So Republicans, let me get this straight

[Camp]

I do not disagree. An idea that was started by conservatives was taken over by liberals and instead of conservatives and liberals coming up with a plan that would satisfy both with comprimise and pragmatism we have what we have.
True the 21 year olds I used as an example would be covered with the ACA, but the ages in my example could easily be changed to 27 and the same results would occur. As long as we accept an ethical and moral obligation to provide a level of medical treatment to people dispite them not having insurance we will have this dilemma. The final and overwhelming arguement of those that support the ACA is that conservatives have no alternative plan. The failure of conservatives to challage the ACA with altenatives is as much the reason for the ACA being forced on the public as the push to implement the ACA by liberals.

 

[Bern80]

I do not disagree. An idea that was started by conservatives was taken over by liberals and instead of conservatives and liberals coming up with a plan that would satisfy both with comprimise and pragmatism we have what we have.
True the 21 year olds I used as an example would be covered with the ACA, but the ages in my example could easily be changed to 27 and the same results would occur. As long as we accept an ethical and moral obligation to provide a level of medical treatment to people dispite them not having insurance we will have this dilemma. The final and overwhelming arguement of those that support the ACA is that conservatives have no alternative plan. The failure of conservatives to challage the ACA with altenatives is as much the reason for the ACA being forced on the public as the push to implement the ACA by liberals.

Well that is the big philosophical question; Do I in fact have a moral obligation to provide your health care if you can't? Some might say yes, but I think if you look at it another way, you'll see the answer is no. When is it okay to use force against another? Whether it be physical or legal. Because that's what really has to take place. The government has to force me to help you. They have to take my money and essentially say because you need it, but dont' have it, it's okay for you via government proxi, to take it from me. I simply don't believe that's moral at all.

 

[Camp]

I do not disagree. An idea that was started by conservatives was taken over by liberals and instead of conservatives and liberals coming up with a plan that would satisfy both with comprimise and pragmatism we have what we have.
True the 21 year olds I used as an example would be covered with the ACA, but the ages in my example could easily be changed to 27 and the same results would occur. As long as we accept an ethical and moral obligation to provide a level of medical treatment to people dispite them not having insurance we will have this dilemma. The final and overwhelming arguement of those that support the ACA is that conservatives have no alternative plan. The failure of conservatives to challage the ACA with altenatives is as much the reason for the ACA being forced on the public as the push to implement the ACA by liberals.

Well that is the big philosophical question; Do I in fact have a moral obligation to provide your health care if you can't? Some might say yes, but I think if you look at it another way, you'll see the answer is no. When is it okay to use force against another? Whether it be physical or legal. Because that's what really has to take place. The government has to force me to help you. They have to take my money and essentially say because you need it, but dont' have it, it's okay for you via government proxi, to take it from me. I simply don't believe that's moral at all.

Again, I do not disagree with the points you make. If we could just make the decision that we will or will not offer medical aid to the uninsured as a moral or philosophical question it would be relatively easy to. The problem is what to do when that abmbulance shows up at the hospital. It is easy to say on paper what our decision would be, but a whole different ball game when the injured or ill person shows up in person with a life threatening injury or illness.

 

[Bern80]

I do not disagree. An idea that was started by conservatives was taken over by liberals and instead of conservatives and liberals coming up with a plan that would satisfy both with comprimise and pragmatism we have what we have.
True the 21 year olds I used as an example would be covered with the ACA, but the ages in my example could easily be changed to 27 and the same results would occur. As long as we accept an ethical and moral obligation to provide a level of medical treatment to people dispite them not having insurance we will have this dilemma. The final and overwhelming arguement of those that support the ACA is that conservatives have no alternative plan. The failure of conservatives to challage the ACA with altenatives is as much the reason for the ACA being forced on the public as the push to implement the ACA by liberals.

