






http://minnesotaindependent.com/51738/b ... ealth-care
Heal you!dbackjon wrote:sickening.
What would Jesus do - charge for healing the sick?
perhaps you missed it where these assclowns are praying against a health care plan that will benefit people, instead of their wallets because we all know that's the Godly way right ? Modern day Republicans are no better than the same pharisees that Jesus used to condemn and guess what, they killed him. Today's "GOD'S OWN PARTY" is no better, in fact, they are worse.clenz wrote:I just find it ironic that c-man is thanking God left and right for finally being a democrat, but now is turning on those praying to God.
Right, Jesus preached about having government force people to pay for other's health care bills. You're missing the boat with your new found "progressiveness" and trying to incorporate religious teachings into your political beliefs--which a good Democrat would say is a no-no. The fact of the matter is, Jesus preached about what YOU should do...not what a government should FORCE people to do. Surely, you can see that...if not, you're the one that missed it.catamount man wrote:perhaps you missed it where these assclowns are praying against a health care plan that will benefit people, instead of their wallets because we all know that's the Godly way right ? Modern day Republicans are no better than the same pharisees that Jesus used to condemn and guess what, they killed him. Today's "GOD'S OWN PARTY" is no better, in fact, they are worse.clenz wrote:I just find it ironic that c-man is thanking God left and right for finally being a democrat, but now is turning on those praying to God.
So you don't want people "forced" to do "right"?blueballs wrote:Excellent post ASUMoutaineer...
... a huge part of my business is reviewing credit reports, and an overwhelming majority of those reports have medical collections on them where people CHOSE to go to a physician, CHOSE to sign the proper forms to get treatment from the physician, CHOSE to sign the forms promising payment, then CHOSE to ignore the bill and subsequent attempts to collect the bill. Why? Because they CHOSE to not purchase health insurance but instead CHOSE to use their money on car payments in excess of $400/month , credit cards, and other non- essential items. The overwhelming majority of these collections are under $500 so there was absolutely a CHOICE made to not pay the physician for the services they AGREED to pay in writing prior to asking the physician to give up a portion of his life, resources, and time to help perform the service in exchange for compensation- just like any other purchase of a product or service.
Life is all about CHOICES. If something is valuable enough or deemed necessary to you a CHOICE will be made to allocate the proper resources to have that item/service. The overwhelming majority of poeple who don't have health insurance have CHOSEN not to carry it in lieu of other expenditures because they don't believe it is important enough or necessary until after the fact when they need it. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Forcing the people who CHOOSE to do right and properly allocate their resources and play by the rules to subsidize those who CHOOSE not to is the worst kind of immorality; and those who pray that kind of immorality doesn't come to pass are not "ilk," they are for what is right and responsible. The people who choose not are immoral.
Bottom line...
And a procedure that is overpriced and a system that forces people - some of which actually have insurance- into bankruptcy over medical bills while industry executives and shareholders are compensated in the billions is even more immoral.blueballs wrote:Excellent post ASUMoutaineer...
... a huge part of my business is reviewing credit reports, and an overwhelming majority of those reports have medical collections on them where people CHOSE to go to a physician, CHOSE to sign the proper forms to get treatment from the physician, CHOSE to sign the forms promising payment, then CHOSE to ignore the bill and subsequent attempts to collect the bill. Why? Because they CHOSE to not purchase health insurance but instead CHOSE to use their money on car payments in excess of $400/month , credit cards, and other non- essential items. The overwhelming majority of these collections are under $500 so there was absolutely a CHOICE made to not pay the physician for the services they AGREED to pay in writing prior to asking the physician to give up a portion of his life, resources, and time to help perform the service in exchange for compensation- just like any other purchase of a product or service.
Life is all about CHOICES. If something is valuable enough or deemed necessary to you a CHOICE will be made to allocate the proper resources to have that item/service. The overwhelming majority of poeple who don't have health insurance have CHOSEN not to carry it in lieu of other expenditures because they don't believe it is important enough or necessary until after the fact when they need it. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Forcing the people who CHOOSE to do right and properly allocate their resources and play by the rules to subsidize those who CHOOSE not to is the worst kind of immorality; and those who pray that kind of immorality doesn't come to pass are not "ilk," they are for what is right and responsible. The people who choose not are immoral.
Bottom line...
OSBF wrote:So you don't want people "forced" to do "right"?blueballs wrote:Excellent post ASUMoutaineer...
