GOP tensions rise over Cruz proposal

[Smokin Joe]

Now that's a repulsive comment.

ONE TRILLION DOLLARS (and counting).

The repulsive truth.

[txradioguy]

Some of the justification for Obamacare was, that although they had "last resort" health care, they lacked "preventative" healthcare, that others got with health insurance.

So instead of winding up in the emergency room, they would start in doctors' offices, regular checkups, would adopt more healthy lifestyles, etc.

But soon after Obamacare became widely available it was determined they still went to the MORE COSTLY emergency rooms.

And we are in the midst of a costly and deadly explosion of opioid use. Apparently those folks failed to appear for their routine checkups, and/or failed to follow doctor's orders.

The Biggest Problem is the "Collectivization" mentality, whereby I am forced by do-gooder government edicts, to pay for massive harebrained schemes, of making drugs quasi-legal, making so-called "minor" crimes like traffic tickets, etc.

California is a laboratory classroom for the above. Ask a policeman to get the homeless out of a park. He will explain it is not against the law, to be homeless.

Tell the officer that 2/3 of homeless are addicts/alcoholics and/or mentally ill. He will explain the voters have decriminalized drugs. And have made lesser crimes mere citations.

Vagrancy is no longer a crime. Loitering is such a low level crime, the officers rarely bother.

Where as the "weaker" were once kept out of sight, they are now "mainstreamed" among us.

And do-gooders, many from the "right," would guilt trip us into believing some "collectivist" crap we ought to be compassionate, help them, etc.

@truth_seeker at the end of the day it is not the responsibility of either of us to pay for someone else's bad life decisions.

[Applewood]

What we cannot do is deny treatment to such folks.   What we can do is spread the cost of such care as widely as possible,  rather than just those with no good alternative to the individual insurance market.   Folks with HIV are prime candidates for high risk pools for whom care should be financed through general tax revenues (that is, paid for by all of us,  not just an unlucky few).

Your reasoning is what got us into Obamacare in the first place.  The Democrats manufactured this health care crisis whereby people allegedly were being denied health care.  That was BS.  Where I live, many one regardless of ability to pay can go to any hospital (and here, we have an abundance of quality hospitals) and get treatment.  The Democrats' solution to their manufactured crisis was to take away the comprehensive insurance coverage people paid for out of their hard-earned dollars, stick those people with expensive, lousy insurance, then provided dope heads and slackers with insurance policies most of them didn't even want.  In effect, Obamacare is a form of income redistribution -- taking away from the hard working people and giving something for nothing to people who perhaps never worked a day in their life, or perhaps were too stupid or lazy to provide for themselves. 

And as for HIV, except for cases where the disease is contracted through blood transfusions or some situation like the girl who got the disease from her infected dentist, most of these cases come from irresponsible behavior  -- drug addiction, unprotected sex, etc.  So I, responsible old lady who worked hard for 35 years to provide for myself, who did not engage in risky behavior, who saved money for a rainy day -- I should take care of some irresponsible dope head who had money for his addiction,  but who now can't afford the health care he now needs?  I have 2 words for that:

HELL NO!

[txradioguy]

Your reasoning is what got us into Obamacare in the first place.  The Democrats manufactured this health care crisis whereby people allegedly were being denied health care.  That was BS.  Where I live, many one regardless of ability to pay can go to any hospital (and here, we have an abundance of quality hospitals) and get treatment.  The Democrats' solution to their manufactured crisis was to take away the comprehensive insurance coverage people paid for out of their hard-earned dollars, stick those people with expensive, lousy insurance, then provided dope heads and slackers with insurance policies most of them didn't even want.  In effect, Obamacare is a form of income redistribution -- taking away from the hard working people and giving something for nothing to people who perhaps never worked a day in their life, or perhaps were too stupid or lazy to provide for themselves. 

And as for HIV, except for cases where the disease is contracted through blood transfusions or some situation like the girl who got the disease from her infected dentist, most of these cases come from irresponsible behavior  -- drug addiction, unprotected sex, etc.  So I, responsible old lady who worked hard for 35 years to provide for myself, who did not engage in risky behavior, who saved money for a rainy day -- I should take care of some irresponsible dope head who had money for his addiction,  but who now can't afford the health care he now needs?  I have 2 words for that:

HELL NO!

