It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2025 5:30 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.

So let them die, then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41485
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.


Wow.

I'd rather not buy any insurance. Shouldn't I have to deal with it if I choose not to?


Generally, yes, but I find it hard to take that stance with someone's life.

Nice attempt at a gotcha, though.
It wasn't a gotcha. You are always in trouble if you choose not to have insurance for something and the worst case scenario happens. With this, it was getting cancer before the age of 65 when you could have afforded to have insurance and made a choice not to. I don't view it as any more heartless than someone choosing not to have homeowners insurance who then has his house burn down. I feel really badly for the person but it also is why you choose to have insurance.

So you really don't see any difference between a human life and a piece of property?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41485
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.

So let them die, then?


It sounds like that is what he prefers. Not even some IRS type lean on future wages based on a % of the med bills.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93636
Location: To the left of my post
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.

So let them die, then?
They aren't banned from being treated. They have to find a way since they chose not to prepare for this.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.

So let them die, then?


I see the point of having to experience a penalty for choosing to be irresponsible and ignore insurance. They do not have to lose their life but maybe they can be made to exhaust all of their finances and property to go toward their care.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93636
Location: To the left of my post
pittmike wrote:
I see the point of having to experience a penalty for choosing to be irresponsible and ignore insurance. They do not have to lose their life but maybe they can be made to exhaust all of their finances and property to go toward their care.
I believe this is what happens in the real world, and then they can get Medicaid. I'm not 100% certain though.

People on here are acting like I want them shot the moment it begins. I have said nothing about the alternative ways they can get treatment. My point is that if you choose to not have insurance, and you can afford it, then you bear the responsibility for what happens in the worst case scenario.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
pittmike wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.

So let them die, then?


I see the point of having to experience a penalty for choosing to be irresponsible and ignore insurance. They do not have to lose their life but maybe they can be made to exhaust all of their finances and property to go toward their care.

Make them the Doctor's Butler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.


Wow.

I'd rather not buy any insurance. Shouldn't I have to deal with it if I choose not to?


Generally, yes, but I find it hard to take that stance with someone's life.

Nice attempt at a gotcha, though.
It wasn't a gotcha. You are always in trouble if you choose not to have insurance for something and the worst case scenario happens. With this, it was getting cancer before the age of 65 when you could have afforded to have insurance and made a choice not to. I don't view it as any more heartless than someone choosing not to have homeowners insurance who then has his house burn down. I feel really badly for the person but it also is why you choose to have insurance.


Two things:

First, I don't see property and human life to be the same thing. I'd be hesitant to subsidize someone's risk of flood, but I have no problem subsidizing the costs of treatment for deadly health conditions. At the end of the day, though, I will agree with you that if we had a system as such, no one would buy health insurance. That's why I think single payer is the way to go.

Second, just to be clear, our conversation yesterday about property insurance was focused around the financing mechanism for insurance, and I was pointing out that it would be financially impossible for private insurance companies to just pay for anything. That doesn't mean I'd be philosophically opposed to government-run insurance for markets that the private sector can't or won't take on. They already exist, anyway. That's what the NFIP or the California Earthquake Authority do, and we all pay for them. They aren't self-funded, even though they're supposed to be.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
good dolphin wrote:
Both are academic liberals. That isn't a put down.

I consider myself pretty liberal but when I see some people living it, I don't think that could be my existence. I admire them and am ashamed of myself but not enough to follow them.

I'm not even talking about the ANTIFA types nor the professional protestors.

you mean, good people? like people involved in doing good for others? those people are cool.

identitarians, however, are a plague on rationality, history, the class structure, and community.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.


Wow.

I'd rather not buy any insurance. Shouldn't I have to deal with it if I choose not to?

not really the issue. the issue is that some can't afford it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
tommy wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
Both are academic liberals. That isn't a put down.

I consider myself pretty liberal but when I see some people living it, I don't think that could be my existence. I admire them and am ashamed of myself but not enough to follow them.

I'm not even talking about the ANTIFA types nor the professional protestors.

you mean, good people? like people involved in doing good for others? those people are cool.

identitarians, however, are a plague on rationality, history, the class structure, and community.


