Republican Empathy

[PaulS]

Or lack of empathy:

Bev Veals, a three-time cancer survivor, called her North Carolina senator's office recently to express her worries about not being able to afford her health insurance after her husband was furloughed.

"I wanted answers because the thought of having no healthcare and possibly getting sick with COVID is extremely frightening," Veals told local news outlet WRAL-TV. She said she's used her savings to pay for insurance recently.

Veals recorded a conversation she had with a staffer in Tillis' Washington, DC office.

During the exchange, Veals asked the staffer, "You're saying that, if you can't afford it, you don't get to have it, and that includes healthcare?"

"Yeah, just like if I want to go to the store and buy a new dress shirt. If I can't afford that dress shirt, I don't get to get it," he responded.

"But healthcare is something that people need, especially if they have cancer," she said.

"Well, you got to find a way to get it," he replied.

Daniel Keylin, a spokesman for Tillis, apologized on behalf of the staffer in a statement to WRAL and said he had been disciplined.

Tillis, who's facing a strong challenge in his bid for reelection this year, has voted several times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, without replacement legislation. Tillis has also helped prevent his state from expanding Medicaid under the ACA. Healthcare has become a key issue in the Senate race.

The Trump administration in June asked the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare, a move that would strip health insurance from 23 million Americans.

[RIROCKHOUND]

No worries... (this was from a month ago)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...een-two-weeks/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Or lack of empathy:

Bev Veals, a three-time cancer survivor, called her North Carolina senator's office recently to express her worries about not being able to afford her health insurance after her husband was furloughed.

"I wanted answers because the thought of having no healthcare and possibly getting sick with COVID is extremely frightening," Veals told local news outlet WRAL-TV. She said she's used her savings to pay for insurance recently.

Veals recorded a conversation she had with a staffer in Tillis' Washington, DC office.

During the exchange, Veals asked the staffer, "You're saying that, if you can't afford it, you don't get to have it, and that includes healthcare?"

"Yeah, just like if I want to go to the store and buy a new dress shirt. If I can't afford that dress shirt, I don't get to get it," he responded.

"But healthcare is something that people need, especially if they have cancer," she said.

"Well, you got to find a way to get it," he replied.

Daniel Keylin, a spokesman for Tillis, apologized on behalf of the staffer in a statement to WRAL and said he had been disciplined.

Tillis, who's facing a strong challenge in his bid for reelection this year, has voted several times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, without replacement legislation. Tillis has also helped prevent his state from expanding Medicaid under the ACA. Healthcare has become a key issue in the Senate race.

The Trump administration in June asked the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare, a move that would strip health insurance from 23 million Americans.

so one jerk speaks for the whole party? if i find a democrat who murdered someone, what does that say about you, Paul?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Hypocrite, speak to the Republican healthcare plan then.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hypocrite, speak to the Republican healthcare plan then.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not a hypocrite, i have said here many times, that republicans need to do better on healthcare. unlike you, i am capable of pointing out the flaws on my side. i have said many times, that i think there should be publicly available healthcare for people who get sick through no fault of their own, we should all pay into that, as it could happen to any of us. healthcare needs from obesity, smoking, and other choices, i feel zero obligation to pay for. things that are not anyone’s fault, should not force them into poverty forever.

so where is the hypocrisy?

my point is valid. a senate staffer who no one has ever heard of, does not speak for tens of millions of people. if i’m responsible for what every single republican does, aren’t you equally responsible for what every democrat says and does?

there’s the hypocrisy. paul thinks i’m to blame for what this guy did. does he accept blame for what every democrat does? no.

there’s the hypocrisy.

there is no official republican position, that says that suck people
be left to fend for themselves. that doesn’t mean the gop couldn’t or shouldn’t be a little more generous in this issue.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Currently the administration is involved with a lawsuit that will, if they are successful, eliminate the ADA with no plan to replace it with anything.
All the staffer did was say it out loud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Currently the administration is involved with a lawsuit that will, if they are successful, eliminate the ADA with no plan to replace it with anything.
All the staffer did was say it out loud.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and then the gop will kill them all, and sell their organs on ebay?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Apparently you’re privy to their plan, I wasn’t aware of that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so one jerk speaks for the whole party? if i find a democrat who murdered someone, what does that say about you, Paul?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't that what you constantly do Jim? find someone and complain about all Liberals - is it only ok bc you're an angry person and can't help insulting people?

Plus it was a statement from a Repub. senator's office, not some random person on the street. How is cutting the ACA showing any empathy or compassion?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Isn't that what you constantly do Jim? find someone and complain about all Liberals - is it only ok bc you're an angry person and can't help insulting people?

