Applying "truth in advertising" to obamacare

[Mark@Sea]

I guess that the Democrats will try to pass the healthcare bill in Kennedy's name. Of course, if you want an accurate descriptor, they would call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial health service, and patients would spend their lives getting taken for a ride by an elected official who will try their best to screw them, and then die while they wait for someone in the government to do the right thing.

'Doc' Russia

August 26, 2009

[Steelharp]

If he'd have just stayed in the car...

[oldogy]

OMG, How true.

oldogy, who just spit coffee all over the keyboard.

[Chief07]

I can not believe the deception and disinformation being spread by this far left

party.

I think it is clear now that the communists, Marxisits, statists,and other unamerican malcontents have taken over the Democrat party and plan to change OUR country into

something that we have never known.

As Americans we need to call all of our Senators and Congressman and tell them to STOP NOW!

Is anyone aware that there is wording in the bill that makes it illegel to repeal the bill once it is voted into law by congress? Obama and the Apollo Alliance (communist group) wrote this bill. Not congress. They are putting on a "dog and pony show".

There is bills attached to this that are bearly referanced. Some include restrictions from health care if you have "Dangerous"sports. Including fire arms!

This is the biggest threat to the Constitution an the bill of rights in the history of America!

Get involved before it is too late!

Ray ;-)

[Guest HexHead]

Somebody wake me when the shooting starts.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

On Health Insurance Reform, We're Right, They're Wrong. Period.

There is one underlying question in the debate over health insurance reform that is being forgotten as we all scream at each other, make demands of our politicians, and collectively whine when they don't react exactly the way we think they should to the rancor in this debate.

That question is, "What kind of society do we as Americans want?"

Let me start with a few stories to think about. These are all absolutely true; they either happened to me, or people I know, or they were related to me by friends whose word I trust. For privacy's sake, I'm not using names or identifying them in any way. But as you read these, ask yourself; is this what America is all about? Is this what we mean when we tell anyone who wants to hear it that we live in a FREE country? Is this really the society the Founders were looking to build when they fought a revolution against a tyrannical regime and then crafted the Constitution?

A 60-year-old woman is diagnosed with gallstones by her HMO plan doctor. That doctor asks the insurance company to approve a specialist, and the insurance company does so. The specialist wants to use shock-wave therapy to break up the gallstones, because it's far less invasive and dangerous than surgery. The insurance company refuses to cover the procedure, calling it "experimental," despite the fact that it's been in use for almost 20 years, and has become a standard procedure when treating kidney stones. She appeals the decision by the insurance company, but during the appeal, she has a gall bladder attack. She lives nowhere near a hospital, so her husband drives her 40 miles and she undergoes emergency surgery to remove the stones and repair her gall bladder. The surgeon who performed the surgery made a mistake, however, which led to a second surgery to repair the damage from the first surgery.

Two years later, the same woman was diagnosed with cancer. Her physician proceeded to scare the hell out of her, and he told her things about the cancer that were patently untrue. She requested a change of physicians, to someone who actually knew about her cancer, and her insurance company refused. They advised her that she could change her primary care physician during open enrollment, but most of them were full, and that once they assigned a specialist to her case, she was pretty much stuck with that specialist.

Do we want a system in which doctors and patients can't make the right decisions because someone at an insurance company overrides that decision, based on the false assumption that they're using THEIR money to pay the medical bills? Here's a clue, folks; the money they use to pay those bills is YOURS, not THEIRS. So, if you have that many restrictions on the use of YOUR money, how free are you, really?

A 46-year-old man is diagnosed with diabetes, and told that he'd probably had the disease for several years by then. After working at his employer and paying for insurance for nearly 20 years, when it came time to renew his insurance during open enrollment, he was denied coverage by the insurance company he had been paying all of that money to for all those years. And because of the little catch-22 that private insurance has developed, he couldn't get insurance with any other company, either. You see, if you disclose your diabetes, they won't cover you. if you don't disclose it, they won't cover anything, based on the fact that you didn't disclose. If that wasn't bad enough, his family lost their coverage when he lost his.

