It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2025 12:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 19525
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Nas wrote:
Killer V wrote:
pittmike wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Hockey Gay wrote:
Great speech. Some of you are just haters, I get it.

I wonder what traumatic experience happens to a white man in his life that makes him become a liberal.


Donald Trump is not conservative.


:lol: This had me thinking yesterday of a Trump criticism that I found slightly amusing and puzzling. I have read people on the left shouting about how the right has been shouting to repeal Obamacare but have been unable or unwilling to do it right away. If that is the case shouldn't that make the left happy not mad?


I think most people acknowledge that parts of the ACA aren't working and need to be fixed. However, there are parts that should be kept.

The right spent YEARS wasting time by voting (and knowing it'd fail) to repeal it. YEARS. Now they have their chance and they have absolutely no idea what to do with it? WTF?



They never expected to be in this position.


Trump literally had no plan for healthcare, and his supporters cheered as he yelled about repealing Obamacare from their government funded Rascal Scooters.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
Well, if you perceive Obamacare as a Trojan Horse for single payer healthcare then it makes sense.

I think we are starting to see the first signs of that being the plan all along. You can't repeal it because people will lose insurance! Now, the next Democrat pushes the ball forward and gets more people reliant on government healthcare and then the same process happens until eventually all of us have Congress making our medical decisions for us.

_________________
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: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:47 pm
Posts: 13380
Location: The far western part of south east North Dakota
pizza_Place: Boboli
Congress only wants to tell WOMEN what they can and can't do with their bodies. Men will be fine.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I smell a bit....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
AntiCrewMult wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
You can't give anecdotal evidence to show that illegal immigrants do bad things. Well, I suppose you can, but anyone with half a brain would demand data that compares it to any other group of people.


That's not the point. He doesn't have the power to deport American criminals like JORR and Seacrest.


:lol:

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Nas wrote:
Killer V wrote:
pittmike wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Hockey Gay wrote:
Great speech. Some of you are just haters, I get it.

I wonder what traumatic experience happens to a white man in his life that makes him become a liberal.


Donald Trump is not conservative.


:lol: This had me thinking yesterday of a Trump criticism that I found slightly amusing and puzzling. I have read people on the left shouting about how the right has been shouting to repeal Obamacare but have been unable or unwilling to do it right away. If that is the case shouldn't that make the left happy not mad?


I think most people acknowledge that parts of the ACA aren't working and need to be fixed. However, there are parts that should be kept.

The right spent YEARS wasting time by voting (and knowing it'd fail) to repeal it. YEARS. Now they have their chance and they have absolutely no idea what to do with it? WTF?



They never expected to be in this position.


Trump literally had no plan for healthcare, and his supporters cheered as he yelled about repealing Obamacare from their government funded Rascal Scooters.


Trump said during that first ABC News interview that his preference was to let Obamacare just implode on its own. Then the Dems would own it forever. Not sure if what we see now is a backward way of doing that (I doubt it)?

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
politics

party over country


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:41 pm 
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:
Well, if you perceive Obamacare as a Trojan Horse for single payer healthcare then it makes sense.

I think we are starting to see the first signs of that being the plan all along. You can't repeal it because people will lose insurance! Now, the next Democrat pushes the ball forward and gets more people reliant on government healthcare and then the same process happens until eventually all of us have Congress making our medical decisions for us.


Let me start with my standard "the ACA is a disaster in regards to the regulations imposed on private insurers and the mandate on consumers to purchase private 'insurance' (it's not insurance)". And to describe the ACA as "free government insurance" is wrong. It provides access to health care (in theory) with subsidies for poor people. There's a lot wrong with it, without question.

That said, Rick, I just have one question regarding your opposition to any form of government-run health care funding systems. (it's not government run health care unless the government employs the doctors and health professionals). Anyway, what would you do about people who are taken to the emergency room who don't have health "insurance"? Should they be thrown out on the street? Because the reality is that we are all going to pay for their health care in the form of premiums or taxes. Additionally, what about terminally ill patients who don't have insurance? Let them die? What free market solution do you have in today's age that allows us to try to get the poorest among us to have some sort of risk transfer mechanism in the event that they need millions of dollars in procedures to stay alive? I'm all ears.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Well, if you perceive Obamacare as a Trojan Horse for single payer healthcare then it makes sense.

