I find myself very disappointed that a Republican led congress and White House are looking at passing this type of legislation. I would love for senior citizens to get free medicine, but what kind of Pandora's Box is this??? I abhor this idea, because it will become abused.

Originally posted by Karankawa
I find myself very disappointed that a Republican led congress and White House are looking at passing this type of legislation. I would love for senior citizens to get free medicine, but what kind of Pandora's Box is this??? I abhor this idea, because it will become abused.



In Australia we have a subsidised system for those on aged pensions. This means that on most scripts they only pay about $4-20 per medication. I don't know how the elderly afford medication in the US if they are as expensive as they are here when paying full price.

It isn't really a Pandora's Box, it is more about looking after the elderly in the community when they have contributed so much in their lifetime.

How does your system work at present?

Originally posted by Dreamweaver
[BIt isn't really a Pandora's Box, it is more about looking after the elderly in the community when they have contributed so much in their lifetime. [/B]

Well put...............:)

Originally posted by Karankawa
I find myself very disappointed that a Republican led congress and White House are looking at passing this type of legislation. I would love for senior citizens to get free medicine, but what kind of Pandora's Box is this??? I abhor this idea, because it will become abused.

I pretty much agree here. I've said it before but I'll keep saying it. This should not be a government function. The problem with government-funded healthcare of ANY kind is that society is bearing the burden for individually bad health habits. Make people responsible for themselves by making them pay for themselves. Personal responsibility, where have you gone?

Now, if there's something going on that is making industry charge exhorbitant prices for medicine, THEN I think the government may step in, but not just by giving cash to the "needy."

Republican goals such as these are why I refuse to support the Republican party. Does the Republican party support larger government? Their rhetoric says they don't but their practices indicate otherwise.

Originally posted by Leper
I pretty much agree here. I've said it before but I'll keep saying it. This should not be a government function. The problem with government-funded healthcare of ANY kind is that society is bearing the burden for individually bad health habits. Make people responsible for themselves by making them pay for themselves. Personal responsibility, where have you gone?

Now, if there's something going on that is making industry charge exhorbitant prices for medicine, THEN I think the government may step in, but not just by giving cash to the "needy."

Republican goals such as these are why I refuse to support the Republican party. Does the Republican party support larger government? Their rhetoric says they don't but their practices indicate otherwise.

I'm disappointed for the same reason - spending money isn't a very Republican thing to do. What really annoys me is that this is a benefit that people receive regardless of need, which just makes this even more expensive than it needs to be. I really don't have a problem providing medicine to poor people, regardless of age, but to give people free/very cheap medicine even when they're filthy rich and/or covered by an insurance plan is needlessly wasteful.

Of course the bottom line is that old people vote and young people don't, so this isn't that surprising.

Because heaven forbid we should give up some of our hard earned cash because someone's in need.

:rolleyes:

I would rather see money being used to help the elderly with their medication than i would like to see we, the taxpayers, funding a lifestyle for the welfare breeders we have been supporting.

Originally posted by Leper
society is bearing the burden for individually bad health habits. Make people responsible for themselves by making them pay for themselves. Personal responsibility, where have you gone?

Now, if there's something going on that is making industry charge exhorbitant prices for medicine, THEN I think the government may step in, but not just by giving cash to the "needy."
.

Part one are you saying Joe fought for his country then for some reason ended up with cancer because of agent orange should be responsible for his health. What about other health problems that come not because of habits but just because, which is 90% of what elderly people end up with. How can someone be responsible for a health problem that they did not contribute to. Leper I hope you never get old and have problems "GOOD LUCK" The elderly deserve our help and they don't deserve to be sh** on.

Part 2 it has been proven that are medication cost are bullsh**. Years ago there were a bunch of people buying medicine from vets for themselfs, because it was the same thing and it was a heck of alot cheaper. Insulin was one of the drugs that come to mind. I don't think anybody asked to be diabetic and usually it just stricks no matter what a persons habbits are. There are alot of diseases out there that strick without warning or because of a habbit. To blame a person for there health problems is wrong, sometimes sh** just happens.

Havok I agree with your statement about the arseholes that abuse the welfare system.

Originally posted by Age
Because heaven forbid we should give up some of our hard earned cash because someone's in need.

:rolleyes:

What makes me mad is not that we're helping people in need, it's that we're helping people that aren't in need as well. I hardly need my income being sent to a millionaire just because he's over 65.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
What makes me mad is not that we're helping people in need, it's that we're helping people that aren't in need as well. I hardly need my income being sent to a millionaire just because he's over 65.



That is why the aged pension in Australia is assessed. Those who have a lower income get a healthcare card, which entitles them to cheaper medication.

I would be much more annoyed about the politicians lining their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer, because that is something they do very well in Australia.

Because heaven forbid we should give up some of our hard earned cash because someone's in need.


Excuse me for being annoyed about this added expenditure, but I find myself alreay angry enough for having to pay for:

1) The people that were too lazy to do any work in high school or anywhere else and now are on welfare.

2) The men and women who were not responsible enough to use birth control and have kids, which I pay for.

3) The people who are too broke (too lazy to get a job) to afford healthcare, so whenever they get hurt I have to pay for them.

There are so many more of example like this, and they add up to so much money.

You know, I work a lot of hours to provide for my family and to have a comfortable, middle class lifestyle. I hate that I have to work a lot of hours, but I do it because I've always been taught that hard work is rewarded. But when I look at my taxes every year, and watch the government take ONE THIRD of what I make and give it to schmucks like those people I listed about, pardon me, but I get angry. And then some self-righteous little @#%# has the audacity to make a smart alleck remark like the one that I quoted and apparently thinks that I should be giving more....

I can't help but wonder if that individual does any work at all. Maybe then they would care that one out of every three days that they spent away from their family was actually being taken away from them and given away to someone else. Will I ever get any kind of decent return from all the tax monies that I have given to the government? HELL NO. And that, my friends, is why I hate socialistic governments whose agendas are to try to take from the working class to try to provide welfare for the non-workers. And I'm afraid that this is what America is heading for. The Democrats push this constantly, and now I find that that the Republicans are actually supporting bits of it.

Personal responsibility, where have you gone?

That is a damn good question.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Excuse me for being annoyed about this added expenditure, but I find myself alreay angry enough for having to pay for:

1) The people that were too lazy to do any work in high school or anywhere else and now are on welfare.

2) The men and women who were not responsible enough to use birth control and have kids, which I pay for.

