|
I'll be casting my vote...
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. The abortion issue is only an issue to anti-abortionists. I suggest they not get one, and if their teen-aged daughters get knocked up, why, let those daughters bear the consequences along with the child. |
I'll be casting my vote...
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. It will provide the current judicial view on the 2nd amendment which will be followed by the federal courts across the country. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"John H." wrote in message ... snip.. Open borders? Legal Latinos aren't 'demonized'. Illegal aliens, whether Latino or not, should not be here. And much more. snip John H You'd be well served to quit demonizing Latinos and spend that time learning Spanish. Your future may depend on it. |
I'll be casting my vote...
Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... snip.. Open borders? Legal Latinos aren't 'demonized'. Illegal aliens, whether Latino or not, should not be here. And much more. snip John H You'd be well served to quit demonizing Latinos and spend that time learning Spanish. Your future may depend on it. I wonder if any of his grandchildren are old enough or strong enough to push his wheelchair down the street for his Latino neighbors' upcoming barbecue? I'm sure they'd love to welcome the guy that puts down their existence and mistaught their children. |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Feb 13, 10:12*am, John H. wrote:
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. LOL |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Feb 13, 10:18*am, HK wrote:
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. The abortion issue is only an issue to anti-abortionists. I suggest they not get one, and if their teen-aged daughters get knocked up, why, let those daughters bear the consequences along with the child.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yup, even if she was a minor raped by a family memeber or other adult.. Yup, it's her fault, let's punish her, but not the adult who was only excercising his free will, taking her for an abortion. Well, unless that adult happens to be a parent, then they have no say.. |
I'll be casting my vote...
HK wrote:
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. The abortion issue is only an issue to anti-abortionists. I suggest they not get one, and if their teen-aged daughters get knocked up, why, let those daughters bear the consequences along with the child. Why do you deny the death penalty for convicted murders and rapists but, an unborn child can be subjected to the death penalty anytime the mother wants. The its her body argument falls apart when someone is charged for the killing of a mother and her fetus. The hypocrisy of the pro-abortion crowd is constantly visible. |
I'll be casting my vote...
|
I'll be casting my vote...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:18:19 -0500, HK wrote:
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. The abortion issue is only an issue to anti-abortionists. That's a classic, Harry. Killing babies is an issue only to those who believe murder is wrong. I suggest they not get one, and if their teen-aged daughters get knocked up, why, let those daughters bear the consequences along with the child. Adoption. Killing the baby violates the rights of the baby. -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
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 |
I'll be casting my vote...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: I have used that first quote - ""Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." to motivate people who have worked for me and it's always produced results. Even from the marginal employees. Tom, I'm glad you posted those. I've use that one many times myself, but this one really hits for those who want to blame every one of their downfalls on somebody else: "If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month." A lot of truth there.... |
I'll be casting my vote...
BAR wrote:
HK wrote: 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. The abortion issue is only an issue to anti-abortionists. I suggest they not get one, and if their teen-aged daughters get knocked up, why, let those daughters bear the consequences along with the child. Why do you deny the death penalty for convicted murders and rapists but, an unborn child can be subjected to the death penalty anytime the mother wants. The its her body argument falls apart when someone is charged for the killing of a mother and her fetus. The hypocrisy of the pro-abortion crowd is constantly visible. I don't view a fetus as an "unborn child." |
I'll be casting my vote...
"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 m... 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. |
I'll be casting my vote...
