Posted on 01/23/2007 4:45:40 PM PST by STARWISE
Edited on 01/23/2007 6:37:01 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
Unfortunately, flaglady47, this very thread contains proof positive that your recollection of an event which occurred only a few hours ago is quite poor. In post 2478, for example, you criticized Bush for failing to talk about "ambulance chasing lawyers that are lousing up insurance costs for everyone" during tonight's SOTU address. Then, in post 2504, You Dirty Rats quoted a line from the address in which Bush expressly spoke of the need to "protect good doctors from junk lawsuits by passing medical liability reform."
Your response? . . . crickets . . .
For this reason, I am sorely tempted to conclude that someone who can't even remember what was said a few hours ago is even more likely to be mistaken about what was said (and by whom) a few days, weeks, or months ago. So please excuse me (and Chena) for adhering to the ancient legal maxim "He who asserts must prove," with which you obviously disagree (at least when it comes to your assertions).
Meanwhile, please feel free to excoriate me (a total stranger to you until tonight) for having the audacity to suggest that you actually expend the energy required to support your claims about another FReeper's views (considered in proper context), particularly when those claims are based solely on what you say is your excellent memory. After all, it would by no means be the first time you alienated fellow FReepers on this thread tonight.
Well, I reached the end, so I'm going to bed. Night all, it's been fun.
"So you retired early? Congrats! Once you hit 65 or 66 do you plan on collecting social security and medicare? I ask this since all retirement medical benefits are contingent on you accepting Medicare as your primary insurance."
What in heavens name are you trying to say here. Of course I'll collect Social Security at the age of 66, although there too, even though I worked many years under social security and have all my quarters necessary, because I took a job with a public institution (a state university) I will only get about 40% of what I should have been getting, because I worked for a state gov't entity. So I get shortchanged just for working at a state university that had a pension plan, even though 1/2 of my life was not under that pension plan but under SS. As for Medicare, I have to go into it or my university health plan won't cover me fully. There is no choice. And I will have to pay a lot more once I go into Medicare, as I will have to pay the monthly Medicare payment, along w/Medicare deductible, neither of which I have to pay now. So it will cost me to be under Medicare. However, it would cost me more not to be. And your point is?
No you're not wrong at all!!!! My fault for not extending that thought process out far enough.
You could argue and leave it up to everyone individually to take a employees' plan or to get a plan on your own. I should know, being self-employed and all!!!
But you as a working taxpayer have that option no matter what.
So you will be one of those with "free" healthcare then. I am just wondering what dog you ghave in this fight.
You're welcome and I'm glad to see we have found yet another item to agree on. ROFL! Dare I say, "TAG", you're it! har har ;)
Free for you, free for me, but not free for the man behind the tree.
"After all, it would by no means be the first time you alienated fellow FReepers on this thread tonight.
"
And it probably won't be the last if I have to deal with the likes of you. Ah, but now I will leave, on second thoughts, as I am hungry, and hunger trumps pointlessly debating with those for whom the word "analysis" doesn't exist. Nitey nite, my kitchen beckons.
I'm out too. Good thread tonight!!!!!
See ya on the 24 thread!!!!!
PRAY FOR W AND OUR TROOPS!!!!!!!1
GOOD NIGHT
Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour – when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate – they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process ... expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress … and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.
If Congress doesn't vote earmarks into law, and if the President doesn't sign earmarks into law why do they have the force of law?
The cynic in me is growing stronger as I think that this President, who I want to love as much as I loathed the last one, has vetoed only one bill. The IRS isn't practicing when it takes $18 billion in taxes to fund this. And the Congress critters who take these bribes only half-heartedly applauded this when the President brought it up. Does the devil make them do it? If the President is serious why didn't he publicly call for the Line Item Veto? The democrats can't hate him any more than they already do. What's the cost? Or is he not serious and this is just a throw away line to dupe rubes like me? Why bring it up? The 2005 earmarks he referenced happened under Republican control of the House and Senate and the Dems largely ran their campaign on it and were able to regain control largely because of it. If earmarks are bad why only cut them by half?
HELP! Please explain the strategery in this one to me.
Regards,
TS
Good evening, sir. :)
What's your worry? From what I've heard the proposal isn't going to be given any consideration by the Democrats. That ought to tell you something about the philosophy behind this...personal responsibility and the free market. And if they get their way, you will be paying your "premiums" in the form of higher taxes with all of the added benefits that come along with socialized medicine.
Actually - your example is perfect for the President's tax credit for insurance plan.
But there is more. He also promised grants to states to help provide health insurance for those who cannot afford it. What do you call that?
Oooooooooo...yes, by all means........I'm it and I'm coming to get you...................... :-)
So you will be one of those with "free" healthcare then. I am just wondering what dog you ghave in this fight
Sorry, hungry. Pointless to debate a pointless point.
But also notice - that when the government pays for health care, it causes the cost for everyone else to go up.
I am now searching for a bag to put over my head before you rub my face in the dirt. Decisions, decisions....shall I choose paper or plastic? ;)
Rest well, cleveland gop. Prayers for our President and our Troops every day, always. :)
Sorry but it is completely on point. You sated that people on Medicare were getting "free" medical care at taxpayer expense and yet you state that, when eligible, you will collect, at taxpayer expense, Medicare since your retirement plan demands it. By your own words, you have admitted that those you implied were leeches will soon have one more member.....you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.