Comments
261 - 280 of 298 Comments Last updated Jan 24, 2013
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#291 Jan 21, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
About the link. Worked fine for me but if you do a search for:
The Top 1 Percent: What Jobs Do They Have? You will find it. It's a NYT article. According to the NYT "With 376,076 members, the largest single group in the 1 percent are those who listed their occupation as a manager" Physicians with 192,268 households looks to make up a big sector. Lawyers, sales, and many other occupations also have folks in the 1%. Even teachers and engineers are part of the 1%. They all arenít CEOs.
You act like those in the 1% inherited it or that it was given to them. Thatís wrong. According to the IRS, 25% of those in the 1% werenít there 10 years ago. And 25% of those in the group now wonít be there in 10 years. Just as you and I have moved up and down the income scale, so do they. If we had made different choices we could have been part of the 1% today. There was nothing that stopped us except ourselves. Same with our kids, they could at some point be part of that group if they so choose. See, anyone can be part of the 1% if they are willing to do what it takes. Most arenít. Conversely, it is also easy to be part of the bottom group if one is willing to make similar choices. Being part of the bottom group requires a lot less work and effort, which is why there are a lot more folks in the bottom income levels than the top. But being part of the top 1% isnít something that is only open to certain people. Almost anyone, regardless of color, gender, where they start or anything else can be well off financially. Anyone who does just seven things can be part of the 1%. Conversely, do the opposite and the more likely one will end up in the bottom group.
1. Stay in school, study hard and graduate with 3.5 or better.
2. Go to college and study business, pre-law or pre-med
3. Go to grad school and graduate with a 3.5 or better.
4. Work 60+ hours/week until you retire
5. Marry someone who does 1-4 and stay married.
6. Donít have kids until well after marriage.
7. Live on one salary and invest the other salary.
We have an income inequality in this country because the number of people choosing to cruise through life rather than work through life is growing faster than those who are working hard.
I'm in the middle because my wife and I made middle choices. I got my graduate degree and worked hard but she stayed home to care for the kids. A choice we made and understood that by her staying home we were giving up things, but they were just things.(If you really want to guarantee being in the 1%, for #6 just make it Don't have kids. Two professionals working 60+ hours/week with no kids investing 1/2 their income will be very well off.
Everyone of us is where we are today because of choices we made. And no one is where they are at because of choices made for them or because there were opportunities that they were not allowed to take. And if someone doesn't like where they are, they need to change their choices. Might not be easy, but if they don't want to change their choices then I should not be forced to support their bad choices.
I don't care what professions are in that income bracket. It's irrelevant to my point.

I have not ever meant to say they inherited their wealth. Again my point flying way over your head. But mostly I believe you choose to ignore my point(s).

I don't need lessons from you on what it takes to make or what it takes not too. Again, irrelevant to my point.

I will make one more point in another box as I don't have room left in this one. You do like to eat up the character count.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#292 Jan 21, 2013
Ever watch Shark Tank? There are two sharks I will be exampling.
I have respect for Mark Cuban and he is without doubt in the 1%. While he is a very savvy business man and made billions he has integrity on how he does it. As one and only one example. He doesn't believe in using the patent system by getting a patent and then sitting back waiting for someone to "violate" his patent and then sue the hell out em.

On the other hand there's Kevin, I don't remember his last name. As far as he's concerned it doesn't matter how he makes his wealth. It's all about the wealth no matter how it's done.

I AM NOT AGAINST THE 1% per say. But I am NOT going to take up any more of my time repeating myself ad nauseam just to try and get you to understand what I actually mean or go back through hundreds of my posts where that is what I have said because it keeps missing you somehow.

The way the world works is just fine with you I get it. As I have come to understand you if it works for you it therefor MUST work for everyone and doesn't need to be changed.

