What is the Catholic view of governent-paid health insurance?

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You’re making a straw man argument here. If there were only 10 million Americans without healthcare that would mean private charity has failed to take care of the disadvantages. Doctors who take care of poor patients for free or at a reduce cost are few and far between so again private charity fails. Finally, your argument that we do everything to discourage charity is bogus. Charity for life sustaining issues is a pro life issue. Again I ask you what would be happening with the elderly if Medicare did not pass in 1964? We would be judged for it!

Charity is best and most effectively administered to cover the most people when it is administered publicly. Those Christians who truly love their neighbor as they love themselves would gladly pay for a Medicare system that covers everyone with a progressive premium that is rated at income level with a reasonable cap. Matthew 25:30-46 applies here. We will be judged by how we treated others. God instituted governments for a reason (see Romans 13:1-6 and CCC 1897-1912). How many Canadians and Europeans combined are without health care and how many combined are going bankrupt from medical bills? The answer is ZERO! Why is it ZERO? Because they are more prudent and charitable then we are! We as a nation are the goats. It’s time to put on sack cloth and ashes and repent.

David

And just how many Charity ran hospitals have closed since medicare came into being in 1964? I can tell you that in the city of 35000 the one we had closed. before medicare and the for profit hospitals that we are mostly stuck with today most all hosptials were charity run and if a patient could not pay they were still given treatment it was not til later with the for profit hospitals that we ned laws to say they had to treat the indigent.
I worked in the national collections office for a major healthcare provider and I can tell you there are numberous patients coming to america from canadia to recieve their care because they can not get it there.

Also charity from the goverment is not charity. More and more government is not the answer. And just homany people that need care fail to get it because they do not meet the guide lines set be some committee that see everyone as a number and not what the needs of that person at that time maybe.

 

[theswan]

Bohm I’m with you.

I worked in a state hospital many years and see what has happened to the folks who were tossed to the street-They are in the streets! or worse, jail. I agree it was a failed perhaps liberal policy that allowed the de institutionalization of so many needy people.

We has a wordy and articulate dissertation on why it is not up to government to support social programs Ie medicare. Why not? has history not proven it does not work to expect folks to be charitable enough to support those least of our breathren. Medicare while expensive has worked well and served millions who otherwise would use ER rooms or just die!

I have a real issue with so called Catholics opposing medicare, social security and the right to organize when it is clear we have a mandate to help anyway we can. We must respect the dignity of life-After birth as well as before. I will paste on small paragraph from our social doctrine compendium

a. The dignity of workers and the respect for their rights

1. The rights of workers, like all other rights, are based on the nature of the human person and on his transcendent dignity. The Church’s social Magisterium has seen fit to list some of these rights, in the hope that they will be recognized in juridical systems: the right to a just wage; [651] the right to rest; [652] the right “to a working environment and to manufacturing processes which are not harmful to the workers’ physical health or to their moral integrity”; [653] the right that one’s personality in the workplace should be safeguarded “without suffering any affront to one’s conscience or personal dignity”; [654] the right to appropriate subsidies that are necessary for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families; [655] the right to a pension and to insurance for old age, sickness, and in case of work-related accidents; [656] the right to social security connected with maternity; [657] the right to assemble and form associations.[658] These rights are often infringed, as is confirmed by the sad fact of workers who are underpaid and without protection or adequate representation. It often happens that work conditions for men, women and children, especially in developing countries, are so inhumane that they are an offence to their dignity and compromise their health.

They also talk about the right to organize and the right to strike. Please read this important document before making a choice on who to vote for. We may lose sight of our mandate if we do not see the whole picture and vote on what we believe to be just. We need guidance and this social doctrine has the answers.

Glen AKA swan

 

[theswan]

I rarely come here and now I remember why.

Disagree with me fine ok I can live with that. I am often wrong and tend to use my compassion and heart before my brain but, can we not be nice in our disagreements?

I mean to tell someone to move and that you’d hold the door for them seem like a remark of a compassionate fellow Catholic?

Yeah I have big issues with those who are anti union or social programs but I’ll listen to you without attacking.

My simple view is from American history-We have never cared for folks by charity alone! That is a fact. I know personally that welfare helped my family when my dad got sick. We were a dollar away from homelessness and we got on the “dole” today all of his children are respected tax paying men all involved in human service-So what that we had to rely on others through a collective program?

