Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...tonight held a "prayer cast" over the web where conks and their neo-religious ilk actually came together and prayed to God for the defeat of health care reform.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/51738/b ... ealth-care

sickening.

What would Jesus do - charge for healing the sick?

dbackjon wrote:sickening.

What would Jesus do - charge for healing the sick?

Heal you!

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.

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.

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.

catamount man wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

So you don't want people "forced" to do "right"?

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.

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.

Perhaps these shallow, greedy, hypocricitcal fools need to pray a litte harder.

OSBF wrote:

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...

So you don't want people "forced" to do "right"?

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.

Assuming anything as it pertains to my beliefs and core values is a very dangerous proposition and you will be wrong in your assumptions more often that not.

That being said, I am in favor of a woman's right to choose, since it is her body after all. I am in favor of the woman making the right choice, which is to not engage in unprotected sex without proper contraception and birth control. It is a lot cheaper to pay for ortho novum and rubbers than an abortion; financially, physically, and emotionally.

Naturally a portion of the responsibility of the proper choice falls on the shoulders of the male involved too. He should be making proper choices, which is to not have unprotected sex with a woman he is not 1000% sure has taken the proper steps in birth control and defending against STD's. He has to make sure his interests are protected as well.

So you're wrong, I am as pro-choice as it gets, but unlike so many of my fellow pro-choicers, I am pro- responsible choices and pro-accountability.

kalm wrote:

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.

Perhaps these shallow, greedy, hypocricitcal fools need to pray a litte harder.

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.

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.

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.

REALLY?????????????????

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/ba ... index.html

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.

No surprise. He is an unstable irrelevant schizoid. Typical.

kalm wrote:

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.

Perhaps these shallow, greedy, hypocricitcal fools need to pray a litte harder.

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.

OSBF wrote:

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.

REALLY?????????????????

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/ba ... index.html

I think this sums it up pretty well

"I think medical bills are something that a lot of families are having a lot of difficulty with and whether it's the direct cause of bankruptcy or whether it helps to push them over the edge because they already were in a precarious financial situation, it's a big concern and hopefully that's what medical reform will try to address," he says.


How many of these people were living in too big of a house, had two new cars, a boat/camper, etc. and yet had no savings account to get them through emergencies? People need to stop worrying about keeping up with the neighbors and take some personal responsibility for their lives.

blueballs wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Crony Capitalism quickly becoming a religion. God's going to strike you all down for idolatry.

This is the best thread EVER..!!!

OSBF wrote:

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.

REALLY?????????????????

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/ba ... index.html

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.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

catamount man wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, unless it's a newly proclaimed Democrat using God's word to force people into paying more in taxes for the government to operate a charity.

You HAVE missed something, it's called hypocrisy. You hate the "big, bad Republicans" (you're still a Democrat right?) who "use" God's word to support their policy stance, yet YOU have no problem USING God's word to support YOUR policy stance. So, apparently only YOU can have the monopoly on using God's word to support your claim...sounds kind of Bushy to me.

You have yet to show proof that Jesus' teachings about helping the poor were about the government forcing/ commanding people to pay for other's health insurance. Although, I'm sure your being sick and tired of Republicans is more than enough reason to pass multi-billion dollar legislation--not to mention that you think Jesus said so.

BTW, there are many Republicans and Democrats and Christians and Atheists who do help people, all by themselves without the forced hand or help of the government. It's amazing, I know, but they do.

Again, this isn't an argument for or against the actual bill in Congress. This is a rebuttal of your using God's word to support your political agenda, while blasting people who do the same. God was not and is not a Republican or a Democrat...he's probably not even an :GASP: American!

blueballs wrote:

OSBF wrote:
REALLY?????????????????

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/ba ... index.html

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.

OK, I can see you having a problem with CNN as a source, so here are a few others:

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.

OSBF wrote:

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.

OK, I can see you having a problem with CNN as a source, so here are a few others:

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.

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).

The cynical part of me- developed though decades of doing mortgagesand reviewing credit, budgets, and spending habits- wonders if the study is valid especially since people can declare BK for other reasons and blame it on medical bills, while claiming to be insured, but still have misallocated their resources and made poor financial choices (such as underinsuring) which were the true root of the BK.

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...

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.

Bottom line, I CHOSE to go to the hospital, I CHOSE to pay what my insurance company didn't, I DIDN'T CHOSE, to lose my job and thus, have a medical collection debt on my credit report.

Now, it has taken my almost 3 years to get out of debt and each month starting December 2009, has me making a last payment on a debt. HOPEFULLY, my wife and I can rebuild our savings and work towards home ownership. Lord knows, we've earned it. Health Insurance has saved us many times over and is worth the expense. I wish BCBS paid more, but i'm overall happy with my 85/15 policy.

This thread serves to refute the thesis in the Olberman thread about Americans being "high information voters."

CID1990 wrote:This thread serves to refute the thesis in the Olberman thread about Americans being "high information voters."

Just Google "Americans are stupid" and check out the first 50 or so horrifying web pages...
We're so fucking stupid it's actually amazing

More accurately we're:
Fat and Stupid - 60% of Americans are over weight and 30% are actually obese - it reminds me on one of my favorite movie scenes of all time = Animal House...

[youtube][/youtube]