thump:
Image via iStockPhoto/Francesca Rizzo
Will you be exploiting any more children today Gopher?
You don't even have a clue who she is do you? But she has cancer and has no hair and that is good enough for a US Liberal.
Smile! You’ve Got Socialized Healthcare!
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Image via iStockPhoto/Francesca Rizzo
Will you be exploiting any more children today Gopher?
You don't even have a clue who she is do you? But she has cancer and has no hair and that is good enough for a US Liberal.
LOL! Such desperation from a Republicon apologist.
If you don't want to believe that photo, there are plenty of testimonials in Facebook. As for exploitation, we had enough of those from your side in your photos from Syria and Iraq. Wasn't a problem back then for you, was it?
If you don't want to believe that photo, there are plenty of testimonials in Facebook. As for exploitation, we had enough of those from your side in your photos from Syria and Iraq. Wasn't a problem back then for you, was it?
We just call her "Precious." Beats having to learn all the little diseased brats' names.Image via iStockPhoto/Francesca Rizzo
Will you be exploiting any more children today Gopher?
You don't even have a clue who she is do you? But she has cancer and has no hair and that is good enough for a US Liberal.
You're busted dude. So busted!
As far as the photos from Syria and Iraq...it would be nice to know what you are talking about. but please direct me to the thread, pictures, and my response.
But again... since you got busted with that photo... you'll say whatever you can to pull you out of the spiral.
When you friends posted those pics here were deleted because they were exploitations, just in case you forgot.
Great point! Let's ask him eh?
Does she have a name Gopher? A story? Date when photo was taken? Which insurance did she have? Was it... OBAMACARE?
You don't know do you? She's just a prop. You're BUSTED!
Ok then... did I respond? I must have because you said it was ok with me or wasn't a problem with me. The pics I am sure were deleted but surely my response is.
Or is it because you just got BUSTED!
Yes. It was the same thread where you admitted to fantasizing about a three-way with Ray Lewis and Justin Bieber.
But you got your eee-vil, unholy friends to delete it, so I can't link to it.
Oh, and Bill Cosby raped me.
Ahhh... got it.
Well you stated the obvious.
Thanks for the easy lay-up... unintentional though it may have been. You set him up good!
It begins to unravel...
Burke Beu: This Democrat Is Giving Up on ObamaCare - WSJ - WSJ
Because Massachusetts is a Blue State... Bluer than even Minnesota!
Burke Beu: This Democrat Is Giving Up on ObamaCare - WSJ - WSJ
Because Massachusetts is a Blue State... Bluer than even Minnesota!
Gov. Scott Walker: Refusing health care to low-income Americans helps them 'live the American dream'
Gov. Scott Walker: Refusing health care to low-income Americans helps them 'live the American dream'
I don't know what anti-healthcare conservatives suppose the "American Dream" to be, but I've yet to see one aspire to it themselves:
Defending his fellow Republican governors’ decision to block Medicaid expansion in their states, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Friday suggested that denying health coverage to additional low-income Americans helps more people “live the American Dream” because they won’t be “dependent on the American government.”
Denying health coverage to any low-income American would run afoul of living the American Dream primarily because of the living part, of course. Denying the Medicaid expansion is expected to kill thousands of Americans outright, and it's difficult to live the "American Dream" as a plastic bag of burnt cinders tossed very respectfully to your next-of-kin. No "American Dream" I am familiar with involves being plunged into sudden bankruptcy by the slightest of accidents; I have never heard a child say when I grow up, I am going to get a medically treated condition but then not be able to treat it because my employer does not cover that.
“Beyond that, I just ask the basic question: Why is more people on Medicaid a good thing?” he said. “I’d rather find a way, particularly for able-bodied adults without children, I’d like to find a way to get them into the workforce. [...]
Particularly able-bodied adults without children, and screw the rest of them. If you are poor and have a child you are out of luck, and had best hope your janitorial job will allow you to raise young Timmy in the mop bucket while you go about your shift; if you are poor and not able-bodied the American Dream dictates you suck it up, self-amputate whichever of your limbs is giving you the trouble using plastic utensils procured from the nearest fast-food restaurant, and apply for a job at that restaurant as soon as you have cauterized the wound on their industrial grill.
I think ideologically, that’s a better approach, not just as a conservative, but as an American. Have more people live the American dream if they’re not dependent on the American government.”
Ideologically, it's a wonderful approach. Ideologically, it would be ideal if poor Americans rode unicorns to their fancy Wall Street jobs and got health insurance from the ghost of Ronald Reagan himself, who would smile as he helped them fill out the forms and would then quickly send them off to Jesus Christ to be processed. The chasm between ideologically and practicality is wide, and at the bottom is a slow-moving river of Not Really Giving A ****. If you are so determined to find an ideological solution to poor Americans dying from preventable diseases and not-poor Americans always one hospital visit away from becoming destitute, it is a clear announcement that the great vast sweep of those Americans and their problems is not concerning enough to bother with a non-ideological solution. Which would be, of course, the crux of the problem here.
