From: Bill Graham 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.
>
Insurance companies will gladly insure everyone for a fixed fee, provided
that everyone has to buy the insurance regardless of their health......The
insurance companies that I have been dealing with all of my working life
insured everyone who worked with me for the same fee, but they would only do
this provided that everyone who worked there had to purchase a policy. You
have to be reasonable amount this, of course you can't force an insurance
company to only insure those who are sick, and not collect from those who
are healthy to compensate them. If you are going to force insurance
companies to insure everyone, then everyone will have to buy a policy.

From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 21:11:55 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>>>And, while we are still talking to one another, why is it that I can write
>>>several thousand words that you seem to have no argument with, (because
>>>you
>>>let them go by,) and then, when I say something you don't like or agree
>>>with, its, "You never say even one thing that has any merit at all". Isn't
>>>that a bit over the top? - Never anything? Then where were you a few
>>>thousand words ago?
>>
>> I skip most of your posts. You rarely have anything interesting to
>> add on any subject that interests me. I sample a post of yours here
>> and there, and invariably find that you are illogical, uninformed, and
>> mistaken.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
>Well, if you can't point out the "illogic" as it comes down the pipe, but
>have to wait for January 1st every year to insult my intelligence, then why
>don't you just shove it up your rear end?

Your reading comprehension and retention is on par with your logic.
I've been pointing out your illogical premises all during the year.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bill Graham on

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C767E67D.3B719%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com...

>>>> So people dying is a good thing.

Some people dying is a good thing. I carry a gun for my own protection. this
is very reasonable, because the police can't protect anyone from crime.
Their job is to investigate crimes after the fact, and hunt down and
apprehend the perpetrators of those crimes. If you want to PREVENT the
crimes from occurring before the fact, then you have to protect yourself,
and I want to do this, so I carry a gun to do it with. This is a very
reasonable thing to do. I realize that the liberals can't understand this,
so I don't expect you to understand it. I don't know why this is, but I know
it to be true, because I have said it hundreds of times, and I haven't
gotten any liberal to understand it to date, so if you can't understand it,
don't feel bad......You are not alone. I know that it is a defect in the
liberals ability to reason, because I know hundreds of conservatives and
libertarians who understand it very well, and many of these are engineers
and physicists and doctors and other very intelligent people, so I know that
it is a very reasonable thing to understand. But when I try to explain it to
liberals like you and Tony Cooper, their eyes glaze over and they go off
into the mist mumbling about that carton of milk they have to pick up on
their way home.......

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b42a194$0$19469$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "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
weg9 says: I don't blithely dismiss him, He exists, so someone has to pay
for him. What I would like to do is create some incentive for him to not
exist in the first place. Since my tax dollars have to pay for him, I
believe I should have the right to prevent him from having any brothers or
sisters. Especially since there is a good chance that he and his brothers
and sisters will end up on death row in one of our prisons.

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b42a194$1$19469$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "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

You mean that all my efforts have been in vein? You haven't been able to
convince me that I should turn into a liberal either. I have explained in
many ways how much more reasonable it is to be a libertarian, but it has
done absolutely nothing for you at all......You still want to prevent my
smoking bartender friend from operating his smoking bar. You still want the
government to control your life, and tax the hell out of anyone who happens
to ride through Sherwood Forest on a fine horse, just because he's got a
fine horse......How he got it, and how many he employed getting it don't
make no never mind to you, does it? IOW, you are an idiot, and I have been
wasting my time talking to you. You are bound and determined to sell your
soul to the government for the "security" of not having to make any
dangerous personal choices on your own. Well, have a nice life, (if you call
that living) When they usher you into your own personal padded cell where
you can't get hurt and cost the other taxpayers any money, please think of
me, will you? I will be long dead and gone.....Well, maybe not so long,
after all.....