Well that is the big philosophical question; Do I in fact have a moral obligation to provide your health care if you can't? Some might say yes, but I think if you look at it another way, you'll see the answer is no. When is it okay to use force against another? Whether it be physical or legal. Because that's what really has to take place. The government has to force me to help you. They have to take my money and essentially say because you need it, but dont' have it, it's okay for you via government proxi, to take it from me. I simply don't believe that's moral at all.

Again, I do not disagree with the points you make. If we could just make the decision that we will or will not offer medical aid to the uninsured as a moral or philosophical question it would be relatively easy to. The problem is what to do when that abmbulance shows up at the hospital. It is easy to say on paper what our decision would be, but a whole different ball game when the injured or ill person shows up in person with a life threatening injury or illness.

Well I don't think we need to go so far as proof of ability to pay up front. If they can't pay, send them a bill and start working out a payment plan. I'm sure the hospitals would still find that far more preferable to dealing with insurance companies and it would be a constant revenue stream and it would probabluy result in the cost of the services going down as well.

 

[Bfgrn]

David Frum and Ruth Marcus are political pundits and columnists. They give opinions. They are not reporters.

No, they are credible sources that have backed up my accusations and refuted your parrot speak. David Frum, George W. Bush's former speechwriter, was an insider who worked at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the major right wing think tanks. Ruth Marcus is a highly educated journalist who writes for the Washington Post and was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in commentary.

On the other hand, all YOU have brought here is pure parrot speak with ZERO evidence.

Ruth Marcus was a finalist for a pulitzer prize in what? LOL!
David Frum was a former speechwriter, was an insider AND IS A COMMENTATOR.
Not unlike Sarah Palin who was a former governor, was an insider AND IS A COMMENTATOR.
I have no objection to sharing the views of your favorite commentators but don't confuse FACTS with OPINIONS.
Also, please don't confuse "insults' with "debate". Thank you

And you have brought to the table exactly ZERO evidence, backup or support...

ALL you have presented is ...wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

OPINION...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And not that that's the other alternative anyway. If something happens to your car, do you just stop driving cars? I don't think so. You pay to have it repaired. If you don't have the cash you work out a payment plan. You have other people help you. There is plenty of area between letting Obamacare stand and people dieing in the streets.

Speaking of cars, who do you suppose pays the medical bills for 4 over 21 adults who wrap themselves around a tree in an uninsured car and end up needing intensive care, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation that may easily cost a million bucks?

Never said I enjoyed paying for that, either.

To keep the bleeding hearts happy, I'll concede to a willingness to drop tax dollars for those initial surgeries and that initial care that keeps those kids from flat-lining. In my perfect world, tho? You stable? You on your own. At least as far as the government's concerned. Not the job of my elected officials to demand that I pay for someone's reconstructive surgery.

And those of you that confuse voting D with being altruistic, don't get me twisted. I'm not saying I wish anyone ill or that I hope people really are on their own. I do everything in my power to help the people around me whom I care about as much and as often as I can, and, when I can, I even help people I don't know or don't care about. For purely selfish reasons, mind you. I actually get enjoyment out of making someone's day if I can. -If- I can, and -if- I want to. I don't care if you consider it a moral imperative to help -EVERYONE- and save the world. I don't, and I will never appreciate the government forcing everyone to pay into a system simply because its stated purpose is to save everyone.

Didn't you say you don't carry insurance?

If so, you don't pay anything for the uninsured patients in the ER. Those of us do pay our own way by paying insurance premiums - We're the ones who pay for your "free" ER care.

 

[dblack]

Speaking of cars, who do you suppose pays the medical bills for 4 over 21 adults who wrap themselves around a tree in an uninsured car and end up needing intensive care, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation that may easily cost a million bucks?

Never said I enjoyed paying for that, either.

To keep the bleeding hearts happy, I'll concede to a willingness to drop tax dollars for those initial surgeries and that initial care that keeps those kids from flat-lining. In my perfect world, tho? You stable? You on your own. At least as far as the government's concerned. Not the job of my elected officials to demand that I pay for someone's reconstructive surgery.