3) The people who are too broke (too lazy to get a job) to afford healthcare, so whenever they get hurt I have to pay for them.

There are so many more of example like this, and they add up to so much money.

You know, I work a lot of hours to provide for my family and to have a comfortable, middle class lifestyle. I hate that I have to work a lot of hours, but I do it because I've always been taught that hard work is rewarded. But when I look at my taxes every year, and watch the government take ONE THIRD of what I make and give it to schmucks like those people I listed about, pardon me, but I get angry. And then some self-righteous little @#%# has the audacity to make a smart alleck remark like the one that I quoted and apparently thinks that I should be giving more....

I can't help but wonder if that individual does any work at all. Maybe then they would care that one out of every three days that they spent away from their family was actually being taken away from them and given away to someone else. Will I ever get any kind of decent return from all the tax monies that I have given to the government? HELL NO. And that, my friends, is why I hate socialistic governments whose agendas are to try to take from the working class to try to provide welfare for the non-workers. And I'm afraid that this is what America is heading for. The Democrats push this constantly, and now I find that that the Republicans are actually supporting bits of it.



That is a damn good question.



I agree with you 100% when it comes to those who will not get off their backsides to work, and those who feels the world owes them a living. I am not sure of the type of system you have over there, but when someone suggested a work for the Dole scheme in Australia, many were up in arms about it. I can't understand why, if you don't have a job, you can't get out and do some form of work for your welfare. Can you briefly explain the system you have?

The topic, however, was medicine for the aged or seniors in the community. Surley you wouldn't begrudge the elderly who have worked and paid their way for years at least a subsided system when it comes to prescription medication? I really don't think it is an unreasonable thing. As I have said earlier, it works in Australia, and we have one of the best medical systems in the world, in the form of Medicare. It cares for everyone, and that is how it should be, especially when it comes to the aged pensioners.

Cheers

I have one question for you that say f**k off. How much money do you really think goes to help the poor lets say the government takes 25% of your money for taxes about 1 % goes to the poor. If you want to bitch about crap start looking at the real problem he** congress just gave themselfs another raise. What about these company's that aren't making it, the government is handing out grants like they are a free charity. Look at the money going to the survivors of NY, millions and millions. Look at the money we are sending to third world country's. If your going to b***h about your tax money then b***h about the dumb sh**, not helping the elderly, disabled, etc...

Karankawa I agree we do need to stop giving to lazy a**holes, but should we screw the ones that need the help in the process.

I'm a member of the American Legion and here is what they reported for some of our tax dollars at work

1/2 million to introduce youngsters to golf

50,000 tattoo removal program in California

A neveda helicopter company that performs airborn weddings officiated by Elvis impersonators received 4,600

A statue of the Roman God Vulcan received 1.5 million

A program to combat Goth in missouri received 270,000

A bike trail in N. dakota received 500,000

Hundreds of thousands of federal funds went to museums, festivals, fairs, and hall of fames through out the country.

Lets not forget the average cost of a prisoner and other sh** like that.

Now you want to B***H about your money I gave you something real to B***h about. Not the poor vet that can't take care of himself/herself, not the old lady that worked her arse off all her life but because of one reason or another can't afford heat etc...

You guys crack me up you say your taxes are going here and there when in reality you don't have a F**king clue.

Mad dog I 100% agree with you. You just forgot the hundreds of billions spent every year for the army.
How comes conservative always seem to whine at their precious taxpayer's money being spent to HELP people but never argue over the fact that much more is wasted in the Army or the Nasa ?

Originally posted by astrapol2
Mad dog I 100% agree with you. You just forgot the hundreds of billions spent every year for the army.
How comes conservative always seem to whine at their precious taxpayer's money being spent to HELP people but never argue over the fact that much more is wasted in the Army or the Nasa ?

Because obviously we don't see things the same as you. Yeah, giving older people free medicine would help them, but not all of them need help. Many are covered by medical plans through retirement. Many already have plenty of money to afford the medicine. What's wrong with wanting to restrict who we help to the people that really need it? All of you liberal types seem to be focusing on how "nice" it is to help people and dodging the issue of whether the people in question actually need help! Free medicine would certainly help me but between my medical insurance and adequate income I don't need it! Your average liberal would tell me to shut up and enjoy my free medicine. And as far as the military and NASA goes I see value in the defense of my country and in the research of science. Of course like all government organizations they waste money on stupid things but by and large their mission is a good one.

Just look at our funding a strong military as an extension of our right to bear arms. The majority of Americans like to feel that our country can handle any confrontation it may have. That thought gives citizens a sort of peace of mind.

I think that there ought to be a little better balance though. I feel that the health and welfare of our citizens should be given a little more consideration. Especially children and old people who cannot help themselves. We are supposed to be the protector of the weak. Somehow, it seems that concept has been distorted to helping other countries instead of our citizens.

Astrapol2 I didn't bring up the military because I don't think the military is a waste and your country must feel the same because every time something happens who do you call. Does the military itself waste, sure but that is a different issue. I am a vet, and I'll tell you, a person in the military is not going to get rich. As far as NASA it does do alot to help, satelites, etc..

LionelHutz most of the older folks that I know that have a plan aren't asking for anything. The ones that are asking are the ones that can hardly afford a loaf of bread. I believe you and I are on the same track here, but it seems that alot of people classify needy people with welfare. In my opinion welfare needs to be smacked into shape, this country is not so bad that a person can't find a job. He** I've done everything from shoveling sh**, to washing dishes, to short order cook. I understand that sometimes people can get down on there luck but these arses that stay on the system month after month year after year need a swift kick in the a**.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I think that there ought to be a little better balance though. I feel that the health and welfare of our citizens should be given a little more consideration. Especially children and old people who cannot help themselves. We are supposed to be the protector of the weak. Somehow, it seems that concept has been distorted to helping other countries instead of our citizens.

Havok you hit the nail on the head, you hear people b***hing about helping are own, but you don't hear crap about that 15 billion that's going to Africa. Thats why I but that list down I find it funny how we can pi** and moan about some poor 80 year old getting his meds, but no one cares there money went to help an Elvis impersonator, or to show kids how to play Golf. I've got NO problem with helping our children but lets do it through education not sports.

I laugh at those who say military spending is a waste. And nasa uses some minisule percentage of the budget. Nasa is tiny compared to defense spending. And I think many of you don't realize that defense spending is actually less than the amount we spend on health and human services.

