Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Cecilie1200]

Should alcohol be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should cigarettes be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should all the illegal drugs be restricted, if yes, why?
Should driving be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?

Again, I'm not telling people that they can't do something. I'm suggesting that if people want to do something that they pay for it.

Which is the classic case why government should not have any control over our healthcare. Once they are able to control your healthcare, they would be able to control people just like you wish to do. How much they can drink, what they can drink, how much they can smoke, if they can smoke, how much exercise they should have, what kind of risky activities they should be allowed to have...............

Oh, and if you go outside of the perfect government standard according to liberals, you should have to pay for it dearly.........that's all!

Well no thank you. If you and your ilk cannot control our healthcare, you cannot control us.

Which is suggesting that the UK controls the healthcare of the people more than in the US. Wait, this is the US that prohibits under 21 years olds from drinking, in the UK they can drink at 18.... right.... er.... er.....

Just seen a post on Facebook, some girl who has a wheelchair has been told by the insurance company that if she ever uses the wheelchair out in the rain, or hours after it rains, or anything like this, then she broke the wheelchair and she has to pay for it. Reason why private companies shouldn't be involved in healthcare.

I see, so what you're doing is comparing an insurance company requesting a wheelchair owner take precautions using the chair compared to government telling you how to conduct every aspect of your life???

Is the insurance company insisting this wheelchair bound patient eat certain things, maintain a certain weight, prohibiting her from adult beverages or recreational narcotics, restricting her from certain physical activities????

The insurance company is not concerned about controlling ones life, they are concerned about not making unnecessary repairs to a wheelchair.

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

You really believe that his 1st paragraph is irrelevant don't you,?


Yup typical liberal ..that does not want to accept responsibility for his stupidly


Remind us again why a McDonald's coffee cup has the words




HOT on it?


You don't want to mention frivolous lawsuits do you? That drive up the cost of insurance


View attachment 119754

View attachment 119755

And why does my curling iron come with a warning that says "Do Not Insert Into Any Orifice"?

 

[rightwinger]

Problem is, there is no evidence for that, while for Booosh and 9/11 there is plenty...

What a complete moron you fake teacher you. I just posted a report showing that Bush had no idea of the attack, and your stupidity tells you to say just the opposite of the report, making false claims of evidence you didn't (and won't) provide.

You are about as much of a retired teacher as I am a retired astronaut. How can you say such stupid things repeatedly and try to convince us that you're anything less than a welfare queen?

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

If the reports were written two years before the attacks, why didn't Clinton have a plan in place? Seems to me if the threat was as serious as claimed, the Clinton administration would have been all over it and would have captured Bin Laden when he had been given the chance.

Clinton didn't have a chance that didn't involve slaughtering a thousand innocent civilians to capture a man who hadn't done anything yet

It was Bush who allowed bin laden to escape Tora Bora AFTER 9-11

actually he did have a chance but he was spineless or too busy getting blow jobs

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden

Monday morning quarterbacking.....
from your link

The reasons varied why a particular attack did not go forward — fear of civilian casualties, uncertainty in the intelligence, diplomatic fallout, bureaucratic inertia. During Clinton’s presidency, al-Qaeda attacked U.S. targets overseas, not in the homeland.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What a complete moron you fake teacher you. I just posted a report showing that Bush had no idea of the attack, and your stupidity tells you to say just the opposite of the report, making false claims of evidence you didn't (and won't) provide.

You are about as much of a retired teacher as I am a retired astronaut. How can you say such stupid things repeatedly and try to convince us that you're anything less than a welfare queen?

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

If the reports were written two years before the attacks, why didn't Clinton have a plan in place? Seems to me if the threat was as serious as claimed, the Clinton administration would have been all over it and would have captured Bin Laden when he had been given the chance.

Clinton didn't have a chance that didn't involve slaughtering a thousand innocent civilians to capture a man who hadn't done anything yet

It was Bush who allowed bin laden to escape Tora Bora AFTER 9-11

actually he did have a chance but he was spineless or too busy getting blow jobs

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden

Monday morning quarterbacking.....
from your link

The reasons varied why a particular attack did not go forward — fear of civilian casualties, uncertainty in the intelligence, diplomatic fallout, bureaucratic inertia. During Clinton’s presidency, al-Qaeda attacked U.S. targets overseas, not in the homeland.

you said all he cared about was thousands of innocent deaths not true

he had plenty of chances and the fallout would have happened no matter what he just didn't have the stones to do it or his stones were in Monica's mouth and that's all he was thinking about

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What a complete moron you fake teacher you. I just posted a report showing that Bush had no idea of the attack, and your stupidity tells you to say just the opposite of the report, making false claims of evidence you didn't (and won't) provide.

