Pence: "I'm a Christian, a Conservative and a Republican, in that order"

[Sun Devil 92]

Only if you are allowed to set the standard for what it means to be a Christian. Which you are not.

So you first comment is a fallacy.

Next, you call him callous. He is of an opinion and if it seems callous...so be it. There is nothing wrong with his opinion.

How is your last claim even close to supportable ?

My first comment was an opinion, based on The Catechism; to love thy neighbor and do no harm. Pence is no friend of Jesus.

How do you love your neighbor by forcing them to buy insurance they can't use?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.

It seems you're not a conservative, a real conservative requires people to be personally responsible, and thus buy insurance on the exchange.

Odd isn't it that the Republicans whine about the poor wanting free stuff, and yet defend those who don't buy insurance and will rely on the ER in public hospitals to cure their ills.

You people on the right are hypocrites and iconoclastic when it suits you.

I know many people who don't have insurance and who pay their way when they get sick.

That seems almost incomprehensible to you....I realize.

Oh, it is comprehensible to me, as is noting your ending your comment with an ad hominem suggest that you must know your example is not convincing.

Q. How many people can pay their way when they are diagnosed with Cancer

A. No many

"Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums."

See: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

And yet it still happens. Which means your generalization is not true. And you generally don't take cancer drugs for a full year.

 

[Wry Catcher]

First of all his vote today belies his statement that he is a Christian; he is also a certain type of conservative, a callous one. He has proved he is a Republican, and that Democrats, Independents, Libertarian's, Agnostics and Atheists, Jews and other non Christians are of no concern to him.

Nothing scares progressives like a white, heterosexual, Christian conservative male.

Tell me, how would the typical Hillary voter classify themselves?

1. Homosexual/transgender
2. World citizen
3. Proud atheist
4. Democrat

That would be my guess.

Of course Black would go number 1 if the person is black.

Funny, I'm white, heterosexual, catholic and progressive and am not scared by white, christian, conservatives. They're usually wimps,

 

[Wry Catcher]

My first comment was an opinion, based on The Catechism; to love thy neighbor and do no harm. Pence is no friend of Jesus.

How do you love your neighbor by forcing them to buy insurance they can't use?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.

It seems you're not a conservative, a real conservative requires people to be personally responsible, and thus buy insurance on the exchange.

Odd isn't it that the Republicans whine about the poor wanting free stuff, and yet defend those who don't buy insurance and will rely on the ER in public hospitals to cure their ills.

You people on the right are hypocrites and iconoclastic when it suits you.

I know many people who don't have insurance and who pay their way when they get sick.

That seems almost incomprehensible to you....I realize.

Oh, it is comprehensible to me, as is noting your ending your comment with an ad hominem suggest that you must know your example is not convincing.

Q. How many people can pay their way when they are diagnosed with Cancer

A. No many

"Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums."

See: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

And yet it still happens. Which means your generalization is not true. And you generally don't take cancer drugs for a full year.

I don't know about the length of time those drugs are used, but cancer was a singular example, those who have transplant surgery, take their meds for life. Even with cancer, how many citizens have $60,000 they can afford to pay for a couple of months of treatment?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How do you love your neighbor by forcing them to buy insurance they can't use?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.

It seems you're not a conservative, a real conservative requires people to be personally responsible, and thus buy insurance on the exchange.

Odd isn't it that the Republicans whine about the poor wanting free stuff, and yet defend those who don't buy insurance and will rely on the ER in public hospitals to cure their ills.

You people on the right are hypocrites and iconoclastic when it suits you.

I know many people who don't have insurance and who pay their way when they get sick.

That seems almost incomprehensible to you....I realize.

Oh, it is comprehensible to me, as is noting your ending your comment with an ad hominem suggest that you must know your example is not convincing.

Q. How many people can pay their way when they are diagnosed with Cancer

A. No many

"Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums."

See: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

And yet it still happens. Which means your generalization is not true. And you generally don't take cancer drugs for a full year.

I don't know about the length of time those drugs are used, but cancer was a singular example, those who have transplant surgery, take their meds for life. Even with cancer, how many citizens have $60,000 they can afford to pay for a couple of months of treatment?

Plenty.

And there would be more if you didn't make them pay 12,000 per year for insurance and deductibles. Five years of that and you'd have your 60K sitting in an HSA. What's better, that 60 K is for current generation drugs. 2nd and 3rd are still find for many treatments and would cost a lot less if they were available.

But thanks to the government.....

How do you think Canada keeps it's costs down.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How do you love your neighbor by forcing them to buy insurance they can't use?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.

It seems you're not a conservative, a real conservative requires people to be personally responsible, and thus buy insurance on the exchange.

