On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:24:40 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

nope. taxes are going up on those who make more than 250K...the folks
who benefitted from the recent bubble

So, you are putting a price tag on moral responsibility?

Eisboch



It's a matter of ability. Those who make lots of money have the ability
to pay more. Where are you getting the morals argument? No, don't
answer.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I will anyway. I paid for this computer and internet service, Ms. Plume.

Darn it.

Earlier in this thread I made the statement that I believe that those
with the ability to pay have a moral responsibility to help those that
cannot when it comes to life threatening or disabling condition medical
care. I repeat. Medical care.

Perhaps there is a moral requirement, but since it can't be legislated, it
ends up being an individual choice. The health of the country (medical and
fiscal) should not be dependent upon the whims of a few.

I do *not* support general tax based programs to provide or subsidize
free health care insurance via private or government insurance programs.

I do support programs that ensure the health of the country, as I stated
just above. To do less, is not moral in my opinion. There's no other way
to ensure our health, at least nothing I know of. Perhaps you can suggest
something?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Well, since I believe we all have a moral responsibility to help our fellow
man to the degree we can, I have no problem with a tax program that provides
for a fund intended to be paid directly to hospitals for services rendered
for life threatening conditions. No government or private insurance
companies involved.

WTF is the difference between that and what we have now? Emergency
rooms become the doctors office at twice or three times the rate of
normal care in a doctor's office.

Are you into inefficiency?