Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Aug 2011, 11:40 am
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Aug 2011, 11:43 am
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Aug 2011, 11:47 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
simon_says wrote:
? 
That's exactly my response to Inuyasha.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Or how about how wonderful government run healthcare is supposed to be, personally I fail to see how telling a woman to kill herself is wonderful...
A 64 year old women, and cancer survivor, living in Oregon; Ms. Wagner learned her cancer had returned and would likely kill her. There was a chance for her survival however, a $4,000 a month drug which her doctor felt she was a good candidate for. Sadly her insurance provider determined this was not a good allocation of resources and denied coverage. Ms. Wagner is now dead from cancer. Which insurance company denied her coverage? Which greedy corporation put profits ahead of people and let Ms. Wagner die when lifesaving care was available? As I stated above, Oregon's state run health insurance plan determined $4,000 was too large an expense for a 64 year old women who had already had cancer once before. A better use of funds would be a $50 assisted suicide pill. This is what was offered to Ms. Wagner in an unsigned letter, this was her “public option”. (Recap, the greedy drug manufacturer offered Ms. Wagner free cancer drugs after her Government health plan denied coverage)
http://www.examiner.com/law-and-politic ... ll-instead
Woah...how did we go from the issue of marrige to healthcare? what does this have to do with marrige?
16 Aug 2011, 12:05 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
simon_says wrote:
?
That's exactly my response to Inuyasha.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Or how about how wonderful government run healthcare is supposed to be, personally I fail to see how telling a woman to kill herself is wonderful...
A 64 year old women, and cancer survivor, living in Oregon; Ms. Wagner learned her cancer had returned and would likely kill her. There was a chance for her survival however, a $4,000 a month drug which her doctor felt she was a good candidate for. Sadly her insurance provider determined this was not a good allocation of resources and denied coverage. Ms. Wagner is now dead from cancer. Which insurance company denied her coverage? Which greedy corporation put profits ahead of people and let Ms. Wagner die when lifesaving care was available? As I stated above, Oregon's state run health insurance plan determined $4,000 was too large an expense for a 64 year old women who had already had cancer once before. A better use of funds would be a $50 assisted suicide pill. This is what was offered to Ms. Wagner in an unsigned letter, this was her “public option”. (Recap, the greedy drug manufacturer offered Ms. Wagner free cancer drugs after her Government health plan denied coverage)
http://www.examiner.com/law-and-politic ... ll-instead
Woah...how did we go from the issue of marrige to healthcare? what does this have to do with marrige?
Kaichgauer asked me why I'm not taking Democrats at their word, so I was listing examples.
16 Aug 2011, 12:25 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Aug 2011, 12:29 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
simon_says wrote:
?
That's exactly my response to Inuyasha.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Or how about how wonderful government run healthcare is supposed to be, personally I fail to see how telling a woman to kill herself is wonderful...
A 64 year old women, and cancer survivor, living in Oregon; Ms. Wagner learned her cancer had returned and would likely kill her. There was a chance for her survival however, a $4,000 a month drug which her doctor felt she was a good candidate for. Sadly her insurance provider determined this was not a good allocation of resources and denied coverage. Ms. Wagner is now dead from cancer. Which insurance company denied her coverage? Which greedy corporation put profits ahead of people and let Ms. Wagner die when lifesaving care was available? As I stated above, Oregon's state run health insurance plan determined $4,000 was too large an expense for a 64 year old women who had already had cancer once before. A better use of funds would be a $50 assisted suicide pill. This is what was offered to Ms. Wagner in an unsigned letter, this was her “public option”. (Recap, the greedy drug manufacturer offered Ms. Wagner free cancer drugs after her Government health plan denied coverage)
http://www.examiner.com/law-and-politic ... ll-instead
Woah...how did we go from the issue of marrige to healthcare? what does this have to do with marrige?
Kaichgauer asked me why I'm not taking Democrats at their word, so I was listing examples.
that does not mean you have to go on an anti-universal healthcare rant......relax we still have inefficient healthcare that follows the buisness model.
16 Aug 2011, 12:30 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Aug 2011, 12:31 pm
16 Aug 2011, 12:33 pm
16 Aug 2011, 12:47 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Aug 2011, 12:48 pm
16 Aug 2011, 1:25 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Aug 2011, 2:29 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
No. You said:
And he asked why you felt that. Now you suggest you meant that Democrats will stop gay marriage in NY because they aren't trustworthy? Er....what?
I think you became confused about what thread you were posting in and rather than admit it, your instinct was to be deceptive. That's how fragile your ego is. The other possibility is that you recognized you were losing and looking foolish so you decided to spam another topic.
Inayusha wrote:
We are assuming that is going to remain in place, which somehow I doubt.
And he asked why you felt that. Now you suggest you meant that Democrats will stop gay marriage in NY because they aren't trustworthy? Er....what?
I think you became confused about what thread you were posting in and rather than admit it, your instinct was to be deceptive. That's how fragile your ego is. The other possibility is that you recognized you were losing and looking foolish so you decided to spam another topic.
I am saying we're assuming the protections for religious institutions will remain in place, and I'm saying I doubt it, because past history has shown the Democrats are notorious for not keeping their word.
And Republicans are? I think politicians in general are notorious for not keeping their word.
Republicans have a better track record than Democrats, not that much better, but still it is a significant enough difference.
Really? based on what self justification, you're side has to be better?
NO! NO! Don't get him started, or the whole point of the topic will get switched to how Republicans are allegedly more honest than Democrats!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Aug 2011, 2:51 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
No. You said:
And he asked why you felt that. Now you suggest you meant that Democrats will stop gay marriage in NY because they aren't trustworthy? Er....what?
I think you became confused about what thread you were posting in and rather than admit it, your instinct was to be deceptive. That's how fragile your ego is. The other possibility is that you recognized you were losing and looking foolish so you decided to spam another topic.
Inayusha wrote:
We are assuming that is going to remain in place, which somehow I doubt.
And he asked why you felt that. Now you suggest you meant that Democrats will stop gay marriage in NY because they aren't trustworthy? Er....what?
I think you became confused about what thread you were posting in and rather than admit it, your instinct was to be deceptive. That's how fragile your ego is. The other possibility is that you recognized you were losing and looking foolish so you decided to spam another topic.
I am saying we're assuming the protections for religious institutions will remain in place, and I'm saying I doubt it, because past history has shown the Democrats are notorious for not keeping their word.
And Republicans are? I think politicians in general are notorious for not keeping their word.
Republicans have a better track record than Democrats, not that much better, but still it is a significant enough difference.
Really? based on what self justification, you're side has to be better?
NO! NO! Don't get him started, or the whole point of the topic will get switched to how Republicans are allegedly more honest than Democrats!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
sorry, I would not want that.
16 Aug 2011, 2:59 pm
16 Aug 2011, 3:20 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Abandoning Marriage and Parenting goals PERMANENTLY!!! |
31 Dec 1969, 7:00 pm Guest
|
| Abandoning Marriage and Parenting goals PERMANENTLY!!! |
Yesterday, 12:48 pm |
