From: bknight on 5 Mar 2010 14:41 On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:03:08 -0800, "dene" wrote: > > wrote in message >news:hef2p5doi9aipoqf278itqjrgsj9r06tm4(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:01:47 -0500, BAR wrote: >> >> Did you ever compare Gore's SAT scores to Bush? They were higher. Do >> >> you think that he's of superior intelligence? Probably not, and that >> >> would be a real sign of ideology with you. >> >> >> >> We all know that IQs and SAT scores don't relate to worldly >> >> intelligence. Go to a Mensa meeting sometime and you'll see that in >> >> an instance. The bottom line is that Bush is a dolt. >> >> >> >> Incidentally, Carter's IQ was 176 and he was the second worst >> >> president in my lifetime. >> > >> >Carter is the worst US president ever. >> > >> Nope....Bush has that honor. >> >> BK > >I think if Carter had served 8 years, he'd be in first place in your book. > >-Greg > Very possible. BK From: John B. on 5 Mar 2010 15:21 On Mar 5, 2:04 pm, "dene" wrote:> wrote in message > > news:mg62p59ohnij906q1qdgfegkniq37a49dn(a)4ax.com... > > > > > >Wait till you see the debt when Obama leaves. > > > Look at the deficit that he started with, and he continued on the same > > path as Bush.   Do you think McCain would've done anything different? > > > BK > > Yes. > > For one thing, he wouldn't be ramming another entitlement down America's > throat. > > -Greg How is it that a bill that went through the full legislative process, was passed by the House, then passed by the Senate with 60 votes is being rammed down our throats? From: BAR on 5 Mar 2010 15:37 In article <7bb525bb-ab48-4091-9092-8da854d01e75 @o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...> > On Mar 5, 2:04�pm, "dene" wrote: > > wrote in message > > > > news:mg62p59ohnij906q1qdgfegkniq37a49dn(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > > > >Wait till you see the debt when Obama leaves. > > > > > Look at the deficit that he started with, and he continued on the same > > > path as Bush. � Do you think McCain would've done anything different? > > > > > BK > > > > Yes. > > > > For one thing, he wouldn't be ramming another entitlement down America's > > throat. > > > > -Greg > > How is it that a bill that went through the full legislative process, > was passed by the House, then passed by the Senate with 60 votes is > being rammed down our throats? The representatives of the people in the House and the Senators are not listening to their constituents. Support for health care reform in its current form only has support from 25% of the people, 75% of the people do not support health care reform in its current form. That is 3 to 1 against what the President, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are trying to ram down our throats. From: William Clark on 5 Mar 2010 15:40 In article <66c8c0a7-5c3b-4890-9eac-4ae131c00b73(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>, "John B." wrote: > On Mar 4, 5:06�pm, Dinosaur Sr wrote: > > On Mar 4, 4:44�pm, "John B." wrote: > > ....snip, snip ...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > > > wounding him with > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > the soil to hold > > > > > > > > > > > > water>; especially : physical, mental, or legal power > > > > > > > > > > > > to perform b : > > > > > > > > > > > > competence in doing : skill > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 : natural aptitude or acquired proficiency > > > > > > > > > > > whose abilities > > > > > > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > You're very good at spewing righteous indignation that has nothing to > > > > > do with the topic at hand. My mother had Lou Gehrig's Disease. She > > > > > had > > > > > a$1 million health insurance policy and we went through it in about > > > > > 6 > > > > > years. She had a net worth of about $2 million in stocks and real > > > > > estate. We spent it all on doctors, nurses and housing. What if, like > > > > > most people, she had not been rich? What if she'd had a standard > > > > > insurance policy with a deductible so high you have to go broke > > > > > before > > > > > it will pay for anything? What would your sage advice be about that? > > > > > > So you are bitter because your mother paid for her own health care? > > > > What is so bad about that? Who else is supposed to pay for it? > > > > > > I had a policy with a$2,000 deductible at one time. Best insurance I > > > > ever had. Why should I pay someone else to pay for a checkup. Cheaper > > > > for me to just pay for it myself.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > I'm not bitter about anything. I was trying to give you an example of > > > what can happen to people who, unlike my mother, don't have $2 million > > > to spend and can't afford insurance that actually covers anything. But > > > apparently this is too complicated for you. > > > > So you are claiming that people who lack$2 million will not get > > decent care if they come down with Lou Gehrig's disease? That's simply > > not true and you know it. > > Since you're so well-informed, why don't you enlighten me about what > kind of treatment an unwealthy and underinsured ALS patient would get? Let me add my 2c worth on this topic, just for reference. My father also dies from ALS in the UK. My parents were comfortably off, but not wealthy. Once he was diagnosed, in addition to the regular visits that the family doctor paid to the house, he was also visited by a social worker. Her function was to provide whatever support he required. That ranged from simple handholds for the bathroom, so that he could manouevre himself around in the early stages, through to automated devices that turned book pages for him, so that he could read, and much more in between. All these were provided free. In addition, the district nurse called at the house every morning and evening to help my mother get my father up and about, and then to bed at night - including assistance with bathroom functions. Again, all of this was without charge, and it relieved my mother, who had enough to cope with watching the love of her life die piece by piece and providing meals and attention, of the physical challenge of lifting my father. This meant that he was able to remain at home, and not have to go to a hospice - another enormous comfort to both him and the family. In the end, he died peacefully sitting in his arm chair when his heart gave out. None of this entire process cost our family one additional penny in medical bills, and my mother was able to keep their home and other assets untouched. I am sorry, but no one without a major health insurance plan (and probably not even then) would have got this level of treatment and attention under the US system without going broke in the process. It is simply a matter of how a society thinks it should take care of the sick and elderly. From: William Clark on 5 Mar 2010 15:47 In article , BAR wrote: > In article <7bb525bb-ab48-4091-9092-8da854d01e75 > @o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > > > On Mar 5, 2:04�pm, "dene" wrote: > > > wrote in message > > > > > > news:mg62p59ohnij906q1qdgfegkniq37a49dn(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Wait till you see the debt when Obama leaves. > > > > > > > Look at the deficit that he started with, and he continued on the same > > > > path as Bush. � Do you think McCain would've done anything different? > > > > > > > BK > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > For one thing, he wouldn't be ramming another entitlement down America's > > > throat. > > > > > > -Greg > > > > How is it that a bill that went through the full legislative process, > > was passed by the House, then passed by the Senate with 60 votes is > > being rammed down our throats? > > The representatives of the people in the House and the Senators are not > listening to their constituents. Support for health care reform in its > current form only has support from 25% of the people, 75% of the people > do not support health care reform in its current form. That is 3 to 1 > against what the President, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are trying to > ram down our throats. Indeed, close to 70% of the people want a single payor option, but then it wouldn't be important to you to listen to them, now would it? The only reason support for health care reform in "its current form" seems to be dwindling, is that the "current form" has been so diluted and undercut by the GoP and the health industry lobbyists, that it simply falls way short of what most people want. First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last