Finally, a congressman that gets it (Not in a Barney Frank way)

great speaker. powerful points. hard to rebutt.

however... as you all expect, i am driven to respond.

case 1
imagine, if you will, a stone age village or ancient indian settlement, with maybe 20 families. one of the fathers has always worked hard all his life to contribute to the village wellbeing - hunting, ploughing whatever, nothing too much for him. and then he gets very sick. what do the other people do for him, his wife and his kids?

you know the answer.

case 2
the same ancient village. one of the members has been a lazy good-for-nothing his whole life and has shirked at every opportunity while the other men worked hard. then he gets very sick. what do the other people do for him, his wife and his kids?

you have to think about the answer now, don't you?

the world has many people of both types.

which ones is the congresssman referring to?
 
Last edited:
Case 2 Him nothing, as to his wife and kids, more information is needed

But if this were a true stone age village it would be a moot point, he would have ceased to exist long ago.

You cannot select and then piece part one ideology with another.
 
Actually I don't have to think about the answer. What are you saying? Can you re-phrase?
 
I would put leeches on them and see if they get better.
 
Blood letting?
 
kevinnice said:
great speaker. powerful points. hard to rebutt.

however... as you all expect, i am driven to respond.

case 1
imagine, if you will, a stone age village or ancient indian settlement, with maybe 20 families. one of the fathers has always worked hard all his life to contribute to the village wellbeing - hunting, ploughing whatever, nothing too much for him. and then he gets very sick. what do the other people do for him, his wife and his kids?

you know the answer.

case 2
the same ancient village. one of the members has been a lazy good-for-nothing his whole life and has shirked at every opportunity while the other men worked hard. then he gets very sick. what do the other people do for him, his wife and his kids?

you have to think about the answer now, don't you?

the world has many people of both types.

which ones is the congresssman referring to?
Click to expand...

Actually, in case 2, the village would have kicked him out, since he's not contributing to the village. His wife and kids would have had to go with him, unless they were contributing to the village, and then they would be taken under the care of another contributing family.

Back in the day, they didn't put up with that kind of s*t, you either helped, or you weren't part of the tribe.

Wow - what a novel concept!
 
Last edited:
If they died, would I get to keep the wives? I could use some more kids to work the fields.
 
Case #2 - I didn't have to think long at all.

I'm pretty sure the Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. I'll go out on a limb here and say that you don't get free health care either. VTSeaRay's post is as accurate as can be.
 
Bah.

What makes you guys think the stone age folk would act any different than modern day folks? I think it does not *just* depend on the quality of the sick person. It depends on the quality of the rest of the village. Are they a bunch of cretins, or decent *od fearing folk?

Just like today. . some people I would trust with my life. Others. . .I wouldn't trust with a chocolate nickel. Do we think things have really changed in the last few thousand years?
 
Jack F, Are you in the "People of Walmart"?? I am sure I saw your pic there with another guy that looked just like you.
 
Comsnark,

Things have changed a heck of a lot. We don't stone people for their religious beleifs. We don't have slaves, we don't consider women second class citizens, etc.

The issue is when do we provide healthcare for others. The answer is simple. When they do not have the capability to provide it for themselves. We already do this. Capability is different than desire. The very vast majority of Americans are capable of providing healthcare for themselves. The few that are not still receive necessary medical care by law.

What some of our politicians are proposing is providing free medical coverage to all, by disproportionately confiscating the wealth of some. What's even worse is they intend to force participation into the form and quality of healthcare the government chooses to provide, rather than allowing individuals to use the fruits of their labor to acquire the manner of healthcare they wish. Nothing about that jives with the freedom this country was founded upon.


Edit: I don't trust the government with a chocolate nickel.
 
Last edited:
Mick & Denise said:
Jack F, Are you in the "People of Walmart"?? I am sure I saw your pic there with another guy that looked just like you.
Click to expand...

Thank you..thank you very much (said with a cheesy Elvis accent)
 
Jack F said:
Page 10, I'm trying to get on the Walmart Bingo card.
Click to expand...

Well I will give you credit for admitting it...Now I can call 1-800 ask-What (a lawyer service). My eyesight can only take so much of that picture..I am sure once a jury sees it significant damages will be awarded. :smt043:smt043:smt043
 
I like what he had to say, but he was being overly conservative / pessimistic. The actual percentage of people without any form of insurance and without the ability to pay for their own insurance is considerably less than 15% of the population. Think single digit percentage. Basically, those stupid congress critters are going to screw up a pretty good system to satisfy a few million people. We could cover those few with just a small fraction of what the malpractice law firms suck out of the system. Want to see a good example of how trial lawyers ruin medical care? Look at John Edwards.

Wish I could find that stupid article.

Best regards,
Frank C
 
Last edited:
This health care debate is nothing but a red herring-This along with capt and trade and other programs put forth by this current crop of elected officials( I use the term lightly) have little to do with the subject at hand. The real objective is the consolidation of power in Washington. The reduction of personal freedoms...That's how it looks to us country bumpkins out here in the sticks.....just saying.....
 
When Plymouth MA started it was a socialistic society. You put into the store house as you produce, you take from the store house as you need. The colony soon found that some takers were not adders. The Society changed its rules, you could take out what you put in, it became capitalist. In the scenarios descibed by the Congressman in each case if the wife anc children could contribute to society they would stay, if they could not they were sent away to fend for themselves, or become wolf dinner. In case two, the lazy individual would never have made it the point described by the Congressmen, he would have been driven out of the village. In those times there was no room for a non contributor and very little sympathy. People started contributing a a very young age.
 
The government could outright buy insurance for those 15 million and it would be cheaper than this proposal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,251
Messages
1,429,303
Members
61,128
Latest member
greenworld
Back
Top