Romney is out of touch...

g under p

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

After seeing Chadwick's post, for some reason my ability to post clever and biting, sarcastic and funny posts is gone. Part of me is kinda hoping it doesn't come back.

So I'll just say that one of the things that bothered me so much about the "they don't die in their apartment" line wasn't that he showed just how little he knows (or cares) about health insurance and the entire medical industry, but the "apartment" jab.

He didn't say "their home" because that would be what a human lives in. And "an apartment" is more like a nest or a den. Something one of the help lives in. To him.. a poor person lives in "an apartment." And it conjures up an image of a dingy one-room bedsit in movies that he's seen. It's where those people who "feel they're entitled to food" live.

I know that many Republicans are good people and don't support that kind of attitude... that the poor people are all lazy moochers and if they get sick, that "emergency room" will look after them.

Mitt Romney has watched episodes of ER and nobody ever hauls out a credit card or writes a check on that show. And if they can't be saved, it wasn't because they were too poor to get treatment, it was because the doctors had to learn a lesson about how sometimes people die even if you're the best doctor ever. And that's where that "let them eat cake" attitude comes from. It's the same attitude that caused his wife to refer to the media and the people of the country as "you people" and not understand why it was such a rude thing to say.

The idea that there's always help for the poor people... the money just magically appears and everything is just fine. It doesn't work like that.

Obamacare isn't perfect but it's the best step in the right direction that we've had so far. And the very notion that there are people grumbling about it just baffles me.

I totally agree, he IS out of touch.

Peace

pandora

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

The human body was meant to suffer...
sometimes that is the answer. To suffer does not mean life will be any shorter
nor of less quality. It just means one is humbled and one learns to appreciate
life for what it is ... precious.

Well I hope when your child born with cancer a bowel disease screams in pain at night, you make sure to tell him that he's lucky to be "humbled" by the lesson that life is precious.

There are no other words.

None.

I guess you must continually pick out one sentence to pick on :wtf: how come?
Oh wait I know why...
this is the sentence you needed to read before you wrote your 'thought'

pandora wrote:

There is much unnecessary going on. There are those who truly need care
then there are those who just think they do and many are willing
to make money off of that.

Prince Of Dorkness

pandora wrote:

There is much unnecessary going on. There are those who truly need care
then there are those who just think they do and many are willing
to make money off of that.

Well then Obamacare is perfect.

See.. as it is now... if someone refuses to get insurance but feels sick or wants to see a doctor... they just go to the emergency room, fall down and groan. The Hospital HAS to care for them. Who pays for that?

Well.. you and I do. With higher healthcare costs, higher taxes AND with our time if that happens when WE are in the hospital for legitimate reasons and don't put on a big show. I think you'd agree that we shouldn't have to resort to theater sports to see a doctor.

Had these people been made to pay their own way... our hospital costs would be lower since we wouldn't have to shell out for their care, our taxes would be lower, since we wouldn't have to shell out for their care, and they wouldn't be wasting people's time by making an appointment to go see a doctor, go to a walk-in clinic.

What about the people who can't afford even a bottom-rung healthcare plan? Well... we help them out. Like we already do anyway. So there's no extra cost involved.

You see? Obamacare just caved Christmas!

kenny olav

Bottom line... if a candidate doesn't support immediate universal health care for every American, he or she cannot get my vote. Barack Obama supports Medicare For All... he also knows it' was difficult enough to get his plan through Congress... it's a shame they couldn't get the public option included. Or maybe it was all a big favor to the private insurance companies to begin with? Then again, don't they all oppose it? There certainly has been far too much fear mongering about it. But it can and will be implemented... without wrecking our economy. I think 10 years from now people will be amazed that there ever was such opposition to it.

Prince Of Dorkness

kenny olav wrote:

Bottom line... if a candidate doesn't support immediate universal health care for every American, he or she cannot get my vote. Barack Obama supports Medicare For All... he also knows it' was difficult enough to get his plan through Congress... it's a shame they couldn't get the public option included. Or maybe it was all a big favor to the private insurance companies to begin with? Then again, don't they all oppose it? There certainly has been far too much fear mongering about it. But it can and will be implemented... without wrecking our economy. I think 10 years from now people will be amazed that there ever was such opposition to it.

As we've seen in his four years of being president... he doesn't ram things through. The best changes happen slowly and this was a big step - but still a step - in the right direction.

pandora

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

There is much unnecessary going on. There are those who truly need care
then there are those who just think they do and many are willing
to make money off of that.

Well then Obamacare is perfect.

See.. as it is now... if someone refuses to get insurance but feels sick or wants to see a doctor... they just go to the emergency room, fall down and groan. The Hospital HAS to care for them. Who pays for that?

Well.. you and I do. With higher healthcare costs, higher taxes AND with our time if that happens when WE are in the hospital for legitimate reasons and don't put on a big show. I think you'd agree that we shouldn't have to resort to theater sports to see a doctor.

Had these people been made to pay their own way... our hospital costs would be lower since we wouldn't have to shell out for their care, our taxes would be lower, since we wouldn't have to shell out for their care, and they wouldn't be wasting people's time by making an appointment to go see a doctor, go to a walk-in clinic.

What about the people who can't afford even a bottom-rung healthcare plan? Well... we help them out. Like we already do anyway. So there's no extra cost involved.

You see? Obamacare just caved Christmas!

sorry stopped reading after the first line there...
I don't think even Obama himself thinks it's perfect

know1

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

We should start a thread about health insurance companies getting away with cutting people off when they most need insurance.

That would be a great idea.

As a sub-topic, we could also discuss how asinine it is for the government to propose to fix the problem by mandating an even greater reliance on health insurance.