This country is not fair-not by a longshot but at least we have the moral backbone to help others.

Glen

 

[theswan]

political I removed it

 

[theswan]

my last post-I promise!

I apologize for any political statements as I re read some sticky’s and we are not to discuss politics?

Sorry

I will try and erase if it is not too late

Glen AKA The swan

 

[markomalley]

I rarely come here and now I remember why.

Disagree with me fine ok I can live with that. I am often wrong and tend to use my compassion and heart before my brain but, can we not be nice in our disagreements?

I mean to tell someone to move and that you’d hold the door for them seem like a remark of a compassionate fellow Catholic?

A. Are you using a second handle for “davidmlamb”? I don’t think so. That is who the comment was directed toward. (His post was quoted). And, frankly, after being accused of presenting a strawman (when I wasn’t), I thought I was quite polite. After all, I could have said, “Don’t let the door hit you on the ************** on the way out”. But I didn’t.
B. Secondly, why don’t you deal with the point: He said, How many Canadians and Europeans combined are without health care and how many combined are going bankrupt from medical bills?

I stated that these welfare states were undergoing a demographic winter. They will be extinct within decades at the rate they’re going. In fact, if not for immigrants who are disrupting their traditional cultures, their fertility rates would be even worse. (Canada has a fertility rate of 1.58. The two European countries I cited – Greece and Italy – have fertility rates of 1.37 and 1.32, respectively. Source. FYI, the US fertility rate is 2.05. A 2.1 is required to sustain a stable population)

I stated that the Faith was dead in Europe. Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not much. Don’t forget about the “new evangelization” initiative of the Holy Father. Europe is, for all intents and purposes, considered mission territory. See this Independent article and this L’Osservatore Romano article. For specific data, please consult the World Values Survey., With the exception of Italy, weekly church attendance and self-acknowledged influence of God in an individual’s life is abysmal in these social welfare states. Far below the US (not that the US has much to brag about either btw).

If you’d like to deal with those points, go for it. Maybe I’m not “nice” enough for you, but prove my points to be wrong.

One other point about Europe is that their economies were at the point of collapse. The Euro is struggling to stay afloat. Austerity measures are being imposed…to avoid dragging the rest of Europe down the economic sewer that has developed in Greece, Italy, Spain, and, it appears France. And what’s happening now? Riots. Governments are being overthrown. The people don’t want to lose their government handouts. They don’t actually want to have to be productive on their jobs (a 40 hour workweek: scandalous!)

The point is that it’s falling apart over there. Even more than it is falling apart here. Socialism is, once again, being proven not to work. Even “lite Socialism” a/k/a the Social Welfare State.

Yeah I have big issues with those who are anti union or social programs but I’ll listen to you without attacking.

My simple view is from American history-We have never cared for folks by charity alone! That is a fact. I know personally that welfare helped my family when my dad got sick. We were a dollar away from homelessness and we got on the “dole” today all of his children are respected tax paying men all involved in human service-So what that we had to rely on others through a collective program?

I don’t know when your father was sick. What era that was in. Was it in the 40s, the 50s, the 60s?

I know of only very, very few people who object to providing short-term assistance to those who are in a crisis situation, such as the one you faced. I also have run into few people who object to unemployment insurance. 99 weeks is another story, but to help people out who have lost their jobs due to no fault of their own…

I personally think that charitable organizations could do a better job providing that kind of support, but that is my prudential judgment. You say, We have never cared for folks by charity. “Never” is an awfully long time. You may wish to rethink that point.

Where the objections start coming in are with long term welfare…“generational welfare” for an underclass of people. When I see households with three generations of welfare recipients (30 year old grandmother, 15 year old mother, and a baby), I question the value of my investment. I question how this situation serves the “common good.” By the way, that situation is not at all uncommon where I live. In fact, just down the street is a family living in a Section 8 house that is in exactly that situation.

I honesty don’t see how generational welfare benefits society (“the common good”). I don’t see how it benefits the recipient in the long term either (“option for the poor”). Remember, we’re talking about generational welfare…***not ***short term assistance to help a family get over a crisis.

Since you work in “human services,” perhaps you can provide me with some data (with sources) to show that my understanding of “generational welfare” is flawed.

 

[theswan]

I will not search out sources nor do I go by their value as it can be twisted to suit as all stats can.

Generational welfare may be a need because there is generational poverty-your critism suggests welfare is the cause of poverty.

