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.
This kind of stuff is why I'm voting for Obama on Tuesday. Why anyone thinks that child should be denied that kind of help is beyond me.
No one thinks that a child should be denied that kind of help - we disagree that the government should be the instruments of doing it. I can think of a handful of private charities, right off the bat , whom could help that girl.
But liberals only think government is the answer - because it allows them to control everything.
The difference between a liberal and conservative is this:
A liberal wants to help the girl with leukemia by confiscating money from people at gunpoint(think i am exagerrating? - try not paying your taxes and see who pays you a little visit - I can promise you that they will be armed).
A conservative believes that people acting out of their own free will, coming together to pool time, money, resourses, talents, and compassion - can effectively help those who are in need.
Now which is more compassionate? (a) The liberal taking money at gunpoint and redistributing it or (b) the conservative who donates, volunteers, and supports private charities that do the work such as helping a girl with leukemia in a much more effective and efficient manner without eroding liberty?
If you chose option B- congratulations you are correct.
Now go do the right thing and vote for Mitt Romney on Tuesday.
May God bless this little girl and my God bless America.
Citizens have a natural right to "life" in this country. Don't like it? Go be anti-American somewhere else.
No one has a right to a long or healthy life, and they certainly have no right to the product of other peoples labor regardless of what liberals think. Taking from the taxpayers is as anti american as it gets, that's one of the basic founding premise of the United States. Don't like it go move to Europe.
No one thinks that a child should be denied that kind of help - we disagree that the government should be the instruments of doing it. I can think of a handful of private charities, right off the bat , whom could help that girl.
But liberals only think government is the answer - because it allows them to control everything.
The difference between a liberal and conservative is this:
A liberal wants to help the girl with leukemia by confiscating money from people at gunpoint(think i am exagerrating? - try not paying your taxes and see who pays you a little visit - I can promise you that they will be armed).
A conservative believes that people acting out of their own free will, coming together to pool time, money, resourses, talents, and compassion - can effectively help those who are in need.
Now which is more compassionate? (a) The liberal taking money at gunpoint and redistributing it or (b) the conservative who donates, volunteers, and supports private charities that do the work such as helping a girl with leukemia in a much more effective and efficient manner without eroding liberty?
If you believe in option B- congratulations you are correct.
Now go do the right thing and vote for Mitt Romney on Tuesday.
May God bless this little girl and my God bless America.
Why do conservatives think private charities will take care of the cost of treatments?
The cost is too expensive. Charities usually don't have that type of money laying around.
Btw,I owed taxes,and no one showed up at my home with a gun.
I just signed up for monthly installments over the phone
The most the Irs do is threaten to garnish your wages.
Why do conservatives think private charities will take care of the cost of treatments?
The cost is too expensive. Charities usually don't have that type of money laying around.
So which charities are you specifically referring to? Have you inspected their books? How do you know that they can't cover the cost of treatment?
Again I have in mind a few charities right now that could do so - I won't name them because I don't want to bring them directly into a political discussion - however if you want to PM me and have a child in mind who needs help - I will be happy to provide that information if it is going to do actual good - rather then just further a political debate.
No one thinks that a child should be denied that kind of help - we disagree that the government should be the instruments of doing it. I can think of a handful of private charities, right off the bat , whom could help that girl.
But liberals only think government is the answer - because it allows them to control everything.
The difference between a liberal and conservative is this:
A liberal wants to help the girl with leukemia by confiscating money from people at gunpoint(think i am exagerrating? - try not paying your taxes and see who pays you a little visit - I can promise you that they will be armed).
A conservative believes that people acting out of their own free will, coming together to pool time, money, resourses, talents, and compassion - can effectively help those who are in need.
Now which is more compassionate? (a) The liberal taking money at gunpoint and redistributing it or (b) the conservative who donates, volunteers, and supports private charities that do the work such as helping a girl with leukemia in a much more effective and efficient manner without eroding liberty?
If you chose option B- congratulations you are correct.
Now go do the right thing and vote for Mitt Romney on Tuesday.
May God bless this little girl and my God bless America.
your thesis would be fine if the idea of thier always being someone willing to volunteer to help the needy ( like the young girl in this story ) to a sufficent degree had any kind of solid record , it doesnt but its easy for those who are not short a dollar to push such a facile arguement
its no different than believing you dont need a police force to prevent crime and that having a state police force funded by taxes is an affront to freedom
your thesis would be fine if the idea of thier always being someone willing to volunteer to help the needy ( like the young girl in this story ) to a sufficent degree had any kind of solid record , it doesnt
Would you care to be specific and elaborate?
Demonstrate the "failed" record of private charities helping those in need.
The child would have been automatically qualified to get disability insurance through medicare (or medicaid if her parents had no money), she would have been able to have the surgery either way. The only difference is the insurance company pays this way and is subsidized through all of their clients and eventually us tax payers, while through medicare us tax payers would have subsidized it.
No one has a right to a long or healthy life, and they certainly have no right to the product of other peoples labor regardless of what liberals think. Taking from the taxpayers is as anti american as it gets, that's one of the basic founding premise of the United States. Don't like it go move to Europe.
Would you be willing to face the father and tell him his daughter doesn't have the right to a long and healthy life?
What if this man paid his taxes,worked all his life,gave to charities,and most important,had insurance that turned him down?
What's the point of having insurance if they aren't going to pay when you get sick?
I wonder if I'm better off dropping my health insurance that costs 400 a month and saving it for a rainy day?
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.
