Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: gray asphalt on 24 Sep 2009 22:38 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:b8vnb5pcp4p4c56967u0begeoljtfmhhrn(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:28:27 -0700, "gray asphalt" > <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Some people get a sense of great satisfaction from doing "selfless" >>> acts. Feeling good about yourself is self-interest. Are there any >>> truly selfless acts? >> >>(snip) >> >>Do you think people should not feel good about >>doing selfless acts? What would be the purpose >>of that? It's not human to not have feelings. > > The point is that if they feel good about them then they're not really > selfless. It's like Henry James saying that the only truly moral > people are psychopaths because doing good to avoid guilt is not really > acting morally. There is nothing good about doing a selfless act. We are not selfless beings. If you believe in God or nature, we weren't built that way. Harry James is an idiot, and yes I know it's Henry but he is still wrong. Do you really think that psychopaths are truly moral? Check out the "Art of Selfishness" by David Seabury. It's really expensive on Amazon, like $30 for a used paperback but maybe a library has it. I read it about 30 years ago and haven't had a question about selfishness v. fantasy perfect selflessness. Also "Aristotle for Everyone" clears up the difference between "wants and needs" basically saying that you need anything that is good for you. Come on ... "The only truly moral people are sociopaths..." If that isn't a red flag, what is?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 25 Sep 2009 11:26 On Sep 24, 9:17 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:238d23c8-5a78-4e36-9faf-300cdf6fd8ce(a)g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 23, 5:15 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:29:07 -0500, The moderator wrote: > > > Chump change to a Liberal, but a lot of money to those of us who can > > > count. > > > Back here on planet Earth, who ran a leaner government over their two > > terms, Clinton or Bush? It kind of seems like this brainless slur of > > yours is totally off base, huh? > > I'll never understand why Americans lay this on Presidents. Congress > controls spending. The president can suggest and administer. The > president cannot allocate funds. Only Congress does that. So the GOP > Congress under Clinton spent less than the GOP Congress and the Dem > congress under Bush. The Newt effect, no doubt! > > +++++++++++++++++ > Bush didn't veto one single bill until what - > the six year in office. That's a fact Jack. That's true. Think Obama will veto and of Pelosi's bills?
From: Lloyd Parsons on 25 Sep 2009 11:46 In article <d67b74f3-767b-4921-a912-c8e0353a7665(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sep 24, 9:17�pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > > > news:238d23c8-5a78-4e36-9faf-300cdf6fd8ce(a)g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > On Sep 23, 5:15 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:29:07 -0500, The moderator wrote: > > > > Chump change to a Liberal, but a lot of money to those of us who can > > > > count. > > > > > Back here on planet Earth, who ran a leaner government over their two > > > terms, Clinton or Bush? It kind of seems like this brainless slur of > > > yours is totally off base, huh? > > > > I'll never understand why Americans lay this on Presidents. Congress > > controls spending. The president can suggest and administer. The > > president cannot allocate funds. Only Congress does that. So the GOP > > Congress under Clinton spent less than the GOP Congress and the Dem > > congress under Bush. The Newt effect, no doubt! > > > > +++++++++++++++++ > > Bush didn't veto one single bill until what - > > the six year in office. That's a fact Jack. > > That's true. Think Obama will veto and of Pelosi's bills? I sure hope so. I never think that not vetoing any bills is smart.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 25 Sep 2009 11:49 On Sep 24, 1:39 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:75c4bea9-67a8-4498-90c3-88648df0f39f(a)g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 22, 12:25 am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "DenaliDuffer" <denaliduf...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:e51916ef-c09b-4c18-9caf-29e49448618b(a)h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > > On Aug 12, 10:18 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > > On 12-Aug-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm an Obama supporter but ... > > > > > 1. Why do all of the reforms have to be contained in one huge bill? > > > > Because the real purpose is not reform in the true sense of the word, > > > but > > > expanding gov't control? > > > > -- > > > bill-o > > > Please answer just this one question. What value do insurance > > companies add to health care? > > ___________________ > > > Beats me. I can't wait to read the responses. > > The question has been answered, so now it's your turn. What value does > government offer here..so they take your health care money and tell > you what your health care is going to be, and the advantage of this is? > > _______________________________________ > > I'm not in favor of government health insurance. I'd > like to see some people commit to buying health > insurance from a new company, maybe client owned, > or an existing company that sees the handwriting on > the wall, so to speak, and steps forward to meet the > requirements and needs of the public. If we commit > to buying health care from such a company, there > will be one. And we can write the contract, within > reason. > > This can work in banking, insurance, auto sales, > and a whole lot of other things ... if we commit > to purchasing a product at a certain price and > stipulate the elements we are willing to spend our > money on then companies will spring up or change > to accomadate it. > > If you think this is a craze idea, look at microfinance > by the Grameen Bank. Things are changing. That is a good idea. A problem with private business, is, like big govt., it comes to be operated by apparatchiks who care only about their little empires within the business, and could care less about the service the business is supposed to provide. What my life experience has shown me is that you get a self entitled apparatchik business class...come from the right families, go to the right schools...move into the bureaucracy and run these large businesses with little to no ability to actually run a business...but they know how to play some game. It becomes a matter of minimizing service to the public and maximizing resources directed by you...and that isn't necessarily good for the public in general. You see the same thing in big govt and big labor, thus, I personally have no love for either of the 3, as neither of the three really serve the public interest. So who's worse. IMHO, big govt is worst because there is no real check on them. The can literally make up the rules as we go along...and humble even the mighty General Motors if they wish. The next worse is big labor. A little bit of check on them, but not much, and then there's the association with organized crime. Big business is the best of the three bad choices simply because they can and are brought to heel every once in a while. In the end, we have to live with them all, but hopefully we won't find them all in our end at the end of the day.
From: Jack Hollis on 25 Sep 2009 17:33
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:46:01 -0500, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote: >> That's true. Think Obama will veto and of Pelosi's bills? > >I sure hope so. I never think that not vetoing any bills is smart. It's hard for the President to veto bills coming from a Congress run by his own party. That's because he's dependent on them to pass legislation that he is in favor of. The only hope for controlled spending is one party in charge of Congress and the other in charge of the WH. |