Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Santorum tells sick kid who complained about the price of his medicine "People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad, but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with Why?" Because, of course, people buy a new iPad EVERY MONTH   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 290
    More: Sick, Rick Santorum, profit motive, Darwinism, working poor, medications, drug companies, developed country  
•       •       •

3803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Feb 2012 at 11:01 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



290 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-02 12:35:12 PM  

Aidan: A Dark Evil Omen: imapirate: jso2897: Want a good laugh? Check out the asshole's profile - he makes Mr. "I have to be at the gym in 26 minutes" look self-aware.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That is soooooooo farking fake! It has to be.

He's an obvious troll and a really boring one. He landed in my ignore list the first thread I ever saw him in and nothing I've seen quoted from him has made me regret it.

*ponder* I actually take him for the Dark Sarcasm end of trolling. It's so obvious he's kidding that it doesn't bother me. Like Mike_LOWELL, although they both kind of go on a bit.


Yeah - but guys like Mike Lowell and Pocket Ninja are imaginative and funny. This character is just imitative and lame.
 
2012-02-02 12:35:18 PM  
i1133.photobucket.com

Lots of folks in this thread seem to follow the above philosophy
 
2012-02-02 12:35:26 PM  

COMALite J: truthseeker2083: Would have been better than that nasty crap from Roy Rogers last night. The only thing open when we stopped, I ate about a third of my burger, tried their 'fixin bar' and made it about 40 feet back to the truck and puked it up so hard my nose started bleeding. That was the most VILE disgusting food I've ever eaten. WTF is wrong with people to keep that place in business?!

Bloody William: Was that a town Roy Rogers, or the nasty one at the rest area on the turnpike, about an hour out of Philly?

Odd. I've never eaten at an actual Roy Rogers (wrong region of the country), but from what I understand, they were the ones who invented the fried chicken recipe that Hardee's licensed from them and used to sell, and that was easily, far and away, the very best fried chicken I've ever had, fast food or otherwise, by a long shot. Nothing else has come even remotely close.


That would be the Old Roy Rogers that was owned by Marriot back in the day (they also owned Bob's big boy so that's why you see them together so often). I worked at one as a teenager and I am inclined to agree that the had some of the best fast food around, and thier chicken (what I made mostly) was light years better than Popeye's or KFC. It was also the only minimum wage job I've ever had that included stock options and the perk of being able to get a room at any Marriot anywhere in the world for $39/night just by showing them a paystub.

Their roast beef was also the B-bomb and was carved to order off the side of an actual roast, not pressed for flaked together
 
2012-02-02 12:35:51 PM  

jayhawk88: Man, you know your candidate has really crossed the event horizon when he's laying the smack down on mentally sick 9 year olds. Seriously Rick, why didn't you just scold the mother for having faulty genetics, and offered to pay for her sterilization?


That would be a sin. Santorum wants her to keep having kids as a gift from God.
 
2012-02-02 12:38:40 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Debeo Summa Credo: Because these countries benefit from our free market. XYZ drug company creates a drug that they can sell at $200 per dose in the US. Canada comes in and says "we're immediately allow generics at $10 per dose". If it weren't for the US price, drug companies wouldn't be incented to develop products that Canada can steal. If the US followed Canada's lead, then innovation would dry up.

Given that the majority of drug development is done in public or academic settings, um... What can I say, you're wrong.f


I'm not being a smartass but citation please. If what you say is true, then how to drug patents get into private hands - e.g., why are these so called exorbitant prices being charged? How do we get from a situation where public entities are developing the drugs to private companies making all the profits?
 
2012-02-02 12:40:51 PM  

jackthezomber: [i1133.photobucket.com image 500x335]

Lots of folks in this thread seem to follow the above philosophy


You know, people wouldn't automatically know you're a troll if you'd tone down the horribly, inhuman and patently evil sh*t you're saying. If you were arguing that poor people didn't deserve help, you'd still be an asshole, but more believable. But when you wade into telling kids to get f*cked over a medical condition, you're an obvious troll. No one is that f*cking evil.