Don White wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... snip.. Open borders? Legal Latinos aren't 'demonized'. Illegal aliens, whether Latino or not, should not be here. And much more. snip John H You'd be well served to quit demonizing Latinos and spend that time learning Spanish. Your future may depend on it. We will assume that your are fluent in what the inhabitants of Quebec call French? |
I'll be casting my vote...
|
I'll be casting my vote...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:54:04 -0500, HK wrote:
BAR wrote: HK wrote: 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. The abortion issue is only an issue to anti-abortionists. I suggest they not get one, and if their teen-aged daughters get knocked up, why, let those daughters bear the consequences along with the child. Why do you deny the death penalty for convicted murders and rapists but, an unborn child can be subjected to the death penalty anytime the mother wants. The its her body argument falls apart when someone is charged for the killing of a mother and her fetus. The hypocrisy of the pro-abortion crowd is constantly visible. I don't view a fetus as an "unborn child." "Sweetheart, that's not a baby's kicking you want me to feel, it's just a fetus." How often did you tell your wife that, Harry. Maybe that's why your kids aren't too wild about you. -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
BAR wrote:
Don White wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... snip.. Open borders? Legal Latinos aren't 'demonized'. Illegal aliens, whether Latino or not, should not be here. And much more. snip John H You'd be well served to quit demonizing Latinos and spend that time learning Spanish. Your future may depend on it. We will assume that your are fluent in what the inhabitants of Quebec call French? After you learn English, you can learn another language. Spanish is a great language, and not difficult to learn, though you need "immersion" to pick up the rhythm. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"HK" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... snip.. Open borders? Legal Latinos aren't 'demonized'. Illegal aliens, whether Latino or not, should not be here. And much more. snip John H You'd be well served to quit demonizing Latinos and spend that time learning Spanish. Your future may depend on it. I wonder if any of his grandchildren are old enough or strong enough to push his wheelchair down the street for his Latino neighbors' upcoming barbecue? I'm sure they'd love to welcome the guy that puts down their existence and mistaught their children. The irony of it is...he could end up with Latinos looking after him in his nursing home. I bet he'll be sweet as sugar then. |
I'll be casting my vote...
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... snip.. Open borders? Legal Latinos aren't 'demonized'. Illegal aliens, whether Latino or not, should not be here. And much more. snip John H You'd be well served to quit demonizing Latinos and spend that time learning Spanish. Your future may depend on it. I wonder if any of his grandchildren are old enough or strong enough to push his wheelchair down the street for his Latino neighbors' upcoming barbecue? I'm sure they'd love to welcome the guy that puts down their existence and mistaught their children. The irony of it is...he could end up with Latinos looking after him in his nursing home. I bet he'll be sweet as sugar then. Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! |
I'll be casting my vote...
|
I'll be casting my vote...
HK wrote:
BAR wrote: HK wrote: 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. The abortion issue is only an issue to anti-abortionists. I suggest they not get one, and if their teen-aged daughters get knocked up, why, let those daughters bear the consequences along with the child. Why do you deny the death penalty for convicted murders and rapists but, an unborn child can be subjected to the death penalty anytime the mother wants. The its her body argument falls apart when someone is charged for the killing of a mother and her fetus. The hypocrisy of the pro-abortion crowd is constantly visible. I don't view a fetus as an "unborn child." When does a fetus become a child? Why is the killing of a fetus sometimes considered murder? |
I'll be casting my vote...
"HK" wrote in message ... BAR wrote: HK wrote: 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. The abortion issue is only an issue to anti-abortionists. I suggest they not get one, and if their teen-aged daughters get knocked up, why, let those daughters bear the consequences along with the child. Why do you deny the death penalty for convicted murders and rapists but, an unborn child can be subjected to the death penalty anytime the mother wants. The its her body argument falls apart when someone is charged for the killing of a mother and her fetus. The hypocrisy of the pro-abortion crowd is constantly visible. I don't view a fetus as an "unborn child." Sorry Bucko. A lot of people disagree with you on that point. |
I'll be casting my vote...
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. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"BAR" wrote in message . .. 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. It will provide the current judicial view on the 2nd amendment which will be followed by the federal courts across the country. Get ready to surrender those pink pearl handle dueling pistols, Harry baby. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"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. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... 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. You need to look into an HSA / High Deductible Health Plan and take control of your own healthcare. |
I'll be casting my vote...
