From: Carbon on
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:29:32 -0500, BAR wrote:
> In article <4b827036$0$4863$9a6e19ea(a)>,
> nobrac(a) says...
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:59:29 -0800, dene wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:4b81ec78$0$30861$9a6e19ea(a)
>>>> And if you lose your job and can't find another one due to the
>>>> recession? What then?
>>> You take a lesser job or both the man and wife work. You can also
>>> give back the house and rent. Choices...
>> You can't raise kids on minimum wage.
> You could in my county. You'd get practically free housing, your
> childrens breakfast and lunch would be free. Health care for the
> entire family would be free. Income taxes would be 0 and the EIC would
> get you a nice little check at the end of the year too.

You have a rich fantasy life.
From: Carbon on
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:07:58 -0500, BAR wrote:
> In article <wclark2-1C007A.22555421022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>, wclark2(a) says...
>> In article <MPG.25eba52a7c54140e989c38(a)>, BAR
>> <screw(a)> wrote:
>>> In article <wclark2-BF1991.17323421022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
>>>>, wclark2(a) says...
>>>>> If you will notice most of us who oppose socialized medicine and
>>>>> universal health care don't care that Canada, the UK, France or
>>>>> anywhere else has it, we just don't want it here in the USA. We
>>>>> are not trying to tell other countries that they have to operate
>>>>> the way the USA does.
>>>> Indeed you do, so that you can live a little while shorter than
>>>> your European counterparts. Good riddance, then.
>>> Where have I ever said that the Canadians, British, or French need
>>> to change their governments, health care systems or cultures to
>>> satisfy my wants and desires? It hasn't happened and it never will.
>> So you really don't want to live longer, then? Fine with me.
> We are talking about busy body know-it-all and telling everyone else
> how to live Billy. I really don't care how you live your life, that is
> your decision, not mine. However, it would be nice if you extended the
> same curtesey to me and others.

You are forever telling everybody how they should live, and moreover
if they don't like it they should leave. You're not seeing any irony
with that?
From: Carbon on
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:48:19 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 22-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb505(a)> wrote:
>>> and their youth suffer 20% unemployment (close to 50% in the
>>> suburban "banlieus") to pay for it. The "youth" in the latter
>>> neighborhoods have nothing to occupy their time but buring cars it
>>> seems. The hidden costs of UH
>> You couldn't empirically connect youth unemployment to the cost of
>> health care in France if your life depended on it.
> As usual with things economic, you are wrong (does it get old?). The
> heavy cost of new hires, a large portion of which is the SECU (their
> UH) payroll taxes, coupled with the near impossibility of terminating
> the employee once hired means that French employers will not bring on
> new employees unless said will be a large contribution to the bottom
> line. This means low skilled, low educated job seekers are SOL in
> France. As usual the policies sold to help the poor actually punish
> them.

Your causal connection between universal healthcare and crime is tenuous
at best. You've written an opinion piece.
From: Howard Brazee on
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:35:48 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
<frostback2002(a)> wrote:

>> >Cost is not the important issue. Accessibility is more important. Why
>> >should I have my health care reduced to some common denominator to
>> >satisfy the govts desire to give free healthcare to deadbeats?
>> 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.

So why do people keep bring up cost, if that isn't the objection?

"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: Carbon on
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:49:39 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:42:50 +0000, assimilate wrote:
>>> On 21-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)> 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
>> ideology."
> that seems to fit you to a tee; despite your protestations to the
> contrary.

My position on universal healthcare is based on my experience growing up
with it, along with solid statistics such as total cost as a percentage of
GDP and average life expectancy. Whereas you true believers are 100%
certain you are right even though none of you has any real evidence to
support it. Certainty, sans evidence. There's a word for that...