So in other words, learn to troll better. Troll.
 
2012-02-02 12:41:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I'm not being a smartass but citation please.


Sure.
 
2012-02-02 12:42:28 PM  
MEDICAL CARE IS NOT A LUXURY!


/yes, all caps.
//and bold.
 
2012-02-02 12:44:26 PM  

imapirate: jackthezomber: [i1133.photobucket.com image 500x335]

Lots of folks in this thread seem to follow the above philosophy

You know, people wouldn't automatically know you're a troll if you'd tone down the horribly, inhuman and patently evil sh*t you're saying. If you were arguing that poor people didn't deserve help, you'd still be an asshole, but more believable. But when you wade into telling kids to get f*cked over a medical condition, you're an obvious troll. No one is that f*cking evil.

So in other words, learn to troll better. Troll.


Evil is entirely subjective here. I'm thinking of the greater long-term good. You call it evil, I call it being tough for future generations' sake. If it's easier to for you to just be nice to the whole world, rather than good to the future, that's your choice. At some point, people have to make tough decisions.
 
2012-02-02 12:45:18 PM  
I wonder if Mr. Self-Righteous Catholic has ever read the words of Pope John XXIII. He clearly states that healthcare is a right. It's not a luxury that is contingent on how much you make.

/What a douchebag
 
2012-02-02 12:47:00 PM  

jackthezomber: Evil is entirely subjective here. I'm thinking of the greater long-term good. You call it evil, I call it being tough for future generations' sake. If it's easier to for you to just be nice to the whole world, rather than good to the future, that's your choice. At some point, people have to make tough decisions.


Whatever helps you sleep at night, bro.
 
2012-02-02 12:47:32 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: A Dark Evil Omen: Debeo Summa Credo: Because these countries benefit from our free market. XYZ drug company creates a drug that they can sell at $200 per dose in the US. Canada comes in and says "we're immediately allow generics at $10 per dose". If it weren't for the US price, drug companies wouldn't be incented to develop products that Canada can steal. If the US followed Canada's lead, then innovation would dry up.

Given that the majority of drug development is done in public or academic settings, um... What can I say, you're wrong.f

I'm not being a smartass but citation please. If what you say is true, then how to drug patents get into private hands - e.g., why are these so called exorbitant prices being charged? How do we get from a situation where public entities are developing the drugs to private companies making all the profits?


It's complicated. they spend a lot of money on marketing, and they want to maximize profits before a patent expires. Complicating it even more, they want to sell in foreign markets, many of which have stringent price controls, and they try to make up the difference on domestic sales - which is how you get weird stuff like people driving a few miles into Canada and buying the same drug for a fraction of it's domestic price. It's a screwed up situation, and I can't think of any simple fix for it.
 
2012-02-02 12:48:04 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: 1) Even the most expensive I-pad doesn't cost $900. They start at $500. (new window) BUT YOU PROBABLY KNEW THAT YOU DISINGENUOUS FILTH

2) You don't have to buy a new one every month, BUT YOU KNEW THAT YOU DISINGENUOUS FILTH

3) Most families with a seriously ill child aren't buying things like an I-Pad, BUT YOU KNEW THAT YOU DISINGENUOUS FILTH

4) Many people who buy an I-pad, much like an I-phone, use it for business as well. BUT YOU KNEW THAT YOU DISINGENUOUS FILTH (I know one person with an I-Pad, his employer paid for it)

5) FARK YOU, SCUMBAG


I love you and give a big THIS.
 
2012-02-02 12:48:54 PM  

keylock71: ytterbium: I must be a masochist for wanting to teach middle school/jr. high. I'm pretty thin-skinned, as you might have noticed from that hockey thread the other night ;)

Well, hockey is a far more important matter... : )

Did I miss that one? Don't seem to remember you ever flipping out in one of the hockey threads.


