From: Alan Baker on 4 Aug 2010 19:35 In article <1c998a67-071d-4b1c-89f7-281dd2ee3c90(a)u38g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, dsc-ky <Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu> wrote: > On Aug 4, 4:21�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > In article > > <8e636408-d9f3-4cbf-98ad-673eec414...(a)l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > �dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > On Aug 4, 2:57�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <a78ef6da-c403-4b76-8952-6a6acd495...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > �dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 4, 2:03�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > > > <3f2ee47f-66dd-48ed-9a37-93fc4ce35...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > �dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 1:22�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > <960e79b4-7fa7-4b54-8bd5-b9b34c01b...(a)14g2000yqa.googlegroups.co > > > > > > > > m>, > > > > > > > > > > �dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:28�pm, George Orwell <nob...(a)mixmaster.it> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Innocent people will die. > > > > > > > > > > > Innocent people die every day... that's just part of life... > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but most of us think it is something worth fighting... > > > > > > > > > Up to a point... then the costs become too high. > > > > > > > > I agree. But to casually dismiss something this important like that > > > > > > seems incredibly callous to me. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Alan Baker > > > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > > > > > I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or not, > > > > > that's my opinion. > > > > > Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer Care > > > > > is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not even > > > > > any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of those > > > > > innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in for 10 > > > > > years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that fund > > > > > too > > > > > (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > That's not my point. > > > > > > Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". > > > > > Correct... that isn't necessarily a good enough reason... depending on > > > what it costs. > > > > This latest answer is at odds with your earlier "who cares" attitude. > > > > -- > > Alan Baker > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > Elaborate... Your first response was essentially "Yeah, so?" and made no mention of cost/benefit analysis. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dene on 4 Aug 2010 19:44 "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message news:MPG.26c3b01af52cc9f798a1ba(a)news.giganews.com... > In article <8e636408-d9f3-4cbf-98ad- > 673eec4145cd(a)l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu > says... > > > > I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or not, > > > > that's my opinion. > > > > Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer Care > > > > is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not even > > > > any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of those > > > > innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in for 10 > > > > years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that fund too > > > > (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > That's not my point. > > > > > > Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". > > > > > > > Correct... that isn't necessarily a good enough reason... depending on > > what it costs. > > > > > > People will continue to die whether Obama Care is funded or not. > > The question how many of the 45 million people without health care > before Obama Care passed are still without health care after Obama Care > was passed. The numbers I have seen in the MSM are 26 to 30 million. > > Is the cost worth the effort? Yes. The alternative is that only the unhealthy and wealthy will be able to afford health insurance while the young, poor, or healthy don't buy it, for a variety of reasons. The pool of the insured has to be balanced by these 30 million plus uninsured or the whole system will tank! O'Care forces the uninsured to make a choice. Pay a tax penalty while risking your assets or pay premiums and protect your assets. Most will choose the latter and that, in of itself, will stabilize the market. Sadly....we Republicans never came up with a solution that mandated the 30 million to join up. The Dems did and for that, they deserve credit....even if it's Chinese credit. -Greg
From: dsc-ky on 4 Aug 2010 19:52 On Aug 4, 7:35 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <1c998a67-071d-4b1c-89f7-281dd2ee3...(a)u38g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > On Aug 4, 4:21 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > In article > > > <8e636408-d9f3-4cbf-98ad-673eec414...(a)l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 2:57 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <a78ef6da-c403-4b76-8952-6a6acd495...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2:03 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > <3f2ee47f-66dd-48ed-9a37-93fc4ce35...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 1:22 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > > <960e79b4-7fa7-4b54-8bd5-b9b34c01b...(a)14g2000yqa.googlegroups.co > > > > > > > > > m>, > > > > > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:28 pm, George Orwell <nob...(a)mixmaster.it> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Innocent people will die. > > > > > > > > > > > Innocent people die every day... that's just part of life... > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but most of us think it is something worth fighting.... > > > > > > > > > Up to a point... then the costs become too high. > > > > > > > > I agree. But to casually dismiss something this important like that > > > > > > > seems incredibly callous to me. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Alan Baker > > > > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > > > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > > > > > I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or not, > > > > > > that's my opinion. > > > > > > Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer Care > > > > > > is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not even > > > > > > any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of those > > > > > > innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in for 10 > > > > > > years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that fund > > > > > > too > > > > > > (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > That's not my point. > > > > > > Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". > > > > > Correct... that isn't necessarily a good enough reason... depending on > > > > what it costs. > > > > This latest answer is at odds with your earlier "who cares" attitude. > > > > -- > > > Alan Baker > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > Elaborate... > > Your first response was essentially "Yeah, so?" and made no mention of > cost/benefit analysis. > > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dsc-ky on 4 Aug 2010 19:53 On Aug 4, 7:35 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <1c998a67-071d-4b1c-89f7-281dd2ee3...(a)u38g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > On Aug 4, 4:21 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > In article > > > <8e636408-d9f3-4cbf-98ad-673eec414...(a)l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 2:57 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <a78ef6da-c403-4b76-8952-6a6acd495...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2:03 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > <3f2ee47f-66dd-48ed-9a37-93fc4ce35...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 1:22 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > > <960e79b4-7fa7-4b54-8bd5-b9b34c01b...(a)14g2000yqa.googlegroups.co > > > > > > > > > m>, > > > > > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:28 pm, George Orwell <nob...(a)mixmaster.it> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Innocent people will die. > > > > > > > > > > > Innocent people die every day... that's just part of life... > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but most of us think it is something worth fighting.... > > > > > > > > > Up to a point... then the costs become too high. > > > > > > > > I agree. But to casually dismiss something this important like that > > > > > > > seems incredibly callous to me. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Alan Baker > > > > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > > > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > > > > > I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or not, > > > > > > that's my opinion. > > > > > > Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer Care > > > > > > is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not even > > > > > > any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of those > > > > > > innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in for 10 > > > > > > years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that fund > > > > > > too > > > > > > (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > That's not my point. > > > > > > Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". > > > > > Correct... that isn't necessarily a good enough reason... depending on > > > > what it costs. > > > > This latest answer is at odds with your earlier "who cares" attitude. > > > > -- > > > Alan Baker > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > Elaborate... > > Your first response was essentially "Yeah, so?" and made no mention of > cost/benefit analysis. > > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> So what... one leads to the other.
From: dsc-ky on 4 Aug 2010 19:54
> O'Care forces the uninsured to make a choice. Pay a tax penalty while > risking your assets or pay premiums and protect your assets. Most will > choose the latter and that, in of itself, will stabilize the market. That remains to be seen... some will have to make the choice based on cash flow, and it may not be much of a choice. |