A Question For Conservatives

Forums: Politics, Insurance, Healthcare, Affordable
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Since blowing out my back I'm unable to work as much as I'd like and my earnings are cut down. With the availability of insurance I am getting meds to make at least enough work to pay the basic bills, and will soon enough, probably by Thanksgiving, have had the necessary surgery and be back to 100% in time for the holiday season. Without insurance and the ability to take care of this, I'd be out of work period. Literally. Tell me, American Christian Patriots, what do you think would be more of a burden on you true God fearing Americans? Affordable insurance, or the cost of taking care of me, my wife and my son as homeless people with virtually no income at all? Now, I'm not asking if we deserve to have insurance, which we gladly pay the premiums on, or would deserve to be taken care of if we found ourselves in that homeless situation, I already know your answer to that question is Hell no.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 1,068 • Replies: 10

No top replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

What the hell makes you think us conservatives are going to take care of you slackers?

1 Reply

I don't think so.As a matter of fact I know so. The fact that Obama's healthcare
reform policies make it possible for me and squinney to pay an affordable premium and get the care that allows us to continue to work, and believe me we work plenty, and remain off the "government tit", which is SO MUCH CHEAPER than being a "welfare queen" escapes conservatives. In addition it seems to give them severe distress of the lower tract, which makes it difficult for them to reason this simple fact out, (obvious reason) which is a delightful bonus for me. Plain truth is it's cheaper in the long run and even in the short run, to financially assist people in taking care of themselves than to take care of them. And anyone who doesn't like it can go f**k themselves, btw. Laughing

0 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Since blowing out my back I'm unable to work as much as I'd like and my earnings are cut down. With the availability of insurance I am getting meds to make at least enough work to pay the basic bills, and will soon enough, probably by Thanksgiving, have had the necessary surgery and be back to 100% in time for the holiday season. Without insurance and the ability to take care of this, I'd be out of work period. Literally. Tell me, American Christian Patriots, what do you think would be more of a burden on you true God fearing Americans? Affordable insurance, or the cost of taking care of me, my wife and my son as homeless people with virtually no income at all?

Your question calls for number crunching.
I am not competent to do that; will not try.
As I see it,
u left out the most IMPORTANT consideration, to wit:
Has government ever been granted jurisdiction
to extort, coerce & intimidate American citizens
into buying insurance against their wills ??
or is obama's effort an un-Constitutional usurpation of power??

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Now, I'm not asking if we deserve to have insurance,
which we gladly pay the premiums on,
or would deserve to be taken care of if we found ourselves
in that homeless situation, I already know your answer to that question is Hell no.

I do not oppose the safety net.
I 'd rather simply give handouts from the general treasury
than to tolerate seizures of political power over the citizen,
such as forcing him to buy things that he refuses to get.

I consider myself to be at least semi-fanatically conservative.

David

3 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

What the hell makes you think us conservatives are going to take care of you slackers?

Where exactly is BVT being a slacker?

1 Reply

I think you would be a fool not to take advantage of every program and tool available to you.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Do you have children David? I have 5. For better or worse, as they are young, I have the power to, if they won't stop doing foolish things that are not good for them and won't listen to reason, intervene to make them take the fork out of the electrical outlet. We voluntarily give power to our elected officials to represent us and make decisions for us. If we won't listen to reason and take care of those less fortunate when all reasonable and irrefutable facts say it's cheaper for instance to keep people healthy by making insurance affordable and getting SOME contribution than it is to pick up the WHOLE tab for their healthcare, welfare, housing, ebt, childcare, and eventually final expenses because they were unable to take care of a small health problem before it became a permanently debilitating one then I say that like a parent, Obama or any sitting President of any political party who might have happened to do it has done the right thing. Saying you're not a number cruncher is blatant avoidance. So is the unconstitutional freedom destroying argument.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

The SC already answered that question in 2012. But don't worry, they have also recently ruled companies don't have pay insurance for contraceptives. In my opinion it is a ridiculous ruling. So, we both have something we don't agree with and have to live with it.

0 Replies

@chai2,

Still dont understand sarcasm?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

You wrote,

Quote:

Has government ever been granted jurisdiction to extort, coerce & intimidate American citizens into buying insurance against their wills ??

Evidently, you are ignorant on many fronts including how our three branches of government operates. ACA was approved by congress, signed by the president, and got the blessing of the supreme court.

Most capitalistic democracies have universal health care, and the happiest people on this planet live in Denmark where they pay upwards of 80% of their income in taxes.

You're too stupid to have any decent discussion with. And you're a (has been) attorney? LOL

0 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Do you have children David?

No. Blessedly, no.
I am free.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

I have 5. For better or worse, as they are young, I have the power to,
if they won't stop doing foolish things that are not good for them
and won't listen to reason, intervene to make them take the fork out
of the electrical outlet.

U have muscular power to do that; yes.
With all respect, please note that your having procreated
has had no effect upon extant Constitutional limits on the power of government.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

We voluntarily give power to our elected officials to represent us
and make decisions for us.

Yes. That is true, in regard to certain specifically designated grants of authority.
Beyond those grants of authority, government has no more lawful power to interfere
with any citizen than does Pat Robertson's Church or the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

If we won't listen to reason and take care of those less fortunate when
all reasonable and irrefutable facts say it's cheaper for instance to keep people healthy by making insurance affordable and getting SOME contribution than it is to pick up the WHOLE tab for their healthcare, welfare, housing, ebt, childcare, and eventually final expenses because they were unable to take care of a small health problem before it became a permanently debilitating one then I say that like a parent, Obama or any sitting President of any political party who might have happened to do it has done the right thing.

I am not entirely clear concerning whether u just advocated that,
in those circumstances, he overthrow the Constitution and take over America,
ruling like a king, as did Saddam, Stalin, Hitler, et al.
Perhaps u will clarify what u had in mind about that.
Once the restraints of the Constitution are broken,
then the Frankenstein monster is loose from his slab in the lab.
He will not come back freely to be restrained. Presumably, the next step
wud be to suspend any more elections indefinitely.

Bear, I suggest that u remember that the jurisdiction
of government and personal freedom are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Saying you're not a number cruncher is blatant avoidance.

Then, for the sake of argument,
I will concede your point, tho I freely admit that I dont know
what I m talking about, insofar as those numbers are concerned.
I deem it a moot point.
I am entrenching on the line that GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER GRANTED
AUTHORITY TO EXTORT ANYONE INTO BUYING INSURANCE AGAINST HIS WILL.

In other words, the jurisdictional foundation for that coercion
is a hoax and obama is a snake oil salesman. "Good for what ails you."

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

So is the unconstitutional freedom destroying argument.

THAT is the critical and dispositive criterion.
I will fight to the death for THAT argument.

David

0 Replies

A Question For Conservatives

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know