It's in the TFD thread from Monday night. I got butthurt by a certain person's comments and then took someone's sarcasm wrong. I did apologize...it's honestly the first time I've ever been a biatch on Fark.


Just for shiats and grins:
Jakethezomber: my crazy as hell 8 year-old son did this in one day-
Made me a Denver omlette and banana/blueberry smoothie from scratch and brought it to me in bed, fixed my printer and scored a hat trick against a team on their ice, as well as defended the goalie to prevent several goals.

I'll bet he's already way more of a productive member of society than you are.

/second time, maybe I've released the kraken.
 
2012-02-02 12:53:33 PM  
This has been fun - but remember folks - this is no big whup, because Santorum isn't going anywhere - the chances are that he'll never hold public office of any kind again, let alone be President. His career is over, and we can forget about him as soon as he ceases to amuse us.
 
2012-02-02 12:54:31 PM  

Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: I'm not being a smartass but citation please.

Sure.


Well, I cant read the whole thing but a couple quotes from your link:

In 1980, Congress passed two pieces of legislation that transformed the ownership, management, and transfer of intellectual property that is created by PSRIs. First, the Bayh-Dole Act (Public Law 96-517) allowed universities, nonprofit research institutes, and teaching hospitals to own the intellectual property resulting from federally funded research and to license it according to terms of their choosing. Second, the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act (Public Law 96-480), as amended by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-502), provided a corresponding authority to federal laboratories.

Under this new approach, inventions that arose from PSRIs, in addition to being freely published in the scientific literature, could also be converted into intellectual property and transferred through license agreements to the private sector for commercialization and public use. The new approach is thought to be considerably more effective than government ownership of academic inventions9,10 and was introduced just as the fruits of the biotechnology revolution started to emerge.


Sounds like the public sector institutions are selling or licensing their IP to the private sector. So the 'public sector' is benefiting from the inflated prices of pharmaceuticals (presumably those prices factor into what the private sector will pay). It's not as if the pharma companies are getting a free ride, if I'm reading it correctly.

Our data show that PSRIs have contributed to the discovery of 9.3 to 21.2% of all drugs involved in new-drug applications approved during the period from 1990 through 2007. These proportions are higher than those identified by some earlier researchers.

In any case, only 9-21% of new drugs are contributed to by public sector entities.

There may be other factors, but that study doesn't support the notion that private pharma companies are benefiting unfairly from public research.
 
2012-02-02 12:55:56 PM  
They've started the political calls here in Colorado. My husband, who was once registered Republican, still gets calls from all of the Republican candidates' campaigns. Usually he ignores them or politely declines to answer any surveys or listen to their spiel. Someone from the Santorum campaign called him this week and he yelled into the phone "That man is a douchebag! I would never vote for him! Don't call me ever again!"

I have rarely heard him raise his voice on a phone call. When he told me who it was after he hung up, I laughed.
 
2012-02-02 12:56:41 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: A Dark Evil Omen: Debeo Summa Credo: Because these countries benefit from our free market. XYZ drug company creates a drug that they can sell at $200 per dose in the US. Canada comes in and says "we're immediately allow generics at $10 per dose". If it weren't for the US price, drug companies wouldn't be incented to develop products that Canada can steal. If the US followed Canada's lead, then innovation would dry up.

Given that the majority of drug development is done in public or academic settings, um... What can I say, you're wrong.f

I'm not being a smartass but citation please. If what you say is true, then how to drug patents get into private hands - e.g., why are these so called exorbitant prices being charged? How do we get from a situation where public entities are developing the drugs to private companies making all the profits?


The Bayh-Dole act set the stage by giving government-funded projects patent rights over inventions and discoveries, instead of having them revert to the government automatically. Part of the requirement for retaining those patents is commercialization. In other words, Congress made it so there is a requirement for those drugs and other public inventions to end up in private hands.

