On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:15:11 -0800 (PST), DaveS wrote:

On Feb 23, 3:05*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0800 (PST), Larry L
wrote:





I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very
serious condition.

He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health
care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions.

They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work
incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. * * They are
assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store,
they are damn fine people. * They, imho, are exactly the type of
people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing
around for political reasons.

May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the
millions with similar stories,
**** Republicans in the US Senate

Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the
duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer
that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to
state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but
these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for
your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't
they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?"

TC,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Prepared to pay . . . . Who do you think pays for it now? Duh. Fact
is we pay more than double for half the care.

Who is this "we" and "half the care" as compared to whom?

2. Buy it before they had pre-existing conditions . . . Because they
thought it would never happen to them, like most people do,

Do you know these folks, too? I mean, that's why I asked - for all I know,
Larry's friend has had these pre-existing conditions since birth. OTOH, you may
be correct, and certainly, you would be in describing a large portion of the US
population who could have obtained health care "pre pre-existing condition(s)"
and chose not to. Why should those in the latter category be, um, "bailed out"
for their misstep any more than AIG, Goldman, etc.should be?

and like
most of the silly rightwinglings who mutter the cheap extended
adolescent mantras of the personality disorder known as
"conservatism."

Well, so much for "all politics aside"...

And there you have it,
R