Isn't the "public option" a bit like "dumping?"
AZDuffman
US Steel producers say they can't compete so the governmet taxes
imported steel and actually gives this tax to the domestic producers.
The excuse is "the foreigh producers ger government subsidies."
US Auto producers in the early 80s got "voluntary" import restraint
agreements. They claimed foreign companies "sold below cost" in the
USA. (among other accusations)
Now the same democrats who gave us higher costs saying this is unfair
want to put a government-funded "public option" to compete with
privately owned insurance companies. Can someobe please explain how
it is good for government to say, "You charge and make too much, we
are going to undercut you. And to hell with your workers and
stockholders!"
So, isn't the government going to be "dumping" on health insurance
companies?
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
> US Steel producers say they can't compete so the governmet taxes
> imported steel and actually gives this tax to the domestic producers.
> The excuse is "the foreigh producers ger government subsidies."
Gee, I thought you free market types absolutely hated tariffs.
>
> US Auto producers in the early 80s got "voluntary" import restraint
> agreements. They claimed foreign companies "sold below cost" in the
> USA. (among other accusations)
Accusations that were without merit, and those foreign companies beat the
pants off them and forced them to compete anyway.
>
> Now the same democrats who gave us higher costs saying this is unfair
> want to put a government-funded "public option" to compete with
> privately owned insurance companies. Can someobe please explain how it
> is good for government to say, "You charge and make too much, we are
> going to undercut you. And to hell with your workers and stockholders!"
>
> So, isn't the government going to be "dumping" on health insurance
> companies?
Let's see. US steel made steel. Toyota, Honda and the rest make cars.
What do insurance companies produce?
AZDuffman
wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:45:59 -0700, AZDuffman wrote:
> > US Steel producers say they can't compete so the governmet taxes
> > imported steel and actually gives this tax to the domestic producers.
> > The excuse is "the foreigh producers ger government subsidies."
>
> Gee, I thought you free market types absolutely hated tariffs.
I do. I also hate governent taking form one groupand giving to
another one. What is your point.
>
> > US Auto producers in the early 80s got "voluntary" import restraint
> > agreements. They claimed foreign companies "sold below cost" in the
> > USA. (among other accusations)
>
> Accusations that were without merit, and those foreign companies beat the
> pants off them and forced them to compete anyway.
>
>
>
> > Now the same democrats who gave us higher costs saying this is unfair
> > want to put a government-funded "public option" to compete with
> > privately owned insurance companies. Can someobe please explain how it
> > is good for government to say, "You charge and make too much, we are
> > going to undercut you. And to hell with your workers and stockholders!"
>
> > So, isn't the government going to be "dumping" on health insurance
> > companies?
>
> Let's see. US steel made steel. Toyota, Honda and the rest make cars.
>
> What do insurance companies produce?
Uh, insurance and peace of mind? Planning for the unexpected?
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 22, 2:45�pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:45:59 -0700, AZDuffman wrote:
>> > US Steel producers say they can't compete so the governmet taxes
>> > imported steel and actually gives this tax to the domestic producers.
>> > The excuse is "the foreigh producers ger government subsidies."
>>
>> Gee, I thought you free market types absolutely hated tariffs.
>
>I do. I also hate governent taking form one groupand giving to
>another one. What is your point.
So how is fostering competition taking from one group and giving to
another?
>
>>
>> > US Auto producers in the early 80s got "voluntary" import restraint
>> > agreements. �They claimed foreign companies "sold below cost" in the
>> > USA. �(among other accusations)
>>
>> Accusations that were without merit, and those foreign companies beat the
>> pants off them and forced them to compete anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Now the same democrats who gave us higher costs saying this is unfair
>> > want to put a government-funded "public option" to compete with
>> > privately owned insurance companies. �Can someobe please explain how it
>> > is good for government to say, "You charge and make too much, we are
>> > going to undercut you. �And to hell with your workers and stockholders!"
>>
>> > So, isn't the government going to be "dumping" on health insurance
>> > companies?
>>
>> Let's see. �US steel made steel. �Toyota, Honda and the rest make cars.
>>
>> What do insurance companies produce?
>
>Uh, insurance and peace of mind? Planning for the unexpected?
And is there some reason the government can't do that even better?
>
Steve
The government is good for national defense and that's about it...
outside of that, this government is completely inept. Take, for
example the government schools that gave us losers like the Usenet
lefterloons.
--
Contrary to what liberals whine, nobody
owes you anything.
AZDuffman
> >On Oct 22, 2:45 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:45:59 -0700, AZDuffman wrote:
> >> > US Steel producers say they can't compete so the governmet taxes
> >> > imported steel and actually gives this tax to the domestic producers.
> >> > The excuse is "the foreigh producers ger government subsidies."
>
> >> Gee, I thought you free market types absolutely hated tariffs.
>
> >I do. I also hate governent taking form one groupand giving to
> >another one. What is your point.
>
> So how is fostering competition taking from one group and giving to
> another?
It isn't fosteriong competition, it is a government takeover.
Government has no business competing with private companies.
> >> What do insurance companies produce?
>
> >Uh, insurance and peace of mind? Planning for the unexpected?
>
> And is there some reason the government can't do that even better?
1. The government does nothing better as there is no profit motive to
improve.
2. Not the government's place to compete with private companies. How
would you feel if say you had a small grovcery store and the
government opened a bigger one across the street?
Phlip
wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:45:59 -0700, AZDuffman wrote:
> > So, isn't the government going to be "dumping" on health insurance
> > companies?
Yes by forcing them to compete. You know - free market. See below.
> Let's see. US steel made steel. Toyota, Honda and the rest make cars.
>
> What do insurance companies produce?
I thought O promised to fiscally isolate Public Option from the tax
system. It must take in slightly more cash than it hands out in
benefits.
I thought the only remaining reason not to make it a coop was so the
gov't can defend it, and the insurers can't send in moles to ... coopt
it.
Phlip
> The government is good for national defense and that's about it...
Good rationale - thanks!
Universal health will indeed make us all strong & agile, able to
rapidly mobilize in response to any kind of threat.
Steve
wrote:
Universal health will only benefit you losers.. and we could all do
without you losers....
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 3:15 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The government is good for national defense and that's about it...
>> Good rationale - thanks!
>>
>> Universal health will indeed make us all strong & agile, able to
>> rapidly mobilize in response to any kind of threat.
>
> Universal health will only benefit you losers.. and we could all do
> without you losers....
>
Actually the losers will get dragged down with the rest of us.... we'll
all have fewer jobs and a smaller GDP for our troubles.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
It does raise an interesting point. If your country is reduced to
nothing more than a draft on your children in order to fight wars that
you cannot hope to benefit from, then what do you owe that government?
Phlip
wrote:
Note that one provision of "no child left behind" was copying their
records to their local recruitment offices. The recruiters would know
which children were not going to make it into college...
But the GOP are all about personal privacy, and against communistic
prying into everyone's records, so I'm sure they will oppose that
practice!
Steve
Losers never win....
Steve
Hell, who cares what Zepp owes? Let him file bankruptcy
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
> On Oct 22, 6:00 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:45:21 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>>
>> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 22, 2:45 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:45:59 -0700, AZDuffman wrote:
>> >> > US Steel producers say they can't compete so the governmet taxes
>> >> > imported steel and actually gives this tax to the domestic
>> >> > producers. The excuse is "the foreigh producers ger government
>> >> > subsidies."
>>
>> >> Gee, I thought you free market types absolutely hated tariffs.
>>
>> >I do. I also hate governent taking form one groupand giving to
>> >another one. What is your point.
>>
>> So how is fostering competition taking from one group and giving to
>> another?
>
> It isn't fosteriong competition, it is a government takeover. Government
> has no business competing with private companies.
So do you think Xe (Blackwater) should replace the US Marines? That
private pensions, with administrative costs up to 30 times as high and a
one-in-three failure rate, should replace social security?
Insurance companies do not have a god-given right to compete without any
real competition. Health care coverage is a social service, and one that
the government should be providing.
>
>
>> >> What do insurance companies produce?