Beyond that... It appears I was wrong. The public sector claims the majority of vaccine development, but only around 20% of total new drug development.
 
2012-02-02 12:57:32 PM  

jso2897: Debeo Summa Credo: A Dark Evil Omen: Debeo Summa Credo: Because these countries benefit from our free market. XYZ drug company creates a drug that they can sell at $200 per dose in the US. Canada comes in and says "we're immediately allow generics at $10 per dose". If it weren't for the US price, drug companies wouldn't be incented to develop products that Canada can steal. If the US followed Canada's lead, then innovation would dry up.

Given that the majority of drug development is done in public or academic settings, um... What can I say, you're wrong.f

I'm not being a smartass but citation please. If what you say is true, then how to drug patents get into private hands - e.g., why are these so called exorbitant prices being charged? How do we get from a situation where public entities are developing the drugs to private companies making all the profits?

It's complicated. they spend a lot of money on marketing, and they want to maximize profits before a patent expires. Complicating it even more, they want to sell in foreign markets, many of which have stringent price controls, and they try to make up the difference on domestic sales - which is how you get weird stuff like people driving a few miles into Canada and buying the same drug for a fraction of it's domestic price. It's a screwed up situation, and I can't think of any simple fix for it.


Yeah, I'd agree with you. They want to sell their product for price that would maximize profit, like any for-profit business. They'll sell at market prices in the US and regulated prices in other countries. But if not for the unregulated market prices in the US, these companies would be much less incented to develop new drugs. It's not that Canada's model is obviously better, but that they benefit from the fact that pharma companies develop products based on US profitbility.
 
2012-02-02 12:59:36 PM  
I'm actually in awe of Santorum's stupidity. Gingrich and Romney are callous, but somewhat clever. Santorum is actually pants-on-head retarded.

I'm not saying this to be cruel. I honestly think he means well. He's just stupid.
 
2012-02-02 01:01:37 PM  

jackthezomber: In 2050, poor will mean that you can only afford one blowjob robot. The "single blowjob robot problem" will be championed as a human rights issue by democrats and soft republicans. And we'll all be certain that society will crumble around us unless we find a way to put at least two blowjob robots in every household.


Does stupid hurt when taken to extremes like this?
 
2012-02-02 01:03:06 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: The Bayh-Dole act set the stage by giving government-funded projects patent rights over inventions and discoveries, instead of having them revert to the government automatically. Part of the requirement for retaining those patents is commercialization.


So it gives the public entity (lets say a university) the patent, rather than the government? So Bayh-Dole gave a huge economic benefit to such universities, to the detriment of the federal government? I guess I'm starting to understand.

The next question to ask would be whether giving that profit motive to universities or other government funded entities promoted more innovation than would have been developed earlier. Presumably, if someone gets a grant to research cancer at the university of X you'd hope they'd work as hard to develop a cure whether the U of X would profit from it or not, but I might be naive in hoping that.
 
2012-02-02 01:03:40 PM  
Only a deeply evil empire would have somebody like this running for president.
 
2012-02-02 01:04:11 PM  
UGH. What a piece of Santorum. His brood is on government employee insurance even though he's no longer a government employee, right? Can we please start billing him for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that his daughter has received and will continue to receive?

//Obviously, I hope the daughter lives a long and healthy life. I just want Anal Foam to suffer.
 
2012-02-02 01:04:30 PM  

ytterbium: keylock71: ytterbium: I must be a masochist for wanting to teach middle school/jr. high. I'm pretty thin-skinned, as you might have noticed from that hockey thread the other night ;)

Well, hockey is a far more important matter... : )

Did I miss that one? Don't seem to remember you ever flipping out in one of the hockey threads.

It's in the TFD thread from Monday night. I got butthurt by a certain person's comments and then took someone's sarcasm wrong. I did apologize...it's honestly the first time I've ever been a biatch on Fark.


