A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


BCITORGB wrote:


Scott cites:
=============
The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in
taxes
each year,
=============

And, Scott, exactly how much tax does the average American pay?


My son and I are covered by a group insurance plan provided by my
employer, of which my employer pays 1/3. My wife is covered by her
employee insurance plan, which suddenly increased by 25%. She shopped
around for personal coverage, and inquired about coverage for the
entire family. Every insurance company she asked said they wouldn't
cover me (diabetes). She chose a BIG health insurance company for
herself, but they doubled her premiums when they found out she was
taking lipitor (statin for cholesterol). Our monthly health insurance
payments are now more than our monthly mortgage payment. For us,
health insurance is our single most expensive monthly expense, and
that doesn't count the co-pays and deductibles we must pay before
insurance kicks in. Oh, we live in the good-ol U.S. of A.


Wah.

I can't get health insurance either (for the same reason as you) and had to
give up my company health insurance after the COBRA period expired because I
couldn't afford (nor could I justify) the $385 per month in premiums plus
the $200+ per month in prescription co-pays. So what? Big deal. It's my
life, and my responsibility. If I get sick, either I come up with a way to
pay for it, or I die. My choice. I don't blame the government, nor do I
expect the government to bail me out or take care of me. Doing so is just
socialistic whining. People have to take responsibility for themselves, and
sometimes you die. Suck it up and accept that funding your health care (not
to mention your retirement) is your responsibility, not the government's.

Like I have, you need to figure out how to save for a medical emergency and
not try to foist your inability to budget and save off on everyone else.

Perhaps you could forego that new playboat and SUV, drive a ten-year-old
car, cut back on the beer and cigarette allotment, wear last season's
clothes and quit going to the movies and put that money aside into an
interest-bearing savings account for emergencies. Or, you could get a
catastrophic health care policy with a large (like $10,000) deductible that
costs far less each month and forego the "convienence medicine" premium
inherent in HMO coverage and put the balance of what you're paying now into
a savings account to pay, in cash, for minor medical issues. It's entirely
up to you, but nobody said it was going to be easy.

The good news is that *I* don't have to pay for *your* health care problems
like they do in Canada. That's good, because I see no reason on earth why I
should be required to do so.


You make a whole lot of typically incorrect assumptions. No one in my
family smokes, or drinks in excess of healthy moderation.

I was being allegorical, not literal.

Our newest
car is 5 years old. My canoe and kayak were bought having recreation
and exercise equally in mind.

As you know, exercise is especially important for diabetics. Along
with hiking up and down the mountains around our home, I paddle. There
are two wonderful rivers just a 10 minute's drive, and paddling is a
quick, enjoyable, effective and addictive form of exercise. Hell, I
don't even know I'm exercising except for slightly sore muscles at the
end of the day. I will also utilize the kayak to fish. If I limit my
fish take to the river free of mercury & pcb pollution, and to the
local ponds, these will be a healthy addition to my diet. (Thanks to
government monitoring for alerting the public to this health concern.)

There's no need to justify your lifestyle. I wasn't intending to actually
impugn your lifestyle, I merely wished to make a general point about
personal responsibility.


If I was healthy, and lived alone in the woods, and didn't give a ****
about others, your health care suggestion might be an option worth
consideration. However, family obligations and demanding health
conditions make insurance the prudent choice. There are others besides
myself involved in the calculations.

I understand the analysis, and I don't disagree with your conclusions,
however, the point remains that such planning is YOUR responsibility, as is
the responsibility of paying for it. It's not MY responsibility (in the
abstract sense) to help you fund your medical insurance needs, nor should
the government act as your proxy in extracting such funding.


Also, I'm happy that a small percentage of my local and state taxes go
to support our local hospital, and supply our local emergency medical
volunteers, and help to distribute vaccines and medicines to the
community.

