health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 2 Mar 2010 14:23 On Mar 2, 9:36 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 9:51 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > On 1-Mar-2010, bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > > This post has nothing to do with anything but how insurance companies > > > would respond to those with pre-existing illnesses that leave > > > WellPoint/Anthem. That's not luck of the draw, it borders on > > > coercion. > > > getting insurance after you get sick is not buying insurance, it is getting > > someone to pay for your illness. > > > -- > > bill-o > > This is not about people waiting until they get sick to buy insurance. > It's about people who can't afford it. It's about people who lose > their jobs and their employer-provided health care and can't get > private insurance because it's too expensive and/or they have pre- > existing conditions. It's about young people who get thrown off their > parents' insurance policies because they're over the cut-off age and > can't buy private insurance. Stop trying to make this sound like a > simple question of "personal responsibility." Who is supposed to pay? Why can't you answer this?
From: dene on 2 Mar 2010 16:36 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2a75a43d-ed86-4ff6-bb4a-eb741ca85688(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Mar 2, 12:09 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > There are also plenty of people out there who CAN'T afford health > insurance. But according to you and Bert, et al, they're all the > victims of their own "bad choices," right? > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Cite where I said that, John. I specifically defined those who are > stealing. In your mind, is there any distinctions between a slacker, an > illegal, and the unemployed or are all the ininsured "victims"? > > -Greg- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Of course there's a difference. But I don't know what the ratio is of "slackers" to people who genuinely can't afford health insurance and neither do you. There are those in your camp who claim there is NO ONE who can't afford health insurance. I wonder what world they live in. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm glad you are acknowledging there are slackers out there. Now....just what do you propose should be done with them to include them among the insured pool? -Greg
From: John B. on 2 Mar 2010 16:41 On Mar 2, 4:36 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2a75a43d-ed86-4ff6-bb4a-eb741ca85688(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 2, 12:09 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > There are also plenty of people out there who CAN'T afford health > > insurance. But according to you and Bert, et al, they're all the > > victims of their own "bad choices," right? > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Cite where I said that, John. I specifically defined those who are > > stealing. In your mind, is there any distinctions between a slacker, an > > illegal, and the unemployed or are all the ininsured "victims"? > > > -Greg- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Of course there's a difference. But I don't know what the ratio is of > "slackers" to people who genuinely can't afford health insurance and > neither do you. There are those in your camp who claim there is NO ONE > who can't afford health insurance. I wonder what world they live in. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I'm glad you are acknowledging there are slackers out there. Now....just > what do you propose should be done with them to include them among the > insured pool? > > -Greg And I'm glad you're acknowledging that not all ununsured people are slackers. People who can afford health insurance should have to buy it. People who can't should be able to access the public option that was in the original House bill and unfortunately came out. I suppose I'm now going to hear from your cohorts who refuse to accept that anyone can't afford health insurance.
From: William Clark on 2 Mar 2010 16:53 In article <195a6fec-da1e-4690-8941-b56a72df64d9(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Mar 2, 8:18�am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > state.edu> wrote: > > In article <hk1qo5lfli6teo6vljqjeecjvaka9j6...(a)4ax.com>, > > > > > > > > �bkni...(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:54:58 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > ><bkni...(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > > > >news:jv0po5tpu9o8csea3brsi83lug8gumasiu(a)4ax.com... > > > >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:47:03 -0500, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > >> >In article <lgqoo5plbuimmmsfl95n852l6kfcg2v...(a)4ax.com>, > > > >> >bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > > > >> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> 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. OK - your point being?
From: dene on 2 Mar 2010 16:58
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:35087246-7ff7-4ab6-8acc-e9f2affa0981(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Mar 2, 4:36 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: And I'm glad you're acknowledging that not all ununsured people are slackers. People who can afford health insurance should have to buy it. People who can't should be able to access the public option that was in the original House bill and unfortunately came out. I suppose I'm now going to hear from your cohorts who refuse to accept that anyone can't afford health insurance. ------------------------------------------------------ So you believe in the individual mandate. That's progress. What if the penalty for this mandate is only $750/yr. vs. $1800/yr. for health insurance. What stops a person from paying the penalty, then buying health insurance after they get sick or pregnant? Fair system?? -Greg |