Do we want a system in which someone can pay upwards of $1,000 per month for 20 years, (which comes to almost a quarter million dollars, by the way, even without interest), and then suddenly be denied treatment, because he might actually have to use it?

A pregnant woman in her late 20s has no insurance because her husband's job doesn't offer it, and she's had health problems in the past that disqualify her from coverage, anyway. While he doesn't make enough money to afford a private insurance premium, he makes too much to qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. She goes into labor and is taken to the hospital, where the baby develops complications, and she has a gall bladder attack. Approximately two months later, she gets the bill, which comes to more than $40,000. She calls the hospital to make payment arrangements, and tells them she can afford to pay $300 or so per month, but the hospital says it's not enough, and they pretty much demand that she take out a loan to pay the bill. But the payments on a loan would have been a lot more than she could pay, as well, so she and her husband go into bankruptcy.

Do we want a system in which someone -- someone who chooses to have her baby no less -- can be forced into bankruptcy for simply having a baby?

How about the 27 year old guy who was not insured because his congenital heart defect made him uninsurable in the private insurance market, and he makes too much money in his job to qualify for Medicaid. He's also not "disabled enough" for Medicare coverage. He's riding his motorcycle through a major city, when a pickup truck runs a red light and smashes him under the front bumper. He actually survives the accident, but requires almost four months of intense pain management and physical therapy, and is presented with a six-figure bill by the hospital. The pick up truck owner's car insurance covered less than half the bill, and he didn't have enough income to pay the judgment when the motorcycle rider sued. Essentially, two families were ruined, and because so much of the bill wasn't paid, the hospital had to raise its prices to recover it.

Do want a system in which the people who need health care coverage most are denied it, and the healthy are forced to pick up the tab when something tragic happens?

Now, after looking at these stories, and the hundreds of others you've heard throughout the course of this debate, if you have a heart and a brain, you're left with one simple question:

What do we want the United States of America to be, exactly?

Do we want an advanced society that takes care of its people, or one built on a Social Darwinist framework, in which the poor and infirmed are cordoned off into their own little areas and left to fend for themselves? I know that seems like a false choice, but listen to the rhetoric of the opponents of health insurance reform, and the latter choice seems to be the one they favor. They say they want health care reform, but they never actually propose anything, and they seem to like the system the way it is, which is the Social Darwinist model described above. They are dead set against a pubic insurance option, but the only other way to fix the health care financing system in this country would be to force private insurance companies to cover everyone, including high-risk patients at a pre-set cost they can afford, and to force them to pay every non-fraudulent health care bill. Sorry folks, but even neocons would agree; forcing private companies to do the things necessary to make society work, regardless of their ability to pay for it is not capitalism, anyway.

Is the neocon vision of the country really where we want to live?

I was just 10 years old when Senator Robert F Kennedy was murdered. But even at the age of 10, his life and spirit had a profound impact on me; more than makes sense, even to me. How does someone like that have such an incredible impact on someone so young? I actually took a break from a family crab feast that Saturday, to go down to the railroad tracks in Halethorpe, Maryland to watch his funeral train pass.

What it is, I think, is a spirit that seems to be largely missing from politics these days, and it's one we need back. It's encapsulated in a quote that I memorized many years ago, and always remember whenever I hear a cynic tell me why this nation can't do something:

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? -- Robert F. Kennedy

That's a really good question to ask about health insurance reform. Why not?

