From: dene on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4aa6dd13$0$23936$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> 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?

Choice, regardless of cost. I do not believe any government agency is more
efficient than a private insurer, so your numbers are fantasy at best.

I understand your numbers work in Canada but you pay much higher taxes than
I'm accustomed to...or ever want to pay.

Furthermore, we've agreed that the USA's government would be much less
efficient than Canada's in this regard.
Given this, single payor in this country is simply not an option.

Public option...maybe....if insurance reform doesn't work.

-Greg


From: BAR on
William Clark wrote:
> In article <avWdnRXtA44cqTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>,
> BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote:
>
>> William Clark wrote:
>>> In article <1LCdnfuIP_N85TjXnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>,
>>> BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William Clark wrote:
>>>>> In article <2t-dnd7SI-IajDjXnZ2dnUVZ_hdi4p2d(a)giganews.com>,
>>>>> BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William Clark wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <7gj3dgF2pmajpU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>> "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4aa4523f$0$4954$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:24:04 -0700, dene wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:4aa44eac$0$4939$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:53:33 -0700, dene wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:4aa3e396$0$4943$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:32:46 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06 Sep 2009 14:43:39 GMT, Carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:18:28 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06 Sep 2009 02:38:47 GMT, Carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Canada if you're sick and you need expensive care, you get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Canadians get it all right, but not the way they think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Canada's health care rationing kills.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spare me the bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the Canadian Supreme Court decision July, 2005.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Delays in the public system are widespread and have serious,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes grave, consequences," wrote Chief Justice Beverley
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> McLachlin and Justice John Major. "Inevitably where patients
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have life-threatening conditions, some will die because of undue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delay in awaiting surgery."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I assume that this decision came after a long trial with many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expert witnesses followed by a period of deliberation. Now if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the greatest legal minds in Canada say that the Canadian health
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care system results in people unnecessarily dying, then who am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I, or you for that matter, to disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess things didn't work out on rec.sport.soccer, huh?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice diversion, Carbs, but why don't you address Jack's cite.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have addressed Jack's bullshit ad nauseum in the past. Done with
>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>> Then don't criticize what he says.
>>>>>>>>> Why the hell not? He's already worn this newsgroup out. There are
>>>>>>>>> plenty
>>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>> I don't care about other newsgroups. If you want to refute Hollis's
>>>>>>>> views
>>>>>>>> and cites, counter them with your own cites, or perhaps ignore him
>>>>>>>> completely. Trying to toss him from this NG is low class. You are
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Greg
>>>>>>> Why don't you ask him about his experience as a "student" at Columbia?
>>>>>>> See if that is consistent with his other BS.
>>>>>> Are you asking about Obama's undergraduate transcripts? We would all
>>>>>> like to see them. I'm sure Obama was a charity case when he was
>>>>>> "accepted" at Harvard Law and Obama's undergraduate transcript from
>>>>>> Columbia will provide the proof.
>>>>> Of course you are sure. Your vast experience of the US university system
>>>>> tells you that, doesn't it? Or do you just have a huge chip on your
>>>>> shoulder because Obama go to go to Columbia (unlike Hollis) and Harvard,
>>>>> and you never got to college?
>>>> "becasue Obama go to go to Columbia" what the hell does this mean?
>>>> Doesn't it suck when the apple bites back.
>>> It means because Obama got to go to Columbia, and you didn't. Or
>>> anywhere else.
>> That must be a special form of the Queen's English.
>
> Well, it is no surprise that it is beyond your comprehension skills.
>>>> You still didn't address the issue of Obama's undergraduate performance
>>>> at Columbia. All evidence points to Obama getting into Harvard due to
>>>> who he knew and not what he knew.
>>> "All evidence"? Then I am sure you can produce a cite to "all evidence",
>>> can't you? I look forward to seeing this "evidence", which seems to me
>>> to amount to nothing more than the fact that Obama is black, and
>>> therefore in your mind cannot possibly have the intellectual make up to
>>> get into an Ivy League school. Or is this the second coming of the
>>> birthers?
>> Obama is 1/2 black and 1/2 white.
>
> Obama is African-American. Get used to it.

Then I am European-American.

>>>> Wrong again Billy I attended college. I never received a degree but, I
>>>> attended college.
>>> "Attended" but got no degree? That puts you on an even lower rung than
>>> Palin. She at least got something after six community colleges and small
>>> universities, albeit a degree in communications. Wow.
>> Me and Bill Gates.
>
> Really.

Neither of us finished college.
From: dene on

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:q4qda59i42vnproelfin3mtqve6ifduajv(a)4ax.com...
> 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.

You're asking the bitter old immoral fool for an original thought or
citation? Don't hold your breath.

Speaking of original, I'm quite certain I've presented some original ideas
and observations about health care reform. Perhaps I used too many big
words for the Knit-Wit.

-Greg


From: Bobby Knight on
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 17:30:32 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
wrote:

>
>"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>news:q4qda59i42vnproelfin3mtqve6ifduajv(a)4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
>You're asking the bitter old immoral fool for an original thought or
>citation? Don't hold your breath.
>
>Speaking of original, I'm quite certain I've presented some original ideas
>and observations about health care reform. Perhaps I used too many big
>words for the Knit-Wit.
>
>-Greg
>
Nope. When you post about health reform its usually about how you can
keep making money selling insurance for it. So I don't read you in
those threads. Doesn't interest me.

As far as Hollis goes, there doesn't need to be a reference. He
didn't have a clue about why the book was written, and didn't have the
common sense to realize that there was no advocacy. You? Its way
above your head.

BK
From: Jack Hollis on
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:37:59 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
wrote:

>Plonking Hollis is your prerogative, of course, but I don't see any of these
>behaviors in him. He presents reasonable arguments and citations. What's
>wrong with that? As the leading liberal in this bunch, shouldn't you be the
>most tolerant?
>
>-Greg


Carbon seems like a nice fellow and I hope he reconsiders, but he is
getting the short end of the Canada vs, US health care argument. To
tell you the truth, I could do a better job supporting his side than
he's doing, but in the end, the US just has better health care.

The major problem with US health care is the cost. It's similar to
Cuban cigars. They're the best, no doubt about that, but are they
really worth 3 or 4 times as much as a top quality Dominican?

It's bang for the buck where the US health care system is weak.