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.
I think we should bankrupt Medicare, our country, and sell out the future of our grandchildren by keeping our old, demented, debilitated, and dying bodies alive as long as technologically possible!
It makes me sick to say it. I believe alot of the difficulty enacting health insurance reform is that we have a segment of this country that literally doesn't believe another segment (the poor, those with chronically bad health) deserves to live.
You may be sick at the thought, but you'd be sicker if you were compelled to labor for their benefit.
"No one should suffer because they lack {fill in the blank}" should be prefaced with "No one should be compelled to labor for the benefit of another, so that..." because slavery is not an acceptable solution to the ills of mankind.
Either you are for voluntary charity or you are for compulsory charity.
And if you can't figure out the difference...
Voluntary charity is a blessing
Compulsory charity is a curse
Even the New York Times writers are agreeing with her now! Amasing how if you wait long enough the truth will come out. Chaulk another one up for Sarah.
You know those students cheering at Berkley? Lets hope mommy and daddy die before their tuition is paid or before they need to find a basement to live in before they strike out on their own at 30. Better yet, let's hope when mommy and daddy come down with a debilitating condition or the parents don't get the surgery they need to keep them active, the spoiled rotten brats have to run errands for them, take them in to live with them and be at their beck and call for a few years.
Unbelievable that the usual propaganda artists are trying to say that Krugman didn't really say that. They always pull this stunt when they are backed into a corner.
Libs will suddenly discover introspection, nuance, and context when analyzing what other libs have said, the knee-jerk reactions to look for the worst in people is only reserved for when conservatives speak.
If you read the article, he was clearly being tongue-in-cheek about "death panels" (Palin's term, not his) and using the term derisively, but of course this is being twisted to suit GOP for their useful idiots.
The problem with FOR-PROFIT insurance plans however, is that NECESSARY procedures are denied, even LIFE-SAVING PROCEDURES, in order to retain PROFITS. The real death panels are on the boards of corporate wealthcare :
Yeah ok. You are doing just what a real propgandist does. Twist truths and words to fog up the semantics. A "Death Panel" is a Death Panel, no matter what you want to call it. BTW, in case you didn't realize, "Death Panel" is a metaphor for the actual panel that will be deciding your fate. Everyone knows that's not what they are called, but their function is exactly that.
Any panel would be patient-driven of course, NOT profit-driven, and WE THE PEOPLE would have a say since we run the government, whereas we have NO say whatsoever with profit-driven corporate insurance shareholders.
'I said something deliberately provocative on This Week, so I think I’d better clarify what I meant (which I did on the show, but it can’t hurt to say it again.)
So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that
(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care
(b) we’ll need more revenue — several percent of GDP — which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax
And if we do those two things, we’re most of the way toward a sustainable budget...'
Let's get real. This isn't about Sarah Palin's lie over 'death panels'. It's about Americans having affordable insurance that actually serves the purpose it is suppose to serve.
What do right wingnuts have against disallowing no pre-existing conditions from private, for PROFIT insurance companies?
What do right wingnuts have against affordable insurance? It shouldn't cost someone a $1,000 bucks a month to simple buy covrage. That's not even including co-pays. (I have a friend who pays nearly that for their family) If a self-employed carpenter is bringing home aproximately $2,500/month (that's when work is available) then why do right wingnuts think 1/2 of his income should be paid to an insurance company?
Insurance companies have gone rampant in the 'free (LMFAO) market', over-consumptive capitalistic America for long enough.
Rope em' and reel their crooked azzes in.
This isn't about lazy people. This isn't about death panels. This is about offering a service that most ordinary people can afford to pay.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,835,178 times
Reputation: 6438
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcsldcd
The left is big on death and they will find more people worthy of it if you give them a chance.
Exavtly. No universal health care, death penalty, etc. are all part of the leftist agenda. THe right meanwhile tries to stop the war machine, ensure quality health care for all, and are anti-death penalty.
Any panel would be patient-driven of course, NOT profit-driven, and WE THE PEOPLE would have a say since we run the government, whereas we have NO say whatsoever with profit-driven corporate insurance shareholders.
'I said something deliberately provocative on This Week, so I think I’d better clarify what I meant (which I did on the show, but it can’t hurt to say it again.)
So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that
(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care
(b) we’ll need more revenue — several percent of GDP — which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax
And if we do those two things, we’re most of the way toward a sustainable budget...'
This is exactly what Liberals/Progressives do. They ALWAYS say they meant something else when they get caught. He meant what he said and said what he meant.
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.