I think we are starting to see the first signs of that being the plan all along. You can't repeal it because people will lose insurance! Now, the next Democrat pushes the ball forward and gets more people reliant on government healthcare and then the same process happens until eventually all of us have Congress making our medical decisions for us.


Let me start with my standard "the ACA is a disaster in regards to the regulations imposed on private insurers and the mandate on consumers to purchase private 'insurance' (it's not insurance)". And to describe the ACA as "free government insurance" is wrong. It provides access to health care (in theory) with subsidies for poor people. There's a lot wrong with it, without question.

That said, Rick, I just have one question regarding your opposition to any form of government-run health care funding systems. (it's not government run health care unless the government employs the doctors and health professionals). Anyway, what would you do about people who are taken to the emergency room who don't have health "insurance"? Should they be thrown out on the street? Because the reality is that we are all going to pay for their health care in the form of premiums or taxes. Additionally, what about terminally ill patients who don't have insurance? Let them die? What free market solution do you have in today's age that allows us to try to get the poorest among us to have some sort of risk transfer mechanism in the event that they need millions of dollars in procedures to stay alive? I'm all ears.


All those poor sick people need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and...move.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Well, if you perceive Obamacare as a Trojan Horse for single payer healthcare then it makes sense.

I think we are starting to see the first signs of that being the plan all along. You can't repeal it because people will lose insurance! Now, the next Democrat pushes the ball forward and gets more people reliant on government healthcare and then the same process happens until eventually all of us have Congress making our medical decisions for us.


Let me start with my standard "the ACA is a disaster in regards to the regulations imposed on private insurers and the mandate on consumers to purchase private 'insurance' (it's not insurance)". And to describe the ACA as "free government insurance" is wrong. It provides access to health care (in theory) with subsidies for poor people. There's a lot wrong with it, without question.

That said, Rick, I just have one question regarding your opposition to any form of government-run health care funding systems. (it's not government run health care unless the government employs the doctors and health professionals). Anyway, what would you do about people who are taken to the emergency room who don't have health "insurance"? Should they be thrown out on the street? Because the reality is that we are all going to pay for their health care in the form of premiums or taxes. Additionally, what about terminally ill patients who don't have insurance? Let them die? What free market solution do you have in today's age that allows us to try to get the poorest among us to have some sort of risk transfer mechanism in the event that they need millions of dollars in procedures to stay alive? I'm all ears.

I'm not against the government picking up the tab for the poor any more than I'm against food stamps or housing assistance or welfare.

I simply don't want my only logical choice for health insurance to come from the government.

As for the "terminally ill" I would also at least consider a government sponsored "catastrophic care" plan for everyone. The specifics on how it would happen is too complex for me to explain besides in general that it would protect the average person from the massive medical bills that can happen. It also should lower health insurance costs since companies would lose the danger of massive expenses for one person. However, that isn't really needed to answer your question.

_________________
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: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Nas wrote:
Killer V wrote:
pittmike wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Hockey Gay wrote:
Great speech. Some of you are just haters, I get it.

I wonder what traumatic experience happens to a white man in his life that makes him become a liberal.


Donald Trump is not conservative.


:lol: This had me thinking yesterday of a Trump criticism that I found slightly amusing and puzzling. I have read people on the left shouting about how the right has been shouting to repeal Obamacare but have been unable or unwilling to do it right away. If that is the case shouldn't that make the left happy not mad?


I think most people acknowledge that parts of the ACA aren't working and need to be fixed. However, there are parts that should be kept.

The right spent YEARS wasting time by voting (and knowing it'd fail) to repeal it. YEARS. Now they have their chance and they have absolutely no idea what to do with it? WTF?



They never expected to be in this position.


Trump literally had no plan for healthcare, and his supporters cheered as he yelled about repealing Obamacare from their government funded Rascal Scooters.



