RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid.

RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Owner59 -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 8:11:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: orfunboi If you think he is such a jerk, then don't listen to him. Simple really. Coming on cm day after day talking about him constantly, makes me wonder where the obsession comes from. Isn't there anything you actually like that you could talk about? If you don`t care to engage in the conversation,you may opt out.You have my permission....

Alumbrado -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 8:15:00 AM)
Project much?

Owner59 -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 8:15:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 "I don`t know.8 years of balanced budgets under Clinton, 4 of those years, with a surplus. If we had something other than a gutless leader,we could again have balanced budgets and health care for all kids. " This is simply not true, and you know it o59. Why do you keep repeating that lie? He had 3 surplus years, the other 5 were deficit. Here is a simple chart with facts from the CBO. http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm And Clinton raised taxes the highest they've ever been raised in the history of the country to get his "balanced budget". I'd believe one of those holy rollers on tv before I'd believe either of the Clintons. Not sure what your talking about Popeye. My taxes didn`t go up,under Clinton.Neither did yours. Where did you get that from?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 9:06:57 AM)
A rational way is to force government to be more effective in it's use of our money? A rational way is to cut "pork" projects? Before taxes are raised, which is proven to have adverse effects on the economy, the servants of the people need to make better use of the money that we give them, get rid of pork spending, and stop having exclusive contracts to private sector companies. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 "I don`t know.8 years of balanced budgets under Clinton, 4 of those years, with a surplus. If we had something other than a gutless leader,we could again have balanced budgets and health care for all kids. " This is simply not true, and you know it o59. Why do you keep repeating that lie? He had 3 surplus years, the other 5 were deficit. Here is a simple chart with facts from the CBO. http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm And Clinton raised taxes the highest they've ever been raised in the history of the country to get his "balanced budget". I'd believe one of those holy rollers on tv before I'd believe either of the Clintons. There is nothing wrong with hiking taxes to get a 'balanced budget' especially compared to the proliferacy of the current administration which is going to have the next couple of generations of Americans paying for it. It is not even as though Bush's welfare for the rich or his spending on the war are capital investment projects that will one day bear fruit. The knee jerk reaction of the 'no taxes' brigade is just short sighted and inhibits politicians dealing with economic problems in a rational way.

Alumbrado -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 9:20:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf A rational way is to force government to be more effective in it's use of our money? A rational way is to cut "pork" projects? Before taxes are raised, which is proven to have adverse effects on the economy, the servants of the people need to make better use of the money that we give them, get rid of pork spending, and stop having exclusive contracts to private sector companies. Orion Unfortunately, powermongring is immune to such rational choices. So we have the iron triangle, and pork, and waste, as part of business as usual. If someone could figure out a way to make politicians suffer for their wrong choices, we might see some progress.

