From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b3ea0c5$0$12828$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:xZydneWphIfKC6PWnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>
>>
>> You know, there is another reason than money why I am opposed to the
>> Obama health plan....there is a philosophical difference between people
>> paying for their own health care and letting the government (taxpayers)
>> pay for it. If you are paying your own way, then your lifestyle will (and
>> should) affect your premiums, and the insurance companies will charge you
>> more for endangering your life and health.But when the government just
>> insures everyone automatically, then there is no individual
>> responsibility, and people will drive, eat, drink, and live generally
>> like there's no tomorrow. Good health care is expensive, and that's the
>> way it ought to be. By costing you money, it insures that you will fully
>> realize the cost of not taking good care of yourself. It's the same old
>> argument....Socialism takes away individual responsibility, and this also
>> takes away your freedom to do what you want to do, and pay your own way.
>> I have to pay $1450 a month for three people, and this is one of the
>> reasons why I no longer ride a motorcycle, and no longer smoke tobacco. I
>> didn't need any laws to convince me of this.....It was my own choice.
>
> Your statement has nothing to do with the reality of insurance. At the
> present time there is no firm "Obama health plan." However, the gut of the
> Senate plan is that insurance companies will be prohibited from denying
> coverage based upon pre=existing conditions. Don't confuse life with
> health. e.g. There may be an exclusion from coverage for scuba or stunt
> driving accidents on a life policy. On a health policy, they don't do
> it,unless you get into the catastrophic coverage area.

My friend, the gut of the bill is to exert federal government control. In
New York, insurance companies are already prohibited from not covering
pre-existing condiditons. This bill is only a first step towards the
single-payer system that the president himself says he in favor of. Did you
know that there is a provison in the bill that prohibits the Congress from
amending portions of the bill? We can amend our Constititution but we can't
amend the health care bill once it is passed?

Once can only hope that someone will challenge the bill on the
constitutionality of requiring every citizen to purchase health care
insurance. It's like a tax on living. For those who will respond that this
is no different than requiring auto insurance in order to drvie, there is no
comparison. Driving is a privelege extended to a citizen or legal alien.
Living is a right, not a privelege extended to us by our governement but
sometimes I wonder.


From: George Kerby on



On 1/4/10 12:30 PM, in article 4b4233d7$0$1666$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "Ray
Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:

> George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/4/10 12:37 AM, in article 4b418c91$0$1609$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net, "Ray
>> Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b4152e6$4$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:YIednQYc-aZmvNzWnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> weg9 says: You don't need the data from that town. You can just
>>>>>> compare the data from those towns where carrying a gun is legal, and
>>>>>> those where it is not, and you will see that carrying a gun reduces the
>>>>>> crime rate. However, the accidental gunshot rate will go up in those
>>>>>> towns where more people "carry".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But this is normal is it not? In towns where everyone drives, the commute
>>>>>> time is lower, but the automobile accident rate is higher.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's take a more statistically significant sample. The entire country.
>>>>> Have you compared the crime rate with that of GB?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but the larger the sample, the less significance to the statistic,
>>>
>>> Gotta love wingnut rationalizations.
>>>
>>>> because there are many things involved in, "the crime rate". You have to
>>>> ask
>>>> what is. "a crime", and what significance does the possession of arms have
>>>> to do with that crime.
>>>
>>> Pick a crime like murder.
>>>
>>>> A lot of people who die from guns in this country
>>>> should have died......Their death was a, "good thing", because they were
>>>> harming, or about to harm, others when they were killed.
>>>
>>> So people dying is a good thing.
>>>
>>> No wonder you love guns.
>>
>> LIBERAL DERANGMENT
>
> Fascists hate liberalism.

Deranged Liberals hate all that do not agree with their derangement,
FishRot.

Wake up and smell the roses...

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fPKdnV7cMZIf2d_WnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b41e38a$0$19483$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:i8ednWkn9sKM5dzWnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:m6s2k514asq0liritcfflrgi3r9h2v478l(a)4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Just once, I'd like to see you right on something. I haven't yet.
>>>> It's amazing that someone has lived as long as you have and can remain
>>>> so universally ignorant and wrong on so many subjects.
>>>>
>>> You liberals want to see a sales tax replace the income tax, and yet you
>>> say that taxing people across the board would be, "regressive". Well
>>> consider this. If we had sales taxes, that would be extremely
>>> regressive. The very rich would hardly have to pay any taxes at all.
>>> They would buy nothing new, (mainly because new stuff is junky and made
>>> of plastic) but they would have everything fixed up by skilled laborers.
>>> In my case, I would be driving a 50 year old Porsche, completely
>>> restored by my favorite mechanics. My house would be filled with the
>>> finest used, restored furniture you have ever seen, and my tax burden
>>> would be virtually non-existent. My lawyer friends would be making a
>>> bundle retrying all the tax laws again in tax courts, because the last
>>> 70 years of tax decisions would all be thrown out, and all that stuff
>>> would have to be renegotiated again. My only regret would be that I
>>> wasn't 20 again to enjoy the stupidity of it all for another 50 years!
>>
>>
>> From your immediately preceding post:
>> "weg9 says: If I use more goods and services than you do, then I
>> should be
>> taxed more. If I don't then I shouldn't be. That would be fair and
>> reasonable. Anything else is stealing from those who have just because
>> it's
>> there to steal."
>>
>> How is that not the very sales tax you rail against.
>> Nah! no inconsistency in that argument.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
> Using more goods and services refers to government goods and services, not
> private enterprise goods and services.....Taxes pay for the army and the
> police and fire departments and etc.....These should be available to
> everyone equally, and everyone should have to pay the same price for them.