 

[Jazzhead]

Your reasoning is what got us into Obamacare in the first place.  The Democrats manufactured this health care crisis whereby people allegedly were being denied health care.  That was BS.  Where I live, many one regardless of ability to pay can go to any hospital (and here, we have an abundance of quality hospitals) and get treatment.  The Democrats' solution to their manufactured crisis was to take away the comprehensive insurance coverage people paid for out of their hard-earned dollars, stick those people with expensive, lousy insurance, then provided dope heads and slackers with insurance policies most of them didn't even want.  In effect, Obamacare is a form of income redistribution -- taking away from the hard working people and giving something for nothing to people who perhaps never worked a day in their life, or perhaps were too stupid or lazy to provide for themselves. 

And as for HIV, except for cases where the disease is contracted through blood transfusions or some situation like the girl who got the disease from her infected dentist, most of these cases come from irresponsible behavior  -- drug addiction, unprotected sex, etc.  So I, responsible old lady who worked hard for 35 years to provide for myself, who did not engage in risky behavior, who saved money for a rainy day -- I should take care of some irresponsible dope head who had money for his addiction,  but who now can't afford the health care he now needs?  I have 2 words for that:

HELL NO!

Your hyperventilating and utter lack of compassion aside,  you already pay in higher premiums for uncompensated and under-compensated care; that is, if you have medical insurance.  A separate risk pool will save YOU money, in other words.   And it's all about YOU and your precious virtue,  I realize.     

[txradioguy]

Your hyperventilating and utter lack of compassion aside,  you already pay in higher premiums for uncompensated and under-compensated care; that is, if you have medical insurance.  A separate risk pool will save YOU money, in other words.   And it's all about YOU and your precious virtue,  I realize.   

Why are we to be held responsible for someone else's bad life choices?

[Jazzhead]

Excuse me bigot?

I'll wear that label like a badge of honor.  Damn right I'm bigoted toward phony Christians who ignore the admonition of Jesus Christ to exhibit compassion toward their brothers.   

[Jazzhead]

Why are we to be held responsible for someone else's bad life choices?

@Jazzhead, that's enough.  Stick to the topic and take a break if you can't avoid insulting other posters. 

- MOD 2

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Damn right I'm bigoted toward phony Christians who ignore the admonition of Jesus Christ to exhibit compassion toward their brothers.

Jesus wasn't a statist, and I don't think "compassion" compelled by Roman taxes was exactly what Christ had in mind.

Someone should pass that on to Governor Kasich.

[Emjay]

Some of the justification for Obamacare was, that although they had "last resort" health care, they lacked "preventative" healthcare, that others got with health insurance.

So instead of winding up in the emergency room, they would start in doctors' offices, regular checkups, would adopt more healthy lifestyles, etc.

But soon after Obamacare became widely available it was determined they still went to the MORE COSTLY emergency rooms.

And we are in the midst of a costly and deadly explosion of opioid use. Apparently those folks failed to appear for their routine checkups, and/or failed to follow doctor's orders.

The Biggest Problem is the "Collectivization" mentality, whereby I am forced by do-gooder government edicts, to pay for massive harebrained schemes, of making drugs quasi-legal, making so-called "minor" crimes like traffic tickets, etc.

California is a laboratory classroom for the above. Ask a policeman to get the homeless out of a park. He will explain it is not against the law, to be homeless.

Tell the officer that 2/3 of homeless are addicts/alcoholics and/or mentally ill. He will explain the voters have decriminalized drugs. And have made lesser crimes mere citations.

Vagrancy is no longer a crime. Loitering is such a low level crime, the officers rarely bother.

Where as the "weaker" were once kept out of sight, they are now "mainstreamed" among us.

And do-gooders, many from the "right," would guilt trip us into believing some "collectivist" crap we ought to be compassionate, help them, etc.

There was a time when mentally ill people could be put into mental institutions without their consent.  I helped a friend put her dangerous and mentally ill husband into commitment. 

Now, the ACLU won't let us do that and it is a bad thing because very few mentally ill people are willing to go voluntarily.  They don't want to take meds and would rather live on the street which might be okay if they weren't a danger to themselves and others.