Plus it was a statement from a Repub. senator's office, not some random person on the street. How is cutting the ACA showing any empathy or compassion?

not even close. i judge democrat’s on things they actually believe and endorse as a group. which is fair, you just don’t like it.

paul, i don’t concede that writing a bigger check, is always a sign of how much empathy you have for the needy. not always. what is he cutting and why?

bill clinton kicked millions off welfare to pay for his tax cuts. millions. and he’s still
a hero to democrats. how is that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

democrat empathy...today every senate democrat voted against the republican $500 billion coronavirus relief bill.

now paul, you said that cutting, when trump does it at least, shows no empathy. does this move show empathy by the democrats?

can i say the democrats dont care about those impacted? would you go along with that? or would you say that the democrats also care, but have a different vision?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

democrat empathy...today every senate democrat voted against the republican $500 billion coronavirus relief bill.

now paul, you said that cutting, when trump does it at least, shows no empathy. does this move show empathy by the democrats?

can i say the democrats dont care about those impacted? would you go along with that? or would you say that the democrats also care, but have a different vision?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess it was too large for the Dems. right?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I guess it was too large for the Dems. right?

I guess they're trying to protect Trump. If its too large, Trump will be blamed for adding too much to the national debt.

[Pete F.]

Some people are quite confused

House Democrats in May passed a $3.4 trillion bill that would extend some of those measures and approve a number of other initiatives, such as nearly $1 trillion for cities and states, but Republicans and the White House rejected that plan. The White House didn’t begin negotiations with Democrats over what to do next until late July, and those talks faltered as both sides dug in and then they all went on vacation.
Democrats, who have refused to accept any proposal less than $2.2 trillion, argued that it did little to address the economic devastation of the pandemic. It did not include another round of stimulus checks for taxpayers or aid to state and local governments facing financial ruin, omissions that cut down the overall price tag of the legislation in an effort to appease fiscal conservatives. And while it would have revived weekly federal jobless benefits that lapsed at the end of July, it set them at $300 — half the original amount.
The Senate measure did not include a second round of $1,200 stimulus checks for individual Americans, even though that’s something the White House supports. It also excluded any new money for cities and states, a top Democratic priority as municipal governments face the prospect of mass layoffs because of plunging tax revenue. And it contained some conservative priorities that Democrats dismissed as unacceptable “poison pills,” including liability protections for businesses and a tax credit aimed at helping students attend private schools.

Bipartisan negotiations never gained traction, in part because Senate Republicans struggled to unify behind a single plan in July. Many Republicans opposed any new spending at that time, and McConnell instead deferred to the White House to try and broker a deal with Pelosi. Those talks collapsed with no signs of progress, but McConnell kept working on a GOP bill as a way to balance the needs of a half-dozen vulnerable incumbents who were eager to vote on new aid as they campaign for re-election.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Some people are quite confused

House Democrats in May passed a $3.4 trillion bill that would extend some of those measures and approve a number of other initiatives, such as nearly $1 trillion for cities and states, but Republicans and the White House rejected that plan. The White House didn’t begin negotiations with Democrats over what to do next until late July, and those talks faltered as both sides dug in and then they all went on vacation.
Democrats, who have refused to accept any proposal less than $2.2 trillion, argued that it did little to address the economic devastation of the pandemic. It did not include another round of stimulus checks for taxpayers or aid to state and local governments facing financial ruin, omissions that cut down the overall price tag of the legislation in an effort to appease fiscal conservatives. And while it would have revived weekly federal jobless benefits that lapsed at the end of July, it set them at $300 — half the original amount.
The Senate measure did not include a second round of $1,200 stimulus checks for individual Americans, even though that’s something the White House supports. It also excluded any new money for cities and states, a top Democratic priority as municipal governments face the prospect of mass layoffs because of plunging tax revenue. And it contained some conservative priorities that Democrats dismissed as unacceptable “poison pills,” including liability protections for businesses and a tax credit aimed at helping students attend private schools.

Bipartisan negotiations never gained traction, in part because Senate Republicans struggled to unify behind a single plan in July. Many Republicans opposed any new spending at that time, and McConnell instead deferred to the White House to try and broker a deal with Pelosi. Those talks collapsed with no signs of progress, but McConnell kept working on a GOP bill as a way to balance the needs of a half-dozen vulnerable incumbents who were eager to vote on new aid as they campaign for re-election.

Of course, the Democrat proposal doesn't include any non-virus pork and the Repubs proposal totally fails to give any relief.

I'm sure the Dems would be happy to even double their figure and blame Trump for the debt load.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I guess they're trying to protect Trump. If its too large, Trump will be blamed for adding too much to the national debt.

The Trumplicans pretty much have given up on the national debt (until the next Dem. is elected Pres.)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I guess it was too large for the Dems. right?

Paul, did the democrats block the GOP from spending another $500B on covid relief? Yes or no?

See, when democrats are opposed to something, you justify it. When Republicans oppose something, to you that can only mean they have no empathy.

