The Watering Hole

Thats exactly how politicians work Craig. ;D

Liberals too, apparently.

Anything government does for people doesn't count. Any money government spends doesn't count either because there isn't any place to cut spending. So says the Lord. Lets see, we can't cut spending cause the lord says so......so fuck it, lets just spend more? Hell yes.

And since we can't cut spending, and government programs are needed and if eliminated.....ahhhh, would cause problems, by golly. And, and .....and.......we have a Democrat President.

Ahhhhh, I see.

I'd hit Palin, as is. ;) ;D

How bout this logic.... ;D

We make every unemployed person, or person living off the government, work 40 hours a week for what they get from government. That would put mentally less fortunate people in a job, that they don't get any further compensation for, and smarter people in the unemployment line that have a far greater chance of gaining employment in the work force.

By God....I get up every morning and piss excellence and expel magnificence. ;D

Hookbender — Jan 25, 2011
We make every unemployed person, or person living off the government, work 40 hours a week for what they get from government. That would put mentally less fortunate people in a job, that they don't get any further compensation for, and smarter people in the unemployment line that have a far greater chance of gaining employment in the work force.

By God....I get up every morning and piss excellence and expel magnificence. ;D

Great idea, they could do locksmith work really cheap.  ;D

CraigBert — Jan 25, 2011[quote author=charger link=1293587654/125#145 date=1295905424] I wouldn't call the NYT test push polling.  I would say it grossly oversimplifies budget cutting.  For example, if you reduce the size of the military by, say 15%, that doesn't just cut the budget and save you money.  That puts those people out of a job, and then that reduces your tax revenue.  Same for everything.  Any program you cut that reduces or freezes salaries, or cuts jobs, is going to at a minimum reduce tax revenue, and more likely add to unemployment rolls and spending. Some of those people will get jobs right away, some will get them in 6 months, some will be out of work for years.  

The part I highlighted in red above is interesting because I believe it to be the exact opposite.  We're talking about government jobs here so 100% of their salary comes from tax revenue!  Sure, they may return 28-33% in their own taxes, but that still means Joe Tax Payer is picking up the tab for the other 67-72%.

Now if those SAME people had to go find work in the private sector, even if they were making less, they would now be ADDING to the tax revenue instead of taking away from it.

Or are you trying to imply that government workers somehow get paid with non-tax dollars and I just never knew about it?

Aside from the narrow point of individual exployees, i.e. budget saved - tax lost - unemployment payments

Economic multipliers -  local private economy contracts with layoffs.

Also only really applies to  government exployees who carry out work that is without economic value.
If you fired the guys who maintain the roads it would cost more to the economy than it would save.

ironsheep — Jan 23, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/125#132 date=1295744809][quote author=ironsheep link=1293587654/125#131 date=1295734110]the NYT's deficit thing... meh, it's a glorified push poll, honestly.

Explain ?


it's an exercise where you are to select among the options they want you to be thinking about and ignore the entire premise.

asking me pick among some reporter's ideas for how to save medicare presumes that I think it's worth saving.

you can pick whatever color you want so long as it's black.

I see what you're saying.  There is no button in the poll for "abolish the government."

However, the assumptions the poll makes are by and large correct.

Medicare and Social Security have upwards of 80% support for their continuing existence in all polls.  They will not be abolished by any legislature or president.  Same with defense--people might want to reduce funding, but not many would agree that we should have none.  There may be a rogue politician here or there who introduces legislation to defund or abolish the sacred cows, but those are beloved crackpot/cantankerous old uncle types, and not serious or likely changes.

CraigBert — Jan 25, 2011[quote author=charger link=1293587654/125#145 date=1295905424] I wouldn't call the NYT test push polling.  I would say it grossly oversimplifies budget cutting.  For example, if you reduce the size of the military by, say 15%, that doesn't just cut the budget and save you money.  That puts those people out of a job, and then that reduces your tax revenue.  Same for everything.  Any program you cut that reduces or freezes salaries, or cuts jobs, is going to at a minimum reduce tax revenue, and more likely add to unemployment rolls and spending. Some of those people will get jobs right away, some will get them in 6 months, some will be out of work for years.  