Taxes also pay the cost of raising the 2 year old you blithely dismiss.


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:L9-dnb4Sqtrg2N_WnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b41e38a$1$19483$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:as2dnWiqfqQo8tzWnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4b416ae0$0$19464$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:kJednYMQlIhj-tzWnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b4161ae$1$19469$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:F8KdnfqlqNUKx9zWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4b4152e6$0$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:z7GdnRM9GNEAstzWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4b412776$0$3003$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lets take a modern example......The possession of child
>>>>>>>>>>> pornography. Some states have laws against the possession of
>>>>>>>>>>> child pornography. I don't believe in these laws. (I think they
>>>>>>>>>>> are unconstitutional) Why? Suppose I am driving down a road in
>>>>>>>>>>> the country, and I see a trunk by the side of the road......I
>>>>>>>>>>> wonder what's in the trunk, so I stop and inspect it. It is
>>>>>>>>>>> locked, and I have no tools with me to open it. So, I put it in
>>>>>>>>>>> my trunk and drive it home to open it. On the way home, I have
>>>>>>>>>>> an accident, and the police and fire department show up at the
>>>>>>>>>>> scene and find the trunk in my trunk, and it has burst open and
>>>>>>>>>>> they discover that it is full of photos of child
>>>>>>>>>>> pornography......They arrest me and accuse me of possession of
>>>>>>>>>>> CP, when I had no idea that was what the trunk contained. I
>>>>>>>>>>> believe creating CP should be a crime, but not possessing it. I
>>>>>>>>>>> believe that I should be allowed to possess anything I please.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is part of the libertarian philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Silly story.
>>>>>>>>>> Suppose the trunk had been full of crystal meth/crack
>>>>>>>>>> cocaine/heroin.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does that constitute an argument to legalise - or even
>>>>>>>>>> *possess* - said "pharmaceuticals"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Jeff R.
>>>>>>>>>> "Honest, Officer! I thought it was icing sugar"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> weg9 says: Yes. It certainly does. As a libertarian, I believe
>>>>>>>>> all drugs should be legal anyway. So we are already talking about
>>>>>>>>> something that is anti-libertarian to begin with. IOW, we are
>>>>>>>>> already halfway liberal with the anti drug laws that are on the
>>>>>>>>> books right now, so it is impossible to talk libertarianism when
>>>>>>>>> there is already no chance of it on the horizon. In my
>>>>>>>>> libertarian world, there would be no laws against, "Making,
>>>>>>>>> possessing, using and killing oneself with crystal meth or any
>>>>>>>>> other drug, It's my body.....Why would you care what I do with it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Back to the point. I would care because as a humanitarian I would
>>>>>>>> have, at a minimum, the obligation to take care of those who you
>>>>>>>> could not take care of because of your habit and probably even you.
>>>>>>>> IIRC in a prior posting in this discussion you agreed that the
>>>>>>>> government should take care of those who need help through no fault
>>>>>>>> of their own.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People are not held down and forced to ingest harmful drugs. So, if
>>>>>>> someone is a drug addict, it is not through, "No fault of their
>>>>>>> own". They did it to themselves, and so why would you care? I smoked
>>>>>>> cigarettes for 29 years. I don't blame anyone else for this.....I
>>>>>>> knew full well that it was harmful to my health. So, it was nobody's
>>>>>>> fault but my own. When I spoke of the government helping those who
>>>>>>> are incapacitated through no fault of their own, I was talking about
>>>>>>> those who are born with defects.....No arms or legs, or blind
>>>>>>> etc......Not those who were born perfectly healthy, and choose to
>>>>>>> screw themselves up with drugs or alcohol. (or cigarettes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was talking about those dependant on the drug addict.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't help those who are dependent on the drug addict, any more than
>>>>> I can help those who suffer for the choices others make on their
>>>>> behalf. I am responsible for myself and mine. I am willing to help
>>>>> those God screws up, but I am unwilling to help those that other
>>>>> people screw up. If the liberals come up with some plan to sterilize
>>>>> and/or control the lives of those others, then I might reconsider, but
>>>>> until then, I will only help the ones that are harmed by God or fate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where is your once of humanity. Now you are changing your argument. So
>>>> when you said you would help innocents it is not true. What would you
>>>> do with the 2 year old child of an addict?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> What the government does right now. Child services takes them away, and
>>> puts them in a foster home, while the, "addict" is put in prison. Many
>>> of these children, raised by foster parents who could care less about
>>> them, end up as criminals themselves, Death row is populated mainly by
>>> people who were raised without love. The only difference I would make is
>>> that I would provide some incentives for these people to not have
>>> children.....I would support their habit if they allowed themselves to
>>> be sterilized.
>>
>>
>> Yup! and I have to pay the cost for child protective services. that is
>> costing me money because you want to become an addict. Why can't you
>> recognize that your addiction is NOT HARMLESS. It is forcing me to pay
>> for bringing up your innocent child.
>>
>> BTW Please explain how one can give knowing consent freely, and without
>> full knowledge of al the facts, including the consequences.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
> So you expect us libertarians to provide you with a perfect world, do
> you? - Well, I'm sorry.....We can't do that.....Only a better one than we
> are in right now. You are paying for those kids now, and you will probably
> be paying for them under libertarianism. but we could provide some
> incentive to not have any more children, don't you think?


