Boy speaking up for Democrats: Healthcare

highway80west · 10-10-2007, 03:38 PM

RE: Injured Boy Under Attack: He Spoke for Democrats.

Anybody see this last night?

Hurt Boy at Center of Political Firestorm - AOL News

knot_e_lady · 10-10-2007, 03:44 PM

Amazing how these Republican apologists lie and just plain make shit up.

They are beyond dispicable, especially Michelle Malkin.

highway80west · 10-10-2007, 03:49 PM

It appears that the Democrats used the boy as their bear, and all the Republican bees came out of their beehives angry, and swarmed around the child with bad things to say about him and his family. That's politics for you.

knot_e_lady · 10-10-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

It appears that the Democrats used the boy as their bear, and all the Republican bees came out of their beehives angry, and swarmed around the child with bad things to say about him and his family. That's politics for you.

Yes, but the fact is, the bad things to say were not correct. They were making shit up about the family.

highway80west · 10-10-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knot_e_lady

Yes, but the fact is, the bad things to say were not correct. They were making shit up about the family.

I read that part, Knotty. They were pretty mad, were they?

I know that one of Hillary's concern was about healthcare. Although I like what the governator in California is doing about making health insurance available for everyone in California (unlike the president), yet I have some bitter feelings towards him in other areas of healthcare.

sgtdmski · 10-11-2007, 04:31 AM

Once again we see that old tired tactic, bring out a victim so the opposition will look mean in denying them.
This family owns a home worth $260,000, another property worth $160,000 and this is what the Democrats want to parade out as a family needing help. The father sold his business, both he and the mother work part-time and somehow they need help???? On top of it the boy attends a private school on scholarship.

So here we have a family of six, in which the parents work only part time, yet own rental property and make an income from that, and they do not have insurance. So of course those of us who work hard and pay are taxes are suppose to take care of them. To qualify in Maryland, a family of six has to make less then $55,220 a year, obviously they are not making less or they would have qualified. The injuries were a result of a car accident. Hmmm, so tell me why didn't the family have insurance before the accident. Now they are complaining they cannot get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Had they bothered to have insurance before the accident they would not be having this problem, ah yes but when people are irresponsible, it is up to us the responsible ones to care for them.

You know what, where is Child Services, obviously these parents are unfit to raise their children, the state needs to step in immediately and remove them from the household.

dmk

knot_e_lady · 10-11-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Once again we see that old tired tactic, bring out a victim so the opposition will look mean in denying them.
This family owns a home worth $260,000, another property worth $160,000 and this is what the Democrats want to parade out as a family needing help. The father sold his business, both he and the mother work part-time and somehow they need help???? On top of it the boy attends a private school on scholarship.

So here we have a family of six, in which the parents work only part time, yet own rental property and make an income from that, and they do not have insurance. So of course those of us who work hard and pay are taxes are suppose to take care of them. To qualify in Maryland, a family of six has to make less then $55,220 a year, obviously they are not making less or they would have qualified. The injuries were a result of a car accident. Hmmm, so tell me why didn't the family have insurance before the accident. Now they are complaining they cannot get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Had they bothered to have insurance before the accident they would not be having this problem, ah yes but when people are irresponsible, it is up to us the responsible ones to care for them.

You know what, where is Child Services, obviously these parents are unfit to raise their children, the state needs to step in immediately and remove them from the household.

dmk

Read the article, sarge. You are way off base on this.

They are making less, they did qualify, they tried to get insurance.

How can you people be so heartless?

CrazyFlamingos · 10-11-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Once again we see that old tired tactic, bring out a victim so the opposition will look mean in denying them.
This family owns a home worth $260,000, another property worth $160,000 and this is what the Democrats want to parade out as a family needing help. The father sold his business, both he and the mother work part-time and somehow they need help???? On top of it the boy attends a private school on scholarship.

So here we have a family of six, in which the parents work only part time, yet own rental property and make an income from that, and they do not have insurance. So of course those of us who work hard and pay are taxes are suppose to take care of them. To qualify in Maryland, a family of six has to make less then $55,220 a year, obviously they are not making less or they would have qualified. The injuries were a result of a car accident. Hmmm, so tell me why didn't the family have insurance before the accident. Now they are complaining they cannot get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Had they bothered to have insurance before the accident they would not be having this problem, ah yes but when people are irresponsible, it is up to us the responsible ones to care for them.

You know what, where is Child Services, obviously these parents are unfit to raise their children, the state needs to step in immediately and remove them from the household.

dmk

It was my understanding that they could not get private insurance prior to the child's accident. That was not very clear in the article but one of us is reading it wrong.

And they did qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance in their state, that was very clear in that article.

As to their work status, let's see.

The father is in the construction business which is seasonal and intermittent.

The wife works part time. One can assume that either
a. She cannot find a full time job; or
b. She wants to be home to take care of her children more than a full-time job allows.

And one or both of them manages a rental property. That can be quite a job in itself.

There was no mention of what sort of mortgages, if any, that they have on these properties. But I did notice that they had raised the value of their home significantly since they bought it. Given the nature of his vocation, I would assume this was through a considerable amount of "sweat equity."

What exactly is it that you want these people to do?

Sell off all their assets, file for bankruptcy and move into public housing?

Would you be in favor of subsidized insurance for their children then?

I thought that sort of scenario was part of what affordable insurance was intended to prevent.

highway80west · 10-11-2007, 11:49 AM

I tell you, the democrats and the GOP can argue with each other all day long over this. So much to the point that they would want to engage in a neck-grabbing wrestling match.

knot_e_lady · 10-11-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

It was my understanding that they could not get private insurance prior to the child's accident. That was not very clear in the article but one of us is reading it wrong.

And they did qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance in their state, that was very clear in that article.

As to their work status, let's see.

The father is in the construction which is seasonal and intermittent.

The wife works part time. One can assume that either
a. She cannot find a full time job; or
b. She wants to be home to take care of her children more than a full-time job allows.

And one or both of them manages a rental property. That can be quite a job in itself.

There was no mention of what sort of mortgages, if any, that they have on these properties. But I did notice that they had raised the value of their home significantly since they bought it. Given the nature of his vocation, I would assume this was through a considerable amount of "sweat equity."

What exactly is it that you want these people to do?

Sell off all their assets, file for bankruptcy and move into public housing?

Would you be in favor of subsidized insurance for their children then?

I thought that sort of scenario was part of what affordable insurance was intended to prevent.

BRAVO, CF, BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!