Check your privilege, mister.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93636
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
First, I don't see property and human life to be the same thing. I'd be hesitant to subsidize someone's risk of flood, but I have no problem subsidizing the costs of treatment for deadly health conditions. At the end of the day, though, I will agree with you that if we had a system as such, no one would buy health insurance. That's why I think single payer is the way to go.
If we are really getting into specifics here, both are talking about major financial ruin and not the life or property. You may lose your house and empty your bank account but you are going to get the cancer treatments. Doctors and hospitals will work with you and eventually you do qualify for Medicaid I am almost certain.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93636
Location: To the left of my post
tommy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.


Wow.

I'd rather not buy any insurance. Shouldn't I have to deal with it if I choose not to?

not really the issue. the issue is that some can't afford it.
I've already said that if you truly can't afford it the government should provide it. Many could afford it and choose not to have it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I see the point of having to experience a penalty for choosing to be irresponsible and ignore insurance. They do not have to lose their life but maybe they can be made to exhaust all of their finances and property to go toward their care.
I believe this is what happens in the real world, and then they can get Medicaid. I'm not 100% certain though.

People on here are acting like I want them shot the moment it begins. I have said nothing about the alternative ways they can get treatment. My point is that if you choose to not have insurance, and you can afford it, then you bear the responsibility for what happens in the worst case scenario.

JORR outLIBS you by a mile here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41485
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Doctors and hospitals will work with you and eventually you do qualify for Medicaid I am almost certain.


AKA..Single Payer. Glad you are onboard now Rick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
First, I don't see property and human life to be the same thing. I'd be hesitant to subsidize someone's risk of flood, but I have no problem subsidizing the costs of treatment for deadly health conditions. At the end of the day, though, I will agree with you that if we had a system as such, no one would buy health insurance. That's why I think single payer is the way to go.
If we are really getting into specifics here, both are talking about major financial ruin and not the life or property. You may lose your house and empty your bank account but you are going to get the cancer treatments. Doctors and hospitals will work with you and eventually you do qualify for Medicaid I am almost certain.


Well, there is a difference. If your house burns down and you're not insured, you are financially ruined.

If you get cancer and don't have insurance, you're either financially ruined or you're going to die. I think we should aim for the former.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93636
Location: To the left of my post
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I see the point of having to experience a penalty for choosing to be irresponsible and ignore insurance. They do not have to lose their life but maybe they can be made to exhaust all of their finances and property to go toward their care.
I believe this is what happens in the real world, and then they can get Medicaid. I'm not 100% certain though.

People on here are acting like I want them shot the moment it begins. I have said nothing about the alternative ways they can get treatment. My point is that if you choose to not have insurance, and you can afford it, then you bear the responsibility for what happens in the worst case scenario.

JORR outLIBS you by a mile here.
I'm not sure he disagrees with me on healthcare. Is he a single payer guy?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I see the point of having to experience a penalty for choosing to be irresponsible and ignore insurance. They do not have to lose their life but maybe they can be made to exhaust all of their finances and property to go toward their care.
I believe this is what happens in the real world, and then they can get Medicaid. I'm not 100% certain though.

People on here are acting like I want them shot the moment it begins. I have said nothing about the alternative ways they can get treatment. My point is that if you choose to not have insurance, and you can afford it, then you bear the responsibility for what happens in the worst case scenario.

JORR outLIBS you by a mile here.
I'm not sure he disagrees with me on healthcare. Is he a single payer guy?

You better hope not, if you wanna win this thing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93636
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
First, I don't see property and human life to be the same thing. I'd be hesitant to subsidize someone's risk of flood, but I have no problem subsidizing the costs of treatment for deadly health conditions. At the end of the day, though, I will agree with you that if we had a system as such, no one would buy health insurance. That's why I think single payer is the way to go.
If we are really getting into specifics here, both are talking about major financial ruin and not the life or property. You may lose your house and empty your bank account but you are going to get the cancer treatments. Doctors and hospitals will work with you and eventually you do qualify for Medicaid I am almost certain.


Well, there is a difference. If your house burns down and you're not insured, you are financially ruined.

If you get cancer and don't have insurance, you're either financially ruined or you're going to die. I think we should aim for the former.
Fine. Uninsured but could have afforded it and you get cancer? Government takes your house, all your money, and garnishes future wages but pays for 100% of it. Sound good?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
First, I don't see property and human life to be the same thing. I'd be hesitant to subsidize someone's risk of flood, but I have no problem subsidizing the costs of treatment for deadly health conditions. At the end of the day, though, I will agree with you that if we had a system as such, no one would buy health insurance. That's why I think single payer is the way to go.
If we are really getting into specifics here, both are talking about major financial ruin and not the life or property. You may lose your house and empty your bank account but you are going to get the cancer treatments. Doctors and hospitals will work with you and eventually you do qualify for Medicaid I am almost certain.


