PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Real Looters: Those Who Refuse to Buy Health Insurance


Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 11:31 AM
The Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck wingtards are fond of referring to anyone who opposes their minimalist approach to government...as "looters." From my point of view, the real "looters" in society....are those who refuse to buy health insurance. Because they are the real reason for the current health care quandry.

cdcox said it best in another thread on the topic:

For those that argue that health care is not a right: all people in this country do have the right to emergency care. It may not be a constitutional right, but in a practical sense it is as real as any other right. That argument was decided a long time ago.

To those who argue that being forced to buy health insurance is morally wrong I offer that a moral wrong of equal magnitude already exists. Those that have insurance or the financial ability to pay their own bills involuntarily subsidize the health care of the poor.

Where is your moral outrage over this injustice?

What say you???

:hmmm:

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2010, 11:34 AM
The Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck wingtards are fond of referring to anyone who opposes their minimalist approach to government. From my point of view, the real "looters" in society....are those who refuse to buy health insurance. Because they are the real reason for the current health care quandry.

cdcox said it best in another thread on the topic:



What say you???

:hmmm:

No they are not to blame, a governemnt getting involved to begin with is too blame.

petegz28
03-24-2010, 11:34 AM
So what you are saying is the people who choose Ipods and X-boxes and cable tv over health insurance are looting the system and crying for the Fed Gov to get people who do buy insurance to pay more so they can have it are looting the system?


I might buy that.

Chief Henry
03-24-2010, 11:35 AM
No they are not to blame, a governemnt getting involved to begin with is too blame.



The game will be played by the rules established by the gov't. Its been that way for years.

HonestChieffan
03-24-2010, 11:43 AM
If people who dont buy it are the problem, why didnt the solution focus on them? Does government taking over student loans make people buy insurance? How does student loan programs relate to Insurance cost? Did building a new hospital wing in Conn address the issue?

petegz28
03-24-2010, 11:44 AM
If people who dont buy it are the problem, why didnt the solution focus on them? Does government taking over student loans make people buy insurance? How does student loan programs relate to Insurance cost? Did building a new hospital wing in Conn address the issue?

The more important question is, how is making people who do buy insurance pay even more so those who don't buy it can have it not looting by the ones who don't currently buy insurance?

The Left is in full blown damage control mode right now and it is showing.

fan4ever
03-24-2010, 11:50 AM
If people who dont buy it are the problem, why didnt the solution focus on them? Does government taking over student loans make people buy insurance? How does student loan programs relate to Insurance cost? Did building a new hospital wing in Conn address the issue?

Exactly; the government could have subsidized them for what; a couple of billion and then gone about changing the healthcare/health insurance situation step by step instead of a gigantic boondoggle power grab.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 12:11 PM
Exactly; the government could have subsidized them for what; a couple of billion and then gone about changing the healthcare/health insurance situation step by step instead of a gigantic boondoggle power grab.

The "power grab" is to take control of a vital industry from money-gubbing creeps who put profits, dividends, and greed....ahead of affordable healthcare for average Americans.

Then, hospitals and doctors engage in cost-shifting to rape those of us who DO pay...yet again.

With all it's flaws, this plan will eventually move us away from that. In the end, that's a good thing.

petegz28
03-24-2010, 12:14 PM
The "power grab" is to take control of a vital industry from money-gubbing creeps who put profits, dividends, and greed....ahead of affordable healthcare for average Americans.

Then, hospitals and doctors engage in cost-shifting to rape those of us who DO pay...yet again.

With all it's flaws, this plan will eventually move us away from that. In the end, that's a good thing.

LMAO....do you actually believe this bullshit you spout? I am sure the government raping you to pay for others will feel better. Either wyam you're being raped.

This plan will reduce care, raise taxes, hurt the economy and bascially fuck us all in the long run.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 12:15 PM
LMAO....do you actually believe this bullshit you spout? I am sure the government raping you to pay for others will feel better. Either wyam you're being raped.

This plan will reduce care, raise taxes, hurt the economy and bascially **** us all in the long run.

Keep drinking the Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck kool-aid. :rolleyes:

HonestChieffan
03-24-2010, 12:16 PM
LMAO....do you actually believe this bullshit you spout? I am sure the government raping you to pay for others will feel better. Either wyam you're being raped.

This plan will reduce care, raise taxes, hurt the economy and bascially **** us all in the long run.


You know, I am beginng to believe he does believe this crap. He is to consistant to be trolling.

petegz28
03-24-2010, 12:17 PM
Keep drinking the Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck kool-aid. :rolleyes:

Yea, and you keep making excuses for people not having health care as they buy that new pair of Nike's, get the newest IPod and spend hours playing x-box games and texting on their cell phones.

Otter
03-24-2010, 12:22 PM
With all it's flaws, this plan will eventually move us away from that. In the end, that's a good thing.

Where can we start with disasters that began with this logic?

Baby Lee
03-24-2010, 12:29 PM
Keep drinking the Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck kool-aid. :rolleyes:

You should NOT be an attorney. The eloquence of your reasoning is too blinding.

HonestChieffan
03-24-2010, 12:31 PM
Where can we start with disasters that began with this logic?

Education?

patteeu
03-24-2010, 12:32 PM
The Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck wingtards are fond of referring to anyone who opposes their minimalist approach to government...as "looters." From my point of view, the real "looters" in society....are those who refuse to buy health insurance. Because they are the real reason for the current health care quandry.

cdcox said it best in another thread on the topic:



What say you???

:hmmm:

Those people are indeed real looters just like you and the rest of the people who want ever-more-redistributive legislation like this health reform law. You should form a club and you can all swap testimonials about how much you love to sponge off of other people.

BTW, there are quite a few of those "wingtards" as you call them, who have expressed disdain for the free riders under the current system. It's not like that's a fresh observation or anything (although it may be to you). It's just natural that expressions of moral outrage are sharper when a new outrage presents itself than when an age old outrage just continues to be.

fan4ever
03-24-2010, 12:35 PM
Keep drinking the Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck kool-aid. :rolleyes:

You've got to come up with a new response someday.

patteeu
03-24-2010, 12:35 PM
LMAO....do you actually believe this bullshit you spout? I am sure the government raping you to pay for others will feel better. Either wyam you're being raped.

This plan will reduce care, raise taxes, hurt the economy and bascially **** us all in the long run.

He's impressively shameless in his greed.

bowener
03-24-2010, 12:37 PM
Yea, and you keep making excuses for people not having health care as they buy that new pair of Nike's, get the newest IPod and spend hours playing x-box games and texting on their cell phones.

I suppose you could look at everybody that is an "other" to you like that. Another way would be to understand that they are poor, and they know this, they are not disillusioned. They do not like being nor do they enjoy being poor, nobody does (unless you're Brewster (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088850/), and even that was short lived). Perhaps, and this is a crazy idea that may be hard to grasp, maybe they buy things such as Ipods, Nikes, texting (?), and xboxs so that they can either create the image that they are not as poor as they are, something that basically every single American does, rather you want to acknowledge that or not (it is fundamental to our capitalist/materialist economy - buying shit you do not need). The other reason may be that they are attempting to fool themselves, so to speak. They do not like being poor, they have spent their whole life being poor, their parents spent their whole lives being poor, so when they do get some money left over, they feel like spending it on a luxury item that they can enjoy and/or make them feel like they have some wealth.

