It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am 23, an American Citizen with government run health care.

page: 38
57
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAftermath
 


Thank you for showing I have a point with your skipping focus.




posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


With all due respect, I feel the need to ask:

Have you sustained a brain injury of some sort, or drink alot?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAftermath
 


Once again projecting faults are we?
First it was because I was a parasite, or so you thought. Now, it's because I am brain damaged.
You did after all, not answer my question and instead chose a new line of attack.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


You seem to have an issue with calling them what they are. Why? truth a little too painful to bear?

Life isnt fair, and it is not a function of government to make it that way.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by TheAftermath]


I have an issue with people who don't consider any other case out their. You only point of 'leeches'. You obviously think that the system is so perfect that to only reason why people would need governemental assistance is because they are leeches.

Read back to my previous post of a VERY REAL CASE in this thread. In that case, governmental assistance has never been accepted. The system of the "if you want it, pay for it" utterly failed sooo bad ... people think it is unreal, like you. They think it is unreal so much that they pass up cases like (that) where they think it doesn't happen... or couldn't ever possibly happen. Look at you right now... you would call such a person from that case a 'parasite' because you don't understand the case. You probably never seen the case, yet you consider youself an expert to point out 'leeches'.

Terrible... people think it is only the poor that need help... and they think it is only the poor is the reason why the health care reform is being done. Those that they consider to call 'parasites' or that they consider that need to be 'made to perform' have been so ignorant to the truth (to say such) of what happens in the imperfect world we live in.

Health care reform would help those that actually do get off their butts to work for it and where the system utterly fails to help such people.

The system is not perfect. It is broke.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I never said you were a parasite, I simply asked a question.

I asked about the drinking because your posts rarely make any logical or intellectual sense.

I also asked what your income range was (within 10k), but you avoided answering that.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


The governmental functions authorized by the Constitution say nothing about government being a benefactor of individuals. Government has no role in charitable work. It isnt their job to help people pull themselves up. Governments role is to merely protect their RIGHT to attempt to do so *no guarantee of success)

Many claim health care is a right, yet they can never answer where this right comes from.

A right cannot compel someone else (a healthcare professional in this case) to do something for you (provide medical care).

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAftermath
 


I never said you were a parasite, I simply asked a question.


Because you wished to proclaim me a parasite and thusly why I was arguing against you. Your motivations dear boy are painfully obvious.


I asked about the drinking because your posts rarely make any logical or intellectual sense.


Yet you understand well enough to answer with deflection like asking me my financial situation...
And as for the charges of illogic and non-intellectuality, laughable at best, not to mention continued deflection.


I also asked what your income range was (within 10k), but you avoided answering that.


Because it both none of your buisness and tying into the first part of your response in this post.





[edit on 17-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I can tell you my experience with the Canadian health care system from what I have observed through my family and friends.

Several years ago, one of my closest friends slipped on some ice outside of a restaurant and severely injured his back for which he needed an operation to repair the damage. It took him a month to actually get to a doctor to see him, and another 2 years to get the surgery to repair his back. By the time his operation date had come around, it was to late, the injury to his back had become permanent. In that 2 years he lost his job, because he was not able to stand, walk, or sit for long periods of time. He was in constant pain. But Yeah, thank God that health care is free. He said that if he was in America, he would of had the surgery with in 1 or 2 days of his injury.

My cousin got cancer at the age of 40. He died because, in Canada, the amount of time between his chemotherapy dates, the cancer would always be bigger the next time, compared to what it was the previous visit. So they decided to operate. GREAT, the only problem is, is that he died because he had to wait 8 months for an operation.

Sure it's free, and you get free care for immediate needs like frost bite and food poisoning, but if you are not immediately dieing, you're S.O.L.

In America, if you don't have insurance, that's you're fault! There are options for insurance for everyone here, even those who have no jobs, you just have to look for it, and want to have it. But for those "rich" people who have such awesome coverage, sure, they have the money to pay for awesome coverage, why take it away from them. I was going to start a small business and was checking into insurance, the insurance for the rich people was about $750 a month, at the low end, for the rich people. Now If I'm paying $750 a month, I expect my stitches to be gold thread, and hand fed my medication by New Zealand pygmies. The other coverage for the average citizen started at $70 a month. Seriously, even a part-time employee at McDonalds could afford that. And the coverage was actually REALLY good!

