It seems you’ve momentarily forgotten that curlcoat is a horrendous bitch, and that Stalin had more empathy in the tip of his cock. Please recalibrate your expectations appropriately before continuing.
I love how all the right-wingers in this thread are coming out and saying that she should have had a late-term abortion.
**curlcoat **has explained in this thread why she feels entitled to her monthly government disability check: because she paid into the social security system through her 35 year employment. She ignores these facts:
-
her employer also paid into the system toward her future benefits, just like employers often do for insurance;
-
she paid into the system as a societal safety net, just like with insurance (the many pay for the few);
-
the money she paid in is not “hers” (i.e., SS is NOT a savings account), but is available in case she needs it, just like insurance; and
-
she will receive much more in monthly payments than she ever paid in, much like many insureds do.
She would undoubtedly shriek like a bansheee if SS suddenly told her that for whatever reason she will not receive any more benefits. Just like when the insurance companies find a “cause” to cancel, undo or stop paying insurance benefits when the insured actually needs it, after the insured has paid insurance premiums for years and years.
Yet **curlcoat **sees a distinction, somehow.
I keep reading these threads in the hopes that maybe, maybe there’s an intelligent rebuttal to UHC out there for me to consider. There hasn’t been. 5% of the arguments are interesting and logical points to consider but ultimately don’t sway me. And 95% of the arguments are such cuckoo batshit willfully ignorant piles of spew that I can’t believe the people who make them are even able to breathe without flashcards reminding them to do so.
Either way, I think the best solution would have been for the Democrats in Congress to have united back in August and said “you elected us to do a job, we’re going to do it. You simply cannot comprehend how much better UHC will be for this country so we’re just going to go ahead and vote for it against your protestations. If you want to vote us out, vote us out…but you won’t. Because as soon as it gets passed you’ll wake up and realize that you didn’t know what the hell you were talking about and that this was a long overdue overhaul.” Only, you know, more diplomatically.
A reasonable response! Watch out, your buddy Lobo might get pissed.
So you would be in favor of a market-based system for providing health care/health insurance, perhaps lowering costs through introducing more competition, by getting rid of the anachronism of not letting it be sold across state lines, as long as there was a robust regulatory apparatus in place to ensure the great unwashed isn’t getting fucked?
I guess we agree on something 
Many of them were believers that the system could have been overhauled. But reality set in when the health care companies unleashed 1500 lobbyists and spent 1.5 million dollars a day fighting it. They actually appear to have succeeded in convincing a lot of people that we have a great and fair health care system, or that a new one could actually be worse.
It was a once in a lifetime opportunity for the dems to install a good workable system. It is late in the game ,I hope they reconcile it into something that works. If they do, the Repubs are doomed.
Way to paint with a broad brush…
Not all people who are right economically are right socially. Be careful you don’t stifle real debate and compromise because you’re blinded by hatred and ignorance.
Don’t be glib. Sometimes it takes two, even three spaghetti dinners to cover that many surgeries.
-Joe
Throw in a carwash to cover the post op meds.
Possibly because aborting a foetus six months in is illegal.
On the other hand, do you think in the event of UHC I should get a bonus check, seeing as how my daughter was complication-free and, at a little over three years, has had ear tubes put in and that’s it?
-Joe
Only in 36 states.
Well, I don’t know how a “bonus check” could work, but I totally think it would be proper for your insurance rates to be lower than someone who has neonatal care. Of course, that’s how it works now (generally).
NM, dawgs.
Which then goes the other way and you either have people getting denied or you get premiums jacked so high that people get priced out of the system.
-Joe
Yes, but as someone upthread noted, there were only three doctors doing third-trimester abortions in the US, period. And one of those was murdered in the vestibule of his church by someone who considered himself “pro-life”.
Which means that there are exactly two doctors in the US performing third-trimester abortions (and how long that will continue I have no idea…whether through one or both of them getting blown away by another twisted nutter or through one or both of them retiring and/or going into hiding to prevent themselves ending up like Dr. Tiller).
It may be legal in 36 states, but that doesn’t mean that there are even 36 clinics in which it’s actually performed.
I know this isn’t GD, but do you have a cite for the “3 doctors” thing? No snark - honestly curious…
I don’t have a linkable cite, because it was information I remember reading in articles and blogs about the Tiller murder. There were three: Tiller, a doctor in Nebraska who used to work with Tiller at his (now-closed) clinic in Kansas (late-term abortions are illegal in Nebraska) and a doctor in Boulder, CO.
Good analysis. I did see a bit of cognitive dissonance in her accepting SSDI while decrying help to others, but I also see her perspective that, like most people, she sees SS income as ‘a pension I’ve paid into and am entitled to’ as opposed to aid conditioned on need not mandat6ing prior contribution.
I’d welcome a non-polemic discussion of what the distinction is from curlcoat;s perspective.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524829,00.html This is dated but claims there were 9. They are pretty old and there may be less. The fact remains 3rd trimester abortions are difficult to obtain whatever the medical reason.