[txradioguy]

Because it sucks to be you.

If you go out and shoot up drugs or screw another guy and get AIDS or any related illness to either situation...it's not my responsibility to pay for your medical care because YOU knowingly went out and did something that put you in the situation you find yourself in.

If I go out and drink and drive and have a wreck and find myself in a vegetative state that requires long term care in a nursing home...it's not your responsibility to pay for my bad choices.

[Applewood]

Your hyperventilating and utter lack of compassion aside,  you already pay in higher premiums for uncompensated and under-compensated care; that is, if you have medical insurance.  A separate risk pool will save YOU money, in other words.   And it's all about YOU and your precious virtue,  I realize.   

Lack of compassion, huh.  What is compassionate about robbing some hard working shlub of his money to provide for some lardbutt who won't take care of himself? I have compassion.  I have compassion for the people who paid good money for decent health insurance, then had that insurance taken away.  I have compassion for the guy who had a good family health care policy and is now saddled with expensive insurance that may not pay for his son's badly needed heart surgery, but would pay for a sex change operation.

Exactly how will my contribution to a risk pool save me money?  I'm still paying for someone else's health care.

[Smokin Joe]

Your hyperventilating and utter lack of compassion aside,  you already pay in higher premiums for uncompensated and under-compensated care; that is, if you have medical insurance.  A separate risk pool will save YOU money, in other words.   And it's all about YOU and your precious virtue,  I realize.   

As a tobacco user (not a smoker these last 11 years, but still a tobacco user), I have been dinged on every type of insurance for my perfidy and persistence at self-medicating with nicotine.

My lungs are fine, the only cancer I have dealt with was skin cancer (which I question may have been from having a radio transmitter next to my face for hours on end).  In fact, I can even attribute some positive effects, medically speaking, to tobacco use, although I have little doubt there are those who would summarily deny such occur.

My point is that the actuarial tables which classified me as a tobacco user had me pay extra with the rest of the tobacco users for our sins, not just for health insurance, but for auto and homeowners' insurance, too. (Recall, I don't smoke, there is no fire hazard).

Why are the American People (well, 98% of us, anyway) having to pay for AIDS when we advocated shutting down the bathhouses that GRID (as AIDS was known then) was tied to and spreading from?
I don't skydive, should I have to pay extra for skydivers, too? I don't race cars, haven't been a rock climber for decades, etc.

There are definite risk profiles which are associated with certain behaviours,  whether or not those happen to individuals in those categories. Those who engage or have a record of engaging in the sort of high-risk behaviour which means high payouts for the insurance industry should pay more. I think that is generally accepted. No one griped about tobacco users paying extra, except maybe some tobacco users.

But now that the stakes are much higher, one protected group is howling to be covered by everyone else for their very expensive behaviour related problems, and hiding behind the poor who were already covered, the junkies who never kept a job to have insurance or never bought it out of pocket, and are advocating people who aren't in the risk group pay for that behaviour, not out of the goodness of their hearts nor as a population based tax, but in order to RANSOM their own health insurance coverage.

Obamacare holds everyone else's health insurance hostage over the behaviour of a few, demanding that everyone pay for the high risk behaviour of a few in order to be covered for their own low risk insurance.

That's just wrong. 

[Smokin Joe]

I'll wear that label like a badge of honor.  Damn right I'm bigoted toward phony Christians who ignore the admonition of Jesus Christ to exhibit compassion toward their brothers.

Show me where Jesus said to pay for the depredations earned by abomination, and I'll chip in cheerfully, when low-risk health insurance is released from captivity.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead, that's enough.  Stick to the topic and take a break if you can't avoid insulting other posters. 

- MOD 2

Respectfully, you miss the point.   "It sucks to be you" isn't a personal insult, it's simply an admission that sometimes we need to provide for the members of our human family even if we think such folks lack virtue.   The American people are a compassionate people,  it is one of our strengths as a Christian-centric nation.   We do not want those with AIDS to die in the streets.   They will not be turned away from hospitals,  and hospitals will be compensated by charging more to those with insurance.   