Try this easy to read website on for size:



http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html

Perhaps then you can see why I get irate when I hear that MORE money will be dumped into social programs. I'll concede that the senior citizen medicine program isn't a terrible idea, but in light of how the other programs have turned out, my concerns should be understandable.

I am also grieved by the number of people who think that it is the governments job to handle charity. I vehemonently disagree with this. Charity and state should be seperated like church and state. I hate it when lawmakers (democrats) make social programs and collect my tax dollars to make it work, and then paint themselves as the do-gooders. This should not be a function of the government. Leave it to church/charities/individuals.

some self-righteous little @#%#

Get a fucking grip.

Originally posted by Age
Get a fucking grip. Looks like you just crossed that fine line.

Another chart on the amount of budgeting required for NASA:

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/cfo/profile_-_federal_agency_pie_chart.ppt

You all sit here arguing this way and that about who should get aid and who shouldn't.

Should it be the old folks? Should it be the sick? Should it be the poor, the blind, the stupid? And not one of you is bright enough to stop and ask why the welfare cases over in Isreal get to pick up a whopping 4 BILLION interest free big ones from us every year like clock work, just as they have beeen collecting since 1948.

Just goes to show. It pays some people very well indeed, to be smart enough to raise a whole nation of incredibly ignorant people, who have even less of a clue about why they alone get to hang on to those 400 nuke warheads of theirs.

Originally posted by willow
You all sit here arguing this way and that about who should get aid and who shouldn't.

Should it be the old folks? Should it be the sick? Should it be the poor, the blind, the stupid? And not one of you is bright enough to stop and ask why the welfare cases over in Isreal get to pick up a whopping 4 BILLION interest free big ones from us every year like clock work, just as they have beeen collecting since 1948.

Just goes to show. It pays some people very well indeed, to be smart enough to raise a whole nation of incredibly ignorant people, who have even less of a clue about why they alone get to hang on to those 400 nuke warheads of theirs.

Are we not discussing that because we're ignorant or because DISCUSSING EVERY ITEM ON THE BUDGET WOULD BE DAMNED NEAR IMPOSSIBLE?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Are we not discussing that because we're ignorant or because DISCUSSING EVERY ITEM ON THE BUDGET WOULD BE DAMNED NEAR IMPOSSIBLE?

Yeah, this thread is going way off topic. Just because you can think of other ways in which our government spends its money frivilously doesn't mean you have to approve of government-funded healthcare.

Setting a health care plan, with drug benefits on a graduated curve may go a long way toward easing some of the costs. If for example, it was free to those seniors with incomes of less than $25K annually, attaching some sort of deductible to every $10K of income beyond that up to $100K may work. Seniors with incomes above $100K would be ineligible for government funded coverage.

Leper the only reason I brought up those spendings was because I keep hearing people b***h about wasted money on medical. When in fact there is alot of wasted money on alot of dumbsh** that should be private. Take the money from the dumbsh** stuff and put that towards the medical. Es brings up a good point give help to those that need it. Those who can afford there own need to pay for there own. Those that are to lazy to work can go live in cardboard boxes over in Iraq for all I care. Why in this country, at this time would we punish someone because they are disabled, old, etc... I don't understand how people can be so cold to others that need help. I understand that we can get mad when the government takes our money but we are the ones that run this country. How can we b***h about Joe the crippled 68 year old getting medical, but then turn around and not give 2 craps about our money going to help Elvis impersonaters. Taxes are here to stay whether we like it or not, I would rather see my money going to help an old lady or disabled person then going to a golf school for kids.

Mad Dog, you're right. What is the point of living in a human society if it is not to make sure the weakest are helped by those who can afford it ? This should be the first objective of taxes. We may disagree on some uses of taxes, but it is nice to see that at least we can agree on some basic and human use of it.

What is the point of living in a human society if it is not to make sure the weakest are helped by those who can afford it ? This should be the first objective of taxes.

And this completely tears down the basic principle of capitalism. What would be the point in working hard if the only reward you get is to wind up exactly like the guy that is doing nothing next to you?

The price of the way you would distribute taxes would be our progress.

Originally posted by astrapol2
What is the point of living in a human society if it is not to make sure the weakest are helped by those who can afford it ? This should be the first objective of taxes.

This is reverse evolution. You hurt the strong to protect the weak. The long term result is you end up with a society of very few strong individuals trying to support a host of weak individuals. This is only a formula for general misery.

Leper, that is just such ridiculous BS. It is in fact the bllions of weak around the world, and the all but extinct middle class who have supported the strong and the exceedingly weak
The strong have never supported anything but the sycophantic, loophole plagued system they and their greaseball lawyers crafted for themselves thats kept them strong and enabled them to continue weakening and robbing the rest of society, via their graduated income tax system, for one.

Ever read the ten planks of their Communist Manifesto, or their Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
They sold us big time on the big American Dream. We bought. Now they are going to wake us up to reality and show us exactly how much it cost us.
If you think taxes, utilities, gas, insurance, health coverage, cable, meds, schooling, interest on your charge cards etc.. is high enough already, just wait till after the elections are over.

Originally posted by Leper
This is reverse evolution. You hurt the strong to protect the weak. The long term result is you end up with a society of very few strong individuals trying to support a host of weak individuals. This is only a formula for general misery.


We are talking about the elderly here. Senior citizens, many of who fought in wars to keep your country and mine a free place to live.

Those who are weak now have been very strong in the past. Maybe though, while they were living on rations and having bombs dropped on them, and losing husbands and fathers in wars, they didn't have the chance to get a huge amount of money put away.

If the taxpayer has to support them in their old age so they can get medication they need, I really don't think it will kill the economy.

Originally posted by Dreamweaver
We are talking about the elderly here. Senior citizens, many of who fought in wars to keep your country and mine a free place to live.

Those who are weak now have been very strong in the past. Maybe though, while they were living on rations and having bombs dropped on them, and losing husbands and fathers in wars, they didn't have the chance to get a huge amount of money put away.

If the taxpayer has to support them in their old age so they can get medication they need, I really don't think it will kill the economy. You have to consider the source dreamweaver. The paper boy seems to think you can assign a monetary value to everyone's lives. He is one of those wanna be elitist.

Originally posted by Dreamweaver
We are talking about the elderly here. Senior citizens, many of who fought in wars to keep your country and mine a free place to live.

Those who are weak now have been very strong in the past. Maybe though, while they were living on rations and having bombs dropped on them, and losing husbands and fathers in wars, they didn't have the chance to get a huge amount of money put away.

If the taxpayer has to support them in their old age so they can get medication they need, I really don't think it will kill the economy.