The part I highlighted in red above is interesting because I believe it to be the exact opposite.  We're talking about government jobs here so 100% of their salary comes from tax revenue!  Sure, they may return 28-33% in their own taxes, but that still means Joe Tax Payer is picking up the tab for the other 67-72%.

Now if those SAME people had to go find work in the private sector, even if they were making less, they would now be ADDING to the tax revenue instead of taking away from it.

Or are you trying to imply that government workers somehow get paid with non-tax dollars and I just never knew about it?

No, but say you cut 200,000 military jobs.  Where are there 200,000 private sector jobs for those people?  They immediately go from some money coming in to the treasury, to no money.  Now, you are correct, the net budget effect is positive--even if they go from 50k a year to unemployment, say 15k a year, that saves tax revenue.  We could just put the entire government on unemployment and save money.  But--it also removes that spending power from the economy, which in turn reduces profit and income for the private sector, which in turn reduces taxes.  And every point on that unemployment scale is another nail in the private sector's recovery.  I oversimplified, but I have stated many times the need for a large, funded middle class to make this country work.  

Hookbender — Jan 25, 2011Thats exactly how politicians work Craig. ;D

Liberals too, apparently.

Anything government does for people doesn't count. Any money government spends doesn't count either because there isn't any place to cut spending. So says the Lord. Lets see, we can't cut spending cause the lord says so......so fuck it, lets just spend more? Hell yes.

And since we can't cut spending, and government programs are needed and if eliminated.....ahhhh, would cause problems, by golly. And, and .....and.......we have a Democrat President.

Ahhhhh, I see.

I'd hit Palin, as is. ;) ;D

How bout this logic.... ;D

We make every unemployed person, or person living off the government, work 40 hours a week for what they get from government. That would put mentally less fortunate people in a job, that they don't get any further compensation for, and smarter people in the unemployment line that have a far greater chance of gaining employment in the work force.

By God....I get up every morning and piss excellence and expel magnificence. ;D

So you're saying we should essentially take the unemployed and put them to work for sub-minimum wage (it would be $2.90/hour for the lowest earners in CA).  Sounds great.  Then we'll have a whole huge sector of jobs no longer available to people making decent wages, because we'll be paying prisoners' wages to our "unemployed".  By the way, there is a system where the government pays all the unemployed people to work full time.  It's called communism.

charger — Jan 25, 2011

I see what you're saying.  There is no button in the poll for "abolish the government."

However, the assumptions the poll makes are by and large correct.

Medicare and Social Security have upwards of 80% support for their continuing existence in all polls.  They will not be abolished by any legislature or president.  Same with defense--people might want to reduce funding, but not many would agree that we should have none.  There may be a rogue politician here or there who introduces legislation to defund or abolish the sacred cows, but those are beloved crackpot/cantankerous old uncle types, and not serious or likely changes.

I know, my comments were probably too hyperbolic. I assumed that would be understood as a sort of partial sarcasm... but so it goes with text conversation.

I'm not in favor of repealing anything quickly - I would like to see us move in the direction of localism over nationalism for social services, generally. I think it would be more efficient and effective.

I do like the cantankerous uncle motif, though - it's actually quite true... heh.

charger — Jan 25, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/150#150 date=1295926986]Thats exactly how politicians work Craig. ;D

Liberals too, apparently.

Anything government does for people doesn't count. Any money government spends doesn't count either because there isn't any place to cut spending. So says the Lord. Lets see, we can't cut spending cause the lord says so......so fuck it, lets just spend more? Hell yes.

And since we can't cut spending, and government programs are needed and if eliminated.....ahhhh, would cause problems, by golly. And, and .....and.......we have a Democrat President.

Ahhhhh, I see.