This debate isn't about the bills that are before Congress. It's not about which members of Congress are for or against the public option, or for or against co-ops. It isn't about the statistics that confirm that 62% of bankruptcies have medical bills as a major component of their economic peril. In fact, this isn't even about money, because as a nation, we have plenty of that. It's not about taxes; the amount we pay in health insurance premiums is a tax, and it's crippling those who are forced to pay it. It isn't even about debt. This country has plenty of money, if we'd stop treating the richest in this country like royalty. Come on, folks; we've borrowed $1 trillion to fund an absolutely moral war in Iraq over the last seven years; anyone who says we can't find $1 trillion over the next ten years to make sure that everyone who needs to can go to a doctor is just plain lying to you.

This debate is about lives. Not money;lives. It's about individual freedom. Do we want a society in which it's okay to walk by a man dying in the street because we have our own lives to live and he should have made better decisions when he was younger, as the cynics on the right seem to think, or are we better than that? Don't we have a responsibility as a society to make sure that man sees a doctor and at least has a shot at continuing to live?

I find it difficult to believe that a society in which a significant proportion of its citizens have been trained in first aid and CPR simply wants its people to die. I find it difficult to believe that a society in which more than four-fifths of the population claims a belief in a single God that preaches mercy would simply look the other way as tens of thousands of people are allowed to die simply because they don't have enough money in the bank. According to the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran, followers have a moral OBLIGATION to help the afflicted, regardless of how much money they have.

So why has this issue become all about money? Why does there seem to be no moral component to this debate? We obviously have the ability to pay for health care for everyone, because we do it now. So, if there is a flaw in the system that sentences tens of thousands of people to death and suffering, why is there even a controversy over finding a way to fix it? Have we become so enamored with our warped view of "capitalism" to even realize that it is, in fact, killing us? (And yes, I put "capitalism" in quotes, because nothing about our health insurance system resembles true capitalism in any way.)

This issue shouldn't even be controversial. Our current health care financing system is an embarrassment, and it is not worthy of a society that sees itself as "freedom-loving."

How free is a society, when an ever-increasing segment of its people can be ruined, financially and otherwise, by illness or injury? How free is a society when health care is seen as a privilege, reserved for those with the cash on hand to pay a doctor? How free is a society in which those who want to start businesses can't do so, because they can't afford to pay for its workers' health insurance, and therefore can't afford to hire the best workers? How free is a society in which a worker is forced to stay at his current job to keep his current health plan in force, because a change of jobs puts his coverage at risk? And how free is a society in which a person can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars into the health insurance system over the course of 30 years, lose a job, get sick or injured a month later, and be forced into bankruptcy court? How free is a society in which that same worker can continue working, but be denied coverage, should the insurance company decide they don't wish to continue coverage?

The current reform bills now being seriously considered by Congress will fix all or most of these problems, and go a long way toward making our country free again. Health care reform will pass; mark my words on this. And every single politician who votes against this thing will be in political peril if he or she votes against it. This country is about to become free again, and anyone who tries to stop it will be run over in the attempt. Here's another Bobby Kennedy quote to consider:

People say I am ruthless. I am not ruthless. And if I find the man who is calling me ruthless, I shall destroy him.

This is only the beginning of the reform movement that's happening, my friends. Enjoy it. But feel free to run over anyone who tries to stop it. We're right, they're wrong. That's all there is to it.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Can you just change your TGO Member section to Copy and Paste King? You don't even link your articles, and that's plagiarism, and plagiarism is WRONG!

[Steelharp]

Wasn't hard to find:

Please Cut the Crap!: On Health Insurance Reform, We're Right, They're Wrong. Period.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I'm not going searching for that crap, personally. The viewpoint shown in that article that proponents are morally right and that opponents are callous, self absorbed people is ludicrous and reeks of leftist propaganda. The only healthcare reform on the table is the current administrations, which is repugnant to anyone who loves freedom. He wants you to vote for healthcare reform, that's the only one out there, and the only one being considered at this time. Propaganda. Take your chains elsewhere.

[Guest 3pugguy]

Nice copy and paste job, neighbor Ralph G. Briscoe.