First off, I was responding to astrapol's blanket statement about the purpose of government. In other words, your response is out of context.

However, the proposal to make society bear the burden of the elderly's woes employs the logic astrapol endorses so I'll respond to this.

Allow me to make an obvious observation to begin with. First, I fully realize that I too will one day be old and probably dependent on medication for survival. My point in bringing that up is that I'm not suffering from lack of perspective here and am fully aware of the consequences of my position. Therefore, if you want to try to counter my argument with "you wouldn't say that if you were old and knew what they'd been through, yada, yada, yada," you will go absolutely no where.

Now for the meat of the argument.

"I don't think it will kill the economy." Kill? No, I wouldn't say that. However, it will undeniably sabotage productivity and quality of life. For example, let's say you have an Alzheimer's patient who will live an extra 5 years with government funded health care. Let's be generous and say it costs the government only $100K to keep that patient alive for another 5 years. I suppose your response would be something along the lines of "It's only money." Well, my reply to that is $100K is close to the cost of raising a child. So basically, you're asking....no, you're COMMANDING a taxpayer to sacrifice raising a child so that an Alzheimer's patient can live another 5 years in misery. This is not logical, productive, or morally justifiable.

Of course, that's not to say all sick elderly people should die. If you want to live an extra 5 or 10 years in the misery of old age, go for it. Just employ good health habits and save your own damn money so taxpayers don't have to fund your extra long life with THEIR hard-earned money. Personally, I'd rather see the money spent so that I may raise another child or not spend my youth working my ass off for Uncle Sam in exchange for an approximately 5 year decrease in my life expectancy.

Now, spare me your self-righteous "You don't care about old people" propaganda, live life the way you want to, and let other people live the life they want to. If I want to support old people, I'll spend the money on saving my parents, siblings, or spouse. But that is a personal decision, NOT the government's decision. And THAT'S the way a free society operates.

Please keep this near-sighted socialism out of our country.

Leper first I want to say I do think you are an intelligent person. BUT I have to say that is the dumbest post I have seen in awhile. Your going to say Joe Blow works all his life then about 2 years before he is 65 he gets into an accident. He loses his insurance because he no longer can work, He digs into his retirement using it all up to pay for medical then all you can say to him is go die. He does end up getting better but he needs a few medications. Now he has battled to get his life back he is just sh** out of luck. I have seen many people that saved up thought there would be no problems then came cancer. The wife never worked because the husband had a good job, but she is sh** out of luck now because they had to use there nest egg for treatments for him. She still needs certain drugs that she has needed all her life, but can't afford them what the heck is she suppose to do?

Well I quess the answer would be lets kill anyone over 55-60, and you damn well better never get sick or be born with a disability. Lets not forget if your not rich then you really never deserved to be alive in the first place.

Originally posted by Leper
First off, I was responding to astrapol's blanket statement about the purpose of government. In other words, your response is out of context.

However, the proposal to make society bear the burden of the elderly's woes employs the logic astrapol endorses so I'll respond to this.

Allow me to make an obvious observation to begin with. First, I fully realize that I too will one day be old and probably dependent on medication for survival. My point in bringing that up is that I'm not suffering from lack of perspective here and am fully aware of the consequences of my position. Therefore, if you want to try to counter my argument with "you wouldn't say that if you were old and knew what they'd been through, yada, yada, yada," you will go absolutely no where.

Now for the meat of the argument.

"I don't think it will kill the economy." Kill? No, I wouldn't say that. However, it will undeniably sabotage productivity and quality of life. For example, let's say you have an Alzheimer's patient who will live an extra 5 years with government funded health care. Let's be generous and say it costs the government only $100K to keep that patient alive for another 5 years. I suppose your response would be something along the lines of "It's only money." Well, my reply to that is $100K is close to the cost of raising a child. So basically, you're asking....no, you're COMMANDING a taxpayer to sacrifice raising a child so that an Alzheimer's patient can live another 5 years in misery. This is not logical, productive, or morally justifiable.

Of course, that's not to say all sick elderly people should die. If you want to live an extra 5 or 10 years in the misery of old age, go for it. Just employ good health habits and save your own damn money so taxpayers don't have to fund your extra long life with THEIR hard-earned money. Personally, I'd rather see the money spent so that I may raise another child or not spend my youth working my ass off for Uncle Sam in exchange for an approximately 5 year decrease in my life expectancy.

Now, spare me your self-righteous "You don't care about old people" propaganda, live life the way you want to, and let other people live the life they want to. If I want to support old people, I'll spend the money on saving my parents, siblings, or spouse. But that is a personal decision, NOT the government's decision. And THAT'S the way a free society operates.

Please keep this near-sighted socialism out of our country.



Leper

I am only trying to point out to you that in Australia we have a system which DOES work. It is called Medicare, and it is for EVERYONE, not just the elderly.

I pay private health insurance and have done for the last 18 years, and my mother and father (when he was alive) paid private from the day they came into the country. My mother still pays it. The problem is that there are many who are working and will not pay for private insurance. I certainly have a problem with that, and I feel they should be paying it.

I am not sure how your system works over there. Does your private insurance cover medicine? Ours doesn't. We are covered for hospital and extras like dental, optical, chiro, pysio and that type of thing.

All I am saying is don't just push it aside, because it can work.

By god, Maddog there may be hope for you after all. And you sure hit the nail on the head about not deserving to be alive if you happened to be born poor, disabled, and dared to contract some illness.
Old folks who collect pensions and no longer work and contribute income taxes are a useless burden for the system. Unless of course they have savings that can be extorted out of them by the cabal's - HMO's. This is just one way they go about their business.

Since I, my family and friends became aware of what they actually put in those free flu shots the system hands out to pensioners (and the poor) each season, we have been awestruck to note just how many elderly who got the shots, shortly there after developed the same symptoms. Severe blinding headaches, dizziness, neck shoulder and jaw pain.
.
They were then diagnosed with "polymyalgia" and were told they had to immediately go on Prednisone - steroids - or face the risk of various life threatening illnesses, not the least of which was going blind, virtually over night.

This happened to my 68 yr old aunt, and my mom in law despite the roids. Which they are still on, along with a plethora of other costly meds they were told they had to take as well to counter first the adverse affects of the roids. And then the aa's of each subsequent drug.



Maddog, there is no getting away from how the cabal has stacked the deck against us. They have devised the perfect system to take elderly people who are still relatively healthy, still have savings and inject them with toxins, then sit back and wait to begin the fleecing. Needless to say, many kids who might otherwise have inherited some decent money from parents and relatives won't be getting that chance, and may in fact end up bankrupting themselves to help pick up the tab after their folks have been all tapped out.

