heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

[gm]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

Nowhere did I say it was "nutty liberals" who wanted everything free. You're letting your bias take over. I am referring to an underclass of people who have no interest in participating in the "work" portion of society, believing they are owed a living by the rest of us.

This includes those who can afford to pay for medical procedures, but choose to go to the emergency room and walk away without paying, just because they can.

And gh, if you can push through something that gives me the same coverage from the government that I get now, and I only have to pay $75 each month, hell yes I will be all for it. That, and ponies for every child. And unicorns.

[dukehjsteve]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

gm, all societies have an underclass, along with many other levels of classes. And the lines between these classes is often fuzzy and ever changing. What saddens me is when so many people in a society just say in effect, "the hell with this worthless underclass.... let them starve or whatever."

There but for the grace of whomever go any of us.

Do I like paying for others' shortcomings ? Not really. But am I willing to do it ? Yes I am and so should all members of a society. That what makes us a society... a willingness to help one another.

[jhc68]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

gm, you are really paying $475 a month aren't you?
You wrote that your employer kicks in $400 per month, which some politicians would like to include as income for tax purposes. When you retire or lose your job most likely you'll be responsible for the entire amount of $5700 a year or much more.

[jeremyp]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

Nowhere did I say it was "nutty liberals" who wanted everything free. You're letting your bias take over. I am referring to an underclass of people who have no interest in participating in the "work" portion of society, believing they are owed a living by the rest of us.

The usual conservative view of the underpaid working poor minorities.

This includes those who can afford to pay for medical procedures, but choose to go to the emergency room and walk away without paying, just because they can.

A very small number. Most people who go to ER go because they can't afford or can't get insurance.

[kuha]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

Nowhere did I say it was "nutty liberals" who wanted everything free. You're letting your bias take over. I am referring to an underclass of people who have no interest in participating in the "work" portion of society, believing they are owed a living by the rest of us.

This includes those who can afford to pay for medical procedures, but choose to go to the emergency room and walk away without paying, just because they can.

Talk about "bias"--oh, my. Your reference to this presumed free-loading "underclass" is a sure sign of your own, crippling, ideological bias. Who in the world is talking about any such thing? Yes, many poor folks do go to emergency rooms--almost certainly because they have no viable alternative. And their care isn't "free"--the rest of society pays for it. Which is one reason why it is precisely to that larger society's benefit to attempt to address the entire situation! More to the point, are folks who lose their jobs--and thus their employer-funded health care--lazy SOBs that somehow "deserve" to either die or go bankrupt due to health costs?

Your whole "underclass" thing is so 1980s--a reprise of Reagan's "welfare cheats." But that rhetoric is simply not relevant to the sadly real, and dire, problem of healthcare in our society.

[dukehjsteve]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

Dear twin kuha:

Very well said. Thank you.

[Conor Dary]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

Your whole "underclass" thing is so 1980s--a reprise of Reagan's "welfare cheats."

Actually Reagan used the terms "Welfare Queen" and "Young Bucks" who won't work. Along with opening his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi
talking about 'State Rights' it was clear to a lot of people what he was talking about. And it obviously still used today.

[Daisy]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

talking about 'State Rights'

Interesting that I am now hearing the republicans pushing for invovlement from the states with regard to health care. But why do state right not count when they don't want to allow concealed guns. Then the republicans fight all the way to the supreme court. Seems a little convenient that they cherry pick what control the sates should have.

[deca-pat]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

how about 1) opening up the oil fields..... that will in turn put people to work (well paid, I might add), provide medical coverage, and "decrease our dependence on foreign oils"......2) Open up the private sector to the further creation and evolution of green energies which will put people to work and provide medical coverage.....3) take a protectionist stance on the furthering of the "global economy" and bring back industry... I have a hunch that this will put people to work and, ironically, provide them with medical coverage. OMG, jobs and coverage!!!!!! What an insane idea!!!!! :roll:

and yes, it is a global shake up......

[Conor Dary]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

talking about 'State Rights'

Interesting that I am now hearing the republicans pushing for invovlement from the states with regard to health care. But why do state right not count when they don't want to allow concealed guns. Then the republicans fight all the way to the supreme court. Seems a little convenient that they cherry pick what control the sates should have.

Consistency is one of many problems. Remember the Bush vs. Gore decision by the 'states rights' members of the SCOTUS?

[Pego]

Re: heard in the concourse at Olympic hockey final...

[quote=Conor Dary]

talking about 'State Rights'

Interesting that I am now hearing the republicans pushing for invovlement from the states with regard to health care. But why do state right not count when they don't want to allow concealed guns. Then the republicans fight all the way to the supreme court. Seems a little convenient that they cherry pick what control the sates should have.

Consistency is one of many problems. Remember the Bush vs. Gore decision by the 'states rights' members of the SCOTUS?[/quote:34mmhlxm]

The "states' rights" of approving medical cannabis were likewise ignored by W administration.