Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Healthcare Ruling: Individual Mandate Ruled CONSTITUTIONAL, entire law upheld.

page: 86
74
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
 



I specifically referred to those without insurance yet can afford it.


This is a lie.
You did not specify.
Read your post that I quoted.


So you are saying I never said that in this thread then?

Did you?
Maybe the post isn't there anymore if you were up to your usual tricks, demeaning other members and name calling.




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Did you?


Yes I did.


Maybe the post isn't there anymore if you were up to your usual tricks, demeaning other members and name calling.


What about your post here is on topic and not just a personal attack?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

You called my question stupid. What exactly did you mean by that.


What I meant was that it was a stupid question.
Where did I lose you, Brainiac?


You have repeatedly called posters stupid. The post that I quoted you on at the beginning of this was removed by a mod because you asked this of the poster that you were responding to:



Are you retarded?

No, you haven't called anyone stupid.

Crawl back under the bridge.
edit on 9-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Funny you cannot quote me calling anyone stupid though. Just asking if they are retarded. I have a question or two for you as well considering this post.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


Where is your post that specifically differentiated between the uninsured which are poor and those that can afford it?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
 


Where is your post that specifically differentiated between the uninsured which are poor and those that can afford it?

Sorry if you cannot keep up. I have things to do.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
 


Where is your post that specifically differentiated between the uninsured which are poor and those that can afford it?

Sorry if you cannot keep up. I have things to do.
Things. Yes, like demean other members when you can't man up to your lies.

Enough said.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
 


Where is your post that specifically differentiated between the uninsured which are poor and those that can afford it?

Sorry if you cannot keep up. I have things to do.
Things. Yes, like demean other members when you can't man up to your lies.

Enough said.


Hey, I am back.
My lies?

I am still waiting for you to quote me talking about poor people.
You claimed I said that poor people will be chipping in.


Originally posted by habitforming

It means I no longer have to chip in for people who choose not to buy insurance. It means the same for you. You do not seem to have a clue here.
edit on 6-7-2012 by habitforming because: (no reason given)


I can read what I said, can you?
Back up your claim already.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 



You claimed I said that poor people will be chipping in.


In your original statement, you did not differentiate between poor and otherwise.

Your latest quote you have dredged up came later and still does not stipulate a class of wealth.
Do you read poor into that statement of yours somewhere?

The words poor or afford doesn't occur.

I thought you had 'things' to do.
edit on 9-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
 

Do you read poor into that statement of yours somewhere?

The words poor or afford doesn't occur.



I know they don't. You are the one trying to claim I said something about the poor and people that could not afford it. Where is that?

I thought you had 'things' to do.

That was like 5 hours ago.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


No, you made a simple, blanket statement that covered anyone who did not buy insurance.

By doing so, you included the poor that are uninsured.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
 


No, you made a simple, blanket statement that covered anyone who did not buy insurance.


Anyone that chooses not to buy insurance. I was quite clear about that. You are trying not to see it.


By doing so, you included the poor that are uninsured.


How so? I never included anyone that could not afford it. You are doing that all on your own.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   


Anyone that chooses not to buy insurance. I was quite clear about that. You are trying not to see it.
reply to post by habitforming
 
Interesting word, 'anyone'.
Many may 'choose' not to buy insurance for the simple reason that they can not afford it.

A lot of people use cost to guide their choice of whether or not they purchase a product, no? Most people use this method to decide whether or not they buy something, whether they are rich or poor.


edit on 10-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

 
Interesting word, 'anyone'.
Many may 'choose' not to buy insurance for the simple reason that they can not afford it.


If they cannot afford it, then buying it is not an option, let alone a choice.

This is really complicated to you I see.


