health care
in [Golf]
|
From: assimilate on 16 Feb 2010 23:40 On 16-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:55:33 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: > > On 16 Feb 2010 04:57:56 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > > wrote: > > > >>It's a nice fantasy, appealing in its brainless simplicity: Liberals > >>blow money and Conservatives do not. > > > > But, if I don't look at the facts, I can believe my side blows the > > money the same way as I do. > > You'd think there would be some re-assessment going on after the fiscal > mismanagement of the last couple of Republican administrations... but yet again when the Repulicains thought they were wasting money, the Dems come in and school them on how to do it right! -- bill-o
From: Jack Hollis on 16 Feb 2010 19:35 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:54:47 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:07:35 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> >wrote: > >>>They lead the charge to insure everybody, which isn't significantly >>>different from the current system to treat everybody anyway, and make >>>the rest of us pay. >> >>Personally, I think it's unconstitutional for the government to >>require private hospitals to treat people for free and the same for >>requiring people to buy health insurance. > >I expect in today's society, a hospitals will treat people without a >government mandate. > >Community hospitals get financial support from towns & cities, who can >require what they want for that support. > >For whatever reason they treat those who can't afford their treatment, >we pay. The reason that they do it is because it's the law. I have no idea what gives the government the right to order private businesses to provide services for free.
From: BAR on 16 Feb 2010 19:39 In article <475ln5h3dppk3ou2f2h3nv1eea726guj6b(a)4ax.com>, howard(a)brazee.net says... > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:07:35 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > >>They lead the charge to insure everybody, which isn't significantly > >>different from the current system to treat everybody anyway, and make > >>the rest of us pay. > > > >Personally, I think it's unconstitutional for the government to > >require private hospitals to treat people for free and the same for > >requiring people to buy health insurance. > > I expect in today's society, a hospitals will treat people without a > government mandate. > > Community hospitals get financial support from towns & cities, who can > require what they want for that support. > > For whatever reason they treat those who can't afford their treatment, > we pay. What happens when we, the community, cannot afford to pay for their treatment?
From: Carbon on 16 Feb 2010 20:43 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:55:33 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: > On 16 Feb 2010 04:57:56 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: > >>It's a nice fantasy, appealing in its brainless simplicity: Liberals >>blow money and Conservatives do not. > > But, if I don't look at the facts, I can believe my side blows the > money the same way as I do. You'd think there would be some re-assessment going on after the fiscal mismanagement of the last couple of Republican administrations...
From: Carbon on 16 Feb 2010 20:40
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:15:05 +0000, assimilate wrote: > On 15-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>> On 15-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> They lead the charge to insure everybody, which isn't >>>>> significantly different from the current system to treat everybody >>>>> anyway, and make the rest of us pay. >>>> >>>> Good point. If we're already paying for it anyway why not structure >>>> the system to lower cost? >>> >>> you can't lower costs the liberal way, you just hide them & pass >>> them on to future generations. >> >> It's a nice fantasy, appealing in its brainless simplicity: Liberals >> blow money and Conservatives do not. > > You're the simple one, as those are your words. I've stated many times > and in great detail how to lower healthcare costs. What you call > reform will not do it. It goes against the basic laws of economics. Back here on planet earth, what I call reform is what is otherwise known as universal healthcare. Everywhere it has been implemented (in the first world at least) it has been much less expensive per capita than US healthcare and has also produced better results in the form of average life expectancy. As you'll remember, this has been verified by the CIA's own world fact book. Since we've gone over all this so many times in the past, I won't bother with the cost and life expectancy URLs this time. You ideologues don't care about facts anyway. |