health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Jack Hollis on 21 Feb 2010 16:03 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:41:58 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >Universal health care screws the poor far more than current US system. Bottom line, is that the rich still have better health care no matter where you go. At least in the US a large majority of the people have access to better health care than you can get anywhere else in the world. In fact, you can be an illegal alien in the US and get better, more prompt, health care than in any socialized program.
From: bknight on 21 Feb 2010 16:04 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:57:30 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >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. Name them. BK
From: Carbon on 21 Feb 2010 16:05 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:58:55 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > On Feb 21, 3:40 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:35:39 -0800, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: >> >>> Also, why do I have a "right" to require some other person to build >>> me a house, grow my food or provide me with health care? Why, given >>> such "rights", should I build houses, produce food, or provide >>> health care, especially given you are going to want to minimize your >>> costs, and rail at me if I make any money providing these services? >>> If you are going to dictate what I earn, then I in turn should >>> dictate what you earn, right? >> >> Because it's cheaper. I'm not about to pay extra for the sake of some >> rabid ideology if I can help it. > > Fine, you buy cheaper health insurance. I'd prefer to reserve the > right to make a different choice. I'd also like the system to > negotiate costs with me, not have them dictated by the govt. Even if it's cheaper? http://www.who.int/entity/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Table7.pdf
From: BAR on 21 Feb 2010 16:16 In article <4b819ec2$0$21448$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > 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? It shows that you are truly not concerned about your friend and helping him with his predicament. You are only using your friend as an argument to push your political agenda.
From: John B. on 21 Feb 2010 16:34
On Feb 21, 1:41 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:34:14 -0500, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > >> He has kids. He nearly lost his house. Would you put health insurance > >> ahead of keeping a roof over your family's head and food on the table? > >> Be honest. > > >He made choices, he has to live with the choices he made. > > >I make choices and I will have to live with the choices I make. > > >If I wanted the government's hand to catch me when I fall or make stupid > >decisions I would think just like you. > > This always amuses me. Carbs says that his friend almost lost HIS > house. In reality, the Bank almost took their house back. If it was > his house, the bank couldn't take it away form him. A mortgaged house does not belong to the mortgage lender. If you're not clear on this, go look at your deed and see who's name is on it. |