From: Dinosaur_Sr on 2 Mar 2010 14:17 On Mar 1, 7:09 pm, Howard Brazee wrote:> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > wrote: > >> Agreed, but it works both ways. If someone loses their job and needs > >> to buy a private insurance policy, insurance cos. shouldn't be allowed > >> to turn them down because of the state of their health. > > >No problem. The question is, who is going to pay for it? The clear > >consensus in the US is that ordinary working people feel they pay too > >much to the govt, and they don't want to pay any more, in fact, they > >want to pay less. > > Who pays for it now?   > > (We do). True...but it is pretty clear we don't want to pay any more. From: Dinosaur_Sr on 2 Mar 2010 14:18 On Mar 1, 8:48 pm, Carbon wrote:> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b8c6809$0$30950$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:09:19 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: > >>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> Agreed, but it works both ways. If someone loses their job and > >>>>> needs to buy a private insurance policy, insurance cos. shouldn't > >>>>> be allowed to turn them down because of the state of their health. > > >>>> No problem. The question is, who is going to pay for it? The clear > >>>> consensus in the US is that ordinary working people feel they pay > >>>> too much to the govt, and they don't want to pay any more, in fact, > >>>> they want to pay less. > > >>> Who pays for it now? > > >>> (We do). > > >> The ideologues seem to be ignoring this obvious fact with all their > > > Everyone should pay for the services they receive. If you don't pay > > you should go to jail for stealing. > > > If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and > > your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you > > call the police? Would you just let them steal from you? > > Obviously everybody should pay their way. I have never once suggested > otherwise. And once again, you're once again ignoring the fact that > you're already paying for the uninsurance with of ridiculously expensive > health insurance. > > The simple fact is that the uninsured already get healthcare. In > Emergency wards, where it costs the earth. And you and I are paying for > them. Maybe you don't care, but I personally would like the financial > hit to be as small as possible. Since the bureaucracy to weed them out > costs more than just giving them health insurance in the first place, my > vote is to just give them insurance and be done with it. That way, > they'd be able to go to normal doctors, they'd be able to get treatment > before serious (expensive) diseases develop, etc. My healthcare costs > would go down. And so would yours. > > But I guess for you true believers clinging to some ideology is more > important than being pragmatic and saving money. Healthcare is one thing. Health insurance another. From: Dinosaur_Sr on 2 Mar 2010 14:21 On Mar 2, 8:14 am, William Clark wrote:> In article , > > > > BAR wrote: > > In article <4b8c6809$0$30950$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:09:19 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: > > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> Agreed, but it works both ways. If someone loses their job and needs > > > >>> to buy a private insurance policy, insurance cos. shouldn't be > > > >>> allowed to turn them down because of the state of their health. > > > > >> No problem. The question is, who is going to pay for it? The clear > > > >> consensus in the US is that ordinary working people feel they pay too > > > >> much to the govt, and they don't want to pay any more, in fact, they > > > >> want to pay less. > > > > > Who pays for it now? > > > > > (We do). > > > > The ideologues seem to be ignoring this obvious fact with all their > > > Everyone should pay for the services they receive. If you don't pay you > > should go to jail for stealing. > > Better still, throw them back out onto the street to die. That would be > the mark of every civilized society. > > > If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and > > your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you call > > the police? Would you just let them steal from you? > > Or if someone in your community expected you to provide tax dollars to > fund their kids' schools, wouldn't that be terrible? You can pay then. Just let the local hospitals know, someone comes in who cannot pay, and they can send the bill to you. From: Dinosaur_Sr on 2 Mar 2010 14:22 On Mar 2, 8:18 am, William Clark wrote:> In article , > > > >  bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:54:58 -0800, "dene" > > wrote: > > > > wrote in message > > >news:jv0po5tpu9o8csea3brsi83lug8gumasiu(a)4ax.com... > > >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:47:03 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > >> >In article , > > >> >bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > >> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > >> >> >If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and > > >> >> >your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you > > >call > > >> >> >the police? Would you just let them steal from you? > > > >> >> Bert, you really need to do some studying on analogies.  