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? |
I'll be casting my vote...
BAR wrote:
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 beNow thlow 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? Now there is a perfect example of your inability to engage in abstract thinking. You derived a great benefit by paying those premiums. Your problem is you are not smart enough to understand what the benefit was. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"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'll be casting my vote...
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. |
I'll be casting my vote...
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. 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. You're imitating them. It didn't work. Get yourself back on track. |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:13:48 -0400, "Don White"
wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Don White wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... snip.. Open borders? Legal Latinos aren't 'demonized'. Illegal aliens, whether Latino or not, should not be here. And much more. snip John H You'd be well served to quit demonizing Latinos and spend that time learning Spanish. Your future may depend on it. I wonder if any of his grandchildren are old enough or strong enough to push his wheelchair down the street for his Latino neighbors' upcoming barbecue? I'm sure they'd love to welcome the guy that puts down their existence and mistaught their children. The irony of it is...he could end up with Latinos looking after him in his nursing home. I bet he'll be sweet as sugar then. "Sweetheart, that's not a baby's kicking you want me to feel, it's just a fetus." How often did you tell your wife that, Harry. Maybe that's why your kids aren't too wild about you. Did you do that also, Don? -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
HK wrote:
BAR wrote: 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 beNow thlow 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? Now there is a perfect example of your inability to engage in abstract thinking. You derived a great benefit by paying those premiums. Your problem is you are not smart enough to understand what the benefit was. Harry, I think BAR question went way over your head. He was mocking JSB ridiculous questions. |
I'll be casting my vote...
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote: BAR wrote: 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 beNow thlow 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? Now there is a perfect example of your inability to engage in abstract thinking. You derived a great benefit by paying those premiums. Your problem is you are not smart enough to understand what the benefit was. Harry, I think BAR question went way over your head. He was mocking JSB ridiculous questions. Harry's hatred for my success in life is evident. It appears that Harry's thinks a "high school dropout" should not have a lifestyle better than his. |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:26:27 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:13:54 -0500, John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:05:43 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:42:58 -0500, John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:18:19 -0500, HK wrote: 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. The abortion issue is only an issue to anti-abortionists. That's a classic, Harry. Killing babies is an issue only to those who believe murder is wrong. Never in the history of our country has abortion been legally considered to be murder. Never. So what? Stop trying to paint it as if it is. Killing a baby is murder, or manslaughter at the least. Unless it was an accident? Oh, I get it. You're saying that since 'the law' doesn't make it illegal, it's not murder to kill babies. Amen. You are the one who tried to tie murder to abortion, Johnny cakes. And I still do. Roe vs Wade doesn't change my mind. -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
"John H." wrote in message ... snip... Did you do that also, Don? -- John H No! |
I'll be casting my vote...
wrote in message ... Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch |
I'll be casting my vote...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:17:12 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:20:56 -0500, John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:26:27 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:13:54 -0500, John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:05:43 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:42:58 -0500, John H. wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:18:19 -0500, HK wrote: 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. The abortion issue is only an issue to anti-abortionists. That's a classic, Harry. Killing babies is an issue only to those who believe murder is wrong. Never in the history of our country has abortion been legally considered to be murder. Never. So what? Stop trying to paint it as if it is. Killing a baby is murder, or manslaughter at the least. Unless it was an accident? Oh, I get it. You're saying that since 'the law' doesn't make it illegal, it's not murder to kill babies. Amen. You are the one who tried to tie murder to abortion, Johnny cakes. And I still do. Roe vs Wade doesn't change my mind. Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never Killing babies was always murder. Roe vs Wade just gave it 'legitimacy'. Bull**** -- John H |
I'll be casting my vote...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:29:10 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message . .. Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never According to who? Eisboch The laws. We are a nation of laws. Remember? Laws simply reflect current social values, morals and opinions. They are often modified, changed or eliminated as society changes. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com