I'd hit Palin, as is. ;) ;D

How bout this logic.... ;D

We make every unemployed person, or person living off the government, work 40 hours a week for what they get from government. That would put mentally less fortunate people in a job, that they don't get any further compensation for, and smarter people in the unemployment line that have a far greater chance of gaining employment in the work force.

By God....I get up every morning and piss excellence and expel magnificence. ;D

So you're saying we should essentially take the unemployed and put them to work for sub-minimum wage (it would be $2.90/hour for the lowest earners in CA).  Sounds great.  Then we'll have a whole huge sector of jobs no longer available to people making decent wages, because we'll be paying prisoners' wages to our "unemployed".  By the way, there is a system where the government pays all the unemployed people to work full time.  It's called communism.



I forgot to put a laughing face at the end, calm down. Jeeez man.

fingers — Jan 25, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/150#150 date=1295926986]
We make every unemployed person, or person living off the government, work 40 hours a week for what they get from government. That would put mentally less fortunate people in a job, that they don't get any further compensation for, and smarter people in the unemployment line that have a far greater chance of gaining employment in the work force.

By God....I get up every morning and piss excellence and expel magnificence. ;D

Great idea, they could do locksmith work really cheap.  ;D




;D ;D

Would you explain this one to Charger? Please. ;D ;D ;D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110131/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul

Looking rough for the healthcare thingy.

I'm sorry, but one can't help but see some irony in the current situation.  In Egypt, hundreds of thousands of people are flooding the streets to protest a repressive dictatorship, where people are regularly beaten in the streets, political parties that challenge the current government are outlawed, and no political gathering of more than three people has been allowed in the streets for 29 years.

In our country, people gather and protest because the government gives them healthcare.  

We are insane.

One could argue that we already had healthcare.

Democracy vs Healthcare.

It's about the principle of "Universal Suffrage".

One could argue the US  had "democracy" during  the plantation slave days.

Hookbender — Feb 01, 2011One could argue that we already had healthcare.

One could argue that there's no unemployment problem, for the 91% of us who have jobs.

charger — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/150#161 date=1296602677]One could argue that we already had healthcare.

One could argue that there's no unemployment problem, for the 91% of us who have jobs.

91%?  More like 58% (see Charger-like backup for this number using data from the Government here: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet).

Maybe you can say the unemployment rate is 9.4% (even if I believe this number to be artificially low anyway), but it doesn't infer that the opposite is true.

Here's a quick image of that data that seems to imply that about a third of all working age Americans want to be unemployed for one reason or another:

A) unemployment is the number of people who are actively seeking work and can't get it--your number includes, everyone, 16 year olds who just want to sit on the couch and play xbox, 90-year-old retirees, my father-in-law, who retired 15 years ago and sails around the Caribbean for half the year.

B) my point still stands. The 64% of us who are employed could argue that there is no unemployment problem, does that work better for you?  ;)

You have no argument Charger. Even a homeless person that lives on the street can walk in a hospital and get help. There are government programs out the ass that help people that can't afford insurance. And as for Fingers comment, I think that pretty much defines democracy. We really don't have a large group of people who have absolutely no access to healthcare. It's not even a fair comparison. And there is a huge difference in 9% unemployment and almost 40% unemployment.

The issue isn't about lack of healthcare, it's about which method is cheaper.

It's also about whether or not government has the right to force people to buy a product or face penalties.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20110201/pl_politico/48563

charger — Feb 02, 2011A) unemployment is the number of people who are actively seeking work and can't get it--your number includes, everyone, 16 year olds who just want to sit on the couch and play xbox, 90-year-old retirees, my father-in-law, who retired 15 years ago and sails around the Caribbean for half the year.

