Oh Sarah, you tease!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Yes.. because what he paid into his and someone else's would just be a tiny fraction of what he had to pay for his alone, even with insurance.

This is the argument that republicans can't win because we can look around us and see that it is so much better in so many more countries to have government healthcare coverage. We are screwed over here to insane bills and crazy medicine costs by corporations out of control.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Kitilani

 

"THousands for a pill" is an extreme exaggeration used for drama.

Nice to know that no one you know has ever had cancer then. How lucky for you.
Better check your "facts" again.

edit on 4-9-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)

Yes, in fact both my parents had cancer. If you are talking about chemotherapy treatments, your quote is still way out of the ballpark. Again you are still using drama and even lies now. You could have said that chemotherapy treatment can cost up to 40,000, but you said 'thousands for a pill". There is no sense exaggerating for effect.

www.ehow.com...

That link quotes roughtly 300 to 800 dollars for an 8 week course of treatment.

edit on 4-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I am not sure what decade your parents were treated in but I stand fully behind what I said. That link is not MY link so take it up with the poster. .

Lol I was the poster and that was my link. But clearly you have the mindset that because it is expensive someone else ought to be paying. Is that not your point of socialized medicine?

You need to learn to read before you respond. See this sentence I wrote? "Oh that is you."
No, that is not my point. It appears as if you cannot read anything at all.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Kitilani

 

"THousands for a pill" is an extreme exaggeration used for drama.

Nice to know that no one you know has ever had cancer then. How lucky for you.
Better check your "facts" again.

edit on 4-9-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)

Yes, in fact both my parents had cancer. If you are talking about chemotherapy treatments, your quote is still way out of the ballpark. Again you are still using drama and even lies now. You could have said that chemotherapy treatment can cost up to 40,000, but you said 'thousands for a pill". There is no sense exaggerating for effect.

www.ehow.com...

That link quotes roughtly 300 to 800 dollars for an 8 week course of treatment.

edit on 4-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I am not sure what decade your parents were treated in but I stand fully behind what I said. That link is not MY link so take it up with the poster. Oh that is you.

I can concur

Before my father died from cancer, there was a point where he was taking $8,000 worth of drugs a months.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Janky it was about the petty lawsuits filed against her as an attack. If you didn't know what was going on, please research it before popping off about it.

What a lame excuse for QUITTING on the people that she promised to do something for that is.
You guys really accept that as an excuse for quitting?

Lame.

Insurance companies can dictate which pills they are willing to pay for. The can also
dictate that several pills have to be taken as a cocktail, specific, brand for brand
cocktails.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Do you know why politicians usually resign in the face of lawsuits or scandal?
Because they are guilty.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ok so was that one pill a month? I was not privvy to my father's health bills due to a wicked stepmother.

Hardly. Folotyn is $35,000 a DOSE. There is a pretty long list. Then if you like, check HIV drugs, fertility drugs, etc.
Are you arguing that the exaggeration was pill instead of tablet, drop, or inject able?

Ok, now then, is this expensive because the pharmaceutical companies just want to gouge us and Uncle Sam should just pick up the cost?

Why do I have to choose between those two options?

What is your point on this? As chemotherapy is clearly one of the more expensive treatments. So you feel that while my father had to pay for his own chemotherapy, that he should also have to pay for someone else's treatment?

Um no.

Please, let's get to the bottom of this, as cost is relative.

Sure. Start making sense when you reply to me instead of using each post as a point from which to slowly pivot and attempt to put words in my mouth. So far most of what you wrote and argued with is sentences you made completely up yourself.

edit on 4-9-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)

Um no I posted a link to some costs. I know chemo is expensive.


Ok Kiti, I will give you the thousands a dose on the chemo. Still, let's discuss why you think that someone else must cover that cost for you? Why do you support govt even getting involved in it? Why do you support the outrageous cost of govt health insurance plans, when it just will help out some people? Do you really feel it is beneficial to the majority of people? Do you really believe that it will cut the cost of chemotherapy for your family? Do you really believe that the vast majority of people will benefit from it? finally, if the govt can botch Social Security and bankrupt it, why would you believe they will do it better with bureaucratic healthcare?

reply to post by Janky Red


Yep.. American insurance is one of the biggest scams in the world. Probably in history.
I don't even like to think about it, it's infuriating.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Yes.. it should cut the cost to zero.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Yep.. American insurance is one of the biggest scams in the world. Probably in history.
I don't even like to think about it, it's infuriating.