This one was > > >> >> so far off it isn't even funny.....even for you. > > > >> >Stealing is stealing. When you got to a place of business and you have > > >> >have no intention of paying for the services you receive you are > > >> >stealing. > > > >> Your analogy was idiotic.  Period. > > > >> BK > > > >Specify the idiocy, Bobby.  Bert's analogy seems dead on.  You know as well > > >as I do that there are plenty of unisured people out there who can afford > > >health insurance.  They refuse to buy because it isn't a priority.  When > > >they utilize services and don't pay for them, is this not stealing? > > > >-Greg > > > I don't question that.  Bert's analogy is  personal theft, where there > > is but one victim that has to bear the full brunt.  Hyperbole like > > this,  to bolster an ideology, is idiotic. > > > BK > > Bertie's "analogy" is based on choosing to steal - illness and injury > are not optional in the vast majority of cases. > > Get it now? Death is not optional either, and no amount of insurance will deny it. From: Dinosaur_Sr on 2 Mar 2010 14:22 On Mar 2, 9:32 am, "John B." wrote:> On Mar 1, 9:19 pm, BAR wrote: > > > > > In article <26455639-3205-4bf7-a0f6-760e4098a190 > > @z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > On Mar 1, 8:47 pm, BAR wrote: > > > > In article , > > > > bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > > > > >In article <4b8c6809$0$30950\$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > > > >nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > > > >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:09:19 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: > > > > > >> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> Agreed, but it works both ways. If someone loses their job and needs > > > > > >> >>> to buy a private insurance policy, insurance cos. shouldn't be > > > > > >> >>> allowed to turn them down because of the state of their health. > > > > > > >> >> No problem. The question is, who is going to pay for it? The clear > > > > > >> >> consensus in the US is that ordinary working people feel they pay too > > > > > >> >> much to the govt, and they don't want to pay any more, in fact, they > > > > > >> >> want to pay less. > > > > > > >> > Who pays for it now? > > > > > > >> > (We do). > > > > > > >> The ideologues seem to be ignoring this obvious fact with all their > > > > > > >Everyone should pay for the services they receive. If you don't pay you > > > > > >should go to jail for stealing. > > > > > > >If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and > > > > > >your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you call > > > > > >the police? Would you just let them steal from you? > > > > > > Bert, you really need to do some studying on analogies. This one was > > > > > so far off it isn't even funny.....even for you. > > > > > Stealing is stealing. When you got to a place of business and you have > > > > have no intention of paying for the services you receive you are > > > > stealing. > > > > There's a difference between intent and ability. You refuse to accept > > > that anyone might be unable to pay for medical care. > > > Main Entry: 1in tent > > Pronunciation: \in-?tent\ > > Function: noun > > Etymology: Middle English entente, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin > > intentus, from Latin, act of stretching out, from intendere > > Date: 13th century > > > 1 a : the act or fact of intending : purpose; especially : the design or > > purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act > intent> b : the state of mind with which an act is done : volition > > 2 : a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : aim > director's intent> > > 3 a : meaning, significance b : connotation 3 > > synonyms see intention > > > Main Entry: abil i ty > > Pronunciation: \?-?bi-l?-te-\ > > Function: noun > > Inflected Form(s): plural abil i ties > > Etymology: Middle English abilite, from Anglo-French, from Latin > > habilitat-, habilitas, from habilis apt, skillful ? more at able > > Date: 14th century > > > 1 a : the quality or state of being able > water>; especially : physical, mental, or legal power to perform b : > > competence in doing : skill > > 2 : natural aptitude or acquired proficiency > warrant higher education> > > > If you don't have the ability to pay then your intent is to steal.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > So, if you're one of the millions of people who list their jobs and > their health insurance in the recession and you, say, break your leg, > going to the ER with no immediate ability to pay for treatment is > stealing? You get a bill, like if you need to fix your car, or you need a new roof on your house. First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last