PDA

View Full Version : Universal care is right for Iraq, Thompson says



Life_Long_Dem!
07-18-2009, 11:35 AM
from 2004:

WASHINGTON Fresh from a two-day weekend visit to Iraq, the Bush administration's top health-care official defended the $950 million that will be spent to help Iraq establish universal health care.

Congressional Democrats have criticized the administration for helping Iraq to establish universal health care without doing the same for U.S. citizens.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said yesterday there are major differences between the two countries that defy simple comparisons.

"Even if you don't have health insurance," said Thompson, who toured medical facilities in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Tikrit on Saturday and Sunday, "you are still taken care of in America. That certainly could be defined as universal coverage. Every American's health care is far superior to what the health care is in Iraq."

Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, responded yesterday, saying the U.S. system doesn't sufficiently meet the needs of 44 million uninsured Americans.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2001870042&zsection_id=268448413&slug=iraqdig03&date=20040303

so its good enough for Iraq but not the US!? I see now!:banghead:

Pointgold
07-18-2009, 11:53 AM
Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, responded yesterday, saying the U.S. system doesn't sufficiently meet the needs of 44 million uninsured Americans.



From Deroy Murdoch's column:

"Obamacare is propelled by the oft-repeated Census Bureau statistic that 45.7 million Americans lack health insurance. Even if that number were accurate, why should Washington turn the health care industry upside down for all 300 million Americans in order to help 45.7 million? In fact, as Pacific Research president Sally Pipes demonstrates, public policy should concentrate on a far smaller group of hard cases."

"From those 45.7 million uninsured, subtract 17.5 million who earn more than $50,000 annually. Though they can afford coverage, they evidently have other priorities. Of the remaining 28.2 million uninsured, some 14 million are eligible for, yet have not enrolled in the Medicaid and S-CHIP programs."

"Meanwhile, as many as 10 million uninsured may be illegal aliens. All told, Pipes estimates that only about 8 million Americans are uninsured due to chronic illness or working-poor status. The latter have incomes too high for assistance and too low for insurance."

"Why not help these 8 million rather than overturn medicine for all 300 million of us?"

If these statistics are correct, we have, again, been lied to by liberals. if anyone needs heath insurance for a chronic condition, it is liberals for chronically lying.

Life_Long_Dem!
07-18-2009, 12:06 PM
From Deroy Murdoch's column:

"Obamacare is propelled by the oft-repeated Census Bureau statistic that 45.7 million Americans lack health insurance. Even if that number were accurate, why should Washington turn the health care industry upside down for all 300 million Americans in order to help 45.7 million? In fact, as Pacific Research president Sally Pipes demonstrates, public policy should concentrate on a far smaller group of hard cases."

"From those 45.7 million uninsured, subtract 17.5 million who earn more than $50,000 annually. Though they can afford coverage, they evidently have other priorities. Of the remaining 28.2 million uninsured, some 14 million are eligible for, yet have not enrolled in the Medicaid and S-CHIP programs."

"Meanwhile, as many as 10 million uninsured may be illegal aliens. All told, Pipes estimates that only about 8 million Americans are uninsured due to chronic illness or working-poor status. The latter have incomes too high for assistance and too low for insurance."

"Why not help these 8 million rather than overturn medicine for all 300 million of us?"

If these statistics are correct, we have, again, been lied to by liberals. if anyone needs heath insurance for a chronic condition, it is liberals for chronically lying.
still does not explain why its ok to spend the money for uhc in Iraq but god forbid we do it here.

Mr. Blue
07-18-2009, 12:14 PM
still does not explain why its ok to spend the money for uhc in Iraq but god forbid we do it here.

It's not...

I'm dead set against this idea of nation building. If we must have universal healthcare, let it start at home. If we didn't throw our resources away abroad, we could do more in our own backyard, and I don't agree in spending dime one on other countries until America's problems are solved.

Pointgold
07-18-2009, 12:31 PM
still does not explain why its ok to spend the money for uhc in Iraq but god forbid we do it here.It's not. Is this supposed to make the case to destroy our current system and install a shithole, gubmint run system? Sorry, but it won't happen. We have the finest healthcare system in the world and I want to retain my right to choose my own healthcare. I don't want dirty-walled, understaffed poor quality shithole healthcare.

Zebulon0351
07-18-2009, 12:35 PM
It's not. Is this supposed to make the case to destroy our current system and install a shithole, gubmint run system? Sorry, but it won't happen. We have the finest healthcare system in the world and I want to retain my right to choose my own healthcare. I don't want dirty-walled, understaffed poor quality shithole healthcare.

