One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Palin said it, and it turned out to be true
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Oct 6, 2013 17:18:03   #
RETW Loc: Washington
 
Dummy Boy wrote:
Let's just end the fool and his words conversation. Why is it so hard for us to "pull the plug" in this society? When is it appropriate to put the scalpel down? People die every day, and we are born to die; ironic isn't it? Medical care is a resource that should be appropriately managed and over the last few years I have seen abuses of that. Here are a couple of stories for you, since you are so concerned about "death panels".
My uncle had a massive heart attack and fell down a flight of stairs, by the time he hit the bottom he suffered brain death. His daughters talked my Aunt into keeping him on life support a few more days. If in fact his brain could have maintained his bodily functions (base brain) after brain death he would have spent his remaining days in a bed, with a feeding tube in his mouth. What a great life.
We had a church member that was a multiple drug abuser starting from the age of twelve. In her late forties, she could no longer work, so she received disability from Social Security. She was diagnosed with Cirrhosis of the liver. She received free care and surgery to improve her liver function. Due to her heroin abuse 25 years ago and alcohol abuse, she started suffering from early onset of dementia. A couple of years ago she opted to receive surgery on her back. She was sent home (probably too early) and died after passing out and going into a coma. Again, you the tax payer paid for this great treatment. If she had known that this is how she could end up: do you think that she would have chosen this option?
We feel so strange about end of life options. I suppose because we place so much trust in our medical provisions. In the end though, we can't beat death and delaying the inevitable to help you sleep at night is cruel. Think about that the next time for yourself-not someone else: you.
Let's just end the fool and his words conversation... (show quote)


The question was to UncleJesse. Not to you. Why is it you think you can answer for someone else? And than not even attempt to answer the original question.

Why is it you want someone else to make life or death decisions for you? Are you so useless at life, you think perhaps the government is better at it than you?

I feel sorry for you

Reply
Oct 6, 2013 17:54:57   #
UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA
 
RETW wrote:
No, that's not what it is saying. And no, the Palin credo as you call it, is not a big joke. Are you saying that his fool that infects the White House, is better for or country than Gov. Palin would have been?


Nope. I didn't say anything of anyone over Palin. I'm sure she'd been alright but do think she would've contributed much to comedy material with her style. She says appealing things but the dramatic style actually creates division and she ends up hurting GOP. I don't believe the libs invented death panels. That's something insurance already has a patent on when an "asset" reaches a lifetime limit.

Reply
Oct 6, 2013 18:15:05   #
RETW Loc: Washington
 
UncleJesse wrote:
Nope. I didn't say anything of anyone over Palin. I'm sure she'd been alright but do think she would've contributed much to comedy material with her style. She says appealing things but the dramatic style actually creates division and she ends up hurting GOP. I don't believe the libs invented death panels. That's something insurance already has a patent on when an "asset" reaches a lifetime limit.



I guess I don't get you at all. We have the worst president in our nations history, and your concerned about style. Might I remind you that it was not Gov. Palin that lost the election. It was MaCain and his compromising with wrong. That's what lost it for them. It's high time this country got back to our core principles, of right and wrong. This country is fed up to the hilt with congress compromising with wrong. That's what got us to this point in time as it is.
Compromising is just another way to chip away at liberty

That's precisely why we have all these laws on our books.
Give a little here, give a little there. Oh sure we would all like to have, just a little more of this or that. And so what if it cost penny's. What's a penny right. Well look at what penny's has cost us. And your worried about style.

I know your concerned about our country , same as I, but really.

Our government is treating our country like a giant casino.
That's why they put so many penny machines in them.
RETW

Reply
 
 
Oct 6, 2013 18:20:39   #
John Deere
 
RETW wrote:
I guess I don't get you at all. We have the worst president in our nations history, and your concerned about style. Might I remind you that it was not Gov. Palin that lost the election. It was MaCain and his compromising with wrong. That's what lost it for them. It's high time this country got back to our core principles, of right and wrong. This country is fed up to the hilt with congress compromising with wrong. That's what got us to this point in time as it is.
Compromising is just another way to chip away at liberty

That's precisely why we have all these laws on our books.
Give a little here, give a little there. o
I guess I don't get you at all. We have the worst ... (show quote)


If Sarah wouldn't have been on the ticket with McCain, he would've lost 49-1

Reply
Oct 6, 2013 18:31:38   #
RETW Loc: Washington
 
John Deere wrote:
If Sarah wouldn't have been on the ticket with McCain, he would've lost 49-1


Oh please grow up. Even the latest polls show her in 3rd place right now. And she is not even running

I'll take her kind of intellect over any socialist, any day of the week.

Reply
Oct 6, 2013 18:43:12   #
John Deere
 
RETW wrote:
Oh please grow up. Even the latest polls show her in 3rd place right now. And she is not even running

I'll take her kind of intellect over any socialist, any day of the week.


