"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:12:56 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:01:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...

3. A beginning of a real program to provide access to health
insurance
for all.

This one and number 6 go well together. Let's see...double the tax
rates
anyone?

Guess how much I pay for health insurance, John. Just me, not a family
plan.

Stupid question. Look at you.


Stupid response, but I understand why you are terrified of answering the
question.



4. An end to the anti-abortion b.s. legislation and possible
Supreme
Court decisions with the first appointment or two to that court.

Hell, baby killing is nothing! Not giving terrorists their
'constitutional'
rights is horrid.


The abortion issue is actually not something politicians care about or
want
to deal with. They use it as a tool, a wedge. It's a good tool because
it
involves babies and religion, so it makes for fabulously emotional
debates.
But, it will never EVER be an issue that anyone agrees on. Same with gun
control, although that's even stickier because all anyone can do with
that
is debate the meaning of one sentence in the 2nd amendment.


You need to tell Harry. It sounds like an issue that should be left to
the
states.

The gun control issue should reach a head in June, when the Supreme
Court
get to the DC issue.
--
John H

It's probably settle nothing, except maybe for questions about the
specific
law in DC. Not anywhere else, though.


You're suggesting I'm terrified to take a guess? Here's a guess. I 'guess'
that you pay $3200/month in health insurance. From what I've seen and
read,
that would be a reasonable amount.
--
John H


Your response, above, to a real health insurance solution, was "double tax
rates, anyone?" Did I interpret that pairing of ideas correctly, or did you
place the typed words in such a way that the pairing was not accurate?

Single person: Almost $700.00. That rate stays the same regardless of age.
I mention age because there are lots of people at both ends of the age
spectrum who are not below the poverty level, so they don't qualify for any
of the special plans, as I call them. But, they're still not making enough
to afford $700 a month. Let's stick with single childless people for the
remainder of this discussion. It eliminates any static about "Oh they
shouldn't breed if they can't afford kids".

So, what do you do about people who are working hard, but still can't afford
$700 a month? Tell them to work three jobs? Self-insure? At the income
levels we're talking about (let's say $40-$50K), there's no way they're
going to self-insure enough to cover cancer care.

Are you going to suggest catastrophic care coverage, what used to be called
"major medical"? Doesn't exist in NY, and probably a few other states.