Odd isn't it that the Republicans whine about the poor wanting free stuff, and yet defend those who don't buy insurance and will rely on the ER in public hospitals to cure their ills.

You people on the right are hypocrites and iconoclastic when it suits you.

I know many people who don't have insurance and who pay their way when they get sick.

That seems almost incomprehensible to you....I realize.

Oh, it is comprehensible to me, as is noting your ending your comment with an ad hominem suggest that you must know your example is not convincing.

Q. How many people can pay their way when they are diagnosed with Cancer

A. No many

"Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums."

See: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

And yet it still happens. Which means your generalization is not true. And you generally don't take cancer drugs for a full year.

I don't know about the length of time those drugs are used, but cancer was a singular example, those who have transplant surgery, take their meds for life. Even with cancer, how many citizens have $60,000 they can afford to pay for a couple of months of treatment?

Then we can ask the harder question.

Why do we put cancer drugs in the elderly when their chances are so slim. Even if they recover...what do the they have ?

I am not saying don't.

I am saying...let their families pay for it.

Why burden taxpayers with something that is stupid.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.

It seems you're not a conservative, a real conservative requires people to be personally responsible, and thus buy insurance on the exchange.

Odd isn't it that the Republicans whine about the poor wanting free stuff, and yet defend those who don't buy insurance and will rely on the ER in public hospitals to cure their ills.

You people on the right are hypocrites and iconoclastic when it suits you.

I know many people who don't have insurance and who pay their way when they get sick.

That seems almost incomprehensible to you....I realize.

Oh, it is comprehensible to me, as is noting your ending your comment with an ad hominem suggest that you must know your example is not convincing.

Q. How many people can pay their way when they are diagnosed with Cancer

A. No many

"Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums."

See: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

And yet it still happens. Which means your generalization is not true. And you generally don't take cancer drugs for a full year.

I don't know about the length of time those drugs are used, but cancer was a singular example, those who have transplant surgery, take their meds for life. Even with cancer, how many citizens have $60,000 they can afford to pay for a couple of months of treatment?

Plenty.

And there would be more if you didn't make them pay 12,000 per year for insurance and deductibles. Five years of that and you'd have your 60K sitting in an HSA. What's better, that 60 K is for current generation drugs. 2nd and 3rd are still find for many treatments and would cost a lot less if they were available.

But thanks to the government.....

How do you think Canada keeps it's costs down.

Before Reagan's tax reform the average taxpayer could write off the cost of health insurance, and union dues, work costs (boots. gloves, tools, etc.).

How many people have the discipline to put all, or any, of that $12k into such a savings account?

Would you want your spouse or child given a "fine" drug when it has been replaced by a newer one to save money? Most of us would want the best treatment available.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.

It seems you're not a conservative, a real conservative requires people to be personally responsible, and thus buy insurance on the exchange.

Odd isn't it that the Republicans whine about the poor wanting free stuff, and yet defend those who don't buy insurance and will rely on the ER in public hospitals to cure their ills.

You people on the right are hypocrites and iconoclastic when it suits you.

I know many people who don't have insurance and who pay their way when they get sick.

That seems almost incomprehensible to you....I realize.

Oh, it is comprehensible to me, as is noting your ending your comment with an ad hominem suggest that you must know your example is not convincing.

Q. How many people can pay their way when they are diagnosed with Cancer

A. No many

"Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums."

See: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

And yet it still happens. Which means your generalization is not true. And you generally don't take cancer drugs for a full year.

I don't know about the length of time those drugs are used, but cancer was a singular example, those who have transplant surgery, take their meds for life. Even with cancer, how many citizens have $60,000 they can afford to pay for a couple of months of treatment?

Then we can ask the harder question.

Why do we put cancer drugs in the elderly when their chances are so slim. Even if they recover...what do the they have ?

I am not saying don't.

I am saying...let their families pay for it.

Why burden taxpayers with something that is stupid.

Wow, what an idea, maybe we could figure out a way to use that useless body in food for the poor. "Little Johnny loves his Soylent Green Cereal for Breakfast" it's nutritious so inexpensive.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I know many people who don't have insurance and who pay their way when they get sick.

That seems almost incomprehensible to you....I realize.

Oh, it is comprehensible to me, as is noting your ending your comment with an ad hominem suggest that you must know your example is not convincing.

Q. How many people can pay their way when they are diagnosed with Cancer

A. No many

"Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums."

See: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

And yet it still happens. Which means your generalization is not true. And you generally don't take cancer drugs for a full year.

I don't know about the length of time those drugs are used, but cancer was a singular example, those who have transplant surgery, take their meds for life. Even with cancer, how many citizens have $60,000 they can afford to pay for a couple of months of treatment?

