Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#5851
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vssrf65q72uc7f@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> >> health
>> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>> >profit.
>> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >> >out of business.
>> >>
>> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and
>make
>> >> huge profits on them.
>> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>> >exorbitant
>> >> profits.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>> >>
>> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>> >research.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >so who
>> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>> >useful
>> >> drugs
>> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
>having
>> >the
>> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
>socialism
>> >you'd
>> >> end
>> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>> >national
>> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >> >
>> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>> >TRILLIONS
>> >> of
>> >> >dollars.
>> >>
>> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to
>get
>> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>> >>
>> >> Totally false.
>> >
>> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
>doesn't
>> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
>>
>> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
>
>Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
>It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
>Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
I see your IQ is still below room temperature.
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0t8$c29$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq6jtru8cnd96@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqitfk$of5$4@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <3FCCEA4D.9F9665EC@greg.greg>, Greg <greg@greg.greg> wrote:
>> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less
>on
>> >> health
>> >> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Many HMOs are not even for profit.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? They're all run by insurance companies, and they sure are for
>> >profit.
>> >> In most states, even Blue Cross is now for profit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And let's attack drug companies and put them
>> >> >out of business.
>> >>
>> >> 1. They earn a greater return on capital than any other industry.
>> >> 2. They take drugs discovered and tested with tax-funded research and
>make
>> >> huge profits on them.
>> >> 3. They do fine in other countries where they aren't allowed such
>> >exorbitant
>> >> profits.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > After all we can all just invent our own miracle drugs,
>> >>
>> >> Most are -- most new drugs come out of government-funded university
>> >research.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >so who
>> >> >needs pharmecutical companies? I'm sure you've contributed even more
>> >useful
>> >> drugs
>> >> >than average given your superior chemistry background. Finally,
>having
>> >the
>> >> >government do as a monopoly what the private sector can do is
>socialism
>> >you'd
>> >> end
>> >> >up spending far more under your socialism plan.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But why not a single-payer, like Canada then? You wouldn't have
>> >national
>> >> >> health care, just national health insurance.
>> >> >
>> >> >Huh? Even HillaryClintonCare was forecast to cost in double digit
>> >TRILLIONS
>> >> of
>> >> >dollars.
>> >>
>> >> And what do you think we spend now on health care?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > And yes, the Canada care system with its people fleeing to the US to
>get
>> >> >needed healthcare would be an improvement in your alternate reality.
>> >>
>> >> Totally false.
>> >
>> >Totally true, reported many times in the news. Stop lying Parker, it
>doesn't
>> >work, we are all smarter than you, even my dog.
>>
>> It's false. Totally, absolutely false. Read:
>
>Oh great, more of your left wing propaganda.
>It's true Lloyd, learn to read, watch the news, open your mind. Consumer
>Reports, give me a break, what a sorry source of left wing lies.
I see your IQ is still below room temperature.
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
#5852
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vssrtd7jldov7a@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0ro$c29$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
>> >"free"
>> >> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
>> >outstripped
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
>> >people
>> >> >with
>> >> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to
>go
>> >wait
>> >> >in
>> >> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
>> >expensive.
>> >> >Most
>> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
>room
>> >> >spend
>> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
>> >live
>> >> >in
>> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
>> >just
>> >> >out of
>> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
>> >"free."
>> >> >If you
>> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
>> >However
>> >> >if you
>> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
>try
>> >to
>> >> >screw
>> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>> >> >administrators,
>> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
>the
>> >> >poor).
>> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
>> >is,
>> >> >we have
>> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
>see
>> >> >only two
>> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
>on
>> >> >"private"
>> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>> >> >suggests
>> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
>bills.
>> >If
>> >> >you
>> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
>be
>> >> >generously
>> >> >> granted based on need).
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
>US.
>> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
>I
>> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
>> >the
>> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
>> >problem
>> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
>> >cost
>> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
>and
>> >more
>> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
>> >who
>> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
>> >poor
>> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
>on
>> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>> >> >
>> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
>medical
>> >care
>> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
>As
>> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
>for
>> >and
>> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
>complex
>> >and
>> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't
>> >be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>> >struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>> >will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> >health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>> >problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
>expense.
>> >Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
>year
>> >for treatment.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
>does
>> not happen.
>
>
>Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
>repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>>
>> Read, for example,
>> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>
>Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.
>
>
"The cowardly one" just continues to show how stupid he is.
