IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Another prime example of Democrats using children to do their demagoguery and lies. Turns out this Graeme Frost's parents are not so poor, and it is them that failed their child, not Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts

okie wrote:

Another prime example of Democrats using children to do their demagoguery and lies. Turns out this Graeme Frost's parents are not so poor, and it is them that failed their child, not Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts

What a bunch of bullcrap. I knew it wouldn't be long before people tried this sort of game.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Another prime example of Democrats using children to do their demagoguery and lies. Turns out this Graeme Frost's parents are not so poor, and it is them that failed their child, not Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts

What a bunch of bullcrap. I knew it wouldn't be long before people tried this sort of game.

Cycloptichorn

? aren't you one arguing in favor of this socialized medicine and insurance crap ?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Another prime example of Democrats using children to do their demagoguery and lies. Turns out this Graeme Frost's parents are not so poor, and it is them that failed their child, not Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts

What a bunch of bullcrap. I knew it wouldn't be long before people tried this sort of game.

Cycloptichorn

? aren't you one arguing in favor of this socialized medicine and insurance crap ?

Sigh, did you even read the f*cking link?

The bullcrap is in trying to paint this family as some sort of rich family. It isn't a rich family in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Another prime example of Democrats using children to do their demagoguery and lies. Turns out this Graeme Frost's parents are not so poor, and it is them that failed their child, not Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts

What a bunch of bullcrap. I knew it wouldn't be long before people tried this sort of game.

Cycloptichorn

? aren't you one arguing in favor of this socialized medicine and insurance crap ?

Sigh, did you even read the f*cking link?

The bullcrap is in trying to paint this family as some sort of rich family. It isn't a rich family in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

Actually, I read it all. If they aren't rich, it is by their own doing. If they want medical insurance, they can pull the kids out of that expensive school to pay for it.

I should say that they may not be "rich" but they are definitely not poor. They have just chosen other priorities and now they want free health care.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Another prime example of Democrats using children to do their demagoguery and lies. Turns out this Graeme Frost's parents are not so poor, and it is them that failed their child, not Bush.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts

What a bunch of bullcrap. I knew it wouldn't be long before people tried this sort of game.

Cycloptichorn

? aren't you one arguing in favor of this socialized medicine and insurance crap ?

Sigh, did you even read the f*cking link?

The bullcrap is in trying to paint this family as some sort of rich family. It isn't a rich family in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

Actually, I read it all. If they aren't rich, it is by their own doing. If they want medical insurance, they can pull the kids out of that expensive school to pay for it.

This is what I meant when I said 'bunch of bullcrap.' The school provides 90+% financial assistance for students whose parents can't afford it. But, you didn't actually research that, and neither did the writers of that hack article; you just saw something that confirmed your shitty biases.

Great work! Now please, try a little harder next time.

Cycloptichorn

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I should say that they may not be "rich" but they are definitely not poor. They have just chosen other priorities and now they want free health care.

It's not free; they pay taxes just like everyone else does.

45k/year when you have 6 kids is barely keeping afloat, let alone saving for the future. You are out of your mind if you think any different.

Cycloptichorn

They pay taxes... Well, suppose this is true. They make $45k/year with 6 kids. I make 53K a year and have 0 kids. I do not (currently) own property.

So even from the start, their taxes are lower than mine because of the pay, then you factor in 6 dependents and mortgage APR... They are paying significantly less than I am. Oh, and I pay for my own damn health insurance. I also went to public schools, by the way.

So just how much help should they get? And why should I be taxed more to help pay for them, so they can spend their money on other things? I want to a buy a new car, and if I didn't have to pay into medicare or medicaid, I'd have a lot more money to do that with.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

They pay taxes... Well, suppose this is true. They make $45k/year with 6 kids. I make 53K a year and have 0 kids. I do not (currently) own property.

So even from the start, their taxes are lower than mine because of the pay, then you factor in 6 dependents and mortgage APR... They are paying significantly less than I am. Oh, and I pay for my own damn health insurance. I also went to public schools, by the way.

So just how much help should they get? And why should I be taxed more to help pay for them, so they can spend their money on other things? I want to a buy a new car, and if I didn't have to pay into medicare or medicaid, I'd have a lot more money to do that with.

I suppose, that's the crux of the matter: you (= most Americans) don't understand the solidarity principe. Because you neer had i´t, but which has been - with roots in medieval Christianity - "introduced" in Europe since more than 100 years. (And is part of the German constitution.)

I sincerely doubt it to be easy to make that understandable.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I should say that they may not be "rich" but they are definitely not poor. They have just chosen other priorities and now they want free health care.

It's not free; they pay taxes just like everyone else does.

45k/year when you have 6 kids is barely keeping afloat, let alone saving for the future. You are out of your mind if you think any different.

Cycloptichorn

They pay taxes... Well, suppose this is true. They make $45k/year with 6 kids. I make 53K a year and have 0 kids. I do not (currently) own property.

