets that working-class people rely on.

If we lose the battle to preserve Medicaid, one of our most efficient and effective health and medical service programs, nearly one million Missourians will be hung out to dry. The fight to save Medicaid is a fight to the death for many Missourians. This is a fight we can’t lose.


--Tony Pecinovsky is a reader from St. Louis, Missouri.

[Logical]

Nice argument for supporting medicaid. I think the problem could be solved by allowing those who have jobs to continue to receive their medicaid.

[Donger]

Giddy? No.

But I'm not of the opinion that the government should be providing health coverage to anyone other than government employees anyway.

[MarcBulger]

From 1965 to 1992 Medicaid was used by a total of 500,000 people. Thats not per year thats a total to 27 years. Since 1992 Mel Carnahan opened the flood gates, there were befor ethese cuts 1 million people on Medicaid. Hell there are only 6million in Missouri, Kids cant afford them, don't have them.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Putting my conservative hat back on; the part that stinks is that we'll have to pay for it anyway. People will still go to the doctor, only if they don't have healthcare, they go to the ER because it's more convenient. Only, that is more expensive. Even if they don't go to the ER, they'll still go to the hospital, and the hospitals don't turn people away who can't afford their services. Anyone who uses, and pays for, healthcare will still end up paying.

[WoodDraw]

But I'm not of the opinion that the government should be providing health coverage to anyone other than government employees anyway.

And then what do you say to the thousands of children without health care? "**** you, your parents should try harder"? There's no easy or right answer here but I'm fairly certain that getting the government out of it isn't anywhere close to a real solution.

[Saggysack]

Giddy? No.

But I'm not of the opinion that the government should be providing health coverage to anyone other than government employees anyway.

Damn all those soldiers families...

[Laz]

went through


Judge denies injunction request


Medicaid cuts hit Missourians

By KIT WAGAR and DEBRA SKODACK The Kansas City Star


Medical coverage for more than 23,000 Missourians lapsed as planned Friday after a federal judge denied a request to delay the changes.

The delay was sought by two public-interest law firms that sued the Department of Social Services on Wednesday, alleging that Medicaid recipients had received inadequate notice of the cutoff and were not given the proper chance to appeal the state’s ruling.

But U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey issued an order late Thursday night denying the request for an injunction that would have allowed Medicaid coverage to continue. Laughrey said she would file her ruling outlining the reasons for her order at a later date.

State officials were pleased with the ruling. Gary Sherman, Missouri’s director of social services, praised Gov. Matt Blunt and lawmakers for moving to rein in “a rate of program expansion that was absolutely unsustainable.”

“We are confident that the needed reforms … will ensure the program remains solvent while a new, more viable system is crafted,” Sherman said in a written statement. “We continue to provide a very generous Medicaid program, committing over 29 percent of the state’s total budget to provide medical services to needy Missourians.”

Marc Cohan, who argued the case for the Welfare Law Center of New York, one of the groups that challenged the state’s actions, said he would continue trying to convince the judge that the state’s methods are causing people to be thrown off the program even though they still are eligible.

He pointed to the three St. Louis women in the lawsuit who were told they were losing Medicaid coverage. After the lawsuit was filed, the state acknowledged that those determinations were erroneous.

“We have no faith that the department’s review process will catch those cases,” Cohan said. “The three named plaintiffs are not the only ones. We will continue to fight to make sure that anyone still eligible gets their eligibility restored as quickly as possible.”

Those dropped from the Medicaid program are mostly low-income parents who have not worked enough during the last six months to qualify for temporary coverage while they gain work experience.

Deborah Scott, spokeswoman for social services, said the department’s review and appeals process restored coverage for 488 who at first had been determined ineligible under Friday’s new rules.

The cutoff in coverage — part of Gov. Matt Blunt’s plan to restructure and downsize Medicaid — was authorized by Missouri lawmakers when they adopted a budget that dramatically lowered the maximum income an adult was allowed to have and still remain eligible.

Scott said 22,020 persons lost coverage Friday because their income exceeded 23 percent of the federal poverty level. Previously, they qualified with income up to 75 percent of the poverty level.

An additional 1,560 persons on Friday exhausted temporary coverage intended to help make the transition from welfare to work.

For about 44,200 other people, the clock began ticking Friday on Medicaid coverage. Those people moved from the regular Medicaid program to transitional status that will last six months to a year.