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0ro$c29$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
>> >"free"
>> >> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
>> >outstripped
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
>> >people
>> >> >with
>> >> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to
>go
>> >wait
>> >> >in
>> >> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
>> >expensive.
>> >> >Most
>> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
>room
>> >> >spend
>> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
>> >live
>> >> >in
>> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
>> >just
>> >> >out of
>> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
>> >"free."
>> >> >If you
>> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
>> >However
>> >> >if you
>> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
>try
>> >to
>> >> >screw
>> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>> >> >administrators,
>> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
>the
>> >> >poor).
>> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
>> >is,
>> >> >we have
>> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
>see
>> >> >only two
>> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
>on
>> >> >"private"
>> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>> >> >suggests
>> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
>bills.
>> >If
>> >> >you
>> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
>be
>> >> >generously
>> >> >> granted based on need).
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
>US.
>> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
>I
>> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
>> >the
>> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
>> >problem
>> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
>> >cost
>> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
>and
>> >more
>> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
>> >who
>> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
>> >poor
>> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
>on
>> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>> >> >
>> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
>medical
>> >care
>> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
>As
>> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
>for
>> >and
>> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
>complex
>> >and
>> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't
>> >be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>> >struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>> >will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> >health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>> >problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
>expense.
>> >Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
>year
>> >for treatment.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
>does
>> not happen.
>
>
>Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
>repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>>
>> Read, for example,
>> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>
>Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.
>
>
"The cowardly one" just continues to show how stupid he is.
#5853
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vssrtd7jldov7a@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0ro$c29$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
>> >"free"
>> >> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
>> >outstripped
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
>> >people
>> >> >with
>> >> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to
>go
>> >wait
>> >> >in
>> >> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
>> >expensive.
>> >> >Most
>> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
>room
>> >> >spend
>> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
>> >live
>> >> >in
>> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
>> >just
>> >> >out of
>> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
>> >"free."
>> >> >If you
>> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
>> >However
>> >> >if you
>> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
>try
>> >to
>> >> >screw
>> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>> >> >administrators,
>> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
>the
>> >> >poor).
>> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
>> >is,
>> >> >we have
>> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
>see
>> >> >only two
>> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
>on
>> >> >"private"
>> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>> >> >suggests
>> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
>bills.
>> >If
>> >> >you
>> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
>be
>> >> >generously
>> >> >> granted based on need).
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
>US.
>> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
>I
>> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
>> >the
>> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
>> >problem
>> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
>> >cost
>> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
>and
>> >more
>> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
>> >who
>> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
>> >poor
>> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
>on
>> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>> >> >
>> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
>medical
>> >care
>> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
>As
>> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
>for
>> >and
>> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
>complex
>> >and
>> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't
>> >be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>> >struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>> >will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> >health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>> >problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
>expense.
>> >Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
>year
>> >for treatment.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
>does
>> not happen.
>
>
>Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
>repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>>
>> Read, for example,
>> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>
>Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.
>
>
"The cowardly one" just continues to show how stupid he is.
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0ro$c29$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
>> >"free"
>> >> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
>> >outstripped
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
>> >people
>> >> >with
>> >> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to
>go
>> >wait
>> >> >in
>> >> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
>> >expensive.
>> >> >Most
>> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
>room
>> >> >spend
>> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
>> >live
>> >> >in
>> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
>> >just
>> >> >out of
>> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
>> >"free."
>> >> >If you
>> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
>> >However
>> >> >if you
>> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
>try
>> >to
>> >> >screw
>> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>> >> >administrators,
>> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
>the
>> >> >poor).
>> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
>> >is,
>> >> >we have
>> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
>see
>> >> >only two
>> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
>on
>> >> >"private"
>> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>> >> >suggests
>> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
>bills.
>> >If
>> >> >you
>> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
>be
>> >> >generously
>> >> >> granted based on need).
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
>US.
>> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
>I
>> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
>> >the
>> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
>> >problem
>> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
>> >cost
>> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
>and
>> >more
>> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
>> >who
>> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
>> >poor
>> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
>on
>> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>> >> >
>> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
>medical
>> >care
>> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
>As
>> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
>for
>> >and
>> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
>complex
>> >and
>> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't
>> >be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>> >struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>> >will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> >health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>> >problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
>expense.
>> >Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
>year
>> >for treatment.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
>does
>> not happen.
