Rule of Unintended Consequences

Dixie said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/brazil-economy-inflation-idUSN1E76501W20110707

Inflation in the 12 months through June advanced to 6.71
percent, above a government target for the third straight
month.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...e-for-consumers-deloitte-study-124267529.html

Further highlighting the anxiety over escalating health care costs, consumers were mixed in assessing their household capacity to handle future expenses. The least amount of confidence was in Portugal (18 percent), followed by Mexico (22 percent), Brazil (22 percent) and the United States (23 percent).

57 percent of consumers in Brazil, 44 percent in Mexico, 38 percent in the United States and 33 percent of consumers in Portugal rated their health care system's performance as 'failing' ("D" or "F").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What were you saying about Brazilian health care again?
Click to expand...

health care system's performance as 'failing'

Performance as failing. I suppose when at the top, as in having a free health care system, occasional problems would arise such as waiting a half hour to see a doctor. Unfortunately, we don't know what the "fail" is.

I'll leave that to you to follow up on it. :)
 
apple0154 said:
health care system's performance as 'failing'

Performance as failing. I suppose when at the top, as in having a free health care system, occasional problems would arise such as waiting a half hour to see a doctor. Unfortunately, we don't know what the "fail" is.

I'll leave that to you to follow up on it. :)
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as FREE health care....or FREE anything, for that matter. You live in a liberal fantasy world.
 
Dixie said:
There is no such thing as FREE health care....or FREE anything, for that matter. You live in a liberal fantasy world.
Click to expand...

"Free", as in it's free to walk on a sidewalk. "Free", as in it's free to use a public park. "Free" as in one's financial situation has no bearing on their right of use/access.
 
apple0154 said:
"Free", as in it's free to walk on a sidewalk. "Free", as in it's free to use a public park. "Free" as in one's financial situation has no bearing on their right of use/access.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medically_indigent_adult

Medically indigent adults "(MIAs)" in the health care system of the United States are persons who do not have health insurance and who are not eligible for other health care coverage, such as Medicaid, Medicare, or private health insurance. Those who are "medically indigent earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to purchase either health insurance or health care." [1]

Government MIA programs at the state or county or municipal level may help MIAs access medical care by paying for all or part of the cost of their medical care.

Such programs are typically of last resort, and are available only to those who meet the "last resort" socioeconomic eligibility standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, fucktard... we already have a program in place to ensure 'right of usage and access' regardless of ability to pay. Why do you continue to ignore this? Please acknowledge that you do understand, indigent care is the law in every state. Because, until you realize this, we can't have an intelligent conversation.

You want a system where the government pays for everyone's health care, and only the wealthy pay for the government... therefore, the not-as-wealthy get FREE health care. Well, guess what? It doesn't work! Nothing is ever FREE! Even the sidewalks and parks... who do you think paid for those? The Magic Sidewalk and Park Fairy?
 
Dixie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medically_indigent_adult Medically indigent adults "(MIAs)" in the health care system of the United States are persons who do not have health insurance and who are not eligible for other health care coverage, such as Medicaid, Medicare, or private health insurance. Those who are "medically indigent earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to purchase either health insurance or health care." [1] Government MIA programs at the state or county or municipal level may help MIAs access medical care by paying for all or part of the cost of their medical care. Such programs are typically of last resort, and are available only to those who meet the "last resort" socioeconomic eligibility standards.
In other words, fucktard... we already have a program in place to ensure 'right of usage and access' regardless of ability to pay. Why do you continue to ignore this? Please acknowledge that you do understand, indigent care is the law in every state. Because, until you realize this, we can't have an intelligent conversation. You want a system where the government pays for everyone's health care, and only the wealthy pay for the government... therefore, the not-as-wealthy get FREE health care. Well, guess what? It doesn't work! Nothing is ever FREE! Even the sidewalks and parks... who do you think paid for those? The Magic Sidewalk and Park Fairy?
Click to expand...





The only thing standing between your argument and total victory is either:






A. More cowbell
avatar434_1[1].gif



or


B. More exclamation points




Raise your game, Dix-Lie.
 
