On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:33:41 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:46:21 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:11:54 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:11:19 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:

I'm not going to get into the back and forth between Wayne and Gunner, but
how do you figure someone retiring with assets is a deadbeat?

If he needs medical care that is not covered by insurance, private or government, his assets
will be at risk.

Not if he stays out in the desert and continues to be entirely
self-sufficient and separate from society.

"Entirely self-sufficient and separate from society"? Impressive! For
minor values of "entirely" anyway. But here on planet Earth, how does
generating one's own electricity preclude the need for medical care?

It doesn't. QED.

No, deciding that one has no "need for medical care" precludes the need
for medical care. Yeah, your life may be shorter and less comfortable
and even less productive, but it's a choice one makes, at least until
Obamacare kicks in and they start forcing it on you against your will.

Excellent point. Christian Scientists eschew medical care. "Need"
for care is indeed a choice.

Wayne is a declared atheist and scoffer of "Skydaddies", so certainly
no Christian Scientist. He dropped out from contributing years ago,
but I'd bet that he'll collect his bennies if/when he finds himself
gasping for breath one day, not quite ready to give it up and shuffle
the mortal coil if he can dodge the reaper's scythe with heroic and
massively expensive (to others) medical intervention.

Workin' the system, it's how it's done in the 21st, yo Dude!