No One Has a Right to Health Care

[Contumacious]

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

Again we come back to the Pareto principle: 80/20.

No one knows if/when they or a dependent will need acute or long-term care. So everyone contributes to a pool. That's how insurance works.

If you're talking about single-payer healthcare, that eliminates the insurer, collects from the entire taxpayer base, and provides care for those who need it.

Study the system in any industrialized nation other than the U.S., and you'll find their taxes are a tick higher, but their outlay for healthcare is far, far less.

No one wants their baby to be born with a heart defect or spina bifida, but they're damn glad that there's a NICU and a surgical team to rectify it. No one asks to be diagnosed with MS or ALS or a host of other degenerative conditions, but they're glad no one's ready to put a pillow over their faces because of the "inconvenience."

I've said this before, but nobody on your side of the fence wishes to address it.

If the people decide we want government run healthcare, the same government who does such a wonderful job with our mail, our other social programs, our education, to be in charge, then fine by me.

But what I object to is people getting all this care and not paying for it; send the bill to the rich people.

That's why I say the solution would be a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar. There would be no more Medicare or Medicare deductions, no more Medicaid, no more SCHIP's program, just national healthcare. What do you say to that?

And after we do that, then we have to decide who gets to go to the good doctors and hospitals and who gets to go to the not so good facilities. In other words, if Democrats were in charge, would they send all the lower income Democrat voters to the good doctors and all the middle-class and wealthy to the not so good doctors?

I'm not a mathematician, but I do know that it has been made to work in other countries (to which the usual dismissal is "small, homogenous populations; wouldn't work in the U.S."). To me the simplest math is: Americans pay way more for healthcare than any other nation, so why is that and what can we do about it?

Then there's the idea of "good doctors" and "bad doctors," which assumes that somehow there are diploma mills churning out "bad doctors" or "mediocre doctors" who would be providing treatment to those at certain income levels. While I'm not saying there are not individuals in medicine who are incompetent and/or lazy, medical schools in this country have a certain rigor that produces medical professionals who are - well - professional.

As for red states, you need to look at, for example, how their legislators for the most part refused the federal funding for Medicaid expansion in order to "show Obama." IOW, screw their constituents; they chose to make a political statement to their detriment.

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them. You have to ask yourself whose pockets those funds are going in at the state level.

You are not a mathematician, you are a stupid fuck.

What makes healthcare so expensive?

Government bureaucrats at all levels

Healthcare has been regulated since the 1840's.

In 1965 fedgov created medicare/medicaid which makes healthcare prohibitively expensive to those who are not covered by those programs.

Abolish all healthcare regulations and programs - government bureaucrats hands off - let the free market rule and you will have the ideal healthcare system


.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Fair enough, so what do you think about my proposal for a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar currently? It could go up after that as medical costs rise. The more you buy, the more you contribute.

First repeal the income tax (Amendment 16). Then we'll consider other taxes.

Promises from leftists, that they'll repeal one program or tax AFTER a new "replacement" program or tax is enacted, have historically proven the biggest lies they tell. And that's saying something.

 

[Arianrhod]

What makes healthcare so expensive?

Government bureaucrats at all levels.

Prove it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them.

Because the "red states" invariably have more military bases, research facilities and other Federal installations than "blue states". Liberals sit around and screech "Not in my back yard!" while normal Americans accept the necessary functions of government... and so the tax money to support those functions go more the normal states than leftist states.

 

[Contumacious]

What makes healthcare so expensive?

Government bureaucrats at all levels.

Prove it.

Listen Dingle Berry , read your post 1260 - you have already proven it. Quit being a fucking contrarian.

.

 

[beagle9]

No One Has a Right to Health Care
by Jacob G. Hornberger February 3, 2016

Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says that everyone has a right to health care. Unfortunately, none of his presidential opponents, Democrat or Republican, is going to challenge him on the point. They’re too scared that they’d lose votes by challenging a standard socialist shibboleth in America.

Sanders’ assertion only goes to show how American socialists (i.e., progressives) have warped and perverted the concept of rights within the minds of the American people. The fact is that no one has a right to health care any more than he has a right to a home, a car, food, spouse, or anything else.

