Reply With QuoteYou nailed it!!!
I guess we're one step closer to "cradle to grave" handouts from the government. Since Hilary and the federal gubment couldn't get socialized medicine implemented, the states have taken up the cause. Assachusetts already has a law making it mandatory for employers to provide healthcare for employees. (Are we still in America?) Now Arnie the Governator wants to make sure everyone in Kalifonia has health care (including wetbacks) too and Oregon is saying it's "criminal" that any child under 19 can go without health insurance in today's world. In other words, they will be hot on Arnie's heels in putting some sort of socialized medicine in place.
The justification for this is that "millions" are currently without health insurance. Excuse me, but whose fault exactly is that? Is it GW Bush, who stole money out of poor people's pockets to give Haliburton a tax cut? Hardly. The problem was made vividly clear to me yesterday as I drove past a run down mobile home park. Row after row of dilapidated trailers and beat up cars made it clear that this was where the poorest of the poor lived. I thought to myself that these must be the types of people who cannot afford health insurance. Then I noticed another peculiar thing; almost EVERY ONE of those trailers had a satellite dish on it. Wait a second....you say you can't afford insurance but you're spending money on satellite TV?????
The real problem is that people don't have their priorities straight. Supposedly those who live at or below the "poverty" line are the ones who "need" health insurance because they can't "afford" it. But a study shows that out of all those in "poverty", 37% drove a car worth $20,000 or more. More than half of these people had more than one car. 77% of them had two TV's OR MORE in their home. And 54% of them owned a house worth more than $150,000. All of this came from a salary of $12,000 or less per person.
Surely someone who could afford any or all of those perks could afford healthcare. The problem is not that these people "can't" afford insurance, it's that they "won't" do the mature thing and pay for necessities first like other adults. Meanwhile, we, the responsible taxpayers, will be left once again holding the bill for all those "in need"....What a joke.
You nailed it!!!
Alot of these people don't pay into F.I.C.A ,S.D.I.,or S.S. When they turn 62
or are unable to work at any age... whats left. "TOTAL SOCIALISM".
Umm..long before Arnie (whom I do not support except in sequels to the Terminator) you could walk into any hospital in America and not be refused emergency care or necessary follow-up care.
As the local commie pinko fag I'd say a compromise between our current system and socialized medicine is in order. There's lot's of people to manage. Look out your window.
People really don't understand what "socialized medicine" means....we can't print enough money fast enough to pay for what we today call health care. So, I've seen some of the proponents using the term "rationing" or some other code word for waiting for care or not being qualified for say, heart surgery if over age 50, a knee replacement, etc...so the Americans being unfamiliar with the word "NO" from their political agents may not be as hot for the program as they currently believe.
I've purchased my own health insurance for the past 18 years...yep, it costs money. As previously stated, a question of priorities. Your health remains your most valuable asset. You can ride a bus to work but you can't take an ambulance to the grocery.
I fully expect we'll see the hospitals lined with able bodied patients dodging work...yet again.
Umm..long before Arnie (whom I do not support except in sequels to the Terminator) you could walk into any hospital in America and not be refused emergency care or necessary follow-up care.
As the local commie pinko fag I'd say a compromise between our current system and socialized medicine is in order. There's lot's of people to manage. Look out your window.
We all know you can stroll in to the hospital and get healthcare, which is one of the reasons why healthcare is getting so expensive. The illegals have billions of unpaid medical dollars floating in our system that will never be paid and eventually have to be absorbed by higher costs. I'm not against the right to medical service, but it's obviously being abused.
As far as people to "manage", why don't people start managing themselves? My parents somehow managed to muddle through life on a middle class salary and end up not being a burden on either the government or their children. They didn't whine about the cost of medicine because they planned ahead. For goodness sake, if you save $100 a month from your mid 20's to your mid 60's you can have almost a million dollars at retirement. That's less than most people spend on satellite TV and pizza in a month but they can't get it done so now we have to wipe their asses and change their diapers.
Of course, the politicians are all too happy to cater to these poor slobs. Helathcare represents something like 15% of the economy in total dollars and both parties are salivating to get control of it so they can be the party that cared for your children when you couldn't. Unfortunately people can't seem to remember the last trip to the DMV or the post office, which should have given them a good reminder of how government run healthcare would run. Wait in line all day for crappy service....
What the media and the Dems don't want to talk about is more actual "legal citizens" in the US have healthcare than at any other time in the country's history.
What Hillary in particular wants is control of the system. She wants to tell you what Dr. you "may" see and how much your health plan will pay.
Working people have access to healthcare at the majority of jobs in this country. It ain't free to anyone, somwhere you pay for as it is a benefit or taken out of your pay check. And there are plans avaiolble to anyone willing to work, better themselves to a better wage, and willing to accept healthcare as a neccessity to their family.
A major problem in this country is the people who will spend money for cable TV but think the government or someone else should pay their healthcare premiums. And don't argue about the cost of the premiums, they are driven by the expewnses to the providersin the form of "no Pay" recipients, frivolous suits, abuse, etc.
You know guys like PX that turn in bills for duct tape to repair their cranial bag. (Just a little humor their Commie Fag Boy, I liked that admission, you're finally taking responsibility.
The real problem is that people don't have their priorities straight. Supposedly those who live at or below the "poverty" line are the ones who "need" health insurance because they can't "afford" it. But a study shows that out of all those in "poverty", 37% drove a car worth $20,000 or more. More than half of these people had more than one car. 77% of them had two TV's OR MORE in their home. And 54% of them owned a house worth more than $150,000. All of this came from a salary of $12,000 or less per person.
Yea and I bet the cars have a set of $6k worth of wheels and a few K for the "system".
They can afford it with all the welfare, SSI, and other give-away programs.
They probably smoke too. http://www.***boat.com/ubb/mad.gif
I guess we're one step closer to "cradle to grave" handouts from the government. Since Hilary and the federal gubment couldn't get socialized medicine implemented, the states have taken up the cause. Assachusetts already has a law making it mandatory for employers to provide healthcare for employees. (Are we still in America?) Now Arnie the Governator wants to make sure everyone in Kalifonia has health care (including wetbacks) too and Oregon is saying it's "criminal" that any child under 19 can go without health insurance in today's world. In other words, they will be hot on Arnie's heels in putting some sort of socialized medicine in place.
The justification for this is that "millions" are currently without health insurance. Excuse me, but whose fault exactly is that? Is it GW Bush, who stole money out of poor people's pockets to give Haliburton a tax cut? Hardly. The problem was made vividly clear to me yesterday as I drove past a run down mobile home park. Row after row of dilapidated trailers and beat up cars made it clear that this was where the poorest of the poor lived. I thought to myself that these must be the types of people who cannot afford health insurance. Then I noticed another peculiar thing; almost EVERY ONE of those trailers had a satellite dish on it. Wait a second....you say you can't afford insurance but you're spending money on satellite TV?????
The real problem is that people don't have their priorities straight. Supposedly those who live at or below the "poverty" line are the ones who "need" health insurance because they can't "afford" it. But a study shows that out of all those in "poverty", 37% drove a car worth $20,000 or more. More than half of these people had more than one car. 77% of them had two TV's OR MORE in their home. And 54% of them owned a house worth more than $150,000. All of this came from a salary of $12,000 or less per person.
Surely someone who could afford any or all of those perks could afford healthcare. The problem is not that these people "can't" afford insurance, it's that they "won't" do the mature thing and pay for necessities first like other adults. Meanwhile, we, the responsible taxpayers, will be left once again holding the bill for all those "in need"....What a joke.
Exactly right.
Posting Permissions
