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.

 

Ron Paul: Obama's proposed cuts to veteran healthcare 'unjust and immoral'

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Mcupobob
 


Don't tell me I'm wrong. My father is a vet as am I. My story comes straight from my father.




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I'm looking into where Obama is cutting veterans healthcare in another source, but to the point, if he cutting into social healthcare, isn't this what Ron Paulers want? Healthcare is not a right after all, is it not? Why not leave veterans affairs to the freemarket? Veterans should go for private healthcare, because according to Paulers, not only is social healthcare unconstitutional, but the private market can do a better job at handling this crises.

So why the change of tune? Why isn't Ron Paul talking about private insurers and medical institutes? Is he not confident of them to take over the matters of healthcare for veterans?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
When you are a veteran you can go two ways, if you are still not eligible for Medicare you can either pay into Human Tricare or get free healthcare at any Veterans hospital.

Is a choice.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


"Unjust and immoral" Ron Paul says?


The following names are the people in Congress that voted AGAINST helping the 9/11 1st Responders with health care.

Ron Paul
R
TX-14

www.911truth.org...

unjust and immorral? But healthcare isn't a right, Ron. According to you and your followers.

edit on 20-9-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


Tbh, I don't know his exact details and it's not my business to bring it up with him. What I do know is he doesn't have to pay a dime & that information is correct. My mother wasn't the one getting cancer treatment (she does work at the very same hospital though), it was my grandmother, and she was getting the treatment the same time our friend was in the hospital, so the outcome wasn't known until all was said and done. Either way though, my grandmother isn't the type to scheme and look too have others (tax payers) flip her medical bill. Now I suppose we can make the argument that tax payers are already paying for her via her insurance but lets not forget she's paid and continues to pay the same taxes we all pay. So she will pay what she can to the hospital but unfortunately she will be gone from this planet before those bills ever get fully paid. I tell her not to pay them


See I have a problem with that because you are implying that an uninsured person can simply go to a city hospital and not get charged a dime, yet the example you gave it turns out you don't know the exact details of the situation. That's called misinformation. Also has he ever worked in his life? If he has then he wasn't "scheming to have others pay" because he paid into it himself which is the point. If I work for 20 years and pay my taxes, then all of a sudden fall on bad times, I have every right to get food stamps, temporary welfare and medicaid because I spent 20 years paying for it. Same goes for medicare and social security.

However I say that within reason. In NYC there is a restriction on how long you can receive your benefits (safety net). I think (as in I'm not sure) that the cut off is 2 years for an single individual and 6 years for a family. I feel if they have worked they have every right to collect, but I do it sould be temporary not a lifestyle. Also another misconception at least here in nyc is that you can simply apply for coverage (welfare etc..) and live large. That's not true, if you are of sound mind (as in not insane) or able body (as in not disable) by law if you receive coverage than you must work a minimum of 20 hours per week for the city. That being said, personally I think 2 years and 6 years is too long and would like to see it reduced.

edit on 20-9-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


upset about this you will be fuming after reading this

reddogreport.com...


Air travelers, federal workers, military retirees, wealthier Medicare beneficiaries and people taking out new mortgages are among those who would pay more than $130 billion in new government revenues raised through new or increased fees. These fees are advertised as “savings” in administration budget documents.


relevant to the topic being discussed as we are talking about veterans and military retirees get hit with cuts and fees.

yep yep obama is looking out for people when everything proves to the contrary



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Ron Paul is basing his opinions on the fact that the military were promised that their health care was to be free for life



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


"Unjust and immoral" Ron Paul says?


The following names are the people in Congress that voted AGAINST helping the 9/11 1st Responders with health care.

Ron Paul
R
TX-14

www.911truth.org...

unjust and immorral? But healthcare isn't a right, Ron. According to you and your followers.

edit on 20-9-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)


Well to be fair he has been pretty consistent with his libertarian views EXCEPT for the OP article. IMO why choose one or the other? Sounds to me like the he is changing his strategy to appeal to a larger audience, but by doing so he becomes a politician which is the opposite of why people like him.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


I figured you would say that. Bottom line is, he has no insurance, still doesn't, went to the hospital for a month and has no hospital bills. You can keep posting and assuming all you want, it doesn't change the facts just because I will not go to his house and ask him all of the details about why he doesn't have to pay just because some stranger on an online forum doesn't believe me. Sorry, you're # out luck. So I'm done repeating myself to you. If it makes you feel better than call me a liar and go on about your day.