I'm really waiting to see the big repeal of NAFTA. I'm really wondering when that is going to be put on the table.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:29 pm 
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:
Well, if you perceive Obamacare as a Trojan Horse for single payer healthcare then it makes sense.

I think we are starting to see the first signs of that being the plan all along. You can't repeal it because people will lose insurance! Now, the next Democrat pushes the ball forward and gets more people reliant on government healthcare and then the same process happens until eventually all of us have Congress making our medical decisions for us.


Let me start with my standard "the ACA is a disaster in regards to the regulations imposed on private insurers and the mandate on consumers to purchase private 'insurance' (it's not insurance)". And to describe the ACA as "free government insurance" is wrong. It provides access to health care (in theory) with subsidies for poor people. There's a lot wrong with it, without question.

That said, Rick, I just have one question regarding your opposition to any form of government-run health care funding systems. (it's not government run health care unless the government employs the doctors and health professionals). Anyway, what would you do about people who are taken to the emergency room who don't have health "insurance"? Should they be thrown out on the street? Because the reality is that we are all going to pay for their health care in the form of premiums or taxes. Additionally, what about terminally ill patients who don't have insurance? Let them die? What free market solution do you have in today's age that allows us to try to get the poorest among us to have some sort of risk transfer mechanism in the event that they need millions of dollars in procedures to stay alive? I'm all ears.

I'm not against the government picking up the tab for the poor any more than I'm against food stamps or housing assistance or welfare.

I simply don't want my only logical choice for health insurance to come from the government.

As for the "terminally ill" I would also at least consider a government sponsored "catastrophic care" plan for everyone. The specifics on how it would happen is too complex for me to explain besides in general that it would protect the average person from the massive medical bills that can happen. It also should lower health insurance costs since companies would lose the danger of massive expenses for one person. However, that isn't really needed to answer your question.


OK. There might be some good stuff there, but I still wonder about people who choose not to purchase health "insurance." What if there's a young guy in his 20's who decides not to purchase health insurance, and he gets shot in the face in Knoxville, IL. He is stabilized and transported to a hospital in Peoria where there are actual, modern health care experts. He is already stabilized (on our dime) and they inform him that the bullet lodged in his brain will begin to cause severe damage the longer it is left in. He is told that within a month, his cognitive functioning will rapidly decrease leading to death within a few months. Should we remove the bullet free of charge or send him on his way since he doesn't have health insurance?

I'm honestly not educated on how the various non-single payer systems throughout the world address this, but I'd be curious to hear if anyone knows.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
leashyourkids wrote:
What if there's a young guy in his 20's who decides not to purchase health insurance, and he gets shot in the face in Knoxville, IL.


Knoxville has some pretty vindictive insurance salespeople. Holy shit.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Well, if you perceive Obamacare as a Trojan Horse for single payer healthcare then it makes sense.

I think we are starting to see the first signs of that being the plan all along. You can't repeal it because people will lose insurance! Now, the next Democrat pushes the ball forward and gets more people reliant on government healthcare and then the same process happens until eventually all of us have Congress making our medical decisions for us.


Let me start with my standard "the ACA is a disaster in regards to the regulations imposed on private insurers and the mandate on consumers to purchase private 'insurance' (it's not insurance)". And to describe the ACA as "free government insurance" is wrong. It provides access to health care (in theory) with subsidies for poor people. There's a lot wrong with it, without question.

That said, Rick, I just have one question regarding your opposition to any form of government-run health care funding systems. (it's not government run health care unless the government employs the doctors and health professionals). Anyway, what would you do about people who are taken to the emergency room who don't have health "insurance"? Should they be thrown out on the street? Because the reality is that we are all going to pay for their health care in the form of premiums or taxes. Additionally, what about terminally ill patients who don't have insurance? Let them die? What free market solution do you have in today's age that allows us to try to get the poorest among us to have some sort of risk transfer mechanism in the event that they need millions of dollars in procedures to stay alive? I'm all ears.

I'm not against the government picking up the tab for the poor any more than I'm against food stamps or housing assistance or welfare.