You are about as much of a retired teacher as I am a retired astronaut. How can you say such stupid things repeatedly and try to convince us that you're anything less than a welfare queen?

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

If the reports were written two years before the attacks, why didn't Clinton have a plan in place? Seems to me if the threat was as serious as claimed, the Clinton administration would have been all over it and would have captured Bin Laden when he had been given the chance.

Clinton didn't have a chance that didn't involve slaughtering a thousand innocent civilians to capture a man who hadn't done anything yet

It was Bush who allowed bin laden to escape Tora Bora AFTER 9-11

actually he did have a chance but he was spineless or too busy getting blow jobs

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden

Monday morning quarterbacking.....
from your link

The reasons varied why a particular attack did not go forward — fear of civilian casualties, uncertainty in the intelligence, diplomatic fallout, bureaucratic inertia. During Clinton’s presidency, al-Qaeda attacked U.S. targets overseas, not in the homeland.

Wow! The first WTC attack was overseas? I didn't know that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which is the classic case why government should not have any control over our healthcare. Once they are able to control your healthcare, they would be able to control people just like you wish to do. How much they can drink, what they can drink, how much they can smoke, if they can smoke, how much exercise they should have, what kind of risky activities they should be allowed to have...............

Oh, and if you go outside of the perfect government standard according to liberals, you should have to pay for it dearly.........that's all!

Well no thank you. If you and your ilk cannot control our healthcare, you cannot control us.

Which is suggesting that the UK controls the healthcare of the people more than in the US. Wait, this is the US that prohibits under 21 years olds from drinking, in the UK they can drink at 18.... right.... er.... er.....

Just seen a post on Facebook, some girl who has a wheelchair has been told by the insurance company that if she ever uses the wheelchair out in the rain, or hours after it rains, or anything like this, then she broke the wheelchair and she has to pay for it. Reason why private companies shouldn't be involved in healthcare.

I see, so what you're doing is comparing an insurance company requesting a wheelchair owner take precautions using the chair compared to government telling you how to conduct every aspect of your life???

Is the insurance company insisting this wheelchair bound patient eat certain things, maintain a certain weight, prohibiting her from adult beverages or recreational narcotics, restricting her from certain physical activities????

The insurance company is not concerned about controlling ones life, they are concerned about not making unnecessary repairs to a wheelchair.

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

Exactly right. My husband and I have the same employer, and we have EXACTLY THE SAME COVERAGE. Why? We don't have even remotely the same bodies or medical histories. Why do I pay for coverage for Viagra and prostate exams? Why does he pay for coverage for mammograms and PAP smears? Why are we both paying for coverage for birth control?

I am so grateful that we have an incredible employer who went to the expense and effort of offering a variety of coverage choices, instead of one-size-fits-all to whoever was the lowest bidder. At least we have the option of getting as close as possible to a basic minimum, catastrophic care plan with an HSA.

Government is good at running some things, but not most such as healthcare.

Commie Care was political right from the beginning. It was all about vote buying and catering to their voters. My medication is life sustaining. Without it, I die. But Commie Care didn't regulate that insurance cover my medication, they regulated that they must provide birth control and abortion coverage. I'd love to find one lefty that can explain that one to me if they disagree it was about vote buying.

My medication to keep me alive every month, about $200.00. Birth control? Usually under $20.00 a month.

 

[rightwinger]

Why would I lie, ignoramus? BTW, you ought to try reading your own link- and there is plenty more like this. Booosh, Cheney, and Rummie were total incompetents like you...obnoxious too.

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility."

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement.

The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?," warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

It described the suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks al Qaeda might seek for the 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for various federal agencies under contracts.

And it's come out that an agent in the FBI's Arizona office also speculated about using planes as weapons, writing in his case notes about Zacarias Moussaoui that Moussaoui seemed like the type of person who was capable of flying an aircraft into the World Trade Center.

It was the observation of an agent taking notes as he thought about his case - an observation whose significance simply did not register at the time.

Separately, the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools.

