From: John B. on 2 Mar 2010 18:32 On Mar 2, 2:22 pm, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:> 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Medical bills can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If I'm not mistaken, car and roof repairs generally don't run that high. From: BAR on 2 Mar 2010 19:49 In article , bknight(a)conramp.net says...> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:42:55 -0500, BAR wrote: > > >In article <561po5pcb1u5dh3n5umftu1nsiqti5fh07(a)4ax.com>, > >bknight(a)conramp.net says... > >> > >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:51:15 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >On 1-Mar-2010, bknight(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. > >> > >> A rare double Non Sequitur from you. Do you actually think that those > >> who might not have the wherewithal to continue with WellPoint/Anthem > >> want to make a change? They don't, but could be forced to do so. A > >> family who is paying$500 a month, will now have to pay \$700, or go > >> without, if there are pre existing conditions. That's a pretty hefty > >> increase. > >> > >> Its foolishness to even suggest that these people would be looking > >> for someone to pay for their illnesses. > > > >The individual has the power to change the system. However, as a lefty > >you wouldn't understand that nor do you want that. > > > > As a centrist, and not a bubble-headed ideologue on either side, I > KNOW that an individual cannot change the system. Hell, we can't get > 525 elected officials to effectively change it. You are missing 10. > >You saw, in 2009, how the individual took control and banded together to > >form an organization that put the government on notice and had a > >dramatic effect on a major piece of legislation. > > Effect, maybe. An individual making a change. NO. You think too small. From: BAR on 2 Mar 2010 19:52 In article , bknight(a)conramp.net says...> >> 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. > > > >Group theft is ok? If I rob a room full of people then everything is ok. > > > You're an idiot, and not to be taken seriously. You are just upset that you pissed on the floor and I made you step in it. From: BAR on 2 Mar 2010 19:59 In article , donsno2 @charter.net says...> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:19:02 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > >If you don't have the ability to pay then your intent is to steal. > > It ain't stealing if there's a law authorizing it. Your argument > should be with the government bodies throughout the US that have made > it not only legal but mandatory that medical professionals must > provide services for the needy. (And they've nearly always defined > neediness at the same time.) If there is a law that allows you to club baby seals to death is it ok. That which is legal is not always moral. This is the crux of the health insurance for all argument, morality. Because some can't or won't pay we are all forced to by the government to pay for them. This is not charity, this is not compassion, this is legalized theft. From: Carbon on 2 Mar 2010 20:22 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:52:07 -0500, BAR wrote:> In article , > bknight(a)conramp.net says... >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Group theft is ok? If I rob a room full of people then everything is >>> ok. >> >> You're an idiot, and not to be taken seriously. > > You are just upset that you pissed on the floor and I made you step in > it. No you didn't. You made a ridiculous claim--one of many--and got called on it. First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last