Republicians are trying to stick it to the poor people and legal aliens again ... take from the people and give to industry.
Bold emphasis mine.
Bold emphasis mine.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Robin Hood, the Amended Version
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
- Status
Can you link to the news source ?
This is MY senator that you're talking about here, CTB... you'd better have your facts straight because you can bet the farm I'm going to be investigating this VERY closely. At first glance I'd agree with him anyway... why charge a private company who is doing business legally in the US such an outrageous fee? You're against a free market, that much is obvious to me.
Sorry, I forgot to give the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093004376.html
Are you insane? Who is going to do this for free, Spear? You? Oh wait! Our GOVERNMENT will do it for free!! Of course! How stupid of me!
Socialist.
We all need housing no one should profit from that.
We all need food no one should profit from that.
We all need clothes no one should profit from that.
So just how far do libbies want to take their marxism?
We all need food no one should profit from that.
We all need clothes no one should profit from that.
So just how far do libbies want to take their marxism?
Here is the letter Grassley sent....
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...picId=100007410&docId=l:1048890804&isRss=true
When you find anything in there to support C.T.B.'s assertion, just go ahead and tell us.
That's what the GOP gets for trying to reduce cost. The dems don't want to fix health care, at all. They want to make the achievers pay for everyone's, and thump their chests, after.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...picId=100007410&docId=l:1048890804&isRss=true
When you find anything in there to support C.T.B.'s assertion, just go ahead and tell us.
That's what the GOP gets for trying to reduce cost. The dems don't want to fix health care, at all. They want to make the achievers pay for everyone's, and thump their chests, after.
Marxists answers always lead to taking something away from others who have produced more and been more successful. They do not know any other way.
Logic of the liberals...
Now let me get this straight. The insurance company supposedly HAS this money already due to their work. The government wants to TAKE it away from the insurance company and GIVE it to the poor. When Grassley says it's an unfair tax, the libs say that Grassley is taking away from the poor to GIVE to the rich insurance company!? Now THAT is absolutely ludicrous.
It's just like all of our school administrators around here whining and crying that their budgets are being cut when in reality they're getting MORE than they got last year and have fewer students. When you ASK for something and someone tells you NO, it's not a CUT.
Call it what it is, Liberals! Just another hidden TAX on us working men and women of the US and a way to spread the wealth and buy yourself more votes.
Pathetic.
Now let me get this straight. The insurance company supposedly HAS this money already due to their work. The government wants to TAKE it away from the insurance company and GIVE it to the poor. When Grassley says it's an unfair tax, the libs say that Grassley is taking away from the poor to GIVE to the rich insurance company!? Now THAT is absolutely ludicrous.
It's just like all of our school administrators around here whining and crying that their budgets are being cut when in reality they're getting MORE than they got last year and have fewer students. When you ASK for something and someone tells you NO, it's not a CUT.
Call it what it is, Liberals! Just another hidden TAX on us working men and women of the US and a way to spread the wealth and buy yourself more votes.
Pathetic.
God bless Sen. Grassley!
I guess many here would have considered being called a socialist an insult, but hopefully, i don't think so. And for your information, i don't vote for the socialist party.
My point of view is simple :
Let's say you, RevMitchell, and Matt Black, and our families, live in a village. We all work, and make the village live. Every month, as we have no health protection, we all put 20 €/$ in a pot. Suddenly, i get Flu. I take some money from the pot to go to the doctor, pay him, and the medics. One I'm healed, i get back to work, and pay my 20 $ every month. Maybe Revmitchell or Matt will be sick next month, but our pot will help pay the bills.
The village grows, we are many many more. The pot has a little excedent, so we hire someone to manage it, get the 20 $ of everyone and pay the bills. And so on ...
Is it socialism ? If you think so, then i agree with that socialist idea (with THAT idea, don't take the shortcut to consider me a socialist).
As i said in my precedent post, i don't understand how someone would come and say " Hey, i'll put 1000 bucks in your pot, but every year, you give me 100 every year ". That's what i mean by " health insurance should not be a possible investment to get money". If one year they have too much money ? Next year we'll pay 18 bucks instead of 20. The year after it lacks money because there is a flu pandemia ? Increase the to 22 bucks.
Do you get it ?
\You link is to a statement from Grassley. It is not a reference to his amendment. An amendment is quite different from a statement. In you link there is nothing to back the editorial writer's words. But then as it is totally different from his amendment ... as a statement would be it is not surprising.
Speak to his amendment and not statement. I won't accuse you of deliberately attempting to muddy the waters or derail the thread. But, stay on topic please.
As you can see there is nothing here about his amendment. The only reference he makes is to amendments:
He is seeking information and there is nothing about his amendment in this reference.
You might like to start another thread on the topic your reference speaks to.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow. You managed to misunderstand law, economics, and literature, all in one post. I think that might be a new record for you.
God bless Grassley and the Grateful Dead.
Bolded mine
Do you get it??? That is the question.
The bolded part of your quote is nothing more than the private insurance industry of the US today; the difference being that it IS NOT MANDATORY; it's your option to participate or not - no coercion.
I get it now : what you want is the right to participate or not to any social system, that's it ?
Let's say i understood, do you understand what i mean, for those who want to participate and give money to the " pot " (and then those who won't give won't get anything) that it should have no commercial/investment meanings, but just manage the funds ? We have both here, some being real private insurances, and other being called " mutuelles ", these last making no profit (and then having no external investors).
Let's say i understood, do you understand what i mean, for those who want to participate and give money to the " pot " (and then those who won't give won't get anything) that it should have no commercial/investment meanings, but just manage the funds ? We have both here, some being real private insurances, and other being called " mutuelles ", these last making no profit (and then having no external investors).
Why would I reference your editorial ? Why would he ? It is a deliberate twisting of his intent. You are telling us (with said editorial), every republican voted to restrict health care to the poor. That is nonsense. Talk about muddying the waters. The ammendment, and his letter, speak to his desire to lower the cost of health insurance by lowering their taxes. You and the libbie press are taking it and putting words into it. Show me where he wants to take money from the poor and pass it up to insurance companies.
He isn't so much lowering their costs as ensuring greater profits.
Actually insurance companies should be non-profit or not for profit companies. There are many companies that are either non-profit or not-for profit that provide important services to you and others.
For instance did you know that any time you ride a commercial airplane in the USA any message to or from that plane goes through the communication system of Aeronautical Radio ... a not for profit company. They pass millions of messages each day and you, as a passenger, benefit from their services. Not many passengers have ever heard of Aeronautical Radio [Arinc].
Insurance companies could be the same and not have to worry about keeping investors happy and thus they could lower costs.
The editorial is referenced because that is the topic of the thread. Grassley's request for information is not the topic of the thread ... so please stay on topic.
The primary question is why should the poor and legal aliens have benefits cut simply to ensure insurance companies greater profits?[/SIZE]
Last edited by a moderator:
When you start railing against the millionare ambulance chasing trial lawyers, and their protective unions, you can talk to me about greed. This is nothing more than an attack on the newest liberal's favorite villian, the insurance companies. Grassley's thinking was lower their operating costs, and let them compete in a free market. Next to his ideas, I'd like to see the inter-state restrictions lifted, and we'll see costs really go down.
And the topic of the thread was how republicans want to stick it to the poor, something you have yet to show. Grassley's words are very much on-topic.
And God bless him.
And the topic of the thread was how republicans want to stick it to the poor, something you have yet to show. Grassley's words are very much on-topic.
And God bless him.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status