And again I don't need a Dave Ramsey lesson on how we all can get WEALTHY and we should because the Bible tells us to. Which is a COMPLETE bastardization of what it is actually saying.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#294 Jan 21, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
And one more thing. I went through the times when companies would pilfer employees pensions promised, then go bankrupt, which meant the employees were just out-of-luck, then be in the forefront to get the government to pay on those pensions, greatly reduced. So ya the big corporations will save us all if only we relieve them of responsibility to a system they made their millions+ profits off.
Just like recently Hostess goes bankrupt but the CEO gave himself a 300% raise WHILE filing their second bankruptcy.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/hoste...
And once again, because FL Beaver and I have had the temerity to disagree with Miss High and Mighty, you resort to name calling and diatribes. If you have been around even 1/2 as long as you claim, you would have realized that diatribes and name calling get you just what you get from me and FL Beaver...laughed at.
Your convictions have never changed either. You whine constantly about corporations and big business and think that government is the savior of everything. Well, you got Obama and Biden. If his agenda goes through, I hope your retirement is safely put somewhere offshore (you know, that evil tax loophole that only Republicans use?), because otherwise, you will have to go back to work because they are working on bankrupting this country. You got who you voted for, hope you're happy with the destruction that is coming.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#295 Jan 21, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
"Well look who is actually "dependent" on the government. It HAS TO BE business." If that is true than if we close up every business, from the farmer to the truckers, from the manufacturers to the malls, government will continue to function for hundreds of years without any business to tax.
The flip side is of course that if you are wrong, then we could eliminate all government and there would still be businesses.
Which ever can be eliminated while still allowing the other to continue would be the dependent one. Thus, methinks you are wrong.
Again.
Of course you thinks I am wrong. That's a forgone conclusion.

What you don't seem to posses is the capacity to think things all the way through.

First I need to say it again, so write this down because you will surely forget it at your convenience. I am not the government over everything else you like to think I am. I just happen to recognize the symbiotic relationship between the two.

Go ahead and get rid of government entirely and you will see more businesses immediately fail at the exact same time. What the government does from the infrastructure to so many other services is contracted out to private business. Just as one example the next time you go by a highway construction site stop and ask who's doing the building, and/or major repair work. You'll find it's a private company contracted by the government.

Plus MANY, even the largest, businesses are where they are because of government subsidies. ALL of our military armaments are built by private companies.

Farmers, subsidies from the government.

Colleges, government subsidies.

I mean you take the pick and you'll more than likely find a government subsidy. I am even willing to bet somewhere in the chain of whatever business you are attached to there is a government subsidy.

And if you really believe we could get rid of government and still have business, that is a half truth. There wouldn't be the businesses the sizes we now have without the government. It would ALL go back to the business climate of the early 1800s.

And here's one you might want to add to your vast knowledge base. What is it that business operates and depends on extensively? Contracts. Who creates the laws and enforces the contracts based on the laws? Government creates the laws and enforces them through the courts. And the courts are part of government. And business is by far the largest dependents on the court system than ANYONE else. If you want to argue with that be notified there is a lawyer in the family that knows you'd be either lying or don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So get over it. Business is more dependent on government than anyone else encompassed by government. And it's been that way from earliest civilization. NO business could do business without the approval of the surrounding government.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#296 Jan 21, 2013
Rob wrote:
You sound like an angry old black woman. You are the one that always eats up the character count, now your complaining because someone else has a long post. Such hypocritical venom and hatred you have. Sad, you truly are a sad indavidual.
SIB is the only one allowed to bloviate around these parts, it seems. ;-D

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#299 Jan 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
Ever watch Shark Tank? There are two sharks I will be exampling.
I have respect for Mark Cuban and he is without doubt in the 1%. While he is a very savvy business man and made billions he has integrity on how he does it. As one and only one example. He doesn't believe in using the patent system by getting a patent and then sitting back waiting for someone to "violate" his patent and then sue the hell out em.
On the other hand there's Kevin, I don't remember his last name. As far as he's concerned it doesn't matter how he makes his wealth. It's all about the wealth no matter how it's done.
I AM NOT AGAINST THE 1% per say. But I am NOT going to take up any more of my time repeating myself ad nauseam just to try and get you to understand what I actually mean or go back through hundreds of my posts where that is what I have said because it keeps missing you somehow.
The way the world works is just fine with you I get it. As I have come to understand you if it works for you it therefor MUST work for everyone and doesn't need to be changed.
And again I don't need a Dave Ramsey lesson on how we all can get WEALTHY and we should because the Bible tells us to. Which is a COMPLETE bastardization of what it is actually saying.
I'm not sure what point you are making with Mark and Kevin other than you respect one and not the other, like that counts for anything. One doesn't say "He's a nice slave owner so slavery is ok" and by the same logic one doesn't say "He's a greedy SOB so business people are greedy SOB's."