Just for shiats and grins:
Jakethezomber: my crazy as hell 8 year-old son did this in one day-
Made me a Denver omlette and banana/blueberry smoothie from scratch and brought it to me in bed, fixed my printer and scored a hat trick against a team on their ice, as well as defended the goalie to prevent several goals.

I'll bet he's already way more of a productive member of society than you are.

/second time, maybe I've released the kraken.


Ah well, happens to the best of us... I get testy when folks say the league and the refs give the Bruins preferential treatment.

And yeah, even an elderly invalid is more productive than a sub-par Fark troll.
 
2012-02-02 01:06:58 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.google.com

This is what happens when people don't get proper treatment.
 
2012-02-02 01:07:02 PM  

TwistedIvory: Chariset: Sorry to interrupt your moment of vitriol, but this total disregard for the humanity of another person was Santorum, not Romney.

You're totally right. I had my frothy mixes confused.


Potayto, potahto.
 
2012-02-02 01:07:13 PM  
I thought Santi was a descent guy. He is no better than Newt eh. Glad that he showed his true colors though. Just an epileptic.
 
2012-02-02 01:08:26 PM  
I read the article and didn't find anything he said offensive or something I would disagree with.
 
2012-02-02 01:10:58 PM  

bulok: I read the article and didn't find anything he said offensive or something I would disagree with.


Perhaps you were reading the article about McDonald's ending "pink slime" in their burgers instead of the one about the sick kid that Anal Foam 'fark you i got mine'd.
 
2012-02-02 01:11:02 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: In any case, only 9-21% of new drugs are contributed to by public sector entities.


The majority of "new" drugs are simply minor alterations in the old ones. However the drugs that we think of when it comes to medical breakthroughs have by in large come from the public sector. Why? Because research is time consuming and expensive. Shareholders want a return on their investment. It's much easier and more profitable to come up with another erectile dysfunction remedy than it is to research a cure for some obscure illness that may or not ever make it market.

The example they give in the history section deals with the basic mechanisms of neurotransmitters which was researched in the NIH. From that point, pharmaceutical companies were able to create a variety of drugs but without the groundwork at a public institution it's doubtful it would have been done otherwise.
 
2012-02-02 01:13:46 PM  

davemelnick: I thought Santi was a descent guy. He is no better than Newt eh. Glad that he showed his true colors though. Just an epileptic.



My wife's been calling him "Ricky Scrotum"...
 
2012-02-02 01:18:09 PM  
People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad, but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with Why?

It's a fair question. They actually might need the drug. They don't need the crazy overpriced iPad.

It's OK that Apple makes a billion dollars a day though. They are cool and stuff.

Selective outrage is amusing.
 
2012-02-02 01:24:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: jso2897: Debeo Summa Credo: A Dark Evil Omen: Debeo Summa Credo: Because these countries benefit from our free market. XYZ drug company creates a drug that they can sell at $200 per dose in the US. Canada comes in and says "we're immediately allow generics at $10 per dose". If it weren't for the US price, drug companies wouldn't be incented to develop products that Canada can steal. If the US followed Canada's lead, then innovation would dry up.

Given that the majority of drug development is done in public or academic settings, um... What can I say, you're wrong.f

I'm not being a smartass but citation please. If what you say is true, then how to drug patents get into private hands - e.g., why are these so called exorbitant prices being charged? How do we get from a situation where public entities are developing the drugs to private companies making all the profits?

It's complicated. they spend a lot of money on marketing, and they want to maximize profits before a patent expires. Complicating it even more, they want to sell in foreign markets, many of which have stringent price controls, and they try to make up the difference on domestic sales - which is how you get weird stuff like people driving a few miles into Canada and buying the same drug for a fraction of it's domestic price. It's a screwed up situation, and I can't think of any simple fix for it.

