| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
I got a chuckle out of this.
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/29/13, 12:44 PM, wrote: On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right? D'oh. So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people? Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth. I was being sarcastic, Gregg-ster. You didn't see the "right. Right?" I would hope you would have realized that. No, I wouldn't deny coverage for anything on your little list, nor would I deny coverage for abortion. And of course, I also wouldn't allow anyone to exclude themselves from getting coverage. Universal health care coverage for *all* and if we have to pay for it by selling a few aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it. Bull**** on the being sarcastic. You actually believe this ****. I would much more support birth control supplies being paid for by the government. Something is really wrong with society, when almost 50% of births are out of wedlock and welfare is paying for more than 50% of those kids. When you get more money for more kids, and we are on 6+ generations of welfare families! Indeed, Bilious, I do believe in mandatory universal health care coverage, and I don't believe the conditions mentioned should be excluded from coverage. I also believe we should cut back drastically on military spending, with the goal of reducing it by at least 50% over the next decade. I agree somewhat. But what we have now is only universal healthcare for abortions. And most of my post was ignored, and only Harry's specified posits were posted by FOAD. |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I got a chuckle out of this.
On 12/29/13, 2:57 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/29/13, 12:44 PM, wrote: On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right? D'oh. So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people? Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth. I was being sarcastic, Gregg-ster. You didn't see the "right. Right?" I would hope you would have realized that. No, I wouldn't deny coverage for anything on your little list, nor would I deny coverage for abortion. And of course, I also wouldn't allow anyone to exclude themselves from getting coverage. Universal health care coverage for *all* and if we have to pay for it by selling a few aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it. Bull**** on the being sarcastic. You actually believe this ****. I would much more support birth control supplies being paid for by the government. Something is really wrong with society, when almost 50% of births are out of wedlock and welfare is paying for more than 50% of those kids. When you get more money for more kids, and we are on 6+ generations of welfare families! Indeed, Bilious, I do believe in mandatory universal health care coverage, and I don't believe the conditions mentioned should be excluded from coverage. I also believe we should cut back drastically on military spending, with the goal of reducing it by at least 50% over the next decade. I agree somewhat. But what we have now is only universal healthcare for abortions. And most of my post was ignored, and only Harry's specified posits were posted by FOAD. Perhaps if you knew what a posit was, and who FOAD and Harry were, you'd appear to have a higher IQ than you present. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I got a chuckle out of this.
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/29/13, 2:57 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/29/13, 12:44 PM, wrote: On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right? D'oh. So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people? Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth. I was being sarcastic, Gregg-ster. You didn't see the "right. Right?" I would hope you would have realized that. No, I wouldn't deny coverage for anything on your little list, nor would I deny coverage for abortion. And of course, I also wouldn't allow anyone to exclude themselves from getting coverage. Universal health care coverage for *all* and if we have to pay for it by selling a few aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it. Bull**** on the being sarcastic. You actually believe this ****. I would much more support birth control supplies being paid for by the government. Something is really wrong with society, when almost 50% of births are out of wedlock and welfare is paying for more than 50% of those kids. When you get more money for more kids, and we are on 6+ generations of welfare families! Indeed, Bilious, I do believe in mandatory universal health care coverage, and I don't believe the conditions mentioned should be excluded from coverage. I also believe we should cut back drastically on military spending, with the goal of reducing it by at least 50% over the next decade. I agree somewhat. But what we have now is only universal healthcare for abortions. And most of my post was ignored, and only Harry's specified posits were posted by FOAD. Perhaps if you knew what a posit was, and who FOAD and Harry were, you'd appear to have a higher IQ than you present. I know FOAD and Harry are idiots. Bragging on 2 (maybe) liberal arts degrees. Sort of a continuation of high school. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I got a chuckle out of this.
On 12/29/13, 8:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/29/13, 2:57 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/29/13, 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 12/29/13, 12:44 PM, wrote: On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:25:56 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote: You mean through private health insurance? Well, the regressive governors and legislatures in some states have taken care of that for the pushy religious. Seems reasonable that if I don't want my insurance premiums to pay for cancer treatments for smokers, why, smokers should be S.O.L. when they need surgery or chemo or whatever, right? Right? D'oh. So you would also deny treatment of gallstones, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary artery disease (CAD), a stroke, and sleep apnea for fat people? Nobody held them down and shoved that pie in their mouth. I was being sarcastic, Gregg-ster. You didn't see the "right. Right?" I would hope you would have realized that. No, I wouldn't deny coverage for anything on your little list, nor would I deny coverage for abortion. And of course, I also wouldn't allow anyone to exclude themselves from getting coverage. Universal health care coverage for *all* and if we have to pay for it by selling a few aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines or F35s, so be it. Bull**** on the being sarcastic. You actually believe this ****. I would much more support birth control supplies being paid for by the government. Something is really wrong with society, when almost 50% of births are out of wedlock and welfare is paying for more than 50% of those kids. When you get more money for more kids, and we are on 6+ generations of welfare families! Indeed, Bilious, I do believe in mandatory universal health care coverage, and I don't believe the conditions mentioned should be excluded from coverage. I also believe we should cut back drastically on military spending, with the goal of reducing it by at least 50% over the next decade. I agree somewhat. But what we have now is only universal healthcare for abortions. And most of my post was ignored, and only Harry's specified posits were posted by FOAD. Perhaps if you knew what a posit was, and who FOAD and Harry were, you'd appear to have a higher IQ than you present. I know FOAD and Harry are idiots. Bragging on 2 (maybe) liberal arts degrees. Sort of a continuation of high school. Hehehe. Idiot. -- Religion: together we can find the cure. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| A T'giving chuckle | General | |||
| Chuckle of the Day | General | |||
| Chuckle for a few ... | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
