OTOH, it would not be hard to find one to say it’s a sin to eat a cheeseburger.
In a heartbeat. Any respectable Republican voter wouldn’t be caught dead signing up for Obamacare; it’s named after Obama ferchrissakes!
That’s what I’d like to know.
it’s kind of like that dog who likes to chase cars. What’s that dog gonna do if he ever catches one?
Obviously. Deuteronomy 14:21, no mixing meat and dairy !
Is there any doubt? Those 4 million aren’t millionaires, fetuses, or big businesses. The GOP wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire.
Funny you should ask. I was only listening to Maddow with one ear tonight, but I think I have the essentials right (ETA: I couldn’t resist a few editorial comments of my own, though).
-
A federal law, passed during the Reagan Admin, requires hospital emergency rooms to at least stabilize patients who have bona fide medical emergencies, regardless of their ability to pay. Once they get the baby delivered, or the heart restarted, or the bone set, then they can refuse further treatment. Note that the care is not free — the patients are billed for whatever treatment they receive, although they may not be able to pay the bill. The law mandates that lack of proof of ability to pay does not constitute grounds for refusal of emergency care, but it does not prevent the hospitals from pursuing payment afterward.
-
Several hospitals in rural Georgia are going out of business, blaming the cost of indigent emergency treatment for at least part of their problems. This leaves several counties without adequate facilities, even for those who can pay.
-
Part of the ACA offers to put the indigent on Medicaid, with the Federal government picking up 100% of the cost for the first three years, and 90% after that. So the poor can get preventive and office care that should cut way down on the need for emergency room treatment, and the government will pay for it.
-
Georgia’s governor has turned that offer down, like most deeply red states that think saying no to anything associated with Obama is more important than helping their constituents.
-
BUT, those hippie commie Democrats are WRONG when they say that Republicans offer no alternative. Georgia’s governor DOES have a plan to help those hospitals: repeal the law that requires hospitals to treat medical emergencies. Let the fuckers die.
So the answer is yes, they absolutely would kick those people off.
How the fuck can these people sleep at night?
I also seem to recall that “free” emergency room treatment was Mitt Romney’s solution to health care for the 47%. I guess we missed that boat.
Of course they would. They’re Republicans.
Ah, ninja’d by Tony Sinclair, and the truth. I live in Georgia, I am on Obamacare, and if Nathan Deal, our Governor had any say in the matter, I’d be without health care. But just you wait, he’ll be re-elected. My fellow Georgians are dumb as rocks.
The Republicans have come up with their alternative to the ACA. But it would require a “full time employee” to be one who works 40 hours a week, vs the current 30 hours a week. That means that 1 million people would lose their employer-provided medical insurance. It would also raise the federal budget by $74 million in order to cover those who currently have employer insurance and who will no longer have it.
Perhaps they can avoid that $75 million problem by following the innovative example of that rising star in the Party, Nathan Deal. That’s what the Pubbies need, bold new ideas, thinking outside the coffin.
The Cooch is back, although at least not in elected office. Does it still count?
He and three other 'murrcans have started a law firm that, for a monthly subscription, will defend your Second Amendment rights if you’re facing charges from using a firearm to defend yourself or just feel like packing some heat today.
That’s what the Republicans would do.
That’s not what the insurance companies would do. What they would do is continue to take premiums from the 4 million people, but rewrite the policies to provide shitty coverage. They don’t leave money on the table.
Instead of gold and silver plans they would offer mud and sand plans.
Has anyone posted this one yet?
— State Rep. Lawrence Lockman (R-ME)
What the hell is it with Republicans and rape? Is this the tea party or the rape party?
NED FLANDERS [sitting in front of his destroyed house]: Why me, O Lord?! I did everything I was supposed to do . . . I even kept kosher just to be on the safe side . . .
They need to declare a general party-wide moratorium on even mentioning the “r” word until after the midterm election. But would they have the self-discipline to observe it?
He did say that in 1995, and now says he regrets saying it. I can definitely see why.
To be fair to the unfair, 
that quote of his came from the 90’s but his quote became an issue when a Bangor Daily News writer, Mike Tipping compiled a list of remarks Lockman made over the last three decades just a few days ago.
The past just caught with him, what I wonder is why that was not an issue early.
http://www.salon.com/chromeo/article/republican_lawmaker_very_sorry_he_said_men_should_be_able_to_rape_women_if_abortion_is_legal/
Edit: ninjaed by the **slumtrimpet **but at least I gave the cite.
Thanks for the enhanced information about this. I didn’t know it was a 20 year old quote.
Yeah, this is truly weird. As y’all know I am a moderate liberal (I suppose) and I never really ‘hated’ the right until the Bush years. Now, it just seems as if the GOP is a “wretched hive of scum and villainy”. What the heck is going on in these men’s minds? Rape is never acceptable. Ever. How can any ideology accept rape as a normal activity? It baffles me.
And I don’t care.
The 1990s wasn’t some ancient time, full of cavemen and other sexist things. We had these little things called basic human rights all the way back then.
Hell, most of the people on this board had mortgages and were contributing to an IRA by 1995.
It was never acceptable to compare a woman’s right to her own body to a man’s ‘right’ to assault it.
Completely agree. Is why I can understand his regret (sucks to be outed). The man’s an asshat, then and still. It seems he’s all about being “focused on ensuring freedom and economic prosperity for all Mainers.” nowadays. The remarks he made about Gays back then are choice too.
[TPN link](focused on ensuring freedom and economic prosperity for all Mainers.")