I suspect what Gov. Scott Walker really means is that denying healthcare coverage to low-income Americans is necessary for his own American Dream, which is to be a respected and powerful member of a government that would do such things. The American Dream for Scott Walker means rising to a position where you can tell The Poors that they do not really need health care, and if they did need health care they should have thought of that before becoming Poors. The American Dream for Scott Walker is being able to sit in a very nice office and opine on how all of the Americans who are not governors should be happy to die for the cause of Scott Walker's personal ideology, because we are all in this together, you and I, and if you are not willing to be buried in a pauper's grave in order to provide a slight boost to Scott Walker's planned run for the presidency then you are not really a part of the Scott Walker team, now, are you. You should consider your diabetes or heart disease or sick child from a more ideological perspective, and I am sure then you will be able to appreciate how your existence runs afoul of Scott Walker's American Dream.
Naturally he works for the government and gets his medical costs subsidized by taxpayers.
.
Gov. Scott Walker: Refusing health care to low-income Americans helps them 'live the American dream'
I don't know what anti-healthcare conservatives suppose the "American Dream" to be, but I've yet to see one aspire to it themselves:
Defending his fellow Republican governors’ decision to block Medicaid expansion in their states, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Friday suggested that denying health coverage to additional low-income Americans helps more people “live the American Dream” because they won’t be “dependent on the American government.”
Denying health coverage to any low-income American would run afoul of living the American Dream primarily because of the living part, of course. Denying the Medicaid expansion is expected to kill thousands of Americans outright, and it's difficult to live the "American Dream" as a plastic bag of burnt cinders tossed very respectfully to your next-of-kin. No "American Dream" I am familiar with involves being plunged into sudden bankruptcy by the slightest of accidents; I have never heard a child say when I grow up, I am going to get a medically treated condition but then not be able to treat it because my employer does not cover that.
“Beyond that, I just ask the basic question: Why is more people on Medicaid a good thing?” he said. “I’d rather find a way, particularly for able-bodied adults without children, I’d like to find a way to get them into the workforce. [...]
Particularly able-bodied adults without children, and screw the rest of them. If you are poor and have a child you are out of luck, and had best hope your janitorial job will allow you to raise young Timmy in the mop bucket while you go about your shift; if you are poor and not able-bodied the American Dream dictates you suck it up, self-amputate whichever of your limbs is giving you the trouble using plastic utensils procured from the nearest fast-food restaurant, and apply for a job at that restaurant as soon as you have cauterized the wound on their industrial grill.
I think ideologically, that’s a better approach, not just as a conservative, but as an American. Have more people live the American dream if they’re not dependent on the American government.”
Ideologically, it's a wonderful approach. Ideologically, it would be ideal if poor Americans rode unicorns to their fancy Wall Street jobs and got health insurance from the ghost of Ronald Reagan himself, who would smile as he helped them fill out the forms and would then quickly send them off to Jesus Christ to be processed. The chasm between ideologically and practicality is wide, and at the bottom is a slow-moving river of Not Really Giving A ****. If you are so determined to find an ideological solution to poor Americans dying from preventable diseases and not-poor Americans always one hospital visit away from becoming destitute, it is a clear announcement that the great vast sweep of those Americans and their problems is not concerning enough to bother with a non-ideological solution. Which would be, of course, the crux of the problem here.
I suspect what Gov. Scott Walker really means is that denying healthcare coverage to low-income Americans is necessary for his own American Dream, which is to be a respected and powerful member of a government that would do such things. The American Dream for Scott Walker means rising to a position where you can tell The Poors that they do not really need health care, and if they did need health care they should have thought of that before becoming Poors. The American Dream for Scott Walker is being able to sit in a very nice office and opine on how all of the Americans who are not governors should be happy to die for the cause of Scott Walker's personal ideology, because we are all in this together, you and I, and if you are not willing to be buried in a pauper's grave in order to provide a slight boost to Scott Walker's planned run for the presidency then you are not really a part of the Scott Walker team, now, are you. You should consider your diabetes or heart disease or sick child from a more ideological perspective, and I am sure then you will be able to appreciate how your existence runs afoul of Scott Walker's American Dream.
Naturally he works for the government and gets his medical costs subsidized by taxpayers.
.
on the contrary, the reichsters are in desperation mode
But let's enlighten them further:
What's worse? Calling American voters stupid, or giving millions access to health care?
The missing dimension in the whole Jonathan Gruber scandal is this: however the law got made, it worked. Millions of people—more than 15 million—have health insurance, many of whom did not have coverage before the law. Seniors have saved hundreds of millions of dollars on prescription drugs. Medicare spending has fallen dramatically, saving the federal government billions.