The world doesn't work FOR me. I understand how the world works, and so I work within the realities of the world. And that WORKS. Just as I understand how my car works and so I don't try to use my feet to steer or put diesel in it. You OTOH deny human nature and believe that by changing wordly things, like taxes or laws, that will change human nature. Yet again you deny the reality of the world. We have laws around the world against slavery yet we have more slaves in the world than we did when slavery was legal. Healthcare laws were changed to make costs lower but costs are going up, hospitals have stopped delivering patients, doctors are refusing to treat certain patients; all things the one would expect from humans based on our natural behavior.

I didn't give you a Ramsey lesson. I said little about investments. I simply said here are some things that anyone can do and they are guaranteed success. And yet so few people do those things. Why? They aren't hard like lifting a car or running three marathons. They are hard because (human nature you pretend doesn't exist) people figure out how little they can do and still survive, and they go to that level. They would rather do Facebook than text book. They would rather study the Kardashians than economics. They would rather stay up late to get a million points in War Craft than stay up late filling out a million job applications.

Nor did I give you a Bible lesson. Basic Biblical POV is that things tend to fall apart without an external force maintaining it. That force is the Holy Spirit because you can't just teach morality and make laws and expect people to be good. People don't usually do what they know is right. They do what they love to do. They do what makes them feel good, what gives them power, etc. Education doesn't make people be good. It just makes smarter sinners. The idea of safety nets is good. The reality is that humans turn safety nets into comfy couches.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#300 Jan 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you thinks I am wrong. That's a forgone conclusion.
What you don't seem to posses is the capacity to think things all the way through.
First I need to say it again, so write this down because you will surely forget it at your convenience. I am not the government over everything else you like to think I am. I just happen to recognize the symbiotic relationship between the two.
Go ahead and get rid of government entirely and you will see more businesses immediately fail at the exact same time. What the government does from the infrastructure to so many other services is contracted out to private business. Just as one example the next time you go by a highway construction site stop and ask who's doing the building, and/or major repair work. You'll find it's a private company contracted by the government.
Plus MANY, even the largest, businesses are where they are because of government subsidies. ALL of our military armaments are built by private companies.
Farmers, subsidies from the government.
Colleges, government subsidies.
I mean you take the pick and you'll more than likely find a government subsidy. I am even willing to bet somewhere in the chain of whatever business you are attached to there is a government subsidy.
And if you really believe we could get rid of government and still have business, that is a half truth. There wouldn't be the businesses the sizes we now have without the government. It would ALL go back to the business climate of the early 1800s.
And here's one you might want to add to your vast knowledge base. What is it that business operates and depends on extensively? Contracts. Who creates the laws and enforces the contracts based on the laws? Government creates the laws and enforces them through the courts. And the courts are part of government. And business is by far the largest dependents on the court system than ANYONE else. If you want to argue with that be notified there is a lawyer in the family that knows you'd be either lying or don't have a clue what you're talking about.
So get over it. Business is more dependent on government than anyone else encompassed by government. And it's been that way from earliest civilization. NO business could do business without the approval of the surrounding government.
Other than your last statement, you pretty much missed everything else. Roads and railroads were all built long before government got involved. And when they did, they used private money to build those roads. The first hiway was built by businessess joining together and building it. Same with the railroad.

If we got rid of government would business look the same? Probably not. But if we got rid of every business would government look the same? Definitely not.

The last statement you got right, unfortunately was "NO business could do business without the approval of the surrounding government." Even the local lemonade stand needs government approval because we have moved from a government of the people to one in control of the people. It shouldn't be up to government to APPROVE of a business, it should be up to the customers to approve of a business. But if the government approves of your business you'll get a billion dollars even for a stupid idea. And if the government doesn't approve of your business, even if is a child's lemonade stand, they will shut you down.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#301 Jan 22, 2013
I didn't nor do I intend to make this a religious discussion, but "That force is the Holy Spirit" and "I understand how the world works, and so I work within the realities of the world. And that WORKS." are in conflict with each other. One can not serve two masters successfully. I do not deny the reality of the world. I don't accept it as the way it's supposed to be. If morality can't be taught expecting people to be good then I suggest we abandon all religions and their tenets. If you go to church I suggest you discontinue it, or better pay closer attention, because the entire purpose of spiritual guidance is to replace natural tendencies/human nature with spiritual principles in how "we" act. Spiritual nature overcoming human nature.