And you are perfectly free to be happy. You're free to gladly pay those
taxes. You can even give the government MORE than you "owe" in taxes or
direct donations to your local hospital. There's nothing at all wrong with
that. But it's immoral of you to demand that ANYONE ELSE do the same,
particularly when the Mace of State is used to enforce compliance.

Bizarre that any one would object to the socialization of
health care since much of it works and is already based on a
socialized, community-based model.

It's coercive socialism, no matter how you look at it. Coercive socialism is
evil. Profoundly, ineluctably evil in its every manifestation, no matter how
glossily covered, prettily dressed up or facilely excused. It always and
inevitably ends in oppression, tyranny and terror.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/22/05 12:06 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/21/05 8:19 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Tink:
================
Hey frtzw, sounds like we got another dance going on, and someone got
your hot button. I'll probably set this one out, but I like to watch.
====================

Tink, it's not a hot button at all. It is simply disingenuous of Scott
to pop off with some one-off example and thereby try to discredit an
entire system.

It's hardly "one-off." It's pervasive and ubiquitous in every socialized
medicine system in existence because by its nature, socialized medicine
cannot provide effective on-demand health care to everyone.

Why do you have socialized education?

Because there's a lot of socialist swine down here too. We have to fight
them all the time.

Ah. So you would favour the total elimination of public education?

No, just public education financed by the forcible extraction of money from
people who don't have children in school. My model requires the actual
parents of children to pay for their children's education. If you can't pay,
don't have children or your kids might get to flip burgers, dig ditches and
harvest onions for a living. Dirty work, but somebody's got to do it, and
at least those kids will be citizens, as opposed to illegal aliens.

Ah. So you start holding a child accountable for their own future starting
with infancy. Born to parents who could not afford to send you to school?
Tough titties for you, this ain't the land of opportunity. My, what a
beautiful world you would build.

"Pay-to-play" seems to be the new paradigm for everything from trash
collection to access to federal lands, why not education too?

It's just that usual nonsense about trying to give all kids a reasonable
opportunity to access what the world has to offer.

Then again, there's nothing to prevent the altruists and charitable
contributors from voluntarily funding public school programs. Heck, even
businesses have gotten into the act, recognizing that it's good policy for
them to support education for the next generation of workers they will need
to stay in business. And they understand that vocational training may be far
more valuable in the majority of cases than a college degree in a
non-technical field. A "liberal arts" degree is about as useless as an
appendix.

The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates
might be capable of thinking.

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Frederick Burroughs wrote:


Scott Weiser wrote:


Quit worrying and get to work figuring out how to cut expenses and start
putting money aside for emergencies. Try a catastrophic health care plan
that excludes anything related to diabetes and has a high deductible. Such
plans are available at very reasonable costs. Of course, it does mean you
don't get to run to the doctor every time you or your kids get the sniffles.
But that's a good thing. It forces you to work hard at staying healthy (like
teaching your kids to wash their hands and keep their fingers out of their
noses) and it encourages you to save money.

Or, suck it up and die if necessary. It happens to all of us eventually
anyway, and you'll be making room for somebody else with better genetics.


Most of our "savings" are going into my son's college fund. So, should
we short his education in order to stuff more into "my" rainy-day
health care mattress?

That's a decision you should have made before having children. Why should
society bail you out of your lack of foresight and planning?


Sir, you have no ****ing idea at all about the foresight and planning
my wife and I put into bringing a life into this world. Humans are
social animals, we find ourselves in families, extended families,
neighborhoods, communities, towns, regions, nations, SOCIETIES.

Societies are a give and take arrangement. Personal deficits in
foresight and planning can be supplemented by society. Personal
strengths are shared with society for the benefit of others. Observe
humans in a cold, rational, alien light. You will see a natural
tendency for interdependancy. Simplistic darwinism has evolved into a
more complex social structures.