Mad dog,

You post involves more nearsightedness. "What the heck is she supposed to do?" The only answer you can imagine is that they should die. Sad, but that's typical of today's society to think they have no option but to tap into a government superfund for help.

She needs to go out and beg charity, like everyone else who wants free handouts from society. If Joe Blow and his wife were decent people before his accident, I'm sure they'd have plenty of people willing to step up and help them out. That's charity. It's a private matter, not a government matter.

And there's more benefits to this system I haven't even touched on yet besides the fact that healthy taxpayers are going to be shouldered with ANOTHER burden to keep them from living the good lives they deserve. One, there's the immeasurable fulfillment of being voluntarily charitable rather than being charitable under threat of jail sentence (i.e. Not paying taxes). That sort of fulfillment is being lost in our society. Two, there's the efficiency of not having a portion of the charity money getting eatin away by a government bureacracy set up to manage the charity.

Oh yeah, I want to ask the next person who addresses this topic to talk about the costs of this system as well as the benefits. I concede that there are big benefits, but my argument is that the benefits are easily outweighed by the enormous costs.

Heh, I guess we neglected to mention, but we have medicare/medicaid too. We already pay for all health care if someone can't afford it. So this is just something else added on top of that.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Heh, I guess we neglected to mention, but we have medicare/medicaid too. We already pay for all health care if someone can't afford it. So this is just something else added on top of that.


Yes, but as I pointed out, our Medicare is for everyone, not just those considered poor.

What should at least happen is to make these companies such as Eccerd stop pricing diabetic medicines up 1200% percent.

Heh, I guess we neglected to mention, but we have medicare/medicaid too. We already pay for all health care if someone can't afford it. So this is just something else added on top of that.
And do you see something wrong with that?

Yes, but as I pointed out, our Medicare is for everyone, not just those considered poor.
Good, keeps it equal. But at a cost.

You know, I can't wait till all these people that want the government to pay for everything get their way. Then I can quit my job and live off the fat o' the lan' too! la~

It doesn't strike any of you as odd that of all the things the gov't has NEVER cut spending on, it is military/defense.

And that the only ones who get to actually profit financially- and enormously I might add - from this little scheme is, the defense contractors, while we are left with squat for gov to allocate towards social services.

It doesn't strike any of you as odd that of all the things the gov't has NEVER cut spending on, it is military/defense.


How soon people forget....do you not remember Clinton cut back on military spending? This was not long ago at all. ;)

Originally posted by willow
It doesn't strike any of you as odd that of all the things the gov't has NEVER cut spending on, it is military/defense.

And that the only ones who get to actually profit financially- and enormously I might add - from this little scheme is, the defense contractors, while we are left with squat for gov to allocate towards social services.

Of course corporations pay massive amounts of taxes, not to mention dividends to shareholders. Given the huge number of people in this country who have invested money in the stock market through 401(k)s and mutual funds, I bet a whole heck of a lot of people have profited financially from military spending.

Generally the only people who make money on Wall Street are those who own it and insiders who know when the stock is going to go up, down, when a co is about to merge or be traded. The average joe seldom gets rich of his investment and generally loses his money.
And I would sure like to see facts on how much Income taxes the defense industries and the other big US Corps paid as well. If I am not mistaken they pay nothing because their taxes have been deferred, until such time as they feel like wanting to pay them, I guess.

Of course corporations pay massive amounts of taxes, not to mention dividends to shareholders.
Shareholder dividends I'll give you. But massive taxes, no. A rather small percentage of government income comes from corporations.

Originally posted by Leper
Mad dog,

You post involves more nearsightedness. "What the heck is she supposed to do?" The only answer you can imagine is that they should die. Sad, but that's typical of today's society to think they have no option but to tap into a government superfund for help.

She needs to go out and beg charity, like everyone else who wants free handouts from society. If Joe Blow and his wife were decent people before his accident, I'm sure they'd have plenty of people willing to step up and help them out. That's charity. It's a private matter, not a government matter.

And there's more benefits to this system I haven't even touched on yet besides the fact that healthy taxpayers are going to be shouldered with ANOTHER burden to keep them from living the good lives they deserve. One, there's the immeasurable fulfillment of being voluntarily charitable rather than being charitable under threat of jail sentence (i.e. Not paying taxes). That sort of fulfillment is being lost in our society. Two, there's the efficiency of not having a portion of the charity money getting eatin away by a government bureacracy set up to manage the charity.

Oh yeah, I want to ask the next person who addresses this topic to talk about the costs of this system as well as the benefits. I concede that there are big benefits, but my argument is that the benefits are easily outweighed by the enormous costs.

[1] I think you are being narrow minded, how far to you think you can go on charity, try it you'll be surprised who will TRUELY HELP. Why do we pay SS, if we are never suppose to use it.

[2] I can tell by this responce you have lived a pretty easy life. People love to talk charity, and company's love to give when they are getting a tax break. As far as people helping others it does not happen that often, most people do not want to be bothered as you have proven with your post.

[3] So once again if your healthy then you have a right to live if your not then screw off.

[4] As you have said there are benifits to this, for those that are old now, and yes even for you IF something ever happens to SUPER LEPER. As far as the money I'm not saying take more taxes I'm saying stop stupid spending. Like I have said take it from the Golf school, Elvis impersonaters etc.. Why not go after the welfare system there is a big waste, in it self.

I don't understand why you hate the disabled or elderly, what would it hurt for 1 % of your tax dollars to go help them? I have known may people like yourself, I even use to think the same way. Life, LIFE is not about materialistic junk, it is about alot more then what type of fancy car a person drives. It is to bad that society has trained so many people to be so selfish, our for fathers that sacrificed so much, so that we could live safely must be turning in there graves when they see people more worried about there damn money then they are about HUMAN LIFE. Maybe America is going to he** it is a damn shame to see us want to give money to another country, but screw our own.

Leper you have tried to make a point, some of what you say makes sense, but the bottom line is that you don't give a sh** about anyone except yourself and your needs. Thats fine it is a free country I just hope that the day never comes when you need help and everyone sh**s on you. I would still like to believe that this country gives a sh** about its fellow man and when he/she is in need they can count on there country. I think another problem you have Leper is that your mixing welfare bums with honest people in need.