Well, there is a difference. If your house burns down and you're not insured, you are financially ruined.

If you get cancer and don't have insurance, you're either financially ruined or you're going to die. I think we should aim for the former.
Fine. Uninsured but could have afforded it and you get cancer? Government takes your house, all your money, and garnishes future wages but pays for 100% of it. Sound good?


Sure.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
]Fine. Uninsured but could have afforded it and you get cancer? Government takes your house, all your money, and garnishes future wages but pays for 100% of it. Sound good?

OH WHAT A MOVE BY BULL HURLEY!!!

Rick is trying to WIN this thing.


Fake ass liberal JORR is probably having lunch at the Union Club with Todd Ricketts.


Last edited by rogers park bryan on Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
tommy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.


Wow.

I'd rather not buy any insurance. Shouldn't I have to deal with it if I choose not to?

not really the issue. the issue is that some can't afford it.
I've already said that if you truly can't afford it the government should provide it. Many could afford it and choose not to have it.


Your opponents today aren't really reading it seems. Anyway, new idea! Give the ones that can afford it but chose not to buy insurance the equivalent of a student loan payoff for the provider. They will pay a small amount for the rest of their lives.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Caller Bob wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
They are only required to stabilize people to a certain level. But someone with cancer and no insurance can rot to death without insurance.

That is significantly different than having them die on the street. There is too much else going on to get into end of life care and expenses in single payer though.


So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

Image

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.

So let them die, then?


I see the point of having to experience a penalty for choosing to be irresponsible and ignore insurance. They do not have to lose their life but maybe they can be made to exhaust all of their finances and property to go toward their care.

Make them the Doctor's Butler


For 30 days until the rematch.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:52 pm
Posts: 360
pizza_Place: Local entrepreneurs only
Don Tiny wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
They are only required to stabilize people to a certain level. But someone with cancer and no insurance can rot to death without insurance.

That is significantly different than having them die on the street. There is too much else going on to get into end of life care and expenses in single payer though.


So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

Image


If thece takers who add no value to society just worked harder and sold that fancy winter coat they always wear in December or that AC unit they irresponsibily use all the time in summer then theyd have enough money to purchase health insurance. Its' really that simple. Buy only what you can afford becuz the way the world works is that your needs will always always be affordable.

_________________
libtard's personfied:

Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
You said "naked" and bearing breasts (which are reproductive organs and thus technically "genitals" are they not?) is "naked" for all intents and purposes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 24708
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
I don't think there was movie I watched more as a yoot on cable than The Last Starfighter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:25 pm 
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:

So what is your solution to someone with cancer and no insurance?

That depends. If they truly couldn't afford insurance the government should provide it. If they could afford it and chose to spend it on other things then they made their choice.


Wow.

I'd rather not buy any insurance. Shouldn't I have to deal with it if I choose not to?

That's the thing though. "You" (the royal you) won't deal with it. You will go to the hospital, and our tax dollars will end up bailing you out. I don't think anyone having a grabber is going to go "meh. Oh well"


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93636
Location: To the left of my post
Baby McNown wrote:
That's the thing though. "You" (the royal you) won't deal with it. You will go to the hospital, and our tax dollars will end up bailing you out. I don't think anyone having a grabber is going to go "meh. Oh well"
Ok? :lol:

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80533
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
]Fine. Uninsured but could have afforded it and you get cancer? Government takes your house, all your money, and garnishes future wages but pays for 100% of it. Sound good?

OH WHAT A MOVE BY BULL HURLEY!!!

Rick is trying to WIN this thing.


Fake ass liberal JORR is probably having lunch at the Union Club with Todd Ricketts.



Oh yeah, fuck those poor bastards with cancer. Let's cure them and then leave them destitute on the corner shaking a tin cup. Win Win!

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:29 pm 
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Baby McNown wrote:
That's the thing though. "You" (the royal you) won't deal with it. You will go to the hospital, and our tax dollars will end up bailing you out. I don't think anyone having a grabber is going to go "meh. Oh well"
Ok? :lol:

What's funny? Do you honestly think somebody in dire need of medical care is going to say "nope. I made the choice" and just die? No. They're gonna call 911, the ambo will take you to the hospital and they will treat you.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group