Look at socialization from an individualistic, developmental level. A
human is born totally dependent on its parents. He ages and becomes an
integral part of his family. He matures and becomes an integral part
of his community. At the most integral and mature stage, a person is a
contributing part of the community. As an infant, a person is almost
independent of community, but totally dependent on his parent.
Socialized medicine does not cater or promote infantile sloth and poor
health habits, it signals a mature and integrated society willing to
share strenths and weaknesses.


Besides, your son ought to be able to work his way through college, as many
millions of young people have done for a very long time. He'll be a better
student if he has to work for his education, just ask any party-girl at CU
who isn't smart enough to change a light bulb but gets to go to college and
party for four years because daddy's paying for it.

Students who work their way through college understand the value of a dollar
and the amount of hard work it takes to earn the educational privilege
college offers. Do you children a BIG favor and spend their inheritance and
college fund on yourself. Force them to become responsible, intelligent,
hard-working citizens, not self-indulgent, selfish, lazy layabouts with no
work ethic. You'll be doing society a favor too.


I expect my son to provide for himself, at school and in life. But,
I'm going to do my best to assist him if he needs it. Really, I don't
understand the conservatives fixation on lazyness. Every single person
I know works. Youngsters are working on schoolwork and chores. Adults
are working at jobs. Even retirees work to supplement their income.
Everybody's working their asses off. Though admirable, it's akin to
some manic madness. For all the work being done, most have suprisingly
little to show for it, being only a paycheck or two from financial
disaster. And, spiritually, they're bankrupt.



If I require hospitalization and don't have
insurance, then I become indebted to the hospital and doctors for the
entire bill.

Yup. That's life. Life sucks sometime. Why is that my problem?


Sufficiently shared, problems diminish significantly. Life sucks less.



There goes my son's education, again.

Is your son disabled? Can he get a job? Is society going to have to take
over for you after you're gone because you didn't give your son the proper
work ethic and understanding of the costs of a college education.


My son isn't in high-school yet. Hopefully, society values higher
education and realizes the return from an educated citizenry. Again,
work ethic anemia is a common misdiagnosis; every one I know works his
ass off.



And, what happens
if I lose a foot (or suffer some other debilitating complication from
diabetes; heart disease, kidney disease, stroke...), and am unable to
work because of a disability? I guess we can sell the house and other
personal property to help pay the bills. My wife can get a 2nd and 3rd
job, and my son can kiss college good-bye.

That could happen. It would be unfortunate, though hardly unique. Again, why
is that my problem? Perhaps you should have bought a smaller house, a
cheaper car and saved more money. Your best bet is to invest your son's
college fund in an emergency medical account and tell him he'd better look
forward to working his ass off to be worthy of the privilege of a college
degree. If your son truly understood the situation you're in, and if he was
an ethical and compassionate son, he'd decline to take your money and offer
to go to work to help you save enough to provide for your future medical
needs. After all, he's lived on-the-cuff his whole life so far, right? Time
for some payback. Sounds like you need it.


My son understands his situation very well, and mine. And, though his
mother spoils him, I don't think it will subtract from his character.
He's developing into a sharing and community minded individual.



Or, maybe my wife should
take the financially sound course and divorce me?

Why not? In today's society, she can do it and you can still live together
just as you do now. Once more, why is that a problem for which I should be
required to pay?


Look around you. How much of what you own did you actually *build*.
Did you create the dirt under your home, the air you breath, the water
in "your" stream? You are part of webs, cycles, networks, societies.
There are universes swirling around you, unrecognized and
unacknowledged. You should be required to pay because you will pay
less, and you will gain the genuine freedom of having a health care
system that will be there for you, your family and your neighbors.



Along with my choice
of being the recipient of bad genetics (or, was it the immunoglobulin
shot I got when I was 8 years old, to hyperactivate my immune system
against the measles going around the neighborhood at the time.

Life suck sometimes. I felt the same way when I was diagnosed. How is that
your problem?


We're a social animal, remember? If my taxes help fund a discovery by
NIH, or make medicine more affordable, or make health care in general
more affordable, I'm all for it.