[PaulS]

It wasn't enough. It probably contained more give backs to people who make $ in the RE industry though.

Even if it was larger many of the Repub. proposals hurt the poor - demonstrating their lack of empathy and compassion.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I guess they're trying to protect Trump. If its too large, Trump will be blamed for adding too much to the national debt.

On this we agree but honesty it's to late to claim they are for less spending

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It wasn't enough. It probably contained more give backs to people who make $ in the RE industry though.

Even if it was larger many of the Repub. proposals hurt the poor - demonstrating their lack of empathy and compassion.

yet they give more time and
obey to charity. that’s fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Didn't take long for you to roll that out for about the tenth time but conveniently ignore that much of that charity is given to things that benefit the donors like giving to their church.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Didn't take long for you to roll that out for about the tenth time but conveniently ignore that much of that charity is given to things that benefit the donors like giving to their church.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i roll it out when you state what you desperately wish was true, yet is is demonstrably false.

paul, here in ct, the catholic church provides healthcare, education, food, shelter to the poor. those things need to be paid for somehow. parishioner donations help fund that. i hope that’s not going too fast for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

I don't desperately wish it was true in fact I wish it was the opposite. Time and again their budget always cut spending for the most poor and vulnerable.. And I've never criticized the Catholic church or any other Church that provides charity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I don't desperately wish it was true in fact I wish it was the opposite. Time and again their budget always cut spending for the most poor and vulnerable.. And I've never criticized the Catholic church or any other Church that provides charity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but when clinton kicked millions off welfare to pay for tax cuts, that doesnt stop him
from being a liberal icon to this day. what gives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

When he reformed welfare he didn't "kick" people off welfare. He changed it by limiting how long they can stay on it but provided funds to educate and train the recipients towards getting a job and even provided child care. They also were trying to pass universal healthcare so someone wouldn't have to leave welfare for a low paying job with loose insurance.
And the intent was that if they couldn't find a job but did everything else required of them they would get subsidized private sector jobs or public jobs. So to say he kicked them off welfare isn't true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

When he reformed welfare he didn't "kick" people off welfare. He changed it by limiting how long they can stay on it but provided funds to educate and train the recipients towards getting a job and even provided child care. They also were trying to pass universal healthcare so someone wouldn't have to leave welfare for a low paying job with loose insurance.
And the intent was that if they couldn't find a job but did everything else required of them they would get subsidized private sector jobs or public jobs. So to say he kicked them off welfare isn't true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Read the act. It significantly reduced the amount of money the federal government spent on welfare, gave a lot more autonomy to the states. That was some serious spin there, Paul, Chris Cuomo spin.

I agree, as I always have, that the GOP needs a better stance on healthcare. But if you want to talk about empathy, which side gleefully endorses abortion, now until the moment of birth? The Democrats have become fanatics on the issue, stating clearly they have no room for pro life democrats, of which there were many not long ago.

Pretty clear to me (not being a blind, rabid ideologue), that neither side has a monopoly on empathy, neither side has a monopoly on callousness or cruelty.

[RickBomba]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Read the act. It significantly reduced the amount of money the federal government spent on welfare, gave a lot more autonomy to the states. That was some serious spin there, Paul, Chris Cuomo spin.

I agree, as I always have, that the GOP needs a better stance on healthcare. But if you want to talk about empathy, which side gleefully endorses abortion, now until the moment of birth? The Democrats have become fanatics on the issue, stating clearly they have no room for pro life democrats, of which there were many not long ago.

Pretty clear to me (not being a blind, rabid ideologue), that neither side has a monopoly on empathy, neither side has a monopoly on callousness or cruelty.

Your side needs an Empathy Intervention, homie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RickBomba

Your side needs an Empathy Intervention, homie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sure, sure. the side who stands up for the unborn, who make up
most of the military, who donate more time and money to charity, were the ones short on empathy. and the ones who created modern day plantations in the cities, who constantly deny poor blacks what they need to get ahead, who celebrate the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, and who blame cops for the mess they created in the cities...those are the ones qualified to give lessons in empathy.

please tell me more, if you don’t mind hitting yourself in the face with pies.

tell biden’s rape accuser how much empathy democrats have. believe all women!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

they need an "I'm a better person than you" flag that they can wrap themselves in at times like these....

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

sure, sure. the side who stands up for the unborn, who make up
most of the military, who donate more time and money to charity, were the ones short on empathy. and the ones who created modern day plantations in the cities, who constantly deny poor blacks what they need to get ahead, who celebrate the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, and who blame cops for the mess they created in the cities...those are the ones qualified to give lessons in empathy.

please tell me more, if you don’t mind hitting yourself in the face with pies.

tell biden’s rape accuser how much empathy democrats have. believe all women!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The caring for the unborn ... as soon as they are born, they are on their own. The caring stops.

The military ... basically is just used to protect our grip on other country’s natural resources.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device