>>
>> >Uh, insurance and peace of mind? Planning for the unexpected?
>>
>> And is there some reason the government can't do that even better?
>
> 1. The government does nothing better as there is no profit motive to
> improve.
Tell us how that profit motive gives Americans better health coverage
than Canadians get.
> 2. Not the government's place to compete with private companies. How
> would you feel if say you had a small grovcery store and the government
> opened a bigger one across the street?
Do insurance companies sell groceries? You keep confusing goods with
social services. Learn the difference.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Better move to Somalia, bubbles. No government to destroy your life
there. Maybe Steve can take you on one of his yachts.
Steve
That's from Zepp Jamieson who has been permanently banned from US
citizenship.... and runs the risk of being run out of the country..
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Um, right. Sure. They'll get right on that...
Phlip
wrote:
Gee, at least One Child Left Behind didn't indoctrinate children into
an autocratic dictatorship...
Les Cargill
Health insurance has multipliers. Fr one, it increases the
span of time people can work. For another, when people are
afraid to change jobs because they'll lose coverage, the
economy suffers for it.
Subsidizing health care shows to be effective in Europe.
Whether that will transplant here is another story, but
chances are, it'll work.
--
Les Cargill
hal
Of course it will work. But that's the last thing the insurance
industry wants. They like their stranglehold on the American people.
>
>--
>Les Cargill
Bert Hyman
since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:45:59 -0700, AZDuffman wrote:
>
>> US Steel producers say they can't compete so the governmet taxes
>> imported steel and actually gives this tax to the domestic producers.
>> The excuse is "the foreigh producers ger government subsidies."
>
> Gee, I thought you free market types absolutely hated tariffs.
They do. It's the anti-free market types, who just love tariffs, who are
the ones behind the call for a "public" or "government" option.
They really think it's a good idea to protect poorly performing domestic
industries from more efficient foreign competition.
So, why would someone who's on record as being in favor of
"anti-dumping" rules in order to protect existing poorly performing
domestic industry be in favor of a health care plan which would do
damage to the existing domestic health care industry?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
> In news:y96dncvFUYjXNX3X...@posted.carinet "5228 Dead, 361
> since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:45:59 -0700, AZDuffman wrote:
>>
>>> US Steel producers say they can't compete so the governmet taxes
>>> imported steel and actually gives this tax to the domestic producers.
>>> The excuse is "the foreigh producers ger government subsidies."
>>
>> Gee, I thought you free market types absolutely hated tariffs.
>
> They do. It's the anti-free market types, who just love tariffs, who are
> the ones behind the call for a "public" or "government" option.
Which is not a tariff, but is a social service, which is properly the
domain of government.
>
> They really think it's a good idea to protect poorly performing domestic
> industries from more efficient foreign competition.
Good luck finding a time I've ever supported tariffs.
We seem to be in a position where we are LOWERING rates for consumers,
rather than raising them (as tariffs inevitably do). How do you explain
that little discrepancy?
> So, why would someone who's on record as being in favor of
> "anti-dumping" rules in order to protect existing poorly performing
> domestic industry be in favor of a health care plan which would do
> damage to the existing domestic health care industry?
Beats me. Find someone who feels that way and ask him.
AZDuffman
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:31:16 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> Losers never win....
I like that! Could be a bumper sticker.
AZDuffman
wrote:
> > It isn't fosteriong competition, it is a government takeover. Government
> > has no business competing with private companies.
>
> So do you think Xe (Blackwater) should replace the US Marines? That
> private pensions, with administrative costs up to 30 times as high and a
> one-in-three failure rate, should replace social security?
Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
responsibility. A primary reason to organize societies and nation-
states is preperation for and protection for war. As to pensions, I
absolutely think Bush was right and you should be able to manage your
social security account. The rate of return would have to be better
than we ger now.
> Insurance companies do not have a god-given right to compete without any
> real competition. Health care coverage is a social service, and one that
> the government should be providing.
No,it is not a "social service" and no reason to think the government
should be providing it. They types who do think this way tend to like
the nanny-state. Look how long society survived without government
providing health care.
> >> >> What do insurance companies produce?
>
> >> >Uh, insurance and peace of mind? Planning for the unexpected?
>
> >> And is there some reason the government can't do that even better?
Several. The main one being the government doesn't really do anything
better than private industry. But the second point is more improtant--
it is not government's job to run everything. The less the government
controls the more freedom you have and the better. I don't want the
government telling me to get my flu shot or get my screening or I pay
a fine. If you like that, move to a communist country, there are
still a few around.
> > 1. The government does nothing better as there is no profit motive to
> > improve.
>
> Tell us how that profit motive gives Americans better health coverage
> than Canadians get.
Simple. Americans can get treatment faster with more choices. Ask
the Canadians who have come here and learned they would have died
waiting for treatment in Canada. You are confusing "cheaper" with
"better."
> > 2. Not the government's place to compete with private companies. How
> > would you feel if say you had a small grovcery store and the government
> > opened a bigger one across the street?
>
> Do insurance companies sell groceries? You keep confusing goods with
> social services. Learn the difference.- Hide quoted text -
You are making up that health insurance is a "social service."
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Could be the title of Dan Quayle's biography.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 22, 9:22�pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>> > It isn't fosteriong competition, it is a government takeover. Government
>> > has no business competing with private companies.
>>
>> So do you think Xe (Blackwater) should replace the US Marines? �That
>> private pensions, with administrative costs up to 30 times as high and a
>> one-in-three failure rate, should replace social security?
>
>
>Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>responsibility.
So is the public welfare.
A primary reason to organize societies and nation-
>states is preperation for and protection for war.
If that were the only reason, it wouldn't say much for the human race.
You would have trouble explaining the point of nations such as
Switzerland or Iceland, who don't focus on war.
As to pensions, I
>absolutely think Bush was right and you should be able to manage your
>social security account. The rate of return would have to be better
>than we ger now.
Since Bush tried that, over two trillion dollars in private pension
funds has simply vanished. Don't you ever read newspapers?
>
>
>
>> Insurance companies do not have a god-given right to compete without any
>> real competition. �Health care coverage is a social service, and one that
>> the government should be providing.
>
>No,it is not a "social service" and no reason to think the government
>should be providing it. They types who do think this way tend to like
>the nanny-state. Look how long society survived without government
>providing health care.
>
Of course it's a social service, and what's more, it's a right. And
in case you haven't noticed, America has been rapidly losing ground to
the nations that DO provide health care, either directly, such as
Britain, or through single payer, such as Canada.
Steve
Could be Zepp's biography.... or Shook's....
Steve
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:23:33 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
><srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 22, 9:22�pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > It isn't fosteriong competition, it is a government takeover. Government
>>> > has no business competing with private companies.
>>>
>>> So do you think Xe (Blackwater) should replace the US Marines? �That
>>> private pensions, with administrative costs up to 30 times as high and a
>>> one-in-three failure rate, should replace social security?
>>
>>
>>Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>>responsibility.
>
>So is the public welfare.
You should get off welfare, Jamieson.
AZDuffman
> >On Oct 22, 8:54 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:31:16 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> >> Losers never win....
>
> >I like that! Could be a bumper sticker.
>
> Could be the title of Dan Quayle's biography.
Or the motto for your life.
AZDuffman
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
> >responsibility.
>
> So is the public welfare.
And health-insurance is not the "public welfare."
> A primary reason to organize societies and nation-
>
> >states is preperation for and protection for war.
>
> If that were the only reason, it wouldn't say much for the human race.
> You would have trouble explaining the point of nations such as
> Switzerland or Iceland, who don't focus on war.
Switzerland and Iceland fcus on protection as much as any nation.
Despite what you think, war and preperation for it are normal, "peace"
is the abberation. Look at it another way. Way back in the caveman
days some cavemen killed an animal and had dinner. Another caveman,
probobly one of Obama or some other democrat's forefathers, said,
"GIMME THAT! I DESERVE DINNER, TOO!" Then they started throwing
rocks at the first caveman. While the first guy fought this guy off,
some animal ate the dinner and they were all hungry. Meanwhile, 3-4
other cavemen saw what happened and were also tired of the Obama-
caveman trying to live off their work. So one said, "Let's work
together. When this guy comes to hold you up tomorrow, I'll hit him
on the head with a club. I'll do that everyday. In exchange, you
share food with me."
