From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b42a3cb$0$19445$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> 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.

weg9 says: I have to disagree with this. People do not live forever.
Medicine can not extend life indefinitely, but the longer they do, the more
it costs. Health care must be rationed. It is not capable of providing an
infinite number of organs for transplant purposes for everyone. So there is
nothing radically wrong with a persons life savings being wiped out when
they get sick. Depending on the sickness, it is easy to see how a person's
life savings could be wiped out, and there is nothing either you, or Barak
Obama, or the Mayo Clinic can do about it. When my brother in law developed
kidney failure at the age of 80, he chose to just die, rather than be hooked
up to a machine for the rest of his life. This was a reasonable decision,
since he knew that there were no kidneys available for an 80 year old, and
the machinery would cost a fortune, and his quality of life would be very
poor.

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Z-SdnSEez55VQd_WnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b42a3cb$0$19445$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> 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.
>
> weg9 says: I have to disagree with this. People do not live forever.
> Medicine can not extend life indefinitely, but the longer they do, the
> more it costs. Health care must be rationed. It is not capable of
> providing an infinite number of organs for transplant purposes for
> everyone. So there is nothing radically wrong with a persons life savings
> being wiped out when they get sick. Depending on the sickness, it is easy
> to see how a person's life savings could be wiped out, and there is
> nothing either you, or Barak Obama, or the Mayo Clinic can do about it.
> When my brother in law developed kidney failure at the age of 80, he chose
> to just die, rather than be hooked up to a machine for the rest of his
> life. This was a reasonable decision, since he knew that there were no
> kidneys available for an 80 year old, and the machinery would cost a
> fortune, and his quality of life would be very poor.


Please note my use of the word "rational."

--
Peter

From: Rol_Lei Nut on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message

>>
>>
>> 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.

Look up "strilization", "eugenics" and "euthanasia" in a good
encyclopaedia (as, like everything else, you probably don't have a clue
what they mean).
Also, notice where they were widely applied in order to solve the
"problem" you cite.

As I've pointed out many times, almost all of your "ideology" would be
completely at home in Italy, Germany and spain in the late 1930's....
From: Rol_Lei Nut on
Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Look up "strilization", "eugenics" and "euthanasia" in a good
> encyclopaedia (as, like everything else, you probably don't have a clue
> what they mean).
> Also, notice where they were widely applied in order to solve the
> "problem" you cite.
>
> As I've pointed out many times, almost all of your "ideology" would be
> completely at home in Italy, Germany and spain in the late 1930's....


Oops... My excuses to Spain: While a bloody dictatorship, they didn't
indulge in the three things I listed.
From: NameHere on
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:18:34 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>news:4b42a194$2$19469$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>
>> Not morality. Non-interference with my rights. Selling booze is a
>> privilege, not a right. Breathing clean air is a right, not a privilege.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
>weg9 says: How many times do I have to say that you don't have to go
>where the air isn't breathable.....all the smokers are crowded into his
>little bar, and you can go into some other bar or any other place. If you
>think that smoking in general fouls your air, then make a law against it
>altogether. But if you don't do that, then what do you care where they go to
>do it, as long as you aren't there? Is this concept really that hard for you
>to understand? It must be just like the concept that the police can't
>prevent crime, but can only hunt down the perpetrators after the
>fact......What is it about you liberals that puts such a huge mental block
>in your logic? I am really beginning to believe that it must be a genetic
>defect. Were your grandparents liberal too? Tell me, if 51% of the society
>does some (any) particular thing, do you believe they should make a law that
>says EVERYONE has to do it?

Next he'll be claiming that it's his RIGHT to breathe the clean air in a
bank's vault after hours with the law-required right-to-privacy and
accessible exits available at all times.