Here's another little something for reading, attributable to 3pugguy; dateline: middle TN, 1 Sep 09, 11:15 pm:

Found among the interested citizens wishing to discuss issues affecting our society or just topics of common interest, there can now be found internet travellers, commonly referred to as "trolls". Trolls are easily identified by their almost spam like posting of copied and pasted blathering, on as many boards as they can go to, often using multiple names (easily accomplished with all of the free email sites that provide multiple email addresses, required by sites).

Such trolls must not be fed too often (preferrably not at all), as this encourages their behavior. This author, a staunch advocate of all Constitutional protections afforded the citizens of this great country, does not call for banning these nuisance posters - let them have their free speech; rather, he calls for pity be shown them, as they are suffering a severe case of "cranial uptheobamarectumitis". They need help and compassion.

In further news today, it was shown to young Virginia that yes, there is a Santa Claus, and he will soon be coming, so all had best be good (including trolls)...

End of part one; no more feeding tonight

[Guest 3pugguy]

+1 Suntzu

[Mark@Sea]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Ralph doesn't respond to reason, fact, or ridicule. He is so blinded by ideology that "anything" the left proposes is dandy, and any rebuttal is not just wrong, but proof of the opponents lack of morals, intelligence, and table manners.

I really don't know of a cure for his problem.

[Guest TurboniumOxide]

There are reforms to be made, sure. But this excrement from the enemy is not it, and is in fact a TROJAN HORSE. It is the payload of the most destructive virus ever to infect America, the Muslim President who is himself a TROJAN HORSE.

Too bad Obamas Daddy couldn't afford a TROJAN.

[Guest HexHead]

I stopped reading that long diatribe Briscoe posted after I got to this part....

A 46-year-old man is diagnosed with diabetes, and told that he'd probably had the disease for several years by then. After working at his employer and paying for insurance for nearly 20 years, when it came time to renew his insurance during open enrollment, he was denied coverage by the insurance company he had been paying all of that money to for all those years. And because of the little catch-22 that private insurance has developed, he couldn't get insurance with any other company, either. You see, if you disclose your diabetes, they won't cover you. if you don't disclose it, they won't cover anything, based on the fact that you didn't disclose. If that wasn't bad enough, his family lost their coverage when he lost his.

That's just BS. Under the HIPPA law, group insurance can't disallow pre-existing conditions, they can make employers pay out the ass to cover you, but you can't be denied coverage as long as you can show you had "credible coverage" for 12 months prior and don't go more than 63 days without coverage.

If you lose your job and the new one doesn't cover you until you've been there for 90 days, you'd better take the COBRA that's offered to you for a couple of months.

Additionally, if you lose your job period, once you exhaust your 18 month COBRA benefit and as long as you don't go more than 63 days without coverage, you can apply for a private insurance "portability" plan. The insurance company HAS to take you and HAVE to cover your pre-existing conditions. They can also charge you the state allowed maximum premium, which will likely make COBRA seem like a bargain. The law says they have to cover you, not that it has to be affordable.

I hate to admit it, but Kennedy was instrumental in getting the HIPPA law passed.

[Mark@Sea]

Left lies to promote agenda... I'll pretend to be shocked if you want, but come on, it's par for the course.

[LagerHead]

I stopped reading that long diatribe Briscoe posted after I got to this part....

That's just BS. Under the HIPPA law, group insurance can't disallow pre-existing conditions, they can make employers pay out the ass to cover you, but you can't be denied coverage as long as you can show you had "credible coverage" for 12 months prior and don't go more than 63 days without coverage.

If you lose your job and the new one doesn't cover you until you've been there for 90 days, you'd better take the COBRA that's offered to you for a couple of months.

Additionally, if you lose your job period, once you exhaust your 18 month COBRA benefit and as long as you don't go more than 63 days without coverage, you can apply for a private insurance "portability" plan. The insurance company HAS to take you and HAVE to cover your pre-existing conditions. They can also charge you the state allowed maximum premium, which will likely make COBRA seem like a bargain. The law says they have to cover you, not that it has to be affordable.