>
>
>Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
>repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>>
>> Read, for example,
>> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>
>Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.
>
>
"The cowardly one" just continues to show how stupid he is.
#5854
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <vssrtd7jldov7a@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0ro$c29$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
>> >"free"
>> >> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
>> >outstripped
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
>> >people
>> >> >with
>> >> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to
>go
>> >wait
>> >> >in
>> >> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
>> >expensive.
>> >> >Most
>> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
>room
>> >> >spend
>> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
>> >live
>> >> >in
>> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
>> >just
>> >> >out of
>> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
>> >"free."
>> >> >If you
>> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
>> >However
>> >> >if you
>> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
>try
>> >to
>> >> >screw
>> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>> >> >administrators,
>> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
>the
>> >> >poor).
>> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
>> >is,
>> >> >we have
>> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
>see
>> >> >only two
>> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
>on
>> >> >"private"
>> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>> >> >suggests
>> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
>bills.
>> >If
>> >> >you
>> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
>be
>> >> >generously
>> >> >> granted based on need).
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
>US.
>> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
>I
>> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
>> >the
>> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
>> >problem
>> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
>> >cost
>> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
>and
>> >more
>> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
>> >who
>> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
>> >poor
>> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
>on
>> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>> >> >
>> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
>medical
>> >care
>> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
>As
>> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
>for
>> >and
>> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
>complex
>> >and
>> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't
>> >be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>> >struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>> >will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> >health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>> >problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
>expense.
>> >Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
>year
>> >for treatment.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
>does
>> not happen.
>
>
>Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
>repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>>
>> Read, for example,
>> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>
>Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.
>
>
"The cowardly one" just continues to show how stupid he is.
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bql0ro$c29$6@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <vsq63d41c6ose2@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bqinb6$him$8@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> >> In article <QA3zb.1107$Kf2.626@twister.socal.rr.com>,
>> >> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3FCCB2E7.B0E53E0D@mindspring.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "David J. Allen" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had
>> >"free"
>> >> >> > (i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care
>> >outstripped
>> >> >the
>> >> >> > supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the
>> >people
>> >> >with
>> >> >> > money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to
>go
>> >wait
>> >> >in
>> >> >> > line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So now you live in a country where health care is ridiculously
>> >expensive.
>> >> >Most
>> >> >> of the money goes to insurance companies. Nurses in the emergency
>room
>> >> >spend
>> >> >> more time filling out paperwork than looking after patients. Doctors
>> >live
>> >> >in
>> >> >> fear of making an honest mistake because the sharks are circulating
>> >just
>> >> >out of
>> >> >> sight ready to pounce. If you are poor the health care is still
>> >"free."
>> >> >If you
>> >> >> are rich or have really good insurance, then the system is great.
>> >However
>> >> >if you
>> >> >> are somewhere in between, chances are your insurance company will
>try
>> >to
>> >> >screw
>> >> >> you, while the hospital tries to bleed your dry (to pay for the
>> >> >administrators,
>> >> >> paper pushers, and to cover the cost of the "free" health care for
>the
>> >> >poor).
>> >> >> The fact is, we do have National Health Care in the US. The sad part
>> >is,
>> >> >we have
>> >> >> just about the worst possible system you can imagine. Personally I
>see
>> >> >only two
>> >> >> ways out - 1) A true National Health Care system with restrictions
>on
>> >> >"private"
>> >> >> practices, 2) Outlaw all health insurance and shoot anyone who even
>> >> >suggests
>> >> >> that companies provide health insurance. Everyone pays their own
>bills.
>> >If
>> >> >you
>> >> >> can't afford the treatment, you can apply for welfare (which would
>be
>> >> >generously
>> >> >> granted based on need).
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >There's no shortage of things to criticize about health care in the
>US.
>> >> >But, with the right perspective, it can be judged a very good system.
>I
>> >> >remember getting my first job and insurance was completely paid for by
>> >the
>> >> >company and there were no co-pays and only a small deductible. The
>> >problem
>> >> >with that is that it's so inflationary; patients didn't care what the
>> >cost
>> >> >was. Over the last 15 years the cost burden is being "shared" more
>and
>> >more
>> >> >with the patients. The cost of care is not distributed evenly. Those
>> >who
>> >> >pay, pay a lot. The cost of developing drugs and procedures is very
>> >> >expensive. You're right about the cost of providing free care to the
>> >poor
>> >> >and paying for malpractice litigation. Managed care puts the brakes
>on
>> >> >demand making it frustrating for patients whose health is at stake.