Yes I did see case’s where the “state” did more harm then good. One is with the alcoholic who gets sent to rehab time and again-He needs to step back and see the harm his drinking has done then maybe get into AA.

however, there is a class that sadly will never compete in this economy for many reasons, there are those that will always need help and flawed as it is, Welfare and state aid helps millions!

I am sad that we can support wars and not question B1 Bomber failures and bloat at the pentagon yet cast an eye on welfare and say “not sure my tax is being well spent”

End the DEA, trim the military and remove tax loopholes-We are afloat in wealth! it is just in too few hands!

Am I a socialist because of my desire to even things out? yeah maybe so what? the way we are going with wages being at 1978 value, we will have a two class system in another couple of generations-what side will you be on?

You critique was well wrttten and came off as kind I must say-so many here can be harsh in hatred

Glen

 

[theswan]

by the way, yes never is a long time i’ll rephrase, Private has NOT worked throughout history thus far! Maybe now is a new epoch and the rich will indeed build low income housing, feed the hungry and maybe even offer a living wage-but, I look at the past to see what HAS been done and almshouse’s just are not my idea of help.

“Don’t let the door hit you…” Aww come on, you know that would have been rude. I joke around with my friends all the time and we say much worse. if you know this guy then fine but if not, it really is not a kind thing to say.

Just me and I am sensitive.

Glen

 

[sedonaman]

Eh ain’t nothing wrong with supporting those who can’t pay for medicare. I know my I wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more on taxes to help others.

The problem is money is fungible. I am in the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and we have had cases in which paying for a family’s necessities, like utilities etc., freed up some of their cash to make payments on credit cards used to make purchases of unnecessary items, like TVs etc. We, in effect, paid for those luxuries. Would you be willing to do that and support that kind of irresponsibility?

 

[zz912]

You’re making a straw man argument here. If there were only 10 million Americans without healthcare that would mean private charity has failed to take care of the disadvantages.

I wonder why you said 10 million were without healthcare. This is patently false. 10 million may be without health insurance, but they have healthcare.

Is it intentional that you confuse the two?

Another point to make: Before Medicare, there was a large market of health insurance for the elderly in the private market. After Medicare, the private market dried up and died. “Free” government health insurance ruptured the private market. (Which is the goal of Obamacare as well)

 

[Nate13]

I think a point that is being overlooked here is that some people don’t want to ask for help. Have people forgotten that pride still exists?!? 10million people would be 3% of the population in the U.S. Do people really find it that hard to believe that many of those people might just be too prideful to go and ask for help? There are many churches that these people could walk into and ask for help all over the place and they would be directed to it. The problem is they have to ask for help and swallow their pride.

This is part of what I don’t like about the government providing benefits because they go from being charity to being something people believe they deserve. The transition to this happens very quickly. It is wrong for people to believe they deserve to have their healthcare paid for by someone else and intentional or not, those are the feelings a lot of these programs end up creating.

 

[theswan]

ZZ just for kicks I looked up a survey from 1962 and found %50 over the age of 62 had no health insurance.

“Obamacare” does not exist. there is the 'Healthcare reform act of 2010" Calling what many see as a noble effort to fix an ailing system a FOX news inspired smear is not helping one put across one’s view.

Suggesting healthcare was so cheap before medicare makes it seem like anyone could afford coverage.

Debate but debate as factually as possible and beware of stats as they are double edged swords.

I mean hate Obama if you like, hate medicare if you like that is a right you have. We are of a different slant maybe you are right maybe I am.

I’d just like solutions to just bash social programs without real solutions offered helps no way.

Glen

 

[theswan]

Nate it worries you the “feelings” someone has about getting healthcare?

Why? I think if someone is getting, say welfare and believes he deserves it has no bearing whatsoever on this thread.

This cuts to the core I keep coming back to and that is envy! Feelings are not facts and have nothing to do with this. Why anyone has envy over a person getting a handout is beyond me. It is right up there with giving a dollar to a poor man and worrying about if he buys booze with it. Lend the darn money and leave the sin to the sinner! You did what you thought was correct and lave it like that.

my goodness do we not see that worry about someone getting something for nothing was in the bible? the parable of the workers paid the same wage, some worked half a day and got the agreed upon wage.