Thus the first army was formed.
> As to pensions, I
>
> >absolutely think Bush was right and you should be able to manage your
> >social security account. The rate of return would have to be better
> >than we ger now.
>
> Since Bush tried that, over two trillion dollars in private pension
> funds has simply vanished. Don't you ever read newspapers?
Read newspapers? Rarely. I prefer fair and balanced news. But I
also know that Social Security has trillions more in liabilities than
it can pay. Don't you watch Fox News?
> >No,it is not a "social service" and no reason to think the government
> >should be providing it. They types who do think this way tend to like
> >the nanny-state. Look how long society survived without government
> >providing health care.
>
> Of course it's a social service, and what's more, it's a right. And
> in case you haven't noticed, America has been rapidly losing ground to
> the nations that DO provide health care, either directly, such as
> Britain, or through single payer, such as Canada.
Now you are trying to either "a" be a troll by saying it is a "right"
or "b" show you are a total lefty. I'll take "b."
Health care is not a "right." "Rights" come from your creator and
don't take from others. Freedom, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness,
those are rights. You being too cheap to pay for health care and
expecting everyone else to is not a "right." It is being a leach.
Rod Speed
> 5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09 d...@dead.com wrote
>>> It isn't fosteriong competition, it is a government takeover.
>>> Government has no business competing with private companies.
>> So do you think Xe (Blackwater) should replace the US Marines?
>> That private pensions, with administrative costs up to 30 times as
>> high and a one-in-three failure rate, should replace social security?
> Don't talk like an idiot.
You shouldnt talk to yourself like that in public,
they'll work out that you're brain damaged, again.
> National Defense is clearly a government responsibility.
Thats not national defense, its national offense.
> A primary reason to organize societies and nation-
> states is preperation for and protection for war.
Not anymore.
> As to pensions, I absolutely think Bush was right and you
> should be able to manage your social security account.
> The rate of return would have to be better than we ger now.
Try telling that to those who have seen their 401Ks evaporate.
Dont be TOO surprised when they just laugh in your silly little face, again.
>> Insurance companies do not have a god-given right to compete
>> without any real competition. Health care coverage is a social
>> service, and one that the government should be providing.
> No,
Yep,
> it is not a "social service"
Corse it is.
> and no reason to think the government should be providing it.
Tell that to those who depend on medicare and the VA system.
Dont be TOO surprised when they just laugh in your silly little face, again.
> They types who do think this way tend to like the nanny-state.
You're lying now.
> Look how long society survived without government providing health care.
Not very long at all in the case of the US. The VA system showed up during the civil war.
>>>>>> What do insurance companies produce?
>>>>> Uh, insurance and peace of mind? Planning for the unexpected?
>>>> And is there some reason the government can't do that even better?
> Several. The main one being the government
> doesn't really do anything better than private industry.
Bare faced lie. It does the military a hell of a lot better than private industry does.
It does the cops a hell of a lot better than private industry does.
It does the judiciary a hell of a lot better than private industry does.
It does the fed a hell of a lot better than private industry does.
It does medicare a hell of a lot better than private industry does.
It does social security a hell of a lot better than private industry does.
It does banking regulation a hell of a lot better than private industry does.
It does health care a hell of a lot better than private industry does, costing
HALF the percentage of GDP that the private industry system does.
It does the CDC a hell of a lot better than private industry does.
> But the second point is more improtant-- it is not government's job to run everything.
No one is suggesting that the govt should do everything.
> The less the government controls the more freedom you have and the better.
Mindless religious fundermentalism.
> I don't want the government telling me to get my flu shot
Not one of the other first world systems does that.
> or get my screening or I pay a fine.
Not one of the other first world systems does that.
> If you like that, move to a communist country, there are still a few around.
They dont do that either.
>>> 1. The government does nothing better as there is no profit motive to improve.
>> Tell us how that profit motive gives Americans better health coverage than Canadians get.
> Simple. Americans can get treatment faster with more choices.
Bare faced lie. In spades with those with no health insurance and a serious medical problem.
> Ask the Canadians who have come here and learned
> they would have died waiting for treatment in Canada.
Another bare faced lie.
> You are confusing "cheaper" with "better."
Another bare faced lie. Canada does better on EVERY viable
measure of health quality, longevity and years in good health.
AND gets that result for HALF the precentage of GDP too.
The Japs in spades.
>>> 2. Not the government's place to compete with private companies.
>>> How would you feel if say you had a small grovcery store and the
>>> government opened a bigger one across the street?
>> Do insurance companies sell groceries? You keep confusing goods
>> with social services. Learn the difference.- Hide quoted text -
> You are making up that health insurance is a "social service."
You're lying now.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Oct 23, 12:43 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>>> responsibility.
>> So is the public welfare.
My welfare is just fine. I need no government interference.
Rod Speed
> 5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09 <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote
>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government responsibility.
>> So is the public welfare.
> And health-insurance is not the "public welfare."
>> A primary reason to organize societies and nation-
>>> states is preperation for and protection for war.
>> If that were the only reason, it wouldn't say much for the human
>> race. You would have trouble explaining the point of nations such as
>> Switzerland or Iceland, who don't focus on war.
> Switzerland and Iceland fcus on protection as much as any nation.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Despite what you think, war and preperation
> for it are normal, "peace" is the abberation.
So peace in north america is an aberration eh ?
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Look at it another way. Way back in the caveman
> days some cavemen killed an animal and had dinner. Another caveman,
> probobly one of Obama or some other democrat's forefathers, said,
> "GIMME THAT! I DESERVE DINNER, TOO!" Then they started throwing
> rocks at the first caveman. While the first guy fought this guy off,
> some animal ate the dinner and they were all hungry. Meanwhile, 3-4
> other cavemen saw what happened and were also tired of the Obama-
> caveman trying to live off their work. So one said, "Let's work
> together. When this guy comes to hold you up tomorrow, I'll hit him
> on the head with a club. I'll do that everyday. In exchange, you
> share food with me."
> Thus the first army was formed.
Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.
And the real world has moved on just a tad since then, particularly in north america.
>> As to pensions, I
>>> absolutely think Bush was right and you should be able to manage
>>> your social security account. The rate of return would have to be
>>> better than we ger now.
>> Since Bush tried that, over two trillion dollars in private pension
>> funds has simply vanished. Don't you ever read newspapers?
> Read newspapers? Rarely.
No surprises there.
> I prefer fair and balanced news.
You wouldnt know what either was if they bit you on your lard arse.
> But I also know that Social Security has trillions more in liabilities than it can pay.
It was never an accumulation system, fuckwit.
> Don't you watch Fox News?
So stupid that it believes that thats fair and balanced news.
>>> No,it is not a "social service" and no reason to think the
>>> government should be providing it. They types who do
>>> think this way tend to like the nanny-state. Look how long
>>> society survived without government providing health care.
>> Of course it's a social service, and what's more, it's a right.
>> And in case you haven't noticed, America has been rapidly
>> losing ground to the nations that DO provide health care, either
>> directly, such as Britain, or through single payer, such as Canada.
> Now you are trying to either "a" be a troll by saying it is
> a "right" or "b" show you are a total lefty. I'll take "b."
You can take anything you like and shove up your arse, sideways.
> Health care is not a "right."
Wrong, as always.
> "Rights" come from your creator
No such animal.
> and don't take from others.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> Freedom, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, those are rights.
Wrong, as always.
> You being too cheap to pay for health care and expecting
> everyone else to is not a "right." It is being a leach.
Choosing to have the govt do it for HALF the percentage of GDP aint anything even remotely resembling being a leach.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Well, it -would- explain why I'm wasting time on you...
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>AZDuffman wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 12:43 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>>>> responsibility.
>>> So is the public welfare.
>
>My welfare is just fine. I need no government interference.
How is offering you a low-cost alternative "interference"?
Oh, fuck your creator noise. Rights come from the people. The
people, period. It is the role of government to uphold, respect, and
guarrantee those rights.