The FBI failed to make a connection between that warning and the August arrest of Moussaoui - a French citizen of Moroccan descent detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions among his instructors at a flight school where he said he wanted to know how to fly, but not how to land or take off.

Moussaoui has emerged as the lone defendant charged in the aftermath of the attacks, which killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He is charged with conspiring with bin Laden and the 19 suicide hijackers to attack Americans.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has said repeatedly that he wishes the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. Mueller has also said that nothing the FBI possessed before Sept. 11 pointed to the plot."

Guess what- a policy wonk like Gore would have been all over this and the real estate bubble too. Great job, GOP and silly dupes like you...Presto no ME OR Wall St catastrophe.

If the reports were written two years before the attacks, why didn't Clinton have a plan in place? Seems to me if the threat was as serious as claimed, the Clinton administration would have been all over it and would have captured Bin Laden when he had been given the chance.

Clinton didn't have a chance that didn't involve slaughtering a thousand innocent civilians to capture a man who hadn't done anything yet

It was Bush who allowed bin laden to escape Tora Bora AFTER 9-11

actually he did have a chance but he was spineless or too busy getting blow jobs

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden

Monday morning quarterbacking.....
from your link

The reasons varied why a particular attack did not go forward — fear of civilian casualties, uncertainty in the intelligence, diplomatic fallout, bureaucratic inertia. During Clinton’s presidency, al-Qaeda attacked U.S. targets overseas, not in the homeland.

you said all he cared about was thousands of innocent deaths not true

he had plenty of chances and the fallout would have happened no matter what he just didn't have the stones to do it or his stones were in Monica's mouth and that's all he was thinking about

More Moday Morning Quarterbacking
It is easy to say Clinton should have killed bin Laden when he was a minor player. If only we had known what was to come

But killing hundreds of innocent civilians, violating others territories, risking US lives to kill a minor international terrorist is not justified

Bush let bin Laden escape AFTER 9-11

 

[Redfish]

If the reports were written two years before the attacks, why didn't Clinton have a plan in place? Seems to me if the threat was as serious as claimed, the Clinton administration would have been all over it and would have captured Bin Laden when he had been given the chance.

Clinton didn't have a chance that didn't involve slaughtering a thousand innocent civilians to capture a man who hadn't done anything yet

It was Bush who allowed bin laden to escape Tora Bora AFTER 9-11

actually he did have a chance but he was spineless or too busy getting blow jobs

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden

Monday morning quarterbacking.....
from your link

The reasons varied why a particular attack did not go forward — fear of civilian casualties, uncertainty in the intelligence, diplomatic fallout, bureaucratic inertia. During Clinton’s presidency, al-Qaeda attacked U.S. targets overseas, not in the homeland.

you said all he cared about was thousands of innocent deaths not true

he had plenty of chances and the fallout would have happened no matter what he just didn't have the stones to do it or his stones were in Monica's mouth and that's all he was thinking about

More Moday Morning Quarterbacking
It is easy to say Clinton should have killed bin Laden when he was a minor player. If only we had known what was to come

But killing hundreds of innocent civilians, violating others territories, risking US lives to kill a minor international terrorist is not justified

Bush let bin Laden escape AFTER 9-11

your view of history is interesting, totally fucked up, but interesting.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Which is suggesting that the UK controls the healthcare of the people more than in the US. Wait, this is the US that prohibits under 21 years olds from drinking, in the UK they can drink at 18.... right.... er.... er.....

Just seen a post on Facebook, some girl who has a wheelchair has been told by the insurance company that if she ever uses the wheelchair out in the rain, or hours after it rains, or anything like this, then she broke the wheelchair and she has to pay for it. Reason why private companies shouldn't be involved in healthcare.

I see, so what you're doing is comparing an insurance company requesting a wheelchair owner take precautions using the chair compared to government telling you how to conduct every aspect of your life???

Is the insurance company insisting this wheelchair bound patient eat certain things, maintain a certain weight, prohibiting her from adult beverages or recreational narcotics, restricting her from certain physical activities????

The insurance company is not concerned about controlling ones life, they are concerned about not making unnecessary repairs to a wheelchair.

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

 

[Markle]

Which is suggesting that the UK controls the healthcare of the people more than in the US. Wait, this is the US that prohibits under 21 years olds from drinking, in the UK they can drink at 18.... right.... er.... er.....