If you do not like welfare/medicare too bad it is the law for now! Work hard to change it then if you do look back and really take a look at your motives. Was it really because you thought you’d be helping those who once got aid from not living up to their full potential as men of dignity? or the other excuse of the saving the country from financial ruin from those leechs on welfare/medicare?

Or was it deep inside you HATE, hate someone getting something without working hard like you for it? Does that thought ‘burn’ you?

If you search your soul and find truth in the latter, shame on you vineyard worker! Did you not get the agreed upon wage?

So what is it real concern for your brother to save him from dependance? or deep concern the country will disappear in a depression brought on by welfare state.

Or is it a sick envy?

Glen

 

[Nate13]

Nate it worries you the “feelings” someone has about getting healthcare?

Why? I think if someone is getting, say welfare and believes he deserves it has no bearing whatsoever on this thread.

This cuts to the core I keep coming back to and that is envy! Feelings are not facts and have nothing to do with this. Why anyone has envy over a person getting a handout is beyond me. It is right up there with giving a dollar to a poor man and worrying about if he buys booze with it. Lend the darn money and leave the sin to the sinner! You did what you thought was correct and lave it like that.

my goodness do we not see that worry about someone getting something for nothing was in the bible? the parable of the workers paid the same wage, some worked half a day and got the agreed upon wage.

If you do not like welfare/medicare too bad it is the law for now! Work hard to change it then if you do look back and really take a look at your motives. Was it really because you thought you’d be helping those who once got aid from not living up to their full potential as men of dignity? or the other excuse of the saving the country from financial ruin from those leechs on welfare/medicare?

Or was it deep inside you HATE, hate someone getting something without working hard like you for it? Does that thought ‘burn’ you?

If you search your soul and find truth in the latter, shame on you vineyard worker! Did you not get the agreed upon wage?

So what is it real concern for your brother to save him from dependance? or deep concern the country will disappear in a depression brought on by welfare state.

Or is it a sick envy?

Glen

No its because I treat people like humans who have feelings. You seem to be advocating to treat them like robots. I’m sorry if it doesn’t fit the way you look at the World, but you can’t fix problems just by throwing money at them. I’m not envious of these people in the least. I want to actually try and help them in the long term not just put band aids on problems like you apparently do. Its the same story all over the place though.

I never said I was against social security, welfare, and medicaid, I’m against how they are currently run. I am definitely for the government providing welfare and I really don’t have too many problems with that program especially after it was changed to make sure it provided incentive for people to want to get off of it. I wouldn’t say its perfect, but its definitely acceptable as far as government programs go. The thing about welfare though is the program is there to specifically target those who need it and are in hard times.

Social security, medicare, medicaid, and now healthcare in general are forced on everyone. I would much rather use these programs solely to target those who need it, and tax everyone just enough to pay for them. Everyone else could choose to set up a social security account with the government or a private entity. Thus a program that is for the poor would actually be for the poor. There would have to be incentives though that would make sure people who could pay for their own social security would not want to just hop on board for free social security.

No, I can assure you I’m not suffering from envy. I know what it feels like to be out of work, and have lots of spare time to sit there and wallow in it. Its a deplorable state to be in and one that I want to help people actually get out of. You can demonize me as much as you need to though to make you feel assured in your position.

 

[theswan]

Was I speaking of you? I asked if one search’s himself. If however as I state you really believe it is going to hurt the country (has’nt since 1930’s but there is time) or hurt the person getting aid then I have no problem BUT if you really look inside you MAY see envy of someone getting something for nothing.

Sorry you felt attacked I was aiming at honest appraisal not covering all who refuse to support program on the same brushstroke.

please try and be kind as I do not think I was mean and judged you and motives.

Glen

 

[andrewstx]

I would like to echo Swan. There is no such thing as “Obamacare”. That is an epithet used by the far-right to use against the President’s health care reform.

Let me tell my personal story. Six years ago I had a debilitating stroke. I cannnot work or drive a car, or even dress and groom myself sans assistance.

Which means the only income I have is SSI, and the only health care is medicaid.

Medicaid is about to be drasticly reduced by the (not so) great state of Texas and it presently pays for only 3 prescriptions a month, the rest I have to pay for myself out of my whooping $674 a month SSI.

I have a chronic sickness, that will not improve.

Should I just die so the government won’t “steal” from others by taxation?

BTW I used to be conservative myself, before the stroke.