The correct concept of rights was enunciated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, the document that Americans ironically celebrate every Fourth of July. Jefferson observed that people have been endowed with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

. Again, how do you have the right to LIFE, if the very thing that is needed to sustain your life if you get sick, is then denied to you because of money ????????????? It has happened, and people have died as a result of getting less quality care because they couldn't get the same type of care that another would have gotten in the same situation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

Again we come back to the Pareto principle: 80/20.

No one knows if/when they or a dependent will need acute or long-term care. So everyone contributes to a pool. That's how insurance works.

If you're talking about single-payer healthcare, that eliminates the insurer, collects from the entire taxpayer base, and provides care for those who need it.

Study the system in any industrialized nation other than the U.S., and you'll find their taxes are a tick higher, but their outlay for healthcare is far, far less.

No one wants their baby to be born with a heart defect or spina bifida, but they're damn glad that there's a NICU and a surgical team to rectify it. No one asks to be diagnosed with MS or ALS or a host of other degenerative conditions, but they're glad no one's ready to put a pillow over their faces because of the "inconvenience."

I've said this before, but nobody on your side of the fence wishes to address it.

If the people decide we want government run healthcare, the same government who does such a wonderful job with our mail, our other social programs, our education, to be in charge, then fine by me.

But what I object to is people getting all this care and not paying for it; send the bill to the rich people.

That's why I say the solution would be a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar. There would be no more Medicare or Medicare deductions, no more Medicaid, no more SCHIP's program, just national healthcare. What do you say to that?

And after we do that, then we have to decide who gets to go to the good doctors and hospitals and who gets to go to the not so good facilities. In other words, if Democrats were in charge, would they send all the lower income Democrat voters to the good doctors and all the middle-class and wealthy to the not so good doctors?

I'm not a mathematician, but I do know that it has been made to work in other countries (to which the usual dismissal is "small, homogenous populations; wouldn't work in the U.S."). To me the simplest math is: Americans pay way more for healthcare than any other nation, so why is that and what can we do about it?

Then there's the idea of "good doctors" and "bad doctors," which assumes that somehow there are diploma mills churning out "bad doctors" or "mediocre doctors" who would be providing treatment to those at certain income levels. While I'm not saying there are not individuals in medicine who are incompetent and/or lazy, medical schools in this country have a certain rigor that produces medical professionals who are - well - professional.

As for red states, you need to look at, for example, how their legislators for the most part refused the federal funding for Medicaid expansion in order to "show Obama." IOW, screw their constituents; they chose to make a political statement to their detriment.

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them. You have to ask yourself whose pockets those funds are going in at the state level.

What you have to understand is that states don't go on welfare--people go on welfare.

If you want a better measurement as to who uses welfare, then look at the cities instead of the states. Look how those cities vote.

Our state is a swing state, but currently all red. Yet our cities include Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, Canton, Toledo, Columbus, Cincinnati. It's the cities in those states that suck up all the social programs because that's usually where the poor are. You won't find many poor areas voting Republican.

Yes there are good and bad medical personnel. Usually the not so good ones are in lower income areas, free clinics, or a metro hospital where they cater to Medicaid patients. Those are lower paying jobs that good doctors would likely not work for. I've had several relatives during my life that did end up at one of these places, and the doctors told our family that our family member would likely not make it. With some wheeling and dealing, we had them moved to the Cleveland Clinic and they eventually recovered and led a normal life.

If we ever go to a government healthcare system, there is no way in hell to leave politics out of it; it will be all politics.

 

[beagle9]

The whole idea of "rights" has been thoroughly corrupted to the point that people actually buy the notion that a right means the taxpayers must provide.

Even prior to the ACA nobody was denied access to healthcare. If you walked into a publicly funded hospital with a stab wound or drug overdose they were required to take care of you.