I simply don't want my only logical choice for health insurance to come from the government.

As for the "terminally ill" I would also at least consider a government sponsored "catastrophic care" plan for everyone. The specifics on how it would happen is too complex for me to explain besides in general that it would protect the average person from the massive medical bills that can happen. It also should lower health insurance costs since companies would lose the danger of massive expenses for one person. However, that isn't really needed to answer your question.


OK. There might be some good stuff there, but I still wonder about people who choose not to purchase health "insurance." What if there's a young guy in his 20's who decides not to purchase health insurance, and he gets shot in the face in Knoxville, IL. He is stabilized and transported to a hospital in Peoria where there are actual, modern health care experts. He is already stabilized (on our dime) and they inform him that the bullet lodged in his brain will begin to cause severe damage the longer it is left in. He is told that within a month, his cognitive functioning will rapidly decrease leading to death within a few months. Should we remove the bullet free of charge or send him on his way since he doesn't have health insurance?

I'm honestly not educated on how the various non-single payer systems throughout the world address this, but I'd be curious to hear if anyone knows.
He would get it fixed but it would be expensive for him. The government probably fills some of the bill but he's paying a lot too.

_________________
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: Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
veganfan21 wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
What if there's a young guy in his 20's who decides not to purchase health insurance, and he gets shot in the face in Knoxville, IL.


Knoxville has some pretty vindictive insurance salespeople. Holy shit.


Scooter delivers oxygen tanks, so it's not him.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43867
leashyourkids wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
What if there's a young guy in his 20's who decides not to purchase health insurance, and he gets shot in the face in Knoxville, IL.


Knoxville has some pretty vindictive insurance salespeople. Holy shit.


Scooter delivers oxygen tanks, so it's not him.

And Scooter doesn't even need a GPS.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80536
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Well, if you perceive Obamacare as a Trojan Horse for single payer healthcare then it makes sense.

I think we are starting to see the first signs of that being the plan all along. You can't repeal it because people will lose insurance! Now, the next Democrat pushes the ball forward and gets more people reliant on government healthcare and then the same process happens until eventually all of us have Congress making our medical decisions for us.


Let me start with my standard "the ACA is a disaster in regards to the regulations imposed on private insurers and the mandate on consumers to purchase private 'insurance' (it's not insurance)". And to describe the ACA as "free government insurance" is wrong. It provides access to health care (in theory) with subsidies for poor people. There's a lot wrong with it, without question.

That said, Rick, I just have one question regarding your opposition to any form of government-run health care funding systems. (it's not government run health care unless the government employs the doctors and health professionals). Anyway, what would you do about people who are taken to the emergency room who don't have health "insurance"? Should they be thrown out on the street? Because the reality is that we are all going to pay for their health care in the form of premiums or taxes. Additionally, what about terminally ill patients who don't have insurance? Let them die? What free market solution do you have in today's age that allows us to try to get the poorest among us to have some sort of risk transfer mechanism in the event that they need millions of dollars in procedures to stay alive? I'm all ears.

I'm not against the government picking up the tab for the poor any more than I'm against food stamps or housing assistance or welfare.

I simply don't want my only logical choice for health insurance to come from the government.

As for the "terminally ill" I would also at least consider a government sponsored "catastrophic care" plan for everyone. The specifics on how it would happen is too complex for me to explain besides in general that it would protect the average person from the massive medical bills that can happen. It also should lower health insurance costs since companies would lose the danger of massive expenses for one person. However, that isn't really needed to answer your question.


OK. There might be some good stuff there, but I still wonder about people who choose not to purchase health "insurance." What if there's a young guy in his 20's who decides not to purchase health insurance, and he gets shot in the face in Knoxville, IL. He is stabilized and transported to a hospital in Peoria where there are actual, modern health care experts. He is already stabilized (on our dime) and they inform him that the bullet lodged in his brain will begin to cause severe damage the longer it is left in. He is told that within a month, his cognitive functioning will rapidly decrease leading to death within a few months. Should we remove the bullet free of charge or send him on his way since he doesn't have health insurance?

