Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: dene on 8 Sep 2009 18:32 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4aa6d257$0$23955$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:29:06 -0700, dene wrote: > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4aa5f973$0$23958$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:00:24 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > >> > On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:01:49 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > >> > wrote: > >> >>On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:03:59 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > >> >>wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>This is incorrect. Millions in the US don't have health insurance. > >> >>>Everyone in the US has access to health care. > >> >> > >> >>And we pay through the nose when the uninsured get treated. But > >> >>some people would rather pay more, as long as they can avert their > >> >>eyes from the fact that the wrong people are getting help. > >> > > >> > No doubt that the cost of treating the uninsured is passed on to the > >> > rest of us one way or the other. > >> > >> Which (obviously) is why it's cheaper to just give everyone health > >> insurance and be done with it. > > > > "Give?" > > Everyone pays in with payroll deductions, everyone benefits. Those who > can't pay in have it provided. It's way cheaper that way. Great. More taxes, especially for the self employed who pay all the payroll taxes. Also, no choices. A one plan that fits all with a huge government agency handling the $$. Thanks....but I'd rather have the worst of the present system than what you prescribed. -Greg
From: Carbon on 8 Sep 2009 18:39 On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:32:18 -0700, dene wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4aa6d257$0$23955$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:29:06 -0700, dene wrote: >> > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message >> > news:4aa5f973$0$23958$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> >> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:00:24 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:01:49 -0600, Howard Brazee >> >> > <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >> >> >>On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:03:59 -0400, Jack Hollis >> >> >><xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>This is incorrect. Millions in the US don't have health >> >> >>>insurance. Everyone in the US has access to health care. >> >> >> >> >> >>And we pay through the nose when the uninsured get treated. >> >> >>But some people would rather pay more, as long as they can avert >> >> >>their eyes from the fact that the wrong people are getting help. >> >> > >> >> > No doubt that the cost of treating the uninsured is passed on to >> >> > the rest of us one way or the other. >> >> >> >> Which (obviously) is why it's cheaper to just give everyone health >> >> insurance and be done with it. >> > >> > "Give?" >> >> Everyone pays in with payroll deductions, everyone benefits. Those >> who can't pay in have it provided. It's way cheaper that way. > > Great. More taxes, especially for the self employed who pay all the > payroll taxes. Also, no choices. A one plan that fits all with a > huge government agency handling the $$. > > Thanks....but I'd rather have the worst of the present system than > what you prescribed. Oh yes, the choice canard. Say you have the choice or paying $500, $600 or $700. Or a flat, one size fits all payment of $300. Which would you take?
From: Alan Baker on 8 Sep 2009 18:44 In article <4aa6dd13$0$23936$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:32:18 -0700, dene wrote: > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4aa6d257$0$23955$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:29:06 -0700, dene wrote: > >> > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > >> > news:4aa5f973$0$23958$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >> >> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:00:24 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > >> >> > On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:01:49 -0600, Howard Brazee > >> >> > <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > >> >> >>On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:03:59 -0400, Jack Hollis > >> >> >><xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>>This is incorrect. Millions in the US don't have health > >> >> >>>insurance. Everyone in the US has access to health care. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>And we pay through the nose when the uninsured get treated. > >> >> >>But some people would rather pay more, as long as they can avert > >> >> >>their eyes from the fact that the wrong people are getting help. > >> >> > > >> >> > No doubt that the cost of treating the uninsured is passed on to > >> >> > the rest of us one way or the other. > >> >> > >> >> Which (obviously) is why it's cheaper to just give everyone health > >> >> insurance and be done with it. > >> > > >> > "Give?" > >> > >> Everyone pays in with payroll deductions, everyone benefits. Those > >> who can't pay in have it provided. It's way cheaper that way. > > > > Great. More taxes, especially for the self employed who pay all the > > payroll taxes. Also, no choices. A one plan that fits all with a > > huge government agency handling the $$. > > > > Thanks....but I'd rather have the worst of the present system than > > what you prescribed. > > Oh yes, the choice canard. Say you have the choice or paying $500, $600 > or $700. Or a flat, one size fits all payment of $300. Which would you > take? Sorry, but you know (or should know) it's not that simple. The lowest price is not always the best choice. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Jack Hollis on 8 Sep 2009 19:30 On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:02:51 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote: >Hollis has presented very few, if any, reasonable arguments or >citations. They're mostly misunderstood by him, unlike you. You >don't even take the time to present an original thought. Bobby, I'm still waiting for the reference where Holdren said that the things he was recommending could only be carried out by a totalitarian regime. This is my third request.
From: Jack Hollis on 8 Sep 2009 20:08
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 23:36:50 -0700, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> It's not an accident that Obama is surrounded by extreme left-wing >> radicals. I have no doubt that Obama was, and is, more inspired by >> Karl Marx than Thomas Jefferson. > >Do you think Karl Marx's ideas were bad or was it that the >ideas just weren't workable and that the implementation of >them let to a dictatorship? The problem with Marxism is that it goes against human nature. Humans basically act in their own self interest. People wont work hard for some abstract concept of the greater good of society, but they will work hard if they see the chance of a reward at the end. That's why capitalism has won out over communism and socialism. You see, when it comes down to it, there's nothing like a little bourgeois self-indulgence, even if that means buying a Cuban cigar once in a while. |