Sorry to inform you LL, but once again you are wrong.


Don't make me point out what kind of health care system many of the countries in front of us have:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Life_Long_Dem!
07-18-2009, 12:37 PM
Sorry to inform you LL, but once again you are wrong.


Don't make me point out what kind of health care system many of the countries in front of us have:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


WOW...even Canada ranks higher than us..yet their system is supposedly so shithole terrible!

Zebulon0351
07-18-2009, 12:38 PM
I think it is beyond funny that LL would just assume that we have the best health care. Her shallow-minded and one track way of thinking proves she knows absolutely nothing about anything. Good job LL.

Pointgold
07-18-2009, 12:43 PM
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


WOW...even Canada ranks higher than us..yet their system is supposedly so shithole terrible!
This liberal lie has already been covered here....

Let's first dispose of that 37th place ranking, since it's become a staple of the indictment of U.S. health care at least since Michael Moore (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Michael%20Moore&searchTerm=Michael%20Moore) exploited it in his movie "Sicko (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Sicko&searchTerm=Sicko)." To appreciate how strange the ranking is, you really have to ask yourself just one question: Would I prefer to be treated for a serious ailment or injury in Oman (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Oman&searchTerm=Oman), Portugal (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Portugal&searchTerm=Portugal), Greece (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Greece&searchTerm=Greece), Colombia (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Colombia&searchTerm=Colombia), Cyprus (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Cyprus&searchTerm=Cyprus), Saudi Arabia (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Saudi%20Arabia&searchTerm=Saudi%20Arabia), United Arab Emirates (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=United%20Arab%20Emirates&searchTerm=United%20Arab%20Emirates), Morocco (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Morocco&searchTerm=Morocco), Chile (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Chile&searchTerm=Chile), Dominica (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Dominica&searchTerm=Dominica) and Costa Rica (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Costa%20Rica&searchTerm=Costa%20Rica) as opposed to the United States?

If you answered no, along with most other sane people, you have begun to see the problem: All of those nations, some of them quite poor, appear above the U.S. in the oft-cited WHO ranking. Meaning the ranking must be flawed.

Glen Whitman, an economics professor at California (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=California&searchTerm=California) State University, analyzed the WHO's screwy rankings in a paper published last year by the International Policy Press. As he explains, WHO based its list on five factors, three of which involve political value judgments.

For example, one of the criteria is "financial fairness," related to the percentage of household income spent on health. The use of this measurement, Whitman notes, "necessarily makes countries that rely on market incentives look inferior."

Indeed, the rankings "are designed in a manner that favors greater government involvement" in health care (Whitman's emphasis).
It gets worse. The rankings are also adjusted "to reflect a country's performance relative to how well it theoretically could have performed."
It's as if the Los Angeles (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Los%20Angeles&searchTerm=Los%20Angeles) Lakers won the NBA title in five games but ended up being ranked No. 2 because, in the opinion of experts, they should have swept the title in four given their talent and resources.

A more relevant comparison, Whitman argues, would be to "ask which health systems do the best job of dealing with whatever health conditions arise" by comparing, say, five-year mortality rates for specific ailments.

It turns out that some such comparisons exist. Moreover, as Nobel-winning economist Gary Becker (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Gary%20Becker&searchTerm=Gary%20Becker) pointed out in a recent blog post, "the U.S. health system tends to look pretty good" when measured on this basis.

"A study published in Lancet Oncology in 2007 calculates cancer survival rates for both men and women in the United States, the United Kingdom (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=United%20Kingdom&searchTerm=United%20Kingdom), and the European Union (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=European%20Union&searchTerm=European%20Union) as a whole," Becker wrote. "The study claims that the most important determinants of cancer survival are early diagnosis, early treatment, and access to the best drugs, and that the United States does very well on all three criteria. . . . [T]the calculated five-year survival rates are much better in the U.S."

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?p=107862&highlight=healthcare#post107862

Life_Long_Dem!
07-18-2009, 12:51 PM
This liberal lie has already been covered here....

Let's first dispose of that 37th place ranking, since it's become a staple of the indictment of U.S. health care at least since Michael Moore (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Michael%20Moore&searchTerm=Michael%20Moore) exploited it in his movie "Sicko (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Sicko&searchTerm=Sicko)." To appreciate how strange the ranking is, you really have to ask yourself just one question: Would I prefer to be treated for a serious ailment or injury in Oman (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Oman&searchTerm=Oman), Portugal (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Portugal&searchTerm=Portugal), Greece (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Greece&searchTerm=Greece), Colombia (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Colombia&searchTerm=Colombia), Cyprus (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Cyprus&searchTerm=Cyprus), Saudi Arabia (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Saudi%20Arabia&searchTerm=Saudi%20Arabia), United Arab Emirates (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=United%20Arab%20Emirates&searchTerm=United%20Arab%20Emirates), Morocco (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Morocco&searchTerm=Morocco), Chile (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Chile&searchTerm=Chile), Dominica (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Dominica&searchTerm=Dominica) and Costa Rica (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Costa%20Rica&searchTerm=Costa%20Rica) as opposed to the United States?