I'm honestly not educated on how the various non-single payer systems throughout the world address this, but I'd be curious to hear if anyone knows.
He would get it fixed but it would be expensive for him. The government probably fills some of the bill but he's paying a lot too.


He's on welfare in Knoxville. How is he gonna pay?

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Well, if you perceive Obamacare as a Trojan Horse for single payer healthcare then it makes sense.

I think we are starting to see the first signs of that being the plan all along. You can't repeal it because people will lose insurance! Now, the next Democrat pushes the ball forward and gets more people reliant on government healthcare and then the same process happens until eventually all of us have Congress making our medical decisions for us.


Let me start with my standard "the ACA is a disaster in regards to the regulations imposed on private insurers and the mandate on consumers to purchase private 'insurance' (it's not insurance)". And to describe the ACA as "free government insurance" is wrong. It provides access to health care (in theory) with subsidies for poor people. There's a lot wrong with it, without question.

That said, Rick, I just have one question regarding your opposition to any form of government-run health care funding systems. (it's not government run health care unless the government employs the doctors and health professionals). Anyway, what would you do about people who are taken to the emergency room who don't have health "insurance"? Should they be thrown out on the street? Because the reality is that we are all going to pay for their health care in the form of premiums or taxes. Additionally, what about terminally ill patients who don't have insurance? Let them die? What free market solution do you have in today's age that allows us to try to get the poorest among us to have some sort of risk transfer mechanism in the event that they need millions of dollars in procedures to stay alive? I'm all ears.

I'm not against the government picking up the tab for the poor any more than I'm against food stamps or housing assistance or welfare.

I simply don't want my only logical choice for health insurance to come from the government.

As for the "terminally ill" I would also at least consider a government sponsored "catastrophic care" plan for everyone. The specifics on how it would happen is too complex for me to explain besides in general that it would protect the average person from the massive medical bills that can happen. It also should lower health insurance costs since companies would lose the danger of massive expenses for one person. However, that isn't really needed to answer your question.


OK. There might be some good stuff there, but I still wonder about people who choose not to purchase health "insurance." What if there's a young guy in his 20's who decides not to purchase health insurance, and he gets shot in the face in Knoxville, IL. He is stabilized and transported to a hospital in Peoria where there are actual, modern health care experts. He is already stabilized (on our dime) and they inform him that the bullet lodged in his brain will begin to cause severe damage the longer it is left in. He is told that within a month, his cognitive functioning will rapidly decrease leading to death within a few months. Should we remove the bullet free of charge or send him on his way since he doesn't have health insurance?

I'm honestly not educated on how the various non-single payer systems throughout the world address this, but I'd be curious to hear if anyone knows.
He would get it fixed but it would be expensive for him. The government probably fills some of the bill but he's paying a lot too.


He's on welfare in Knoxville. How is he gonna pay?


Actually, the rednecks in Knoxville would never accept welfare - out of principle. They would just work minimum wage for a millionaire farmer who receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in government welfare while bitching about black people who have flip phones.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Nevertheless, JORR's question is a good and obvious one. You can say he's gonna pay for it, but that's never gonna happen... And we will all foot the bill.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93640
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Nevertheless, JORR's question is a good and obvious one. You can say he's gonna pay for it, but that's never gonna happen... And we will all foot the bill.

Well if he is poor then we pay but that was already part of it with medicaid. He would have some financial responsibility and the government is very good at getting you to pay up.

In any system the government is covering the poor. There isn't a major reason to worry about 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: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:54 pm 
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:
Nevertheless, JORR's question is a good and obvious one. You can say he's gonna pay for it, but that's never gonna happen... And we will all foot the bill.

Well if he is poor then we pay but that was already part of it with medicaid. He would have some financial responsibility and the government is very good at getting you to pay up.

In any system the government is covering the poor. There isn't a major reason to worry about it.


There is if you're poor and losing a foot from diabeetus!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Isn't there also an illegal immigration element? The story was always they show up to the ER can't or don't pay and no method to get them to.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group