From: John B. on 21 Feb 2010 16:38
On Feb 21, 3:27 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 6:16 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:18:15 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> > > On 17-Feb-2010, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Obviously, that totally misses the point. The point would be the
> > >>>> systemic corruption that makes such gross overbilling an everyday
> > >>>> event.
> > >>> Stop whining.
> > >> I should just allow myself to be raped like all you ideologues, huh?
> > > Better that than I get raped by your Universal Healthcare.
> > Please find any country on the planet with universal healthcare that has
> > higher per capita healthcare costs than the United States. Go ahead,
> > we'll wait.
> The govt dictates costs and service levels in those countries. In the
> US people can choose from a free market.
Yes, Americans can shop around for health insurance. They can shop
around for Bentleys and Maseratis, too.
From: John B. on 21 Feb 2010 16:41
On Feb 21, 3:37 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:57 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 7:12 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > > In article <4b7de8c5$0$4967$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:30:41 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > > > > In article <4b7dcb52$0$27203$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > > > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> > > > >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:24:00 -0800, John B. wrote:
> > > > >>> I don't wany my access to all the above to be dependent on my
> > > > >>> employment and how much my employer is willing to spend on health
> > > > >>> insurance. If I were to lose my job, I wouldn't be able to afford
> > > > >>> the medications I depend on. If I were to sell my house and take my
> > > > >>> kids out of college so I could afford to buy my own insurance
> > > > >>> policy, it wouldn't cover my meds because they would be deemed to be
> > > > >>> for a pre- existing condition. What's your solution to that, Bert?
> > > > >> Don't get sick. And if you do, die quickly.
> > > > > Access to health care is not dependent upon employment.
> > > > > If you were better at negotiating pay with your employer and you did a
> > > > > better job saving money you would have enough money to pay for your
> > > > > health care. Instead you have abdicated your personal responsibility
> > > > > to someone else which has made you dependent upon their generosity and
> > > > > goodwill.
> > > > > When the teat is taken away you are lost and can't figure out where
> > > > > your next meal is coming from.
> > > > Thank you, but I've heard all this clueless propaganda before. I am in
> > > > favor of universal healthcare because it is cheaper and more humane.. You
> > > > obviously do not know the first thing about it, and yet you are positive
> > > > that you're right.
> > > If you want Universal Health Care there are many countries around the
> > > world that offer it and there is no one stopping you from emigrating to
> > > any of them except you.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Every industrialized country on earth offers universal health care
> > except the U.S., yet the U.S. is the only one of them that's embroiled
> > in a debate about health care.
> Where has all the innovation and improvement in health care come from
> over this period?
From lots of places.
From: John B. on 21 Feb 2010 16:48
On Feb 21, 3:45 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:39 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:03:44 -0500, BAR wrote:
> > > In article <hvCfn.818$BD2....(a)newsfe14.iad>, dontwr...(a)gmail.com
> > > says...
> > >> Oh yeah ... and I suppose "manifest destiny" was an excuse for
> > >> imperialism. I'm sure the Mexicans weren't bothered at all by the
> > >> theft of Texas, and how much other land?
> > > War or the threat of war has determined the political and national
> > > boundaries of kingdoms and countries.
> > > One of the penalties of losing armed conflict is that your military
> > > will may be destroyed and you may lose some or all of your territory.
> > Ok, here's a possible future scenario. The US dollar continues to
> > decline until it becomes nearly worthless in international trade. Cut
> > off from world markets, the economy collapses. Unemployment skyrockets.
> > There is widespread civil unrest. Foreign interests come in with their
> > stronger currencies and buy up everything worth having. At that point
> > the country will have been effectively taken over by foreign interests.
> > Say this actually happens. Will you still be sharing your smug little
> > stories about the survival of the fittest? What if you're the one on the
> > losing end?
> This will happen at some point, as it did the the UK in the early to
> mid 20th century. If Americans continue to spend so excessively, it
> will happen a lot sooner. As China, India, Brazil and others continue
> to grow, they will have more and more fiscal power. As we fall into
> the category of self absorbed, seal entitled deadbeats we will
> decline. There is no free health care, no free housing and no free
> lunch. FWIW, IMHO western Europe is totally done, but they don't know
> it yet. They have no capacity to recover from this crisis. They
> consume much and produce next to nothing.
If that is so, then why does the U.S. have a $60.5 billion trade
deficit with the EU?
From: John B. on 21 Feb 2010 16:51
On Feb 21, 3:57 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2010 20:21:56 GMT, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> >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: John B. on 21 Feb 2010 16:52
On Feb 21, 3:58 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:30:28 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
> <frostback2...(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.
That's easy to say when you have no idea what kind of shape we'd be in
if those programs had never been initiated.