From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Feb 21, 11:21 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:59:01 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > In article <4b81550b$0$4862$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> >>>> You're insane. This health denial system you're so fond of is
> >>>> probably going to let this guy die. But not before spending
> >>>> thousands on chemo for something that probably could have been
> >>>> treated much less expensively months ago.
>
> >>> I like how you have started to call it the "health denial system" it
> >>> is cute, it is not effective but, it is cute.
>
> >>> Your friend should have engaged the medical system earlier. He has
> >>> no one to blame except himself. As the statics show the sooner a
> >>> person is treated for cancer the greater the survival rate.
>
> >> Perhaps there should be armed guards at the hospitals to keep the
> >> sick away. Those who would cost the healthcare system too much money
> >> could be hauled out back and shot. Problem solved, eh Bert? After
> >> all, the poor have no one to blame but themselves.
>
> > Not to keep the sick away, just the smelly people out? You know the
> > ones you found offensive when you last visited the ER.
>
> You almost never say anything prescriptive, about what should be done.
> Here is your chance. What should happen with the hundreds of thousands
> of people like my friend, who lost their jobs and insurance in the
> recession and then became sick. Should they be forcibly removed from the
> hospitals and left to die, to keep your taxes and insurance premiums as
> low as possible? Should they be shot in the back of the head, since that
> solution is even cheaper? Please, impress us with your humanity.

So why didn't you cover his costs? If you expect other people to do
so, then so should you.
From: Howard Brazee on
On 21 Feb 2010 20:21:56 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:

>What would be best would be for the money to come out of sales taxes.
>That way even the slackers have to participate.

There are a lot of good reasons to replace income tax with sales tax.

--
"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
From: Jack Hollis on
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:30:28 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
<frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote:

>> And while you're at it, find an industrialized country whose health
>> care costs are as large a proportion of GDP as ours, or consume as
>> much of the federal budget as ours.
>
>Why is the cost such a big deal to you? Why does health care have to
>be reduced to a common denominator?

The answer is that the government shouldn't have gotten into the
health insurance business in the first place. The major portion of
the US's financial crisis will come from Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid. Obviously, it would have been better if these programs
never started in the first place.
From: Carbon on
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:56:56 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:
> On Feb 21, 11:21 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:59:01 -0500, BAR wrote:
>>> In article <4b81550b$0$4862$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>>> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>>>>
>>>>>> You're insane. This health denial system you're so fond of is
>>>>>> probably going to let this guy die. But not before spending
>>>>>> thousands on chemo for something that probably could have been
>>>>>> treated much less expensively months ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like how you have started to call it the "health denial system"
>>>>> it is cute, it is not effective but, it is cute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your friend should have engaged the medical system earlier. He has
>>>>> no one to blame except himself. As the statics show the sooner a
>>>>> person is treated for cancer the greater the survival rate.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps there should be armed guards at the hospitals to keep the
>>>> sick away. Those who would cost the healthcare system too much
>>>> money could be hauled out back and shot. Problem solved, eh Bert?
>>>> After all, the poor have no one to blame but themselves.
>>>
>>> Not to keep the sick away, just the smelly people out? You know the
>>> ones you found offensive when you last visited the ER.
>>
>> You almost never say anything prescriptive, about what should be
>> done. Here is your chance. What should happen with the hundreds of
>> thousands of people like my friend, who lost their jobs and insurance
>> in the recession and then became sick. Should they be forcibly
>> removed from the hospitals and left to die, to keep your taxes and
>> insurance premiums as low as possible? Should they be shot in the
>> back of the head, since that solution is even cheaper? Please,
>> impress us with your humanity.
>
> So why didn't you cover his costs? If you expect other people to do
> so, then so should you.

What is the point of this idiotic statement?
From: Carbon on
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:41:58 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:

> Universal health care screws the poor far more than current US system.

Really? On what planet?