You have completely mis-read my post. McCain would have lost a lot worse without Sarah. I know several people, myself included, who wouldn't have voted if Sarah wasn't on the ticket. The dis-like for McCain was and still is very strong. The people that hate Sarah are the Obamaites and they will always hate her because in a contest against horrible Hillary, Sarah was easily win.

Reply
Oct 6, 2013 18:43:19   #
John Deere
 
RETW wrote:
Oh please grow up. Even the latest polls show her in 3rd place right now. And she is not even running

I'll take her kind of intellect over any socialist, any day of the week.


You have completely mis-read my post. McCain would have lost a lot worse without Sarah. I know several people, myself included, who wouldn't have voted if Sarah wasn't on the ticket. The dis-like for McCain was and still is very strong. The people that hate Sarah are the Obamaites and they will always hate her because in a contest against horrible Hillary, Sarah was easily win.

Reply
 
 
Oct 6, 2013 19:52:52   #
RETW Loc: Washington
 
John Deere wrote:
You have completely mis-read my post. McCain would have lost a lot worse without Sarah. I know several people, myself included, who wouldn't have voted if Sarah wasn't on the ticket. The dis-like for McCain was and still is very strong. The people that hate Sarah are the Obamaites and they will always hate her because in a contest against horrible Hillary, Sarah was easily win.


I do apologies to you. You are correct.

Reply
Oct 6, 2013 20:18:33   #
John Deere
 
RETW wrote:
I do apologies to you. You are correct.


Apology accepted.

Reply
Oct 7, 2013 07:42:24   #
dkylady11
 
jonhatfield wrote:
Are you kidding? Palin is somewhat a joke. Obama is serious whether you like him or not.


are you serious??? take off your blinders fool...

Reply
Oct 7, 2013 07:58:34   #
Schuler Loc: Santa Fe NM
 
RETW wrote:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamacare-death-panels-illegally-withholding-treatment/

The deeper we get into this ACA, the worse it gets.
Let me ask this of you. Is this what any of you wanted?


'There 'you' go again'-to quote 'Ol Ron'--actually, and in fact the ACA is meeting with very favorable results so far. And it is very early in the game-so to speak. The overwhelming response is so much greater than expected there are delays. So?-the result for you if you are just a little patient-- will be health care a whole bunch cheaper than those 'benevolent' insurance companies are providing--or should I say 'denying'. Here is a question: howcum my Medicare costs me not quite $100 dollars-that is for eighty percent of the coverage --but the remaining 20 % costs me $175 dollars. Hint-a whole lotta profit being made by someone. And I will not even need it (the ACA). American insurance companies are taking about 20% right off the top just for administration costs. Other countries with -ooops--'socialized' or 'nationalized' medical delivery systems have administrative costs that average around 4 to 7 %. The US has the most expensive health care on the planet-but not the best by a long shot. WHO studies show health outcomes using our delivery system are ranked way down the list. Hmmm--so if we pay the most -shouldn't we be getting the best? As 'Ol Ron' also said -you get what you pay for---well- do we really?--don't you believe it--the facts prove otherwise-we are getting screwed royally by US health providers and not even getting a kiss!. Wake up America-there is NOTHING not to like about the ACA. The folks who have the most to lose are just plain outright lying about the program (gosh-like competition) and what it is and isn't and what it will do for us!

Reply
 
 
Oct 7, 2013 08:53:39   #
Artemis
 
Schuler wrote:
'There 'you' go again'-to quote 'Ol Ron'--actually, and in fact the ACA is meeting with very favorable results so far. And it is very early in the game-so to speak. The overwhelming response is so much greater than expected there are delays. So?-the result for you if you are just a little patient-- will be health care a whole bunch cheaper than those 'benevolent' insurance companies are providing--or should I say 'denying'. Here is a question: howcum my Medicare costs me not quite $100 dollars-that is for eighty percent of the coverage --but the remaining 20 % costs me $175 dollars. Hint-a whole lotta profit being made by someone. And I will not even need it (the ACA). American insurance companies are taking about 20% right off the top just for administration costs. Other countries with -ooops--'socialized' or 'nationalized' medical delivery systems have administrative costs that average around 4 to 7 %. The US has the most expensive health care on the planet-but not the best by a long shot. WHO studies show health outcomes using our delivery system are ranked way down the list. Hmmm--so if we pay the most -shouldn't we be getting the best? As 'Ol Ron' also said -you get what you pay for---well- do we really?--don't you believe it--the facts prove otherwise-we are getting screwed royally by US health providers and not even getting a kiss!. Wake up America-there is NOTHING not to like about the ACA. The folks who have the most to lose are just plain outright lying about the program (gosh-like competition) and what it is and isn't and what it will do for us!
'There 'you' go again'-to quote 'Ol Ron'--actually... (show quote)


Excellent reply, people are just beginning to comprehend this health care, yet where they should be jumping up and down in elation, they are pushing it away out of fear and will only hurt themselves

Reply
Oct 7, 2013 11:16:34   #
jimahrens Loc: California
 
You talk about competition the government has created the lack of competition Insurance company's are not allowed to insure in many cases across State lines. Overwhelming response who you trying to kid. the system is not working properly. Define the word cheap. All I am going to say is I hope you are very hungry because you are going to have to eat everyone of your liberal words. Is typical of liberals is great for me don't give a dam if it is good for everyone else.