Dixie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medically_indigent_adult

Medically indigent adults "(MIAs)" in the health care system of the United States are persons who do not have health insurance and who are not eligible for other health care coverage, such as Medicaid, Medicare, or private health insurance. Those who are "medically indigent earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to purchase either health insurance or health care." [1]

Government MIA programs at the state or county or municipal level may help MIAs access medical care by paying for all or part of the cost of their medical care.

Such programs are typically of last resort, and are available only to those who meet the "last resort" socioeconomic eligibility standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, fucktard... we already have a program in place to ensure 'right of usage and access' regardless of ability to pay. Why do you continue to ignore this? Please acknowledge that you do understand, indigent care is the law in every state. Because, until you realize this, we can't have an intelligent conversation.

You want a system where the government pays for everyone's health care, and only the wealthy pay for the government... therefore, the not-as-wealthy get FREE health care. Well, guess what? It doesn't work! Nothing is ever FREE! Even the sidewalks and parks... who do you think paid for those? The Magic Sidewalk and Park Fairy?
Click to expand...

available only to those who meet the "last resort" socioeconomic eligibility standards

And what is the "last resort" standard? Do they inventory the goods in the cart the homeless guy is pushing? "Sorry, you're three empty coke cans over the 'last resort' limit."

How caring. How compassionate. A sick individual having to worry about meeting the criteria of "last resort".

Do you ever think about what you write? Do you have any concern, whatsoever, about anyone but yourself? What the fvck happened to you that caused you to turn out the way you did?

Man, someone must have done a number on you somewhere along the line.
 
apple0154 said:
available only to those who meet the "last resort" socioeconomic eligibility standards And what is the "last resort" standard? Do they inventory the goods in the cart the homeless guy is pushing? "Sorry, you're three empty coke cans over the 'last resort' limit." How caring. How compassionate. A sick individual having to worry about meeting the criteria of "last resort". Do you ever think about what you write? Do you have any concern, whatsoever, about anyone but yourself? What the fvck happened to you that caused you to turn out the way you did? Man, someone must have done a number on you somewhere along the line.
Click to expand...



Hey, this is a Christian nation, you Marxist. Why should millionaires and big corporations be forced to pay for the poor?
wink_2.gif
 
apple0154 said:
available only to those who meet the "last resort" socioeconomic eligibility standards

And what is the "last resort" standard? Do they inventory the goods in the cart the homeless guy is pushing? "Sorry, you're three empty coke cans over the 'last resort' limit."

How caring. How compassionate. A sick individual having to worry about meeting the criteria of "last resort".

Do you ever think about what you write? Do you have any concern, whatsoever, about anyone but yourself? What the fvck happened to you that caused you to turn out the way you did?

Man, someone must have done a number on you somewhere along the line.
Click to expand...

I didn't write it, this is posted at Wikipedia. Now you want to start moving the bar... instead of us merely taking care of those who can't afford it, you want to redefine who can't afford it! Now you opine for us to care for those who maybe CAN afford it, but it might make life a little difficult for them. Well, again, guess fucking what? Life is hard sometimes! We don't always get coddled and nurtured by government, because government can't afford to coddle and nurture everybody, and we live in Constitutional republic, where the Constitution plainly states, equal protection under the law! If the government is going to provide a service to one, they have to provide it to all. If government is going to coddle and nurture ONE group, they must coddle and nurture ALL groups, because that is the foundational basis of the Constitution. Perhaps in some Socialist European country where they don't HAVE a Constitution, they can pick and choose who they want to serve, and it works out fine for them, but we can't do that here.
 
(\(\(\/)/)/) said:
Reagan started this move to abandon the poor.



As PolitiFact found, today's Conservatards either don't know any better, or are lying.



Here we see a Murdoch minion caught in a lie by PolitiFact:



In the 1980s, "The lowest income people had the biggest gains." - -- Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.





PolitiFact's verdict: False










http://www.tampabay.com/news/politi...an-tax-cuts-benefited-biggest-incomes/1149494
Click to expand...




MAYBE WE





SHOULD START POSTING





EVERYTHING LIKE THIS





SINCE YOU





SEEM TO





LIKE




HAVING TO





SCROLL





THROUGH HALF A





PAGE OF NONSENSE




TO READ





ANY-FUCKING-THING





YOU





POST





HERE





MORON!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top