JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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
...

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.
They get to make a choice? Either pay the money, get a job that has
health insurance, or go without. It is their choice.

But that presents us with another problem. Actually, two.

1) They get cancer and certain types of people complain about patients
getting free medical care which is bankrupting hospitals

2) It happens to you, and then you have to eat your words.
Or a third problem, where you get pay your premiums for 40 years and never
get sick a day in your life. But, a piano falls on you killing you at the
age of 61. You derived no benefit from paying the premiums. Should your
estate get a refund?


Silly question. Do you get a refund on your car insurance when you sell a
car and never made a claim?



I am just using your arguing skills in this thread.