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.
Sorry for the victim but pleased by the example. Dying is always an option in a pay as you go medical system. The people that can afford it get good care while those that cannot die early.
That is good "capitalistic" economics but very callus public policy.
Former Sheriff Richard Mack is part of the "constitutional sheriff" movement and opposes Obamacare. He didn't sign up through the ACA website and has no insurance. He makes the absurd claim that "because they [he and wife] are self-employed, they have no medical insurance". In January 2015 he had a heart attack and last November his wife was hospitalized with serious medical issues. A GoFundMe account was launched and in 26 days has raised $17,033 for his medical bills.
You'd think his department would have offered benefits, even after personnel retirements. Did they not? And this brings back my point that someone along the way is going to die because of the existence of the (Un)ACA and all the crap it contains.
That's a big part of the problem, and this case illustrates it perfectly. The same group of people who say that the capitalistic market will take care of this are the ones in charge. This guy was Sheriff. He was at the top of the food chain, if his department didn't offer benefits, it was partially because he did not advocate for them. The same people who cut benefits in the name of austerity (or profits) are the same ones that are against ACA. Their actions and their reality are contrary to their rhetoric, and this case is just one example of it.
It brings back MY point that failure to insure that people in the most prosperous society in the history of man is what is going to cause someone to die. It's not the ACA that is causing it, it's the people who are martyring themselves to prove (incorrectly) how it's flawed. EDIT: I'm not saying it's not flawed, because it is. I'm saying their so-called "proof" is missing the mark, and actually more of the problem than a solution.
U.S. Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and David Vitter, R-La., and Rep. Martha Blackburn, R-Tenn., all met with former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, the far-right former lawman from Graham County, Ariz., who now leads the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), a group of “constitutionalist” sheriffs who see themselves the last line of defense against those who would seek to infringe on the U.S. Constitution.
Just down the Capitol Mall that same day, a small group of protesters supporting the sheriffs gathered at the White House and began shouting slogans and demanding the removal of President Obama. Some in the crowd demanded the president be lynched–”Hang the lying Muslim traitor!” one of them shouted.
The same group of protesters then proceeded to the Senate building where the sheriffs were meeting, but were not permitted inside and instead lingered in the foyer. When the meeting ended, the demonstrators lustily greeted the emerging law enforcement officers and Congress members, some of them shaking hands and hugging the participants.
What is admirable about people standing up for stupid beliefs that financially destroy them? Especially when it could have all been completely avoided?...
I'm not saying his belief wasn't absurd, just that he had the guts to stand up for it, right or wrong. In this country you still have the right to make ridiculous choices.
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.