Why do you describe a person that would fit the stereo type of a thug or drug attic, as if these are the only people using the medical services in this way ? You see folks, this is how the game is played, where as the industry tries to use the worst characterisation to describe what goes on in all of this, but those that are used to suggest that the system is just overwhelmed with these kinds of cases is an outright fraud perpetrated by those who use the tactic. There are thousands who are great citizens who have been wronged, over-charged, canceled and couldn't afford the healthcare needed way before Hillary & Obama came along... To try and change what was going on is like taking candy from babies who have been racking up within a system of class warfare and greed that caters to some while turning away from others. There should be only winners and no losers when it comes to human life and it's sanctity there of..

 

[beagle9]

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

Again we come back to the Pareto principle: 80/20.

No one knows if/when they or a dependent will need acute or long-term care. So everyone contributes to a pool. That's how insurance works.

If you're talking about single-payer healthcare, that eliminates the insurer, collects from the entire taxpayer base, and provides care for those who need it.

Study the system in any industrialized nation other than the U.S., and you'll find their taxes are a tick higher, but their outlay for healthcare is far, far less.

No one wants their baby to be born with a heart defect or spina bifida, but they're damn glad that there's a NICU and a surgical team to rectify it. No one asks to be diagnosed with MS or ALS or a host of other degenerative conditions, but they're glad no one's ready to put a pillow over their faces because of the "inconvenience."

I've said this before, but nobody on your side of the fence wishes to address it.

If the people decide we want government run healthcare, the same government who does such a wonderful job with our mail, our other social programs, our education, to be in charge, then fine by me.

But what I object to is people getting all this care and not paying for it; send the bill to the rich people.

That's why I say the solution would be a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar. There would be no more Medicare or Medicare deductions, no more Medicaid, no more SCHIP's program, just national healthcare. What do you say to that?

And after we do that, then we have to decide who gets to go to the good doctors and hospitals and who gets to go to the not so good facilities. In other words, if Democrats were in charge, would they send all the lower income Democrat voters to the good doctors and all the middle-class and wealthy to the not so good doctors?

I'm not a mathematician, but I do know that it has been made to work in other countries (to which the usual dismissal is "small, homogenous populations; wouldn't work in the U.S."). To me the simplest math is: Americans pay way more for healthcare than any other nation, so why is that and what can we do about it?

Then there's the idea of "good doctors" and "bad doctors," which assumes that somehow there are diploma mills churning out "bad doctors" or "mediocre doctors" who would be providing treatment to those at certain income levels. While I'm not saying there are not individuals in medicine who are incompetent and/or lazy, medical schools in this country have a certain rigor that produces medical professionals who are - well - professional.

As for red states, you need to look at, for example, how their legislators for the most part refused the federal funding for Medicaid expansion in order to "show Obama." IOW, screw their constituents; they chose to make a political statement to their detriment.

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them. You have to ask yourself whose pockets those funds are going in at the state level.

What you have to understand is that states don't go on welfare--people go on welfare.

If you want a better measurement as to who uses welfare, then look at the cities instead of the states. Look how those cities vote.

Our state is a swing state, but currently all red. Yet our cities include Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, Canton, Toledo, Columbus, Cincinnati. It's the cities in those states that suck up all the social programs because that's usually where the poor are. You won't find many poor areas voting Republican.

Yes there are good and bad medical personnel. Usually the not so good ones are in lower income areas, free clinics, or a metro hospital where they cater to Medicaid patients. Those are lower paying jobs that good doctors would likely not work for. I've had several relatives during my life that did end up at one of these places, and the doctors told our family that our family member would likely not make it. With some wheeling and dealing, we had them moved to the Cleveland Clinic and they eventually recovered and led a normal life.

If we ever go to a government healthcare system, there is no way in hell to leave politics out of it; it will be all politics.

. Don't need a government run healthcare system, but only an even playing field when it comes to access, quality, and proper financing of it for all. I have explained what I thought should take place, but the shame of it all is that this nation is so devided that it's a literal sickening situation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I doubt that because in their time everyone took care of themselves and if you had a problem family helped.

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

We aren't talking about the good old days moron. We are talking about we taxpayers footing the bills for those who can't or won't take care of themselves.

