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.