>> >> >
>> >> >With managed care, when you do your homework as a "consumer" of
>medical
>> >care
>> >> >and understand how the HMO system works, you CAN get what you need.
>As
>> >> >consumers, we have to do our part and understand what you're paying
>for
>> >and
>> >> >what the contract says. Then work with it. Unfortunately, it's
>complex
>> >and
>> >> >not real easy since there's three parties... you, the provider and the
>> >> >insurer. But it is possible.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think a National Health Care system sounds very scary. If we want
>an
>> >> >abundant supply of medical care in this country you can't take the
>supply
>> >> >and demand components out of the system. The minute you do, there
>won't
>> >be
>> >> >enough care and it will be substandard. There will be a constant
>> >struggle
>> >> >to keep the system from bankrupting the national treasury. I think it
>> >will
>> >> >just become a giant sized version of an HMO run by the government with
>no
>> >> >competitors.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, it'd be terrible if everybody were covered and we spent less on
>> >health
>> >> care, as Europe, Canada, and Japan do, wouldn't it? Terrible for
>> >insurance
>> >> companies, drug companies, HMOs, etc, that is.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating health
>> >problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
>expense.
>> >Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
>year
>> >for treatment.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
>does
>> not happen.
>
>
>Your lying Lloyd, it happens every week. Crawl out of your shell and learn,
>repeatedly denying the existance of problems does not make them go away.
>>
>> Read, for example,
>> http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.e...cs/HealthCare/
>Co
>> nsumerReports-Sep92.html.gz#Does%20Canada%20Have%20The%20Answer?
>>
>
>Consumer Reports have no more credibility than you do Lloyd, which is 0.
>
>
"The cowardly one" just continues to show how stupid he is.
#5855
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>
>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>
>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>loving the idea.
>
>
>
>
But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
insurance benefits, etc.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>
>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>
>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>loving the idea.
>
>
>
>
But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
insurance benefits, etc.
#5856
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>
>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>
>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>loving the idea.
>
>
>
>
But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
insurance benefits, etc.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>
>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>
>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>loving the idea.
>
>
>
>
But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
insurance benefits, etc.
#5857
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safetycan be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <MoqdndHLHYgo8lOiRTvUqA@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>
>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>
>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>loving the idea.
>
>
>
>
But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
insurance benefits, etc.
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, sure it does, Ed, if recognized as "marriage" they then get huge tax
>>>>and benefits advantages, all of which are denied singles.
>>>
>>>The "new class of civil union" would cover that just fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Didn't "separate but equal" get discredited in the 1950s?
>
>Don't try to pretend that its about discrimination against homosexuals.
>Many heterosexual couples would also take advantage of a new class of
>civil union that didn't incorporate the religion-based term "marriage."
>
>Since suppressing religion is right up your alley, you ought to be
>loving the idea.
>
>
>
>
But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
insurance benefits, etc.
#5858
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>confiscation.
>>>
>>
>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>
>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>And that's hardly the case.
>
And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
our elected government decides that.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>confiscation.
>>>
>>
>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>
>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>And that's hardly the case.
>
And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
our elected government decides that.
#5859
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>confiscation.
>>>
>>
>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>
>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>And that's hardly the case.
>
And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
our elected government decides that.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>confiscation.
>>>
>>
>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>
>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>And that's hardly the case.
>
And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
our elected government decides that.
#5860
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <fjsssvsjhm8pallc1vtbeep7bao9tn38hv@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>confiscation.
>>>
>>
>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>
>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>And that's hardly the case.
>
And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
our elected government decides that.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:56:52 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>You're free to pay for their healthcare any time you want. But what
>>>idiot believes that they have the right to reach into my pocket and take
>>>what is mine (it's called stealing). So - really - who is preventing
>>>you and anyone who feels that way from paying for the treatment of these
>>>people? You have that right, as do I - but by freedom of will - not by
>>>confiscation.
>>>
>>
>>It's called living in a society. Society has the right to compel you to pay
>>taxes, and it's the height of idiocy to call it stealing or theft. If you
>>don't want to live in a society, you can leave. Nobody's keeping you here.
>
>That assumes that all taxes are for legimitate purposes.
>And that's hardly the case.
>
And you get to decide that? Sorry, that would be anarchy. In our society,
our elected government decides that.