If you answered no, along with most other sane people, you have begun to see the problem: All of those nations, some of them quite poor, appear above the U.S. in the oft-cited WHO ranking. Meaning the ranking must be flawed.

Glen Whitman, an economics professor at California (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=California&searchTerm=California) State University, analyzed the WHO's screwy rankings in a paper published last year by the International Policy Press. As he explains, WHO based its list on five factors, three of which involve political value judgments.

For example, one of the criteria is "financial fairness," related to the percentage of household income spent on health. The use of this measurement, Whitman notes, "necessarily makes countries that rely on market incentives look inferior."

Indeed, the rankings "are designed in a manner that favors greater government involvement" in health care (Whitman's emphasis).
It gets worse. The rankings are also adjusted "to reflect a country's performance relative to how well it theoretically could have performed."
It's as if the Los Angeles (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Los%20Angeles&searchTerm=Los%20Angeles) Lakers won the NBA title in five games but ended up being ranked No. 2 because, in the opinion of experts, they should have swept the title in four given their talent and resources.

A more relevant comparison, Whitman argues, would be to "ask which health systems do the best job of dealing with whatever health conditions arise" — by comparing, say, five-year mortality rates for specific ailments.

It turns out that some such comparisons exist. Moreover, as Nobel-winning economist Gary Becker (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Gary%20Becker&searchTerm=Gary%20Becker) pointed out in a recent blog post, "the U.S. health system tends to look pretty good" when measured on this basis.

"A study published in Lancet Oncology in 2007 calculates cancer survival rates for both men and women in the United States, the United Kingdom (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=United%20Kingdom&searchTerm=United%20Kingdom), and the European Union (http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=European%20Union&searchTerm=European%20Union) as a whole," Becker wrote. "The study claims that the most important determinants of cancer survival are early diagnosis, early treatment, and access to the best drugs, and that the United States does very well on all three criteria. . . . [T]the calculated five-year survival rates are much better in the U.S."

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?p=107862&highlight=healthcare#post107862

the world health organization has never to my knowledge been a partisan group...on the other hand your story(s) you post on this come from far right leaning sites. Is the ama a partisan group...last I checked...NO and they are for the current plan running through the house. The rights argument that any real changes will kill a good system is NOTHING but a fluff cover for the REAL truth that changes would shrink the pockets of hmo groups and insurance companies.

Pointgold
07-18-2009, 01:01 PM
the world health organization has never to my knowledge been a partisan group...on the other hand your story(s) you post on this come from far right leaning sites. Is the ama a partisan group...last I checked...NO and they are for the current plan running through the house. The rights argument that any real changes will kill a good system is NOTHING but a fluff cover for the REAL truth that changes would shrink the pockets of hmo groups and insurance companies.The data is skewed. Surely you don't think the wealthiest from other countries travel to Malta or Singapore for healthcare? They travel to the U.S. Would you travel to one of those places for a serious medical condition? I certainly wouldn't.

Read the article. There are five criteria used for the data, one being "financial fairness". I'm sorry but I don't want a bargain basement price when it comes to my healthcare. One thing I've learned is that you get what you pay for and that goes for everything. The U.S. healthcare system is superior and the reason is because it is based on a free-market. Anything the govt is involved with turns to shit, is overpriced and extremely poor quality. That's fine if you're making widgits but not when peoples' lives are on the line.

Life_Long_Dem!
07-18-2009, 01:04 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The influential American Medical Association on Thursday said it supported the healthcare overhaul legislation moving through committees in the Democratic-led House of Representatives and urged its approval.

"This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform," AMA executive vice president Michael Maves wrote to the House committee leaders.

In particular, he said, the doctors' group backs the insurance market reforms that seek to expand healthcare coverage and the proposed health insurance exchange. In this exchange consumers would choose between private insurers and a public plan.

He also cited the ban on exclusion from coverage for pre-existing conditions and an increased reliance on primary care doctors.

On federal healthcare programs, the AMA said it welcomed the changes in Medicare health care for the elderly which would include a repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula and the expansion of Medicaid for the poor.