I hate to admit it, but Kennedy was instrumental in getting the HIPPA law passed.

Damn it Hex. Where do facts have a place in this argument? Seriously. How can far left propaganda be successfully forced on the masses if you keep interrupting "intelligent debate" with facts? Shame on you.

[tntnixon]

?

A 60-year-old woman is diagnosed with gallstones by her HMO plan doctor. That doctor asks the insurance company to approve a specialist, and the insurance company does so. The specialist wants to use shock-wave therapy to break up the gallstones, because it's far less invasive and dangerous than surgery. The insurance company refuses to cover the procedure, calling it "experimental," despite the fact that it's been in use for almost 20 years, and has become a standard procedure when treating kidney stones. She appeals the decision by the insurance company, but during the appeal, she has a gall bladder attack. She lives nowhere near a hospital, so her husband drives her 40 miles and she undergoes emergency surgery to remove the stones and repair her gall bladder. The surgeon who performed the surgery made a mistake, however, which led to a second surgery to repair the damage from the first surgery.

Two years later, the same woman was diagnosed with cancer. Her physician proceeded to scare the hell out of her, and he told her things about the cancer that were patently untrue. She requested a change of physicians, to someone who actually knew about her cancer, and her insurance company refused. They advised her that she could change her primary care physician during open enrollment, but most of them were full, and that once they assigned a specialist to her case, she was pretty much stuck with that specialist.

Do we want a system in which doctors and patients can't make the right decisions because someone at an insurance company overrides that decision, based on the false assumption that they're using THEIR money to pay the medical bills? Here's a clue, folks; the money they use to pay those bills is YOURS, not THEIRS. So, if you have that many restrictions on the use of YOUR money, how free are you, really?

A 46-year-old man is diagnosed with diabetes, and told that he'd probably had the disease for several years by then. After working at his employer and paying for insurance for nearly 20 years, when it came time to renew his insurance during open enrollment, he was denied coverage by the insurance company he had been paying all of that money to for all those years. And because of the little catch-22 that private insurance has developed, he couldn't get insurance with any other company, either. You see, if you disclose your diabetes, they won't cover you. if you don't disclose it, they won't cover anything, based on the fact that you didn't disclose. If that wasn't bad enough, his family lost their coverage when he lost his.

Do we want a system in which someone can pay upwards of $1,000 per month for 20 years, (which comes to almost a quarter million dollars, by the way, even without interest), and then suddenly be denied treatment, because he might actually have to use it?

A pregnant woman in her late 20s has no insurance because her husband's job doesn't offer it, and she's had health problems in the past that disqualify her from coverage, anyway. While he doesn't make enough money to afford a private insurance premium, he makes too much to qualify for Medicaid or CHIP. She goes into labor and is taken to the hospital, where the baby develops complications, and she has a gall bladder attack. Approximately two months later, she gets the bill, which comes to more than $40,000. She calls the hospital to make payment arrangements, and tells them she can afford to pay $300 or so per month, but the hospital says it's not enough, and they pretty much demand that she take out a loan to pay the bill. But the payments on a loan would have been a lot more than she could pay, as well, so she and her husband go into bankruptcy.

First of all, Ralph, I don't know what you do for a living, but as a medical professional, there are some falsehoods in these stories. Lithotripsy is not standard therapy for gallstones. As a matter of fact, I've never seen it done because it wouldn't be effective. Gallstones are far different from kidney stones(renal calculi) in their makeup, size, and method of elimination. So, guess what, her insurance company was right. As far as her choice of doctors goes, she made her own decisions and unfortunately, sometimes our decisions are bad. That goes for her choice of surgeon and PCP. Nationalized healthcare won't fix that, I can assure you!!!!

The story about the man who couldn't re-enroll in his insurance is patently false on all counts(I don't know where you get your info), HIPAA(It was signed by Clinton in 1996, so you ought to know what it says) would come into play at that point.