I posted a link before on why your statement of "I simply said here are some things that anyone can do and they are GUARANTEE success" is fallacious as there are outside forces dictated by human nature that will void the "guarantee". Such as your beloved "free market". I don't think I would need to explain that.

My whole point behind the reference to Mark Cuban and Kevin is I am not "against" the 1% as you, as well as others, so firmly state I am. A point I have not been able to get across because any counter argument to it's (1%) glory is met with disdain. As in if I am against drinking for the pure sake of getting drunk I MUST BE against alcohol in totality. As in if I am against religious cults I must be an atheist.

Because you know how to get in your car and operate the pedals,steering wheel, mirrors, radio and other controls does not mean you know how your car works. Like most people they don't have the slightest clue on how to fix it when it breaks down. They figure if they open the hood and stare in what is wrong will pop out at them. Still without any idea on how to rectify it if what they see is what is wrong. They rely on the lowliest in the economic food chain to "fix" it but reserve the right to combat them on how to do it and argue they want too much of your money to do what "you" have no clue to do for yourself.

Now if you don't get what that symbolizes because you know how to fix your own car again I have waited my time.

This microbial argumentativeness for it's own sake has worn too thin for tolerance.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#302 Jan 22, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>And once again, because FL Beaver and I have had the temerity to disagree with Miss High and Mighty, you resort to name calling and diatribes. If you have been around even 1/2 as long as you claim, you would have realized that diatribes and name calling get you just what you get from me and FL Beaver...laughed at.
Your convictions have never changed either. You whine constantly about corporations and big business and think that government is the savior of everything. Well, you got Obama and Biden. If his agenda goes through, I hope your retirement is safely put somewhere offshore (you know, that evil tax loophole that only Republicans use?), because otherwise, you will have to go back to work because they are working on bankrupting this country. You got who you voted for, hope you're happy with the destruction that is coming.
...Now, will you be let down, if that destruction does'nt come about again? Is'nt that the same destruction, you and others called for after the 2008 election?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#303 Jan 22, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Other than your last statement, you pretty much missed everything else. Roads and railroads were all built long before government got involved. And when they did, they used private money to build those roads. The first hiway was built by businessess joining together and building it. Same with the railroad.
If we got rid of government would business look the same? Probably not. But if we got rid of every business would government look the same? Definitely not.
The last statement you got right, unfortunately was "NO business could do business without the approval of the surrounding government." Even the local lemonade stand needs government approval because we have moved from a government of the people to one in control of the people. It shouldn't be up to government to APPROVE of a business, it should be up to the customers to approve of a business. But if the government approves of your business you'll get a billion dollars even for a stupid idea. And if the government doesn't approve of your business, even if is a child's lemonade stand, they will shut you down.
So as long as government is going to shut down the kids lemonade stand lets not as rational thinking people descend on the local government and point out and change the ridiculous action, but rather shut down the entire government.

"It shouldn't be up to the government to approve business." Then lets just let the drug dealers, organized crime run roughshod. I mean they are businesses. Lets let paint companies put lead back in paint so kids can chew on the window sills, or just breath in the lead laden dust from and get brain damage. After all it's just business doing business. What the customers don't know business is doing that will be to their (customers) long term well-being is just the nature of doing business and human nature after all.

Like I've said before that just doesn't matter is business does as well as it does because of government, not in spite of it. And yes government being more of an advantage to business rather than the thought to be disadvantage has cause business to be a detriment to their customers in far too many situations. And whether or not you want to believe it, it has been the actions of business that has caused "government controls" rather than government causing problems with business. Remember your beloved human nature?
"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain." Thomas Jefferson

And in the lemonade stand analogy, we all know there is no chance of passing on a communicable disease or human pathogen because all parents keep the most sanitary of conditions and use the freshest of ingredients.

