No, she didn’t…because–get this–SHE’S A TROLL.
Eventually, people are going to get it, I hope.
She is not going to listen because her troll-ish part that she’s playing is to rile people up in the way that she’s doing (and has done) right now. Namely by:
Ignoring anything anyone says, including cites that prove she’s flat-out wrong.
Making posts and comments and taking standpoints that make people get riled up.
Continuing to reply in the way that she does (replying to one person at a time, once per post) even though she’s been told countless times how to multi-quote, probably because she knows it pisses people off.
Continuing to reply and reply and reply and reply and reply no matter what until she “wins” every thread she takes part in, in the Pit.
Seriously, I really hope you weren’t expecting her to read your cite and go “OMG, you’re right, I’m wrong”.
And again, seriously, I cannot fathom or see how anyone (other than a person who is deliberately acting obtuse just to troll around) can be told “You’re wrong. Here’s a cite that proves just that” and go “NO I’M NOT, YOU ARE. TRY TO KEEP UP”.
Please. That’s trolling. : p Plain and simple.
Anyway, I think I’m done with this thread. I’ve been feeding it longer than I should have.
Despite insurance, despite charitable donations and family assistance the remaining bills where such that they could NEVER save any money. Keep in mind that his father was a career Marine - the family was often split, as his father’s assigned location was often far away from the hospital where his son was getting the specialized care he needed. That meant maintain TWO living quarters (yes, as a drill sergeant his quarters were often paid for, but that doesn’t mean he had no expenses to cover. Not to mention that career military don’t make particularly high wages). My husband’s medical care costs above those covered by insurance and charity bankrupted the family TWICE before he was even 16. He maxed out the lifetime cap on several health insurance policies before he was 20. He didn’t pay off the very last bill on his final surgery until ten years after he had it - I remember seeing him do it, three months after he turned 30. They weren’t blowing their money on stuff - his mother went to a junkyard and assembled a vehicle from parts in order to get a car to drive (actually, it was a jeep). They got their clothes from Goodwill and the Salvation Army (he once told me he never owned a new pair of of pants until he got ready for his first job interview). They lived in rundown cheap ass housing in bad neighborhoods. They didn’t own a TV until he was seven, and that was a set given to them by a neighbor.
Don’t you get it? Keeping him alive was so fucking expensive there was no money left over. Ever. All told his care costs multiple millions of dollars up until he was 20.
That sad thing? He isn’t even the worst case scenario. After he hit 20 he didn’t need any more surgery and was able to go out and get a job and support himself for the next 25 years. There are children born with birth defects who will require expensive care every year of their life without end. His parents made sure he went to school and got an education, but no, they couldn’t set up some sort of financial support for him. After the medical bills were paid off there was simply no money left over.
Spina bifida requires emergency neurosurgery as soon as possible after birth (indeed, these days they sometimes even attempt it before the child is born!) in order to save the child’s life. Additional medical care, surgeries, and rehabilitation are required throughout child hood in order correct problems, mitigate and prevent future damage, and deal with the near inevitable nerve damage and resulting problems in limb growth and development. You can’t wait years to save up the money or defer it until after the child is grown and through college with an advanced degree and a six figure income to pay for it all.
I have wathced this thread but not responded to Curl because she’s ether a trol or really really dumb. Either way, its not worth the effort to respond to her.
This, like so much else, has been explained to you. Food, housing, child care, utilities, and similar trivia. It seems to me that you’re the one who doesn’t want to look too closely, heaven forbid that you might have to abandon the cherished stereotypes that make it so easy for you to condemn people who have the nerve to need assistance.
Violence? Please. You’re being asked to support your assertions, nothing more. If you don’t wish to be called to task, this forum is not the best place for you to be posting.
Do you even read what I post or do you just start typing? I said that one of the proposals that I had seen was that everyone would pay a tax (well, those that are already paying taxes) based on income, and everyone would be covered. You would be welcome to buy a private policy, but since most employers would probably stop offering group coverage, I doubt many middle class folk would be able to afford a new tax and a private policy. So they would be forced to use the UHC, which doesn’t always seem to be the wonderful thing you all seem to think it is
And those airlines that don’t get enough passengers that pay what it actually costs to fly them whereever go bankrupt. Governments just raise taxes, or add to debt.
Do you really think that a plan has being proposed every time? Do you think that the plan currently going thru Congress right now is the only one that has been suggested?