"This year, the AMA wants the debate in Washington to conclude with real, long overdue results that will improve the health of America's patients," he wrote.

doctordog
07-18-2009, 01:09 PM
Sorry to inform you LL, but once again you are wrong.


Don't make me point out what kind of health care system many of the countries in front of us have:

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Here are the Canada results:

483

Life_Long_Dem!
07-18-2009, 01:12 PM
Here are the Canada results:

483
nice..you could have gotten that picture from anywhere...so where is the proof that it is what you say it is mister talk out of my ass 95+ percent of the time. the who and ama are not and have never been to my knowledge partisan groups yet the ama supports the bill currently going through the house.:banghead:

Pointgold
07-18-2009, 01:13 PM
Here are the Canada results:

483:lmao2: :lmao2:

Looks like these people didn't make the 3-year wait for transplants and cancer treatments.

doctordog
07-18-2009, 01:39 PM
Organ donations have tripled since Canada brought in UHC, I wonder why?

485

The Professor
07-18-2009, 03:06 PM
maybe we should move to iraq

get us some free health care

LOLOL!

whatever's going on over there, and whatever are the merits of socialized medicine or single payer or nationalized health care or the canadian system or private insurers or kaiser or blue cross

the RANGEL PLAN is as good as dead

because of the COST CURVE as explained now in INFINITE detail by mr elmendorf of the cbo

because of the bluedogs in the house, as articulated by mr's ross and cooper, who will not come along cuzza the cost

and cuzza pelosi/bigears' insistence on reversing the policy concerning public funding of abortion

because of the 50 progressives who will not sign anything that does not have the precious public option, which has been dead for a month, ever since GATEKEEPER baucus bawled, back to the drawing board

that was a friday in mid june

the same day daschle declared, word for word---the public option is dead

the RANGEL PLAN, as proof of what daschle was saying, does NOT include a public option

and the RANGEL PLAN is doomed

it FINES INDIVIDUALS CAUGHT BREATHING WITHOUT INSURANCE

it FINES BUSINESSES THAT DO NOT COVER THEIR EMPLOYEES

the fines are egregious, exorbitant, extreme

rangel also CUTS MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

address THAT, lobes lovers

the dem party, merely to prevent embarrassment to the loser in the white house, is actually being asked to CUT MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

please address THAT

don't DODGE it

bigears CAN'T dodge it

he FESSED UP to it during his EMERGENCY press conf friday

well, sorta

he said he's gonna get 2/3 of the money he needs to pay for RANGEL with the "savings" (LOLOL!) he's suddenly discovered (LOLOLOL!)---after all these decades (he really is amazing, LOLOL!)---in MEDICARE and MEDICAID

you really expect elmendorf to swallow that?

nothing will be done before recess

the folks are all gonna go home

they're gonna catch hell

pelosi/bigears will TRY AGAIN (LOLOL!) in september

there ya go

all ANY ADULT needs to know

get a TV!

you can speculate and dream about what should be and what might be and what oughta be

but you're wasting your time tripping in clouds

what's GONNA be is NO health care plan for pelosi/bigears

so, go to iraq

LOLOL!

maybe basra

somewhere in the south

stay away from the kurd regions, it's gonna get ugly up there

LOLOLOL!

Bill Cosby
07-18-2009, 03:13 PM
I think the AMA is a partisan group. A right wing one so their going along is pulling a leg out from under someones table....

Speaking of kicking out legs under tables.....

SO if we take out the 10 or so in Minty's example so what??? We move up to fucking 27th????

Also lets take a kick @ one more of those legs........... Take them 10 "lousy" countries.........

I think the 45,000,000,001 Americans w/out helathcare would not mind one damn bit getting that lousy care over there.......... It sure as hell is better than getting nothing in the land of our birth............. :hi:

The Professor
07-18-2009, 03:17 PM
arguing the merits of health care reform is a discussion for kids

ie, homiletic

rights and wrongs are for kids

we adults have all already made up our minds

the only interesting question is---is it winning or losing

results

why talk about whether it's GOOD or BAD when it's DEAD?

land

Bill Cosby
07-18-2009, 03:25 PM
arguing the merits of health care reform is a discussion for kids

ie, homiletic

rights and wrongs are for kids

we adults have all already made up our minds

the only interesting question is---is it winning or losing

results

why talk about whether it's GOOD or BAD when it's DEAD?

land

Yea I know your mind & many others are already made up.....

You all have coverage~ but that is just a coincidence....

Speaking of coincidence the tax payers here paying for your coverage???

The Professor
07-18-2009, 03:47 PM
Yea I know your mind & many others are already made up.....

