It's that he comes in making some juvenile comment while refusing to state his opinion mainly because he knows we will shoot his response down with fact and rhetoric

 

Infuriated by 4.6 Punisher's statement? Please. He's admitted that it's easier for him to stay ignorant than it is to discuss issues that are important to all Americans, with people through out this country. Hardly infuriating. More like amusing that thread after thread he uses the MSNBC type one liners.

What is infuriating is that there are so many people who find it easier to remain ignorant than it is to pay enough attention to realize that we are being groomed for lives of government dependency.

 

Ignorant? Sounds like someone is so full of **** that it's spouting out of their mouth.

Oh and I'd love to see some facts supporting anything you cons come up with.

 

Can you refer to anything us "cons" come up with?

How about "death panels"? How about rationing?

Bloomberg-Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

American Thinker-'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists

Did you look at the original post? Did you see any "facts" there?

 

Do you know what facts are wittom? I really hope you're not trying to pass off American Thinker and a commentary as facts. Try again.

 

Even without the health insurance reform bill passing, the cost of health care is going to go way up rather quickly. Many doctors are older, almost near retirement age. It so happens much of the population is also older and nearing retirement age. So we have a large segment of the population hitting a time in their lives when they become large consumers of health care at the same time we have a lot of doctors reaching the age of retirement. We are going to have a large increase in the demand for health care at the same time as a large decrease in the supply of providers. Add in the health insurance reform bill and the demand simply grows larger.

How we stop this is simple really. Instead of addressing the demand side of the equation the government is better able to address the supply side and control it. The government can offer grants or low interest loans to colleges to expand their medical schools with the stipulation that a percentage of the students receive discounted tuition. This allows the school to "pay" back the government in very small increments over many years while at the same time increasing profits. The government can offer grants and low or no interest loans to med school students. The government can even provide stipulations for the forgiveness of loans for newly minted doctors to practice family medicine for several years rather than go on to be a specialist right out of school. This addresses the supply side of the equation. It is very difficult to control demand for a product while at the same time increasing demand for that product. The government is attempting to do the impossible. They can not increase the demand for the product while at the same time decreasing the price of the product.

There are several areas in the delivery of medical care that can be done more efficiently and less intrusively than the bills proposed. The government is unwilling to make those changes, so even after these bills are passed or shot down the cost is going to continue to go up.

 

Good....

Hopefully after a while those that can't take care of themselves and are nothing but leaches on society will eventually die out....

 

Infuriated was a poor choice of words on my part. (Although your response indicates a complete understanding of my point.)

BYW, thin skin on both sides stands firm.

 

Wow! Compassionate one aren't we? I did recount earlier what happened to the father of two of my students. He was working; he had health insurance. Suddenly the company went belly-up and he was left without it. Liver problems had set in and he couldn't get insurance. It wasn't that he couldn't take care of himself; perhaps that unthinkable issue might happen to you or yours---while I hope that it doesn't, I guess we can say that "Well, FatherFord just didn't take care of himself..." Tooo stinkin' bad...

Now, the govt does not need to get involved in this, but there are people that cannot afford it and are really pretty solid working people who may be out of a job, etc. Perhaps the insurance industry needs some changing, or perhaps FatherFord's generalizations need to be seriously scrutinized. I agree that the gov't should not get involved in this; however, not everybody who does not have insurance are people "...that can't take care of themselves."

Hey---remember a few weeks ago when a bunch of you were somewhat PO'd about the truck drivers whose company went bye-bye---and had them drop off their rigs? Hum, I wonder what happened to their health insurance? It seemed to me that they were working---"taking care of themselves" and being contributing members of society---not mooching. While you all were miffed at how it was done (and that was wrong) did you consider their plight about their own health insurance? Were those truck drivers "leeches on society'?

TSC

 

While the story of your students' father is sad, it is the price of living. In a socialist economy everyone is taken car of, but the economy is so bad that everything is rationed including health care, jobs, food, heat (remember the Soviet Union). So instead of everyone being happy and comfortable, everyone is uncomfortable and miserable. In a capitalist society the economy is good, but people fall through the cracks. If you want to stop all suffering then the only solution is to kill everyone. Suffering is life. That is the way it is, sorry.

 

Them folks somehow think it's a "woman's right" to choose. That doesnt make any sense.

Like grandma & grandpa? How about mom w/breast cancer? What about little Tommy that caught pneumonia? I hope his lungs flood, and he dies so I dont have to pay for it. Screw it...close all hospitals, then let people fend for themselves...all nature like & shizzle.

 

And that is why Soviets defected to America.

 

"Them folks" think it's a woman's right to choose, but taxpayers don't have a choice of whether their portion of taxes pays for abortions or not?

Don't go getting me confused with your stereotypical right winger. You haven't ever seen me say that I'm out to overturn Roe V. Wade. Coat hangers and vacuum cleaners don't seem like a viable option to me. I'm not one of "them folks" either, who would just assume have drive thru abortion clinics, no appointment needed, giving out coupons, with a furry, happy fetus mascott. They'de call that pro-choice.

I don't want my tax dollars to pay for abortions. Neither do millions of other Americans. Women do have choices. If they want an abortion, then can get it if the pay for it. Seems to me that more taxpayers would agree with a portion of their tax dollars paying for education programs that would help women avoid being in a situation where abortion had to be one of her choices.

We're not talking about grandma and grampa, or little Tommy here. This is women. There will always be a circumstance that changes the acceptable course of action. Women should not have the choice of using tax payer dollars to pay for a belated birth control method.

Personal responsibility is really the most cost effective method.

 

So were you one of the guys PO'd at the trucking company for the way the let the drivers go? According to you, it shouldn't matter. Sucks to be them, right? Leeches on society, right? Or were they hard-working folks that, for a fault that was not theirs, "fell through the cracks'?

I agree that the health insurance should not be run by the govt. But what I do not agree on is that there is a generalization that everybody is a leech. Hell, if you look at it through FatherFord's eyes, those truck drivers who just got canned are leeches, right? Yes, there is suffering, but there is also preventable suffering. I want to be there when you tell your loved one, "Sorry, Honey, suffering is life."

Health care reform is due. The govt does not need to run it, but this idea that everybody that does not have health care are leeches and a burden to society---well, they are ll lazy and do not want to work!. Ask those like the truck drivers in the previous thread if they like your idea of "Suffering is life---get used to it." (That's what your actually saying, right?)

If we extend your attitude that "Suffering is life", does it matter how those truck drivers were notified about their loss of jobs? After All,"Suffering is life", is it not? Too bad that they, hard-working guys, cannot now have the health insurance for their families. Because they lost their jobs, they have become leeches.


What do I say to the two boys the man left behind? "Hey guys, sorry about your dad, but suffering is life." He wanted to work, but after his place of employment shut down, he had trouble finding a job. He also became ill, and, because he no health insurance, he (I believe) died before his time. I am not saying that he would have survived his liver problems, but he may have lived longer...he could not fight the disease on his own. He took care of his family as well as himself, but the lack of a job combined with his illness did not allow him to procure the insurance---and the treatment---that he needed.

TSC

 

Soviet Union wasnt a socialist state. It was, and basically still is, a dictatorship.