>>
Beam Me Up Scotty
It's more energy efficient if you head for Communist Cuba and leave
America for me. Now be a good Globalist and go save the planet.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:10:26 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> AZDuffman wrote:
>>> On Oct 23, 12:43 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>>>>> responsibility.
>>>> So is the public welfare.
>> My welfare is just fine. I need no government interference.
>
> How is offering you a low-cost alternative "interference"?
Who's "offering", they are making it illegal NOT to sign up.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their *persons* , houses,
*papers* , and effects, against unreasonable searches and *seizures* ,
shall not be violated, and *no Warrants* shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You are interfering with my right to be secure in my person and papers,
by forcing me to hand them over to an insurance company or government.
I will not comply.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Being a Liberal, means never having to know you are your own worst enemy.
- Poetic Justice -
Steve
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:10:26 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
><Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>>AZDuffman wrote:
>>> On Oct 23, 12:43 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>>>>> responsibility.
>>>> So is the public welfare.
>>
>>My welfare is just fine. I need no government interference.
>
>How is offering you a low-cost alternative "interference"?
Zepp is still hoping for other people to pay for his Health care....
<LOL> aint gonna happen, Fatty.
--
Steve
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:26:40 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
><srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 23, 12:32�pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>><ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:08:15 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>>>
>>> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Oct 22, 8:54�pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:31:16 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>
>>> >> Losers never win....
>>>
>>> >I like that! �Could be a bumper sticker.
>>>
>>> Could be the title of Dan Quayle's biography.
>>
>>Or the motto for your life.
>
>Well, it -would- explain why I'm wasting time on you...
Jamieson has nothing but time.. why shouldn't he waste it...
AZDuffman
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
Sounds like something that comes from the "Constitution" of a
"People's Rebublic of......."
None of those places were republics or respected the people.
BTW: So, I guess youy would say "F- the Declaration of Independence"
then? Why are you so angry at the world? Did someone actually demand
you pay for something instead of waiting for your "right" to it to be
fulfilled.
Obamacare and the government option are near 40% and falling. If we
can keep the debate going another month and keep educating people
support should fall far enough to bury Obama's single-payer dream for
another 20 years at least.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Um, you do realize that in the event of a 4C temperature rise, Canada
will end up owning the United States, right?
AZDuffman
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> Um, you do realize that in the event of a 4C temperature rise, Canada
> will end up owning the United States, right?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Uh, you do realize "global warming" is a hoax, right?
The modern envrionmentalist is much like a watermellon: green on the
outside, red (communist) in the inside.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 23, 12:43�pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
><ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >Don't talk like an idiot. �National Defense is clearly a government
>> >responsibility. �
>>
>> So is the public welfare. �
>
>And health-insurance is not the "public welfare."
If not public heath, then what, exactly?
>
>
>
>
>> A primary reason to organize societies and nation-
>>
>> >states is preperation for and protection for war. �
>>
>> If that were the only reason, it wouldn't say much for the human race.
>> You would have trouble explaining the point of nations such as
>> Switzerland or Iceland, who don't focus on war. �
>
>Switzerland and Iceland fcus on protection as much as any nation.
Really? They spend nearly half their federal budget on the military?
>Despite what you think, war and preperation for it are normal, "peace"
>is the abberation. Look at it another way. Way back in the caveman
>days some cavemen killed an animal and had dinner. Another caveman,
>probobly one of Obama or some other democrat's forefathers, said,
>"GIMME THAT! I DESERVE DINNER, TOO!" Then they started throwing
>rocks at the first caveman. While the first guy fought this guy off,
>some animal ate the dinner and they were all hungry. Meanwhile, 3-4
>other cavemen saw what happened and were also tired of the Obama-
>caveman trying to live off their work. So one said, "Let's work
>together. When this guy comes to hold you up tomorrow, I'll hit him
>on the head with a club. I'll do that everyday. In exchange, you
>share food with me."
>
>Thus the first army was formed.
You mean, a cooperative designed for the greater good of the tribe?
Hmm. Sounds like the public option to me!
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:10:26 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>
>>> AZDuffman wrote:
>>>> On Oct 23, 12:43 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>>>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>>>>>> responsibility.
>>>>> So is the public welfare.
>>> My welfare is just fine. I need no government interference.
>>
>> How is offering you a low-cost alternative "interference"?
>
>
>Who's "offering", they are making it illegal NOT to sign up.
That's the Baucus bill, will is a whore industry bill. I'm opposed to
that one, too.
>
>
>Amendment IV
>
>The right of the people to be secure in their *persons* , houses,
>*papers* , and effects, against unreasonable searches and *seizures* ,
>shall not be violated, and *no Warrants* shall issue, but upon probable
>cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
>place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>
>
>
>You are interfering with my right to be secure in my person and papers,
>by forcing me to hand them over to an insurance company or government.
>
>I will not comply.
Gee, where were you the previous eight years. We could have used you.
AZDuffman
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >Despite what you think, war and preperation for it are normal, "peace"
> >is the abberation. Look at it another way. Way back in the caveman
> >days some cavemen killed an animal and had dinner. Another caveman,
> >probobly one of Obama or some other democrat's forefathers, said,
> >"GIMME THAT! I DESERVE DINNER, TOO!" Then they started throwing
> >rocks at the first caveman. While the first guy fought this guy off,
> >some animal ate the dinner and they were all hungry. Meanwhile, 3-4
> >other cavemen saw what happened and were also tired of the Obama-
> >caveman trying to live off their work. So one said, "Let's work
> >together. When this guy comes to hold you up tomorrow, I'll hit him
> >on the head with a club. I'll do that everyday. In exchange, you
> >share food with me."
>
> >Thus the first army was formed.
>
> You mean, a cooperative designed for the greater good of the tribe?
>
> Hmm. Sounds like the public option to me!
Not a co-operative. An ARMY. Learn some history. War and
hostilities are the normm, peace is the exception.
AZDuffman
Used him how? There was no requirement to buy health insurance and
give up your records before Obama came along.
Though terrorists had a harder time since warrants could attach to
them and not just one phone. And we actually ran names thru a
terrorist list before giving credit. Good things and neither
mandatory.
Rod Speed
>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government responsibility.
>>>>> So is the public welfare.
>>> My welfare is just fine. I need no government interference.
>> How is offering you a low-cost alternative "interference"?
> Who's "offering",
The govt.
> they are making it illegal NOT to sign up.
Another lie. They aint if you are happy with what you currently have.
> Amendment IV
> The right of the people to be secure in their *persons* , houses,
> *papers* , and effects, against unreasonable searches and *seizures* ,
> shall not be violated, and *no Warrants* shall issue, but upon probable
> cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Irrelevant to that.
> You are interfering with my right to be secure in my person and papers,
> by forcing me to hand them over to an insurance company or government.
You're lying, again. No one is being forced to hand over anything to any insurance company or govt.
> I will not comply.
You already do when you pay tax, fool.
Rod Speed
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
Michael Coburn
And we, the conservatives, intend to keep it that way because that is the
way it has always been and God likes it like that.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 23, 2:42�pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
><ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >> Health care is not a "right." �"Rights" come from your creator and
>> >> don't take from others. �Freedom, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness,
>> >> those are rights. �You being too cheap to pay for health care and
>> >> expecting everyone else to is not a "right." �It is being a leach.
>>
>> Oh, fuck your creator noise. �Rights come from the people. �The
>> people, period. �It is the role of government to uphold, respect, and
>> guarrantee those rights.
>
>Sounds like something that comes from the "Constitution" of a
>"People's Rebublic of......."
>
>None of those places were republics or respected the people.
A constitution is only as good as the good will of the people who live
under it. Liberia started out with the exact same Constitution as the
US back in the nineteenth century, and it turned into a nightmare
state.
but in the US, sovereignty lies with the people. Not some invisible
sky muffin--the people. It's drawn up by the people to have a
government that serves the people and protect their rights.
>
>BTW: So, I guess youy would say "F- the Declaration of Independence"
>then? Why are you so angry at the world? Did someone actually demand
>you pay for something instead of waiting for your "right" to it to be
>fulfilled.
I could care less about the DoI. It's just a laundry list of
grievances against a long dead King.
>
>Obamacare and the government option are near 40% and falling. If we
>can keep the debate going another month and keep educating people
>support should fall far enough to bury Obama's single-payer dream for
>another 20 years at least.
Public option has 57% support as of this past week, and Obama has
about 53%. And the public option is gaining popularity with each
passing day, as people learn exactly what it is.
>
>
AZDuffman
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>
> > 5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09 wrote
> >>> AZDuffman wrote
> >>>> 5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote
> >>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government responsibility.
> >>>>> So is the public welfare.
> >>> My welfare is just fine. I need no government interference.
> >> How is offering you a low-cost alternative "interference"?
> > Who's "offering",
>
> The govt.
>
> > they are making it illegal NOT to sign up.
>
> Another lie. They aint if you are happy with what you currently have.
This is itself a lie. If you have no coverage and are happy with that
they are making it illegal not to sign up.
AZDuffman
49% of the public states they would rather see nothing passed than
Obacare so the 57% support is not correct.
Well, some polls show 57% because they poll 80% democrats and calim
that is "representative." But I get my numbers from the pollster who
had the most accurate results last election.
Michael Coburn
LIE! Lets see the data, liar.
> Well, some polls show 57% because they poll 80% democrats and calim that
> is "representative."
The democratic leaning numbers are in the 75% range liar.
> But I get my numbers from the pollster who had the
> most accurate results last election.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Here ya go, lying pig. The ONLY poll that agrees with You and with
Rasmussen is Rasmussen. All the rest say you are full of crap. We also
not that the other poll that shows less than a 10 point favorable rating
is FAUX.
Why don't you just get your results from your belly button lint?
Yesterday the Gallup poll showed a 10% favorable and today it shows 15%.
It seems that Gallup made an error in the poll early results that made it
look like Obama was sinking like a rock. Adding the final day of the
poll made a huge difference in the numbers. And in 2 days the Rasmussen
poll went from -6 to -1 AGAIN. Not only do you distort the overall data,
you also cherry pick your own poll numbers.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>> 5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09 wrote
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote
>>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>>> 5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a
>>>>>>>> government responsibility.
>>>>>>> So is the public welfare.
>>>>> My welfare is just fine. I need no government interference.
>>>> How is offering you a low-cost alternative "interference"?
>>> Who's "offering",
>> The govt.
>>> they are making it illegal NOT to sign up.
>> Another lie. They aint if you are happy with what you currently have.
> This is itself a lie.
We'll see...
> If you have no coverage and are happy with that they are making it illegal not to sign up.
Hasnt happened yet. Bet it doesnt either.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
I know history quite well. An army--any army--is a social cooperative.
And in fact, war is NOT the norm. Take the 20th century. Bloodiest in
history, right?
Less than 1% of all the people who lived at any point during that century
died as a result of war.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
You've got to be joking, right? Do you think for a moment that ANY
insurance company is going to give you health insurance coverage without
full access to your medical records?
And honestly, you right wingers crack me up. If you want health
insurance, you have to pay for it. But you cry and cry and cry because
you ALSO have to pay for people who aren't insured. Indirectly, through
inflated medical expenses, which is an extremely inefficient way of going
about it. Here's an option that will greatly reduce your premiums--even
if you're crazy enough to stay with your present coverage plan--and you
hate it because it makes people pay for something you insist they should
be paying for.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
> On Oct 23, 4:18 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>> Um, you do realize that in the event of a 4C temperature rise, Canada
>> will end up owning the United States, right?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Uh, you do realize "global warming" is a hoax, right?
Ah. So you are a crackpot.
Lemme guess: it's commie scientists who hate jesus and want to destroy
capitalism who are to blame, right?
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
And then, if you run out and get hit by a bus, we're stuck with your
medical bills.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
You keep clinging to that outdated poll like it was gospel.
>
> Well, some polls show 57% because they poll 80% democrats and calim that
> is "representative." But I get my numbers from the pollster who had the
> most accurate results last election.
Yeah. Rasmussen. Hind tit for lonely right wingers.
Oh, and the poll that so distresses you: it had 20% Republicans, 33%
Democrats, and 47% independents or declined to state. And guess what?
That's the ACTUAL breakdown of party affiliation among voters at large!
Even with Faux and Rush and all the rest of the GOP echo chamber, the
party is barely clinging to life. Or maybe it's -because- those rabid
morons have become the voice of the GOP.
And despite your claim that suggests that all independents are Democrats,
most aren't--in fact, I would guess that at least one in three were self-
identified Republicans as recently as 2005, when party affiliation ran
about 34 Dem, 33 Pub, rest Independent.
Steve
<LOL> Zepp isn't even "stuck" for his own expenses these days....
Beam Me Up Scotty
I paid taxes all my life, where are you stuck? You are just greedy and
want more taxes.
Cigarette smokers pay cigarette tax and you give it to support the
children and then say smokers cost you more money, your kind are liars
and thieves.
You seem to be OK with Octo-mom getting millions in free health care for
her "accident".
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Who cares... I'm going to get $$ *Obama-Bucks* $$ I only need to know
how much Obama is sending me before Christmas so I can plan my
shopping.
Beam Me Up Scotty
I pay taxes and what's the difference if I have a FEMA payment or The
government pays for the hospital because a BUS hits me(Bus or Hurricane
wheres the difference).... Why does one cost you but it's OK, and the
other is intolerable. If I have to pay for FEMA to give you Emergency
care, why complain when I am uninsured for health care?
If I am willing to risk losing my house from a health problem then that
is my risk..... You can lose your house by not getting insurance when a
hurricane hits... Are you mandated to have hurricane insurance?
If I would rather pay a Mortgage than pay an insurance policy, that is
my choice, if I did get cancer when no one in my family ever had it
before then I might lose my house, how is that your concern?
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>> 5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09 wrote
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote
>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>> 5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government responsibility.
>
>>>>>> So is the public welfare.
>
>>>> My welfare is just fine. I need no government interference.
>
>>> How is offering you a low-cost alternative "interference"?
>
>> Who's "offering",
>
> The govt.
They are pointing a gun by making laws requiring... NOT "offering"
>
>> they are making it illegal NOT to sign up.
>
> Another lie. They aint if you are happy with what you currently have.
>
"IF"
So I wasn't lying, you are.
>> Amendment IV
>
>> The right of the people to be secure in their *persons* , houses,
>> *papers* , and effects, against unreasonable searches and *seizures* ,
>> shall not be violated, and *no Warrants* shall issue, but upon probable
>> cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
>> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>
> Irrelevant to that.
Then get a warrant.
>> You are interfering with my right to be secure in my person and papers,
>> by forcing me to hand them over to an insurance company or government.
>
> You're lying, again. No one is being forced to hand over anything to any insurance company or govt.
They force me to have insurance with a law and in order to comply I'm
forced to give up my papers and my body to the insurance company.
>> I will not comply.
>
> You already do when you pay tax, fool.
As I said, I will not comply....
You come confiscate my papers, try waterboarding me, I still won't comply.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Obama wants a health care system run with the efficiency of the post
office, the competence of FEMA and the compassion of the IRS.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>> 5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09 wrote
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote
>>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>>> 5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government responsibility.
>>>>>>> So is the public welfare.
>>>>> My welfare is just fine. I need no government interference.
>>>> How is offering you a low-cost alternative "interference"?
>>> Who's "offering",
>> The govt.
> They are pointing a gun by making laws requiring... NOT "offering"
Another lie. They are offering insurance to those who cant currently afford what insurance is on offer.
>>> they are making it illegal NOT to sign up.
>> Another lie. They aint if you are happy with what you currently have.
> "IF"
> So I wasn't lying,
Corse you were.
>>> Amendment IV
>>> The right of the people to be secure in their *persons* , houses,
>>> *papers* , and effects, against unreasonable searches and
>>> *seizures* , shall not be violated, and *no Warrants* shall issue,
>>> but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
>>> particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
>>> or things to be seized.
>> Irrelevant to that.
> Then get a warrant.
Dont need one.
>>> You are interfering with my right to be secure in my person and papers,
>>> by forcing me to hand them over to an insurance company or government.
>> You're lying, again. No one is being forced to hand
>> over anything to any insurance company or govt.
> They force me to have insurance with a law
That happens with auto liability too.
> and in order to comply I'm forced to give up my
> papers and my body to the insurance company.
You're lying, as always.
>>> I will not comply.
>> You already do when you pay tax, fool.
> As I said, I will not comply....
As I said, you already do when you pay tax, fool.
> You come confiscate my papers, try waterboarding me, I still won't comply.
You already do when you pay tax, fool.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:37:36 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 23, 12:43 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>>>> responsibility.
>>> So is the public welfare.
>> And health-insurance is not the "public welfare."
>
> If not public heath, then what, exactly?
Personal health....
>>
>>
>>
>>> A primary reason to organize societies and nation-
>>>
>>>> states is preperation for and protection for war.
>>> If that were the only reason, it wouldn't say much for the human race.
>>> You would have trouble explaining the point of nations such as
>>> Switzerland or Iceland, who don't focus on war.
>> Switzerland and Iceland fcus on protection as much as any nation.
>
> Really? They spend nearly half their federal budget on the military?
>> Despite what you think, war and preperation for it are normal, "peace"
>> is the abberation. Look at it another way. Way back in the caveman
>> days some cavemen killed an animal and had dinner. Another caveman,
>> probobly one of Obama or some other democrat's forefathers, said,
>> "GIMME THAT! I DESERVE DINNER, TOO!" Then they started throwing
>> rocks at the first caveman. While the first guy fought this guy off,
>> some animal ate the dinner and they were all hungry. Meanwhile, 3-4
>> other cavemen saw what happened and were also tired of the Obama-
>> caveman trying to live off their work. So one said, "Let's work
>> together. When this guy comes to hold you up tomorrow, I'll hit him
>> on the head with a club. I'll do that everyday. In exchange, you
>> share food with me."
>>
>> Thus the first army was formed.
>
> You mean, a cooperative designed for the greater good of the tribe?
And we are solving that with a Volunteer military. As prescribed in the
Constitution.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Sure....
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:37:36 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 23, 12:43 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>>>> responsibility.
>>> So is the public welfare.
>> And health-insurance is not the "public welfare."
>
> If not public heath, then what, exactly?
Personal health....
The CDC is covering public health.
>>> A primary reason to organize societies and nation-
>>>
>>>> states is preperation for and protection for war.
>>> If that were the only reason, it wouldn't say much for the human race.
>>> You would have trouble explaining the point of nations such as
>>> Switzerland or Iceland, who don't focus on war.
>> Switzerland and Iceland fcus on protection as much as any nation.
>
> Really? They spend nearly half their federal budget on the military?
>> Despite what you think, war and preperation for it are normal, "peace"
>> is the abberation. Look at it another way. Way back in the caveman
>> days some cavemen killed an animal and had dinner. Another caveman,
>> probobly one of Obama or some other democrat's forefathers, said,
>> "GIMME THAT! I DESERVE DINNER, TOO!" Then they started throwing
>> rocks at the first caveman. While the first guy fought this guy off,
>> some animal ate the dinner and they were all hungry. Meanwhile, 3-4
>> other cavemen saw what happened and were also tired of the Obama-
>> caveman trying to live off their work. So one said, "Let's work
>> together. When this guy comes to hold you up tomorrow, I'll hit him
>> on the head with a club. I'll do that everyday. In exchange, you
>> share food with me."
>>
>> Thus the first army was formed.
>
> You mean, a cooperative designed for the greater good of the tribe?
And we are solving that with a Volunteer military. As prescribed in the
Constitution.
> Hmm. Sounds like the public option to me!
Rod Speed
Nope, just killing quite a few of them for no real useful purpose.
In spades in Afghanistan which will never fly.
> As prescribed in the Constitution.
Another lie. It goes on about a militia for self defense, not foreign invasion.
Rod Speed
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:37:36 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 23, 12:43 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a
>>>>> government responsibility.
>>>> So is the public welfare.
>>> And health-insurance is not the "public welfare."
>>
>> If not public heath, then what, exactly?
> Personal health....
> The CDC is covering public health.
It also covers personal health, albeit indirectly.
>>>> A primary reason to organize societies and nation-
>>>>
>>>>> states is preperation for and protection for war.
>>>> If that were the only reason, it wouldn't say much for the human
>>>> race. You would have trouble explaining the point of nations such
>>>> as Switzerland or Iceland, who don't focus on war.
>>> Switzerland and Iceland fcus on protection as much as any nation.
>>
>> Really? They spend nearly half their federal budget on the military?
>>> Despite what you think, war and preperation for it are normal,
>>> "peace" is the abberation. Look at it another way. Way back in
>>> the caveman days some cavemen killed an animal and had dinner.
>>> Another caveman, probobly one of Obama or some other democrat's
>>> forefathers, said, "GIMME THAT! I DESERVE DINNER, TOO!" Then they
>>> started throwing rocks at the first caveman. While the first guy
>>> fought this guy off, some animal ate the dinner and they were all
>>> hungry. Meanwhile, 3-4 other cavemen saw what happened and were
>>> also tired of the Obama- caveman trying to live off their work. So
>>> one said, "Let's work together. When this guy comes to hold you up
>>> tomorrow, I'll hit him on the head with a club. I'll do that
>>> everyday. In exchange, you share food with me."
>>>
>>> Thus the first army was formed.
>>
>> You mean, a cooperative designed for the greater good of the tribe?
> And we are solving that with a Volunteer military.
Pure fantasy.
> As prescribed in the Constitution.
Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:37:36 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 23, 12:43 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>>>>> responsibility.
>>>> So is the public welfare.
>>> And health-insurance is not the "public welfare."
>>
>> If not public heath, then what, exactly?
>
>Personal health....
>The CDC is covering public health.
That's a bit like saying the National Safety Board is covering auto
safety. All they do is tabulate the carnage and issue warnings to
drive safely.
Hmm, yes, Article 1 Section 8. It says quite a bit. But read the
first lines:
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
[Catch that: provide for the common Defence AND general Welfare of the
United States;?
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:37:36 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 23, 12:43 pm, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Don't talk like an idiot. National Defense is clearly a government
>>>>> responsibility.
>>>> So is the public welfare.
>>> And health-insurance is not the "public welfare."
>>
>> If not public heath, then what, exactly?
>
>Personal health....
In the aggregate, public health. Right.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Just for starters, catastrophic health care is a hell of a lot more
expensive than a mobile home and six months of stipends while you get
your life together.
Although FEMA is basically federal disaster insurance. You get hit by
a tornado, hurricane, earthquake or whatever, and assuming you have
Democrats in the White House, FEMA is there to give you a life back.
>
>If I am willing to risk losing my house from a health problem then that
>is my risk..... You can lose your house by not getting insurance when a
>hurricane hits... Are you mandated to have hurricane insurance?
Actually, in some areas you are. And of course, anyone paying a
mortgage is required to have insurance against standard disasters such
as fire or flood, plus any that are particular to your locale, such as
earthquakes or volcanoes.
>
>If I would rather pay a Mortgage than pay an insurance policy, that is
>my choice, if I did get cancer when no one in my family ever had it
>before then I might lose my house, how is that your concern?
Because we end up paying inflated medical costs because the hospitals
can't just absorb the loss once the money from your house has run out,
and that costs us more than if you were insured in the first place.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
I've never heard of a greedy taxpayer who wants more taxes. How does
that work, exactly?
>
>Cigarette smokers pay cigarette tax and you give it to support the
>children and then say smokers cost you more money, your kind are liars
>and thieves.
>
Well, let's see: a good case of emphasemia can rack up over half a
million in medical bills before you croak. Think the taxes you paid
on the fags will cover that?
>You seem to be OK with Octo-mom getting millions in free health care for
>her "accident".
I do, huh? Where do you get that idea from?
Steve
Is Zepp trying to imply that he's a taxpayer? I doubt it... You have
to have earning in order to pay taxes...
>>Cigarette smokers pay cigarette tax and you give it to support the
>>children and then say smokers cost you more money, your kind are liars
>>and thieves.
>>
>Well, let's see: a good case of emphasemia can rack up over half a
>million in medical bills before you croak. Think the taxes you paid
>on the fags will cover that?
>
>>You seem to be OK with Octo-mom getting millions in free health care for
>>her "accident".
>
>I do, huh? Where do you get that idea from?
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
Maybe. but it depends.
> Although FEMA is basically federal disaster insurance. You get hit by
> a tornado, hurricane, earthquake or whatever, and assuming you have
> Democrats in the White House, FEMA is there to give you a life back.
SO a storm is OK for us all to pay for, but a Bus hitting you is Not...
Interesting how you justify government help?
>> If I am willing to risk losing my house from a health problem then that
>> is my risk..... You can lose your house by not getting insurance when a
>> hurricane hits... Are you mandated to have hurricane insurance?
>
> Actually, in some areas you are. And of course, anyone paying a
> mortgage is required to have insurance against standard disasters such
> as fire or flood, plus any that are particular to your locale, such as
> earthquakes or volcanoes.
20 years I lived with ZERO insurance.....
I still owe zero for my health care.
>> If I would rather pay a Mortgage than pay an insurance policy, that is
>> my choice, if I did get cancer when no one in my family ever had it
>> before then I might lose my house, how is that your concern?
>
> Because we end up paying inflated medical costs because the hospitals
> can't just absorb the loss once the money from your house has run out,
> and that costs us more than if you were insured in the first place.
Nope. Where would the money come from with free Government health care?
How would you afford that?
How do we afford Mortgages for people that have poor credit?
Government championed those bad loans.
If I have no insurance......
They then attach my wages and my tax returns.
To start with, the government is not supposed to pay my bills.
You GO get a tattoo with your insurance policy number so they will save
you, I'll take my chances of going out with the trash.
Rod Speed
> Nope.
Yep.
> Where would the money come from with free Government health care?
From taxes, stupid.
> How would you afford that?
Same way you afford all taxes, stupid.
> How do we afford Mortgages for people that have poor credit?
We dont, they dont get a mortgage, stupid.
> Government championed those bad loans.
Another bare faced lie.
> If I have no insurance......
> They then attach my wages and my tax returns.
Wont work when you go bankrupt.
> To start with, the government is not supposed to pay my bills.
No one is saying that the govt will pay your bills.
> You GO get a tattoo with your insurance policy number so they
> will save you, I'll take my chances of going out with the trash.
You're always free to shoot yourself when you get a serious medical problem.
Beam Me Up Scotty
So explain how that is different from the money coming from where it
does now?
>> How would you afford that?
>
> Same way you afford all taxes, stupid.
Some people are on the edge... they will become broke and join the poor.
>
>> How do we afford Mortgages for people that have poor credit?
>
> We dont, they dont get a mortgage, stupid.
Obama says otherwise.
Which one of you are lying?
>> Government championed those bad loans.
>
> Another bare faced lie.
You are th eone lying....
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: *September* 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities
and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the
credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other
lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15
markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage
those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is
generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae
officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure
from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been
pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime
borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are
not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans
from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates --
anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional
loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the
1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines,
Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain
too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our
underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying
significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one
study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went
to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional
loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae
is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any
difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized
corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a
government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in
the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another
thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the
government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up
and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a
mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a
conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a
rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes
his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage
point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not
lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks
make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of
loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more
loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to
all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add
that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and
low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than
non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the
economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to
Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according
to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that
same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a
home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by
46.3 per cent
>> If I have no insurance......
>
>> They then attach my wages and my tax returns.
>
> Wont work when you go bankrupt.
That's right. But that's the Obama plan, use the IRS to enforce this
new unconstitutional forced health insurance.
>> To start with, the government is not supposed to pay my bills.
>
> No one is saying that the govt will pay your bills.
HHHHhmmmmmm?
>> You GO get a tattoo with your insurance policy number so they
>> will save you, I'll take my chances of going out with the trash.
>
> You're always free to shoot yourself when you get a serious medical problem.
Then why do I need to be forced to buy your health care?
Phlip
> >Actually the losers will get dragged down with the rest of us.... we'll
> >all have fewer jobs and a smaller GDP for our troubles.
>
> Losers never win....
Keep telling yourself everyone's a "loser" except you, Steve!
Phlip
If they stick with one insurer, and only go to their kick-back
hospitals.
Yeah, great way to get fast treatment with choices there. Ask people,
diagnosed with cancer, if they could rapidly get treatment at the
closest hospital for it...
Rod Speed
>> From taxes, stupid.
The most obvious difference is that you would no longer be at risk of being
bankrupted by a serious medical problem, even if you do have health insurance.
>>> How would you afford that?
>> Same way you afford all taxes, stupid.
> Some people are on the edge... they will become broke and join the poor.
That happens right now with those who have a serious
medical problem, even if they do have health insurance.
There would be much less of that because no modern
first world country taxes anyone into poverty. In fact
the only real poor in a modern first world country are
those whose only income is just welfare.
>>> How do we afford Mortgages for people that have poor credit?
>> We dont, they dont get a mortgage, stupid.
> Obama says otherwise.
You're lying now.
> Which one of you are lying?
Just you, as always.
>>> Government championed those bad loans.
>> Another bare faced lie.
> You are the one lying....
> Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Thats not championing bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> By STEVEN A. HOLMES
> Published: *September* 30, 1999
> In a move that could help increase home ownership rates
> among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie
> Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on
> loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
Thats not championing bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks
> in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will
> encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose
> credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.
Thats not championing bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
And that didnt happen either.
> Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages,
> has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration
> to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people
Thats not championing bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
If they really were bad loans, that would do the exact opposite to
maintain its phenomenal growth in profits, you silly little pathological liar.
> In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage
> companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help
> them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.
Sub prime loans arent bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings
> are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can
> only get loans from finance companies that charge much
> higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four
> percentage points higher than conventional loans.
They clearly arent bad loans if they are making them
at those higher rates, you silly little pathological liar.
> ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in
> the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D.
> Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer.
Thats not championing bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
And that reduction in down payment requirements happened
right thruout the first and second world, so it cant have been
Fannie Mae, you silly little pathological liar.
> ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below
> what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying
> significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
They clearly arent bad loans if they are making them
at those higher rates, you silly little pathological liar.
> Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy.
But it is known that a hell of a lot of them were to flippers and so werent
anything even remotely resembling bad loans while the boom lasted,
essentially because the turnover rate was so high that the absolute
vast bulk of them were paid out while the boom lasted, repeatedly.
> But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans
> in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared
> to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
Doesnt mean that they were bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending,
> Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk,
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim, particularly
with loans to flippers who turn over the loans at a very high rate and
so are a very low risk while ever the boom lasts.
> which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times.
And it didnt.
> But the government-subsidized corporation
> may run into trouble in an economic downturn,
In fact it wasnt an economic downturn that did it.
> prompting a government rescue similar to that
> of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
Doesnt make them bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this
> is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter
> Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
In fact that wasnt the problem.
> ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them
> out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Yes, but that does not make them bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure
> a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a
> conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a
> rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower
> makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one
> percentage point premium is dropped.
Yes, but that does not make them bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does
> not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans
> that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding
> the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks
> to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Yes, but that does not make them bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended
> to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they
> add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of
> minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse
> credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Yes, but that does not make them bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among
> minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's.
Yes, but that does not make them bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants
> jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to
> Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies.
Yes, but that does not make them bad loans, you silly little pathological liar.
> During that same period the number of African Americans
> who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per
> cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent
All that proves is that there were a more hispanic immigrants during that time, fool.
>>> If I have no insurance......
>>> They then attach my wages and my tax returns.
>> Wont work when you go bankrupt.
> That's right. But that's the Obama plan, use the IRS to
> enforce this new unconstitutional forced health insurance.
You're lying now. He has never ever said that the dregs will all be forced to pay for insurance.
It isnt even possible, most obviously with the 'homeless' etc.
>>> To start with, the government is not supposed to pay my bills.
>> No one is saying that the govt will pay your bills.
> HHHHhmmmmmm?
Hum all you like, changes nothing.
>>> You GO get a tattoo with your insurance policy number so they
>>> will save you, I'll take my chances of going out with the trash.
>> You're always free to shoot yourself when you get a serious medical problem.
> Then why do I need to be forced to buy your health care?
You arent. You are paying for your own health care.
Steve
wrote:
>On Oct 22, 5:54�pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Actually, I know lots of winners... just not many leftist winners....
There's only two kinds of leftists, you know.... there's a lot of
little peon leftists like you that want some of other people's wealth
redistributed to you, and then there's the big time power and money
freak leftists who get their jollies by being able to lead you peon
leftists around by the nose..
Steve
Lefterloons do like having a mommy government to pick them up when
they fall down...
--
Rod Speed
Anyone with even half a clue prefers not to be bankrupted by
a serious medical problem even if they do have health insurance.
There's also fools like you...
Steve
Only little fools need a mommy government.
--
Rod Speed
> Contrary to what liberals whine, nobody owes you anything.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
Steve
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Leftists whimper and whine about having an ever important government
safety net, which is nothing more than wanting the government to be
your mommy... Thomas Jefferson would call you a big sissy.
--
Rod Speed
Having fun thrashing that straw man ? Thats not a
safety net, thats paying for your own health care.
> which is nothing more than wanting the government to be your mommy...
Its actually about deciding what govt should do and what govt doesnt do well.
> Thomas Jefferson would call you a big sissy.
Unlikely, he's been dead for a quite a while now.
And who cares what that fool would call anything, anyway ?
Phlip
> Steve wrote
> > Lefterloons do like having a mommy government to pick them up when they fall down...
Steve's in his happy place. Don't bother him there.
> Anyone with even half a clue prefers not to be bankrupted by
> a serious medical problem even if they do have health insurance.
>
> There's also fools like you...
Nonono don't you see? Medical bankruptcies never happen in the USA!
Obama just made that up because he's a narcissistic (read "uppity")
Marxist Czarist Kenyan attempting to devastate the US economy!
Steve
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
NO, paying for your own health care involves YOU writing a check, not
whimpering to the mommy government.
>> which is nothing more than wanting the government to be your mommy...
>
>Its actually about deciding what govt should do and what govt doesnt do well.
The only thing government has done well in the last 100 years is fight
wars.
>> Thomas Jefferson would call you a big sissy.
>
>Unlikely, he's been dead for a quite a while now.
>
>And who cares what that fool would call anything, anyway ?
>
--
Steve
wrote:
>On Oct 26, 3:35�pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote
>
>> > Lefterloons do like having a mommy government to pick them up when they fall down...
>
>Steve's in his happy place. Don't bother him there.
>
>> Anyone with even half a clue prefers not to be bankrupted by
>> a serious medical problem even if they do have health insurance.
>>
>> There's also fools like you...
>
>Nonono don't you see? Medical bankruptcies never happen in the USA!
Of course they do... almost always to people who bought a big screen
TV instead of insurance.
>Obama just made that up because he's a narcissistic (read "uppity")
>Marxist Czarist Kenyan attempting to devastate the US economy!
--
Rod Speed
> NO,
YEP.
> paying for your own health care involves YOU writing a check,
Nope, it involves paying taxes.
> not whimpering to the mommy government.
You're the whimperer.
>>> which is nothing more than wanting the government to be your
>>> mommy...
>>
>> Its actually about deciding what govt should do and what govt doesnt
>> do well.
> The only thing government has done well in the last 100 years is fight wars.
Another pig ignorant lie. The CDC has done very well indeed.
The govt does welfare a hell of a lot better than it was done 100 years ago.
The govt has done scientific reasearch very well indeed over the last 100 years.
The govt even managed to work out how to avoid great depressions too.
There were lots of them in the century before 1929.
The govt even managed to work out how to avoid world wars too.
Rod Speed
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 3:35 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve wrote
>>
>>>> Lefterloons do like having a mommy government to pick them up when
>>>> they fall down...
>>
>> Steve's in his happy place. Don't bother him there.
>>
>>> Anyone with even half a clue prefers not to be bankrupted by
>>> a serious medical problem even if they do have health insurance.
>>>
>>> There's also fools like you...
>>
>> Nonono don't you see? Medical bankruptcies never happen in the USA!
>
> Of course they do... almost always to people who bought a big screen
> TV instead of insurance.
The absolute vast bulk of those who are bankrupted by
serious medical problems HAVE health insurance, fool.
Phlip
> Of course they do... almost always to people who bought a big screen
> TV instead of insurance.
To channel Rush Limbaugh, you have to say they bought a "big pair of
sneakers". You know - a black style thang.
Now look up "recision", and you will find a zillion librul blogs all
reciting Obama's lies about the innocent insurance industry...
Steve
wrote:
>On Oct 27, 2:05�pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
...don't do blogs..
Steve
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bwhahahaha, sure, sure, and that's why the Democrat's "health care
reform" involves raising taxes on the rich people to pay for you
loser's health care....
>> not whimpering to the mommy government.
>
>You're the whimperer.
>
>>>> which is nothing more than wanting the government to be your
>>>> mommy...
>>>
>>> Its actually about deciding what govt should do and what govt doesnt
>>> do well.
>
>> The only thing government has done well in the last 100 years is fight wars.
>
>Another pig ignorant lie. The CDC has done very well indeed.
Oh yeah, the fools who degrade people's immune system by insisting
that they get their flu shots...
>The govt does welfare a hell of a lot better than it was done 100 years ago.
welfare is never good. Makes losers totally dependant on the mommy
government
>The govt has done scientific reasearch very well indeed over the last 100 years.
The space program was nice, but that's been garbage for many years
now...
>The govt even managed to work out how to avoid great depressions too.
>There were lots of them in the century before 1929.
>
>The govt even managed to work out how to avoid world wars too.
>
>>>> Thomas Jefferson would call you a big sissy.
>>>
>>> Unlikely, he's been dead for a quite a while now.
>>>
>>> And who cares what that fool would call anything, anyway ?
>
--
Steve
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 3:35 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve wrote
>>>
>>>>> Lefterloons do like having a mommy government to pick them up when
>>>>> they fall down...
>>>
>>> Steve's in his happy place. Don't bother him there.
>>>
>>>> Anyone with even half a clue prefers not to be bankrupted by
>>>> a serious medical problem even if they do have health insurance.
>>>>
>>>> There's also fools like you...
>>>
>>> Nonono don't you see? Medical bankruptcies never happen in the USA!
>>
>> Of course they do... almost always to people who bought a big screen
>> TV instead of insurance.
>
>The absolute vast bulk of those who are bankrupted by
>serious medical problems HAVE health insurance, fool.
>
Bullshit!
Phlip
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
> > So explain how that is different from the money coming from where it does now?
>
> The most obvious difference is that you would no longer be at risk of being
> bankrupted by a serious medical problem, even if you do have health insurance.
But them commie countries that never have medical bankruptcies - they
have lower cancer survival rates! See, it's them medical bankruptcies
that's getting them off their butts, out doing heavy manual labor and
curing their cancers...
oops, sorry Rod. I forgot your track record for detecting sarcasm
around here is iffy. (-:
Uh, BMUS might respond to you by reciting HMO lobby talking points -
that countries with zero medical bankruptcies all have long waiting
periods for gov't dispensed health care, leading to lower cancer
survival rates. He will say this in oblivious disregard to our callous
HMO practice of stalling, challenging, & delaying coverage for cancer
patients in this country, sometimes leading to excessive premature
deaths.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Oct 26, 11:09 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>> So explain how that is different from the money coming from where it does now?
>> The most obvious difference is that you would no longer be at risk of being
>> bankrupted by a serious medical problem, even if you do have health insurance.
>
I will be bankrupt by Government crashing the value of the dollar. This
government health care will bankrupt us all at once... great.