Posted on 04/13/2010 7:56:01 AM PDT by Whenifhow
RUSH: From Ft. Lauderdale: "A woman battling a cancer battle was dealt a surprise blow by Uncle Sam this month. Diana Smith has gone through six months of radiation and chemotherapy -- one week out of every month. She is in remission and had a donor for a transplant; being in remission is prerequisite for the transplant. But her hopes of receiving the transplant were dashed in March, when she says, the Social Security Administration contacted her -- without her soliciting it -- and told her that her three-year-old son was entitled to receive Social Security disability payments. Even though she didn't ask for it, she signed the form and received her son's first check check [sic]. In April, Medicaid canceled her universal health care policy because her income level had risen with her son's payments -- making her ineligible for the insurance program."
Snip
CALLER: For 20 years I've been working in the Medi-Cal, Medicare veterans benefit field, and the story you were telling earlier is not an isolated event. That happens, has happened hundreds of times in my career.
RUSH: You mean the government will call, solicit Social Security in this case, Social Security supplemental payment, putting the patient above the eligibility line and losing her coverage from the government, Medicaid?
Snip
CALLER: Right now the VA takes a year to get people medical care in some cases. This is not new. I've been telling people for years that in effect -- I know it's not technically correct -- but the death panels already exist because we have government bureaucrats somewhere sitting in an office who are making health care decisions and life-and-death decisions for people, and they don't know anything about what's going on.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
60 posts and you are the only one who refuses to see the obvious. Rush say’s nothing about any right he points out that government healthcare is already doing what Obama said it wouldn’t.
He's suggesting nothing of the sort.
The entire exchange is based on the assumption that the woman has a right to health care for her cancer, and that the government has a responsibility to provide it. It makes no sense otherwise.
Rush is complaining (properly, btw) that bureaucratic bungling is interfering with this woman's right to receive her government-funded cancer treatments.
The problem (if indeed it is a "problem") is that he's arguing on the basis of that right.
The argument raises some important questions such as, what responsibilities do We the People have to people like Diana Smith? Does government have a proper role in her care?
The central weakness of the conservative case against Obamacare is that we either don't have anwers to those sorts of questions or, if we do, we don't do a good job of letting people know what they are.
Rush's entire argument falls apart unless he argues from the basis that it's her right to receive the treatments.
You were doing great until you unveiled little nugget of crap. Now I see that you're nothing but a brainless twit.
I quoted you. You can't complain about that, except maybe to kick yourself.
How does it feel to get owned in a debate by a brainless twit?
BTW, you didn’t address my point about Rush.
I’m not going to address any of your points, precisely because you showed yourself to be a brainless twit. When you learn how to discuss things like a grownup, maybe we can have a conversation.
...parents need to document how the money is spent in case of an audit...”
Not how it works. My grandson received SSI payments every month for six years following the death of his mother. Payments went to his stepmother - $72,000 - they did not have to account for a penny of it. Paid their house and credit cards off, bought a new car for her daughter. Not one dime toward my grandson for ANYTHING including medical care! Tried to get an SSI hearing and audit but was denied, they said they could not do anything about it.
sheesh, I thought it was HARD to get SS disability payments for a kid, something about this story stinks because an application MUST be made
(The son received payments because of the mother being disabled not because he was.
All underage children of social security or SSI disability are entitled to these benefits.)
Gotcha,
So let me get this all straight again... you posting repeatedly on a thread because Rush was being a hypocrite (and not addressing things like an adult) and your reason for not addressing my highlighting a logic flaw in your position is because I’m not addressing things like an adult.
So the short version is you only troll famous people?
More likely Rush believes that it was her right to have learned years ago that this could happen to her and therefor she should not have supported such nonsense by the government and should have prepared to provide her own medical insurance in later years.
It's all very well to guess about what Rush believes, and you may be correct. But the fact remains that it is not how he actually argued the point.
To avoid hypocrisy that is probably what he should have said ... but that is not what he actually said.
And, of course, it would be politically suicidal to actually make such a point about a lovely, young, dying woman with a 3-year old son.
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.