Now let's jump to the 20something. Here's the deal. At some point or another, most of us have made bad decisions in our lives. Most of us have had a choice between I higher paying job (more takehome) and one that gives a lower paycheck but provides insurance and other benefits. Forward thinking people take the lower paying job. People looking for immediate gratification take the one without benefits. Some of our decisions have long-term implications and it appears that your 20something made some bad choices. 1.She could have gotten a job and she and her husband could have had two incomes 2.He could have gotten a lower paying job that offered insurance 3. They could have used birth control until they were financially in a better position to raise a child. But you think it's our responsibilty to pay for their bad choices.

If you trust the people that told you these stories, you need to find new friends because I'm gonna tell you right now the second story is a LIE!!!!! The first story is very misinformed and the third is the result of bad decision making that had long term implications.

[tntnixon]

Sorry, I was so PO'd by what Ralph said (knowing they were outright lies) I immediately started writing before seeing any replies. Sorry for restating the previously stated and also being so stupid as to believing that this was Ralph's own essay on healthcare. I should have known it was plagiarized. I would almost think that that post would be grounds for being banned but maybe I'm wrong.

[Mark@Sea]

Ralph is our in-house non-electric pop-up target.

He posts some lowfact content from Huffpo, Dkos, or similiar. It gets shot full of holes. He pops up on another thread. Kind of like whack-a-mole without the sound effects. Fun for a little while, but... I tuned him out after his blanket assertion that TGO users are ignorant racists.

Happy to see your knowledgeable contributions to the debate, TNTNixon.

[Guest ScottD]

Let me start with a few stories to think about. These are all absolutely true; they either happened to me, or people I know, or they were related to me by friends whose word I trust. For privacy's sake, I'm not using names or identifying them in any way. But as you read these, ask yourself; is this what America is all about? Is this what we mean when we tell anyone who wants to hear it that we live in a FREE country? Is this really the society the Founders were looking to build when they fought a revolution against a tyrannical regime and then crafted the Constitution?

A 60-year-old woman is diagnosed with gallstones by her HMO plan doctor. That doctor asks the insurance company to approve a specialist, and the insurance company does so. The specialist wants to use shock-wave therapy to break up the gallstones, because it's far less invasive and dangerous than surgery. The insurance company refuses to cover the procedure, calling it "experimental," despite the fact that it's been in use for almost 20 years, and has become a standard procedure when treating kidney stones. She appeals the decision by the insurance company, but during the appeal, she has a gall bladder attack. She lives nowhere near a hospital, so her husband drives her 40 miles and she undergoes emergency surgery to remove the stones and repair her gall bladder. The surgeon who performed the surgery made a mistake, however, which led to a second surgery to repair the damage from the first surgery.

Two years later, the same woman was diagnosed with cancer. Her physician proceeded to scare the hell out of her, and he told her things about the cancer that were patently untrue. She requested a change of physicians, to someone who actually knew about her cancer, and her insurance company refused. They advised her that she could change her primary care physician during open enrollment, but most of them were full, and that once they assigned a specialist to her case, she was pretty much stuck with that specialist.

Do we want a system in which doctors and patients can't make the right decisions because someone at an insurance company overrides that decision, based on the false assumption that they're using THEIR money to pay the medical bills? Here's a clue, folks; the money they use to pay those bills is YOURS, not THEIRS. So, if you have that many restrictions on the use of YOUR money, how free are you, really?

A 46-year-old man is diagnosed with diabetes, and told that he'd probably had the disease for several years by then. After working at his employer and paying for insurance for nearly 20 years, when it came time to renew his insurance during open enrollment, he was denied coverage by the insurance company he had been paying all of that money to for all those years. And because of the little catch-22 that private insurance has developed, he couldn't get insurance with any other company, either. You see, if you disclose your diabetes, they won't cover you. if you don't disclose it, they won't cover anything, based on the fact that you didn't disclose. If that wasn't bad enough, his family lost their coverage when he lost his.