[Should
I sue the doctor and/or the pharmaceutical company who manufactured
the immunoglobulin [[or, the donor(s) of the virus infected blood from
which the immunoglobulin was derived?]]]),

Probably a little late, but you can try if you want.


You know, it's interesting. I knew of 4 other diabetics, my age, going
to my school, all contracting the disease in a one-year period. I was
given the immunoglobulin injection six months before my diagnosis, in
1966. No one else in my family has diabetes.



there was my personal
decision to be born in a modern industrial and "civilized" country
that lacks a civilized health care system.

So sue your parents or emigrate to Canada.


I'm not the type to sue my parents, and I hear it's cold up north.



I don't know, a
single-payer, national health plan sounds like the more sensible,
manageable, efficient and affordable system.

Except that they don't work, ever. And, they are immoral, unethical and
fattening.


Not according to the people who have it.





--
"This president has destroyed the country, the economy,
the relationship with the rest of the world.
He's a monster in the White House. He should resign."

- Hunter S. Thompson, speaking to an antiwar audience in 2003.

On 21-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Take a pill, your blood pressure is spiking...

**** off, dickhead. You are still posting nothing but lies and
bull**** and still wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the
ass.

Nope, not for hospitalization or surgery.

Bull**** again. Not all medical care is covered by government
health care and you _can_ buy insurance for the rest. I live here
and I have such coverage. You haven't got a clue what you're
talking about, as usual.

Funny, a credible AP reporter says Canadians are prohibited from buying
outside insurance for hospitalization and surgery.

Yer credible AP reporter is wrong. Tough ****.

Mike

On 21-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

You're nitpicking. Forty percent is still a lot to pay for somebody else's
health care.

Yer still both math and fact challenged. Why don't you give up, dickhead?

Mike

On 21-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

In the US, if you pay for full coverage, you are at least only paying for
YOUR coverage, not for covering some chain-smoking, 450 pound diabetic with
emphysema and heart disease.

Proof positive that weiser doesn't have a clue how insurance works.

Mike

On 21-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

considering how often I have to personally
deal with rude mother-****ers like you who illegally intrude on my privacy
by trespassing on my private property.

Hey dickhead - if you have a problem with trespassers, deal with them and
leave the rest of us out of it.

Mike

BCITORGB wrote:
Wilko, why do I not listen to you?!

grin

Good question, why don't you? :-)

I thought rick's instance on sticking to a dead issue was like baby
**** clinging to a blanket. Now we have a different thread, and he
brings the same old blanket, with the same old **** still stuck to it.

I know how hard it can be, but just stop responding, even with
reasonable responses there is no way you gain anything but frustration.
Use that energy for positive responses in threads and to people that do
care.

And maybe this helps:

http://wilko.webzone.ru/troll.html

Wilko

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"Wilko" wrote in message
...
BCITORGB wrote:
Wilko, why do I not listen to you?!

grin

Good question, why don't you? :-)

I thought rick's instance on sticking to a dead issue was like
baby
**** clinging to a blanket. Now we have a different thread,
and he
brings the same old blanket, with the same old **** still
stuck to it.

I know how hard it can be, but just stop responding, even with
reasonable responses there is no way you gain anything but
frustration. Use that energy for positive responses in threads
and to people that do care.
====================
His next reasonable response will be his first. I have done
nothing but prove that there were lies bein\g told. He didn't
like that, as apparently the truth means nothing to you either.


And maybe this helps:

http://wilko.webzone.ru/troll.html
===============
I suggest you learn the meaning...



Wilko

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o
t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the
limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
...It's coercive socialism, no matter how you look at it. Coercive
socialism is
evil. Profoundly, ineluctably evil in its every manifestation, no matter
how
glossily covered, prettily dressed up or facilely excused. It always and
inevitably ends in oppression, tyranny and terror.

As good an argument for refusing the services of firefighters as one could
ever hope to encounter.

Wolfgang
who never did like those oppressive tyrannical terrorists.