Another example: when you see a person walking or driving down the street and observe them and notice that they appear to be wealthy by the nice clothes they wear or the nice car they drive (or even their house), you may want to emulate that. You do not see their life or health insurance, you do not see their car insurance, you do not see their hidden credit card debts or outstanding loans, you see what that person wants you to see, the image of wealth that they are trying to convey.

So, if you are poor and see this, your idea of wealth is one of a material basis. Nice TVs mean I must have some money since I bought it. Seeing a brand new Chevy Silverado with a lift kit and big ass tires typically conveyed wealth in my hometown. It wasn't long before most of the guys in my class and above starting trying to buy and/or buying (sometimes new) used Chevy's and jacking them up with big ****ing tires. Most of them couldn't afford this, but that is what made them look cool or wealthy.

There are a lot of reasons beyond the overly simplified version of the truth you gave as to why the poor may "waste" their money on things they do not need, you simply have to look and read.

edit:

I'd also like to add that if health care is so important that you speak with disdain of people who buy other material goods (the backbone of our economy no less) instead of coverage, why are so many people bitching about it now being required? If it is this important, that you should/must own it first over all other things you may desire, then isn't it a good thing that everyone will now have to own some form of it?

bowener
03-24-2010, 12:39 PM
Those people are indeed real looters just like you and the rest of the people who want ever-more-redistributive legislation like this health reform law. You should form a club and you can all swap testimonials about how much you love to sponge off of other people.

BTW, there are quite a few of those "wingtards" as you call them, who have expressed disdain for the free riders under the current system. It's not like that's a fresh observation or anything (although it may be to you). It's just natural that expressions of moral outrage are sharper when a new outrage presents itself than when an age old outrage just continues to be.

What is a free rider?

patteeu
03-24-2010, 12:42 PM
I suppose you could look at everybody that is an "other" to you like that. Another way would be to understand that they are poor, and they know this, they are not disillusioned. They do not like being nor do they enjoy being poor, nobody does (unless you're Brewster (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088850/), and even that was short lived). Perhaps, and this is a crazy idea that may be hard to grasp, maybe they buy things such as Ipods, Nikes, texting (?), and xboxs so that they can either create the image that they are not as poor as they are, something that basically every single American does, rather you want to acknowledge that or not (it is fundamental to our capitalist/materialist economy - buying shit you do not need). The other reason may be that they are attempting to fool themselves, so to speak. They do not like being poor, they have spent their whole life being poor, their parents spent their whole lives being poor, so when they do get some money left over, they feel like spending it on a luxury item that they can enjoy and/or make them feel like they have some wealth.

Another example: when you see a person walking or driving down the street and observe them and notice that they appear to be wealthy by the nice clothes they wear or the nice car they drive (or even their house), you may want to emulate that. You do not see their life or health insurance, you do not see their car insurance, you do not see their hidden credit card debts or outstanding loans, you see what that person wants you to see, the image of wealth that they are trying to convey.

So, if you are poor and see this, your idea of wealth is one of a material basis. Nice TVs mean I must have some money since I bought it. Seeing a brand new Chevy Silverado with a lift kit and big ass tires typically conveyed wealth in my hometown. It wasn't long before most of the guys in my class and above starting trying to buy and/or buying (sometimes new) used Chevy's and jacking them up with big ****ing tires. Most of them couldn't afford this, but that is what made them look cool or wealthy.

There are a lot of reasons beyond the overly simplified version of the truth you gave as to why the poor may "waste" their money on things they do not need, you simply have to look and read.

So what? If they spent all their money on stuff they didn't need and then robbed someone's house or a liquor store so they could buy food, would you excuse them because they just wanted to feel better about themselves?

patteeu
03-24-2010, 12:43 PM
What is a free rider?

In this case, it's someone who gets health care that they know they can't afford. The medical providers treat the person and then they shift the cost to their paying customers. The non-paying customers are the free riders.

Baby Lee
03-24-2010, 12:45 PM
I suppose you could look at everybody that is an "other" to you like that. Another way would be to understand that they are poor, and they know this, they are not disillusioned. They do not like being nor do they enjoy being poor, nobody does (unless you're Brewster (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088850/), and even that was short lived). Perhaps, and this is a crazy idea that may be hard to grasp, maybe they buy things such as Ipods, Nikes, texting (?), and xboxs so that they can either create the image that they are not as poor as they are, something that basically every single American does, rather you want to acknowledge that or not (it is fundamental to our capitalist/materialist economy - buying shit you do not need). The other reason may be that they are attempting to fool themselves, so to speak. They do not like being poor, they have spent their whole life being poor, their parents spent their whole lives being poor, so when they do get some money left over, they feel like spending it on a luxury item that they can enjoy and/or make them feel like they have some wealth.

Another example: when you see a person walking or driving down the street and observe them and notice that they appear to be wealthy by the nice clothes they wear or the nice car they drive (or even their house), you may want to emulate that. You do not see their life or health insurance, you do not see their car insurance, you do not see their hidden credit card debts or outstanding loans, you see what that person wants you to see, the image of wealth that they are trying to convey.

So, if you are poor and see this, your idea of wealth is one of a material basis. Nice TVs mean I must have some money since I bought it. Seeing a brand new Chevy Silverado with a lift kit and big ass tires typically conveyed wealth in my hometown. It wasn't long before most of the guys in my class and above starting trying to buy and/or buying (sometimes new) used Chevy's and jacking them up with big ****ing tires. Most of them couldn't afford this, but that is what made them look cool or wealthy.

There are a lot of reasons beyond the overly simplified version of the truth you gave as to why the poor may "waste" their money on things they do not need, you simply have to look and read.

edit:

I'd also like to add that if health care is so important that you speak with disdain of people who buy other material goods (the backbone of our economy no less) instead of coverage, why are so many people bitching about it now being required? If it is this important, that you should/must own it first over all other things you may desire, then isn't it a good thing that everyone will now have to own some form of it?
Reasons are not excuses.

I may wish to blow your head off with a shotgun because of stupid shit you say. I now have a reason to do so, but I don't have an excuse if I do. ;)

bowener
03-24-2010, 12:46 PM
So what? If they spent all their money on stuff they didn't need and then robbed someone's house or a liquor store so they could buy food, would you excuse them because they just wanted to feel better about themselves?

LOL so every poor person robs people. I am certain I am wrong, but I have a feeling that there is a particular race you are alluding to when you state something this stupid.

Of the tiny minority of the American population that burglarizes others, they do so for reasons you and I cannot know until we know each individual case. Was it drug related? Was it for insurance fraud? Was it for fun? Was it out of spite or malice? Was it because they wanted something they didn't have? Were they crazy?

Baby Lee
03-24-2010, 12:51 PM
LOL so every poor person robs people. I am certain I am wrong, but I have a feeling that there is a particular race you are alluding to when you state something this stupid.

Of the tiny minority of the American population that burglarizes others, they do so for reasons you and I cannot know until we know each individual case. Was it drug related? Was it for insurance fraud? Was it for fun? Was it out of spite or malice? Was it because they wanted something they didn't have? Were they crazy?

You have a critical thought deficit. patteau said nothing of the sort. He's extrapolating that if you're OK with people freeloading health care because they need their health care money to buy material things to help them feel good about themselves, you might be OK with them stealing to achieve similar ends.

rad
03-24-2010, 12:56 PM
Big difference between buying food and buying health insurance.