And those of you that confuse voting D with being altruistic, don't get me twisted. I'm not saying I wish anyone ill or that I hope people really are on their own. I do everything in my power to help the people around me whom I care about as much and as often as I can, and, when I can, I even help people I don't know or don't care about. For purely selfish reasons, mind you. I actually get enjoyment out of making someone's day if I can. -If- I can, and -if- I want to. I don't care if you consider it a moral imperative to help -EVERYONE- and save the world. I don't, and I will never appreciate the government forcing everyone to pay into a system simply because its stated purpose is to save everyone.

Didn't you say you don't carry insurance?

If so, you don't pay anything for the uninsured patients in the ER. Those of us do pay our own way by paying insurance premiums - We're the ones who pay for your "free" ER care.

In a free country, no one is forcing you to buy insurance. If you don't like the way insurance works, don't buy it.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

No, they are credible sources that have backed up my accusations and refuted your parrot speak. David Frum, George W. Bush's former speechwriter, was an insider who worked at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the major right wing think tanks. Ruth Marcus is a highly educated journalist who writes for the Washington Post and was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in commentary.

On the other hand, all YOU have brought here is pure parrot speak with ZERO evidence.

Ruth Marcus was a finalist for a pulitzer prize in what? LOL!
David Frum was a former speechwriter, was an insider AND IS A COMMENTATOR.
Not unlike Sarah Palin who was a former governor, was an insider AND IS A COMMENTATOR.
I have no objection to sharing the views of your favorite commentators but don't confuse FACTS with OPINIONS.
Also, please don't confuse "insults' with "debate". Thank you

And you have brought to the table exactly ZERO evidence, backup or support...

ALL you have presented is ...wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

OPINION...

Yes, not unlike Ruth Marcus and David Frum I have indeed given my opinion. Guilty as charged. I'm also guilty of knowing the difference between fact and opinion. Join me.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Never said I enjoyed paying for that, either.

To keep the bleeding hearts happy, I'll concede to a willingness to drop tax dollars for those initial surgeries and that initial care that keeps those kids from flat-lining. In my perfect world, tho? You stable? You on your own. At least as far as the government's concerned. Not the job of my elected officials to demand that I pay for someone's reconstructive surgery.

And those of you that confuse voting D with being altruistic, don't get me twisted. I'm not saying I wish anyone ill or that I hope people really are on their own. I do everything in my power to help the people around me whom I care about as much and as often as I can, and, when I can, I even help people I don't know or don't care about. For purely selfish reasons, mind you. I actually get enjoyment out of making someone's day if I can. -If- I can, and -if- I want to. I don't care if you consider it a moral imperative to help -EVERYONE- and save the world. I don't, and I will never appreciate the government forcing everyone to pay into a system simply because its stated purpose is to save everyone.

Didn't you say you don't carry insurance?

If so, you don't pay anything for the uninsured patients in the ER. Those of us do pay our own way by paying insurance premiums - We're the ones who pay for your "free" ER care.

In a free country, no one is forcing you to buy insurance. If you don't like the way insurance works, don't buy it.

So, in your world, I either have to pay for the deadbeats who don't carry their own insurance OR go without health care insurance myself.

 

[dblack]

Didn't you say you don't carry insurance?

If so, you don't pay anything for the uninsured patients in the ER. Those of us do pay our own way by paying insurance premiums - We're the ones who pay for your "free" ER care.

In a free country, no one is forcing you to buy insurance. If you don't like the way insurance works, don't buy it.

So, in your world, I either have to pay for the deadbeats who don't carry their own insurance OR go without health care insurance myself.

