health care
in [Golf]
|
From: John B. on 23 Feb 2010 20:58 On Feb 23, 8:12 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:12:49 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> > wrote: > > >I agree with your first statement. Never said the 2nd statement. However, > >I think a significant portion of working, uninsured Americans can afford > >basic health insurance. > > About 43% of the uninsured could afford insurance if they wanted it. According to whom?
From: Jim Lovejoy on 23 Feb 2010 21:11 assimilate(a)borg.org wrote in news:Zpxgn.66186$OX4.42216(a)newsfe25.iad: > > On 22-Feb-2010, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote: > >> > On 21-Feb-2010, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >He made choices, he has to live with the choices he made. >> >> > >> >> >I make choices and I will have to live with the choices I make. >> >> >> >> One choice I have made is to give others money so that when I have >> >> medical care needs that I can't pay for, others will pay for them. >> >> >> >> >> >> That is socialized medical care - whether I give the money >> >> directly to insurance companies or whether I give it directly to >> >> the government. The details don't change this. >> > >> > no bonehead it isn't >> > >> >> Please note that the definition below does *not* restrict itself to >> government only. > > well then just, it is just another made up definition, as socialized > is by definition "of the state." > Let me restore what you "accidently" snipped. You know, the part that shows the definition is *not* made up. Main Entry: socialized medicine Function: noun Date: 1937 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialized Main Entry: socialized medicine : medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation
From: assimilate on 24 Feb 2010 00:33 On 23-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 02:04:24 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > On 22-Feb-2010, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > > >>> The objection centers around loss of freedom. There is no way a govt > >>> delivered system can provide the options a private system can. > >> > >> So why do people keep bring up cost, if that isn't the objection? > > > > It is a red herring obviously. > > Oh, of course. How can efficiency possibly matter? It does matter, but efficiency and gov't are opposites. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 24 Feb 2010 00:34 On 23-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > But I guess people have learned to be afraid. no one learns to be afraid, you do however learn what to be afraid of. -- bill-o
From: assimilate on 24 Feb 2010 00:37
On 22-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> Given a choice between being "forced" to pay $50, or having the > >> freedom to choose between $75 and $80, which would you take? > > > > I would want the choice because a $45 choice may come along in a > > dynamic market. > > I enjoyed the inclusion of the word "may". you rail against "blind certainty" then laugh at "may." You can't have your cake and eat it too. -- bill-o |