Try another analogy.

mlyonsd
03-24-2010, 12:57 PM
Those people are indeed real looters just like you and the rest of the people who want ever-more-redistributive legislation like this health reform law. You should form a club and you can all swap testimonials about how much you love to sponge off of other people.



QFT

bowener
03-24-2010, 12:58 PM
Reasons are not excuses.

I may wish to blow your head off with a shotgun because of stupid shit you say. I now have a reason to do so, but I don't have an excuse if I do. ;)

You do not need an excuse. Why would you? You just indicated that you have a reason for doing something, i.e., killing me or making a lame attempt at threatening to take my life. If you feel that the things I say warrant you killing me, they give you reason to do so, then why would you apologize or create an excuse for doing so? You just indicated that you have enough justification or motive to kill me (according to you). I see the point you want to make though, but I offered you a different reason from the reason that was originally offered. If you see it as an excuse, good for you, I cannot change the way you see the world. Please, though, show up at my house sometime and threaten me there.

bowener
03-24-2010, 01:01 PM
In this case, it's someone who gets health care that they know they can't afford. The medical providers treat the person and then they shift the cost to their paying customers. The non-paying customers are the free riders.

Ok, I am honestly not trying to be a dick, so forgive me if it comes off that way, but is it all non-paying customers that are free riders, or is it somebody that holds a HC plan but ultimately cannot afford it? I do not know if that is clear... is it somebody who originally purchased HC and later could not pay their bills, or is it somebody that never could afford HC or is it somebody that could afford it but never bought HC?

I think the last part is clearer. I am just trying to make a distinction between these.

prhom
03-24-2010, 01:02 PM
If you have money you are going to pay for someone else's healthcare one way or another. Either through higher direct costs (to help the docs recoup the cost of their charity) or through higher taxes to all allow the government to cover the costs indirectly. Hospitals and docs will never turn away someone who needs emergency care, and unless you can change that part of the equation that cost will always have to be covered. Providing coverage to more people won't reduce it, it just changes the source of the funds.

Baby Lee
03-24-2010, 01:02 PM
You do not need an excuse. Why would you? You just indicated that you have a reason for doing something, i.e., killing me or making a lame attempt at threatening to take my life. If you feel that the things I say warrant you killing me, they give you reason to do so, then why would you apologize or create an excuse for doing so? You just indicated that you have enough justification or motive to kill me (according to you). I see the point you want to make though, but I offered you a different reason from the reason that was originally offered. If you see it as an excuse, good for you, I cannot change the way you see the world. Please, though, show up at my house sometime and threaten me there.

The word you're looking for is justification [properly understood]. Self-justification is a useless concept, justification in the eyes of society is what matters. I shoot you with a REASON that only satisfies ME, I go to jail for life. I shoot you with JUSTIFICATION, say you spent all your money on rims and parkas and came to my house to rob me, and society says 'good on you.'

Saying something has a reason, or is justified to me, says nothing. Every thing has a reason, genocide has a reason, the holocaust had a reason, grand theft auto has a reason. We judge the propriety of one's actions on justification.

Brock
03-24-2010, 01:03 PM
You do not need an excuse. Why would you? You just indicated that you have a reason for doing something, i.e., killing me or making a lame attempt at threatening to take my life. If you feel that the things I say warrant you killing me, they give you reason to do so, then why would you apologize or create an excuse for doing so? You just indicated that you have enough justification or motive to kill me (according to you). I see the point you want to make though, but I offered you a different reason from the reason that was originally offered. If you see it as an excuse, good for you, I cannot change the way you see the world. Please, though, show up at my house sometime and threaten me there.

Yeah, that was an outrageous threat to be taken with utmost seriousness. ROFL

Baby Lee
03-24-2010, 01:05 PM
Yeah, that was an outrageous threat to be taken with utmost seriousness. ROFL

Dude, bowener is oblivious to the power of emoticons. You're wasting bandwidth. ROFL ROFL

petegz28
03-24-2010, 01:07 PM
Big difference between buying food and buying health insurance.

Try another analogy.

Maybe if they used their food stamps for actually buying food instead of selling them, then cut out all the x-box and ipod crap they would have money for health care? Just a thought.

bowener
03-24-2010, 01:08 PM
You have a critical thought deficit. patteau said nothing of the sort. He's extrapolating that if you're OK with people freeloading health care because they need their health care money to buy material things to help them feel good about themselves, you might be OK with them stealing to achieve similar ends.

Well, if I took it the wrong way, sorry, but following from the post of mine he quoted, which was about poor people, he followed up with this:
If they spent all their money on stuff they didn't need...
I took the "they" as the poor people that have been the topic of discussion, sorry if that was wrong.

To respond to the rest of your post:

No, I do not think that would be a good thing or something that I find acceptable. And before somebody says they are doing the same thing in either case, there is a huge difference between "free loading" and robbing ones house. The latter is far more intimate and emotionally disturbing to those being robbed (and in some part to the robber as well).

petegz28
03-24-2010, 01:09 PM
I suppose you could look at everybody that is an "other" to you like that. Another way would be to understand that they are poor, and they know this, they are not disillusioned. They do not like being nor do they enjoy being poor, nobody does (unless you're Brewster (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088850/), and even that was short lived). Perhaps, and this is a crazy idea that may be hard to grasp, maybe they buy things such as Ipods, Nikes, texting (?), and xboxs so that they can either create the image that they are not as poor as they are, something that basically every single American does, rather you want to acknowledge that or not (it is fundamental to our capitalist/materialist economy - buying shit you do not need). The other reason may be that they are attempting to fool themselves, so to speak. They do not like being poor, they have spent their whole life being poor, their parents spent their whole lives being poor, so when they do get some money left over, they feel like spending it on a luxury item that they can enjoy and/or make them feel like they have some wealth.

Another example: when you see a person walking or driving down the street and observe them and notice that they appear to be wealthy by the nice clothes they wear or the nice car they drive (or even their house), you may want to emulate that. You do not see their life or health insurance, you do not see their car insurance, you do not see their hidden credit card debts or outstanding loans, you see what that person wants you to see, the image of wealth that they are trying to convey.

So, if you are poor and see this, your idea of wealth is one of a material basis. Nice TVs mean I must have some money since I bought it. Seeing a brand new Chevy Silverado with a lift kit and big ass tires typically conveyed wealth in my hometown. It wasn't long before most of the guys in my class and above starting trying to buy and/or buying (sometimes new) used Chevy's and jacking them up with big ****ing tires. Most of them couldn't afford this, but that is what made them look cool or wealthy.

There are a lot of reasons beyond the overly simplified version of the truth you gave as to why the poor may "waste" their money on things they do not need, you simply have to look and read.

edit:

I'd also like to add that if health care is so important that you speak with disdain of people who buy other material goods (the backbone of our economy no less) instead of coverage, why are so many people bitching about it now being required? If it is this important, that you should/must own it first over all other things you may desire, then isn't it a good thing that everyone will now have to own some form of it?

Those aren't reasons, those are excuses.

Baby Lee
03-24-2010, 01:14 PM
Well, if I took it the wrong way, sorry, but following from the post of mine he quoted, which was about poor people, he followed up with this:

I took the "they" as the poor people that have been the topic of discussion, sorry if that was wrong.

To respond to the rest of your post:

No, I do not think that would be a good thing or something that I find acceptable. And before somebody says they are doing the same thing in either case, there is a huge difference between "free loading" and robbing ones house. The latter is far more intimate and emotionally disturbing to those being robbed (and in some part to the robber as well).