Owner59 -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 9:34:07 AM)
Orian The Wolf: Last I saw, no one could be refused medical care at an ER if it is life threatening. This is a bit of a misnomer. True,you won`t be refused emergency care,at an ER, or any other place.That`s not the point. Pretty much everywhere in the world is like that. It comes out of our evolved standards of morality,and is part of what makes us a 1st world country.By law,everyone gets help. It`s more than that,really.Who among us would walk by and do nothing, if we saw someone bleeding out or in dire trouble.Most would at least dial 911. It`s in our nature to do this,and is hard-wired into our heads.Even illegal immigrants get emergency medical care.I can`t think of anyone who would refuse care and let someone die.Even a neo-con wouldn`t do that (I hope so,anyway). If we had a system that refused medical care to those deemed not worthy(the neo-con`s wet dream,btw),we would have Calcutta,India.Or any other 3rd world country,with people laying in the streets and alleys,wasting away and dying,un-cared for. We don`t want that in America,or at least not in plain sight. I know,I know.Who going to pay for this?The answer is, we are.If you want anything less than what we have now,move to Calcutta. The point is health care.Health care for children."Little Timmy`s" ear infection should be checked and treated,before it causes a possible life-long loss of hearing.Little Mary`s soar throat should be treated,before it infects dozens of other kids and adults.This also screens kids,who have deadly diseases,and keeps them from spreading them to healthy kids/adults. You can`t do that w/ an ER.It`s not right for the folks who work in ERs,or the general public,when emergency care is needed. We at the very least,should have every kid in America seen by a doctor,once a year,and treated for any problems,period. I believe it would save more money in the end,by prevention and intervention.I wonder, if the neo-cons/republicans could be convinced that money could be saved by having kids covered,would they say no,just out of principal? I heard them claim to be "principled",what ever the fuck that means. So will the children of illegal immigrants be covered under this? I can best answer that,with what "Rudy" did,when he was Mayor of NYC. As most know,he was elected as a republican and as a "cleaner upper".He did well as republican in a liberal town,and got elected twice.There was pretty much nothing,that he couldn`t have.What he said ,was done.If you were a political enemy or critic,he destroyed you.If he didn`t want something,and had control over it,it didn`t happen. During his time in office,the illegal immigration issue was front and center.The town was/is full of them,and some say,wouldn`t function without them. Rudy was painted into a corner by his fellow republicans( locally and nationally) ,about health care for the kids of illegals. They figured that now was the time to refuse care ,because after all,they were in charge and could finally "do something "about illegal aliens. It took a while to get Rudy to finally state a policy,and it was to give the care to the kids.To give the care without asking about residence or status.To treat sicknesses and screen kids against other diseases.To give care, without calling the INS. Why? Well,there`s always that it`s the right,moral,"christian"thing to do. But more than that,it makes for good health policy,to keep kids healthy.If for no other reason then to stop the preventable deaths of children.And to contain pandemics or epidemics. Rudy knew,as most responsible leaders know,that calling the INS would keep people from seeking care,and would lead to tragedies. No one wants that,not even republicans.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 9:36:04 AM)
Car insurance would cover it. If you did not have regular medical insurance, and poor, then medicaid would cover it. If it is going to be a permanent disability, then you may actually qualify for state programs and Social Security Disability. Where I see the problem, is that there is a small segment of the population, that does not qualify for any government programs, and cannot afford it themselves. While their emergencies would be covered, they often use ER's for things like the colds and such, because they will not be turned away. This increases the cost which is never paid by the patient, and is either paid via tax dollars or is a loss to the hospital. The loss to the hosiptal contributes to higher charges to cover those costs, so then everyone else is paying for someone to go to the ER for colds and such. Here in the US we are starting to see a possible solution in the form of low cost clinics, privately operated, that can be used for basic care, such as colds, innoculations, and such. There is also a huge problem with the way that private insurance handles coverages. There are many things that they do not cover, but they should. Insurance companies go up on rates, because they say the increase in medical expenses, but look what is occuring to increase those medical expenses. The contributing factor of unpaid services at the ER, actual hospitalization of those without insurance, and large lawsuits. The malpractice lawsuits is another thing I have a problem with, actually lawsuits in general. This punitive damages thing in the tort system punishes someone in a civil matter. I feel that punishment should come from the criminal side, and not the civil side. The civil side should be for compensation of actual damages. If the actual causes of medical costs to go up were addressed, medical insurance regulations reformed, and the tort system reformed, you would see a decrease in those that cannot afford insurance, and more small clinics open for the minor things. Instead one side wants to keep things as they are so that insurance companies continue to get rich, and the other side seems to want to put it all in control of the government. Neither side is taking the proper approach in my opinion. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Last I saw, no one could be refused medical care at an ER if it is life threatening. ....to ask a question about your post........i understand that if ones leg is smashed up in a car accident that you are not at fault for, then it will be stabilised at an ER. What about the inevitable rehabilitation though? It seems to me that emergency care is one thing, health care is something else entirely........

philosophy -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 9:42:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Neither side is taking the proper approach in my opinion. ....fair enough...... in my view socialised medicine doesn't have to be the answer, although in my experience it works better than many here seem to think. However, if a free market approach can be designed that actually does the job then go for it. A country's ideology is for it to decide upon.........but if it ends up with many people going bankrupt over health care costs and many having to go without health care, then it is clearly getting it wrong.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 10:03:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Orian The Wolf: Last I saw, no one could be refused medical care at an ER if it is life threatening. This is a bit of a misnomer. mis·no·mer play_w("M0339100") (m[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/image]s-n[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gif[/image][image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/image]m[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif[/image]r) n. 1. An error in naming a person or place.2. a. Application of a wrong name.b. A name wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object. quote: True,you won`t be refused emergency care,at an ER, or any other place.That`s not the point. It`s more than that,really.Who among us would walk by and do nothing, if we saw someone bleeding out or in dire trouble.Most would at least dial 911. With the lawsuit happy people in this world, calling 911 is about the extent of what many people will do. quote: If we had a system that refused medical care to those deemed not worthy(the neo-con`s wet dream,btw),we would have Calcutta,India.Or any other 3rd world country,with people laying in the streets and alleys,wasting away and dying,un-cared for. Who exactly are you refering to when you say neo-cons? If you mean the segment of the republican party that is led by Bush and that group, I call them non-Cons, and I agree they have screwed alot up. quote: I know,I know.Who going to pay for this?The answer is, we are.If you want anything less than what we have now,move to Calcutta. Who is "we"? Why do you use extremist points, such as "If you want anything less than what we have now,move to Calcutta ". You present this thing as if there is only one solution, and anything else is inhuman. Why do you present it that way? quote: The point is health care.Health care for children."Little Timmy`s" ear infection should be checked and treated,before it causes a possible life-long loss of hearing.Little Mary`s soar throat should be treated,before it infects dozens of other kids and adults.This also screens kids,who have deadly diseases,and keeps them from spreading them to healthy kids/adults. I agree with this, but do you have statistics of what percentage of citizens under the age of 18 are not covered? Also, I have seen people use the ER for such thing as what you mention above, it is part of the problem. have you seen the low cost clinics springing up? What are your thoughts on them? quote: You can`t do that w/ an ER.It`s not right for the folks who work in ERs,or the general public,when emergency care is needed. But it is occuring and one of the things that contributes to higher medical costs, and higher insurance. quote: We at the very least,should have every kid in America seen by a doctor,once a year,and treated for any problems,period. Very cheap physicals can be done here, at the county health dept. quote: I believe it would save more money in the end,by prevention and intervention.I wonder, if the neo-cons/republicans could be convinced that money could be saved by having kids covered,would they say no,just out of principal. I heard them claim to be "principled",what ever the fuck that means. Agreed that it will save more money with prevention and intervention. Not all republicans disagree with these ideas. This is where I feel that you contribute to the problem, by lumping all republicans into one area. There are factions within any large political group. quote: So will the children of illegal immigrants be covered under this? I can best answer that,with what "Rudy" did,when he was Mayor of NYC. As most know,he was elected as a republican and as a "cleaner upper".He did well as republican in a liberal town,and got elected twice.There was pretty much nothing,that he couldn`t have.What he said ,was done.If you were a political enemy or critic,he destroyed you.If he didn`t want something,and had control over it,it didn`t happen. During his time in office,the illegal immigration issue was front and center.The town was/is full of them,and some say,wouldn`t function without them. Rudy was painted into a corner by his fellow republicans( locally and nationally) ,about health care for the kids of illegals. They figured that now was the time to refuse care ,because after all,they were in charge and could finally "do something "about illegal aliens. It took a while to get Rudy to finally state a policy,and it was to give the care to the kids.To give the care without asking about residence or status.To treat sicknesses and screen kids against other diseases.To give care, without calling the INS. Why? Well,there`s always that it`s the right,moral,"christian"thing to do. But more than that,it makes for good health policy,to keep kids healthy.If for no other reason then to stop the preventable deaths of children.And to contain pandemics or epidemics. No one wants that,not even republicans. Good health policy is great, I am all for it. I am not for adding more social services that illegal immigrants will use, without contributing to, and that will just attract more of the same. There are many ways to work towards correcting the issues with health care. Reducing medical expenses, and regulation of the insurance industry is part of it, but we cannot ignore everything else that effects it. once some of those problems are addressed, we can then have a cleaner picture of who is not covered, and then address it. Orion

