"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:31:49 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max

I don't think there's anyone here who's in favor of that. Still, we
should
be able to ensure that all are insured.

Many of us would not have a problem with that proposition if "insured"
meant
"insured." It's one thing to protect against unanticipated
catastrophic
costs. It's entirely another thing to prepay the costs of routine
services
that everyone will incur. Unfortunately, when most people talk about
"insuring" in the context of medical expenses, they're talking about
prepayment, and not insurance.

When are these liberals ever going to learn there's no such thing as a
free ride.
Friggin' socialists are lazy, selfish, clueless whining crybabies. I
hate their guts.


"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
misery." -- Winston Churchill

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own
sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to
society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to
society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for
the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." --
Ayn Rand

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which
debt he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

Wilbur Hubbard

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:31:49 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

That said, I'm still not in favor of a socialist state.
If I were, I'd move to Venezuela.

Max

I don't think there's anyone here who's in favor of that. Still, we should
be able to ensure that all are insured.

Many of us would not have a problem with that proposition if "insured"
meant
"insured." It's one thing to protect against unanticipated catastrophic
costs. It's entirely another thing to prepay the costs of routine services
that everyone will incur. Unfortunately, when most people talk about
"insuring" in the context of medical expenses, they're talking about
prepayment, and not insurance.


So, you think it's prudent to wait until there's a catastrophic situation,
rather than pay for the cost of preventative care?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:59:27 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I don't think there's anyone here who's in favor of that. Still, we
should
be able to ensure that all are insured.

Many of us would not have a problem with that proposition if "insured"
meant
"insured." It's one thing to protect against unanticipated catastrophic
costs. It's entirely another thing to prepay the costs of routine
services
that everyone will incur. Unfortunately, when most people talk about
"insuring" in the context of medical expenses, they're talking about
prepayment, and not insurance.


So, you think it's prudent to wait until there's a catastrophic situation,
rather than pay for the cost of preventative care?

I think it's a foolish policy that puts the cost to the individual of
predictable small but recurring services at next to nothing. If you stand
on
the corner handing out candy bars for free, you shouldn't be surprised to
see candy bar consumption increase beyond the optimal level.


What's a foolish policy? Preventative care or exclusively catastrophic care?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2007 12:03:47 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

So, you think it's prudent to wait until there's a catastrophic
situation,
rather than pay for the cost of preventative care?

I think it's a foolish policy that puts the cost to the individual of
predictable small but recurring services at next to nothing. If you
stand
on
the corner handing out candy bars for free, you shouldn't be surprised
to
see candy bar consumption increase beyond the optimal level.


What's a foolish policy? Preventative care or exclusively catastrophic
care?

I'm sure that if you puzzle at it a bit more you can figure out what I'm
saying.


So, you refuse to answer in a straightforward way. Got it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
news:RDD4i.29850

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." --
Winston Churchill

This statement, along with similar ones from Ronald Reagan, are priceless.
And patently true.

Max

Maxprop wrote:

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
news:RDD4i.29850

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." --
Winston Churchill

This statement, along with similar ones from Ronald Reagan, are priceless.
And patently true.

No it's not. I once defined socialism as the philosophy where we all starved
equally - except for those in charge of distribution planning.

PDW

"PDW" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
news:RDD4i.29850

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." --
Winston Churchill

This statement, along with similar ones from Ronald Reagan, are
priceless.
And patently true.

No it's not. I once defined socialism as the philosophy where we all
starved
equally - except for those in charge of distribution planning.

Got me there, Pete. Can't argue that.

Max

http://www.personaleverest.com/

On 15 May 2007 06:59:54 -0700, Joe wrote:

Disabled sailor to try again after being thrown from boat

By Will Carson


HELPING HANDS: Geoff is pulled from the Solent after hitting the wave.
Picture by onEdition
A HAMPSHIRE yachtsman has spoken of his "personal heartbreak" at
having to call off his bid to become the first disabled person to sail
singlehanded round Great Britain when he was thrown from his boat.

Quadriplegic sailor Geoff Holt set sail from Hamble on the first leg
of the record-breaking 1,600-mile voyage yesterday.

But disaster struck when waves generated by the dozens of spectator
and press boats caused his 15ft trimaran to become overpowered and he
was thrown into the Solent.

To make matters worse, the 40-year-old's lifejacket didn't inflate
properly, and he lay face down in the water unable to turn himself
over.

One of his rescue team jumped the support boat and flipped Geoff onto
his back, before dragging him to safety.

Today Geoff said that he was fine and well - but his pride had been
hurt.


He said: "What started as one of the most amazing days for me ended
in personal heartbreak.

"I became a victim of our own PR interest by the world's media when
the many spectator boats caused a confused sea and with a following
stiff breeze, my boat broached across the top of one of the washes
from a nearby RIB.

"It flung the boat around, I overbalanced and found myself face down
in the Solent in front of the worlds press.

"Was anyone to blame?

"Of course not, it was just one of those things.

"This is a momentous Challenge and one we hope to restart in the next
few days.

If the challenge goes ahead, Geoff, from Shedfield, will aim to sail
about 50 miles a day on a voyage that will take around 50 days to
complete.