And the former is more economically damaging overall.

So I guess the moral of the story is, if you wish to rob me, buy a Congressman and do it from afar. That way at least I won't be emotionally scarred by the intimacy.

Baby Lee
03-24-2010, 01:14 PM
Those aren't reasons, those are excuses.

other way around. keep up.

'I felt like it' is a reason, 'just because' is a reason.

Think hall pass "I have to pee [reason] can I be excused?" [permission]

bowener
03-24-2010, 01:18 PM
If you have money you are going to pay for someone else's healthcare one way or another. Either through higher direct costs (to help the docs recoup the cost of their charity) or through higher taxes to all allow the government to cover the costs indirectly. Hospitals and docs will never turn away someone who needs emergency care, and unless you can change that part of the equation that cost will always have to be covered. Providing coverage to more people won't reduce it, it just changes the source of the funds.

This is an honest question and is not meant in any other way.

Do you agree that emergency care is far more expensive than any typical doctors visit, and that if somebody does not have the money for health insurance, then they presumably do not have the money for expensive Dr's visits or medications (again, all w/o the benefit of health insurance), and if everybody is now covered by health insurance and can enjoy the benefits of cheaper Dr's visits and medications, is it possible that those who did not go before will go to the Dr more often (as it is not more affordable) and go to the ER less?

If the Drs/hospitals receive less funds from the ER visits do you think that they may receive close to as much or more money from the increased amount of copays and various other costs for the office visits? Of course this is based upon the idea that people wait until the last minute to go to the ER vs the idea that they will now try and go to the Dr when signs of sickness first appear. Also, I may not have stated any of that clearly.

rad
03-24-2010, 01:18 PM
Maybe if they used their food stamps for actually buying food instead of selling them, then cut out all the x-box and ipod crap they would have money for health care? Just a thought.

I'm not sure the amount of money one could get by selling food stamps is enough to buy health insurance. I pay around 300 per month through my employer and my employer pays the same, if not more, to cover me and my family. Just a bad comparison, that's all.

I don't think you know anyone in the situation you describe. You use the word "they" as if everybody who is poor does the same thing.

petegz28
03-24-2010, 01:25 PM
I'm not sure the amount of money one could get by selling food stamps is enough to buy health insurance. I pay around 300 per month through my employer and my employer pays the same, if not more, to cover me and my family. Just a bad comparison, that's all.

I don't think you know anyone in the situation you describe. You use the word "they" as if everybody who is poor does the same thing.

I think you should re-read that closer.

CoMoChief
03-24-2010, 01:27 PM
Education?

The "No kid left behind" program? ROFL FAIL!!!

rad
03-24-2010, 01:35 PM
I think you should re-read that closer.

Why?

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 01:43 PM
Reasons are not excuses.

I may wish to blow your head off with a shotgun because of stupid shit you say. I now have a reason to do so, but I don't have an excuse if I do. ;)

LMAO

Heh.

Dottefan
03-24-2010, 01:44 PM
DC LOUNGE IS NOW KNOWN AS DOTTEFAN LOUNGE....WE OWN IT..

patteeu
03-24-2010, 01:48 PM
LOL so every poor person robs people. I am certain I am wrong, but I have a feeling that there is a particular race you are alluding to when you state something this stupid.

Of the tiny minority of the American population that burglarizes others, they do so for reasons you and I cannot know until we know each individual case. Was it drug related? Was it for insurance fraud? Was it for fun? Was it out of spite or malice? Was it because they wanted something they didn't have? Were they crazy?

Wow, you caught me. I'm alluding to your race, whatever it is. :rolleyes:

Your objection says more about you than it does about me. It says at least two things that I can think of:

1. It says that you didn't understand what I posted which is pretty weird since it wasn't terribly complicated. I gave an example of obvious looting to illustrate the point that your excuses weren't very compelling. In no way did I suggest that the example was typical of poor people or people of any race.

2. It says that you're far more race-focused than I am.

Edit: Based on the lesson Baby Lee provided, I guess I should have said "reasons weren't very compelling" rather than "excuses weren't very compelling".

Dottefan
03-24-2010, 01:49 PM
Wow, you caught me. I'm alluding to your race, whatever it is. :rolleyes:

Your objection says more about you than it does about me. It says at least two things that I can think of:

1. It says that you didn't understand what I posted which is pretty weird since it wasn't terribly complicated. I gave an example of obvious looting to illustrate the point that your excuses weren't very compelling. In no way did I suggest that the example was typical of poor people or people of any race.

2. It says that you're far more race-focused than I am.


PLEASE PURCHASE A USED TOYOTA...PACK YOUR FAMILY IN IT..AND TAKE A LONG ROAD TRIP. THANKS.:clap:




DC LOUNGE IS NOW KNOWN AS DOTTEFAN LOUNGE....WE OWN IT..

patteeu
03-24-2010, 01:56 PM
Ok, I am honestly not trying to be a dick, so forgive me if it comes off that way, but is it all non-paying customers that are free riders, or is it somebody that holds a HC plan but ultimately cannot afford it? I do not know if that is clear... is it somebody who originally purchased HC and later could not pay their bills, or is it somebody that never could afford HC or is it somebody that could afford it but never bought HC?

I think the last part is clearer. I am just trying to make a distinction between these.

Free rider was intended to be a non-judgmental term (as opposed to looter). Free rider means anyone who's services were paid for by someone else. Speaking only for myself, I'll distinguish between free riders who are just living within the system that exists without abusing it (maybe even without thinking about how they are being free riders) and those who are actively looking for ways to get free stuff at other people's expense (like Kotter).

I have compassion for the broke guy whose baby has a fever of 103 who takes that child to the emergency room even though he doesn't know if he'll be able to pay the bill. Not so much for the person who gets the sniffles and goes to the ER to relieve the discomfort and not so much for the guy whose main interest in health care reform seems to be to stick it to the rich insurance company executive by pilfering his bank account to spread around to people who make up to $88,000 a year.

patteeu
03-24-2010, 01:58 PM
PLEASE PURCHASE A USED TOYOTA...PACK YOUR FAMILY IN IT..AND TAKE A LONG ROAD TRIP. THANKS.:clap:




DC LOUNGE IS NOW KNOWN AS DOTTEFAN LOUNGE....WE OWN IT..

As a matter of fact, that's just what I'm planning to do. I bought a used Toyota last year and I plan on taking my family on a road trip to Washington DC sometime this summer. You really *do* know everything!

HonestChieffan
03-24-2010, 02:09 PM
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/father_and_son_doing_homework.jpg

Otter
03-24-2010, 02:13 PM
You can count me in Kotter. I'll fight it tooth and nail, use everything within my means to hold up paying, research every loop hole I can find and spread the word around to others so they can do the same.

Than, seeing as how I have a sparkling clean criminal record and have been a productive member of society my whole life they can stick me in a minimul security prison with a par three golf hole where I won't be able to pay back my student loans that I took out for Cisco Certifications to get ahead in life because I didn't pay the fines or the original cost. I'll become part of the problem.

God bless you Obama.

dirk digler
03-24-2010, 02:25 PM
Kotter why are you talking shit on hcf? Can't you see he needs help?

http://pix2.hotornot.com/pics/HR/HZ/KS/HU/ERBYNESWVKKP.JPG

BucEyedPea
03-24-2010, 03:38 PM
Originally Posted by cdcox
For those that argue that health care is not a right: all people in this country do have the right to emergency care. It may not be a constitutional right, but in a practical sense it is as real as any other right. That argument was decided a long time ago.

