justinb138

Except, the issue isn't being asked to pay for health case it's being forced to. Just because I wouldn't want someone dying after such an injury doesn't mean I think it'd be OK to pull out a gun and demand money from people for it.

And I'm betting that millions of them do. Cut off what? I'm not trying stop anyone from getting healthcare - I just don't want the government taking even more money from me to do it. I pay for my own healthcare - why should I be forced to bear the responsibilities of others? I'm not trying to make this about you at all, and I'll agree that the situation is unfortunate. I still don't understand why you think the people that do pay for health insurance should be made to bear the cost of those that don't. Did they provide money? I think most doctors offices will take that. bonehead? grow up. And you have no idea how many people abuse the system, but I'm betting it's much, much higher than you imagine. And I'm condeming the whole thing because it's not an improvement on the current system, it's not a fix for anything, it's just throwing money at the problem. It'd be a system that not only allows for abuse, but doesn't provide any real incentive not to abuse it. Like what? Being able to keep the fruits of one's effort and hard work? It's beginning to seem like a joke here.

ENRON: ---------- Ken Lay: Dead. Jeffery Skilling: 25 Years in Prison Andrew Fastow: 6 Years in Prison Madoff: ---------- Currently facing life in prison and $170bln in restitution. Tyco: ---------- Kozlowski and Swartz: 8 - 25 Years in Prison. Healthsouth: -------------- Richard M. Scrushy: 8 years in prison. Sure doesn't seem like it's OK to me.

I never said anything about it being there, just said that it's what was taught where I went to school - and I'd assume that it's what is being taught today. Personally, I think both should be bound by the rule of law, although I must admit I'm confused about your statement regarding corporations "bowing" to he individual. Can you give me an example of what you mean? And the one thing we have in common is that we both probably won't see a dime of it. (and given what I've seen lately, I can see why you'd want to keep your options open).

Wanna know about the pregnant patients on medicaid with iPhones? Would that be the iPhone that costs (at a minimum - 8Gb refurb) $79, and requires a minimum of $70 in phone and data service (messaging extra)? $70 is pretty low. When I had mine I was paying nearly $110/mo with one of the smaller voice plans. And this is the thing that pisses me off about the issue more than anything else - when people 'can't afford' health care, but seem to be able to pay for fancy cell phones and flat-screen TVs. I wonder how many people really mean "choose not to pay for" when they say that they "cannot afford" health care.

And yet like so many Americans, you choose to believe everything they told you in schools without question. I remember being taught that the American economy was based on capitalism and that the government was limited in its actions by the constitution, which with every passing day seems further and further from the truth.

You could say the same thing about most of FOX NEWS. Fixed it for 'ya.

Kind of off-topic, but it takes 2,200 people to interview 60,000 in a month? That averages out to about 28 interviews per person / per month, or a little over 1 a day. How long do these 'interviews' take?

I just moved here so I'm not sure what the weather is normally like, but it seems like it's been raining every other day here in CT.

Better than some private insurance companies. What other insurance policies have averaged ~7 percent annual return for consumers over the life of the policy? Social Security has. My insurance company isn't $11,000,000,000,000 in the hole.

And yet they've done more to prolong it than any of the previous administrations. And by 'Obama's government' do you mean the democrats? The same democrats that have made up roughly half of the congress for the last decade or so?

Have your read any of that author's books? The two I've read (Better, Complications) I really enjoyed.

Actually, you asked me, and I answered. We're all still waiting for your answers.

Seems that there's never a shortage of CEO's in the private sector who manage to do just that. Or was that another of your posts that was intended to be interpreted as wholly being sarcasm? So 'the CEOs are doing it, why shouldn't the rest of the American public be able to do it too' is your belief? I'm pretty sure he meant continued compensation. And do you not see the difference? The CEO situation is self-correcting (assuming there is no gov't interference like we're seeing now) - the CEO gets fired or the company goes under. The welfare situation is self-sustaining.