That should be the premise under which every story, every "scandal," about the law is written. That includes the story of Jonathan Gruber, the analyst and consultant to the White House while the law was being written who has said some pretty inflammatory and incorrect things about the law. Here's what else to keep in mind. While Gruber has done quite well on the lecture service, billing himself as the "architect" of the law, he wasn't.
[W]hile conservatives are all but labeling him the giver of Obamacare in their effort to wring political points out of his statements, Gruber wasn’t the first to suggest such central components as the law's exchanges, mandates, insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion.
And, the law's proponents point out, he was more of a scorekeeper than an actual creator of the law.
"Was he in the administration, was he in the Congress, did he draft provisions of the law?" said Chris Jennings, a health care consultant and former White House aide on health policy. "The answer to all those questions is no, so just by definition he was not the architect of the law. He wasn't a member [of Congress], he wasn't an elected leader, he wasn't [a] staff member to those members, he was not a political or career appointee to the administration. He was a private consultant."
Here's something else to keep in mind: the process of lawmaking Gruber was complaining about in that rant, that the bill "was written in a tortured way to make sure" the Congressional Budget Office "did not score the mandate as taxes." Republicans have seized on that to pretend that Democrats were keeping huge parts of the law secret. Well, guess who else used a tortured process to pass a law?
President George W. Bush’s expansion of Medicare in 2003 was carefully designed so that its costs were backloaded, rising sharply just after its 10-year mark. Estimating costs in the 10-year window is an (arbitrary) convention for C.B.O. scoring of pending legislation. The design of the law made it seem less costly than it was expected to be over a longer time period.
Does this make a scandal? No way. What's a scandal is that Republicans want to take access to health care away from millions of people. That's, to quote Vice President Biden, "literally" a "big ****ing deal." It's life and death for plenty of Americans.
Each and every one of those lives are PRECIOUS.
But let's enlighten them further:
What's worse? Calling American voters stupid, or giving millions access to health care?
The missing dimension in the whole Jonathan Gruber scandal is this: however the law got made, it worked. Millions of people—more than 15 million—have health insurance, many of whom did not have coverage before the law. Seniors have saved hundreds of millions of dollars on prescription drugs. Medicare spending has fallen dramatically, saving the federal government billions.
That should be the premise under which every story, every "scandal," about the law is written. That includes the story of Jonathan Gruber, the analyst and consultant to the White House while the law was being written who has said some pretty inflammatory and incorrect things about the law. Here's what else to keep in mind. While Gruber has done quite well on the lecture service, billing himself as the "architect" of the law, he wasn't.
[W]hile conservatives are all but labeling him the giver of Obamacare in their effort to wring political points out of his statements, Gruber wasn’t the first to suggest such central components as the law's exchanges, mandates, insurance subsidies and Medicaid expansion.
And, the law's proponents point out, he was more of a scorekeeper than an actual creator of the law.
"Was he in the administration, was he in the Congress, did he draft provisions of the law?" said Chris Jennings, a health care consultant and former White House aide on health policy. "The answer to all those questions is no, so just by definition he was not the architect of the law. He wasn't a member [of Congress], he wasn't an elected leader, he wasn't [a] staff member to those members, he was not a political or career appointee to the administration. He was a private consultant."
Here's something else to keep in mind: the process of lawmaking Gruber was complaining about in that rant, that the bill "was written in a tortured way to make sure" the Congressional Budget Office "did not score the mandate as taxes." Republicans have seized on that to pretend that Democrats were keeping huge parts of the law secret. Well, guess who else used a tortured process to pass a law?
President George W. Bush’s expansion of Medicare in 2003 was carefully designed so that its costs were backloaded, rising sharply just after its 10-year mark. Estimating costs in the 10-year window is an (arbitrary) convention for C.B.O. scoring of pending legislation. The design of the law made it seem less costly than it was expected to be over a longer time period.
Does this make a scandal? No way. What's a scandal is that Republicans want to take access to health care away from millions of people. That's, to quote Vice President Biden, "literally" a "big ****ing deal." It's life and death for plenty of Americans.
Each and every one of those lives are PRECIOUS.
Trying to SPAM your way out of this thread Gopher? Trying to load MASSIVE pages of text to put some distance between yourself and the iStockPhoto?
Don't worry buddy... we can always go back and get it. lol
You are a Gruber Voter!
Don't worry buddy... we can always go back and get it. lol
You are a Gruber Voter!
Poor, poor desperate Eagle.
Can't find a way to refute the TRUTH of what is posted and is remains in desperation mode.
How unhappy he is to see so many Americans benefiting from the same socialized health care that folks get in Massachusetts and in Canada. Tsk, tsk. It's there and millions are glad to have it.
Can't find a way to refute the TRUTH of what is posted and is remains in desperation mode.
How unhappy he is to see so many Americans benefiting from the same socialized health care that folks get in Massachusetts and in Canada. Tsk, tsk. It's there and millions are glad to have it.