Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, that's a novel approach. At least you don't have to worry about political opposition. Unless you're schizophrenic...
You do have to worry about "opposition"....when your rights intersect with another person's rights. Then you fight it out amongst yourselves, or choose to compromise.
Yes, the government has grown to its biggest size due to the addition of programs that were all democratic in nature, like expanded drug benefits for seniors.
Who can deny thats a Democratic program even though a Republican president put it into place!
Ah, so everyone else who has a health plan (including Congressional reps) deserves prescription coverage but the most vulnerable citizens do not?! Especially since they've been paying a Medicare tax all of their lives?
Newsflash -- providing prescription coverage SAVES money. Many serious conditions can now be treated with pharmaceuticals. So, let's see -- is it more cost effective to pay the $30 per month for the blood pressure med. or for the long-term care and treatment of a stroke or heart attack patient?
Ah, so everyone else who has a health plan (including Congressional reps) deserves prescription coverage but the most vulnerable citizens do not?! Especially since they've been paying a Medicare tax all of their lives?
Newsflash -- providing prescription coverage SAVES money. Many serious conditions can now be treated with pharmaceuticals. So, let's see -- is it more cost effective to pay the $30 per month for the blood pressure med. or for the long-term care and treatment of a stroke or heart attack patient?
Your making up facts to meet an argument that doesnt exist..
Who said that I supported Congress having a health plan?
Show me where you get that it saves money for the tax payers? (after all, its the tax payers paying for it..)
That was a single reply to your single post, broken down into separate topics. Sorry if that was too complex for you to follow.
But, in any case, I've noticed that you failed to come back with your justification for Bush's invasion. I kinda expected that, though.
Truth?
This makes it clear that you can't handle the truth!
What color is your kool-aid?
sorry...had other things to do besides play the dozens with a much more nuanced poster such as yourself. Well I guess you got me now. If you will recall tho, it was I who challenged you to back up the assertion that Iraq was no threat to the US and why it was "no threat to us". So what gives? You have obviously researched my screen name and read my posts in an attempt to "win" by insulting me and humiliating me. So why not use your much superior intellect to use facts and reason instead of the usual democrat debate trickinology? Perhaps because you prefer to express your fear and hatred of all things different than you to excorcise your demons.
But alas I digress. Here's something for you: Given your posit that Iraq was no threat to US, how long before it would have become a threat if Gore was out chasing his tail in Afganistan?
I assume you have a life too, so take all the time you want.
Your making up facts to meet an argument that doesnt exist..
Who said that I supported Congress having a health plan?
Show me where you get that it saves money for the tax payers? (after all, its the tax payers paying for it..)
For Pete's sake, it's simple common sense! I have Systemic Lupus Erythmatosus and battle kidney problems. If I can't afford to take my medication, my kidneys will be damaged and I'd need at least one kidney transplant, not to mention the years of dialysis until they actually found me a kidney. I'm also at a high risk of having a stroke because of an associated blood condition. So, which is cheaper -- $100 per month for meds or dialysis, transplant surgery, critical and long-term care?
For Pete's sake, it's simple common sense! I have Systemic Lupus Erythmatosus and battle kidney problems. If I can't afford to take my medication, my kidneys will be damaged and I'd need at least one kidney transplant, not to mention the years of dialysis until they actually found me a kidney. I'm also at a high risk of having a stroke because of an associated blood condition. So, which is cheaper -- $100 per month for meds or dialysis, transplant surgery, critical and long-term care?
for Petes sake.. Again I ask.. where you got evidence that YOUR failure to be able to afford medication, or your failure to be able to afford a kidney transplant, or your failure to pay for years of dialysis, or even your high risk of strike because of an associated blood condition, and how YOUR failure to be able to afford to take care of yourself turns into a GOVERNMENTS or MY responsibility to pay?
YOUR $100 a month for medication is not cheaper for ME or the TAXPAYERS then long-term care... if YOU die. Yes, its insensive, but its also a matter of fact...
OK, so you advocate the sick and aged dying because you don't think they're worth any amount of the federal budget and care. You DO realize that the disabled and elderly CAN'T BUY their own insurance because no one will sell them policies, right?
When reality hits you square in the face because you or a loved one becomes ill or is elderly, then we'll talk. Until then, you're on ignore.
OK, so you advocate the sick and aged dying because you don't think they're worth any amount of the federal budget and care. You DO realize that the disabled and elderly CAN'T BUY their own insurance because no one will sell them policies, right?
When reality hits you square in the face because you or a loved one becomes ill or is elderly, then we'll talk. Until then, you're on ignore.
First, I have numerous "loved ones" who are very sick.. including my fiance who will probably die in a year, and a step father who has a life threating disease thats so rare and so bad, he cant get out of bed.
That also changes the subject of your argument from it being cheaper to care for ones illnesses, to now its cheaper for the taxpayers to care for ones illnesses..
None of that requires that you or the taxpayers are obligated to pickup their medical bills.
Five years later, everyone on earth knows but you.
Quote:
this is a 50/50 electorate, with 40 on one side and 40 on the other. Hillary or Obama will not get the 11 or more to win by threatening to endanger the American people with a Carteresque foreign policy or by surrendering American sovereignty to third-world UN thugs. Period.
sorry...had other things to do besides play the dozens with a much more nuanced poster such as yourself. Well I guess you got me now. If you will recall tho, it was I who challenged you to back up the assertion that Iraq was no threat to the US and why it was "no threat to us". So what gives? You have obviously researched my screen name and read my posts in an attempt to "win" by insulting me and humiliating me. So why not use your much superior intellect to use facts and reason instead of the usual democrat debate trickinology? Perhaps because you prefer to express your fear and hatred of all things different than you to excorcise your demons.
But alas I digress. Here's something for you: Given your posit that Iraq was no threat to US, how long before it would have become a threat if Gore was out chasing his tail in Afganistan?
I assume you have a life too, so take all the time you want.
To make it simple:
All events since the invasion five years ago have shown that Iraq was not a threat and that the justifications cooked up Bush, Cheney, and Rummy were lies. This is now common knowledge. It requires no amplification.
On the other hand, you're holding the position that is contrary to all the known facts.
The floor is yours... please proceed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
boo hoo hoo