We are talking about one group of people, i.e. the taxpayers, being forced to bankroll another group of people i.e. the Freeloaders.

. Ok you used the word CAN'T take care of themselves also, so if a poor child or person can't take care of themselves by no fault of their own, then what maybe they should DIE in your mind ? Everybody is not freeloaders in life, but to hear some speak here, seems to suggest that anyone who needs help of any kind, and the government has the blessing of the people to help them, then they are villans if they do?

In my mind, a freeloader is a person that doesn't try and takes the easy way out each and every time.

I work with people that are as dumb as a box of rocks. They will never have anything in life because they don't have the intelligence. But they will outwork most anybody I know. They come in sick, will over OT anytime the boss asks them, and do just about any job the boss asks of them. Those are the people that I wouldn't mind helping.

The problem is like with any other social program: people not needing it will take advantage of them. That's where I have the problem.

Where do I see this? All over. I see those people with the food stamps buy their food, and then load the conveyer belt with alcohol, cigarettes, greeting cards, flowers, huge bags of dog food and cat litter. Yeah, for that they have cash. For food? Well, that's what I have to pay for.

In fact I just created a thread yesterday about what Maine did with their food stamp program. They told single people with no children they either have to work a job 20 hours a week, donate 24 hours of volunteer work per month, or enroll in a vocational school so they get training for a job. Guess what? Most of the recipients dropped off of the food stamp program. Apparently, they never needed it that badly in the first place.

 

[beagle9]

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

We aren't talking about the good old days moron. We are talking about we taxpayers footing the bills for those who can't or won't take care of themselves.

We are talking about one group of people, i.e. the taxpayers, being forced to bankroll another group of people i.e. the Freeloaders.

. Ok you used the word CAN'T take care of themselves also, so if a poor child or person can't take care of themselves by no fault of their own, then what maybe they should DIE in your mind ? Everybody is not freeloaders in life, but to hear some speak here, seems to suggest that anyone who needs help of any kind, and the government has the blessing of the people to help them, then they are villans if they do?

Let me make it very clear.

I could give a shit.

These people are not my responsibility and yet people like you want to MAKE them every ones responsibility. Its not my duty to pay for anything for anybody.

If you and those like you want to pay for these people then pay away. Believe me. They will take every damned dime from you that they can and look for more. Its just to damned bad the rest of us are forced to provide for these freeloaders.

. Is everyone free loaders in your thinking ?

Anyone who uses tax dollars to pay their bills, get healthcare, buy food and pay the rent is a freeloader in my book.

They need to get off their dead asses and get two or three jobs. I've done that and never taken a dime of tax payer money. Ever. If I can do it every swinging dick and pair of boobs in America can do it.

The only people I don't put in that category are those who are truly mentally or physically handicapped and have no family.

If they have family then they are the responsibility of that family. Not the taxpayers of America.

. Two or three jobs eh ? In some poverty stricken ares people might be lucky to find a job, and when they do it doesn't pay enough to have them live totally independent from some form of government assistance. Now how about billion dollar companies that were found to be paying their workers such low wages, that they were actually helping the workers understand how to sign up for government assistance or subsidies to off set their lack of an independent promoting living wage, even if the person or persons had been there working beyond the minimum wage trial periods.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

We aren't talking about the good old days moron. We are talking about we taxpayers footing the bills for those who can't or won't take care of themselves.

We are talking about one group of people, i.e. the taxpayers, being forced to bankroll another group of people i.e. the Freeloaders.

. Ok you used the word CAN'T take care of themselves also, so if a poor child or person can't take care of themselves by no fault of their own, then what maybe they should DIE in your mind ? Everybody is not freeloaders in life, but to hear some speak here, seems to suggest that anyone who needs help of any kind, and the government has the blessing of the people to help them, then they are villans if they do?

Let me make it very clear.

I could give a shit.

These people are not my responsibility and yet people like you want to MAKE them every ones responsibility. Its not my duty to pay for anything for anybody.

If you and those like you want to pay for these people then pay away. Believe me. They will take every damned dime from you that they can and look for more. Its just to damned bad the rest of us are forced to provide for these freeloaders.