Angrypoochie,
I thought I'd never live to see the day, but isn't it nice that we can finally agree on something.
We talk a good game, but the harsh reality is that we have lost all sense of morals, values and priorites in this country

What especially burns my beaver boots is these money grubbing televangelists who have yet to dole out one cent to some one in need of financial assistance, out of all the untold kazillions they sucker out of people who are most often between a rock and a hard spot themselves.

So here's the plan. I say we lean on these sphincters and tell them to host some damn bible quizz shows where down and outers can at least have a shot at winning some of their stolen cash back. Geez you know. I mighta hit on somethin'. But then again ...nah..... these mephitic psuedo - prophets aren't programmed to GIVE money away, are they?? What the hell was I thinking!!

what would it hurt for 1 % of your tax dollars to go help them

This is the exact attitude that has led us to the position where we are today; that is, to where we are paying 1/3rd of everything we are making to someone else. One of every three days that I spend at work is for someone else. I know I'm fed up with it. We are going to come to a point where people will wonder why they are even spending all that time at work when they don't even get to see half the money.

Programs that help need to be cut WAY back. I don't see how it is th job of the government to redistribute wealth.

Let people determine their own fate. That is fair. It's also the way nature meant it to be.

Oh, so if by some unfortunate twist of fate you were to suffer some tragic accident that resulted in a spinal cord injury (a al Christopher Reeves), and you ended up paralyzed and unable to work, penniless, and homeless............. would you still think ......... " that's just the way nature meant it to be. "

Originally posted by mad dog
[1] I think you are being narrow minded, how far to you think you can go on charity, try it you'll be surprised who will TRUELY HELP. Why do we pay SS, if we are never suppose to use it.



SS should be eliminated all together; it's more of the government telling you how to live your life where it shouldn't be....that is if we TRULY believed in liberty in this country. (of course, everyone should be rewarded/reimbursed in some manner for what taxes they've already paid for SS)

Originally posted by mad dog


[2] I can tell by this responce you have lived a pretty easy life. People love to talk charity, and company's love to give when they are getting a tax break. As far as people helping others it does not happen that often, most people do not want to be bothered as you have proven with your post.



Don't speculate about my personal life. You're not psychic and I don't do that to you.

What are you trying to say with this post anyways? That people who have lived good lives have no right to object when they are FORCED to bear the burden for other people's problems? The implication is absurd.

Originally posted by mad dog


[3] So once again if your healthy then you have a right to live if your not then screw off.



Pretty close. If you're healthy, then you should be allowed to reap the benefits of your good health because A) We want healthy people to evolve so our children and future generations won't be overrun by sickly individuals in the future and B) It encourages good health habits so there will be less burden on society overall to care for health problems caused by personal carelessness (Like getting obese, smoking, or sheer physical recklessness, all problems in today's society).

However, if you're not healthy, I wouldn't say "screw off." You just have to swallow some pride and ask people for help. And at this point, people who are living good lives have the OPTION to help...you know, options? Those are those things that makes a society truly free.


Originally posted by mad dog


[4] As you have said there are benifits to this, for those that are old now, and yes even for you IF something ever happens to SUPER LEPER. As far as the money I'm not saying take more taxes I'm saying stop stupid spending. Like I have said take it from the Golf school, Elvis impersonaters etc.. Why not go after the welfare system there is a big waste, in it self.



I'd benefit less than everyone else if this system is implemented, but I'd be paying the same. That's why it's unfair. Because my health and my health habits are better than the average person, I DESERVE better than the average person. So why not make people just pay for their own problems? It's the only fair way.

I agree with stopping stupid spending. However, these things you are complaining about are VERY small potatoes compared to the program you are advocating. Besides, the government in its current state is far too large and invasive IMO, so we need to both cut social programs and stop stupid spending.


Originally posted by mad dog


I don't understand why you hate the disabled or elderly, what would it hurt for 1 % of your tax dollars to go help them? I have known may people like yourself, I even use to think the same way. Life, LIFE is not about materialistic junk, it is about alot more then what type of fancy car a person drives. It is to bad that society has trained so many people to be so selfish, our for fathers that sacrificed so much, so that we could live safely must be turning in there graves when they see people more worried about there damn money then they are about HUMAN LIFE. Maybe America is going to he** it is a damn shame to see us want to give money to another country, but screw our own.



"hate the disabled or elderly"? I never said that, nor do I believe that. That's just propaganda on your part. I simply believe people should be responsible for themselves. And if they can't do that, it's not the government's job to bail them out.

Selfish? That gets me. You know there's a lot of healthy people in our society that aren't able to afford to have children because children are too expensive? Why are they too expensive? Because those people are too burdened with paying taxes that pay for other people's problems. Basically, healthy, responsible people are foregoing reproduction so that problem-ridden people could survive. Reverse evolution. It's the people that who want to dump their personal problems on honest, hard-working people that are selfish.

And for the record, I don't believe in giving money to other countries unless there is a benefit for our country involved...

Originally posted by mad dog


Leper you have tried to make a point, some of what you say makes sense, but the bottom line is that you don't give a sh** about anyone except yourself and your needs. Thats fine it is a free country I just hope that the day never comes when you need help and everyone sh**s on you. I would still like to believe that this country gives a sh** about its fellow man and when he/she is in need they can count on there country. I think another problem you have Leper is that your mixing welfare bums with honest people in need.

I think it's pretty unfair for you to say that I don't give a sh*t about anyone because I don't believe in social programs. If I employed that logic, I could say the same about you when you criticize welfare.

Just to show you you're wrong, I am eager to help anyone who is deserving and in need. That is an OPTION I often exercise. Where I get resistant is when I am told that if I don't help, I will be sent to jail. Forcing me to be a selfless person? Now, I don't have a problem when the government steps in when people are committing a crime. But when it tries to step in for merely refusing to do a good deed is when I get touchy.

One last thing: bums are not restricted to the welfare system. Any social program you set up is going to have bums that will abuse it. On an individual level, I could weed out those bums much more effectively than a government program (which has to treat everyone equally) can. You don't think there can be healthcare bums? How about hypochondriacs (sp?)? Or people who have a low threshold for pain and goto the doctor for every little ache? Smokers who get pneumonia every other year but keep on smoking? Maybe chiropractor (sp?) addicts? The list goes on and on. You want me to pay for these people. Call me selfish but I say, f*ck that.

What are you trying to say with this post anyways? That people who have lived good lives have no right to object when they are FORCED to bear the burden for other people's problems? The implication is absurd.
You're still in school Leper. How much fricken burden could you have been forced to bear?