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 10:06:47 AM)
See this is where I believe a dual approach can work. If my government ran social programs better, and more effectively (not costing up to 20 times as much to achieve a goal as a private company would) I may not have a problem with socialized medicine. I do not trust my government though, regardless of the party. See my response to owner59. Reduce the costs, create a market for the low cost clinics, reform insurance, and then use a social program to address what is left. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Neither side is taking the proper approach in my opinion. ....fair enough...... in my view socialised medicine doesn't have to be the answer, although in my experience it works better than many here seem to think. However, if a free market approach can be designed that actually does the job then go for it. A country's ideology is for it to decide upon.........but if it ends up with many people going bankrupt over health care costs and many having to go without health care, then it is clearly getting it wrong.

philosophy -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 10:20:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf See my response to owner59. Reduce the costs, create a market for the low cost clinics, reform insurance, and then use a social program to address what is left. ....arguably, in broad strokes, this is the model of health care in the UK. A regulated private health industry for those with the cash and an NHS for the rest. i am a fan of mixed economy solutions. It perhaps ought to be noted that the NHS is the biggest employer in the UK, and while it can be argued that private industry could do it with fewer people the impact of all those wages being spent ought not be underestimated.

Owner59 -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 10:29:23 AM)
As to Rush.It`s not just him.Michelle fuck`n Malkin went to their home and to where they worked,and started the smear. It was a wacko lunatic fringe website,that Rush used as his fact-checker,before repeating the smear. Fox news,Rush, and the rest of the right-wing media do damage,and mis-inform a lot of folks.If they want to do this, fine.If someone wants to believe it,fine.Just don`t belly ache when someone challenges another`s bull shit. BTW,the same vile website that Rush used to check his non-facts,also listed the home address of the Frosts.WTF is wrong with these people?!Why in the world would they do that?

popeye1250 -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 10:32:10 AM)
Owner59, you're starting to sound like Rush Limbah now. Dodge and twist.

Owner59 -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 10:33:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Owner59, you're starting to sound like Rush Limbah now. Dodge and twist. Shake and roll,lol.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The ugliest republican smears 12 year old kid. (10/10/2007 11:34:55 AM)
I truly believe that this point, regardless of any lines (party, economics, cultural, etc.), is where US citizens need to put pressure, and figure out a way to solve this. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf A rational way is to force government to be more effective in it's use of our money? A rational way is to cut "pork" projects? Before taxes are raised, which is proven to have adverse effects on the economy, the servants of the people need to make better use of the money that we give them, get rid of pork spending, and stop having exclusive contracts to private sector companies. Orion Unfortunately, powermongring is immune to such rational choices. So we have the iron triangle, and pork, and waste, as part of business as usual. If someone could figure out a way to make politicians suffer for their wrong choices, we might see some progress.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02