health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Feb 2010 09:37 On Feb 21, 3:56 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:35:39 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >One way or another, health care has to be earned. With the evolution > >of the progressive entitlements of the 20th century, peoples desire to > >earn things like health care has declined, and people expectation that > >they have a "right" to such things has risen...so who is going to do > >the earning. > > But that's not an option being proposed by either party. > > >If I have a "right" to food, housing, health care, why should I sweat > >the workplace so much? > > >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? > > Pretty much the same reasons that we have public education, for better > or for worse. The exception being epidemic control, which I expect > even you are willing to support. > So you accept the idea that what people earn should be dictated by some authority...in the name of public good, of course?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Feb 2010 09:38 On Feb 21, 3:59 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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? What's idiotic about the statement? You want "someone else" to cover the guys costs; why not you?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Feb 2010 09:41 On Feb 21, 4:02 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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? This one. The poor in the US have medicaid. Medicaid provides the poor in the US better health care than the Canadian system provides for the middle class. The fact of this is represented by the choice medicaid people have, and the fact they can go to any facility anywhere for service, as long as they take medicaid, and not all do, but still, beats being forced to go to one specific family care physician for all your health care need, like the middle class in Canada. Now the rich and powerful in Canada, they have full access anytime, better than medicaid recipients in the US, better even than people like me on private insurance, and far better than the poor in Canada. Fact is, the poor in US, with medicaid, have access to far better health care than the poor in Canada. OF course, with a govt system, we will all get less health care, more like Canada, and the poor will get that much less, as they always do.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 22 Feb 2010 09:43 On Feb 21, 4:38 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Americans can choose to purchase the health care they want. Individuals can choose to allocate as they wish, not have the costs forced on them, in advance, by the govt. Some people choose not to pay the 10K pa or so health care costs, that's their problem. They'll pay that for a car, or a house, but not health care...so people like you want to tax people to the extend of 20K pa to get 10k worth of services delivered purely to serve the political ends of the govt.
From: bknight on 22 Feb 2010 09:45
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:38:04 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >On Feb 21, 3:59�pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> 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... >> > 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? > >What's idiotic about the statement? You want "someone else" to cover >the guys costs; why not you? I once thought that you just might be smarter than Bert. I was wrong. BK |