Pretty close. If you're healthy, then you should be allowed to reap the benefits of your good health because A) We want healthy people to evolve so our children and future generations won't be overrun by sickly individuals in the future and B) It encourages good health habits so there will be less burden on society overall to care for health problems caused by personal carelessness (Like getting obese, smoking, or sheer physical recklessness, all problems in today's society).
Damn the poor and misfortunate huh?


I'd benefit less than everyone else if this system is implemented, but I'd be paying the same. That's why it's unfair. Because my health and my health habits are better than the average person, I DESERVE better than the average person. So why not make people just pay for their own problems? It's the only fair way.

So i guess you've never had a beer? Smoked some weed? Ate too much? Driven your car above the speed limit? Had unprotected sex?

On an individual level, I could weed out those bums much more effectively than a government program (which has to treat everyone equally) can.

And what special qualifications do you have for this job oh wizened Leper? Why dont you try to get off that cloud you have your head stuck in and try to see things from us mere mortals perspective. You really are too full of yourself.

I know you guys want everyone to get everything they want, and hell, frankly, I do too! But guess what? It's not meant to be. You can't keep making people work and take away from them to provide for the non-workers. Somewhere, you have to draw a line and some people are not going to be able to get everything they want for free.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Somewhere, you have to draw a line and some people are not going to be able to get everything they want for free.

OK. Everything for free is certainly not possible (and even not a good idea) But you can chose where to "draw the line".

To make basic services like health available to the majority of people, and specially to the weakest (elder people, disabled, kids) is not a burden impossible to bear for our rich societies. It even proves to be a profitable investment in the long term, like education. In a country where people are educated and in good health, the economy is running better.

Originally posted by Karankawa
This is the exact attitude that has led us to the position where we are today; that is, to where we are paying 1/3rd of everything we are making to someone else. One of every three days that I spend at work is for someone else. I know I'm fed up with it. We are going to come to a point where people will wonder why they are even spending all that time at work when they don't even get to see half the money.

Programs that help need to be cut WAY back. I don't see how it is th job of the government to redistribute wealth.

Let people determine their own fate. That is fair. It's also the way nature meant it to be.

You have said this before (you work 1 day of every week for some one else) This could not be further from the truth maybe you work one day for taxes, but in reality only about 5-10min. goes to help another person. Out of those taxes there is military, state workers, federal workers, police, hospital, school, etc... So to think that you are working a whole day to help someone else is assinine. Like I have said before take a look at where the tax money is going, we send more to foreign countrys then we do to our own.

Leper you say you don't hate the disabled or elderly, but when I said if your disabled or crippled then you should die, your responce was "pretty close" so again you don't like unfortunate people. Like I have said some day something will happen either to you or someone close to you and I would almost bet your thinking will turn completely around. I know a person that busted his a** all his life. His wife was a baby sitter, one day a lady brought a child with CP and dropped her off. The lady never returned so the couple decided to adopt the child. Well years went by they did fine. Then the father was pushed into retirement(like so many people are) they still figured they could make it without to many problems. Then came the news about the fathers cancer well it cost alot for hospital and kemo(sp)etc...They had to use all there savings well the father ended up dieing the wife still had alot of bills left even after the life insurance. The child (an adult now) still requires alot of different drugs because of seizures etc...The women is in her 70's (still healthy) what is she suppose to do? Have you taken a serious look at the cost of medicine or medical help? I'll tell you something else try to be disabled or over a certain age and see what kind of insurance you can come up with, it is not as easy as you think.

I understand you don't want to part with your money that is why I said change the way the government is spending it. You said it wouldn't make that much difference, bullsh**.... It would make a big difference.

Do you know what the average elderly person gets 15000 a year. Do you know the average cost to keep a person in jail 35-45000 a year. Do some research you would be surprised at what stupid spending there is in this country. Look how many grants the government gives away. Look at the stupid research grants there are, example: the study between blond heads and red heads. This sh** happens all the time. I'm asking you to be serious and do a search on government spending I think you will be VERY surprised. I understand that it is your money so it should be your choice to give. Maybe you should have hung around with Hitler that was the same way he thought kill the needy help the rich get richer. If you don't have blond hair and blue eyes then you are dog meat. I still would like to think this country has not sunk that low maybe I am wrong? Maybe when I went into the service to do my duty I was only helping the snotty group of people make there life better. Well I joined the military and never asked for anything in return(not even the GI Bill) I thought it was my place as an American to help defend other Americans. Maybe all this time I thought I did the right thing I was wrong. I quess I should have just went on with my life got my riches and said screw everybody else.

Originally posted by mad dog
I still would like to think this country has not sunk that low maybe I am wrong? Maybe when I went into the service to do my duty I was only helping the snotty group of people make there life better. Well I joined the military and never asked for anything in return(not even the GI Bill) I thought it was my place as an American to help defend other Americans. Maybe all this time I thought I did the right thing I was wrong. I quess I should have just went on with my life got my riches and said screw everybody else.

No Mad Dog you were not wrong. At least morally. Even if I have often been opposing war and criticizing the US govt, I prefer your position to Leper's. At least you believe in your country and you proved you were disposed to make some sacrifice for the community. We can discuss the opportunity of such and such war but anyway I hope there will always be people like you who understand sometimes it is necessary to give (time, money, energy, even his life) for the common good.

The health of its citizen should be the number one objective of any responsible govt. I am ashamed of living in a country where the govt has been unable to prevent more than 10 000 death just because of a hot summer. If to prevent this to occur again they have to spend more money I will gladly pay more taxes.

Originally posted by astrapol2
No Mad Dog you were not wrong. At least morally. Even if I have often been opposing war and criticizing the US govt, I prefer your position to Leper's. At least you believe in your country and you proved you were disposed to make some sacrifice for the community. We can discuss the opportunity of such and such war but anyway I hope there will always be people like you who understand sometimes it is necessary to give (time, money, energy, even his life) for the common good.

The health of its citizen should be the number one objective of any responsible govt. I am ashamed of living in a country where the govt has been unable to prevent more than 10 000 death just because of a hot summer. If to prevent this to occur again they have to spend more money I will gladly pay more taxes.

I'm going to shoot myself if I have to listen to any more of this self-righteous socialism! YOU are the one condoning a morally-inferior policy. In the short term, sure, your socialism is well and good, but your socialism is unsustainable. You would create a society filled with a greater and greater proportion weak and un-self-sufficient individuals as time passes. One day, that society will break under the burden of supporting so many helpless and then you will have a humanitarian catastrophe far beyond anything you socialists claim is occuring now. Condoning such a course of action is far more immoral than anything I've proposed.