So even from the start, their taxes are lower than mine because of the pay, then you factor in 6 dependents and mortgage APR... They are paying significantly less than I am. Oh, and I pay for my own damn health insurance. I also went to public schools, by the way.

So just how much help should they get? And why should I be taxed more to help pay for them, so they can spend their money on other things? I want to a buy a new car, and if I didn't have to pay into medicare or medicaid, I'd have a lot more money to do that with.

The National Catholic Rural Life Conference applies the following principles when considering economic, social and environmental policies
on behalf of agriculture and rural communities:

Human Dignity
The Common Good
Preferential Option for the Poor
Universal Destination of Goods
Integrity of Creation
Subsidiarity
Solidarity

Principle 3: Preferential Option for the Poor

A fundamental moral measure of any society is to ask how the poor and vulnerable are faring. The poor are those who suffer from lack of basic goods and necessities. The poor bring before us a profound question about the order of the world, and whether this order is truly good. The option for the poor means that we should act - as individuals and as members of community - to overcome the structural injustice of social and world orders.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I should say that they may not be "rich" but they are definitely not poor. They have just chosen other priorities and now they want free health care.

It's not free; they pay taxes just like everyone else does.

45k/year when you have 6 kids is barely keeping afloat, let alone saving for the future. You are out of your mind if you think any different.

Cycloptichorn

They pay taxes... Well, suppose this is true. They make $45k/year with 6 kids. I make 53K a year and have 0 kids. I do not (currently) own property.

So even from the start, their taxes are lower than mine because of the pay, then you factor in 6 dependents and mortgage APR... They are paying significantly less than I am. Oh, and I pay for my own damn health insurance. I also went to public schools, by the way.

So just how much help should they get? And why should I be taxed more to help pay for them, so they can spend their money on other things? I want to a buy a new car, and if I didn't have to pay into medicare or medicaid, I'd have a lot more money to do that with.

I'm more concerned about their kids them I am with your buying of a new car, sorry to have to tell ya.

If you would support public health insurance plans, you wouldn't have to pay such high premiums for your own personal health insurance, giving you more money to buy a car.

It always comes down to stuff in the end for you guys. I think one of the major differences in this debate is that your side places a greater emphasis on owning nice stuff then it does on having healthy kids.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I should say that they may not be "rich" but they are definitely not poor. They have just chosen other priorities and now they want free health care.

It's not free; they pay taxes just like everyone else does.

45k/year when you have 6 kids is barely keeping afloat, let alone saving for the future. You are out of your mind if you think any different.

Cycloptichorn

They pay taxes... Well, suppose this is true. They make $45k/year with 6 kids. I make 53K a year and have 0 kids. I do not (currently) own property.

So even from the start, their taxes are lower than mine because of the pay, then you factor in 6 dependents and mortgage APR... They are paying significantly less than I am. Oh, and I pay for my own damn health insurance. I also went to public schools, by the way.

So just how much help should they get? And why should I be taxed more to help pay for them, so they can spend their money on other things? I want to a buy a new car, and if I didn't have to pay into medicare or medicaid, I'd have a lot more money to do that with.

I'm more concerned about their kids them I am with your buying of a new car, sorry to have to tell ya.

If you would support public health insurance plans, you wouldn't have to pay such high premiums for your own personal health insurance, giving you more money to buy a car.

It always comes down to stuff in the end for you guys. I think one of the major differences in this debate is that your side places a greater emphasis on owning nice stuff then it does on having healthy kids.

Cycloptichorn

Well perhaps if they were as concerned as you are, they would have the insurance instead of the expensive house and the private school.

And no, it's not about "stuff" - that was just a convenient example. I don't have a "side" - unless you count the side of responsibility and common sense. They made the choice to have 4 kids. They made the choice to send them to expensive schools.

Oh, and I do support public health insurance plans. I pay medicare and medicaid taxes.

I think a difference is that *your side* always wants more more more for less less less.

if their house is at the median price then they are obviously not poor. i thought that was pretty easy to understand. so, do you know that they get financial aid? i didn't see that in any of the material. if the schools are so bad and their house so expensive, they could move. there are cheaper places with better school all over.

how is *your side* not about "more stuff" ? if medical insurance was really that important to them and they were having such a hard time, they could make choices NOW to correct that. but, they want their big house and their nice schools. before i was born, both of my parents lost their job. they had my two sisters to take care of, and their 40K house. my dad sold all of his tools (which was a lot) and nearly everything else just to make ends meet until they could get back on their feet. there is no reason they couldn't do the same.

insurance is expensive - it's a business. i notice you didn't say anything about the article i referenced earlier.

and maybe they shouldn't have had 4 kids if things were so difficult. maybe they shouldn't live in one of the wealthiest areas of the country. they could move out to west MD and it would be significantly cheaper.