Schuler wrote:
'There 'you' go again'-to quote 'Ol Ron'--actually, and in fact the ACA is meeting with very favorable results so far. And it is very early in the game-so to speak. The overwhelming response is so much greater than expected there are delays. So?-the result for you if you are just a little patient-- will be health care a whole bunch cheaper than those 'benevolent' insurance companies are providing--or should I say 'denying'. Here is a question: howcum my Medicare costs me not quite $100 dollars-that is for eighty percent of the coverage --but the remaining 20 % costs me $175 dollars. Hint-a whole lotta profit being made by someone. And I will not even need it (the ACA). American insurance companies are taking about 20% right off the top just for administration costs. Other countries with -ooops--'socialized' or 'nationalized' medical delivery systems have administrative costs that average around 4 to 7 %. The US has the most expensive health care on the planet-but not the best by a long shot. WHO studies show health outcomes using our delivery system are ranked way down the list. Hmmm--so if we pay the most -shouldn't we be getting the best? As 'Ol Ron' also said -you get what you pay for---well- do we really?--don't you believe it--the facts prove otherwise-we are getting screwed royally by US health providers and not even getting a kiss!. Wake up America-there is NOTHING not to like about the ACA. The folks who have the most to lose are just plain outright lying about the program (gosh-like competition) and what it is and isn't and what it will do for us!
'There 'you' go again'-to quote 'Ol Ron'--actually... (show quote)

Reply
Oct 7, 2013 16:16:05   #
jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI
 
Brownink Thinks wrote:
Seriously DERANGED you mean???


Come on--if we're talking about derangement, Palin is the crazy one, even if often cutely so. Obama is serious--so serious that he goes on and on like a boring professor sometimes.

Apologies for being off subject in the first place...the question is not Palin or Obama but the Affordable Care Act. Thus, whether Palin is a joke or Obama serious is irrelevant, and I'm the deranged one for going off subject. ha.

Universal health care and its affordability are serious subjects quite aside from personalities involved. Also, quite aside from affordability for us as individuals, there's the question of national budget "affordability"--that is, the extent of government funding or taxation financing of affordability for individuals. As I understand it, one goal of this health insurance measure besides universal health care is partial addressing of upcoming problems in medicare financing for this disportionate retirement generation. (Actually, I'm not sure I understand the complexities involved at all, so should probably leave that discussion to those who think they do...except they probably don't either--ha.) Medicare itself was in effect a rescue for insurance companies who would otherwise either have to cancel insurance for persons over 65 or raise premiums beyond affordability. Medicare has the workplace generation paying in specified taxes to make affordable the more expensive health costs for the retirement generation--the problem being that our current retirement generation will be disportionate in size and thus present rate of medicare taxes insufficient. Same problem obviously with social security funding from specified taxes. One solution is increased specified taxes but one problem there is the corporate share in that taxation and keeping corporate taxation at a rate where our corporations can be competitive in the international marketplace. That there's a trust fund from surplus that delays the crisis is, I suspect, a myth, because the surplus revenues funded national defense during the Cold War. Some reduction in Social Security rate of payout and some increase in taxation seem inevitable. Other measures like the proposal by Rep. Ryan to have individual social security accounts would in effect end funding for SS payouts for my own problem disportionate-number generation.

Obviously the general public wants to care for their parents and grandparents, and the argument will be made that the retirement generation already paid for the benefits they are supposed to receive. It will be very difficult to balance all these complications out. Pragmatic solutions exist. Ownership by the very wealthy has supposedly doubled to 50% since taxation on higher incomes and inheritances were drastically reduced and rates to recover parts of that unreasonable gain would not only restore some social balance but also partially get us through the disportionate retirement generation crisis. The important thing, however, is that the workplace generation's welfare shoudn't be handicapped, which may require some sacrifice by my retirement generation and by the new grossly wealthy part of my generation.

The Affordable Care Act shouldn't be prejudged. Like green eggs it can seem repulsive on sight but may prove quite delicious when tasted. That's the lesson I took from Sen. Cruz's reading of that story, but success is not guaranteed, only a hope. Let's see how it works out, and in the meantime lets look for pragmatic measures to deal with the larger funding crisis rather than calling names and creating only fog that hides the real issues involved.

Reply
Oct 7, 2013 17:08:52   #
jimahrens Loc: California
 
You cant be serious the health plan hurts seniors the most.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.