To those who argue that being forced to buy health insurance is morally wrong I offer that a moral wrong of equal magnitude already exists. Those that have insurance or the financial ability to pay their own bills involuntarily subsidize the health care of the poor.

Where is your moral outrage over this injustice?
Constitutional rights are based on natural and inalienable rights. Those are rights that precede govt and based on being in a state of nature. Health care is not a right—at all. It's a good you have a natural right to procure.

And Kotter, I could not log onto the board last night for some reason...you meant right to "life, liberty and happiness ( property) being in the Dec but not the Constitution. It is in the Constitution as "life, liberty and property" which cannot be lost without "due process." That means these are natural and cannot be legislated away.

This thread topic provides the conceptual basis for communism and socialism.

Further no one was turned away before the govt effed up health care markets. There were charity hospitals. That's when healthcare was affordable and the envy of the world. Not all healthcare deals with death and dying. Even if it does, there is no natural right to treatment unless someone willingly wants to provide charity for it.

We have a right to a natural birth and a natural death under natural rights—and not one thing more.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2010, 03:41 PM
As a matter of fact, that's just what I'm planning to do. I bought a used Toyota last year and I plan on taking my family on a road trip to Washington DC sometime this summer. You really *do* know everything!

I'll be there. Throwing tomatoes at you. ROFL


P.S. I'll bring the Reagan autobio with me. We'll compare notes in the Senate cafe.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2010, 03:43 PM
One last thing Kotter, minimal govt of the right is not minimal....that was once called the balanced center. You and codex are just lefties since your point to view from is way over there making the center look minimalist. It's a gross distortion and mischaracterization.
That's what extremists do.

mikey23545
03-24-2010, 03:53 PM
The Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck wingtards are fond of referring to anyone who opposes their minimalist approach to government...as "looters." From my point of view, the real "looters" in society....are those who refuse to buy health insurance. Because they are the real reason for the current health care quandry.

cdcox said it best in another thread on the topic:



What say you???

:hmmm:

Do you idiots not even know the difference between a social safety net and an entitlement?

You're talking about an act of charity, and then arguing to institutionalize it and making it illegal to not participate.

You lazy, greedy, power-hungry, brown-shirted thugs never cease to amaze me.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 03:58 PM
BEP---once again, you offer nothing more than your own very misguided and confused understanding of the founding of our country and our Constitution. Why I expected something other than that, I'll never know....but, I was hoping. Oh well.

One last thing Kotter, minimal govt of the right is not minimal....that was once called the balanced center. You and codex are just lefties since your point to view from is way over there making the center look minimalist. It's a gross distortion and mischaracterization.
That's what extremists do.

And there is the proof. For anyone with eyes to see that has read the tripe that you have churned out here....would never, ever, under any circumstances classify your twisted perspective as either 'balanced' or 'center,' except perhaps in a plutocratic monarchy from 300-400 years ago. Period.

Do you idiots not even know the difference between a social safety net and an entitlement?

You're talking about an act of charity, and then arguing to institutionalize it and making it illegal to not participate.

You lazy, greedy, power-hungry, brown-shirted thugs never cease to amaze me.

So, you disagree. Fair enough.

However, calling the social safety net an "entitlement" use to be accurate; however, in the era of right wing talk radio..... it is now nothing more than a wingnut's use of rhetorical devices, in this case a pejorative, to demagogue those with whom they disagree.

However, you are now officially removed from my Christmas card list. :harumph:

BucEyedPea
03-24-2010, 04:03 PM
BEP---once again, you offer nothing more than your own very misguided and confused understanding of the founding of our country and our Constitution.
No I'm not. That's just your pure opinion, a purely subjective one—not based on any fact. ( while it also contradicts many things you said yourself earlier. You're on the take on this issue personally—that's why.)

Chief Henry
03-24-2010, 04:06 PM
Kotter why are you talking shit on hcf? Can't you see he needs help?

http://pix2.hotornot.com/pics/HR/HZ/KS/HU/ERBYNESWVKKP.JPG

Its another Obama supporter.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2010, 04:15 PM
And there is the proof. For anyone with eyes to see that has read the tripe that you have churned out here....would never, ever, under any circumstances classify your twisted perspective as either 'balanced' or 'center,' except perhaps in a plutocratic monarchy from 300-400 years ago. Period.
That's a different matter though. Just remember when you say that you spit on Jefferson who you claim to support. You spit on our Founders our Founding documents too. They had people who wanted these things back then. They were called "Levelers" They didn't like them. Our Founders were called extremists too. Many said our experiment would fail even back then...that it couldn't be done.

As I said, before it takes an extreme to just roll things back to the center incrementally too. Just a little bit. It takes a constant reminder and willingness to fight for freedom. Even Ron Paul says he'd only roll things back to year 2000. We didn't get here overnight.

Shall I go find all the posts where you backed up many of those statements I made earlier. You're only conservative on social issues. When you're one to benefit from govt largesse you set your standards aside to put your hand out. That much is obvious. Period.

orange
03-24-2010, 04:28 PM
Its another Obama supporter.

- Don't worry. He'll never vote. - /Rasmussen

Chief Henry
03-24-2010, 04:31 PM
- Don't worry. He'll never vote. - /Rasmussen

Does he drink the wrong kind of beer ? WHat did Obama drink at the beer summitt ?

jjchieffan
03-24-2010, 04:47 PM
The Limbaugh-Hannity-and-Beck wingtards are fond of referring to anyone who opposes their minimalist approach to government...as "looters." From my point of view, the real "looters" in society....are those who refuse to buy health insurance. Because they are the real reason for the current health care quandry.

cdcox said it best in another thread on the topic:



What say you???

:hmmm:

I will tell you what I say to that. If you are willing to pay those prices voluntarily then you are doing it of your own free will Until now, nobody has forced you to pay that premium. You are comparing apple to oranges and trying to detract from the fact that the Obama/Pelosi Socialists are taking away our freedoms. Keep drinking that Obama Koolaid.(Although it tastes piss)

Dottefan
03-24-2010, 06:20 PM
Stupid thread..dumber author

CoMoChief
03-24-2010, 06:42 PM
Stupid thread..dumber author

Stupid post.....one of your many

ClevelandBronco
03-24-2010, 07:58 PM
LMAO....do you actually believe this bullshit you spout? I am sure the government raping you to pay for others will feel better. Either wyam you're being raped.

This plan will reduce care, raise taxes, hurt the economy and bascially **** us all in the long run.

Dude, there's no sense in talking with Kotter about this kind of stuff. He doesn't pay his own way now.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 08:40 PM
....Kotter.... He doesn't pay his own way now.