... a huge part of my business is reviewing credit reports, and an overwhelming majority of those reports have medical collections on them where people CHOSE to go to a physician, CHOSE to sign the proper forms to get treatment from the physician, CHOSE to sign the forms promising payment, then CHOSE to ignore the bill and subsequent attempts to collect the bill. Why? Because they CHOSE to not purchase health insurance but instead CHOSE to use their money on car payments in excess of $400/month , credit cards, and other non- essential items. The overwhelming majority of these collections are under $500 so there was absolutely a CHOICE made to not pay the physician for the services they AGREED to pay in writing prior to asking the physician to give up a portion of his life, resources, and time to help perform the service in exchange for compensation- just like any other purchase of a product or service.
Life is all about CHOICES. If something is valuable enough or deemed necessary to you a CHOICE will be made to allocate the proper resources to have that item/service. The overwhelming majority of poeple who don't have health insurance have CHOSEN not to carry it in lieu of other expenditures because they don't believe it is important enough or necessary until after the fact when they need it. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Forcing the people who CHOOSE to do right and properly allocate their resources and play by the rules to subsidize those who CHOOSE not to is the worst kind of immorality; and those who pray that kind of immorality doesn't come to pass are not "ilk," they are for what is right and responsible. The people who choose not are immoral.
Bottom line...
Then I can only assume you're in favor of allowing women the freedom of choice when choosing what medical procedures they want done on their own bodies?
Pot, meet kettle.
Again, another assumption devoid of fact. The overwhelming majority of bankruptcies in the United States are not due to medical calamity, but instead due to poor financial management or other extenuating non medical circumstances. From a pure percentage standpoint, it is extremely rare that bankruptcy protection is sought for purely medical reasons.kalm wrote:And a procedure that is overpriced and a system that forces people - some of which actually have insurance- into bankruptcy over medical bills while industry executives and shareholders are compensated in the billions is even more immoral.blueballs wrote:Excellent post ASUMoutaineer...
... a huge part of my business is reviewing credit reports, and an overwhelming majority of those reports have medical collections on them where people CHOSE to go to a physician, CHOSE to sign the proper forms to get treatment from the physician, CHOSE to sign the forms promising payment, then CHOSE to ignore the bill and subsequent attempts to collect the bill. Why? Because they CHOSE to not purchase health insurance but instead CHOSE to use their money on car payments in excess of $400/month , credit cards, and other non- essential items. The overwhelming majority of these collections are under $500 so there was absolutely a CHOICE made to not pay the physician for the services they AGREED to pay in writing prior to asking the physician to give up a portion of his life, resources, and time to help perform the service in exchange for compensation- just like any other purchase of a product or service.
Life is all about CHOICES. If something is valuable enough or deemed necessary to you a CHOICE will be made to allocate the proper resources to have that item/service. The overwhelming majority of poeple who don't have health insurance have CHOSEN not to carry it in lieu of other expenditures because they don't believe it is important enough or necessary until after the fact when they need it. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Forcing the people who CHOOSE to do right and properly allocate their resources and play by the rules to subsidize those who CHOOSE not to is the worst kind of immorality; and those who pray that kind of immorality doesn't come to pass are not "ilk," they are for what is right and responsible. The people who choose not are immoral.
Bottom line...
Perhaps these shallow, greedy, hypocricitcal fools need to pray a litte harder.
REALLY?????????????????blueballs wrote:
Again, another assumption devoid of fact. The overwhelming majority of bankruptcies in the United States are not due to medical calamity, but instead due to poor financial management or other extenuating non medical circumstances. From a pure percentage standpoint, it is extremely rare that bankruptcy protection is sought for purely medical reasons.
No surprise. He is an unstable irrelevant schizoid. Typical.clenz wrote:I just find it ironic that c-man is thanking God left and right for finally being a democrat, but now is turning on those praying to God.
Procedures that are not subsidized by the government and must be performed in the free market, such as lasik, are falling in cost and rising in effectiveness.kalm wrote:And a procedure that is overpriced and a system that forces people - some of which actually have insurance- into bankruptcy over medical bills while industry executives and shareholders are compensated in the billions is even more immoral.blueballs wrote:Excellent post ASUMoutaineer...
... a huge part of my business is reviewing credit reports, and an overwhelming majority of those reports have medical collections on them where people CHOSE to go to a physician, CHOSE to sign the proper forms to get treatment from the physician, CHOSE to sign the forms promising payment, then CHOSE to ignore the bill and subsequent attempts to collect the bill. Why? Because they CHOSE to not purchase health insurance but instead CHOSE to use their money on car payments in excess of $400/month , credit cards, and other non- essential items. The overwhelming majority of these collections are under $500 so there was absolutely a CHOICE made to not pay the physician for the services they AGREED to pay in writing prior to asking the physician to give up a portion of his life, resources, and time to help perform the service in exchange for compensation- just like any other purchase of a product or service.