Don’t be ridiculous, I obviously said nothing of the sort. And even so, so what? Why is it that I am expected to pay for other people’s selfish desire to have their own bio kids? Multiple kids? Early on, whenever they feel like having them? And don’t bleat on about how the children are innocent and shouldn’t be expected to suffer for the stupid choices of their parents because I am talking about attitudes here. The attitude that every pregnancy is a miracle, every baby a blessing, that no woman is complete without birthin’ her own babies, that there is nothing really wrong with a teenager having and keeping her baby(ies). Not to mention how the religious decision of a vocal minority is creating more and more forced births.
I said “If a woman cannot afford prenatal visits, what the hell is she doing having a baby in the first place?” What does your answer have to do with what I said?
Nope. Noone has given a cite that showed what debt any of those who went into bankruptcy had prior to the medical problems.
So, it is ok with you to devistate those families with members with those issues, but we must continue to pay for those pre-natal visits for a family member who isn’t even alive yet? Who may or may not even be wanted, may or may not have much of a life? The potential is more important to you than the reality? Or is it that you just think that babies are cuter than old people?
None of which addresses what I said. You think we are wealthy simply because we have the ability to pay for things that your friends cannot. I imagine if you were to actually talk to these friends about money (which of course no one really does), you’d find that they charged a nice vacation in Hawaii one year, or that cruise to Alaska. Or maybe they paid cash instead of putting it into a college fund for Junior. Do Junior and Sissy have those piles of after school activities that we always hear about? Those things cost a pretty penny, particularly if there are more kids than just Junior and Sissy. People don’t seem to stop and think about how much expense each successive kid is going to add, even if that kid is perfectly healthy. More or less routine things with the middle class like braces, music lessons, football uniforms, juice boxes, vacations at Disneyland - this all adds up really fast to quite a bit more than I’ve ever spent on any of our dogs.
We know a couple who have always had a significantly higher income than we have, who have two kids. They put their daughter thru college and then married her off, and the son is now in trade school. They live in a house that is worth a fair bit less than ours and never did much in the way of vacations other than a drive down the coast or a weekend in San Diego. Now that the daughter is on her own and the debt incurred by the son is essentially over, they have been going on vacations to Hawaii, Greece, etc and the husband bought himself a sports car. If they had had some emergency that required a large amount of money, they’d have had the equity in their home and their savings, and they would be paying that off now instead of vacationing. But they wouldn’t have been bankrupt. We have been able to live sort of the same life on less money, because we didn’t have kids.
Yes, and we do not have the kind of ASSETS that the wealthy have, if you want to use the actual definition of the word, instead of what you consider to be “rich”. A wealty person could take that six figures out of the equity of our house and not be concerned as to how they were going to pay it off. If we had some disaster that required us to dig into our equity (which is part of our retirement), we would have some trouble paying it off, particularly now that I cannot work.
Nice side step away from something you don’t want to think about, that being the possibility that all of this tax money we are throwing at the poor might actually be bad for them.
Do you really think that the current plan going thru Congress is actually going to be the end product? Do you really think that whatever Obama plans will actually come to pass intact? Do you really think that the fact that the national debt is a majority of other things makes any difference whether or not we should be adding to it?
No, you want to add even more taxes to them, simply because they are rich. It is as if you think anyone with money has to be taught a lesson? taken down a peg? have enough money taken from them to make them equal? I don’t know what your issue is, but you definitely resent anyone who has more money than you do.
You are the ignorant one, since you refuse to do anything other than look at the surface of the issue. “OMG, all those poor bayees starving!!! They need health care!!! We must tax the rich!!!”
You are honestly telling me that you are unaware that most of these countries are much smaller (in terms of population), have a different form of government and - the most important - have had their UHC for decades if not a century? Or is it that you are unaware that these sorts of things can make a major difference in whether or not a UHC would be a viable program in the US?
Little kids contribute nothing to society - with old folks, we have the hope that they did, and usually that hope is fulfilled.
It’s a catchall term, you waste of skin, meant to cover the vast number of people of differing positions who work in and around birth, from OB-GYNs to midwives to L&D nurses to doulas to monitrices to childbirth educators to neonatologists to NICU nurses to epidemiologists to social workers. Get yourself bent. Twice.
Because, you idiot, you said that in response to my pointing out that the horrible maternal and infant mortality statistics in the United States are another indication of the need for reform of our healthcare system. You were the one who wrongly presumed that maternal and infant death was a direct result of a lack of prenatal care, and further wrongly presumed that such a lack must be caused by an inability to afford said care. This is my ballpark, sweetheart, so if you want to come to bat here, you better bring your A game. So far you’re not even qualifying to take batting practice.
curlcoat, please stop replying to me. I’m done with you. If you want to take that as an admission of defeat, so be it. I am defeated-- by your obtuseness. Thanks so much.