. Is everyone free loaders in your thinking ?

Anyone who uses tax dollars to pay their bills, get healthcare, buy food and pay the rent is a freeloader in my book.

They need to get off their dead asses and get two or three jobs. I've done that and never taken a dime of tax payer money. Ever. If I can do it every swinging dick and pair of boobs in America can do it.

The only people I don't put in that category are those who are truly mentally or physically handicapped and have no family.

If they have family then they are the responsibility of that family. Not the taxpayers of America.

. Two or three jobs eh ? In some poverty stricken ares people might be lucky to find a job, and when they do it doesn't pay enough to have them live totally independent from some form of government assistance. Now how about billion dollar companies that were found to be paying their workers such low wages, that they were actually helping the workers understand how to sign up for government assistance or subsidies to off set their lack of an independent promoting living wage, even if the person or persons had been there working beyond the minimum wage trial periods.

you are correct about those companies.
If I owned Wal-Mart I would consider what I had in the bank more than enough, then I would close all the stores, I would tear down the buildings, and if the permits would not be given to take them down I would put them for sale at such a high price they would never be sold.
I would do what is right and stop those anti work practices as quickly as I could. I have no doubt that everyone of those employees would be able to find a high paying job quickly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We aren't talking about the good old days moron. We are talking about we taxpayers footing the bills for those who can't or won't take care of themselves.

We are talking about one group of people, i.e. the taxpayers, being forced to bankroll another group of people i.e. the Freeloaders.

. Ok you used the word CAN'T take care of themselves also, so if a poor child or person can't take care of themselves by no fault of their own, then what maybe they should DIE in your mind ? Everybody is not freeloaders in life, but to hear some speak here, seems to suggest that anyone who needs help of any kind, and the government has the blessing of the people to help them, then they are villans if they do?

Let me make it very clear.

I could give a shit.

These people are not my responsibility and yet people like you want to MAKE them every ones responsibility. Its not my duty to pay for anything for anybody.

If you and those like you want to pay for these people then pay away. Believe me. They will take every damned dime from you that they can and look for more. Its just to damned bad the rest of us are forced to provide for these freeloaders.

. Is everyone free loaders in your thinking ?

Anyone who uses tax dollars to pay their bills, get healthcare, buy food and pay the rent is a freeloader in my book.

They need to get off their dead asses and get two or three jobs. I've done that and never taken a dime of tax payer money. Ever. If I can do it every swinging dick and pair of boobs in America can do it.

The only people I don't put in that category are those who are truly mentally or physically handicapped and have no family.

If they have family then they are the responsibility of that family. Not the taxpayers of America.

. Two or three jobs eh ? In some poverty stricken ares people might be lucky to find a job, and when they do it doesn't pay enough to have them live totally independent from some form of government assistance. Now how about billion dollar companies that were found to be paying their workers such low wages, that they were actually helping the workers understand how to sign up for government assistance or subsidies to off set their lack of an independent promoting living wage, even if the person or persons had been there working beyond the minimum wage trial periods.

That is such urban legend it's almost laughable.

We have 93 million people of working age no longer looking for work. There are all kinds of jobs out there that employers can't find workers for. And if you live somewhere where there is no work, move to where the work is.

Last election we had I was on this forum and having a similar discussion before I left to vote. Our polls are at the local library, and while I was there, I just couldn't help myself.

After I voted, I went to the librarian and asked her to direct me to any books written by a successful excuse maker. She just laughed at me and said "I don't think there is such a thing."

She's right. Not one book written by a successful excuse maker. That's because excuse makers are all losers in life. They don't look for ways to get around problems, they look for reasons to justify their problems.

 

[beagle9]

. Ok you used the word CAN'T take care of themselves also, so if a poor child or person can't take care of themselves by no fault of their own, then what maybe they should DIE in your mind ? Everybody is not freeloaders in life, but to hear some speak here, seems to suggest that anyone who needs help of any kind, and the government has the blessing of the people to help them, then they are villans if they do?

Let me make it very clear.

I could give a shit.

