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?

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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?

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.

"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?

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.