From: Dinosaur_Sr on 4 Mar 2010 13:37 On Mar 3, 6:07 pm, "John B." wrote:> On Mar 3, 5:05 pm, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > > > > > On Mar 2, 6:32 pm, "John B." wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Really? Looking over a lifetime, what do people spend? > > > Look at housing. Let's get real cheap, and say a person spends$500.00 > > per month, and that's pretty cheap if they have any utilities. Over > > say 50 years, that comes to $300,000.00 for housing. Of course$500.00 > > per month would be cheap for a car, assuming you do repair it from > > time to time, put gas in it, park it, clean it, change the oil. > > > You'll pay $300,000.00 for a car, but somehow can't handle paying that > > for your own health care so you have to pay someone else to pay for > > your health care for you. I must admit, I don't get it. > > > You want to talk housing, people pay more like$2000.00 per month for > > housing.  Over 50 years that's over a million, and very few people > > spend that much on health care (compared especially to those who spend > > that on housing). > > > So why can't we buy our own health care? There are some real issues > > here that could be solved, but we choose to go the way of paying the > > government and insurance companies to pay for our health care for > > us...and we are supposed to think this is cheaper? You absolutely have > > to be an idiot to believe this.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > This is ridiculous. You get cancer, you get hurt in an accident, any > number of other things, and you're up to your ears in medical bills in > a matter of weeks or months. What is the point of comparing that to > how much one might spend on housing or cars over the course of 40-50 > years? So you pay them. It's OK to take a trip around the world and rack up 20K worth of expenses, but not rack up similar for health care? Or buy a house for $650K on one day and not pay for it for 30 years, but you can't do the same sort of thing for health care? Why are we such idiots that we pay someone else to pay for our health care, and thereby give up control of what we get for our money? Why should I pay an insurance company of the govt to provide what they think I need for health care? I can make such decisions for myself, and I would very greatly prefer to make such decisions for myself. I also don't like the idea of paying$500 a month for 50 years (300K) that I might never spend on health care. How many people spend so much? My Dad is 86, a WWII vet, and he hasn't spent anywhere near that, but he has probably paid more than $300K over his lifetime for health care. Why? Why not pay for health care as you need it? Why do we have this idiot notion that we need someone else to take our money to pay for our health care? From: Dinosaur_Sr on 4 Mar 2010 13:39 On Mar 3, 7:07 pm, Carbon wrote:> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:48:51 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b8dbc18$0$4858$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:36:47 -0800, dene wrote: > >>> "John B." > wrote in message > >>> news:2a75a43d-ed86-4ff6-bb4a- > >>> eb741ca85...(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > >>>> On Mar 2, 12:09 pm, "dene" > wrote: > >>>>> "John B." > 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"? > > >>>> 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? > > >> Of course there are slackers. But there are also millions of families > >> suffering because of the current system. Some just can't afford > >> insurance. Some lose their jobs and can't afford Cobra. Some face > >> skyrocketing premiums if they develop potentially expensive > >> illnesses, and some are simply dropped altogether. It goes on and on. > >> People want change, and I hope they get it. This is a travesty. > > > Life is not fair now, nor has it ever been fair. > > > 75% of the people don't want the change currently on the table. > > So say you lose your job and can't find another, your wife leaves you, > your dog dies, etc. Would you still have the same charming fuckya > philosophy of life if you were one of the less fortunate?   Who gets turned down when they *NEED* health care? No one? The turning down is the insurance company paying for it. So you don't have health insurance. It's not even an illness, let alone something that could harm you in any way. From: Dinosaur_Sr on 4 Mar 2010 13:40 On Mar 3, 7:11 pm, Carbon wrote:> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:25:55 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b8dceb3$0$4874$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:32:53 -0500, BAR wrote: > >>> In article <4b8dbc77$0$4858$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:44:15 -0500, BAR wrote: > >>>>> In article , > >>>>> bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > >>>>>> 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. > > >>>>> People receiving free health care are stealing from others. > > >>>> You're insane. > > >>> No, I pay my bills. > > >> In addition to all the uninsured you insist on paying for. > > > I would have quite a bit more of my money to spend on what I want to > > spend it on if the dead-beats would pay for their own health care. > > You would have a lot more if there was universal healthcare. Your out of > pocket expenses would drop by about a third, if the rest of the first > world is anything to go by. That's only because most of the payment you make never gets to your pocket! From: Dinosaur_Sr on 4 Mar 2010 13:44 On Mar 3, 7:11 pm, Howard Brazee wrote:> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:51:58 -0500, William Clark > > wrote: > >You have, and it is still total and absolute BS. The 49 countries with > >life expectancies longer than the US represent all parts of the genetic > >tree. Which ethnic component of the US population is responsible for > >pulling its figures down? > > >Think carefully before you answer. > > Old people? > > -- > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace > to the legislature, and not to the executive department." > > - James Madison Really? So say you live to be 65. What's your chance of living to be 80? From: Dinosaur_Sr on 4 Mar 2010 13:50 On Mar 3, 7:56 pm, BAR wrote:> In article <4b8efa9b$0$4881$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > > > > On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:25:55 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > In article <4b8dceb3$0$4874$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:32:53 -0500, BAR wrote: > > >>> In article <4b8dbc77$0$4858\$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > >>> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:44:15 -0500, BAR wrote: > > >>>>> In article , > > >>>>> bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > >>>>>> 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. > > > >>>>> People receiving free health care are stealing from others. > > > >>>> You're insane. > > > >>> No, I pay my bills. > > > >> In addition to all the uninsured you insist on paying for. > > > > I would have quite a bit more of my money to spend on what I want to > > > spend it on if the dead-beats would pay for their own health care. > > > You would have a lot more if there was universal healthcare. Your out of > > pocket expenses would drop by about a third, if the rest of the first > > world is anything to go by. > > Universal Health Care only works by take from those that have and giving > it to those who don't have. It is a form of communism. That's not how it works. It a classic chauvinistic progressivist policy. We dumb income earners don't know how to look after ourselves. Left to our own devices we would all retire penniless and never have the capacity to purchase health care...we would blow all our money on Saints tix. So we all need the govt to come in and look after us. They take some portion of our incomes (and only incomes BTW!) and use that to provide a system that will look after us all! Social paradise for us all, given to you by the wonderful and altruistic govt. And we need this because we are all too irresponsible to look after ourselves. It's why they used to believe we needed lords and masters. Social morons like Marx and Engels articulated this well for all of us, and we should follow this path...or so they say. I say it's bunk. We can look after ourselves far better than the govt can look after us. First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last