B) my point still stands. The 64% of us who are employed could argue that there is no unemployment problem, does that work better for you?  ;)

I was just having a little fun (and showing Hooky the correct way to refute a statement ;) ).  Unfortunately, that 9.4% doesn't include people who have been out of work for so long that they've been forgotten - and I'm talking about those that WANT to work.  I was in that group and I know I wasn't being counted - since I don't qualify for unemployment, how would they know?  A couple of others were in that group too (after their unemployment ran out) and now all of us are trying to get a new company started.  I guess you can say we've been "employed" for the last 20(!) months, but we've yet to make a single penny of income...*

FWIW - The current number is 58.5% not 64%!  I think it's telling that the number has decreased by almost 6% over the last 11 years...

* We were notified on Monday that one potential project will be sending a 5% retainer check to us tomorrow and another project will be sending either that or the full 50% down next week so one of those could finally be our "first dollar" as they say.  I'm so numb to the promises that I'll believe it when I see the actual check(s), but this time the words are coming from reputible companies and not some whacked out solo inventor.

In our country, people gather and protest because the government gives them the opportunity to buy private insurance they were denied because they actually needed healthcare.

Great spin, a little grade schoolish, but good anyway.

Hookbender — Feb 02, 2011And as for Fingers comment, I think that pretty much defines democracy. We really don't have a large group of people who have absolutely no access to healthcare. It's not even a fair comparison.

So - why don't you stop paying the insurance then as you will get taken care of anyway ?

What worries you ?

Hookbender — Feb 02, 2011Great spin, a little grade schoolish, but good anyway.

HAHAHAHA!  How far off am I?  

The funny part is many of these "protesters" have gov healthcare.

fingers — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/150#166 date=1296650582]And as for Fingers comment, I think that pretty much defines democracy. We really don't have a large group of people who have absolutely no access to healthcare. It's not even a fair comparison.

So - why don't you stop paying the insurance then as you will get taken care of anyway ?

What worries you ?







Nothing worries me. I can afford it, first, and get faster and preventative care. I could drive a motorcycle but a car is more comfy. I can afford a car. I could go shit in the woods, but I have a home with a oval office. I could pay a whore for sex, but I'd rather get married and pay my wife. ;D

Yes, you could walk into an emergency room and get healthcare.  And when you did that, it was the most expensive healthcare available. And when you didn't pay for it, the taxpayers did.  You CAN argue that everyone has healthcare, in that scenario.  You can't argue that it's a good system.

Oh and also, you could have healthcare.  And then, you could get cancer.  And then, your weaselly insurance company could drop you from your insurance because they found some ridiculous pre-existing condition.  And then, you would have no treatment for your cancer.  But you can't go to the emergency room for cancer treatment.  You'd have to wait until you were dying and beyond hope.  And then, instead of getting radiation and chemo and a likely cure, you would get morphine and wait for the end.  Sweet, huh?

btw - Slaves had health care provided by the plantation owner - they were valuable assets to a rich farmer of human livestock.
Don't know  how it compared to Rednecks and Hillbillies at the same time - the economics suggests it would be better for slaves.

charger — Feb 02, 2011Yes, you could walk into an emergency room and get healthcare.  And when you did that, it was the most expensive healthcare available. And when you didn't pay for it, the taxpayers did.  You CAN argue that everyone has healthcare, in that scenario.  You can't argue that it's a good system.

Oh and also, you could have healthcare.  And then, you could get cancer.  And then, your weaselly insurance company could drop you from your insurance because they found some ridiculous pre-existing condition.  And then, you would have no treatment for your cancer.  But you can't go to the emergency room for cancer treatment.  You'd have to wait until you were dying and beyond hope.  And then, instead of getting radiation and chemo and a likely cure, you would get morphine and wait for the end.  Sweet, huh?

Wouldn't the cancer itself be a preexisting condition?  You just didn't know about it.  Like kids born with a preexisting condition.  How about if they just cap you, who pays for the rest of the treatments?  If you are not poor, you do. Can the homeless get a prolonged series of cancer treatments?

Hookbender — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/150#170 date=1296684908][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/150#166 date=1296650582]And as for Fingers comment, I think that pretty much defines democracy. We really don't have a large group of people who have absolutely no access to healthcare. It's not even a fair comparison.

