<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote: >> > its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who has >> >to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can >> >afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
>> Typical lib jealousy rears its very ugly head. >> WTF do you care how much someone makes?
>I like when they say "how much does one person need?" (which of course >always precedes "they should pay like 90% of their income in taxes blah >blah blah")
It worked out pretty well in the '50s. -- ~ Seth Jackson
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:28:30 -0800, "brewmaster" > <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>> > its looks to me like 2.5% of someones income means this person who >>> > has >>> >to pay 15k for his family has an income of $600,000. i think they can >>> >afford it. that lowers their income to $585,000. cry me a river.
>>> Typical lib jealousy rears its very ugly head. >>> WTF do you care how much someone makes?
>>I like when they say "how much does one person need?" (which of course >>always precedes "they should pay like 90% of their income in taxes blah >>blah blah")
<kenhow...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 11:18 pm, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>> They've come up with a plan that will get almost everyone covered, and >> that's good, but the the core problem remains untouched. If they would >> have taken profit out of the equation there would have been enough >> money to cover everyone, improve services, and have cash left over.
>Are you saying that the problem is profit, or waste? If the problem >is profit, what are the true profit margins for the health care >industry versus other industries? If you mean waste, than that's a >different issue.
>I don't know what you mean by "taken profit out of the equation" but I >find it scary. I know you don't mean anything malevolent by it, but >I'm concerned about the consequences.
>Ken
Naah, the intent isn't malevolence. The intent is benevolence.
Socialists think that all the important things in life should be run by the government.
They have it all figgered out. They don't think they have to consider any silly talk about "unintended consequences".
"Profit" is a dirty word to them. The government can do it much better, without wasting all that money on profits.
Try as you might, you have no hope of persuading them otherwise.
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:10:21 -0800 (PST), Omaha8_Beach > <kenhow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 7, 11:18 pm, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>>> They've come up with a plan that will get almost everyone covered, >>> and >>> that's good, but the the core problem remains untouched. If they >>> would >>> have taken profit out of the equation there would have been enough >>> money to cover everyone, improve services, and have cash left >>> over.
>>Are you saying that the problem is profit, or waste? If the problem >>is profit, what are the true profit margins for the health care >>industry versus other industries? If you mean waste, than that's a >>different issue.
>>I don't know what you mean by "taken profit out of the equation" but >>I >>find it scary. I know you don't mean anything malevolent by it, but >>I'm concerned about the consequences.
>>Ken
> Naah, the intent isn't malevolence. > The intent is benevolence.
> Socialists think that all the important things in life should be run > by the government.
> They have it all figgered out. > They don't think they have to consider any silly talk about > "unintended consequences".
> "Profit" is a dirty word to them. > The government can do it much better, without wasting all that money > on profits.
> Try as you might, you have no hope of persuading them otherwise.
Hope they screw you republicans until you bleed cash from every pore like you did to all us ordinary working folks who watched our pensions and 401Ks get eaten by your free market heroes like Bernie Madoff.
> and then punish you > when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within the > free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense > that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
Fine, no insurance mandates. When your uninsured ass gets in a car wreck and is wheeled into the ER we take you out behind the woodshed and shoot you instead.
Opie-GManager Rec.Gambling.Poker Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
------- RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>> and then punish you >> when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within the >> free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense >> that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
> Fine, no insurance mandates. When your uninsured ass gets in a car wreck > and is wheeled into the ER we take you out behind the woodshed and shoot > you instead.
That is an option ... I don't think it has been proposed yet, but you might give it a try.
Ever wonder why "bad" drivers have to pay more for their insurance than "good drivers?"
The idea that people who engage in bad behavior should pay more for insurance that will actually pay the costs of their bad behavior does not sound completely specious.
Why doesn't anyone on the left ever think that less government spending would free up a lot of money for real jobs for real people?
It is not a zero sum game ... there can be more pie; unless the government eats it all.
Let them eat dirt is not going to work out well in the end.
>>> and then punish you >>> when you don't comply, especially in an industry that is within >>> the >>> free market that you mainly consume voluntarily (in the same sense >>> that you consume and make food choices voluntarily).
> Why doesn't anyone on the left ever think that less government > spending would free up a lot of money for real jobs for real people?
Why would anyone on the left believe that anyone on the right would actually not follow both the Reagan and Bush administrations and run up more humongous debt for the benefit only of their heroes like Bernie Madoff. Completely loose the wolves of capitalism on the middle class and just generally fuck everything up? Left? Maybe? Totally gullible, NOT anymore!
>> Why doesn't anyone on the left ever think that less government spending >> would free up a lot of money for real jobs for real people?