WTF are you talking about? Are you drunk, or what? :spock:

go bowe
03-24-2010, 09:05 PM
In this case, it's someone who gets health care that they know they can't afford. The medical providers treat the person and then they shift the cost to their paying customers. The non-paying customers are the free riders.in this case, it would seem like a good thing for the free riders to have insurance to pay for their treatment...

go bowe
03-24-2010, 09:09 PM
Yeah, that was an outrageous threat to be taken with utmost seriousness. ROFLi was just thinking that myself...

go bowe
03-24-2010, 09:19 PM
As a matter of fact, that's just what I'm planning to do. I bought a used Toyota last year and I plan on taking my family on a road trip to Washington DC sometime this summer. You really *do* know everything!i used to park at arlington and take the little blue open air buses wherever i wanted to go...

d.c. is one of the best places to go if you haven't been there yet...

enjoy the trip and give us a report when you get back...

go bowe
03-24-2010, 09:25 PM
I will tell you what I say to that. If you are willing to pay those prices voluntarily then you are doing it of your own free will Until now, nobody has forced you to pay that premium. You are comparing apple to oranges and trying to detract from the fact that the Obama/Pelosi Socialists are taking away our freedoms. Keep drinking that Obama Koolaid.(Although it tastes piss)and why do you know what piss tastes like?

go bowe
03-24-2010, 09:27 PM
WTF are you talking about? Are you drunk, or what? :spock:drunk?

now THERE'S a good idea... :toast: :toast: :toast:

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 09:32 PM
drunk?

now THERE'S a good idea... :toast: :toast: :toast:

Hell...maybe we can get Pelosi and Reid and Obama to spring for that too. :hmmm:

I hope they don't settle for the cheap stuff either... :toast:

Velvet_Jones
03-24-2010, 09:40 PM
Did some evil corporations kill another one of Kotters kittens?

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 09:41 PM
Did some evil corporations kill another one of Kotters kittens?

The entire damn LITTER this time--even the calico one....evil bastards!!!! :cuss:

go bowe
03-24-2010, 09:48 PM
Hell...maybe we can get Pelosi and Reid and Obama to spring for that too. :hmmm:

I hope they don't settle for the cheap stuff either... :toast:cheap, expensive, just so it has alcohol in it...

in fact, i might just go and fix myself a stiff one (where is denver chief when you need him?)...

ROYC75
03-24-2010, 09:48 PM
I took my wife in today for her check up. Our family doctor lowered the bad news on her condition. Currently, she did not put a time frame on it but said basically that she has defied all odds of this stuff and that she would not let her go around in pain as she has had to for sometime due to her stubbornness of not taking pain medication. Wanting to move her to a 100 mg time release capsule of morphine was disturbing today to say the least.

But our discussion got onto Obamacare. Our doctor was against it in every way there is. Claiming my wife would loose a lot of her care and that I may get it someday, a small part of health care that will be expensive and poor quality. She also said that nothing done on tort reform was a bad mistake.

Said that throwing 30+ million into the system where there is a shortage of doctors with the trial happy lawyers will only create doctors to retire early and make it harder for young doctors to get into the field and get malpractice coverage due to the increase health care they must handle due to the shortage of doctors.

She said something needs to be done, but this plan is all wrong on many levels.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2010, 09:51 PM
. Claiming my wife would loose a lot of her care and that I may get it someday, a small part of health care that will be expensive and poor quality.

My heart goes out to your both.

You'll never hear about these stories with govt health care. Not on our media. That's when private insurance does it.
People think they're getting something.

jbwm89
03-24-2010, 10:22 PM
This bill makes it easier to not have health care on a regular basis and then get it once you are sick. It is cheaper to pay the fine for not having it than the premiums to have it and then once you are sick you cannot be denied coverage. Like someone said the people play by the rules the government sets and they just opened up a huge loophole

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2010, 10:40 PM
This bill makes it easier to not have health care on a regular basis and then get it once you are sick. It is cheaper to pay the fine for not having it than the premiums to have it and then once you are sick you cannot be denied coverage. Like someone said the people play by the rules the government sets and they just opened up a huge loophole

If that's true once the smoke clears on this, I suspect they'll FIX that loophole pretty quickly. Sorry for you. Heh.

:)

jbwm89
03-24-2010, 10:51 PM
I would sure hope so. I almost want to assume that it is not that simple but I have read articles that say similar and I've read that part of the bill and posted a few times and haven't heard anyone from the dem side have a decent solution to it that already exists in the bill. The only thing I can think of would be a public option which the price is controlled to be below the fine and I think the public option is about as good of an idea as wiping your ass with poison ivy

orange
03-25-2010, 12:35 AM
Even if it doesn't get fixed, free-riders paying ~$700 is better than them paying nothing, like they currently do.

Taco John
03-25-2010, 03:02 AM
If that's true once the smoke clears on this, I suspect they'll FIX that loophole pretty quickly. Sorry for you. Heh.

:)



They'll keep "fixing" and "fixing" and "fixing" all of our rights away.

Taco John
03-25-2010, 03:03 AM
Even if it doesn't get fixed, free-riders paying ~$700 is better than them paying nothing, like they currently do.


You clearly know nothing about economic motivation.

patteeu
03-25-2010, 03:20 AM
Did some evil corporations kill another one of Kotters kittens?

If it weren't for corporations, teachers would get paid like insurance executives and the world would be a just place.

patteeu
03-25-2010, 03:23 AM
If that's true once the smoke clears on this, I suspect they'll FIX that loophole pretty quickly. Sorry for you. Heh.

:)

They don't want to fix it. It's a design feature intended to squeeze private insurance out of the picture. Didn't you get your latest looter newsletter?

blaise
03-25-2010, 06:26 AM
i used to park at arlington and take the little blue open air buses wherever i wanted to go...

d.c. is one of the best places to go if you haven't been there yet...

enjoy the trip and give us a report when you get back...

I love DC. I lived like two blocks from the National Cathedral. An the little blue busses are definitely worth it to see the city. There's so many little factoids about the buildings and memorials that they point out that you'd never notice on your own.

Dottefan
03-25-2010, 08:52 AM
My heart goes out to your both.

You'll never hear about these stories with govt health care. Not on our media. That's when private insurance does it.
People think they're getting something.

SHUT THE FUCK UP REPUKE DOUCHEBAG.

BigRedChief
03-25-2010, 09:14 AM
SHUT THE **** UP REPUKE DOUCHEBAG.dude, can you just tone it down a little?

BEP is an isolatioist liberterian, not a Republican.:)

Dave Lane
03-25-2010, 09:26 AM
They require you to have car insurance do they not? You get a hell of a fine for not having it. I know some nut job will say yes but that's just if you operate a car you have to have it. Well then I have a solution. If you don't have health care you opt out of hospital coverage of any type. You agree if you have a heart attack we will just leave you lying on the side of the road or drag you out of the mall and into the parking lot to die. Then you have no requirement to have health insurance and we don't have to subsidize you if something catastrophic happens. Fair enough?

Bill Parcells
03-25-2010, 09:33 AM
The "power grab" is to take control of a vital industry from money-gubbing creeps who put profits, dividends, and greed....ahead of affordable healthcare for average Americans.

Then, hospitals and doctors engage in cost-shifting to rape those of us who DO pay...yet again.

With all it's flaws, this plan will eventually move us away from that. In the end, that's a good thing.

The AMA supports this bill. do you know why? because they own the copyrights to all the medical billing codes, and make money off everybody that goes to the doctor for doing hardly anything. hardly any Doctors really belong to AMA. mostly interns who then quit when they become doctors.

AMA is a money grubbing association THAT DOES NOTHING. and they thoroughly support this bill.

ROFL

Bill Parcells
03-25-2010, 09:35 AM
They require you to have car insurance do they not? You get a hell of a fine for not having it. I know some nut job will say yes but that's just if you operate a car you have to have it. Well then I have a solution. If you don't have health care you opt out of hospital coverage of any type. You agree if you have a heart attack we will just leave you lying on the side of the road or drag you out of the mall and into the parking lot to die. Then you have no requirement to have health insurance and we don't have to subsidize you if something catastrophic happens. Fair enough?