Just seen a post on Facebook, some girl who has a wheelchair has been told by the insurance company that if she ever uses the wheelchair out in the rain, or hours after it rains, or anything like this, then she broke the wheelchair and she has to pay for it. Reason why private companies shouldn't be involved in healthcare.

The United Kingdom health care is a disaster. Why do you believe that people drinking considerably more alcohol is a good thing?

Please show the link to a reliable source about your wheelchair FAKE NEWS!

Who do you think develops, by far, the newest life saving and extending drugs, technology and techniques than the FOR PROFIT system in the United States?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, not all fat people choose to do it. Some are addicted, some have metabolism problems, and some just eat crap.

addiction is a choice.

sorry but no one is going to have the DTs from going cold turkey from sugar and real metabolism problems are the exception not the rule when it comes to people being fat

Such a great statement, such a contradictory statement. There is a certain amount of choice that goes into addiction, however some people have much more of an addictive personality than others.

I don't see what DTs have anything to do with anything here.

Like I've said multiple times, when people have sufficient reason to do something, they'll give stuff up to do that.

you do realize that stopping some addictive substances actually put the user into a health crisis don't you? Detoxing from alcohol can kill you

detoxing from sugar means you feel like you have a very mild case of the flu and it only lasts a couple days

and the people that keep choosing to eat ice cream for breakfast don't care if they are fat even though they know that eating fruit for breakfast is better for them

So... what's your point?

the same one it's always been

fat people already know why they are fat and they choose to stay fat

I wish I lived in your fantasy world, must be much better than having to see reality.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see, so what you're doing is comparing an insurance company requesting a wheelchair owner take precautions using the chair compared to government telling you how to conduct every aspect of your life???

Is the insurance company insisting this wheelchair bound patient eat certain things, maintain a certain weight, prohibiting her from adult beverages or recreational narcotics, restricting her from certain physical activities????

The insurance company is not concerned about controlling ones life, they are concerned about not making unnecessary repairs to a wheelchair.

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying it exists already and you're probably fine with it being used in certain ways, you just don't realize that it is being used like that.

Yes, people have the right to choose what they want. At no point have I said people couldn't choose what they want.

This is about accepting the fact that the US has a major weight problem, and a major problem with sugar all over the place, and taxing things higher which cause problems. I understand that you have a problem with this, and I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of this. If I can't convince you of something when I have all the facts pointing to my argument and you have no facts, how am I going to convince you that sometimes you have to do the right thing?

I am in no way fine with taxes being used in social engineering experiments.

So called sin taxes should all be abolished. Cigarettes and alcohol should only be subject to sales taxes like any other product

no one should be taxed because they choose to eat the food they want to eat or drink what they want to drink or smoke what they want to smoke

And if you noticed I never disagreed with you on the fact that eating tons of sugar is not a good choice. I would never smoke either but it's none of my business if people do just like it's none of my business what other people choose to eat and it's none of yours and it certainly is none of the government's

Should alcohol be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should cigarettes be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should all the illegal drugs be restricted, if yes, why?
Should driving be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?

Again, I'm not telling people that they can't do something. I'm suggesting that if people want to do something that they pay for it.

I have no problem with an age of majority but we should pick one
no you want them to pay EXTRA. You want the government to assign right or wrong labels to food choices and then assess a fine for those who choose the "wrong" thing

that is not the purpose nor the purview of government

But then why do you want to do some good things for children, but then not do other good thing?

Yes, I want them to pay EXTRA. Just like people pay EXTRA for things already. Yes, I want the govt to say what is health and to say this is worthy of being cheaper.

You don't think this is the purpose of government, I do.

an age of majority is not doing good thing for children

it provides a framework for personal responsibility.

and being healthy is already cheaper than being unhealthy.

you can't see the difference of things having differing prices in the marketplace and the government taxing things based on an arbitrary right and wrong scale?

Uh huh?

I'm not getting your logic.

It's not okay to stop kids from drinking because it's good for them, but it's okay to stop people doing stuff to instill personal responsibility?

So, why not put up sales tax on sugary items to teach people to be more personally responsible for their own bodies then?

Being healthy could be cheaper, but people have to know how to do things, and have things incentivized, and it works, as shown with Mexico and Hungary.

I just don't get why doing something good shouldn't happen, but doing it for the wrong reasons is okay. Your logic is a little twisted in my view.