> Why would anyone on the left believe that anyone on the right would > actually not follow both the Reagan and Bush administrations and run up > more humongous debt for the benefit only of their heroes like Bernie > Madoff. Completely loose the wolves of capitalism on the middle class and > just generally fuck everything up? Left? Maybe? Totally gullible, NOT > anymore!
That's what I meant ... not even a hint of thinking about spending less.
>>> Why doesn't anyone on the left ever think that less government >>> spending would free up a lot of money for real jobs for real >>> people?
>> Why would anyone on the left believe that anyone on the right would >> actually not follow both the Reagan and Bush administrations and >> run up more humongous debt for the benefit only of their heroes >> like Bernie Madoff. Completely loose the wolves of capitalism on >> the middle class and just generally fuck everything up? Left? >> Maybe? Totally gullible, NOT anymore!
> That's what I meant ... not even a hint of thinking about spending > less.
> Bernie Madoff ... hero ... LOL
Three words: Bill Clinton surplus. All pissed away by........republicans.
>>>On Nov 7, 11:18 pm, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>>>> They've come up with a plan that will get almost everyone covered, >>>> and >>>> that's good, but the the core problem remains untouched. If they >>>> would >>>> have taken profit out of the equation there would have been enough >>>> money to cover everyone, improve services, and have cash left >>>> over.
>>>Are you saying that the problem is profit, or waste? If the problem >>>is profit, what are the true profit margins for the health care >>>industry versus other industries? If you mean waste, than that's a >>>different issue.
>>>I don't know what you mean by "taken profit out of the equation" but >>>I >>>find it scary. I know you don't mean anything malevolent by it, but >>>I'm concerned about the consequences.
>>>Ken
>> Naah, the intent isn't malevolence. >> The intent is benevolence.
>> Socialists think that all the important things in life should be run >> by the government.
>> They have it all figgered out. >> They don't think they have to consider any silly talk about >> "unintended consequences".
>> "Profit" is a dirty word to them. >> The government can do it much better, without wasting all that money >> on profits.
>> Try as you might, you have no hope of persuading them otherwise.
>Hope they screw you republicans until you bleed cash from every pore >like you did to all us ordinary working folks who watched our pensions >and 401Ks get eaten by your free market heroes like Bernie Madoff.
Who was in charge of Congress since 2006?
You don't think you're in for a screwing when you get the bill for the $Trillions in deficits that are proposed for the next 4 years?
You think it's only republicans that will get screwed?
> Ever wonder why "bad" drivers have to pay more for their insurance than > "good drivers?"
> The idea that people who engage in bad behavior should pay more for > insurance that will actually pay the costs of their bad behavior does not > sound completely specious.
If speaking to health insurance and bad behavior means smoking, I'm with you. Unfortunately "bad behavior" also means having random brain tumors or heart defects.
> Why doesn't anyone on the left ever think that less government spending > would free up a lot of money for real jobs for real people?
You go from commenting on health insurance to bemoaning big government without any sort of transition? This is just manic writing. Are you ok?
Opie-GManager Rec.Gambling.Poker Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
_______________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
>>> Why would anyone on the left believe that anyone on the right would >>> actually not follow both the Reagan and Bush administrations and run up >>> more humongous debt for the benefit only of their heroes like Bernie >>> Madoff. Completely loose the wolves of capitalism on the middle class >>> and just generally fuck everything up? Left? Maybe? Totally gullible, >>> NOT anymore!
>> That's what I meant ... not even a hint of thinking about spending less.
>> Bernie Madoff ... hero ... LOL
> Three words: Bill Clinton surplus. All pissed away by........republicans.
Yeah, Clinton. I am sure glad that this current administration is spending less that the last one!
>> Ever wonder why "bad" drivers have to pay more for their insurance than >> "good drivers?"
>> The idea that people who engage in bad behavior should pay more for >> insurance that will actually pay the costs of their bad behavior does not >> sound completely specious.
> If speaking to health insurance and bad behavior means smoking, I'm with > you. Unfortunately "bad behavior" also means having random brain tumors > or heart defects.
I am glad we agree that this one size fits all bullshit on health care is a really bad idea.
>> Why doesn't anyone on the left ever think that less government spending >> would free up a lot of money for real jobs for real people?
> You go from commenting on health insurance to bemoaning big government > without any sort of transition? This is just manic writing. Are you ok?
Oops, you went straight to:
> Fine, no insurance mandates. When your uninsured ass gets in a car wreck > and is wheeled into the ER we take you out behind the woodshed and shoot > you instead.
I believe that government spending is the 800 pound gorilla. You apparently disagree and like to run to hyperbole as support for your argument. That is just manic writing ... are you OK?
|