Sustainability: that is the crucial consideration you both (mad dog and astrapol) are failing to consider.

You know, 10K people don't die in the U.S. from heat AND we have more people and less government healthcare. Why do you think that is, astrapol?

Mad dog, is that what you want? A government more like France? Just ask yourself, which government has been more successful in protecting it's citizens? Clearly, French healthcare is not doing them much good; French life expectancy is only slightly higher than American and that difference can probably be attributed immigration from 3rd world nations. And that's not even considering a comparison in the quality of life.

To make basic services like health available to the majority of people.... is not a burden impossible to bear for our rich societies.

Wrong Astra. Healthcare is becoming more and more expensive. Healthcare science is finding more and more ways to keep someone alive. Unfortunately, these methods are often extremely expensive. And as long as we keep paying for those service, we'll continue to be charged, and science will continue to find more ways to improve. This is an animal whose apetite will never be satiated. Healthcare, in American at least, is also VERY susceptible to lawsuits. Did you know that over one third of doctors in American have been sued? And these aren't cheap lawsuits. Malpractice insurance rates are skyrocketing, and guess who eventually foots the bill for this? Public healthcare is already huge, and it's about to get a lot bigger....I'm talking tax burden-wise.

And I guess you are calling America a "rich society?" Is this supposed to be some sort of name calling to make me feel guilty for not wanting to pay for everyone else's health problems? Weak. How about if I call you a thief for stealing from my kids' college fund, or from my personal retirement?

Madog,

This could not be further from the truth maybe you work one day for taxes, but in reality only about 5-10min. goes to help another person.


LMAO!!!!! I think you're not including Medicare/Medicaid with this statement!!!!!!! About 27% of the federal budget is used for the Department of Health and Human Services....you seem to have a good memory for what I've written before. Why don't you go look at the pie charts I've provided before and take a look at them again.

Approximate amount of time used on an 8 hour day for welfare EVERYDAY:
42.768 minutes.

Maybe spending almost one awake hour on everyone else isn't that much to you, but it is a lot to me.

Originally posted by Leper
You would create a society filled with a greater and greater proportion weak and un-self-sufficient individuals as time passes. One day, that society will break under the burden of supporting so many helpless and then you will have a humanitarian catastrophe far beyond anything you socialists claim is occuring now. Condoning such a course of action is far more immoral than anything I've proposed.
Sustainability: that is the crucial consideration you both (mad dog and astrapol) are failing to consider.


Thanks to welfare and social security, our western societies have managed to ensure people a better health, a longer lifespan and a better education than the societies of poorer countries that could not afford such a policy. What makes a nation powerful ? Not its raw materials production. Not its industry (anymore). It is the overall level of its population.
Evey cent invested in health and education are a far better investment for the future than subsidies to agriculture or defense contractors. It does not make people weaker but in better shape, fitter to work and to produce wealth.

During the last century, the human beings have gained more life expectancy, physical and mental potential than during the previous millenium. And this is not due to any genetical selection, to elimination of the weakest by natural or social selection. It is due to the progress in medicine, in social programs, hygiene and food, and to a better education.

A society is a whole. You cannot expect the richest part to improve the whole society if the other 50% is let behind. Your system is far less sustainable that the one I support. And totally immoral.

[/B]

Originally posted by Leper
I'm going to shoot myself if I have to listen to any more of this self-righteous socialism! YOU are the one condoning a morally-inferior policy. In the short term, sure, your socialism is well and good, but your socialism is unsustainable. You would create a society filled with a greater and greater proportion weak and un-self-sufficient individuals as time passes. One day, that society will break under the burden of supporting so many helpless and then you will have a humanitarian catastrophe far beyond anything you socialists claim is occuring now.

Mad dog, is that what you want? A government more like France? Just ask yourself, which government has been more successful in protecting it's citizens? Clearly, French healthcare is not doing them much good; French life expectancy is only slightly higher than American and that difference can probably be attributed immigration from 3rd world nations. And that's not even considering a comparison in the quality of life.

[1] There are 292+ million people in the US, how many of them are disabled?(not many) Not to mention most disabled humans live a much shorter live then healthy humans. I fail to understand your statement about becoming a nation full of people in wheel chairs with heart conditions.

[2]We have a greater military so what does helping the sick have to do with protecting our country? I am not saying we need to be like any other country at all(twisting my words). I'm just trying to figure out how we as the "UNITED" States can help our fellow man. I think it is pretty sh**y that we drafted men (and women) to go fight for our country, and then when they need us because they ended up without legs or getting cancer we tell them go suck an egg because it is all about ME ME ME ME..... Once again seperate welfare(especially the ones that abuse the system) from actual people that need help.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Madog,

[b] LMAO!!!!! I think you're not including Medicare/Medicaid with this statement!!!!!!! About 27% of the federal budget is used for the Department of Health and Human Services....you seem to have a good memory for what I've written before. Why don't you go look at the pie charts I've provided before and take a look at them again.

Approximate amount of time used on an 8 hour day for welfare EVERYDAY:
42.768 minutes.

Maybe spending almost one awake hour on everyone else isn't that much to you, but it is a lot to me.

Once again you are adding in welfare with disabled seperate the 2. I did look at your chart then I went into some other sites that had different charts none of them say the same thing(most of the time these charts are a waste of time). Either way lets take your chart you still proved my point you DO NOT work all day to help a needy person. If you can seperate welfare from the disabled you will find out that my 5-10 min. a day is close(I quess it would be closer to 10 min.per week). With that said I do not mind using 10 min. a week of "my so important life" to help another. You need to take a hard look at the system and how they bunch everything together. I am talking about crippled and elderly not the drug dealer that is abusing the system. Until one of us can find a real chart were they seperate the actual disabled from the welfare scum suckers then it will be hard to show how little really goes to the unfortunate.

You and Leper keep saying how everyone will want to be on the system( I'm not talking about the lazy welfare scum either). Do you know anyone that is on disablity, I can almost bet they would rather work. Disability doesn't pay sh** Why would someone want to be on it when they could go to work for MC D's and make more money? I agree with both of you about it is your money and how you should be able to spend it how you want. Lets take that attitude to all Americans, there are alot of people with different views some don't like the military, some hate NASA, some don't like cops etc... There goes our system. One thing that burns my tail is how congress can give themselfs a raise any time the sun shines different.