 

[rightwinger]

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

It's not micromanaging...it is helping people who need help

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

The point went entirely over your head, and that is government is not supposed to be micromanaging our lives from birth until death. If we would ever approve of government following us around every day, keeping a point system to decide how much to tax us based on our personal decisions, then we've surrendered all our liberty.

No, it didn't go over my head. I'm also not in favor of the govt micromanaging our lives.

However there are certain things, like education, in which the govt is best placed on a mass scale, to carry out. However in the US the problem seems to be a nationwide attitude that is just plain wrong. Okay, some states do better than others, but still there are plenty of problems out there.

The problem is Ray, the govt ALREADY DOES THIS. So where's your liberty? It's in the hands of the rich right now. They want you to be fat, because a 36% obesity level makes a lot of rich people richer.

 

[Markle]

Clinton knew nothing about 9/11, it was too early for that...

Is it feigned ignorance or real?

Former President Bill Clinton and the rest of the nation learned that the World Trade Center was a prime target for al Qaeda Terrorists very early in the Clinton Administration. Why did President Clinton do nothing?

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, carried out on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,336 pounds (606 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to send the North Tower (Tower 1) crashing into the South Tower (Tower 2), bringing both towers down and killing tens of thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so but killed six people and injured over a thousand.[4]

The attack was planned by a group of terrorists including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Ahmed Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad, and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property, and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia

 

[rightwinger]

Clinton knew nothing about 9/11, it was too early for that...

Is it feigned ignorance or real?

Former President Bill Clinton and the rest of the nation learned that the World Trade Center was a prime target for al Qaeda Terrorists very early in the Clinton Administration. Why did President Clinton do nothing?

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, carried out on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,336 pounds (606 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to send the North Tower (Tower 1) crashing into the South Tower (Tower 2), bringing both towers down and killing tens of thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so but killed six people and injured over a thousand.[4]

The attack was planned by a group of terrorists including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and Ahmed Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad, and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property, and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia

Clinton caught and prosecuted those involved in the 1993 bombing

 

[Skull Pilot]

I see, so what you're doing is comparing an insurance company requesting a wheelchair owner take precautions using the chair compared to government telling you how to conduct every aspect of your life???

Is the insurance company insisting this wheelchair bound patient eat certain things, maintain a certain weight, prohibiting her from adult beverages or recreational narcotics, restricting her from certain physical activities????

The insurance company is not concerned about controlling ones life, they are concerned about not making unnecessary repairs to a wheelchair.

No, you're making a completely irrelevant claim in your first paragraph.

The insurance company is basically screwing people over for profit.

You can make claims about the govt being involved in healthcare, and I can make claims about private companies being involved in healthcare. Neither is ever going to be perfect.

The issue is that when private takes full control, lots of people get fucked over, when the govt takes over, you've made a claim that the govt will control every aspect of your life, which is bullshit, because anyone who knows anything about the outside world, beyond the borders of the US, will know this just isn't true. But you'll make the claim based on NOTHING anyway.

Private insurance did not make regulations against not insuring people with preexisting conditions. Private insurance never insisted on minimum coverage such as a 58 year old woman being covered for prenatal care. Private insurance never insisted women have abortion coverage and birth control.. Government insisted on all these things and more.

Insurance companies under Commie Care cannot charge you more for coverage because you have preexisting conditions, but they can charge you more if you are a smoker.

Government has already demonstrated how much they will abuse their control over people way more than private insurance. To think they've only managed to have partial control over healthcare. Imagine what would happen if we ever gave them most or total control over our healthcare.

So, people born unlucky don't get fucked over, but those who make choices can be fucked over. Do you have a problem with this?

But then again on the NHS you get treated whether you smoke or don't smoke.

Correct, and if you don't march in lockstep like a good little Commie, you will have to pay extra to your government. But that's how these commie leftists have been able to ride around the constitution and states rights. Just steal their cash to force them into compliance.

So, just to get things clear, you have a problem with people who are born unlucky being treated fairly? You want them to suffer and to pay more just to exist?

You're talking about stealing? Well, that's exactly what private healthcare companies are doing every day of the year.

Blaming luck for your situation is about the same as blaming some rich guy you never met

 

[Skull Pilot]

addiction is a choice.

sorry but no one is going to have the DTs from going cold turkey from sugar and real metabolism problems are the exception not the rule when it comes to people being fat

Such a great statement, such a contradictory statement. There is a certain amount of choice that goes into addiction, however some people have much more of an addictive personality than others.