Let us just kill the patient rather than try and cure their disease.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#304 Jan 22, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Other than your last statement, you pretty much missed everything else. Roads and railroads were all built long before government got involved. And when they did, they used private money to build those roads. The first hiway was built by businessess joining together and building it. Same with the railroad.
If we got rid of government would business look the same? Probably not. But if we got rid of every business would government look the same? Definitely not.
The last statement you got right, unfortunately was "NO business could do business without the approval of the surrounding government." Even the local lemonade stand needs government approval because we have moved from a government of the people to one in control of the people. It shouldn't be up to government to APPROVE of a business, it should be up to the customers to approve of a business. But if the government approves of your business you'll get a billion dollars even for a stupid idea. And if the government doesn't approve of your business, even if is a child's lemonade stand, they will shut you down.
Forgot to mention this. The railroads came about not solely because private concerns built them. The government GAVE the lands necessary to those private concerns so they could build them. Why did the government give them those lands and not expect those private concerns should pay for them themselves? Because the government realized the importance of wide spread commerce and the need to accomplish it as quickly as possible. Also the convenience of expanding the nation as quickly as possible.

And the lands needed were at the time inhabited by the indigenous peoples that believed those lands belonged to them after inhabiting them for time beyond human memory. So the lands needed to be rested from the indigenous peoples that were not willing to just acquiesce to their lands being taken. So THE GOVERNMENT provided the military strength necessary to accomplish the task without requiring the private (for profit) companies to pay the costs involved in the acquisition. 1.31 million acres worth.
"The total of public land grants given to the railroads by states and the federal government was about 180 million acres. At the time, the value of this land was about one dollar per acre, which was the average price realized by the government for sales in the land grant states during that period. Hence the total value of the land granted to these companies was approximately $180 million. Later, much of the land was sold by the railroad companies at an average price of $2.81 per acre.(Proximity to the rails increased the value of the land.) These sales offset a portion of the construction costs, which have been estimated at approximately $168 million."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-340640078...

SO, not only were these lands granted to the railroad companies they sold at a nice profit to offset a portion of the construction costs. WOW, nice business model. Get what is needed to make a profit from for free and sell off what was given for free to offset a PORTION of the costs of construction. SWEET!

And your idea about the roads is wholly inaccurate. Do you really want me to get into it.
Here's a hint. "On October 3, 1893, General Roy Stone, a Civil War hero and good roads advocate, was appointed Special Agent in charge of the new Office of Road Inquiry (ORI) within the Department of Agriculture. With a budget of $10,000, ORI promoted new rural road development to serve the wagons, coaches, and bicycles on America's dirt roads."

So NO..... Though you are correct in the context of hundreds of years past. You are suggesting we return to that.

Oh, and those "private roads" usually came with pretty stiff tolls to the road owners. After all they were for profit making and not just everybody to use freely.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#305 Jan 22, 2013
correction: And your idea about the roads is NOT wholly inaccurate.
free thinker