Or sign up with a insurance company that doesn't cater to 'deadbeats'. The only way you're paying for someone else via your insurance is if someone else on the same plan is running up charges. If you're resting your argument on EMTALA, I'm in agreement with you that that law is unjust and should be repealed. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ruth Marcus was a finalist for a pulitzer prize in what? LOL!
David Frum was a former speechwriter, was an insider AND IS A COMMENTATOR.
Not unlike Sarah Palin who was a former governor, was an insider AND IS A COMMENTATOR.
I have no objection to sharing the views of your favorite commentators but don't confuse FACTS with OPINIONS.
Also, please don't confuse "insults' with "debate". Thank you

And you have brought to the table exactly ZERO evidence, backup or support...

ALL you have presented is ...wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

OPINION...

Yes, not unlike Ruth Marcus and David Frum I have indeed given my opinion. Guilty as charged. I'm also guilty of knowing the difference between fact and opinion. Join me.

You are totally obtuse to the facts. It is a FACT Republicans made a collective decision to oppose President Obama on health care reform. Just as David Frum said.

It is a FACT Senator Jim DeMint stated, their intentions: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

It is a FACT Republicans parroted a script given to them by Frank Luntz to make them sound like they are for reform, but is designed to undermine reform by using lies and fear-mongering.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

And you have brought to the table exactly ZERO evidence, backup or support...

ALL you have presented is ...wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

OPINION...

Yes, not unlike Ruth Marcus and David Frum I have indeed given my opinion. Guilty as charged. I'm also guilty of knowing the difference between fact and opinion. Join me.

You are totally obtuse to the facts. It is a FACT Republicans made a collective decision to oppose President Obama on health care reform. Just as David Frum said.

It is a FACT Senator Jim DeMint stated, their intentions: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

It is a FACT Republicans parroted a script given to them by Frank Luntz to make them sound like they are for reform, but is designed to undermine reform by using lies and fear-mongering.

I appreciate your opinion. Thank you.

 

[BDBoop]

Yes, not unlike Ruth Marcus and David Frum I have indeed given my opinion. Guilty as charged. I'm also guilty of knowing the difference between fact and opinion. Join me.

You are totally obtuse to the facts. It is a FACT Republicans made a collective decision to oppose President Obama on health care reform. Just as David Frum said.

It is a FACT Senator Jim DeMint stated, their intentions: "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"

It is a FACT Republicans parroted a script given to them by Frank Luntz to make them sound like they are for reform, but is designed to undermine reform by using lies and fear-mongering.

I appreciate your opinion. Thank you.

Fact-based opinion.

You're welcome.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Fact-based opinion would certainly be a nice change of pace. I hope to encounter it soon. Perhaps without all the backtracking and rhetorical jujitsu next time. Thank you.

 

[BDBoop]

Fact-based opinion would certainly be a nice change of pace. I hope to encounter it soon. Perhaps without all the backtracking and rhetorical jujitsu next time. Thank you.

You've already encountered it. Sorry you're so attached to your blinders.

You're welcome.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Fact-based opinion would certainly be a nice change of pace. I hope to encounter it soon. Perhaps without all the backtracking and rhetorical jujitsu next time. Thank you.

You've already encountered it. Sorry you're so attached to your blinders.

You're welcome.

My blinders are what keep me focused on the topic. Don't worry, they're covered by Obamcare, unless I get a waiver.

 

[BDBoop]

Fact-based opinion would certainly be a nice change of pace. I hope to encounter it soon. Perhaps without all the backtracking and rhetorical jujitsu next time. Thank you.

You've already encountered it. Sorry you're so attached to your blinders.

You're welcome.

My blinders are what keep me focused on the topic. Don't worry, they're made in America. Thank you.

Oh, so you practice willful ignorance? I don't speak to the willfully ignorant. I am sure you will be relieved to hear that.

Good day.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

You've already encountered it. Sorry you're so attached to your blinders.

You're welcome.

My blinders are what keep me focused on the topic. Don't worry, they're made in America. Thank you.

Oh, so you practice willful ignorance? I don't speak to the willfully ignorant. I am sure you will be relieved to hear that.

Good day.