A lot of people use cost to guide their choice of whether or not they purchase a product, no? Most people use this method to decide whether or not they buy something, whether they are rich or poor.


edit on 10-7-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Good for most people.
That does not change what I said to what you want it to say.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 

You are correct, it doesn't change what you said.
Your original statement did not differentiate between rich and poor, or anything about choice. You later added something about choosing.
You included everyone in your original statement, even the poor. I say we will still pay for the poor, plus another layer of government bureaucracy. The working class loses. It won't affect the rich.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 



A lot of people use cost to guide their choice of whether or not they purchase a product, no? Most people use this method to decide whether or not they buy something, whether they are rich or poor.

What system do you use?
Wait for Obama to tell you.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
 



A lot of people use cost to guide their choice of whether or not they purchase a product, no? Most people use this method to decide whether or not they buy something, whether they are rich or poor.

What system do you use?
Wait for Obama to tell you.


I do not understand your post.

What system what?
Wait for Obama to tell me what?

Why the hell are you telling me I should pay for other people's healthcare when they can afford it?
I thought people like you were sick of entitlements anyway?
edit on 10-7-2012 by habitforming because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by habitforming
 

You are correct, it doesn't change what you said.
Your original statement did not differentiate between rich and poor, or anything about choice.


Actually it specifically says "CHOOSE" so yeah, it kind of did differentiate about choice.
I cannot believe you are spending three pages arguing because you cannot read.


You later added something about choosing.


No, that was in there right from the beginning.


You included everyone in your original statement, even the poor.

NO I DID NOT. I CAN QUOTE IT AGAIN FOR YOU IF I HAVE TO.


I say we will still pay for the poor, plus another layer of government bureaucracy. The working class loses. It won't affect the rich.


Cool beans. Let me know when you can read my post and have something to say in response to me.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 
your one-sided opinion is just that, one-sided.
you are not alone in paying for those who do not. Obamacare does nothing to change it either.
{remember there are no penalties for those who do not contribute}

i've assisted plenty of poor ppl with financial assistance for their care.
from diabetics and renal failure to cancer.
there are numerous charity contributors even though you appear lacking in such knowledge.

no, it's illegal for "hospitals" to turn patients away for an inability to pay.
never said anything about clinics, besides most of them operate on a sliding-fee-scale anyway.

i'm not repeating the question you refuse to answer.
enough ppl have asked it enough times.
point is, we already KNOW the answer you refuse to admit.
but that's ok, it certainly isn't helping your argument any.


Same argument I am making
not if you are for Obamacare.


How does one plan for the expense of cancer?
live daily life with an abundance of preventative measures. i know plenty that have succeeded.
i also knew quite a few that "treated cancer" and died anyway, what does money have to do with successful treatment or active prevention ??
which, btw, Obamacare neither does or provides.


edit on 10-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


I specifically referred to those without insurance yet can afford it.
you never made any such reference, nice twist and turn but no go.

your failure to respond appropriately doesn't negate the question posed, repeatedly.

those ppl who can afford insurance (usually) already have it.
a few of them who may be able to afford it choose not to.
and surprise, if my whole state refuses to comply (FL), whose tax subsidy {you know, your money} will pay my and others portions ??

sad that you refuse to cooperate in a conversation that you started.

ETA: here are your words ...

I for one, am sick of paying too much for my treatment just to cover someone else. Now they will have to cover their own ass and I can go back to just paying for me.
so, how does the above work ??
"the uninsured" includes all of those who can and cannot afford insurance.
"they will have to cover their own ass" - how ??
those who cannot afford it now, won't then either.

"i can go back to just paying for me" - not if you have insurance, not ever, you are part of a risk pool.
i pay for me, and usually in full at the time service is received. do you?



edit on 10-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 





Cool beans. Let me know when you can read my post and have something to say in response to me.
I've already done that.
When you revert to falsehoods every time, a person enjoys it like explosive diarrhea.

We all know what you posted and in what order. With the exception of your posts which were removed by mods(mostly for belittling other members), it is all there for everyone to see, regardless of what you say to the contrary.





new topics




 
74
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join