Pelosi being asked "Do yout think it's fair to send someone to jail for no health ins

[Prometheus]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUkzV8h3Wp0]YouTube - Does House Speaker Nanci Pelosi Dodge Tough Question on Health Care??? You decide.[/ame]

Honestly the question ultimately would end with "Do you think it's right to MURDER someone for not having health insurance?"

After all if you refuse to go to jail (because a federal law requiring health ins isn't Constitutional and we do NOT have to obey unConstitutional laws) they will murder you.

 

[Dryden]

Knock, knock.
Whos' there?
NOBODY.

 

[esrice]

She's on my team for dodge ball!!

 

[CulpeperMM]

she (and 219 other reps) should be tried for treason.

 

[RCB]

Sad to say, but I agree.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

she (and 219 other reps) should be tried for treason.

As should have most of the Congress, Supreme Court, and Executive throughout this nation's history, if you really think about it.

 

[rich8483]

those who dont get around to answering the questions are somehow the ones considered "great speakers"

 

[steveh_131]

Serious question: What planet is she from?

 

[rich8483]

jupitor to get more stupidor

 

[Bill of Rights]

Serious question: What planet is she from?

Nah. Pluto.

It's frigid and it's not a planet.

The only downside is that it shares a name with a dog, and I can't think of any dog I would insult by a comparison with that (fill in your own epithet of choice here).

Either that or Your Anus. What? I misspelled it? So sorry.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[INGunGuy]

Nancy Pelosi is a worthless wart on the A$$ of society, she and the rest of the officials that voted for this worthless bill should be tried for treason for crimes against the republic.

INGunGuy

 

[Mike_M]

It's a beautiful thing...... the person that doesn't buy health care goes to jail and the government then pays for health care, housing, food, security, etc. I hope they budgeted enough for additional prisons to handle all these scofflaws........

 

[NewsShooter]

ok. wow.

so in 1986, democrats pass the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requiring hospitals treat anyone, regardless of financial situation.

Pelosi is saying it's not fair that we all have to pay for someone who doesn't have health insurance and uses the ER as their personal health care?

No f'ing kidding it's not fair. I wonder if she realized, even remotely, the sheer amount of BS and hypocrisy in that. Does she not realize that's the Democrat Party platform? "Oh, you don't have it? Oh, you didn't earn it? No problem! We'll get it for you!"

 

[DWFan]

Pelosi argues that it's unfair for people who don't pay for health care insurance get their expenses taken care of by those who do.
I wonder then who she thinks pays for her health care? She doesn't. Not a single politician in Washington pays for their own health care. It's provided at taxpayer expense and the legislation passed in the "health care reform" bill insures that doesn't change. They are even exempt from the so-called "cadillac" health plan tax.

 

[indykid]

As should have most of the Congress, Supreme Court, and Executive throughout this nation's history, if you really think about it.

You are so right! If people of this country had held politicians to the standards set forth in the Constitution, by now they might have gotten the point and we wouldn't be having these problems today.

 

[cce1302]

Sad to say, but I agree.

with whom do you agree?

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Speaker Pelosi did not answer the question asked of her. She should have better answered the question.

HOWEVER, (I'm about to stand alone on my island in my bunker here...) she was 100% totally, completely accurate and true in her assessment of one of the many problems with health care.

There can be an easy solution to this: Simply by statute or some other mechanism decide that if you do not have the ability to pay for treatment you will not receive treatment, Period!

I'm not saying, "You MAY not receive treatment" or "you probably won't receive treatment" but without equivocating "You will not receive treatment."

The problem I have with this is my acknowledgment of the fact that while this is an easy thing to say behind my computer or to my workers I would probably wuss out myself if I were the one making the treatment/no treatment decision. I do not think I am hard enough to make a decision like that and still be able to sleep at night.

Of course, I would be able to make that decision better if we solved it with somewhat of a compromise. I would be willing to give people leeway to a certain age, let's say 30. All the way up until 30 years old go with the current system. Allow someone to abuse society as much as they can. This gives time for folks in college and who are young to work their way to a doctorate if they wish without having health insurance. It would give more than enough versatility for folks.

Then, on everyone's 30th birthday they sign a form, much like the draft. They either A) buy health insurance, B) prove they are disabled and unable to buy insurance (in which case we humanely continue to give, or C) They acknowledge that from this point forward they assume 100% liability for any and all health care costs. IF they choose "C" then if they cannot pay for any treatment they will not receive treatment. This way everything would be above board, it would be transparent, and everyone would know where they stood.

This is one of the problems with a debate. One side can make an accurate and truthful statement describing a problem but will then draw the wrong conclusion to a solution to that problem.

The thing is, we'll never get it perfect. There will always be cracks and someone will always be getting the short end of the stick.

Regards,

Doug

PS - Please be kind in tearing me a new one...

 

[Archbishop]

Don't agree with us? Go to jail! Don't play by our rules? Go to jail! Be good good little subjects go along with the program and we might throw you a bone.....

 

[akaindy]

I seem to remember from History class (back when they actually taught history) that one of the big reasons for people coming to the New World was to get away for debtors prisons. Looks like they are trying to start it again in one fashion or another.

 

[rich8483]

debtors prison never made sense to me. how can someone earn to pay off a debt while they are in prison. kind of puts a damper on things.