the child is an additional child. Last time I looked it costs more to raise
two children, than one. I don't expect anyone to provide me with a perfect
world. But you have convinced me that your brand of libertarians would
provide me with a LESS perfect world than we have now.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hhth5q$2lr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b3ea0c5$0$12828$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:xZydneWphIfKC6PWnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> You know, there is another reason than money why I am opposed to the
>>> Obama health plan....there is a philosophical difference between people
>>> paying for their own health care and letting the government (taxpayers)
>>> pay for it. If you are paying your own way, then your lifestyle will
>>> (and should) affect your premiums, and the insurance companies will
>>> charge you more for endangering your life and health.But when the
>>> government just insures everyone automatically, then there is no
>>> individual responsibility, and people will drive, eat, drink, and live
>>> generally like there's no tomorrow. Good health care is expensive, and
>>> that's the way it ought to be. By costing you money, it insures that you
>>> will fully realize the cost of not taking good care of yourself. It's
>>> the same old argument....Socialism takes away individual responsibility,
>>> and this also takes away your freedom to do what you want to do, and pay
>>> your own way. I have to pay $1450 a month for three people, and this is
>>> one of the reasons why I no longer ride a motorcycle, and no longer
>>> smoke tobacco. I didn't need any laws to convince me of this.....It was
>>> my own choice.
>>
>> Your statement has nothing to do with the reality of insurance. At the
>> present time there is no firm "Obama health plan." However, the gut of
>> the Senate plan is that insurance companies will be prohibited from
>> denying coverage based upon pre=existing conditions. Don't confuse life
>> with health. e.g. There may be an exclusion from coverage for scuba or
>> stunt driving accidents on a life policy. On a health policy, they don't
>> do it,unless you get into the catastrophic coverage area.
>
> My friend, the gut of the bill is to exert federal government control. In
> New York, insurance companies are already prohibited from not covering
> pre-existing condiditons. This bill is only a first step towards the
> single-payer system that the president himself says he in favor of. Did
> you know that there is a provison in the bill that prohibits the Congress
> from amending portions of the bill? We can amend our Constititution but
> we can't amend the health care bill once it is passed?
>
> Once can only hope that someone will challenge the bill on the
> constitutionality of requiring every citizen to purchase health care
> insurance. It's like a tax on living. For those who will respond that
> this is no different than requiring auto insurance in order to drvie,
> there is no comparison. Driving is a privelege extended to a citizen or
> legal alien. Living is a right, not a privelege extended to us by our
> governement but sometimes I wonder.
>

First: I want to wish you and your family a happy and healthy new year.
Next. I agree that the so called non-amendment clause would be invalid, if
it meant that at no time in the future could the bill be amended. I
certainly would not dwell on that issue.
I doubt that any rational person thinks some reformation of our health care
system is not needed. I think there is something radically wrong when a
persons life savings can be wiped out if they get sick. there is something
radically wrong when I can purchase prescription drugs in Canada for less
than my insurance co-pay. (Sadly that is not addressed in any version of
this bill.)
There is something radically wrong when doctors are forced to practice
defensive medicine.
There is something radically wrong when Medicare payments limit the annual
amount of rehabilitation in an out patient facility, regardless of medical
need and regardless of whether the rehab is required as a result of
different incidents.
there is something insane where insurance companies won't cover needed
diagnostic procedures, but would rather let you get sicker, until they have
to pay more for the cure.
Should insurance companies or medical professionals dictate our medication
and the type of medical care we receive.

I agree that neither the House nor Senate bills are anyplace near perfect.
but the basic concept of universal health coverage is important. Look at the
facts in other countries. We spend more and receive less value than the vast
majority of third world countries.
My biggest beef with both bills is that neither addresses price negotiation
or abusive practice law suits.

BTW it is not true that neither bill can be amended. What you are referring
to is that there is a prohibitation against tacking on a pork package to the
bill.


--
Peter