So - why don't you stop paying the insurance then as you will get taken care of anyway ?
What worries you ?


Nothing worries me. I can afford it, first, and get faster and preventative care. I could drive a motorcycle but a car is more comfy. I can afford a car. I could go shit in the woods, but I have a home with a oval office. I could pay a whore for sex, but I'd rather get married and pay my wife. ;D


OK Nothing worries you,
If you get ill and could not work and couldn't afford the payments - you have that siutation sorted - in the details of your contract.

fingers — Feb 02, 2011btw - Slaves had health care provided by the plantation owner - they were valuable assets to a rich farmer of human livestock.
Don't know  how it compared to Rednecks and Hillbillies at the same time - the economics suggests it would be better for slaves.

Yeah everyone had healthcare, it consisted of leeches and snakes with blood letting in between.  heh heh

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b7155c20fe/drunk-history-4-featuring-paul-schneider-from-drunk-history-derekwaters-steve-agee-and-jeremykonner

I'll take some of that indian herbal shit, please.

Charger, your leaving out the government help thingy.

I certainly wouldn't argue that our current system is flawless. That wasn't the point.

As I've said before, it's gonna waste tons of time fighting against it. (by republicans)

It will probably end up worse than it was to start with. Before Obama care.

What's the government help thingy?

fingers — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/150#172 date=1296685849][quote author=fingers link=1293587654/150#170 date=1296684908][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/150#166 date=1296650582]And as for Fingers comment, I think that pretty much defines democracy. We really don't have a large group of people who have absolutely no access to healthcare. It's not even a fair comparison.

So - why don't you stop paying the insurance then as you will get taken care of anyway ?
What worries you ?


Nothing worries me. I can afford it, first, and get faster and preventative care. I could drive a motorcycle but a car is more comfy. I can afford a car. I could go shit in the woods, but I have a home with a oval office. I could pay a whore for sex, but I'd rather get married and pay my wife. ;D


OK Nothing worries you,
If you get ill and could not work and couldn't afford the payments - you have that siutation sorted - in the details of your contract.


Actually, my work provides medical insurance at no cost to me. So if I were ill enough not to be able to work, not sure what would happen. I'm sure the government would help me out with medical attention.

Here is another little fucked up thing with healthcare. My wife has healthcare insurance provided by her employer and I can't be added to her insurance because my job offers healthcare. So if forces 2 companies to provide healthcare for one family. So, if my job didn't offer healthcare, I could be added to hers at no expense. It would cost the same amount for insurance through her job because it would be under family. That's fucked up.

BINGEWOOD — Feb 02, 2011What's the government help thingy?

Ever herd of Charity hospitals? Charity doctors? Medicaid, Medicare? Do some research.

If you made little bread you might get state help.  If you make decent bread you might be able to make a deal with the hospital to pay less than the insane total they'll rack up...you also might go bankrupt in the process.

Hookbender — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#179 date=1296687526]What's the government help thingy?

Ever herd of Charity hospitals? Charity doctors? Medicaid, Medicare? Do some research.


What do you know about it?  Would you qualify?  

BINGEWOOD — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/150#174 date=1296686325]btw - Slaves had health care provided by the plantation owner - they were valuable assets to a rich farmer of human livestock.
Don't know  how it compared to Rednecks and Hillbillies at the same time - the economics suggests it would be better for slaves.

Yeah everyone had healthcare, it consisted of leeches and snakes with blood letting in between.  heh heh

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/b7155c20fe/drunk-history-4-featuring-paul-schneider-from-drunk-history-derekwaters-steve-agee-and-jeremykonner

I'll take some of that indian herbal shit, please.

How long did it take you to find that stupid shit? ;D

The stupid part is it happened.

The other episodes of the drunk history series are pretty good too.

Seruss though, people just fucking died.  Often times slow and nasty-like.  Your kids died so you had lots.  I doubt a slave who couldn't work for a while got treatment if there was any...mebee some pig fat salve for those whip sliced backs tho.