In America, there is no REAL reason for you to NOT have medical insurance. Remember in America, 10% of the people pay 90% of the taxes! The taxes to pay for the government medical coverage is about 50 cents on the dollar, htat is for ALL the tax payers, not just the rich!! Even still, are we just going to tax the rich until they have no more money? Sure, why not, destroy the incentive to get rich, and with out all the rich people to pay the taxes for the rest of the leeches... I mean Americans, the whiners will finally have to fend for themselves.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I asked you your income range because in my experience only people in the lower income ranges (20-30k) are the majority who support income redistribution schemes such as this one.

They find they cant make more on their own, so they want it handed to them.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by TheAftermath]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAftermath
 


Which proves my point exactly. Thank you very much. You did just happen to word it differently than me though.
And I won't even touch the massively horrendous broadbrush generalization you are using. Except to mention that you did use one.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
What truely amazes me is how dependent we have become on health care, pharma, doctors and the whole medical profession. All the ads on tv, radio, internet and print.....brainwashing us into thinking we need all of this crap.
I for one am spending over $6000.00 per year on health insurance. Thats what my father paid for his first house! What I paid for my first new car! Each year I pay this and I probably use maybe $1000.00 and that is because they, the doctors and the insurance companies say I should go in for a check up and the likes.....
So, if you add in what is deducted from my annual income for medicad/medicare, now we are up to $9000.00 per year. I wont even get into the State, Federal and FICA deductions....what my main point here is that we are being robbed blind by these bastards with the cover of we are helping you have a better life.....now lets let the government take control of it...great they have such a wonderful track record of sucess. I will bet within 5 years of the government controlling this I will be paying twice what I am now....don't believe me, dial back the clock and look at their record...it speaks for itself.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Well considering people in that income bracket pay zero income taxes, its no surprise they are all for getting benefits at the expense of others, which given your support of obviously unconstitutional programs would lead one to believe you are in fact a low income earner.

Doesnt make you worse than anyone else, just a willing participant in the theft of earnings from others.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Well folks, looks like the "public option" is being taken off the table, but...

Non-profit co-ops are coming in.

news.yahoo.com...

No government controlled option for coverage.

This is a good change in my view.

Non-profit co-op insurance will definitely be a lower cost option for coverage and will give direct competition to the for-profit insurance companies.

Maybe with this change, those with lower incomes will be able to afford a plan of their own.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by dzonatas
 


The governmental functions authorized by the Constitution say nothing about government being a benefactor of individuals.


But it also does not say that PRIVATE entities can undermine our government and circumvent the rule of law.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
Well folks, looks like the "public option" is being taken off the table, but...

Non-profit co-ops are coming in.

news.yahoo.com...

No government controlled option for coverage.

This is a good change in my view.

Non-profit co-op insurance will definitely be a lower cost option for coverage and will give direct competition to the for-profit insurance companies.

Maybe with this change, those with lower incomes will be able to afford a plan of their own.


I agree
A first -

fine with me!



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAftermath
 


Too bad generalizations and knee jerk assumptions are seldom true.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Well considering people in that income bracket pay zero income taxes, its no surprise they are all for getting benefits at the expense of others, which given your support of obviously unconstitutional programs would lead one to believe you are in fact a low income earner.

Doesnt make you worse than anyone else, just a willing participant in the theft of earnings from others.


Are you assuming because Watcher has compassion for other human beings that are in a lower income bracket, that means that he also is in a lower income bracket? Am i hearing this right?
To add: Money doesnt make a man, but his heart truly does.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Who is circumventing what law?

2nd line....



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch
 




Not counting leftist celebrity morons, it's a rare person who wants to be compassionate with others people money that actually has money of their own.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch
 




Not counting leftist celebrity morons, it's a rare person who wants to be compassionate with others people money that actually has money of their own.


And your definition of a "leftist celebrity moron" would be? Please explain how Watcher is being compassionate with other peoples money?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join