Yeah, I'd agree with you. They want to sell their product for price that would maximize profit, like any for-profit business. They'll sell at market prices in the US and regulated prices in other countries. But if not for the unregulated market prices in the US, these companies would be much less incented to develop new drugs. It's not that Canada's model is obviously better, but that they benefit from the fact that pharma companies develop products based on US profitbility.


I don't know - maybe if they were guaranteed some predictable rate of return by the government if they were willing to keep prices down - I don't know. They do develop good drugs in other countries too.
And there is one downside of the patent/profit model - companies developing new drugs that aren't really any better, or even as good as, contemporary drugs, simply because the new chemical can get a new patent, and hence a new lease on a profitable market life. That's something that really does work to the detriment of good medicine, and I'd like to see it forbidden - but I have no great ideas on how to do that.
 
2012-02-02 01:25:08 PM  

SpectroBoy: jackthezomber: In 2050, poor will mean that you can only afford one blowjob robot. The "single blowjob robot problem" will be championed as a human rights issue by democrats and soft republicans. And we'll all be certain that society will crumble around us unless we find a way to put at least two blowjob robots in every household.

Does stupid hurt when taken to extremes like this?


not understanding the use of hyperbole and humor to illustrate the point of rising expectations? yeah, that's gotta hurt.
 
2012-02-02 01:33:30 PM  
You know, this quote from a similar article on the subject at hand really hit me:

"He's alive today because drug companies thought that they would make money in providing that care and if the drug company didn't think they could make any money by providing that care, I hate to put it in these terms, but that drug wouldn't be here," he said, adding that he sympathized with the mother, "we either believe in markets or we don't."
(h/t - Dkos)

On a very twisted level, Santorum is actually right. Drug companies (esp. in the last 30 years) have been driven by one thing - profits. Whether the drug really works or not, whether it has too many side effects, they really don't care. Big Pharma is not in the business of saving lives or finding cures for serious disease. They are in business to make money, and if keeping diseases under control just enough to keep the patient coming back for more for the rest of their lives is the way to do that, then that's what they'll do.

I wonder if the mother in question realized that in that instant, Santorum made a glaring mistake by speaking truth to the reality of the "market" for medicine in America.
 
2012-02-02 01:43:12 PM  

Mugato: Because you've been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it."

WTF? No we weren't. I always was late to class, so did I miss that re-education camp? Because I was always under the impression that if you get really sick in the US and you're not rich, you're farked.


Well, duh. Just don't get sick.

/what were you thinking, silly cancer patient?
 
2012-02-02 01:50:45 PM  

keylock71: Luckily, we're in Massachusetts and can take advantage of Commonwealth Care. Business has been pretty slow for me for a few years and if it weren't for the Commonwealth Care, we'd be farked, plain and simple. I have asthma, and a two moth supply of Advair without insurance costs over $500. We'd never be able to afford it and pay our mortgage, bills and what not.

These assholes like to pontificate about helping the middle classes (and we've been hanging onto the ragged edges of the middle class since 2004 ourselves), but all I hear from them is how they're going to do away with the same programs that are keeping many of us from sinking deeper into poverty.

It's infuriating... I will never vote for another Republican as long as I live after the last few years.


I swear I'm not being snarky or malicious, but... isn't Commonwealth Care part of "Romneycare"? (Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58)

Aren't you sort of pulling a reverse Craig "stupid government never helped me when I was on food stamps and welfare" T Nelson?

Just sayin'
 
2012-02-02 01:53:08 PM  
So which is it froth man? Pro-life or Free Market?
Which of your gods wins out?
 
2012-02-02 01:59:40 PM  

Parthenogenetic: I swear I'm not being snarky or malicious, but... isn't Commonwealth Care part of "Romneycare"? (Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58)

Aren't you sort of pulling a reverse Craig "stupid government never helped me when I was on food stamps and welfare" T Nelson?

Just sayin'


Commonwealth Care is part of the MassHealth system that was put in place under Romney...