On Obamacare, they let her die. Screw off Ralph, go troll elsewhere.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Ralph is our in-house non-electric pop-up target.

He posts some lowfact content from Huffpo, Dkos, or similiar. It gets shot full of holes. He pops up on another thread. Kind of like whack-a-mole without the sound effects. Fun for a little while, but... I tuned him out after his blanket assertion that TGO users are ignorant racists.

Happy to see your knowledgeable contributions to the debate, TNTNixon.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Can you just change your TGO Member section to Copy and Paste King? You don't even link your articles, and that's plagiarism, and plagiarism is WRONG!

Oversight due to extreme fatigue, not plagiarism.

The article's from "Pleasecutthecrap.com."

Apologies....just got off the plane from Denmark (where they're very happy with their Socialist healthcare thank you)

You can know un-knot your panties and try to reply to the content of the

article....tell me why it's patriotic to not give a damn about our fellow citizens.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Nice copy and paste job, neighbor Ralph G. Briscoe.

Here's another little something for reading, attributable to 3pugguy; dateline: middle TN, 1 Sep 09, 11:15 pm:

Found among the interested citizens wishing to discuss issues affecting our society or just topics of common interest, there can now be found internet travellers, commonly referred to as "trolls". Trolls are easily identified by their almost spam like posting of copied and pasted blathering, on as many boards as they can go to, often using multiple names (easily accomplished with all of the free email sites that provide multiple email addresses, required by sites).

Such trolls must not be fed too often (preferrably not at all), as this encourages their behavior. This author, a staunch advocate of all Constitutional protections afforded the citizens of this great country, does not call for banning these nuisance posters - let them have their free speech; rather, he calls for pity be shown them, as they are suffering a severe case of "cranial uptheobamarectumitis". They need help and compassion.

In further news today, it was shown to young Virginia that yes, there is a Santa Claus, and he will soon be coming, so all had best be good (including trolls)...

End of part one; no more feeding tonight

Thanks for the definitions. Typical rightwing response--look up "ad homonim attack" under "logical fallacies." Can't face the truth of the message, attack the messenger.

Isn't it illegal for crazy people to possess firearms?

[Guest SUNTZU]

Oversight due to extreme fatigue, not plagiarism.

The article's from "Pleasecutthecrap.com."

Apologies....just got off the plane from Denmark (where they're very happy with their Socialist healthcare thank you)

You can know un-knot your panties and try to reply to the content of the

article....tell me why it's patriotic to not give a damn about our fellow citizens.

The article you posted from pleasecutthecrap.com IS crap...I flush turds down the toilet. If you don't do A then you don't care about B. Its a lame attempt at pressuring people to support your God King. Why is it patriotic to take more money from my pocket to pay for your family's healthcare? Why don't YOU pay for it? Instead of taking trips to Denmark and spending time looking up propaganda and posting it on this forum where the general consensus is **** that noise, you could be flipping burgers, mowing some lawns, or doing some spins around a brass pole at a gay bar. Go earn your money and pay for that healthcare yourself. No need for you to try to get letters of marque against my paycheck.

You're no patriot, you're a whiner who is determined to get a legal way into EVERY American's pockets.

Do I need to send you money for car insurance because you got too many tickets and accidents and its too expensive? Did you wrap your mouth around to many Sugardaddies and your teeth fall out and now I need to buy you some new ones because you can't afford it?

Why do you have internet service? You could put that money towards prescriptions. Don't you care about your family? But why should YOU make sacrifices for YOUR family when you can get someone else to do it for you.

You could just stick a gun to my ribs and take my money, or support getting a federal law passed that sticks a gun to my ribs and takes my money. When I'm facing a gun, what's the difference? Riddle me that, Batman.

[Guest H0TSH0T]

real government health care!!!!