I have researched it and government enough to know that what it starts out as and what it ends up as 20 years later are usually 2 very different things.

 

 

I have also read that Mr. Reid is trying to sneak into the Helathcare Bill that if you have a loaded gun in your place of residence you can get no public option........

 

http://gunowners.org/a101609.htm

 

Booooooooooooo !

Ace, if we 'already have' Medicaid, what's the point of the reform?

 

Why don't they regulate insurance companies/providers and build what's already established instead of reforming the entire thing?

 

I only ask because everytime someone on the right complains about the handout, the left says we already have it. Makes me wonder why we need a total reform.

I have researched it and government enough to know that what it starts out as and what it ends up as 20 years later are usually 2 very different things.

 

 

I have also read that Mr. Reid is trying to sneak into the Helathcare Bill that if you have a loaded gun in your place of residence you can get no public option........

 

http://gunowners.org/a101609.htm

Transparency... :popcorn:

I have researched it and government enough to know that what it starts out as and what it ends up as 20 years later are usually 2 very different things.

 

 

I have also read that Mr. Reid is trying to sneak into the Helathcare Bill that if you have a loaded gun in your place of residence you can get no public option........

 

http://gunowners.org/a101609.htm

 

What does "health-related gun information" mean?

What does "health-related gun information" mean?

 

I'll try and find the link, but the way it read is that if you had any injury related to a firearm, you get no coverage. So if you was on the PO, you went to a firing range and had a kaboom or another injury you would not get covered.

I'll try and find the link, but the way it read is that if you had any injury related to a firearm, you get no coverage. So if you was on the PO, you went to a firing range and had a kaboom or another injury you would not get covered.

 

Let me know if you find that. I googled it but could not find where it was actually being proposed . All I found were gun sites stating it as fact.

As a teacher concerned about your students, you should be smart enough to tell them about welfare, Medicare, etc and explain why the country does it. You should also be smart enough to tell them that while us taxpayers who made good decisions are ALREADY paying for many people's healthcare.

 

You would also be smart to tell them that the scenario you're offering, while a problem, is a scare tactic and that MANY people in this country who would need to go to the public option are not deadbeats with no ambition in life.

 

If I was a teacher concerned about my students as you seem to indicate that's how I would go about it.

 

Lastly, I'd also teach them that people that throw around pejoratives like "liberals" are just trying to distract people from knowledge.

 

Is there evidence to back the bolded up? Serious question.

Is there evidence to back the bolded up? Serious question.

 

Empirical that I can quote right now? No.

 

Do I see and read about it on a regular basis? Yes.

 

LBBC and others would have you believe that only people that are derilicts and those that are lazy would need the PO. That's a gross mischaracterization and an extremely shallow argument.

 

Read stories about homeowners filing bankruptcy due to medical bills.

Read the story about the guy who lost his job and signed up for the Army at age 40 because his wife has cancer and he needs to have insurance for her.

Read about the people that work hard for a living but are "underinsured."

 

Its not too hard to find hard-working Americans who due to bad luck, the economy, or serious health issues in their family that end up without insurance or underinsured.

Empirical that I can quote right now? No.

 

Do I see and read about it on a regular basis? Yes.

 

LBBC and others would have you believe that only people that are derilicts and those that are lazy would need the PO. That's a gross mischaracterization and an extremely shallow argument.

 

Read stories about homeowners filing bankruptcy due to medical bills.

Read the story about the guy who lost his job and signed up for the Army at age 40 because his wife has cancer and he needs to have insurance for her.

Read about the people that work hard for a living but are "underinsured."

 

Its not too hard to find hard-working Americans who due to bad luck, the economy, or serious health issues in their family that end up without insurance or underinsured.

 

 

Some of those are problems. The homeowners ones......well if its anything like the housing crisis people should buy homes they can afford........