I don't think so... I'm not saying nobody ever helped me. I'm just pointing out what the GOP candidates have said themselves regarding programs like these. Romney downplays MassHealth and says repeatedly he would repeal The Affordable Care Act if elected.
 
2012-02-02 02:01:20 PM  

Parthenogenetic: keylock71: Luckily, we're in Massachusetts and can take advantage of Commonwealth Care. Business has been pretty slow for me for a few years and if it weren't for the Commonwealth Care, we'd be farked, plain and simple. I have asthma, and a two moth supply of Advair without insurance costs over $500. We'd never be able to afford it and pay our mortgage, bills and what not.

These assholes like to pontificate about helping the middle classes (and we've been hanging onto the ragged edges of the middle class since 2004 ourselves), but all I hear from them is how they're going to do away with the same programs that are keeping many of us from sinking deeper into poverty.

It's infuriating... I will never vote for another Republican as long as I live after the last few years.

I swear I'm not being snarky or malicious, but... isn't Commonwealth Care part of "Romneycare"? (Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58)

Aren't you sort of pulling a reverse Craig "stupid government never helped me when I was on food stamps and welfare" T Nelson?

Just sayin'


And now Romney's running around the country saying how a federal program that's basically a national version of Romneycare is horrible and evil and will be the first thing he repeals. And he's the least insane of the lot.
 
2012-02-02 02:01:42 PM  

Magorn: largely because we don't have access to lovely perks like on staff physicians who don't charge for OV and are available at any time without an appointment.


Not Quite, pretty far off, actually.

Magorn: Secondly his congressional retirement package includes 100% paid premiums

I am unable to find a single citation in support of this claim. Care to help a brother out?

On the other hand

Magorn: He, unlike us, doesn;t have to pay anything for his coverage.


I have found many citations which refute this claim. OPM, AARP, Military Times, and so on.

Your ball.

 
2012-02-02 02:05:13 PM  
i42.tinypic.com
My new Bumper Sticker.
 
mhd
2012-02-02 02:16:03 PM  

SpectroBoy: If you google Santorum the top hit is no longer the one he deserves.


Google stopped serving the same results to everyone quite a while ago, so this is probably not true for everyone. If you've searched for political stuff before, it's likely that "proper" content is preferred over the textbook definition...

I'll get a few wiki links before that, probably because I click on a lot of them. If I switch to an anonymous browser window, the "spreading Santorum" link is the top result.

/Probably because it doesn't have much information about me then, apart from the fact that I'm in Germany. And the link does contain the word 'fecal'.
 
2012-02-02 02:21:52 PM  

vpb: Mugato: Because you've been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it."

WTF? No we weren't. I always was late to class, so did I miss that re-education camp? Because I was always under the impression that if you get really sick in the US and you're not rich, you're farked.

The sad thing is that it's true even if you have a good job and good insurance. Get sick enough and you loose both.


My husband works for one of the largest defense contractors in the world. He's an engineer. They are in the process of trying to fark us out of benefits for our son. They canceled his health insurance (and mine) coverage with 30 days notice only they didn't mail it and there was only 1 day left when it arrived. When called about it they said they had previously asked for proof that he was his son. Which they didn't because I would have sent it. My husband also filled out the proper documents on January 12th during that window for everything for the new year. There was nothing then.

So even if you have a good job and are healthy they'll try to screw you over if anyone in your family has issues.

This all very coincidentally occurred a few days after they got all the paper work for my son's autism spectrum testing and we were about to being a bunch of behavioral therapies and other stuff. We finally got all the referrals and documentation sent to them January 21st.
 
2012-02-02 02:26:20 PM  

keylock71: Parthenogenetic: I swear I'm not being snarky or malicious, but... isn't Commonwealth Care part of "Romneycare"? (Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58)

Aren't you sort of pulling a reverse Craig "stupid government never helped me when I was on food stamps and welfare" T Nelson?