Well, if you want the honest answer, it's because you started this thread based on an opinion you have about something, and it'd be rational to make an argument in support of that opinion. However, when people questioned the rationale behind your opinion, instead of refuting their arguments based on reason, you chose to: 1. Attempted to defend the source of your story by insulting a political group and news station completely unrelated to the topic. 2. Accused another poster of wanting children to be homeless when they said nothing of the sort. 3. Posted a similar story, while providing no reason to back up your opinion on the matter. 4. Transition to a different topic in which more people might agree with your opinion (bank bailouts). 5. Accused bankers of stealing this womans house. 6. Accused lawrocket of defending the bankers and insulting the woman. 7. More mind reading attempts. 8. Posted a story about rich bankers, unrelated to the original topic. 9. More mind reading and accusations. 10. More comparisons to the bankers. 11. More accusations. At no point in this thread have you attempted to make a rational argument in support of your opinion on this topic, you've just been rambling on about how unfortunate her life is and then insulting other posters when they remind you that it is of her own making. You've offered no solution to the problem, and when confronted with questions you are either unable or unwilling to answer, you try to change the subject or distract from the original topic. Here are the most recent questions that were asked by other posters, I challenge you to answer them, provided you are capable of doing so: How much should I be taxed so this woman can continue to use her uterus as a puppy mill and stay home and not have to work? So how much should I pay this woman so I am no longer labeled a heartless bastard by your standard? Why should I be made to bear the cost of her failure to be responsible? Why should I be penalized for being responsible when she is rewarded for being irresponsible? Does her 'need' justify the taking of my earnings by force?

Speaking of donate, you never answered my question of how much should I be taxed so this woman can continue to use her uterus as a puppy mill and stay home and not have to work? Please tell me! I really would like to know. should i talk about your mother that way

If you keep posting from that site someone's going to replace you with an RSS feed.

We've already established that you're all show and no go, seeing as how you expect every one else to support her but have no desire to do so yourself. The fact that someone is living off money that was taken from other people pretty much eliminates the need to assume anything in this case.

See, now instead of trying to make your point, you're trying to attack the other person; I'm assuming because you've realized that you can't respond with an answer based on reason. So now you're not only off the topic you're discussing, you're trying to explain to him what he was thinking when he wrote what he did? Actually, I believe she would be charged with possession of stolen property, assuming that the money she had was taken by anybody but the government. And again, you're trying to bring the bankers into the issue, which isn't even related to the topic at hand. It's a pretty obvious attempt to distract from the fact that you don't have reasonable response, and it's getting kind of annoying.

At the current time, I have enough money to go and buy a nice flat screen TV, why shouldn't I? Because I have to pay the rent for my apartment, utility bills, etc.. Why should I be made to bear the cost of her failure to be responsible? Why should I be penalized for being responsible when she is rewarded for being irresponsible? When you reward something, don't you usually get more of it? Does her 'need' justify the taking of my earnings by force?

In regards to the continuing bailouts of dying and dead companies, the massive increase in spending, massive increase in debt, and the continued trend toward socialism, I sincerely hope he does fail. Assuming you believe that the 1.8bln/year figure is accurate. I keep hearing about supplemental spending bills for the war in Iraq, and that's not even including his plans for socialized healthcare.

I'd just assumed that they evacuated nearby homes because of the risk of the fire spreading, not due to ammo cooking off in the fire.

And yet now the government is going to run it. I would have never suspected the government would want control of something new. What effects do you think that the $70 billion taken from the US taxpayers for this is going to have on businesses outside of GM that would have received this money via normal trade instead? Let them fail? They've already failed. It's not right or wrong, it's just the way it is. And even if it was just a handful of people (which I truly doubt), that the way business works. And continuing to print money to pour into failed companies like GM has the potential to destroy the value of the US Dollar and take all of the US economy with it. Capitalism, True capitalism (not this socialistic, government-controlled excuse for an economy that is passed off as capitalism).

Would those penis pills that are advertised all over the radio exist if they didn't work? Existence doesn't prove effectiveness, just proof that some people think it's effective.

I agree. GPS makes it easy, cheap, and reliable what they used to have to pay people to do (tail suspects). . As kelpdiver pointed out, the GPS tails the car, not the suspect. Suspect? I think you mean person, as 'suspect' would only apply if they were limited to tracking people who were actually suspected of committing crimes.