BINGEWOOD — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/175#181 date=1296688324][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#179 date=1296687526]What's the government help thingy?

Ever herd of Charity hospitals? Charity doctors? Medicaid, Medicare? Do some research.


What do you know about it?  Would you qualify?  

Years ago, my first wife's brother and his wife had a child at one of these hospitals. Cost them $100 bucks. They went to charity doctors all the time when they were sick, for free. Government shit. Like I said, do some research. Neither of them worked at all and had 3 kids.

Hookbender — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#183 date=1296688436][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/175#181 date=1296688324][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#179 date=1296687526]What's the government help thingy?

Ever herd of Charity hospitals? Charity doctors? Medicaid, Medicare? Do some research.


What do you know about it?  Would you qualify?  

Years ago, my first wife's brother and his wife had a child at one of these hospitals. Cost them $100 bucks. They went to charity doctors all the time when they were sick, for free. Government shit. Like I said, do some research. Neither of them worked at all and had 3 kids.


Do you work and make ok bread?   Then you prolly don't qualify.

BINGEWOOD — Feb 02, 2011The stupid part is it happened.

I doubt a slave who couldn't work for a while got treatment if there was any...mebee some pig fat salve for those whip sliced backs tho.

A farmer takes care of the livestock  especially when it has no slaughter value - treated like a wool sheep
It is be more akin to vetinary care obviously .

But the "free" redneck and hillbilly would be considered wild life and be left outside.

BINGEWOOD — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/175#186 date=1296688915][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#183 date=1296688436][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/175#181 date=1296688324][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#179 date=1296687526]What's the government help thingy?

Ever herd of Charity hospitals? Charity doctors? Medicaid, Medicare? Do some research.


What do you know about it?  Would you qualify?  

Years ago, my first wife's brother and his wife had a child at one of these hospitals. Cost them $100 bucks. They went to charity doctors all the time when they were sick, for free. Government shit. Like I said, do some research. Neither of them worked at all and had 3 kids.


Do you work and make ok bread?   Then you prolly don't qualify.

I don't no about the qualifying. They just showed up and had the kid at the hospital. Not sure how to make appointments to have a child. Your weird.

fingers — Feb 02, 2011A farmer takes care of the livestock  especially when it has no slaughter value - treated like a wool sheep
It is be more akin to vetinary care obviously .

But the "free" redneck and hillbilly would be considered wild life and be left outside.

Diggit.

You never answered my question. How long did it take you to find that stupid shit? :D

Hookbender — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#187 date=1296689027][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/175#186 date=1296688915][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#183 date=1296688436][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/175#181 date=1296688324][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#179 date=1296687526]What's the government help thingy?

Ever herd of Charity hospitals? Charity doctors? Medicaid, Medicare? Do some research.


What do you know about it?  Would you qualify?  

Years ago, my first wife's brother and his wife had a child at one of these hospitals. Cost them $100 bucks. They went to charity doctors all the time when they were sick, for free. Government shit. Like I said, do some research. Neither of them worked at all and had 3 kids.


Do you work and make ok bread?   Then you prolly don't qualify.

I don't no about the qualifying. They just showed up and had the kid at the hospital. Not sure how to make appointments to have a child. Your weird.


You're saying they didn't work.  I'm guessing they were poor.  Were they just independently wealthy?  

What I'm saying is that in order to qualify for aid you usually need to be poor ie. at or near the poverty level.  If you have a decent job making ok bread you usually don't qualify for aid.  Tax records are involved etc.

Hookbender — Feb 02, 2011You never answered my question. How long did it take you to find that stupid shit? :D

I saw it a while back along with the rest of the drunk history series at funny or die.  I think of harrison's story whenever people talk about the "founding fathers view of healthcare" on the news.  

BINGEWOOD — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/175#189 date=1296690501][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#187 date=1296689027][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/175#186 date=1296688915][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#183 date=1296688436][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/175#181 date=1296688324][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#179 date=1296687526]What's the government help thingy?