Just sayin'

Commonwealth Care is part of the MassHealth system that was put in place under Romney...

I don't think so... I'm not saying nobody ever helped me. I'm just pointing out what the GOP candidates have said themselves regarding programs like these. Romney downplays MassHealth and says repeatedly he would repeal The Affordable Care Act if elected.


Fair enough.

I just wasn't sure if you were trying to pull off an elaborate troll-jack. It's getting harder to tell as campaign season progresses.

Good luck to you and your family. People generally don't realize what a burden medical expenses can be, until they've experienced the pinch themselves.
 
2012-02-02 02:33:07 PM  

Gwendolyn: vpb: Mugato: Because you've been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it."

WTF? No we weren't. I always was late to class, so did I miss that re-education camp? Because I was always under the impression that if you get really sick in the US and you're not rich, you're farked.

The sad thing is that it's true even if you have a good job and good insurance. Get sick enough and you loose both.

My husband works for one of the largest defense contractors in the world. He's an engineer. They are in the process of trying to fark us out of benefits for our son. They canceled his health insurance (and mine) coverage with 30 days notice only they didn't mail it and there was only 1 day left when it arrived. When called about it they said they had previously asked for proof that he was his son. Which they didn't because I would have sent it. My husband also filled out the proper documents on January 12th during that window for everything for the new year. There was nothing then.

So even if you have a good job and are healthy they'll try to screw you over if anyone in your family has issues.

This all very coincidentally occurred a few days after they got all the paper work for my son's autism spectrum testing and we were about to being a bunch of behavioral therapies and other stuff. We finally got all the referrals and documentation sent to them January 21st.


This makes me want to run screaming through the streets. So goddam unfair.
 
2012-02-02 02:33:14 PM  

Parthenogenetic: Fair enough.

I just wasn't sure if you were trying to pull off an elaborate troll-jack. It's getting harder to tell as campaign season progresses.

Good luck to you and your family. People generally don't realize what a burden medical expenses can be, until they've experienced the pinch themselves.


No worries... I know what you mean. Sincerity is a hard thing to determine in these threads.

And you're right, a lot of the people that are currently callously badmouthing poor folks and folks who can't afford medical care for their kids or themselves would be singing a vastly different tune if the shoe were on the other foot.

Thanks for the kind words. The same to you and yours.
 
2012-02-02 02:36:55 PM  

hammer85: You know, I'm thankful everyday I got a federal job and nice federal insurance. I have Crohn's disease, and for my treatment (Remicade), I needed to get infusions at 0, 2, 4, 6, and now every 8 weeks thereafter. By the time the first bills came in I had already taken 4 infusions, and learned that each one cost 10 grand. Even with the so-called super plat government insurance (blue cross) it's still 1k out of pocket every 8 weeks for my first 5 injections (hit the out of pocket limit at 5k), so I get to buy 5 get 1 free.

I have absolutely no clue how I would even attempt to afford it if I had no insurance, or even just a shiattier version.

fark Santorum and fark the drug companies.


There's a way to possibly get rid of Crohns completely instead of lining the pockets of insurance and drug companies with their "treatments": hookworms. If I had Crohn's or alleriges I would definitely try this.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/05/30/hookworms-a-cheap-treatment-fo r -autoimmune-diseases/
 
2012-02-02 02:50:29 PM  
I can't help but notice that despite the Christian values discussion earlier in the thread, nobody has derped about how Christian charity is supposed to be "voluntary," and that therefore government assistance to the poor is Satanic.1

I'd like to think that has something to do with my ongoing efforts to inform people about the meaning of Psalm 72, and its implications for the debate over whether American style religious conservatism is really compatible with the Bible.

I'd like to think that. But I think it has more to do with the relative lack of trolls in the thread.

1For the subtlety deficient, the "Satanic" reference is hyperbole.
 
Displayed 50 of 290 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report