We will all end up paying for the cost of treating the poor and afflicted.   The question becomes what is the fairest way to do so -  I think the idea of a high risk pool funded broadly by taxpayers is a meritorious idea.   But what is not an option is to turn our backs on the less fortunate.   If one is angered, like txradioguy, about having to pay the cost of care for those he deems "less responsible" than him, then the only answer is -  too damn bad.   

[Jazzhead]

Show me where Jesus said to pay for the depredations earned by abomination, and I'll chip in cheerfully, when low-risk health insurance is released from captivity.

I don't give a damn whether you chip in cheerfully.   What concerns me is that the poor and afflicted not be left to die in the gutter, and that the cost of their care be apportioned fairly.   

[Sanguine]

I don't give a damn whether you chip in cheerfully.   What concerns me is that the poor and afflicted not be left to die in the gutter, and that the cost of their care be apportioned fairly.

Well, Jazzhead, sounds like you've found your cause.  Go for it!  Maybe a GoFundMe page?  Carwash?  Bakesale?

However, when you work to force others to support your cause you cross the line. 

[INVAR]

Damn right I'm bigoted toward phony Christians who ignore the admonition of Jesus Christ to exhibit compassion toward their brothers.

You advocate coercion and threat - NOT compassion.

Compassion is YOU PERSONALLY doing the service and providing for those in need out of your own time, money and effort.  What you ignore is the THEFT and STEALING and ROBBING FROM GOD when you charge and empower the government to rob everyone else at gunpoint to do charity in your name so you can beat your chest and claim yourself holy and noble.

You are nothing of the sort.

You advocate evil and attribute it to Christ Himself, without any acknowledgement of destructive behaviors that you enable and endorse as good and better than what the scriptures themselves teach.

[Bigun]

Show me where Jesus said to pay for the depredations earned by abomination, and I'll chip in cheerfully, when low-risk health insurance is released from captivity.

I LONG ago asked him to show me a single instance of Jesus ever saying "give your money to Cesar so Cesar can take care of the poor."  I'm still waiting!

[Smokin Joe]

I don't give a damn whether you chip in cheerfully.   What concerns me is that the poor and afflicted not be left to die in the gutter, and that the cost of their care be apportioned fairly.

We hire street cleaners to take care of that.

What you consider fair, holding medical insurance hostage for low risk groups, I don't consider fair at all. Mainly because it isn't. These people have made their own choices, just as those who chose not to engage in "risky behaviour" chose not to.

Let them pay for the problems their choices have brought on.
Relieve the others from being forced to pay for "lifestyles" they did not participate in or do without insurance which should be cheap for them because they did not. Pay for your own sins.

[INVAR]

What concerns me is that the poor and afflicted not be left to die in the gutter, and that the cost of their care be apportioned fairly.

You pay for those costs yourself there bub, like the good Samaritan you claim yourself to be if you are so moved by compassion on the "poor" and "afflicted".  Stop laying claim to OUR MONEY and advocating the government take it from us by force to redistribute it to a bunch of perverts and idiots suffering the consequences of their behavior, simply because you love and support their behavior yourself.

Because THAT which you advocate ROBS me of the funds I send to persecuted and starving brethren in the third world to keep them alive.

Your comments simply advocate for tyranny along with a deliberate effort of persuading Communism on this board and attributing it to Christ Jesus.

That is not only a perversion of the bible, including the Gospels - it is a perversion of liberty into a meddlesome tyranny.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Seems to be about the right time....

[Cyber Liberty]

We hire street cleaners to take care of that.

What you consider fair, holding medical insurance hostage for low risk groups, I don't consider fair at all. Mainly because it isn't. These people have made their own choices, just as those who chose not to engage in "risky behaviour" chose not to.

Let them pay for the problems their choices have brought on.
Relieve the others from being forced to pay for "lifestyles" they did not participate in or do without insurance which should be cheap for them because they did not. Pay for your own sins.

For a self-proclaimed rock-ribbed conservative Republican he sure takes an awful lot of liberal Democrat positions. 

[Smokin Joe]

For a self-proclaimed rock-ribbed conservative Republican he sure takes an awful lot of liberal Democrat positions. 

Just another example of how "conservative" has been abused as a term.  Words have meanings, but I bet he's anti-semantic, too.

[Smokin Joe]

Seems to be about the right time....

Gee, Major Bill, you're a little late with that one...