Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Postby reagan97 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:46 pm

And they say WE want folks dying in the streets
reagan97
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:14 pm



Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Postby malcom93 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:47 pm

And they say WE want folks dying in the streets
malcom93
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:37 am



Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Postby stilleman » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:49 pm

And they say WE want folks dying in the streets
Why do you want me to pay for your cancer treatment? Shouldn't you have saved money for your own health expenses? Shouldn't your family be taking care of you.

It is awfully nice of you to put the rest of us on the hook for your health.

Now since you're gonna want the rest of us to foot the bill, I think that entitles the rest of us to tell you how to live your life. Do thing that lead to cancer and you can go without coverage for your treatment.
stilleman
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:16 pm



Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Postby jedediah92 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:50 pm

I would imagine that most of this was compromises he had to make with radical republican who are in the pockets of the Pharmaceutical and Insurance companies, and the Union that is the MDA.

So I would chalk it up to the good ol' GOP.

Obamacare, you right wing nut jobs make me laugh.
jedediah92
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:33 am



Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Postby geoffrey » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:52 pm

You see -- as it turns out people have been more or less dying at about the correct rate

Age of full pension -- 65 -- Average life expectancy of a male born in Ontario -- 72

That means with luck -- 30 or more years of paying in equals the government having to pay out for an expected term of approximately 8 years

When corporations are left to do this via economic constraint they tend to be very very quiet about it When governments do exactly the same thing they have a tendency to get caught a lot unless your the Canadian government in which case getting caught in the stats is a matter of shrugging your shoulders until it goes away

Clearly you can see the difficulty in covering people who are most likely to need or use the services for which you have provided protection against via a small sum over years from claiming

When you buy optical insurance for instance there is a disproportional chance you will actually use it as opposed to buying other forms of insurance such as accidental death which is a statistical anomaly and is seldom collected by people protected against it
geoffrey
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:15 pm



Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Postby roly17 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:53 pm

they will save obama is the ****** man back off you f**. We got guns and we ain't afraid to shoot some crackas, we in powa now. Or some ignorant *** **** like that.
roly17
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:08 pm



Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Postby eorlland42 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:58 pm

they wont defend it they will deny it and attack and find ways to change the subject
eorlland42
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:21 pm



Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Postby kunz » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:59 pm

they wont defend it they will deny it and attack and find ways to change the subject
they wont defend it they will deny it and attack and find ways to change the subject
kunz
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:38 pm



Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Postby manuelo93 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:02 pm

like sen grayson of florida said about republican opposition to this,'OHH MY GOD(SOB)
THEY WANT PEOPLE TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!'
the clowns who rammed this through every last party member,coast to coast,border to border,needs to be replaced.de elected (ah,peacefully I should add)

outrageousy stupid
manuelo93
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:29 pm



Under Obamacare, if you live to 76 you are not eligable for cancer treatment, how will libs defend this?

Postby norwell » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:04 pm

HB 3200 is not the bill that has been passed in both houses. Get your facts correct about health reform please. It is HR3962.
The link is below.
And the facts about it are simple.

FACT - Insurance companies in the USA admit to pushing up prices, buying politicians and not paying out claims when they should
FACT - PER PERSON the USA spends more on healthcare than any other nation on the planet
FACT - Obama debated his plans before the election for healthcare
FACT - the chance of a child under five of dying in the USA is greater than industrialised nations with universal healthcoverage
FACT - Obama was elected by the American people to bring in change
FACT - Obama wants to stop insurance companies from screwing the American people
FACT - The reforms Obama wants work in the Netherlands and in Switzerland

Now, unlike other posters here, I can back up my facts with evidence. For those who are interested in the evidence, click on the links below. Of course, many who are against making the health of America better refuse to look at the links, or provide evidence to back up what they say.
norwell
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:40 pm



PreviousNext

Return to Taxes



 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests