OT Forced health insurance
brewmaster
forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
buy auto or homeowners insurance.
Brew
--
Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
FEAR - Foreign Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
_____________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Schmedley
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:q1s5t6x...@recgroups.com...
> Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> buy auto or homeowners insurance.
>
> Brew
> --
> Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
> FEAR - Foreign Policy
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
>
>
Except those of us that want to drive, at least in most states I am aware
of. As for homeowners, sure, you can go bare, just pay for your house in
cash and pray. That's a viable option for one or two percent of the
population.
Tad Perry
news:4b00610a$0$31619$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
The real difference is that no one is forced to buy a house or a car. The
idea that insurance should be mandatory just to live, eat and breathe is a
little much compared to "If you want to buy X, you need insurance for it."
tvp
da pickle
> The real difference is that no one is forced to buy a house or a car. The
> idea that insurance should be mandatory just to live, eat and breathe is a
> little much compared to "If you want to buy X, you need insurance for it."
If politicians would be honest about what they were doing, they would never
get stuff past the voters.
I would list the ones that I did not think were lying whores but I cannot
think of one off the top of my head. Maybe Ron Paul.
mary in vegas
> Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> buy auto or homeowners insurance.
>
> Brew
> --
> Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
> FEAR - Foreign Policy
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
well i say, if you don't want to buy health insurance...don't. then when
you get sick and don't have the ASTROMICAL money needed to pay for your
own hospitalization...too bad....DIE..
mary in vegas
-------�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
johnny_t
> Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> buy auto or homeowners insurance.
>
> Brew
Yes, and in exactly the same way, you can choose to be alive.
johnny_t
> The real difference is that no one is forced to buy a house or a car. The
> idea that insurance should be mandatory just to live, eat and breathe is a
> little much compared to "If you want to buy X, you need insurance for it."
And yet there is paying for food. Mandatory for eating. And living.
susan
"mary in vegas" <mar...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cc76t6x...@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 15 2009 9:57 AM, brewmaster wrote:
>
>> Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
>> forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
>> homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
>> buy auto or homeowners insurance.
>>
>> Brew
>> --
>> Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
>> FEAR - Foreign Policy
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
>
> well i say, if you don't want to buy health insurance...don't. then when
> you get sick and don't have the ASTROMICAL money needed to pay for your
> own hospitalization...too bad....DIE..
> mary in vegas
I thought you were a liberal. I've been saying that and getting slammed
around here
brewmaster
> On Nov 15 2009 9:57 AM, brewmaster wrote:
>
> > Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> > forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> > homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> > buy auto or homeowners insurance.
> >
> > Brew
> > --
> > Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
> > FEAR - Foreign Policy
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
>
> well i say, if you don't want to buy health insurance...don't. then when
> you get sick and don't have the ASTROMICAL money needed to pay for your
> own hospitalization...too bad....DIE..
> mary in vegas
I agree
Brew
--
Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
FEAR - Foreign Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
-------�
brewmaster
You aren't required to drive or buy a house though.
Brew
--
Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
FEAR - Foreign Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
______________________________________________________________________�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
BillB
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:q1s5t6x...@recgroups.com...
> Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are
> already
> forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in
> "and
> homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is
> FORCED to
> buy auto or homeowners insurance.
You aren't forced to buy insurance under the House plan. You can
instead choose to pay the ~2.5% income surtax instead, which covers a
small part of the catastrophic risk coverage you get automatically as
part of a civilized society. You are still still a freeloader if you
go this route (in the vast majority of cases), but at least you are
paying *something*.
BillB
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:mP_Lm.31508$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
> You aren't forced to buy insurance under the House plan. You can
> instead choose to pay the ~2.5% income surtax instead, which covers
> a small part of the catastrophic risk coverage you get automatically
> as part of a civilized society. You are still still a freeloader if
> you go this route (in the vast majority of cases), but at least you
> are paying *something*.
lol sorry for all the writing errors...I'm playing 8 tables for the
first time in a while.
~M~
news:00f96aaf$0$23386$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> And yet there is paying for food. Mandatory for eating. And living.
While eating is necessary for living, paying for food is not, and insurance
is not mandatory for living, you fucking retard.
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
- David Hume
~M~
news:cc76t6x...@recgroups.com...
> well i say, if you don't want to buy health insurance...don't. then when
> you get sick and don't have the ASTROMICAL money needed to pay for your
> own hospitalization...too bad....DIE..
> mary in vegas
Exactly. How can we get you into office, you evil right-winger?
--
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
- Voltaire
~M~
news:mP_Lm.31508$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
> You aren't forced to buy insurance under the House plan. You can instead
> choose to pay the ~2.5% income surtax instead,
Same thing. I know, you will not think it is so. Save your breath, idiot.
--
"Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government
persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national
prosperity is by keeping its hands off."
- Ayn Rand
BillB
"~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t9ednd6QKKjrFp3W...@giganews.com...
> You aren't forced to buy insurance under the House plan. You can
> instead
>> choose to pay the ~2.5% income surtax instead,
>
> Same thing. I know, you will not think it is so. Save your breath,
> idiot.
No, paying a slightly higher income tax rate is NOT the same as having
to buy health insurance. This should be obvious even to someone of
your limited intellect.
susan
"BillB"
> You aren't forced to buy insurance under the House plan. You can instead
> choose to pay the ~2.5% income surtax instead, which covers a small part
> of the catastrophic risk coverage you get automatically as part of a
> civilized society. You are still still a freeloader if you go this route
> (in the vast majority of cases), but at least you are paying *something*.
Didn't O say something about no middle-class tax increase? Like say it a
brazillion times?
BillB
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:G30Mm.34986$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
> Didn't O say something about no middle-class tax increase? Like
> say it a brazillion times?
Ya, that was a blatant lie.
johnny_t
> "johnny_t" <nobo...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:00f96aaf$0$23386$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> And yet there is paying for food. Mandatory for eating. And living.
>
>
> While eating is necessary for living, paying for food is not, and
> insurance is not mandatory for living, you fucking retard.
So we should let others die. And we should not charge for food? Wow.
Nice mouth, mamma teach you your manners?
Was she a retard?
johnny_t
> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> news:mP_Lm.31508$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
>
>> You aren't forced to buy insurance under the House plan. You can
>> instead choose to pay the ~2.5% income surtax instead,
>
Wow, first day here, and you talk like an asshole.
Way to convince someone of anything.
You idiot.
da pickle
> So we should let others die.
We let people die all the time. Some have no insurance, some have excellent
insurance, some have Medicare. They get different levels of care depending
on the circumstances. Some die because they chose a bad lifestyle. Should
we let people choose a bad lifestyle?
> And we should not charge for food?
We do charge for food. Some folks do not earn their food, we give it to
them. They do not get the same food as people who earn their own food.
Some choose to use their food money for bad lifestyle choices instead of
good food. Should we let people choose a bad lifestyle?
da pickle
> Wow, first day here, and you talk like an asshole.
Actually, this is not his first day. Sometimes a lot of people use strong
language.
> Way to convince someone of anything.
I am not sure he was trying to convince anyone of anything.
> You idiot.
Is that "asshole" language? I don't think so, but does it fit your
standard?
risky biz
You're a lying whore yourself, pickle, so stop complaining.
________________________________________________________________________�
risky biz
> "johnny_t" <nobo...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:00f96aaf$0$23386$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> > And yet there is paying for food. Mandatory for eating. And living.
>
>
> While eating is necessary for living, paying for food is not, and insurance
> is not mandatory for living, you fucking retard.
That's just about the dumbest response you could have thought up,
confirmed by the pickled pinhead who defends it afterward.
--------�
risky biz
> "mary in vegas" <mar...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:cc76t6x...@recgroups.com...
>
> > well i say, if you don't want to buy health insurance...don't. then when
> > you get sick and don't have the ASTROMICAL money needed to pay for your
> > own hospitalization...too bad....DIE..
> > mary in vegas
>
>
> Exactly. How can we get you into office, you evil right-winger?
I think you're starting to get a clue. Congratulations. And, go away and
die.
______________________________________________________________________�
risky biz
> On Nov 15 2009 12:08 PM, Schmedley wrote:
>
> > "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:q1s5t6x...@recgroups.com...
> > > Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> > > forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> > > homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> > > buy auto or homeowners insurance.
> > >
> > > Brew
> > > --
> > > Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
> > > FEAR - Foreign Policy
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Except those of us that want to drive, at least in most states I am aware
> > of. As for homeowners, sure, you can go bare, just pay for your house in
> > cash and pray. That's a viable option for one or two percent of the
> > population.
>
> You aren't required to drive or buy a house though.
No one is required to be born or get sick either. So what was your point?
_______________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
risky biz
You're a specious goofball, FAKE pickle.
______________________________________________________________________�
Follow
> So we should let others die. And we should not charge for food? Wow.
> Nice mouth, mamma teach you your manners?
Your only option to get food is to pay for it? Really? It's incredible
to me that people can't see another option at all.
Follow :)
---�
~M~
> ~M~ wrote:
>> "johnny_t" <nobo...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:00f96aaf$0$23386$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>> And yet there is paying for food. Mandatory for eating. And living.
>>
>>
>> While eating is necessary for living, paying for food is not, and
>> insurance is not mandatory for living, you fucking retard.
>
> So we should let others die.
This is a non-sequitur, it has nothing to do with whether there are laws
requireing people to pay for food. And someone with the limited reasoning
skills you have would not possibly be able to do anything about someone
else's dying anyway.
> And we should not charge for food? Wow.
Only someone as stupid as you would read this from what I said.
There is no law that says you have to pay for food. You can grow it
yourself, hunt for it, fish for it, and beg for it. Or, in your case, you
can wait for your mother to feed you. No go back to your room, retard.
--
"I get off on pictures of beautiful women unintentionally exposing their
nipples."
- William Coleman (ramshiva) 4/26/2009
~M~
news:4tq6t6x...@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 15 2009 4:12 PM, ~M~ wrote:
>
>> "johnny_t" <nobo...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:00f96aaf$0$23386$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> > And yet there is paying for food. Mandatory for eating. And living.
>>
>>
>> While eating is necessary for living, paying for food is not, and
>> insurance
>> is not mandatory for living, you fucking retard.
>
> That's just about the dumbest response you could have thought up,
> confirmed by the pickled pinhead who defends it afterward.
Well then you should have no problem citing the law that says the only way
you can get food is to buy it.
--
"Unionism seldom, if ever, uses such power as it has to insure better work;
almost always it devotes a large part of that power to safeguarding bad
work."
- H. L. Mencken
~M~
> No, paying a slightly higher income tax rate is NOT the same as having to
> buy health insurance. This should be obvious even to someone of your
> limited intellect.
2.5% of your income is slight, no doubt.
--
"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law, or is there one
system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?"
- Ted Kennedy
~M~
> ~M~ wrote:
>> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
>> news:mP_Lm.31508$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
>>
>>> You aren't forced to buy insurance under the House plan. You can instead
>>> choose to pay the ~2.5% income surtax instead,
>>
>> Same thing. I know, you will not think it is so. Save your breath,
>> idiot.]
>
> Wow, first day here, and you talk like an asshole.
Even if it was my first day here, I would have already been able to say with
confidence that you are an unredeemable idiot.
> Way to convince someone of anything.
And since you are an unredeemable idiot, I would not bother trying to
convince you or BillB of anything, as I pointed out in the post you are
responding to.
--
"so now there are rules in one of the stupidest threads ever?"
- Susan 10/20/2009
O-PGManager
> idea that insurance should be mandatory just to live, eat and breathe is a
> little much compared to "If you want to buy X, you need insurance for it."
>
"If you want the ER to save your life after a medical emergency, you need
insurance for it."
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
-------�
risky biz
> "risky biz" <risk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4tq6t6x...@recgroups.com...
> > On Nov 15 2009 4:12 PM, ~M~ wrote:
> >
> >> "johnny_t" <nobo...@home.com> wrote in message
> >> news:00f96aaf$0$23386$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> >>
> >> > And yet there is paying for food. Mandatory for eating. And living.
> >>
> >>
> >> While eating is necessary for living, paying for food is not, and
> >> insurance
> >> is not mandatory for living, you fucking retard.
> >
> > That's just about the dumbest response you could have thought up,
> > confirmed by the pickled pinhead who defends it afterward.
>
>
> Well then you should have no problem citing the law that says the only way
> you can get food is to buy it.
Zounds! RGP has yet another numbskull to play with.
Hey, everyone- brainstorm, right here . . . we all can go back to growing
our own food, raising cattle, and shoeing our own horses. This is called
the right-wing bridge to the Middle Ages.
You couldn't make it up if you tried. Only someone with an abundance of
underused blockheadedness could spout drivel like this and think that they
are announcing something infinitely profound.
______________________________________________________________________�
BillB
"~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sIedndJj77PsSZ3W...@giganews.com...
>> No, paying a slightly higher income tax rate is NOT the same as
>> having to buy health insurance. This should be obvious even to
>> someone of your limited intellect.
>
> 2.5% of your income is slight, no doubt.
2.5% is exactly what it sounds like, but it's not health insurance.
The base exchange plan is expected to cost $15,000 in 2016, so what
will a good private plan cost? 20? More?
~M~
> Zounds! RGP has yet another numbskull to play with.
Jinkees! Risky is an asshole!
> Hey, everyone- brainstorm, right here . . . we all can go back to growing
> our own food, raising cattle, and shoeing our own horses. This is called
> the right-wing bridge to the Middle Ages.
My point, asswipe, is that there are no laws preventing it, not that its a
good idea, though I do enjoy the vegetables I grow every year. Why do idiots
like you think that just because there is no law against something, people
will be lining up to do it?
> You couldn't make it up if you tried.
Well, you're trying. Keep going. I'm sure you have more lame attempts to put
words into my mouth, since you are no doubt blaming me for your decision to
use my post to make yourself look stupid. Don't blame me though. It's not my
fault you decided to read something into the discussion that is not there,
or are incapable of the comprehension skills needed to do so.
> Only someone with an abundance of
> underused blockheadedness could spout drivel like this and think that they
> are announcing something infinitely profound.
Great self-description.
garycarson
> "johnny_t" <nobo...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:00b9b19a$0$32345$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> > ~M~ wrote:
> >> "johnny_t" <nobo...@home.com> wrote in message
> >> news:00f96aaf$0$23386$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> >>
> >>> And yet there is paying for food. Mandatory for eating. And living.
> >>
> >>
> >> While eating is necessary for living, paying for food is not, and
> >> insurance is not mandatory for living, you fucking retard.
> >
> > So we should let others die.
>
> This is a non-sequitur, it has nothing to do with whether there are laws
> requireing people to pay for food. And someone with the limited reasoning
> skills you have would not possibly be able to do anything about someone
> else's dying anyway.
>
> > And we should not charge for food? Wow.
>
> Only someone as stupid as you would read this from what I said.
> There is no law that says you have to pay for food.
We charge sales tax on food in most states.
You can't grow your own food without property (also taxed)
-------�
da pickle
>> The real difference is that no one is forced to buy a house or a car. The
>> idea that insurance should be mandatory just to live, eat and breathe is
>> a
>> little much compared to "If you want to buy X, you need insurance for
>> it."
>>
>
> "If you want the ER to save your life after a medical emergency, you need
> insurance for it."
I am sure you are making a point, O-PG. However, the ER will save your life
after a medical emergency whether you have insurance or not.
idjut
> Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> buy auto or homeowners insurance.
>
> Brew
> --
> Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
> FEAR - Foreign Policy
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
I agree with you. And the individual is only punished (fined and/or
incarcerated) if he is caught driving a car without insurance coverage.
So maybe individuals who opt not to buy medical insurance coverage should
only be fined and/or incarcerated when they get caught seeking "free"
health care at the emergency room without medical insurance coverage.
Just a thought.
Raider Fan
> Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> buy auto or homeowners insurance.
You're not forced to buy collision insurance, but you sure are forced to
buy liability insurance for cars. You can't get your registration renewed
without proof of insurance.
"This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a
fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
_____________________________________________________________________�
da pickle
> I agree with you. And the individual is only punished (fined and/or
> incarcerated) if he is caught driving a car without insurance coverage.
> So maybe individuals who opt not to buy medical insurance coverage should
> only be fined and/or incarcerated when they get caught seeking "free"
> health care at the emergency room without medical insurance coverage.
> Just a thought.
If the guy cannot afford car insurance, why don't we just give it to him
free?
Why not give him the car too? And he should have the same car as everyone
else. Everyone has to have the same car.
Why do you want to put someone in jail who goes to the ER and can pay the
bill?
Why do you just provide service to another guy who cannot pay for it
(because he spends his food stamps on dope) and give him a free ride?
How about we provide some care to those who for whatever reason are less
fortunate than others and let the others pay for what they can afford.
O-PGManager
> after a medical emergency whether you have insurance or not.
WHOOSH. No shit Pickle - and who pays for it???
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
------�
Will_gamble
>
> We charge sales tax on food in most states.
>
> You can't grow your own food without property (also taxed)
When I was a kid there was a power line that was about as wide as a two
lane road including the shoulders running through the neighborhood were
some people grew their vegetable gardens. The catch was, if the power
company had to come work on something then your garden just might get
squashed.
I am pretty sure that some people who own property would allow others to
grow a garden on it for some of the harvest. Then there are some people
who would allow it because they thought it was the right thing to do.
_______________________________________________________________________�
brewmaster
> On Nov 15 2009 11:57 AM, brewmaster wrote:
>
> > Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> > forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> > homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> > buy auto or homeowners insurance.
>
> You're not forced to buy collision insurance, but you sure are forced to
> buy liability insurance for cars. You can't get your registration renewed
> without proof of insurance.
I'm not forced to buy any car insurance if I don't want to drive.
>
> "This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a
> fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
Brew
--
Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
FEAR - Foreign Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
----�
da pickle
"O-PGManager"
>> I am sure you are making a point, O-PG. However, the ER will save your
>> life
>> after a medical emergency whether you have insurance or not.
>
> WHOOSH. No shit Pickle - and who pays for it???
I do.
James L. Hankins
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M--dnSe7jux...@giganews.com...
LOL! That's the entire point. You trot out the ER law as if you don't have
any problem with it. It can be changed. Do you think it should be changed?
Jerry Sturdivant
"Tad Perry"
>> Except those of us that want to drive, at least in most
>> states I am aware of. As for homeowners, sure, you
>> can go bare, just pay for your house in cash and pray.
>> That's a viable option for one or two percent of the
>> population.
> The real difference is that no one is forced to buy a house
> or a car. The idea that insurance should be mandatory just
> to live, eat and breathe is a little much compared to "If you
> want to buy X, you need insurance for it."
You�re also forced to pay taxes. You�re also forced to drive on the right
side of the road. You�re also forced to have a prescription to buy many
drugs. You�re also forced to stop at red lights.
Be socialists. Quit looking for something to cry about and learn to live in
society. This is just something more to try and bitch Obama.
Jerry �n Vegas
- Tennis players have fuzzy balls.
Mistress of Tilt
I'm forced to buy trash removal services. I'm also forced to deal with
a waste managment company. The community won't allow me to compost all
my trash. Life is not fair for the lone-wolf hillbilly who wants to
raise pigs.
Hospitals are forced to treat patients. Actually they are forced to
stabilize the patient. In theory the hospital may discharge a
stabilized patient to home where they may later die.
I feel everyone should be forced to buy a minimum amount of health
insurance. I could change my mind on this requirement if hospitals
were no longer compeled to treat patients. Emergency responders are
included.
da pickle
>>>> I am sure you are making a point, O-PG. However, the ER will save your
>>>> life
>>>> after a medical emergency whether you have insurance or not.
>>>
>>> WHOOSH. No shit Pickle - and who pays for it???
>>
>> I do.
>
> LOL! That's the entire point. You trot out the ER law as if you don't
> have any problem with it. It can be changed. Do you think it should be
> changed?
I do not think that was the point, James. I think the point was the
quotation which has been lost and the subject changed.
I know who pays for medical services for the poor. I know how private
insurance pays for certain others in the system.
I know that serious changes can be made to the health care delivery system.
I also know that the current "plans" (and whatever they might become before
they become something) can make the health care system worse in the future
than it is now. Everyone cannot get everything ... some people are going to
get more than other people. This one size fits all desire by so many people
are going to change the "American way of life" in a way that will not be
able to be changed.
The idea that groups of "experts" can determine what is "best" for all of us
is not what I want in my country. That is my opinion ... I am entitled to
want what I want ... just like you can want what you want. I think what you
want does not accomplish what you might think it does but when you go that
direction, there is no turning back. I believe that incentive is a better
solution than mandate.
~M~
news:90r7t6x...@recgroups.com...
> We charge sales tax on food in most states.
Not if it is not purchased.
> You can't grow your own food without property (also taxed)
You're stretching it way more than I am.
--
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
- Barak Obama
O-PGManager
Sure as hell not the young healthy people who make 75k a year exercise
their right to "choose" to "self-insure".
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
_____________________________________________________________________�
brewmaster
What about homeless people? At the moment nobody is forced to buy
anything. If you drive, you have to buy car insurance. If you don't
drive, you don't. The only things we are currently forced to buy are
things that work with things we want to do. If I want to drop out of
society, not work, and live on the street, I don't have to pay taxes, or
buy car insurance, or any of that other crap. This new law will make it a
criminal act for even a homeless guy to not buy health insurance.
I want to Randy Weaver myself out of society, but society would just come
kill me if I did.
Brew
--
Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
FEAR - Foreign Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
--------�
da pickle
>> I do.
>
> Sure as hell not the young healthy people who make 75k a year exercise
> their right to "choose" to "self-insure".
Of course they do ... do you think they don't pay taxes? You don't think
taxes pay for Medicaid?
Mistress of Tilt
Exactly what I'm talking about.
Hospitals in order to keep their license must treat the indigent and
those who are uninsured. This requirement causes insurance rates to go
up, government makes up the shortfalls and increasingly hospitals
declare bankruptcy.
As long as hospitals MUST treat, then people MUST carry insurance. If
the hospitals are no longer required to treat those unlikely to pay,
then I feel the market should allow the consumer the choice of
carrying insurance.
So, if the 'free market' philosophy is to be applied to the public,
then hospitals should be free to practice 'free market' medicine. If
you are willing to agree to that, then we can discuss it further;
otherwise you want 'free market' when it suits you and conrols at
other times.
O-PGManager
Medicaid pays the ER bills for "self-insured" people making 75k a year???
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
------�
risky biz
I would respond to this if I thought it was necessary.
--------�
risky biz
> "James L. Hankins"
>
> >>>> I am sure you are making a point, O-PG. However, the ER will save your
> >>>> life
> >>>> after a medical emergency whether you have insurance or not.
> >>>
> >>> WHOOSH. No shit Pickle - and who pays for it???
> >>
> >> I do.
> >
> > LOL! That's the entire point. You trot out the ER law as if you don't
> > have any problem with it. It can be changed. Do you think it should be
> > changed?
>This one size fits all desire by so many people
> are going to change the "American way of life" in a way that will not be
> able to be changed.
Is this the FAKE pickle? Really. Or is it someone trying to make the real
pickle look like a dolt? I'm serious. The real pickle is supposedly an
attorney at law.
> The idea that groups of "experts" can determine what is "best" for all of us
> is not what I want in my country. That is my opinion ... I am entitled to
> want what I want ... just like you can want what you want. I think what you
> want does not accomplish what you might think it does but when you go that
> direction, there is no turning back. I believe that incentive is a better
> solution than mandate.
The healthcare systems in just about every other developed country in the
world are much more efficient than America's due to a freak accident. Is
that what you're trying to say?
________________________________________________________________________�
risky biz
> On Nov 16 2009 10:25 AM, Raider Fan wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15 2009 11:57 AM, brewmaster wrote:
> >
> > > Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> > > forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> > > homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> > > buy auto or homeowners insurance.
> >
> > You're not forced to buy collision insurance, but you sure are forced to
> > buy liability insurance for cars. You can't get your registration renewed
> > without proof of insurance.
>
> I'm not forced to buy any car insurance if I don't want to drive.
If you want to start shoveling horse shit, could you start at RGP?
Deadmoney Walking
I don't make 75k a year and yet the ER still sent me a bill that I had
to pay.
johnny_t
> On Nov 15 2009 5:48 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>
>
>> So we should let others die. And we should not charge for food? Wow.
>> Nice mouth, mamma teach you your manners?
>
> Your only option to get food is to pay for it? Really? It's incredible
> to me that people can't see another option at all.
And you can do surgery on yourself, or your loved ones, based on what
you read on google.
FFS, this is just argumentative sophistry to hear yourself say shit out
loud.
Deadmoney Walking
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hospitals are allowed to charge a hefty fee, which has nothing to do
with forcing people to subsidize an insurance company.
Deadmoney Walking
> On Nov 16 2009 10:25 AM, Raider Fan wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15 2009 11:57 AM, brewmaster wrote:
>
> > > Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> > > forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> > > homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> > > buy auto or homeowners insurance.
>
> > You're not forced to buy collision insurance, but you sure are forced to
> > buy liability insurance for cars. You can't get your registration renewed
> > without proof of insurance.
>
> I'm not forced to buy any car insurance if I don't want to drive.
>
>
>
> > "This has got to be some sports-related crap, that's all Raiderfan gives a
> > fuck about." -- Paul Popinjay 2/27/09
>
> Brew
> --
> Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
Not in New Hampshire baby.
Follow
You're trying to illustrate stupidity through sarcasm, right? You don't
really think the things you're saying make sense, right?
Follow :)
---�
johnny_t
> On Nov 16 2009 8:53 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>
>> Follow wrote:
>>> On Nov 15 2009 5:48 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So we should let others die. And we should not charge for food? Wow.
>>>> Nice mouth, mamma teach you your manners?
>>> Your only option to get food is to pay for it? Really? It's incredible
>>> to me that people can't see another option at all.
>> And you can do surgery on yourself, or your loved ones, based on what
>> you read on google.
>>
>> FFS, this is just argumentative sophistry to hear yourself say shit out
>> loud.
>
> You're trying to illustrate stupidity through sarcasm, right? You don't
> really think the things you're saying make sense, right?
It illustrates your stupidity, yes. That you think that the whole we
don't have to pay for food, I put right up there with self-surgery, in
its usefulness as argument.
You got it in one. Amazing.
Follow
> It illustrates your stupidity, yes. That you think that the whole we
> don't have to pay for food, I put right up there with self-surgery, in
> its usefulness as argument.
>
> You got it in one. Amazing.
I see. So growing food by planting, or raising an animal, is
fundamentally the same as performing surgery on yourself. That's the
argument you're making.
Wow. You win at the internets.
Follow :)
____________________________________________________________________�
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Nov 16 2009 9:57 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>
>
>> It illustrates your stupidity, yes. That you think that the whole we
>> don't have to pay for food, I put right up there with self-surgery, in
>> its usefulness as argument.
>>
>> You got it in one. Amazing.
>
>I see. So growing food by planting, or raising an animal, is
>fundamentally the same as performing surgery on yourself. That's the
>argument you're making.
Where, exactly, would you suggest I grow this food?
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Follow
> >I see. So growing food by planting, or raising an animal, is
> >fundamentally the same as performing surgery on yourself. That's the
> >argument you're making.
>
> Where, exactly, would you suggest I grow this food?
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
>
> MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
> Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
The suggestion isn't that you "should," Seth, only that you "can."
Meaning that you don't need to pay to live and with some very basic skills
you can learn to sustain yourself without paying, should the need arise.
Furthermore, the need for food is a built in need which can't be
legislated for or against. The need for health insurance is not a built
in need and can be legislated for or against. Therefore, making a
comparison between performing surgery on yourself, which isn't even
possible in most cases and would require very specialized learning in
others, and figuring out how to grow a carrot or raise a cow, is asinine
to say the least.
I can't even believe this point is being argued.
Follow :)
--------�
da pickle
> > > Sure as hell not the young healthy people who make 75k a year exercise
> > > their right to "choose" to "self-insure".
>
> > Of course they do ... do you think they don't pay taxes? You don't think
> > taxes pay for Medicaid?
>
> Medicaid pays the ER bills for "self-insured" people making 75k a year???
>
> Opie-GManager
I don't make 75k a year and yet the ER still sent me a bill that I had
to pay.
=========================
Opie actually is smarter than he is showing here. He knows that he has
fallen ... he is not trying to get up; rather, he is now saying he was tired
and is going to sleep.
People who have no health insurance pay for their health care themselves, if
they can afford it. I have a $3000 deductable policy ... I put $3000 a year
into my HSA. Sometimes, I can negotiate a lower price for the health care
services that I need because I am paying for it myself. I have a direct
interest in how much I must pay for health care services. If I "save" money
on health care, I get to keep the savings. It is the American dream way of
doing things.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:cbi4g5d8qjnc8uh1r...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:04:40 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 16 2009 9:57 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It illustrates your stupidity, yes. That you think that the whole we
>>> don't have to pay for food, I put right up there with self-surgery, in
>>> its usefulness as argument.
>>>
>>> You got it in one. Amazing.
>>
>>I see. So growing food by planting, or raising an animal, is
>>fundamentally the same as performing surgery on yourself. That's the
>>argument you're making.
>
> Where, exactly, would you suggest I grow this food?
"On land"
"Where do you get the land?"
Duh?
"How do you pay the property taxes?"
"Duh duh"?
How do you fertilize, water, get the tools to harvest, etc, etc....
Duh Duh Fuck !
Beldin the Sorcerer
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:q1s5t6x...@recgroups.com...
> Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> buy auto or homeowners insurance.
>
That's false.
If you own a house, you're required by your lender to buy insurance.
If you own a car, you're required in almost all states to insure it.
If your argument is "You don't need to have" etc, you're still wrong,
because those who choose to have are then forced to insure it.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o0r9t6x...@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 16 2009 9:57 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>
>
>> It illustrates your stupidity, yes. That you think that the whole we
>> don't have to pay for food, I put right up there with self-surgery, in
>> its usefulness as argument.
>>
>> You got it in one. Amazing.
>
> I see. So growing food by planting, or raising an animal, is
> fundamentally the same as performing surgery on yourself. That's the
> argument you're making.
>
> Wow. You win at the internets.
johnny_t
> On Nov 16 2009 9:57 PM, johnny_t wrote:
>
>
>> It illustrates your stupidity, yes. That you think that the whole we
>> don't have to pay for food, I put right up there with self-surgery, in
>> its usefulness as argument.
>>
>> You got it in one. Amazing.
>
> I see. So growing food by planting, or raising an animal, is
> fundamentally the same as performing surgery on yourself. That's the
> argument you're making.
>
> Wow. You win at the internets.
What percentage of people live in cities? What is the sheer number of
people that live in the cities?
For each and everyone of them, it is the same. Wow. Are you this bad at
the intenets?
charrison100
> "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:q1s5t6x...@recgroups.com...
> > Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are already
> > forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
> > homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED to
> > buy auto or homeowners insurance.
> >
>
> That's false.
> If you own a house, you're required by your lender to buy insurance.
But you can choose not to own a house
> If you own a car, you're required in almost all states to insure it.
But you can choose not to have a car.
This is Brew's point.
>
> If your argument is "You don't need to have" etc, you're still wrong,
> because those who choose to have are then forced to insure it.
Chris
"Chris is loveable, but we all know he's not the brightest knife in the
drawer." - Paul Popinjay, 08/31/2009
"Chris H. may be loveable, but he is one card short of getting two birds
stoned." - Paul Popinjay, 10/20/2009
______________________________________________________________________�
Deadmoney Walking
How do you negotiate with those departments? I get ripped off all the
time.
Follow
Beldin has joined your side of the argument, a sure sign that you're wrong
if you can't think it out for yourself. I'm done with this one. You go
perform surgery while rearing cows or whatever.
Follow :)
------�
da pickle
> > Medicaid pays the ER bills for "self-insured" people making 75k a
> > year???
>
> > Opie-GManager
>
> I don't make 75k a year and yet the ER still sent me a bill that I had
> to pay.
> =========================
>
> Opie actually is smarter than he is showing here. He knows that he has
> fallen ... he is not trying to get up; rather, he is now saying he was
> tired
> and is going to sleep.
>
> People who have no health insurance pay for their health care themselves,
> if
> they can afford it. I have a $3000 deductable policy ... I put $3000 a
> year
> into my HSA. Sometimes, I can negotiate a lower price for the health care
> services that I need because I am paying for it myself. I have a direct
> interest in how much I must pay for health care services. If I "save"
> money
> on health care, I get to keep the savings. It is the American dream way of
> doing things.
How do you negotiate with those departments? I get ripped off all the
time.
========================
My first thought is "how do you know?" However, it is indeed difficult to
negotiate many parts of the system.
(We had a thread some time back about baby seats that really got out of
hand.)
Believe it or not, there is a lot of negotiation that goes on ... especially
if YOU are paying the bill yourself.
Some folks just refuse to pay outrageous prices for stupid stuff that you
did not want or need ... and often did not get.
If you have a doctor you trust, you can just talk to him or her and
sometimes you will find that there are other options available to you.
Hospitals are not as easy to negotiate with in a "friendly" way, but you can
get concessions.
The whole mess is a mess. I am surprised at the glib way certain folks seem
to think that if the government takes over all of it ... it will get better.
The government cannot manage what they already control (think Medicare) and
they think if they make it all even bigger (and "bigger" is too small a
word) ... well, that problem is solved!
O-PGManager
> they can afford it.
And if they can't afford it?
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
---�
Omaha8_Beach
wrote:
> If you own a car, you're required in almost all states to insure it.
That's actually a good point, unless I'm missing something. Feel free
to flame away if I've missed something obvious, I'm just letting my
mind wander here:
I live in a state that does require auto insurance if you drive. You
don't actually have to insure the vehicle, I think you just have to
have a limited amount of liability insurance. It was not always like
this. However, since this became a law, it is my observation that my
own car insurance has not gone down any more than it would if they
didn't pass a law 'requiring' every driver to have liability (I've
reached some age milestones, my car is older, etc). And as far as I
know, the law is rarely enforced and certainly not enough to compel
most of the former auto insurance 'freeloaders' from obtaining auto
insurance.
Now, to be fair, my insurance didn't go up in this time period -
probably because the law requiring every driver to have auto insurance
didn't increase the access to autos that the 'freeloaders' already
had. They drove the same amount, had the same number or accidents
they couldn't pay for, etc. Someone may post some statistics to
contradict this, and if you find them, please post them, I won't argue
with the stats if they are correct.
However, with some of the heath insurance proposals out there, it
would definitely increase the access to health care, although
emergency room visits would probably not go up as much since having or
not having insurance isn't a factor in emergency room type visits.
The question is, how effective would the federal government be in
enforcing the requirement to have some type of health insurace?
Obviously it's possible to enforce this in many different ways, I'm
just skeptical that it might be enforced to the same degree that my
state enforces the car insurance requirement for all drivers.
Omaha8
buffalo
> "BillB"
>
> > You aren't forced to buy insurance under the House plan. You can instead
> > choose to pay the ~2.5% income surtax instead, which covers a small part
> > of the catastrophic risk coverage you get automatically as part of a
> > civilized society. You are still still a freeloader if you go this route
> > (in the vast majority of cases), but at least you are paying *something*.
>
> Didn't O say something about no middle-class tax increase? � Like say it a
> brazillion times?
susan:Didn't O say something about no middle-class tax increase?
Like say it a brazillion times?
If you equate middle-class as over $250 k income, then
yes.
da pickle
>> People who have no health insurance pay for their health care themselves,
>> if
>> they can afford it.
>
> And if they can't afford it?
People that cannot afford their food get food stamps. People that cannot
afford housing get housing. People that cannot afford their utilities can
get their utilities paid. People who are in need can get welfare checks.
People that cannot afford health care can get Medicaid.
Beldin the Sorcerer
he's wrong, so he'll ignore the discussion now.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"charrison100" <a11...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:cjsat6x...@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 17 2009 8:49 AM, Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:q1s5t6x...@recgroups.com...
>> > Why do all the libs keep saying "why is this a big deal, you are
>> > already
>> > forced to buy car insurance" (and yesterday Wanda Sykes threw in "and
>> > homeowners insurance") when this is patently false. Nobody is FORCED
>> > to
>> > buy auto or homeowners insurance.
>> >
>>
>> That's false.
>> If you own a house, you're required by your lender to buy insurance.
>
> But you can choose not to own a house
>
>> If you own a car, you're required in almost all states to insure it.
>
> But you can choose not to have a car.
>
> This is Brew's point.
I saw what he might have meant, but that's invalid.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Nov 16 2009 11:59 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> >I see. So growing food by planting, or raising an animal, is
>> >fundamentally the same as performing surgery on yourself. That's the
>> >argument you're making.
>>
>> Where, exactly, would you suggest I grow this food?
>> --
>> ~ Seth Jackson
>>
>> MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
>> Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
>
>The suggestion isn't that you "should," Seth, only that you "can."
I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out, as nothing in my
post indicates I thought otherwise. But you still haven't answered
my question. Where, exactly, would you suggest I grow this food if I
were to choose this alleged option?
>Meaning that you don't need to pay to live and with some very basic skills
>you can learn to sustain yourself without paying, should the need arise.
>Furthermore, the need for food is a built in need which can't be
>legislated for or against. The need for health insurance is not a built
>in need and can be legislated for or against. Therefore, making a
>comparison between performing surgery on yourself, which isn't even
>possible in most cases and would require very specialized learning in
>others, and figuring out how to grow a carrot or raise a cow, is asinine
>to say the least.
>
>I can't even believe this point is being argued.
>
>
>
>Follow :)
>
>--------�
>looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
>
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>Beldin has joined your side of the argument, a sure sign that you're wrong
>if you can't think it out for yourself. I'm done with this one. You go
>perform surgery while rearing cows or whatever.
That's about as weak a reply as I've seen in a long time.
O-PGManager
> afford housing get housing. People that cannot afford their utilities can
> get their utilities paid. People who are in need can get welfare checks.
> People that cannot afford health care can get Medicaid.
Are you trolling me? People who make 75k a year and "choose to
self-insure" are not on medicaid. They also can't cover their bills after
a medical emergency. The cost gets covered by the people who make 75k a
year and are responsible enough to pay for insurance.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
--------�
Beldin the Sorcerer
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:2cict6x...@recgroups.com...
>> People that cannot afford their food get food stamps. People that cannot
>> afford housing get housing. People that cannot afford their utilities
>> can
>> get their utilities paid. People who are in need can get welfare checks.
>> People that cannot afford health care can get Medicaid.
>
> Are you trolling me? People who make 75k a year and "choose to
> self-insure" are not on medicaid. They also can't cover their bills after
> a medical emergency. The cost gets covered by the people who make 75k a
> year and are responsible enough to pay for insurance.
>
And the people who self insure lose their house and their car, and often
their job.
They're broke. In order to get ON medicaid, you need to be... poor.
~M~
> I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out, as nothing in my
> post indicates I thought otherwise. But you still haven't answered
> my question. Where, exactly, would you suggest I grow this food if I
> were to choose this alleged option?
In your back yard.
--
"I am firmly of the opinion that if I make it to 50 in good health, I'll
make it to 100. And if I make it to 100, technology will get me to 200."
-Beldin the Sorcerer, 10/28/2007
da pickle
> I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out, as nothing in my
> post indicates I thought otherwise. But you still haven't answered
> my question. Where, exactly, would you suggest I grow this food if I
> were to choose this alleged option?
Stop growing weed and start growing nutritious vegetables.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:KLCdnaq9jeTgTZ7W...@giganews.com...
> "Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fs57g5hdslqia05uj...@4ax.com...
>
>> I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out, as nothing in my
>> post indicates I thought otherwise. But you still haven't answered
>> my question. Where, exactly, would you suggest I grow this food if I
>> were to choose this alleged option?
>
>
> In your back yard.
>
da pickle
>> People that cannot afford their food get food stamps. People that cannot
>> afford housing get housing. People that cannot afford their utilities
>> can
>> get their utilities paid. People who are in need can get welfare checks.
>> People that cannot afford health care can get Medicaid.
>
> Are you trolling me? People who make 75k a year and "choose to
> self-insure" are not on medicaid. They also can't cover their bills after
> a medical emergency. The cost gets covered by the people who make 75k a
> year and are responsible enough to pay for insurance.
They choose and suffer the gains and losses that come with their choices.
There are many other choices that they can make besides whether or not they
will suffer a "medical emergency" and there are many "medical emergencies"
that will result in their demise whether they have insurance or not.
You want the government to choose for them. You want to protect them from
themselves because you think they will make bad choices. When you prevent
them from making what YOU think might be bad choices, you also prevent them
from making better choices FOR THEM than you think they should make. You
think they are too stupid to make the "right" or "fair" choices so you will
make them sheep and follow you (substitute central planning for "you").
I have health insurance for the part of medical emergencies that I cannot
pay for myself. If I get into a medical emergency of severe proportions, I
give up my world travels that I planned for my retirement. My problem ...
my plan did not work the way I had hoped.
You want to take extreme situations and make them the norm. This is a
typical argument for those that want "experts" to make decisions for
everyone. You want to reduce individual freedom to make decisions ... I
want to stop the loss of freedom to succeed and with it comes the
continuation of the freedom to fail.
Jerry Sturdivant
"da pickle"
Good morning, Pickle:
> You want the government to choose for them. You want to
> protect them from themselves because you think they will
> make bad choices. When you prevent them from making what
> YOU think might be bad choices, you also prevent them from
> making better choices FOR THEM than you think they should
> make.
I�ll take a stab in the dark and state that I remember there being a clause
allowing a person to keep the insurance they presently have. How do you fit
in with this?
> I have health insurance for the part of
> medical emergencies that I cannot pay for myself.
Good on you. When I was a worthless motorcycle bum, even I got insurance for
those bad crashes during races. This shows responsibility (somewhat).
> You want to take extreme situations and make them the norm.
> This is a typical argument for those that want "experts"
> to make decisions for everyone. You want to reduce individual
> freedom to make decisions ... I want to stop the loss of
> freedom to succeed and with it comes the continuation of
> the freedom to fail.
But what of those who�s decisions are irresponsible and cost the rest of us?
Jerry �n Vegas
- We learn from history that we do not learn from history.
JerseyRudy
You believe that people in the United States who are unable to pay their
medical costs due to a unexpected illness represent an "extreme
situation?" You would tell the people who are forced to sell their home in
order to pay for the necessary medical care of a loved one that this is
actually a good thing, because it represents the "freedom to fail" that
makes this country great!
If this is what you believe, you have your head in the sand. You have
allowed your ideological philosophy (the invisible hand of the free market
will solve all our problems) to blind you to reality. Why anyone would
want to bother debating this issue with someone who has willingly stuck
their hand in the sand in order to cling to a failed ideological
philosophy is beyond me.
----�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
da pickle
> Why anyone would
> want to bother debating this issue with someone who has willingly stuck
> their hand in the sand in order to cling to a failed ideological
> philosophy is beyond me.
I agree ... go back to sleep, Rudy.
da pickle
> I'll take a stab in the dark and state that I remember there being a
> clause
> allowing a person to keep the insurance they presently have. How do you
> fit
> in with this?
I think that would be great.
>> I have health insurance for the part of
>> medical emergencies that I cannot pay for myself.
>
> Good on you. When I was a worthless motorcycle bum, even I got insurance
> for
> those bad crashes during races. This shows responsibility (somewhat).
"was?"
>> You want to take extreme situations and make them the norm.
>> This is a typical argument for those that want "experts"
>> to make decisions for everyone. You want to reduce individual
>> freedom to make decisions ... I want to stop the loss of
>> freedom to succeed and with it comes the continuation of
>> the freedom to fail.
>
> But what of those who's decisions are irresponsible and cost the rest of
> us?
The price of freedom. Why do we let the guilty go when we "know" they are
guilty, but our police have acted in bad faith?
O-PGManager
And if they can't cover the losses everyone else does. Until you
recognize this reality there is no further discussion to be had.
Even the purest libertarian concedes your right to personal freedom can't
trample on my rights.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
----�
da pickle
"O-PGManager"
>> They choose and suffer the gains and losses that come with their choices.
>
> And if they can't cover the losses everyone else does. Until you
> recognize this reality there is no further discussion to be had.
In general, they lose everything they have because of their bad choice.
Might that not be punishment enough?
And people die all the time ... even the ones with the best insurance
available.
You are correct that your disengenuousness does strain any real discussion.
> Even the purest libertarian concedes your right to personal freedom can't
> trample on my rights.
So, do you favor or disfavor the government choosing what foods you will be
allowed to eat? After all, bad eating habits cause health costs to rise and
we would not want to trample on any of YOUR rights. Bad analogies, bad
logic and intentional distraction ... your main fighting tools.
Jerry Sturdivant
"da pickle"
>> I'll take a stab in the dark and state that I remember there
>> being a clause allowing a person to keep the insurance
>> they presently have. How do you fit in with this?
> I think that would be great.
There would probably be a qualifier on that; otherwise you'd have somebody
selling medical insurance for 10� a year that gives you full coverage if you�re
hit by a meteor over 200-miles in diameter.
>>> I have health insurance for the part of
>>> medical emergencies that I cannot pay for myself.
>> Good on you. When I was a worthless motorcycle bum,
>> even I got insurance for those bad crashes during races.
>> This shows responsibility (somewhat).
> "was?"
Well, I�m still a bum, I'm just no longer worthless�
>>> You want to take extreme situations and make them the norm.
>>> This is a typical argument for those that want "experts"
>>> to make decisions for everyone. You want to reduce individual
>>> freedom to make decisions ... I want to stop the loss of
>>> freedom to succeed and with it comes the continuation of
>>> the freedom to fail.
>> But what of those who's decisions are irresponsible and
>> cost the rest of us?
> The price of freedom.
I'm not free if I have to pay for others.
> Why do we let the guilty go when we "know" they
> are guilty, but our police have acted in bad faith?
It�s the law in the land of the free.
Jerry (free) �n Vegas
- FIGHT BACK! Fill out your tax forms with Roman numerals.
Mistress of Tilt
>
> So, do you favor or disfavor the government choosing what foods you will be
> allowed to eat? After all, bad eating habits cause health costs to rise and
> we would not want to trample on any of YOUR rights. Bad analogies, bad
> logic and intentional distraction ... your main fighting tools.
You do know the US government already chooses which foods you eat?
Look at a can of pop (soda, Coke, whatever). Besides water (which is
regulated for its purity) you will see the number two ingridient is
high fructose corn syrup, or corn syrup -- same thing. Now why would
you see that in a beverage? Look at nearly every processed food and
see if you can find the corn. Meats are nearly all corn fed. The US
government subsidises corn and has a tariff on cane sugar if imported.
When I was a kid, there was no HFCS in anything, it is an invention
of recent. Beef was nearly all grass fed. Things are different and the
government is the reason. Unlike the current medical insurance debate,
the switch to corn was made to prosper certain industries and not for
the betterment of people. So I am hoping.
~M~
news:he0jta$u17$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In your back yard.
>>
> Which he pays property taxes on, and pays for water use.....
If they raised your property taxes because you had a garden, maybe you would
have a point. If you have to pay for water, you have to pay for water. That
is not the same as paying for food, and in many areas, probably not even
necessary, but it is a convenience for sure.
--
"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a
cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup."
- H.L. Mencken
~M~
news:ZFTMm.18978$ky1....@newsfe14.iad...
> But what of those who�s decisions are irresponsible and cost the rest of
> us?
That is a problem caused by socialism, not by freedom.
--
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and
deserve to get it good and hard."
- H.L. Mencken