If I didn't practice willful ignorance then I would have to ignore such a pleasant person as yourself. Good day.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Speaking of cars, who do you suppose pays the medical bills for 4 over 21 adults who wrap themselves around a tree in an uninsured car and end up needing intensive care, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation that may easily cost a million bucks?

Never said I enjoyed paying for that, either.

To keep the bleeding hearts happy, I'll concede to a willingness to drop tax dollars for those initial surgeries and that initial care that keeps those kids from flat-lining. In my perfect world, tho? You stable? You on your own. At least as far as the government's concerned. Not the job of my elected officials to demand that I pay for someone's reconstructive surgery.

And those of you that confuse voting D with being altruistic, don't get me twisted. I'm not saying I wish anyone ill or that I hope people really are on their own. I do everything in my power to help the people around me whom I care about as much and as often as I can, and, when I can, I even help people I don't know or don't care about. For purely selfish reasons, mind you. I actually get enjoyment out of making someone's day if I can. -If- I can, and -if- I want to. I don't care if you consider it a moral imperative to help -EVERYONE- and save the world. I don't, and I will never appreciate the government forcing everyone to pay into a system simply because its stated purpose is to save everyone.

Didn't you say you don't carry insurance?

If so, you don't pay anything for the uninsured patients in the ER. Those of us do pay our own way by paying insurance premiums - We're the ones who pay for your "free" ER care.

This again? I addressed this here and in a response to one of your posts elsewhere, but here goes, maybe the third time's the charm.

A deadbeat is someone who doesn't pay their bills.

I am someone who doesn't buy insurance. I do, however, pay my bills. I've paid for every medical bill I have ever had and don't plan to stop doing so.

Get that? Never. Ever. Left a medical bill on the table. Never.

That means that you insurance buyers haven't paid one red cent for my "free" ER visits.

That also means that, insofar as the costs of EMTALA are shared by the taxpayers, the pharmaceutical companies, and the hospitals (who then turn and pass a portion of that cost on to the clients; insurance companies and people paying medical bills), I -do- pay for uninsured people in the ER. That's because I pay my taxes, I pay for whatever medications I need, and, for the third fucking time, I PAY MY MEDICAL BILLS. Henceforth, you can blow any assumptions to the contrary out your rusty, self righteous asshole.

As a side note I find it funny that you're under the impression that unpaid medical bills are all passed on 100% to the insurance companies. For someone with such strong opinions and a penchant for condescension, you don't research this stuff for shit, huh?

 

[dblack]

Never said I enjoyed paying for that, either.

To keep the bleeding hearts happy, I'll concede to a willingness to drop tax dollars for those initial surgeries and that initial care that keeps those kids from flat-lining. In my perfect world, tho? You stable? You on your own. At least as far as the government's concerned. Not the job of my elected officials to demand that I pay for someone's reconstructive surgery.

And those of you that confuse voting D with being altruistic, don't get me twisted. I'm not saying I wish anyone ill or that I hope people really are on their own. I do everything in my power to help the people around me whom I care about as much and as often as I can, and, when I can, I even help people I don't know or don't care about. For purely selfish reasons, mind you. I actually get enjoyment out of making someone's day if I can. -If- I can, and -if- I want to. I don't care if you consider it a moral imperative to help -EVERYONE- and save the world. I don't, and I will never appreciate the government forcing everyone to pay into a system simply because its stated purpose is to save everyone.

Didn't you say you don't carry insurance?

If so, you don't pay anything for the uninsured patients in the ER. Those of us do pay our own way by paying insurance premiums - We're the ones who pay for your "free" ER care.

This again? ...

Yeah, it's on the talking point hit list for the shills. More stupid head games from propagandists. They think it will appeal to (or at least be confused with) the typical conservative aversion to 'paying for deadbeats'. Nevermind that they support all the laws that make this possible in the first place. If Luddly really has a problem with EMTALA he should join those of us calling for its repeal. But he doesn't. He likes that it sucks us into a corporatist cluster-fuck. That's the whole intent.