Btw, I said a State run hospital, not city. And yes he does work, who doesn't? I will tell you though, his job is seasonal, similar to a landscapers job.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Listen I am not trying to get on your case, and I am not calling you a liar but you are basing your opinion on a broad subject and making it seem as if that's the norm when the very example you listed you yourself admitted to not knowing all the details. Don't paint a picture without knowing details simply because it fits your ideology. I see that happen so many times from both sides of the fence, and honestly all it does is reinforce biases and sterotypes.

But in all fairness I didn't notice the word "state run" in the first post, so I failed at reading comprehension with that, but I will admit to that error. So I guess it's possible, however that still doesn't change the fact that your example isn't a reliable indicator because of lack of information.


edit on 20-9-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


The details are simple! He has no insurance, went to the (state ran) hospital for a month and has to pay no bills. He is the neighbor of my grandmother, our families are very tight, so there is no misinformation here. But I will not ask him for all the detail, who, what, when ,where and how, because it is not my business.


edit on 20-9-2011 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


Yes but you are using him as an EXAMPLE and to do that you would need to know the details, right or no? If he applied for emergency medicaid and was covered then that changes the whole situation because that would mean he DID have insurance according to the hospital, at least temporarily..
edit on 20-9-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
But cutting medicaid and medicare along with other programs (which the tea party wants to do) that help the sick, poor and elderly is "just and moral"? I don't understand the reasoning behind this, sounds to me like selective outrage.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

But they are for a transition period

If something was promised they feel like people should get it



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by illuminatislave
Don't you tea party folks want people that cannot afford healthcare to die, correct?

Yeah because a much lower income tax, no more wars and less money towards all these Govt. agencies means they will have even less money to afford healthcare right?



I'm just going by your group's position, if you cannot handle the criticism find a new lemming movement to walk yourself off of a cliff with.



LOL
if you read my response you can see that I can very much handle criticism

If you replied to the argument and not just to the reply I would have done the same



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


Omg, you are relentless. Just stop. He has no insurance, never did, never will. He went to a state ran hospital and got free care. That's all there is to it. My mother who works at this very hospital says they have to treat and its the law. He tells her he has to pay no bills. That's all there is too it. His story is not unique. NY tax payers have paid his bills. End of story. And now I will just ignore any post of yours about this because I am tired of repeating myself and going in circles because you don't fully read my posts.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
But cutting medicaid and medicare along with other programs (which the tea party wants to do) that help the sick, poor and elderly is "just and moral"? I don't understand the reasoning behind this, sounds to me like selective outrage.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

But they are for a transition period

If something was promised they feel like people should get it


Well I agree that the way these programs are structured is simply unsustainable and there must be a transition towards a new method. But how do you implement that? Are they going to go by DOB and say everyone that was born past 2011 and on will not receive these benefits (along with not having to mandatorily pay for them). It will be interesting how they go about the transition and make it work.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


Omg, you are relentless. Just stop. He has no insurance, never did, never will. He went to a state ran hospital and got free care. That's all there is to it. My mother who works at this very hospital says they have to treat and its the law. He tells her he has to pay no bills. That's all there is too it. His story is not unique. NY tax payers have paid his bills. End of story. And now I will just ignore any post of yours about this because I am tired of repeating myself and going in circles because you don't fully read my posts.


I read your posts but it seems that my replies don't reinforce your view on the matter which is typical of people being called on their inaccuracies. Get your facts straight first before you step on your own tongue, good day .



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
So Ron Paul, the champion of "get the government out of our lives", shows that he's not some right-wing extremist after all by saying that a government run healthcare system shouldn't be cut, and Obama's lackeys come out of the woodwork to bash him on it. You guys are priceless. Or, wait...worthless. Sorry, I always get those mixed up.

But I have a better idea, how about Lord Obama stops sanctioning all the murders! That way he wouldn't have to cut into the VA program that sews up the people he sent out to get blown up! Or is that too radical?

/TOA



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I most certainly agree and one of the reasons he was voted into office (I didnt vote for him) was because he said he was going to bring back the troops which of course was a lie. My question to you however is, have you been consistent? Did you call George W a murderer also? I bet you didn't and that's the problem with partisan madness.

Also someone criticizing a conservative doesn't automatically make them a "Obama lackey", shoot I voted for him back in 2007 primary.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Now I just want to be clear that while I agree with Mr. Paul that contractual obligations like this should be honored, I for one wonder if he holds the same opinion with regards to employee pensions and other contractually obligated "entitlements" that "lazy union thugs" are lambasted for not sacrificing on the altar of economic progress.

Or is this just another example of a politician making exceptions for a sacred cow out of political convenience?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join