Organizations that provide health care to Kansas City’s indigent said they noticed some changes Friday but no signs of panic.

Sheri Wood, executive director of the Kansas City Free Health Clinic, said the Medicaid changes prompted several calls Thursday and Friday to the mental health clinic. People who had lost Medicaid coverage were making appointments at her clinic so their treatment and medications could continue uninterrupted.

Shelly Phinney, corporate manager of the financial consulting center at Truman Medical Center, said pregnant women came into Truman on Friday thinking they were no longer covered.

The women did not realize that pregnant women qualify for Medicaid at much higher income levels than for regular Medicaid coverage for most adults. Coverage for pregnant women was not changed.

Some nonemergency patients were unaware they no longer had coverage. “They were shocked,” Phinney said. “We did treat them.”

Phinney said some patients were eligible for transitional benefits but had not applied for them. She said her office was fairly calm.

“A lot of it might be because it is a day before a holiday (weekend),” Phinney said. “I do imagine it will be a lot busier, maybe next week.”

Kelvin Simmons, vice president of development at Swope Health Services, said that facility was noticeably busier. “I am not sure whether it is busy because it is a day before the holiday or it being D-Day,” Simmons said. He said it was likely to become even busier.

“I don’t think it’s sunk in,” he said of the Medicaid changes.

[Donger]

And then what do you say to the thousands of children without health care? "**** you, your parents should try harder"? There's no easy or right answer here but I'm fairly certain that getting the government out of it isn't anywhere close to a real solution.

Temporary and with for reasons beyond the parents control? Sure, that's fine. As a safety net; not socialized medicine.

[Donger]

Damn all those soldiers families...

Do the families of soldiers not qualify for some kind of health coverage? I'm not being a smart ass; I honestly don't know.

[jettio]

This is an area where private insurance can do a world of good.

Anybody can get private health insurance, all it takes is several hundred dollars and a willingness to get screwed out of it.

[Metrolike]

This is an area where private insurance can do a world of good.

Anybody can get private health insurance, all it takes is several hundred dollars and a willingness to get screwed out of it.

ROFL

[Nightfyre]

I love it:

Covering single parents with jobs also is relatively inexpensive; it costs only about $1,100 per person in state money.

ROFL And who would be paying that if the people who are too poor to afford it arent? Ah yes.... Economic equality at its finest.

[Nightfyre]

But hey, while they are at it, what kind of emplyed person makes less than $10 a day? The unemployed deserve it the least. Axe it all together.

[Laz]

But hey, while they are at it, what kind of emplyed person makes less than $10 a day? The unemployed deserve it the least. Axe it all together.
for real ... lets just cut it all


king of the jungle baby, if you can't hack we'll can just kill'em off like a pack of sharks.


Feed on the injured ... move on




15 cent for a bullet should take care of the weak alot cheaper then social services.

[Nightfyre]

for real ... lets just cut it all


king of the jungle baby, if you can't hack we'll can just kill'em off like a pack of sharks.


Feed on the injured ... move on




15 cent for a bullet should take care of the weak alot cheaper then social services.
Hey, its not my fault single parents cant afford to take care of themselves let alone a child. They probably should have thought that through before having a kid though, huh? The lack of personal responsibility and the excuses for it should be the first thing society cleans up.

[Laz]

Hey, its not my fault single parents cant afford to take care of themselves let alone a child. They probably should have thought that through before having a kid though, huh? The lack of personal responsibility and the excuses for it should be the first thing society cleans up.
if you really think it's that simple then your.... nevermind



let's just say your fellow republicans will be proud.

[Nightfyre]

if you really think it's that simple then your.... nevermind



let's just say your fellow republicans will be proud.
Loving the party stereotype :shake: Im no republican.

[Laz]

Loving the party stereotype :shake: Im no republican.
maybe you should consider it ... you seem to have some of their short-sightedness


man and woman gets married

have a few kids

both work hard ... but they are making it


man dies


woman is now trying to make it on the one income where 2 was barely enough before.



... republican, moral to the story:

"stupid beotch should of never had kids in the first place... "

[WoodDraw]

Loving the party stereotype :shake: Im no republican.

That is absolutely CLASSIC coming from a person who just stereotyped all of those without healthcare as lacking responsibility. :thumb:

[BCD]

maybe you should consider it ... you seem to have some of their short-sightedness


man and woman gets married

have a few kids

both work hard ... but they are making it


man dies


woman is now trying to make it on the one income where 2 was barely enough before.



