From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 10:49
On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:42:50 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> > On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >>> Sure, it could be anyone. But, I still don't see the solution being
> >>> Universal Health Care.
> >> That's because you're an ideologue.
> > you keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it
> > means! --Inigo Montoya
> Main Entry: ideo·logue
> Variant(s): also idea·logue \ˈī-dē-ə-ˌlȯg, -ˌläg\
> Function: noun
> Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
> "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular
that seems to fit you to a tee; despite your protestations to the contrary.
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 10:51
On 22-Feb-2010, Jim Lovejoy <nospam(a)devnull.spam> wrote:
> > deficit with the EU?
> Because companies in the EU aren't paying thousands a year per employee on
> health insurance.
Yes they are; where the hell do you think the money comes from? Oh, yeah, I
forgot, it's free,,,,, :->
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 10:52
On 22-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.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.
> > I think slackers should get hit hard with a tax penalty.....$1500
> > minimum.
> > Why should you or I pay for their irresponsibility?
> > -Greg
> And who is to decide who's a slacker and who isn't?
From: assimilate on 22 Feb 2010 10:53
On 22-Feb-2010, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote:
> > You already do. � �There isn't a public debate between providing such
> > care or eliminating such care. � �There are some arguments about how
> > cost effective it is to have healthy job seekers, similar to questions
> > about public education. � �But since removing such health care is not
> > an option on the table, why are so many people bringing it up?
> The objection centers around loss of freedom. There is no way a govt
> delivered system can provide the options a private system can.
some on this forum obviously either don't grasp the concept of liberty, or
more likely, take it for granted.
From: John B. on 22 Feb 2010 11:16
On Feb 22, 9:41 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> 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.
Some of the poor have Medicaid. Some don't. Poverty, i.e. living below
the poverty line, isn't enough to qualify someone for Medicaid. You
have to be much worse off than that. In the poorer (mostly southern)
states, you have to be destitute and penniless.