Life is all about CHOICES. If something is valuable enough or deemed necessary to you a CHOICE will be made to allocate the proper resources to have that item/service. The overwhelming majority of poeple who don't have health insurance have CHOSEN not to carry it in lieu of other expenditures because they don't believe it is important enough or necessary until after the fact when they need it. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Forcing the people who CHOOSE to do right and properly allocate their resources and play by the rules to subsidize those who CHOOSE not to is the worst kind of immorality; and those who pray that kind of immorality doesn't come to pass are not "ilk," they are for what is right and responsible. The people who choose not are immoral.
Bottom line...
Perhaps these shallow, greedy, hypocricitcal fools need to pray a litte harder.
I think this sums it up pretty wellOSBF wrote:REALLY?????????????????blueballs wrote:
Again, another assumption devoid of fact. The overwhelming majority of bankruptcies in the United States are not due to medical calamity, but instead due to poor financial management or other extenuating non medical circumstances. From a pure percentage standpoint, it is extremely rare that bankruptcy protection is sought for purely medical reasons.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/ba ... index.html
Crony Capitalism quickly becoming a religion. God's going to strike you all down for idolatry.blueballs wrote:Again, another assumption devoid of fact. The overwhelming majority of bankruptcies in the United States are not due to medical calamity, but instead due to poor financial management or other extenuating non medical circumstances. From a pure percentage standpoint, it is extremely rare that bankruptcy protection is sought for purely medical reasons.kalm wrote:
And a procedure that is overpriced and a system that forces people - some of which actually have insurance- into bankruptcy over medical bills while industry executives and shareholders are compensated in the billions is even more immoral.
Perhaps these shallow, greedy, hypocricitcal fools need to pray a litte harder.
Your last statement reeks of wealth and success envy. The capitalist system compensates the successful, those who invest their time, resources, efforts into successful endeavors and make proper choices. The people who do that don't have to seek bankruptcy protection because they have managed their affairs properly except in the most extreme and rare cases.
Perhaps the shallow, greedy, hypocritical fools who fail to assume accountability and make the proper choices should pray. After all, that is probably their only chance at success short of government intervention.
If the article gave testimony and statistics from bankruptcy attorneys or even bankruptcy court judges I would give it credit. As it is I don't, because I have been in my business for 25+ years and reviewed too many credit reports and too many BK discharges with the list of creditors attached to believe what amounts to a phone survey- which assumes the respondents are being honest and also assumes the integrity of the sample.OSBF wrote:REALLY?????????????????blueballs wrote:
Again, another assumption devoid of fact. The overwhelming majority of bankruptcies in the United States are not due to medical calamity, but instead due to poor financial management or other extenuating non medical circumstances. From a pure percentage standpoint, it is extremely rare that bankruptcy protection is sought for purely medical reasons.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/ba ... index.html
Haven't missed a thing. I am just sick and tired of holier than thou republicans using God's word as an excuse not to help somebody. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are people in this world, YES, who cannot help themselves due to unforeseen circumstances. Do deadbeats exist? Yes absolutely. There are people who do however get sick in this world, get fired, and have to file bankruptcy just to save their home.ASUMountaineer wrote:Right, Jesus preached about having government force people to pay for other's health care bills. You're missing the boat with your new found "progressiveness" and trying to incorporate religious teachings into your political beliefs--which a good Democrat would say is a no-no. The fact of the matter is, Jesus preached about what YOU should do...not what a government should FORCE people to do. Surely, you can see that...if not, you're the one that missed it.catamount man wrote:
perhaps you missed it where these assclowns are praying against a health care plan that will benefit people, instead of their wallets because we all know that's the Godly way right ? Modern day Republicans are no better than the same pharisees that Jesus used to condemn and guess what, they killed him. Today's "GOD'S OWN PARTY" is no better, in fact, they are worse.
Are these guys assclowns? Sure, but you're acting like one too trying to incorporate Jesus' religious teachings as justification for supporting a government take over of an industry and compelling others to pay. I just read 2 Corinthians Chapters 7-8 last night and Paul is talking to the Corinthian church about giving money for the Christians in Jerusalem. One guy (in our bible study) said, is Paul advocating socialism here? No, because he speaks clearly here, you see: 1) it has nothing to do with government and 2) the Corinthians are not FORCED to pay, they have the option.
I am waiting though for proof that Jesus' teachings were about the government taxing people to pay for health insurance for those that can't afford health insurance.