Right, so getting govt involved will make it less of a scam? Are you kiddin me?

reply to post by Kitilani


People like you just cannot be reasoned with. You made up your mind that she was just a quitter, most likely because Rachel Maddow and Chris matthews said she was.
I would be interested to know what you would do if a bunch of people decided to file petty lawsuits against you amounting to hundreds of thousands and piling up. Would you just keep on taking it, let the State pay for it, what would you do. When you have your answer let me know.

As for replying to you, isn't that what I was doing?


Also let me ask you this...you said you don't want to have to pay for someone else's healthcare... that is your argument for mandating that every person in the US purchase health insurance, and yet now you would be paying for the govt subsidizing the govt program just for the people to have insurance. So, unless you don't pay taxes, you will end up paying anyway. The cost of healthcare will go up for certain, and already has, so you will pay anyway.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Yes.. it would. Instead of slappin' your knee and going "are you uh kiddin' me!?" How about actually saying something of substance instead of just exclaiming in every post. Everyone has provided evidence but you, you have only provided opinions.

You just say stuff like "you're exaggerating" " are you kidding" blah blah, but everyone has show perfect examples and you have shown nothing.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Or because she quit?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Yes.. it should cut the cost to zero.

What should cut what cost to zero and for whom? Again the Utopian thing does not make sense. And you people think that Michelle Bachman doesn't make sense. Look again please.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Why? Tell me why. Why does it work for the UK and Canada?

If you do the current mathematical actuary,

Project the current cost a year 2.5 Trillion

projected inflation is 180% every ten years

compounded

AND

the current private model will exceed GDP (if that were possible) within 40 years.

It is too bad that America ruined its dialogue on the matter, it might have been the
only opportunity to discuss and address the matter.

It will make government spending look tame.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Yep.. American insurance is one of the biggest scams in the world. Probably in history.
I don't even like to think about it, it's infuriating.

Right, so getting govt involved will make it less of a scam? Are you kiddin me?

It depends on how the involvement is leveraged.

You are trying to tell us that every single possibility out of billions are going to create detriment,
that is borderline magical thinking.

why should an aspirin cost $30?

Why not absolve all hospital from ANY TAX BURDEN?

There are many ways to battle cost

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Yes.. it would. Instead of slappin' your knee and going "are you uh kiddin' me!?" How about actually saying something of substance instead of just exclaiming in every post. Everyone has provided evidence but you, you have only provided opinions.

You just say stuff like "you're exaggerating" " are you kidding" blah blah, but everyone has show perfect examples and you have shown nothing.

How about you come up with something other than the govt ought to be paying for your health insurance, or that I should have my taxes raised AND my premiums raised and the cost of care raised so you can have a govt insurance plan? Please Im waiting.

Meanwhile you have just asserted that someone's cost has gone to zero. Was that insurance premiums? I thought the govt plan was just to allow for an insurance plan. What it really is is a govt subsidy for a few paid for by the many. There is no zero here. Society has to pay billions for this program.Not to mention that I now will have to pay a fine if I do not have coverage, and the individual mandate has been declared unConstitutional by an appeals court.

I know you wonderful folks think she is stupid.
I know you wonderful folks think she is a quitter.

What policies do you disagree with?
What issues do you disagree with?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Yes.. it would. Instead of slappin' your knee and going "are you uh kiddin' me!?" How about actually saying something of substance instead of just exclaiming in every post. Everyone has provided evidence but you, you have only provided opinions.

You just say stuff like "you're exaggerating" " are you kidding" blah blah, but everyone has show perfect examples and you have shown nothing.

yah blah blah blah but you can tell me that the cost would be zero

please all your huffing and puffing dont make anything true.