... republican, moral to the story:

"stupid beotch should of never had kids in the first place... "Life's a bitch, then you die. I'd say the father got the shit end of the stick. Atleast his wife and kids are still alive...

Edit: Also, why should the burden be placed upon the taxpayer? I already pay $1400/year in premiums for myself and my son.

[beavis]

maybe you should consider it ... you seem to have some of their short-sightedness


man and woman gets married

have a few kids

both work hard ... but they are making it


man dies


woman is now trying to make it on the one income where 2 was barely enough before.



... republican, moral to the story:

"stupid beotch should of never had kids in the first place... "
"if you really think it's that simple then your.... nevermind"

[Logical]

"if you really think it's that simple then your.... nevermind"

Of course it is not always that simple but sometime it is and that is why legislation needs to accomodate for the possibility. Not everyone using welfare is a freeloader. Laz has a legitimate point.

[Metrolike]

Of course it is not always that simple but sometime it is and that is why legislation needs to accomodate for the possibility. Not everyone using welfare is a freeloader. Laz has a legitimate point.

I thought you were extremely wealthy...

[Logical]

I thought you were extremely wealthy...Bill Gates and Lamar Hunt are extremely wealthy. I am very comfortable. Not quite the same thing.

[Saggysack]

Of course it is not always that simple but sometime it is and that is why legislation needs to accomodate for the possibility. Not everyone using welfare is a freeloader. Laz has a legitimate point.

Wha? You mean there are people out there that are actually hard working and struggle to get by on a daily basis.

I'm callin your bluff, buddy. All poor people are lazy sacks of crap. ;)

[Laz]

Life's a bitch, then you die. I'd say the father got the shit end of the stick. Atleast his wife and kids are still alive...

Edit: Also, why should the burden be placed upon the taxpayer? I already pay $1400/year in premiums for myself and my son.
translation: I just don't give a shit about anyone but me


this IS the true republican platform ... they just hide it well


from now on you don't have to bother arguing points ... just stick with the "**** everyone else, what's in it for me stance"


at least then your being honest


like i said, this should make some "giddy"

[Nightfyre]

maybe you should consider it ... you seem to have some of their short-sightedness


man and woman gets married

have a few kids

both work hard ... but they are making it


man dies


woman is now trying to make it on the one income where 2 was barely enough before.



... republican, moral to the story:

"stupid beotch should of never had kids in the first place... "

Yay for life insurance.

[Brock]

translation: I just don't give a shit about anyone but me


That is true of you as well. You are just like everyone else, though you try to disguise it. You are out for YOU and f*ck anyone else. Just admit it, you'll feel better. Stop pretending to be the working class hero.

[Nightfyre]

translation: I just don't give a shit about anyone but me


this IS the true republican platform ... they just hide it well


from now on you don't have to bother arguing points ... just stick with the "**** everyone else, what's in it for me stance"


at least then your being honest


like i said, this should make some "giddy"
You're damn straight. I want to be able to choose who my money goes to. I want to be able to take care of mine. It's not my job to pay for some crackwhores lifestyle.

[Laz]

Yay for life insurance.
typical flip,elitest response


how many young people think about or can afford to invest in life insurance in their twenties.... especially when they are already on a tight budget with kids?

beside medicaid should be the last welfare program to be cut anyway.


1st - it's only for medical stuff ... it's not like people are using it to buy booze.

2nd - it has the strictest qualifications for approval. you basically have to be well below the poverty line to get it. If you own a house you have to sell it before you can qualify. If you have any kind of retirement/401k/investments at all you have to cash them out regardless of penalty before you qualify. In fact, if i remember correctly you can't have more than $5,000 networth(including car) before you can get medicaid.


it's for the poorest of the poor



$200 billion for a humanitarian effort :rolleyes: in iraq while we cut bare minimum medical care IN THE U.S.

nice

[Nightfyre]

typical flip,elitest response


how many young people think about or can afford to invest in life insurance in their twenties.... especially when they are already on a tight budget with kids?

beside medicaid should be the last welfare program to be cut anyway.


1st - it's only for medical stuff ... it's not like people are using it to buy booze.

