So one of my fiancée's friends has made it very publicly clear on facebook that she is a teabagger (hehehe) and that she is against all socialist concepts, hates the thought of paying for healthcare for more disadvantaged people, etc etc etc.
However, her child was stillborn, and required several months of medical treatment on medicaid/nmedicare/whatever it is you guys have over here. All in all the bill came to over four million dollars, if it was not for this socialist practice, her child would not be here today, or she would have one hell of a loan to pay off.
I guess my question is how many people do you know who are being slightly hypocritical in denouncing the moves the government is making towards a national health service, when they have used, for instance, childcare benefits, unemployment benefits, housing benefits, and so forth?
Either them or a close family member using one of the services... What is the population again I forgot
yes, it is typical. but they will refuse to admit it or say, it was different in their situation...
It's a shame, but alot of people seperate thier beliefs from the reality of things. They have political and social beliefs galore, but they lack the accumulation of information to make a reasonable decision. Mostly it's based on the indoctrination they have recieved due to the people they have grown up around.
Seems to me you are celebrating her misfortune.
Not really, I don't have a real stance on the whole current American issue because I am not american (Yet).
I am just saying that from a certain standpoint these things seem to be a little hypocritical.
Calling her teabagger first off. And then making light of it etc etc. All in the purpose of proving that a group is a bunch of nincompoops.
I think you're being oversensitive. Pointing out that one person seems to be hypocritical is not equivalent to calling an entire group "a bunch of nincompoops."
As for the term "teabagger," we all know they started it with their own ignorance. Sort of harbinger of things to come, don't you think? lol
Also, you might also say that I am celebrating her fortune in living in a country which provides at least some level of national health care.
Oli how is it the child was stillborn yet still required treatment?
To your question I know a lot that have used services and are being a bit two faced about the whole thing.
Might be using the wrong terminology on that one, it was born 'dead' but was resuscitated, it was born way too early.
This is just one of the examples I heard which I think highlights the fact pretty well, along with retirees who claim a pension yet don't agree with national services.
Welcome to America
Some of us even have THREE faces
the TB movement is nothing more than people gnashing their teeth and yelling and going on about things they don't even understand. There are some sensible points being made, but they are lost in all the squalling.
You ask if it's typical -
I'll say it is not typical, but nothing that has happened in the last two years or so has been typical. People are scared and angry and many have lost so much in this economy. It's a dramatic response to dramatic problems IMO.
You're seeing a political stance that is based on emotion, not reason.
It is kinda funny to see folks so proudly and defiantly calling themselves teabaggers though. heh heh
They just follow the leader. They have no idea, but they figure it must be right since the leader says so.
Guessing you meant premature. Indeed, without our social programs the vast majority of these babies would be dead.
I know a teabagger couple. The wife had a severe heart attack at the age of 51 while working for state government. She lived with an artificial heart for six months then received a heart transplant. The treatment and followup has totaled well over two million dollars, which was paid for entirely by the cadillac insurance plan negotiated by the union of state workers. Now, she is living on social security disability, as well as a generous pension, funded mostly by employer contributions (the state), and also negotiated for her by the union of state workers.
Her husband was also employed by the state and retired on the same generous pension at the age of 55. He now also receives social security.
Both of them have serious health issues and are covered by Medicare.
I don't begrudge either of them their benefits; I just find it odd that they don't recognize how bad off they would be if those benefits didn't exist.
to answer your question, I know of no-one.
However, I am considering joining these teabaggers...lol...only over a healthcare bill requiring everyone to pay for health insurance. It seems kinda ridiculous to me to make it a law for everyone to pay for their own health insurance, when health insurance has already been available yet the people who can't afford to pay for it go without. So now these people who can't afford to pay for it are going to have to pay a fine if they don't purchase their own health insurance? If I'm understanding correctly, this is absolute stupidity on the part of the government.
People who earn less than four times the poverty level get credits to pay for their health insurance from the US government. That way health insurance becomes nationalized but cannto be abused by illegal immigrants.
Sorry, but I still see it as stupidity when you consider the national debt and the 'financial crisis' the world is in. It just doesn't make sense to me....
Watch out the left will call that hate speech !
Not to step into the middle of um...a heated debate here, but just wanted to add...
((((( oli...am glad to see you're settling in nicely...! )))))
Why would it be hate speach to discus economy, I think you should make a point rather than try to divert and cloud a conversation Tony.
Rafini, America has been in national debt for a long time, so it is not realy an issue, however I do agree a recession is probably not the best time to start leading such a grand scheme.
The question is, when is the right time to impliment national health services?
Lets face it if Obama wants to get an american NHS in place (Bringing America a little closer to the health standards of the rest of the world) this short time he has in power is the only chance he gets, recession or not.
I am not particularly taking sides here, I do think America needs a national health service, however I think Obama might have taken the wrong path in his choice of how it is rolled out.
Obama has definitely taken the wrong path, as he has weakened the integrity of this country more & more, with every Muslim step he takes toward communism. Lets just sell out to the so-called government, shall we......
That's what I'm saying, Oli. Obama made a poor choice in how to do it.
As to the national debt of America, I don't know where it is, but there is a sign (NYC?) that shows the debt in terms of how much each and every American (man, woman, child) has to pay in taxes in order to pay off the national debt. Whatever it's at by now, I can only remember hearing about it when my share of hte national debt was something like $30,000. I'm saying the national debt IS an issue because, seriously? Our country is bankrupt - our leaders just refuse to acknowledge it.
I will agree with you on this, that our health system is a shambles. For starts Tort reform would have been a great starting point , it cost a Doctor to damn much for malpratice Insurance and as a result this is one of the factors in our out of control healthcare cost. But do you think for a moment that the Lawyers lobby would ever have let that in the bill ? Not to mention that we still have a sky high unemployment rate. Solution ? Dig further into peoples pockets ! Brilliant. Can't wait for cap and trade and the Value added tax too , should pretty much break Joe Average.
I think this drifted a bit off course, since the actual question was referring to those who complain about the socialist aspect of a national health service, but take advantage of other socialist products such as social security, national benefits, national pension and so forth!
Whether or not the way Obama handled this correctly or not is a moot point to many people who opposed the bill, who did not like the thought of the rich paying for the poor.
"the actual question was referring to those who complain about the socialist aspect of a national health service, but take advantage of other socialist products such as social security, national benefits, national pension and so forth!"
Happens all the time.
Cognitive Dissonance: It's what's for dinner.
by nicomp really8 years ago
From the What Else is New Department...The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health...
by easyspeak8 years ago
Has anybody actually read this bill? There are lots of information and misinformation floating around.One question I have is...will you still be able to keep your current doctor? I've heard conservatives say...
by Cowboy Coasters7 years ago
....for immigrants and very lazy poor people.
by pgrundy9 years ago
...your health insurance?Right now I have enough regular work to leave my day job, and the work I have pays more and is more fun, but I don't know where to get health insurance that won't eat up every cent.Has anyone...
by OLYHOOCH5 years ago
This is just one of many Re-plys, I receive each day. I thought I might share this one with you,,,,, Thanks. And from one of my favorite pundits, Stella Paul, more motivation to work our tails off in this election...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.