 

[markomalley]

I would like to echo Swan. There is no such thing as “Obamacare”. That is an epithet used by the far-right to use against the President’s health care reform.

Let me tell my personal story. Six years ago I had a debilitating stroke. I cannnot work or drive a car, or even dress and groom myself sans assistance.

Which means the only income I have is SSI, and the only health care is medicaid.

Medicaid is about to be drasticly reduced by the (not so) great state of Texas and it presently pays for only 3 prescriptions a month, the rest I have to pay for myself out of my whooping $674 a month SSI.

I have a chronic sickness, that will not improve.

Should I just die so the government won’t “steal” from others by taxation?

BTW I used to be conservative myself, before the stroke.

It’s got to be really rough to think that your family would abandon you like that in your hour of need.

Really tragic.

And then, after being thrown to the curb by your family, having to be in a society that is so materialistic that even common decency and charity are not even a factor.

One thing about Obamacare (a/k/a PL 111-148, a/k/a The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) is that it will just cause the materialistic tendency of this society to increase. That’s always the effect of socialism…even moderate socialism (like socialized medicine). At least Pope Bl. John XXIII had that impression:

Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being

Mater et Magistra, 34​

It is a true shame, though, that we live in a society that has been tarnished by this moderate socialism for almost 80 years. It has transformed us from “givers” to “takers” as a whole. There are so many people who believe that society owes them that the resources aren’t there to take care of those, like you, who should legitimately be taken care of by our society (preferably through the liberal application of corporal works of mercy, but taken care of one way or the other).

The real shame of it is that you are going to be the one who is hurt, not those who abuse the system. Since you are legitimately disabled and literally unable to provide for yourself, although I’m sure you’d love to be able to do so if you could, you are in a dramatic minority. In order to preserve “entitlements” for the lazy and irresponsible, you will be the one who has to pay the price so that they can maintain their lifestyle. A shame, really, when you think about it.

You are the type that social insurance should be available for. But, unfortunately, with a large, bureaucratic system, it is impossible to make rules that are sufficiently granular so that a person with a legitimate debilitation, like you, a stroke victim, can be properly taken care of, while excluding those who are there through their own fault. It would be discriminatory to take care of you, a stroke victim, but not taking care of those who can claim disability as a result of laziness or irresponsibility. A shame, really. If it was less of a bureaucratic, nationalized system, perhaps even (shudder) a charitable system, they’d be able to deal differently with legitimate cases, like yours, while excluding those who use their check to buy booze. And those who run bordellos and crack houses out of their section 8 housing.

As Pope Bl. John Paul II said:
…it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.

Centesimus Annus, 48​

But, that’s not the society we are in, is it? We would rather establish a government program and not deal with it ourselves, wouldn’t we? Neater that way. We don’t have to get our hands dirty then. And we can feel good about ourselves, because we’re “helping the poor” without having to actually do anything. And while the intent is to warehouse folks that society doesn’t want to have to deal with directly (heaven forbid that we’d take personal responsibility for fulfilling Matthew 25), people like you, who are legitimately needful of each member of society’s solicitude, are stuck in that situation.

Really a shame.

BTW, in another recent post to me you said your stroke was seven years ago. In this one, you say six years ago. Just curious, which one was it?

 

[Nate13]

I would like to echo Swan. There is no such thing as “Obamacare”. That is an epithet used by the far-right to use against the President’s health care reform.

Let me tell my personal story. Six years ago I had a debilitating stroke. I cannnot work or drive a car, or even dress and groom myself sans assistance.

Which means the only income I have is SSI, and the only health care is medicaid.

Medicaid is about to be drasticly reduced by the (not so) great state of Texas and it presently pays for only 3 prescriptions a month, the rest I have to pay for myself out of my whooping $674 a month SSI.

I have a chronic sickness, that will not improve.

Should I just die so the government won’t “steal” from others by taxation?

BTW I used to be conservative myself, before the stroke.

No, my entire point was that we should focus these programs to help people who are truly needy without dragging the rest of the country into the program. I’m sorry but I don’t need the government to babysit me and make sure I save money for retirement. If I was sick as you were, you are completely right that yes I would want that program their to help me. The problem is we have tied everyone out there to the program and its dragging it down. Why don’t we use these programs to focus on helping those who truly need it such as yourself instead of using them as way for the government to amass huge quantities of power? Do you see my point? I really don’t think you guys are reading my posts. You have already tagged me as a conservative and as you just read what you want to read. What I just repeated here is exactly what I said before in an earlier post

 

[andrewstx]

It’s got to be really rough to think that your family would abandon you like that in your hour of need.