Keep in mind CMan, before you get all hyped up, this is not an argument against the current health care bill. This is a statement about how you are doing the same thing these guys are. You're trying to use Christianity to justify the actions of a government. One has nothing to do with the other.
catamount man wrote:Haven't missed a thing. I am just sick and tired of holier than thou republicans using God's word as an excuse not to help somebody. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are people in this world, YES, who cannot help themselves due to unforeseen circumstances. Do deadbeats exist? Yes absolutely. There are people who do however get sick in this world, get fired, and have to file bankruptcy just to save their home.ASUMountaineer wrote:
Right, Jesus preached about having government force people to pay for other's health care bills. You're missing the boat with your new found "progressiveness" and trying to incorporate religious teachings into your political beliefs--which a good Democrat would say is a no-no. The fact of the matter is, Jesus preached about what YOU should do...not what a government should FORCE people to do. Surely, you can see that...if not, you're the one that missed it.
Are these guys assclowns? Sure, but you're acting like one too trying to incorporate Jesus' religious teachings as justification for supporting a government take over of an industry and compelling others to pay. I just read 2 Corinthians Chapters 7-8 last night and Paul is talking to the Corinthian church about giving money for the Christians in Jerusalem. One guy (in our bible study) said, is Paul advocating socialism here? No, because he speaks clearly here, you see: 1) it has nothing to do with government and 2) the Corinthians are not FORCED to pay, they have the option.
I am waiting though for proof that Jesus' teachings were about the government taxing people to pay for health insurance for those that can't afford health insurance.
Keep in mind CMan, before you get all hyped up, this is not an argument against the current health care bill. This is a statement about how you are doing the same thing these guys are. You're trying to use Christianity to justify the actions of a government. One has nothing to do with the other.
Safety nets should be a requirement to help these people. Republicans just wish these people would go away so they can still live in their ivory towers as if all is well. Not gonna happen! WE ALL have a moral obligation to look after those less fortunate than us no matter the cost.
OK, I can see you having a problem with CNN as a source, so here are a few others:blueballs wrote:If the article gave testimony and statistics from bankruptcy attorneys or even bankruptcy court judges I would give it credit. As it is I don't, because I have been in my business for 25+ years and reviewed too many credit reports and too many BK discharges with the list of creditors attached to believe what amounts to a phone survey- which assumes the respondents are being honest and also assumes the integrity of the sample.
OB, thanks for taking the time to post the links... they all cite the same study. I thought the MSNBC article brought up an interesting question, which is how many of the BK filers had truly adequately insured themselves from the standpoint of having disability insurance and/or supplemental insurance (like AFLAC).OSBF wrote:OK, I can see you having a problem with CNN as a source, so here are a few others:blueballs wrote:
If the article gave testimony and statistics from bankruptcy attorneys or even bankruptcy court judges I would give it credit. As it is I don't, because I have been in my business for 25+ years and reviewed too many credit reports and too many BK discharges with the list of creditors attached to believe what amounts to a phone survey- which assumes the respondents are being honest and also assumes the integrity of the sample.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health ... bills.html
http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debt_medical.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5530Y020090604
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/healt ... uptcy.html
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... 666715.htm
Just one symptom of the health care crisis. Deny all you want, doesn't make it so. The facts are pretty one sided here.
I agree with you for the most part, but hard times fall on people that make the right choices and they eventually get the shaft.blueballs wrote:Excellent post ASUMoutaineer...
... a huge part of my business is reviewing credit reports, and an overwhelming majority of those reports have medical collections on them where people CHOSE to go to a physician, CHOSE to sign the proper forms to get treatment from the physician, CHOSE to sign the forms promising payment, then CHOSE to ignore the bill and subsequent attempts to collect the bill. Why? Because they CHOSE to not purchase health insurance but instead CHOSE to use their money on car payments in excess of $400/month , credit cards, and other non- essential items. The overwhelming majority of these collections are under $500 so there was absolutely a CHOICE made to not pay the physician for the services they AGREED to pay in writing prior to asking the physician to give up a portion of his life, resources, and time to help perform the service in exchange for compensation- just like any other purchase of a product or service.
Life is all about CHOICES. If something is valuable enough or deemed necessary to you a CHOICE will be made to allocate the proper resources to have that item/service. The overwhelming majority of poeple who don't have health insurance have CHOSEN not to carry it in lieu of other expenditures because they don't believe it is important enough or necessary until after the fact when they need it. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Forcing the people who CHOOSE to do right and properly allocate their resources and play by the rules to subsidize those who CHOOSE not to is the worst kind of immorality; and those who pray that kind of immorality doesn't come to pass are not "ilk," they are for what is right and responsible. The people who choose not are immoral.
Bottom line...
Just Google "Americans are stupid" and check out the first 50 or so horrifying web pages...CID1990 wrote:This thread serves to refute the thesis in the Olberman thread about Americans being "high information voters."