 

The PO should be a short term help, like Welfare was supposed to be.......we see how that worked out

What you are referring to now sounds like Medicaid, which we already have . . . how is it that everyone can be against this "public option" but have no idea about how it was going to be used. OHHHH Steve Doucey advised you guys on what the public option was going to look like, or was it Hannity or was it Beck. How about doing a little research to see what is the proposed use of the public option before making statements describing a system that we already have and saying that is the system we are going to get.

 

You keep assuming because Olberman, Daily Kos tells you that we only listen to Hannity/Beck and I have no clue who Steve Doucey is, that is true.

 

See I can play that generalization game too. Like you, it might be untrue and irrelevant but if you are going to keep assuming that we take our marching orders from those you keep like to mention, we will keep assuming that you do the same from the liberal nuts.

 

Now, if you want to have a discussion on issues with an open mind that we might actually read and study issues, that would be great.:thumb:

As a teacher concerned about your students, you should be smart enough to tell them about welfare, Medicare, etc and explain why the country does it. You should also be smart enough to tell them that while us taxpayers who made good decisions are ALREADY paying for many people's healthcare.

 

You would also be smart to tell them that the scenario you're offering, while a problem, is a scare tactic and that MANY people in this country who would need to go to the public option are not deadbeats with no ambition in life.

 

If I was a teacher concerned about my students as you seem to indicate that's how I would go about it.

 

Lastly, I'd also teach them that people that throw around pejoratives like "liberals" are just trying to distract people from knowledge.

 

All that is done.:thumb:

 

And they don't care. They see their parents staying home and not working and getting their life paid for them and they wonder why in the world they would choose to go out and work hard all day when they don't see their parents doing it.

 

For some, they get it.

For most, it is like beating our heads against the wall.

Empirical that I can quote right now? No.

 

Do I see and read about it on a regular basis? Yes.

 

LBBC and others would have you believe that only people that are derilicts and those that are lazy would need the PO. That's a gross mischaracterization and an extremely shallow argument.

 

Read stories about homeowners filing bankruptcy due to medical bills.

Read the story about the guy who lost his job and signed up for the Army at age 40 because his wife has cancer and he needs to have insurance for her.

Read about the people that work hard for a living but are "underinsured."

 

Its not too hard to find hard-working Americans who due to bad luck, the economy, or serious health issues in their family that end up without insurance or underinsured.

 

 

Bolded is absolutely untrue. There are some cases that are short term in nature that 100% we should help.

 

There are some cases of those who truly cannot provide for themselves, certain mental disabilities and some physical disabilities, that 100% we should help.

 

I wouldn't have a problem in providing for children nationwide through their college years, IF they are enrolled in a college/trade school/vocational, etc, etc.

 

But for those that are physically and mentally able to provide for themselves and over the long term choose not to, I don't see where it is our responsibility to provide for them.

 

Please explain to me why it is our responsibility to provide for them.

Empirical that I can quote right now? No.

 

Do I see and read about it on a regular basis? Yes.

 

LBBC and others would have you believe that only people that are derilicts and those that are lazy would need the PO. That's a gross mischaracterization and an extremely shallow argument.

 

Read stories about homeowners filing bankruptcy due to medical bills.

Read the story about the guy who lost his job and signed up for the Army at age 40 because his wife has cancer and he needs to have insurance for her.

Read about the people that work hard for a living but are "underinsured."

 

Its not too hard to find hard-working Americans who due to bad luck, the economy, or serious health issues in their family that end up without insurance or underinsured.

 

Using the liberal's scare tactics (to go your route:D), coverage wouldn't be provided would it because it is a preexisting condition.

 

The person I teach with (classified) works and makes $200 a month. The rest goes to pay for her health insurance. She works hard to afford health insurance for her family. Husband is self-employed. This goes through and why should she work?

But for those that are physically and mentally able to provide for themselves and over the long term choose not to, I don't see where it is our responsibility to provide for them.

 

Please explain to me why it is our responsibility to provide for them.

 

1. We provide for them today, right?

 

2. How many people fall into the "can but won't" category?

1. We provide for them today, right?

 

2. How many people fall into the "can but won't" category?

 

1. Some we do, some we don't.

2. More than Democrats are willing to admit.