"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.

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.
--
John H

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

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.

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.

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

"John H." wrote in message
...
snip...
Did you do that also, Don?
--
John H


No!

wrote in message
...

Abortion was never murder before Roe vs Wade. Never



According to who?

Eisboch

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

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