From: Carbon on 3 Mar 2010 00:09
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:42:10 -0800, dene wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> Greg, us responsible, premium paying people are the ones getting
> Yes....by the irresponsible and illegal uninusred.
Wouldn't it be nifty-keen if the deadbeats got hit with a sales tax
every time they bought smokes and brewskis?
From: BAR on 3 Mar 2010 06:38
In article <15f67bba-287d-402e-88a9-9e01773f3729
@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> > If you don't have the ability to pay then your intent is to steal.- Hide 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
You have no right to health care. You do have the obligation to pay for
services you receive. Does the doctor work for free. Was his education
From: BAR on 3 Mar 2010 06:40
In article <e8a28a27-e90e-4b1b-adfb-0daa4c07c294
@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> 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."
It is a simple question of personal responsibility. You go to the
doctor, you pay the doctor for the services you receive.
From: BAR on 3 Mar 2010 06:44
In article <79c7b04d-ccb3-498d-b866-
c075b767699e(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> On Mar 2, 1:54�am, "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- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> 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?
It is all about priorities. Those people have chosen to not make health
insurance a priority. But, they have a house, a car, a flat screen TV,
cable TV, cell phones, new clothes each month, fancy vacations. But,
when a medical catastrophe hits them they have no health insurance and
they end up going bankrupt. Whose fault is it, theirs or mine? Who
should suffer the consequences of their own choices?
From: BAR on 3 Mar 2010 06:47
In article <a1a17393-fef1-4850-ab7a-082ca8b78a55
@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
> On Mar 2, 4:58�pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > "John B." <johnb...(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
> How about a law?
The law gives you the ability to impose fines or prosecute. The law as
we have seen throughout history does not change behavior.