I don't see what DTs have anything to do with anything here.

Like I've said multiple times, when people have sufficient reason to do something, they'll give stuff up to do that.

you do realize that stopping some addictive substances actually put the user into a health crisis don't you? Detoxing from alcohol can kill you

detoxing from sugar means you feel like you have a very mild case of the flu and it only lasts a couple days

and the people that keep choosing to eat ice cream for breakfast don't care if they are fat even though they know that eating fruit for breakfast is better for them

So... what's your point?

the same one it's always been

fat people already know why they are fat and they choose to stay fat

I wish I lived in your fantasy world, must be much better than having to see reality.

you're the one fantasizing about telling everyone what you think is best for them and if they don't listen you want to assess a financial penalty

WHat other people eat is none of your fucking business

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am in no way fine with taxes being used in social engineering experiments.

So called sin taxes should all be abolished. Cigarettes and alcohol should only be subject to sales taxes like any other product

no one should be taxed because they choose to eat the food they want to eat or drink what they want to drink or smoke what they want to smoke

And if you noticed I never disagreed with you on the fact that eating tons of sugar is not a good choice. I would never smoke either but it's none of my business if people do just like it's none of my business what other people choose to eat and it's none of yours and it certainly is none of the government's

Should alcohol be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should cigarettes be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?
Should all the illegal drugs be restricted, if yes, why?
Should driving be restricted to any age group, and if yes, why?

Again, I'm not telling people that they can't do something. I'm suggesting that if people want to do something that they pay for it.

I have no problem with an age of majority but we should pick one
no you want them to pay EXTRA. You want the government to assign right or wrong labels to food choices and then assess a fine for those who choose the "wrong" thing

that is not the purpose nor the purview of government

But then why do you want to do some good things for children, but then not do other good thing?

Yes, I want them to pay EXTRA. Just like people pay EXTRA for things already. Yes, I want the govt to say what is health and to say this is worthy of being cheaper.

You don't think this is the purpose of government, I do.

an age of majority is not doing good thing for children

it provides a framework for personal responsibility.

and being healthy is already cheaper than being unhealthy.

you can't see the difference of things having differing prices in the marketplace and the government taxing things based on an arbitrary right and wrong scale?

Uh huh?

I'm not getting your logic.

It's not okay to stop kids from drinking because it's good for them, but it's okay to stop people doing stuff to instill personal responsibility?

So, why not put up sales tax on sugary items to teach people to be more personally responsible for their own bodies then?

Being healthy could be cheaper, but people have to know how to do things, and have things incentivized, and it works, as shown with Mexico and Hungary.

I just don't get why doing something good shouldn't happen, but doing it for the wrong reasons is okay. Your logic is a little twisted in my view.

I never said anything about anything being good for anyone. A legal age of majority is a concept that implies neither good or bad it designates when a member of society is considered responsible for his actions that is all it is

and since when did a drinking age stop under aged kids from drinking?

It's not up to you to "teach" people anything. People will decide what they want to learn and if they don't want to learn what you want them to learn then it's none of your business.

but then again you already agreed that people already know that fruits and vegetables are better for them than a candy bar or a tub of ice cream so you don't have to teach them that.

What you want to do is control other people's behavior to align with what YOU think they should do.

 

[rightwinger]

Such a great statement, such a contradictory statement. There is a certain amount of choice that goes into addiction, however some people have much more of an addictive personality than others.

I don't see what DTs have anything to do with anything here.

Like I've said multiple times, when people have sufficient reason to do something, they'll give stuff up to do that.

you do realize that stopping some addictive substances actually put the user into a health crisis don't you? Detoxing from alcohol can kill you

detoxing from sugar means you feel like you have a very mild case of the flu and it only lasts a couple days

and the people that keep choosing to eat ice cream for breakfast don't care if they are fat even though they know that eating fruit for breakfast is better for them

So... what's your point?

the same one it's always been

fat people already know why they are fat and they choose to stay fat

I wish I lived in your fantasy world, must be much better than having to see reality.

you're the one fantasizing about telling everyone what you think is best for them and if they don't listen you want to assess a financial penalty

WHat other people eat is none of your fucking business

Even if someone is selling them tainted food?