These people are not my responsibility and yet people like you want to MAKE them every ones responsibility. Its not my duty to pay for anything for anybody.

If you and those like you want to pay for these people then pay away. Believe me. They will take every damned dime from you that they can and look for more. Its just to damned bad the rest of us are forced to provide for these freeloaders.

. Is everyone free loaders in your thinking ?

Anyone who uses tax dollars to pay their bills, get healthcare, buy food and pay the rent is a freeloader in my book.

They need to get off their dead asses and get two or three jobs. I've done that and never taken a dime of tax payer money. Ever. If I can do it every swinging dick and pair of boobs in America can do it.

The only people I don't put in that category are those who are truly mentally or physically handicapped and have no family.

If they have family then they are the responsibility of that family. Not the taxpayers of America.

. Two or three jobs eh ? In some poverty stricken ares people might be lucky to find a job, and when they do it doesn't pay enough to have them live totally independent from some form of government assistance. Now how about billion dollar companies that were found to be paying their workers such low wages, that they were actually helping the workers understand how to sign up for government assistance or subsidies to off set their lack of an independent promoting living wage, even if the person or persons had been there working beyond the minimum wage trial periods.

That is such urban legend it's almost laughable.

We have 93 million people of working age no longer looking for work. There are all kinds of jobs out there that employers can't find workers for. And if you live somewhere where there is no work, move to where the work is.

Last election we had I was on this forum and having a similar discussion before I left to vote. Our polls are at the local library, and while I was there, I just couldn't help myself.

After I voted, I went to the librarian and asked her to direct me to any books written by a successful excuse maker. She just laughed at me and said "I don't think there is such a thing."

She's right. Not one book written by a successful excuse maker. That's because excuse makers are all losers in life. They don't look for ways to get around problems, they look for reasons to justify their problems.

. And using scapegoat labels or excuses like I have seen here in order to justify raping people is called what ? Winners ? If there is a problem, I say be honest about it and fix it, but as long as there are people who are workers of evil in the world, there will be justifyers of evil. I have seen it here..

 

[Arianrhod]

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them.

Because the "red states" invariably have more military bases, research facilities and other Federal installations than "blue states".

Given that all the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, that would not be surprising. But what does it have to do with their legislators refusing to help their constituents get access to health coverage?

 

[Rustic]

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them.

Because the "red states" invariably have more military bases, research facilities and other Federal installations than "blue states".

Given that all the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, that would not be surprising. But what does it have to do with their legislators refusing to help their constituents get access to health coverage?

Most Americans don't want anything to do with Obamacare...

 

[Arianrhod]

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them.

Because the "red states" invariably have more military bases, research facilities and other Federal installations than "blue states".

Given that all the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, that would not be surprising. But what does it have to do with their legislators refusing to help their constituents get access to health coverage?

Most Americans don't want anything to do with Obamacare...

Prove it.

 

[Rustic]

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them.

Because the "red states" invariably have more military bases, research facilities and other Federal installations than "blue states".

Given that all the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, that would not be surprising. But what does it have to do with their legislators refusing to help their constituents get access to health coverage?

Most Americans don't want anything to do with Obamacare...

Prove it.

Approval rate is what 20% - 30%??
Lol

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them.

Because the "red states" invariably have more military bases, research facilities and other Federal installations than "blue states".

Given that all the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, that would not be surprising. But what does it have to do with their legislators refusing to help their constituents get access to health coverage?

Most Americans don't want anything to do with Obamacare...

Prove it.

actually had you been paying attention, you might have notice that the republicans took control of the houses back basically due to the American voters hope that obamacare would be reversed. It was, how does your illegal alien leader put it?? Oh yes, a mandate.
only the worthless bottom feeders really want obamacare

 

[Arianrhod]

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them.

Because the "red states" invariably have more military bases, research facilities and other Federal installations than "blue states".

Given that all the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, that would not be surprising. But what does it have to do with their legislators refusing to help their constituents get access to health coverage?

Most Americans don't want anything to do with Obamacare...

Prove it.

Approval rate is what 20% - 30%??
Lol

Prove it.