ginnyt wrote:
I do pay taxes..... my tax bill is larger than most people's annual income and I am talking about the upper class income. I do not mind paying my taxes and I do not mind supporting the old. As a fact, none of our old in my family will ever be in an old folks home or have to pass away without a loving family member at their side. We pray for them, we respect them and indeed our care for them is not an obligation as much as it is a desire for them to know how much they have given and how much we appreciate their sacrifices.
I will not attack you the way you did me, so give up. Many people have tried to make me angry and you are an amateur compared to most. However, I will say that you picked an appropriate id!
I do pay taxes..... my tax bill is larger than mos... (
show quote)
...many, many people take this money and abuse it and many more don't pay taxes (my home state for instance). I'm not trying to make you angry.
.....please find me one actual case of an older person being hurt by government assistance for any of these programs.
Bo,
You are such a gentleman. I am sorry that I did not stay on topic. It was rude of me. Thank you for your kindness.
BoJester wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and this is not an attack on you, but I have found Ginny to be of the most polite posters here. We often disagree without being disagreeable.
There are many angry non-thinkers who post here, but Ginny is not one of them.
BoJester wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and this is not an attack on you, but I have found Ginny to be of the most polite posters here. We often disagree without being disagreeable.
There are many angry non-thinkers who post here, but Ginny is not one of them.
I thank you for that. I agree with almost nothing you say, but I love the fact that you can disagree in a polite fashion.
It's a step towards socialism and away from freedom.
Dummy Boy wrote:
I believe the law has corrected a lot of wrongs:
1. It is a fact that many people over 70 will not receive life saving surgery...however that is because of your own poor life style choice. My great Aunt was recently told that she would not survive surgery, so the hospital refused to perform the surgery. She is diabetic, therefore it is unlikely she would recover from the surgery if she survived at all.
2. It creates a larger pool of money which is good, since many folks were going broke paying off excessive bills, since there existing insurance was so poor to begin with.
3. Reduces the need for hospitals to be for profit.
4. Standardizes care
5. Makes people more aware of making good health choices.
Now we just need congress to follow the law!
I believe the law has corrected a lot of wrongs: b... (
show quote)
1 dont you think your great aunt should be able to make that choice
2 they arnt going to create any pool of money they are the govt and will spend it just like they have done with ss.
3 with no profit how are they going to have an operating reserve or be able to make expanison when needed.
4just what is standardised care?
5 govt is trying to controll what we eat now,they are taxing things they dont like smoking .they have been at war with the people that us illegal drugs in a war they lost years ago.
vernon wrote:
4just what is standardised care?
...you tell me, you seem to be an authority about the law, maybe it's in there and you can show me...I don't even care because my company is self insured, so I don't know and I don't care.
I'm in the medical business. "Standardized care," means treatment decisions will be made by a panel of supposedly superior 'gray-backs' in DC and don't you dare contemplate something different.
ObamaCare's primary problem is the system 'chooses' winners (subsidized) and losers (lied to about $2500 premium decrease and "...keep your plan/doctor," and this replaced with much higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays) And now we have the spectre of providers getting out or refusing Medicaid and Medicare. Watch this develop...
btw, remember when, "uninsured e.r. patients foisting their costs onto taxpayers," was a prime selling-point for ObamaCare? Subsidies are precisely the same thing. You can forget about that, "bending the cost-curve down," lie...
Dummy Boy wrote:
...you tell me, you seem to be an authority about the law, maybe it's in there and you can show me...I don't even care because my company is self insured, so I don't know and I don't care.
hey your the one with the dumass remarks so you should be able to make sence of them
I believe I should say thank you, but the correct term for me would be a gentle lady.
vernon wrote:
but you are!
:-D :-D
ginnyt wrote:
I believe I should say thank you, but the correct term for me would be a gentle lady.
:-D :-D
The policies under the ACA are much more expensive, they reduce choices in hospitals and doctors, many MDs will not see those who try to use them, the deductibles are much higher, they will lead to bankruptcies and death as the true effects and costs sink in. Those who get subsidies will not complain so much, at least until they try to use them, but those people are getting coverage using MY money and I DON'T LIKE THAT! Let them go to Medicaid, it was always available to them.
However the ACA is not the only way to get coverage if you have the means to pay for it. Simply go where you always went, to the Health Insurance companies. They still offer compliant plans to individuals for less cost and lower deductibles than does the ACA.
The free market still works so long as the government keeps its greedy hands off it.
vernon wrote:
hey your the one with the dumass remarks so you should be able to make sence of them
...if and only if, you use spell check, otherwise you're the dumbass.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.