Farmington, MI

#306 Jan 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
Let us just kill the patient rather than try and cure their disease.
That's Oregon's motto...especially if you happen to be over 50 and have cancer.
http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/ore...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#307 Jan 22, 2013
free thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
That's Oregon's motto...especially if you happen to be over 50 and have cancer.
http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/ore...
You don't understand that assisted suicide is by patient choice to die and what I was talking about was indicating a refusal to treat?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#308 Jan 22, 2013
free thinker wrote:
<quoted text>
That's Oregon's motto...especially if you happen to be over 50 and have cancer.
http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/ore...
That is a tremendous freedom, that the people of Oregon have....as much as we talk and complain about losing freedoms, this option is so very important, especially for anyone on here that has seen a loved one suffer and fade, with incurable cancer....
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#309 Jan 22, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text> ...Now, will you be let down, if that destruction does'nt come about again? Is'nt that the same destruction, you and others called for after the 2008 election?
I won't be disappointed because it will happen. He knows he can't run for President ever again so he will go full bore and do what he thinks will be "fair" for his base. He pandered in his speech. Of course, your reaction says you didn't pay one bit of attention to what he said, that or you truly don't care what about what he plans to do. I suspect it's the second.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#310 Jan 22, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
That is a tremendous freedom, that the people of Oregon have....as much as we talk and complain about losing freedoms, this option is so very important, especially for anyone on here that has seen a loved one suffer and fade, with incurable cancer....
Wonderful until the right to die becomes the obligation to die (love that whole guilt trip over it being so hard for your loved ones to watch you 'suffer' and 'fade') or becomes 'we decide whether it's more cost effective for you to live or die' as we see happening in Oregon. I wonder how the loved ones of the people in that article who got letters offering to pay for their euthanasia rather than their treatment felt? I wonder how 'comforted' the patients felt being told that wanting to continue living wasn't cost effective and that they would be better off going off somewhere and quietly taking a pill to end it all.
Personlly, I prefer to be life affirming rather than death affirming....yet another difference I have with progressives.
My mother died from cancer, Blue...and she fought to live until the very end and I was inspired, awed and humbled by the grace and courage with which she faced her fate.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#311 Jan 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
You don't understand that assisted suicide is by patient choice to die and what I was talking about was indicating a refusal to treat?
Um...that article is talking about refusal to treat. Oregon refused these patients chemo and instead offered them euthanasia. The way things are headed you may someday be in their shoes with your callous attitude towards their plight...Karma is a fickle, red headed biotch.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#312 Jan 22, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
Um...that article is talking about refusal to treat. Oregon refused these patients chemo and instead offered them euthanasia. The way things are headed you may someday be in their shoes with your callous attitude towards their plight...Karma is a fickle, red headed biotch.
Anyway, when reading the post where I said "Let us just kill the patient rather than try and cure their disease" it was a metaphor and (the post) not about medical care.

I will wonder only momentarily into this euthanasia thing.
Who runs the vast majority of the medical community? The private sector. It is and has been for a few decades now a for profit endeavor. Done so by a republican congressman who's father owned several hospitals. At that time any hospital that would accept anyone off the street had to be non-profit by law. Legislation was passed that all hospitals would be allowed to become for-profit.

Among the Physicians Oath is "I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, gender, politics, socioeconomic standing, or sexual orientation to intervene between my duty and my patient;" Noting specifically socioeconomic standing.
But what it has been turned into health care is dependent up ability to pay. There are degrees of treatment best to adequate. Though a patient is unable to pay the bill themselves or through insurance they will still be treated but not necessarily to the degree of best possible.

That all said. It is undeniable that doctors/hospitals do not perform the best treatment of the patient if payment is not possible. Rather performing adequate treatment. And it will become more prevalent upcoming. What is showing up is the excuse of Obamacare. They will not be getting paid or paid what they normally charge so they refuse treatment.

The point being the medical profession is in the hands of the private for-profit sector in the largest share. So who is responsible for in this Oregon euthanasia case refusing these patients chemo and instead offered them euthanasia? And how does that tie in with the Physicians Oath? Most importantly why? For lack of payment to treat or that no amount of treatment would make a difference?

NO ONE is denying the cost (to patients) of health care is skyrocketing. In some cases I'm sure that the "choice" is to die rather than go through treatment that is financially catastrophic. We have two (separate) friends that have cancer. One has gone through chemo etc. to the cost of significantly over $1million. Luckily they have insurance covering the entire bill. The other has no insurance, is not going through the therapy and still is loosing EVERYTHING from the bills they do have. And after loosing EVERYTHING and the patient dies there will still be outstanding bills that can not be paid.

And the answer is?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Brighton, MI

#314 Jan 23, 2013
Sick society. I think we need to break this country up. Give the libs all the big cities that they wrecked and States to conservatives that always mad sense.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
why war with isis? 4 hr Colonel Sanders 19
Plafkin Brothers-McDonalds, Home of the Famous ... (Jun '13) 4 hr Colonel Sanders 9
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 5 hr wiz 934
'We Don't Have a Strategy' to Fight ISIS t 9 hr Phil 9
The cheerleaders with their tight skirts are v... Thu Phil 1
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) Thu Buffalo Bull 1,326
Liberty University Law School Dean: Gay Marriag... Thu Batch 37 Pain Is ... 314
•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••