Plenty.

And there would be more if you didn't make them pay 12,000 per year for insurance and deductibles. Five years of that and you'd have your 60K sitting in an HSA. What's better, that 60 K is for current generation drugs. 2nd and 3rd are still find for many treatments and would cost a lot less if they were available.

But thanks to the government.....

How do you think Canada keeps it's costs down.

Before Reagan's tax reform the average taxpayer could write off the cost of health insurance, and union dues, work costs (boots. gloves, tools, etc.).

How many people have the discipline to put all, or any, of that $12k into such a savings account?

Would you want your spouse or child given a "fine" drug when it has been replaced by a newer one to save money? Most of us would want the best treatment available.

1. This is about Reagan....or do your ADD meds cost to much ?
2. The same ones you are asking to have the discipline to buy, pay for, and subsidize Oamacare plans that cost the same.
3. How do you think Canada keeps costs down ? They don't approve the more expensive drugs until the next generation comes along. And who knows what the "best" treatment is. Cancer survival rates have been topping out for a while. Older generation drugs work quite well in many instances and I would be fine taking them instead of something newer. Especially, if it was coming out of my pocket (my treatment or the ability to hand off some of that money to my kids).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I know many people who don't have insurance and who pay their way when they get sick.

That seems almost incomprehensible to you....I realize.

Oh, it is comprehensible to me, as is noting your ending your comment with an ad hominem suggest that you must know your example is not convincing.

Q. How many people can pay their way when they are diagnosed with Cancer

A. No many

"Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums."

See: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

And yet it still happens. Which means your generalization is not true. And you generally don't take cancer drugs for a full year.

I don't know about the length of time those drugs are used, but cancer was a singular example, those who have transplant surgery, take their meds for life. Even with cancer, how many citizens have $60,000 they can afford to pay for a couple of months of treatment?

Then we can ask the harder question.

Why do we put cancer drugs in the elderly when their chances are so slim. Even if they recover...what do the they have ?

I am not saying don't.

I am saying...let their families pay for it.

Why burden taxpayers with something that is stupid.

Wow, what an idea, maybe we could figure out a way to use that useless body in food for the poor. "Little Johnny loves his Soylent Green Cereal for Breakfast" it's nutritious so inexpensive.

As usual, when confronted with reality, the left defaults to the ridiculous.

We spend up to 30% of our health care on end of life care (at the expense of, as many physicians will tell you, the front end preventative care we could be providing).

But you keep your head up your ass self-righteous attitude (with your non-existent critical thinking) and we'll figure out a way to make the system work.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh, it is comprehensible to me, as is noting your ending your comment with an ad hominem suggest that you must know your example is not convincing.

Q. How many people can pay their way when they are diagnosed with Cancer

A. No many

"Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums."

See: http://health.usnews.com/health-new...-worry-about-rising-costs-of-cancer-treatment

And yet it still happens. Which means your generalization is not true. And you generally don't take cancer drugs for a full year.

I don't know about the length of time those drugs are used, but cancer was a singular example, those who have transplant surgery, take their meds for life. Even with cancer, how many citizens have $60,000 they can afford to pay for a couple of months of treatment?

Then we can ask the harder question.

Why do we put cancer drugs in the elderly when their chances are so slim. Even if they recover...what do the they have ?

I am not saying don't.

I am saying...let their families pay for it.

Why burden taxpayers with something that is stupid.

Wow, what an idea, maybe we could figure out a way to use that useless body in food for the poor. "Little Johnny loves his Soylent Green Cereal for Breakfast" it's nutritious so inexpensive.

As usual, when confronted with reality, the left defaults to the ridiculous.

We spend up to 30% of our health care on end of life care (at the expense of, as many physicians will tell you, the front end preventative care we could be providing).

But you keep your head up your ass self-righteous attitude (with your non-existent critical thinking) and we'll figure out a way to make the system work.

My head is not up my ass or in the clouds, but thanks so much for proving you're an asshole. But I digress.

I've written ad nausea that we need to have preventative health care for all of our citizens from cradle to grave. I also supported and voted for the Right to Die, something the social conservatives abhor, so Republicans allow suffering to get their votes.

 

[WillMunny]

If Pence were a muslim, you'd have liberals spreading their butt cheeks for him. Islam is the only thing liberal psychopaths love (or whatever emotional facsimile that passes for their love).

 

[Faun]

If Pence were a muslim, you'd have liberals spreading their butt cheeks for him. Islam is the only thing liberal psychopaths love (or whatever emotional facsimile that passes for their love).

But he's and old white man, so you spread yours.