2nd - it has the strictest qualifications for approval. you basically have to be well below the poverty line to get it. If you own a house you have to sell it before you can qualify. If you have any kind of retirement/401k/investments at all you have to cash them out regardless of penalty before you qualify. In fact, if i remember correctly you can't have more than $5,000 networth(including car) before you can get medicaid.


it's for the poorest of the poor



$200 billion for a humanitarian effort :rolleyes: in iraq while we cut bare minimum medical care IN THE U.S.

nice
Hey, I dont support the war. But I sure as hell dont support paying for crackwhores. Life insurance isnt that expensive when you are in your 20s either. Doh.

[Laz]

That is true of you as well. You are just like everyone else, though you try to disguise it. You are out for YOU and f*ck anyone else. Just admit it, you'll feel better. Stop pretending to be the working class hero.
bullchit ... I'm not on medicaid and i don't live in mizzery


so how in **** does that situation benefit me either way?!



if you want to save money on all medical stuff then go after those price gouging bastards in the medical community. Look for the people getting medicaid through fraud.

But you don't just cut it.

[Laz]

Hey, I dont support the war. But I sure as hell dont support paying for crackwhores. Life insurance isnt that expensive when you are in your 20s either. Doh.

assuming that everyone getting medicaid is a crackwhore that is. :shake:

[Nightfyre]

assuming that everyone getting medicaid is a crackwhore that is. :shake:
No, but I will take care of my family and friends. I dont support crackwhores. So if I am going to take care of mine, Im not going to support medicaid am I?

[Laz]

No, but I will take care of my family and friends. I dont support crackwhores. So if I am going to take care of mine, Im not going to support medicaid am I?

thanks for you input, Rush

[Brock]

bullchit ... I'm not on medicaid and i don't live in mizzery


so how in **** does that situation benefit me either way?!
.

I never said you were. I am pointing out that you look fairly hypocritical when you run down other people as elitist f*cks who greedily want to keep the money they work for, but you haven't demonstrated any willingness to do anything more about the problem than any of the aforementioned greedy pricks.

[Laz]

I never said you were. I am pointing out that you look fairly hypocritical when you run down other people as elitist f*cks who greedily want to keep the money they work for, but you haven't demonstrated any willingness to do anything more about the problem than any of the aforementioned greedy pricks.
i see




i thought i was trying to do something about it by converting you greedy pricks from your wicked ways. :p

[Mark M]

You're damn straight. I want to be able to choose who my money goes to. I want to be able to take care of mine. It's not my job to pay for some crackwhores lifestyle.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a dumbass.

My wife's best friend just lost coverage—she's a teacher who recently lost her husband. She'd love to get the insurance plan offered by her school district, but it costs so much that she would have to choose between that or rent or day care.

Hate to break the fact to you, but not everyone on Medicaid is some freeloading piece of crap. There has GOT to be a better way to trim the fat from the welfare rolls without throwing those that need the help into the fire.

MM
~~:hmmm:

[|Zach|]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a dumbass.


ROFL

[go bowe]

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

[Nightfyre]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a dumbass.

My wife's best friend just lost coverage—she's a teacher who recently lost her husband. She'd love to get the insurance plan offered by her school district, but it costs so much that she would have to choose between that or rent or day care.

Hate to break the fact to you, but not everyone on Medicaid is some freeloading piece of crap. There has GOT to be a better way to trim the fat from the welfare rolls without throwing those that need the help into the fire.

MM
~~:hmmm:
Ah yes. But why should I have to pay for these people? Yes shit does happen. But why should I be held fiscally responsible for that? You see, I will take care of my family and friends. My individual management of where my money goes DOES eliminate the crackwhores while keeping the good people whom I care about in good hands. In this way, I deem where my "welfare" tax goes, not some government official who has never met the person. That is how I would like to see it work.

[Brock]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a dumbass.

My wife's best friend just lost coverage—she's a teacher who recently lost her husband. She'd love to get the insurance plan offered by her school district, but it costs so much that she would have to choose between that or rent or day care.

Hate to break the fact to you, but not everyone on Medicaid is some freeloading piece of crap. There has GOT to be a better way to trim the fat from the welfare rolls without throwing those that need the help into the fire.

MM
~~:hmmm:

So your wife's best friend had a husband that didn't care enough about her to buy life insurance? That's sad.

[Henry]

Giddy? No.

But I'm not of the opinion that the government should be providing health coverage to anyone other than government employees anyway.


You may feel differently, when you get older.