All roads are government owned. but, if you lose your license due to dui and dont want to pay the dui insurance surcharge, you dont have to. you just wont get your license back. but you have a choice. see the difference?

Dave Lane
03-25-2010, 09:47 AM
All roads are government owned. but, if you lose your license due to dui and dont want to pay the dui insurance surcharge, you dont have to. you just wont get your license back. but you have a choice. see the difference?

You have a choice in my scenario too.

jjchieffan
03-25-2010, 09:56 AM
I want to know how it is that I am a looter because I don't have insurance. If we need healthcare, I pay for it. If something serious happens, I have a home I can borrow against if necessary to pay the bills. You are assuming that one of my family or myself is going to get cancer or have a heart attack and then skip out on the bill or die. If we never have that happen it does we pay all our medical bills am I still a looter?

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 10:35 AM
I want to know how it is that I am a looter because I don't have insurance. If we need healthcare, I pay for it. If something serious happens, I have a home I can borrow against if necessary to pay the bills. You are assuming that one of my family or myself is going to get cancer or have a heart attack and then skip out on the bill or die. If we never have that happen it does we pay all our medical bills am I still a looter?


Because the moment you need healthcare that you can't pay for....cancer, quadruple bypass, long-term care for some horrible disease...the costs you cannot pay for that you or your family will receive will be subsidized through cost-shifting from those of us who have been doing the responsible thing by paying for insurance since the first day we got our first real job.

You are gambling that will never happen; why do you expect others to fund your gambling? Sheesh. And some people think those of us who support subsidized healthcare are "immoral." Sheesh.

If and when it does happen....you'll be looting from those of us who HAVE been paying for a long, long time. If it doesn't happen, good for you; if it happens though, your irresponsibility shouldn't cost the rest of us.

ClevelandBronco
03-25-2010, 11:38 AM
Dude, there's no sense in talking with Kotter about this kind of stuff. He doesn't pay his own way now.

WTF are you talking about? Are you drunk, or what? :spock:

I believe that you're a government employee subject to collective bargaining. If so, my viewpoint remains that in a matter such as this one your opinion doesn't count.

You don't pay your own way because you don't create anything. We pay for your existence. You're a (necessary) drain on our system and it's a waste of time discussing this kind of thing with you.

If I'm incorrect about your job situation then I apologize.

RaiderH8r
03-25-2010, 11:48 AM
LOL so every poor person robs people. I am certain I am wrong, but I have a feeling that there is a particular race you are alluding to when you state something this stupid.

Of the tiny minority of the American population that burglarizes others, they do so for reasons you and I cannot know until we know each individual case. Was it drug related? Was it for insurance fraud? Was it for fun? Was it out of spite or malice? Was it because they wanted something they didn't have? Were they crazy?

He wasn't making a declarative statement he was flat out busting you on your lame ass moral equivocation. You got owned.

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 11:58 AM
I believe that you're a government employee subject to collective bargaining. If so, my viewpoint remains that in a matter such as this one your opinion doesn't count.

You don't pay your own way because you don't create anything. We pay for your existence. You're a (necessary) drain on our system and it's a waste of time discussing this kind of thing with you.

If I'm incorrect about your job situation then I apologize.


:spock:


LMAO

keg in kc
03-25-2010, 12:07 PM
The smoke-and-mirrors is working. Pass a controversial bill and get everybody to ignore the lack of any real reform to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and the astronomically-out-of-control cost of medical care. We follow like good sheep, screaming at everybody. People who don't buy insurance. People who do buy insurance. Lefties. Righties. Middleies.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2010, 12:09 PM
The smoke-and-mirrors is working. Pass a controversial bill and get everybody to ignore the lack of any real reform to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and the astronomically-out-of-control cost of medical care. We follow like good sheep, screaming at everybody. People who don't buy insurance. People who do buy insurance. Lefties. Righties. Middleies.

Absolutely. The money grab continues.

BigRedChief
03-25-2010, 12:09 PM
I want to know how it is that I am a looter because I don't have insurance. If we need healthcare, I pay for it. If something serious happens, I have a home I can borrow against if necessary to pay the bills. You are assuming that one of my family or myself is going to get cancer or have a heart attack and then skip out on the bill or die. If we never have that happen it does we pay all our medical bills am I still a looter?I don't know your station in life but some form of cancer's can run into a $1 million or more in cost to fight off the cancer. If you have access to a $1 million in cash to pay for the treatment. Salu.:clap:

Garcia Bronco
03-25-2010, 12:13 PM
Absolutely. The money grab continues.

Exactly. This bill lowers nothing except quality and increase input into a system without increasing bandwidth.

CoMoChief
03-25-2010, 12:31 PM
I don't know your station in life but some form of cancer's can run into a $1 million or more in cost to fight off the cancer. If you have access to a $1 million in cash to pay for the treatment. Salu.:clap:

More sob stories from liberals.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2010, 12:32 PM
More sob stories from liberals.

It's interesting to me that conservatives spend all their time bashing welfare cases, but then turn around and defend someone who is willing to subsidize a catastrophic health case on the rest of society should it come up simply because they'd rather spend their money on something else. Make up your minds.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2010, 12:33 PM
I'd rather spend my money on hookers and blow. Who's gonna pay my rent?

Fat Elvis
03-25-2010, 12:38 PM
I want to know how it is that I am a looter because I don't have insurance. If we need healthcare, I pay for it. If something serious happens, I have a home I can borrow against if necessary to pay the bills. You are assuming that one of my family or myself is going to get cancer or have a heart attack and then skip out on the bill or die. If we never have that happen it does we pay all our medical bills am I still a looter?

Gamblers such as yourself have boosted the cost of fixing a broken arm into the range of $12K many times. Does it cost that much to actually fix the arm? No. Not even close to that. But the hospitals are a business; they shift the cost of those who can't (won't) pay onto those who can (will).

You say you have a home you can borrow against. Do you think a bank will actually give you a loan/second mortgage to pay off a medical bill? In all likelihood, that medical bill will be higher than the value/equity of your home. Even if it isn't, banks will only lend an amount that represents a marginal percentage of your income.

You have the income to puchase health insurance by your own admission. Courts aren't going to look favorably upon your reckless gambling. One accident is all it will take and you will lose everything.

rad
03-25-2010, 12:43 PM
I believe that you're a government employee subject to collective bargaining. If so, my viewpoint remains that in a matter such as this one your opinion doesn't count.

You don't pay your own way because you don't create anything. We pay for your existence. You're a (necessary) drain on our system and it's a waste of time discussing this kind of thing with you.

If I'm incorrect about your job situation then I apologize.

lol wut?

go bowe
03-25-2010, 12:45 PM
why pay rent?

with blow and hookers, you won't care where you lay your head, er...

well, you know what i mean...

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2010, 12:48 PM
why pay rent?

with blow and hookers, you won't care where you lay your head, er...

well, you know what i mean...

Granted. But this is America and I'm entitled to it dammit! :cuss:

patteeu
03-25-2010, 02:48 PM
More sob stories from liberals.

I think his point is that it's fantasy for most people to believe that they can handle any medical eventuality without insurance so unless they plan on refusing treatment and accepting the consequences (which very few people are really willing to do), the responsible thing to do is for them to get insured (at least against catastrophic illness) while still young and healthy. And it's a very good point, IMO.