Can’t reason with a stone wall. Some people don’t want to learn anything that will challenge their preconceived notions. How sad.
Have fun, curlcoat, accepting society’s compassion while sitting on your butt typing away furiously on a messageboard arguing as loudly and vociferously as you can to deny compassion to anyone else. I hope that truly makes you happy.
No, what I said was I took a number that I knew to be too low and used that, rather than go thru 37 years of records that I probably don’t even have to try to get the exact number. I also said that I do not know how to figure out the interest. Which one of those are you trying to misinterpret?
Between me taking out more than what I paid into social security and me not wanting to pay even more taxes to support people who don’t work and probably never have? No.
You work in a factory? No? I didn’t think so, therefore the age of your coworkers is immaterial. My husband doesn’t work in a factory either, yet he and all the others over 50 were laid off from his last job, which appears to be something of a trend despite age discrimination laws.
Are you whooshing? This is what I am trying to find out, before the fact. No one here appears to know, but they are happy to try to force their sunshine and roses opinions on me.
I have no way of knowing since no one seems to have such stats, but I do believe it is a significant number of people. Perhaps it isn’t as much of an issue off the coasts but we do seem to have quite a few gang members on both coasts, teen pregnancy is rising again, drug abuse has always been an issue, and at least in California the high school dropout rate is high, which is costing us billions.
And all you do is insist that a majority must be good folk, and you “prove” it by telling a story of one or two families. Or exaggerating what I’ve said.
Well, you obviously have an opinion. I want to know what that opinion is. Base it on what you currently think of those in need of medical care who don’t have insurance if you have to.
Yeah, but all those old people were little kids once. If the old folks “usually” contributed to society once, wouldn’t that mean that the little kids will usually fulfill their potential and also contribute, making it important to make sure they grow up to healthy adulthood to guarantee it?
It’s bad enough that you’re reduced to posting ad hominem insults, indicating that any attempt at bolstering your arguing points is, even to you, a lost cause, but you’re so offbase in the random insults you toss off that it weakens even the integrity of discussion-via-ad-hominem insult. **Rubystreak *may be the single most attractive woman I’ve ever met at a Dopefest (and I’ve met some real beauties at Dopefests), and, personally, I’ve got a number of women currently vying for the position of Chief Cock-wrangler, leaving me little opportunity for much hands-on work myself lately, so your attempt at characterizing me as a chronic masturbator or Rubystreak as an unattractive, morbidly obese housefrau just reinforces the impression, to anyone familiar with either of us, that you have no argument to put forth on tax rates, health care insurance, or public policy in general.
You are now self-identified as a piece of paranoid, worthless shit obsessed with protecting his material possessions from the thieves who constitute the rest of society. In other words, you’ve elevated a concern about tax rates into your raison d’etre, and have long since stopped caring about any part of life that doesn’t protect your bank account from your fellow citizens. You’re just a jibbering nutjob like Curlcoat, a little more able, perhaps, to couch your ranting in decipherable sentences, but a thorough nutjob nonetheless.
*sometimes you lose track of your current tack for insulting me, when you refer to me as a pizza delivery boy–is that supposed to be some kind of scathing remark? Am I supposed to be an inferior member of society in your book if I work a service job that you use? Doesn’t that make you then, a compliant puppydog eagerly serving your rich masters?–“Go, boy, fetch me some new ways to evade these punitive taxes! Fetch, Rover!” Or are you happy to serve them, and it’s only people who bring you your pizza who deserve your contempt because of what an inferior low-income wretch YOU are?
For some reason, I don’t believe this. Could be a gut feeling. Could be indigestion from eating my fifteenth box of cupcakes. Could be that I’m slowly slipping into a diabetic coma. Whatever the reason, I just don’t believe this.
When imagining a Rand hero, Howard Roark from The Fountainhead comes to mind. (As played by Gary Cooper in that camp-fest of a movie, of course.) Somehow, Rand Rover’s language & general demeanor just don’t fit the role.
In fact, it’s hard to imagine **Rand Rover **keeping it together sufficiently to work as an attorney.
Well, since the only thing you know how to do–in every single one of your posts here, I’m pretty sure–is act like a selfish, mean, cruel, hurtful, self-centered, paranoid little prick, I’ll assume that was your final post.
If you ever post again, of course, that will mean that you’re also willingly adding “lying” to my little list of your qualities. (I’d put it right in between “little” and “prick.”)
You couldn’t hurt me with a two-by-four, you weak, ineffectual little asshole. All you can do is show why I’m right in holding freeper-libertarian-Ayn-Rand wannabes like you in utter contempt, and you reinforce that lesson with your every post.