You all have coverage~ but that is just a coincidence....

Speaking of coincidence the tax payers here paying for your coverage???

1. YOUR mind is made up, mr cosby

2. i AM a taxpayer, bigtime, i've paid a million dollars over the course of my long, long time here on planet earth, the real one

3. the RANGEL PLAN has NO chance, nein, nada, nyet

4. you are entirely free to continue to discuss the perfect world as it should be

cliff

Bill Cosby
07-18-2009, 03:56 PM
1. YOUR mind is made up, mr cosby

2. i AM a taxpayer, bigtime, i've paid a million dollars over the course of my long, long time here on planet earth, the real one

3. the RANGEL PLAN has NO chance, nein, nada, nyet

4. you are entirely free to continue to discuss the perfect world as it should be

cliff

You forgot to answer if I am paying for your healthcare??

I pay my fair share of taxes as well.......

I just thought it worth pointing out that some folks are working for government, getting their healthcare provided for them by us tax payers & are denying the same to others........

Nice day 104 here today......... Got down to only 71 last night........

Enjoy the sunshine...

The Professor
07-18-2009, 04:25 PM
You forgot to answer if I am paying for your healthcare??

I pay my fair share of taxes as well.......

I just thought it worth pointing out that some folks are working for government, getting their healthcare provided for them by us tax payers & are denying the same to others........

Nice day 104 here today......... Got down to only 71 last night........

Enjoy the sunshine...

well, it's really none of your business, now, isn't it?

the RANGEL PLAN is dead, that's everyone's business

now, back to contemplating that perfect world...

is 104 part of it?

LOLOL!

everyone always talks about the weather, yet no one ever does anything about it

cliff

Bill Cosby
07-18-2009, 04:30 PM
No I guess it is not, especially since I already know answer...

The Professor
07-18-2009, 06:14 PM
then, why ask?

what's cliffy's PERSONAL business have to do with

a. your perfect world?

b. the DOA status of the RANGEL PLAN?

LOLOLOL!

Bill Cosby
07-18-2009, 06:17 PM
You know why cliffy.......

I wanted you to say I am paying for your healthcare because I am paying for your healthcare........

Thus I could openly criticize you for accepting what you are denying others..

But you were to smart for me..........lol

The Professor
07-18-2009, 06:20 PM
You know why cliffy.......

I wanted you to say I am paying for your healthcare because I am paying for your healthcare........

Thus I could openly criticize you for accepting what you are denying others..

But you were to smart for me..........lol

you aint paying for SQUAT of MINE, cosby

and i have never denied a soul a thing

get out and EARN yours like i did MINE

and keep your presumptuous NOSE outta MY affairs

Pointgold
07-18-2009, 06:20 PM
You know why cliffy.......

I wanted you to say I am paying for your healthcare because I am paying for your healthcare........

Thus I could openly criticize you for accepting what you are denying others..

But you were to smart for me..........lolYou can work for the govt and have the same benefits as the Prez and Congress, just as other employers provide health insurance for their employees. It's an EMPLOYEE benefit -- not a "freebie".

Bill Cosby
07-18-2009, 07:01 PM
you aint paying for SQUAT of MINE, cosby

and i have never denied a soul a thing

get out and EARN yours like i did MINE

and keep your presumptuous NOSE outta MY affairs

Now now cliffy remember you are a teacher & a gentlemen...:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

doctordog
07-18-2009, 09:48 PM
you aint paying for SQUAT of MINE, cosby

and i have never denied a soul a thing

get out and EARN yours like i did MINE

and keep your presumptuous NOSE outta MY affairs

Cosby is against people earning and paying their own way. :banghead:

mwillman
07-19-2009, 12:14 AM
So wayer are you for giving Iraqis Universal Healthcare?

doctordog
07-19-2009, 12:26 AM
So wayer are you for giving Iraqis Universal Healthcare?

I am not for giving them or us anything.

mwillman
07-19-2009, 12:17 PM
No wayer you are just for you.
You are not a patriot you are a fucking greedy
selfish little shit.

Bill Cosby
07-19-2009, 04:02 PM
Cosby is against people earning and paying their own way. :banghead:

Care to put that into some links....... Like were I ever said that..

Were I ever eluded to it in any manner what so ever???

"but by the grace of God go I"........ You ever heard that before???

You have any idea what it means??

doctordog
07-19-2009, 06:44 PM
No wayer you are just for you.
You are not a patriot you are a fucking greedy
selfish little shit.

GO milk your brother:lmao2:

I am not a patriot and neither are you. I am a businessman paying taxes so people like you draw a check and cry all the time "poor wittle me".