BigRedChief
03-25-2010, 02:59 PM
I think his point is that it's fantasy for most people to believe that they can handle any medical eventuality without insurance so unless they plan on refusing treatment and accepting the consequences (which very few people are really willing to do), the responsible thing to do is for them to get insured (at least against catastrophic illness) while still young and healthy. And it's a very good point, IMO.Holy crap a well thought out post. :rolleyes:

Correct, no matter your station in life, no matter how much you have saved I bet most on here don't have $1 million laying around to use for an emergency. Only millionaires can afford to battle a major cancer without insurance. Luckily, most of us will never have to endure that battle. Or get T-boned by a drunk driver running a red light and need extensive surgery and rehabilitation. You can choose to run that risk but you are taking that risk at the taxpayer expense. Because if it does happen me and patteau and the rest of the taxpayers will be picking up the tab for your risk taking.

Garcia Bronco
03-25-2010, 03:59 PM
Or get T-boned by a drunk driver running a red light and need extensive surgery and rehabilitation.

That would be covered under the other driver's and his insurance. Now if he didn't have insurance you'd be right.

RaiderH8r
03-25-2010, 04:01 PM
When my employer drops me from insurance I'm going to go ahead and pay the 2.5%, wait until I need my triple bypass and then get my coverage a week ahead of the big expenditures and call it even.

I'm also working on the plan to walk on my mortgage...as soon as BarryO can get me some of that sweet sweet, gubment money.

jjchieffan
03-25-2010, 04:12 PM
Do you know the odds of me or one of my family getting cancer? Nobody in my family has ever had cancer. I don't smoke. The concept of insurance is paying someone else to take the risk for you. The insurance companies are gambling that you and I wont get cancer. The fact that most people don't is how they make a profit. If cancer runs in your family, you pay a higher rate because the insurance company knows you are a higher risk. If you are healthy, and have no cancer in your family, you get much better rates because the insurance company plans to profit from you staying healthy. I believe that my decision not to have health insurance is a low risk move on my part. If you think it is irresponsible, I couldn't give a shit. It is my health, my money, and none of your or the governments business what I do with it.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2010, 04:18 PM
Do you know the odds of me or one of my family getting cancer? Nobody in my family has ever had cancer. I don't smoke. The concept of insurance is paying someone else to take the risk for you. The insurance companies are gambling that you and I wont get cancer. The fact that most people don't is how they make a profit. If cancer runs in your family, you pay a higher rate because the insurance company knows you are a higher risk. If you are healthy, and have no cancer in your family, you get much better rates because the insurance company plans to profit from you staying healthy. I believe that my decision not to have health insurance is a low risk move on my part. If you think it is irresponsible, I couldn't give a shit. It is my health, my money, and none of your or the governments business what I do with it.

Which is totally fine, and absolutely correct. It isn't anyone's business. But if the unthinkable happens, are you willing to let your kids die because of this choice? Or would you expect someone to step up and spare their life? Seriously. If we're talking about an unforseeable illness that costs millions of dollars to fix, are you willing to let them die? If so, fair enough. Crappy for them, but that is your right. I just have a hard time believing that anyone really would look a doctor in the eye and say "Well, I chose not to buy insurance. We'll sure miss them."

The fact is though, until it happens, this whole conversation is moot. I don't judge you at all for your choice. I certainly would though if one of your kids somehow lost the health lottery and contracted something serious. But then again, I'm sure you would too.

We've met in the real world. There's no judgment in this post. Just an attempt to look at things from the other side of the road.

jjchieffan
03-25-2010, 04:46 PM
I am open minded to the other side. The thing is, Kotter is judging me as a looter who's only reason is for not carrying insurance is so that the system can take care of medical bills. That is bullshit. almost 3 years ago, I lost my job and was unable to draw unemployment because I had been considered a contractor. I was without a job for over a year. I didn't sign up for welfare, food stamps, or medicaid. Instead, I rented out my home, and turned to my family for help. I lived with my parents until I found a job. I took every little side job I could find, which was not enough to pay my car and truck payments, so I got behind on everything. One month after getting a job, I was back on my own. I worked out repayment plans and caught up my bills. I never once expected the government to bail me out. Fuck Kotter!! I don't want or need the government to pay for anything for me or my family, including my healthcare. I know the risk I take, and if something happens, I will find a way to take care of it. I am not irresponsible, and I am not a bad dad because I don't carry health insurance.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2010, 04:48 PM
I am open minded to the other side. The thing is, Kotter is judging me as a looter who's only reason is for not carrying insurance is so that the system can take care of medical bills. That is bullshit. almost 3 years ago, I lost my job and was unable to draw unemployment because I had been considered a contractor. I was without a job for over a year. I didn't sign up for welfare, food stamps, or medicaid. Instead, I rented out my home, and turned to my family for help. I lived with my parents until I found a job. I took every little side job I could find, which was not enough to pay my car and truck payments, so I got behind on everything. One month after getting a job, I was back on my own. I worked out repayment plans and caught up my bills. I never once expected the government to bail me out. Fuck Kotter!! I don't want or need the government to pay for anything for me or my family, including my healthcare. I know the risk I take, and if something happens, I will find a way to take care of it. I am not irresponsible, and I am not a bad dad because I don't carry health insurance.

I don't think you're a bad dad dude. We've talked extensively about some of the things going on in your life. I definitely understand why you would be upset about all of this, and I think people can take personal attacks a lot better than parenting attacks.

You're a good guy. You're a good husband. And you're a good dad. Don't take my posts personal. Because if I thought you were a shit head, I'd tell you. :)

patteeu
03-25-2010, 06:35 PM
Do you know the odds of me or one of my family getting cancer? Nobody in my family has ever had cancer. I don't smoke. The concept of insurance is paying someone else to take the risk for you. The insurance companies are gambling that you and I wont get cancer. The fact that most people don't is how they make a profit. If cancer runs in your family, you pay a higher rate because the insurance company knows you are a higher risk. If you are healthy, and have no cancer in your family, you get much better rates because the insurance company plans to profit from you staying healthy. I believe that my decision not to have health insurance is a low risk move on my part. If you think it is irresponsible, I couldn't give a shit. It is my health, my money, and none of your or the governments business what I do with it.

As long as you're willing to die rather than seek help after you slide into a bridge abutment with your car during inclement weather and end up seriously injured, more power to you. Since I don't believe that's the case, I still think you're being irresponsible. You're far from alone though. There are lots of people out there doing the same thing. You're not a looter though, unless you actually loot.

Mr. Kotter
03-25-2010, 09:20 PM
Do you know the odds of me or one of my family getting cancer? Nobody in my family has ever had cancer. I don't smoke. The concept of insurance is paying someone else to take the risk for you. The insurance companies are gambling that you and I wont get cancer. The fact that most people don't is how they make a profit. If cancer runs in your family, you pay a higher rate because the insurance company knows you are a higher risk. If you are healthy, and have no cancer in your family, you get much better rates because the insurance company plans to profit from you staying healthy. I believe that my decision not to have health insurance is a low risk move on my part. If you think it is irresponsible, I couldn't give a shit. It is my health, my money, and none of your or the governments business what I do with it.

Your daughter will be happy...and proud of you if she beats the odds; otherwise, it could get uncomfortable....

:hmmm:



<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kn481KcjvMo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kn481KcjvMo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>