Really tragic.

And then, after being thrown to the curb by your family, having to be in a society that is so materialistic that even common decency and charity are not even a factor.

One thing about Obamacare (a/k/a PL 111-148, a/k/a The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) is that it will just cause the materialistic tendency of this society to increase. That’s always the effect of socialism…even moderate socialism (like socialized medicine). At least Pope Bl. John XXIII had that impression:

Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being

Mater et Magistra, 34​

It is a true shame, though, that we live in a society that has been tarnished by this moderate socialism for almost 80 years. It has transformed us from “givers” to “takers” as a whole. There are so many people who believe that society owes them that the resources aren’t there to take care of those, like you, who should legitimately be taken care of by our society (preferably through the liberal application of corporal works of mercy, but taken care of one way or the other).

The real shame of it is that you are going to be the one who is hurt, not those who abuse the system. Since you are legitimately disabled and literally unable to provide for yourself, although I’m sure you’d love to be able to do so if you could, you are in a dramatic minority. In order to preserve “entitlements” for the lazy and irresponsible, you will be the one who has to pay the price so that they can maintain their lifestyle. A shame, really, when you think about it.

You are the type that social insurance should be available for. But, unfortunately, with a large, bureaucratic system, it is impossible to make rules that are sufficiently granular so that a person with a legitimate debilitation, like you, a stroke victim, can be properly taken care of, while excluding those who are there through their own fault. It would be discriminatory to take care of you, a stroke victim, but not taking care of those who can claim disability as a result of laziness or irresponsibility. A shame, really. If it was less of a bureaucratic, nationalized system, perhaps even (shudder) a charitable system, they’d be able to deal differently with legitimate cases, like yours, while excluding those who use their check to buy booze. And those who run bordellos and crack houses out of their section 8 housing.

As Pope Bl. John Paul II said:
…it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.

Centesimus Annus, 48​

But, that’s not the society we are in, is it? We would rather establish a government program and not deal with it ourselves, wouldn’t we? Neater that way. We don’t have to get our hands dirty then. And we can feel good about ourselves, because we’re “helping the poor” without having to actually do anything. And while the intent is to warehouse folks that society doesn’t want to have to deal with directly (heaven forbid that we’d take personal responsibility for fulfilling Matthew 25), people like you, who are legitimately needful of each member of society’s solicitude, are stuck in that situation.

Really a shame.

BTW, in another recent post to me you said your stroke was seven years ago. In this one, you say six years ago. Just curious, which one was it?

Honestly with stroke comes memory loss and I can’t remember exactly. I do know it was during the New Orleans huricane if you can remember that we will both have our answers.
As to my family I only had/have one sibling, he has bad schizoprenia (sp) and has been missing for years. When Mom died from cigarettes emphasema the police and FBI could not locate him. Dad died from alzheimers 10 years before the stroke. I did well before the stroke and when I had it without insurance, all my savings went to paying the hospital.

Really I am quite dissapointed with your “which one was it” question, it implies that you think I am not being truthfull.

I assure you that I am being absolutuely truthfull. I have told my story with absolute truth, if you will not believe me I am sorry, but I have discharged my repsonsibility.

 

[markomalley]

Honestly with stroke comes memory loss and I can’t remember exactly. I do know it was during the New Orleans huricane if you can remember that we will both have our answers.
As to my family I only had/have one sibling, he has bad schizoprenia (sp) and has been missing for years. When Mom died from cigarettes emphasema the police and FBI could not locate him. Dad died from alzheimers 10 years before the stroke. I did well before the stroke and when I had it without insurance, all my savings went to paying the hospital.

Really I am quite dissapointed with your “which one was it” question, it implies that you think I am not being truthfull.

I assure you that I am being absolutuely truthfull. I have told my story with absolute truth, if you will not believe me I am sorry, but I have discharged my repsonsibility.

I think it was 2005. You know I was down there last year. There is still a bunch of wreckage in lower Ward 9. Had to drive on Almonaster from 510 back to the Industrial Canal…like a war zone. Not much better than when I was there in 2007.

As far as when, I was just confused when I read one thing a few days earlier and another thing above (the other post was directed to me, that’s why I remembered it).