Ever herd of Charity hospitals? Charity doctors? Medicaid, Medicare? Do some research.


What do you know about it?  Would you qualify?  

Years ago, my first wife's brother and his wife had a child at one of these hospitals. Cost them $100 bucks. They went to charity doctors all the time when they were sick, for free. Government shit. Like I said, do some research. Neither of them worked at all and had 3 kids.


Do you work and make ok bread?   Then you prolly don't qualify.

I don't no about the qualifying. They just showed up and had the kid at the hospital. Not sure how to make appointments to have a child. Your weird.


You're saying they didn't work.  I'm guessing they were poor.  Were they just independently wealthy?  

What I'm saying is that in order to qualify for aid you usually need to be poor ie. at or near the poverty level.  If you have a decent job making ok bread you usually don't qualify for aid.  Tax records are involved etc.


Exactly. So if you make decent bread, as you call it, you can afford decent healthcare. If your poor, ya get it basically free if you search just a bit. So you made my point. We really don't have situations where there is no healthcare available. So this Obamacare is making everyone purchase healthcare whether they want it or not, and if they don't they pay penalties. Is that fair? Do you want government to have that much power?

BINGEWOOD — Feb 02, 2011 If you have a decent job making ok bread you usually don't qualify for aid.  Tax records are involved etc.

Sounds like a scam for those who don't pay taxes but are extremely rich - I bet they are lining up in the piss stained queue :)

Hookbender — Feb 03, 2011

Exactly. So if you make decent bread, as you call it, you can afford decent healthcare. If your poor, ya get it basically free if you search just a bit. So you made my point. We really don't have situations where there is no healthcare available. So this Obamacare is making everyone purchase healthcare whether they want it or not, and if they don't they pay penalties. Is that fair? Do you want government to have that much power?

Right but you now have a preexisting condition and no ins company will pick you up and you can't get aid.  Geddit?  This why bankruptcy is brought up in relation to healthcare.

The ins comapnies have the power.  It's their provision,  this why the pubs are pretending to fight the law.  They also want the mandate to stay.  Don't listen to their used car salesman pitch.

fingers — Feb 03, 2011[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/175#192 date=1296690853] If you have a decent job making ok bread you usually don't qualify for aid.  Tax records are involved etc.

Sounds like a scam for those who don't pay taxes but are extremely rich - I bet they are lining up in the piss stained queue :)

It fucks the middle class.  The rich and most poor are somewhat ok...just different levels of care and atmosphere.

BINGEWOOD — Feb 02, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/175#188 date=1296690078]A farmer takes care of the livestock  especially when it has no slaughter value - treated like a wool sheep
It is be more akin to vetinary care obviously .

But the "free" redneck and hillbilly would be considered wild life and be left outside.

Diggit.


I'll add this caveat, if the farmer could fuck his wool sheep and make more sheep to make wool or be sold off, I doubt that they would give the same level of care to the sick livestock.  

Farmers also kill off livestock en masse to try to stop a disease from spreading to the rest of the surrounding area.

BINGEWOOD — Feb 03, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/175#194 date=1296691371]

Exactly. So if you make decent bread, as you call it, you can afford decent healthcare. If your poor, ya get it basically free if you search just a bit. So you made my point. We really don't have situations where there is no healthcare available. So this Obamacare is making everyone purchase healthcare whether they want it or not, and if they don't they pay penalties. Is that fair? Do you want government to have that much power?

Right but you now have a preexisting condition and no ins company will pick you up and you can't get aid.  Geddit?  This why bankruptcy is brought up in relation to healthcare.

The ins comapnies have the power.  It's their provision,  this why the pubs are pretending to fight the law.  They also want the mandate to stay.  Don't listen to their used car salesman pitch.


Show me where the government gives a damn about pre-existing conditions. This girl I gave in my example had a preexisting condition. ;D Your just making shit up man. And I've been falling for it. ;D ;D

Now answer my question. Do you want government to have the power to force you to purchase a product? Or, pay penalties.