"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...

Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
"qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.

A scenerio of pay your money and get your stuff is realistically a store and
not a Government......

Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
class members who pay nothing but get program benefits.

And a society that does not care for those in need is better because?
Historically and/or simply world wide why are the most productive and
successful countries those with more social programs than those with little
to none? Should the aggregate whole produce and have less merely based on
your principle of self reliance first and last?



They do this
entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
system to the detriment of the contributors.

Are you missing the purpose?....a big pool of people with some swimming,
some treading water and others being furnished a life jacket.......the
pooling of resources, abilities and talent makes for a stronger whole. If
private voluntary charity is good (you seem to be a strong proponent) why
would a country whom cares and provides for those less fortunate not be good
as well? When my kids were home, while I much preferred voluntary household
contributions or efforts, mandatory chores were both needed and a price for
living here.

So, the contributor
is forced - at the point of the government's gun -

The gun thing is far more rhetorical than informational, even downright
irritating at times.....It is also far from unique to Gov. run social
welfare programs. Seriously refuse any Gov. mandate from military service to
seat belts and eventually you'll find a gun poking you where it shouldn't.

to participate
in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
who contribute nothing.

The price of admission.....and also seriously dwarfed by current and past
fiscal disasters....one might even argue that welfare queens are much
cheaper to keep than our cherished wallstreet types.


Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
qualifies as a noble act.

It is...without doubt the majority of citizens wish to pool resources and
provide for the elderly, those in need and the disabled. Ultimately a
serious justification for any sovereign country is to fulfill the will, the
needs or even the whim of the populous...... why else would it exist?

I find that alone astonishing and
a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
the intellectual/political left have become...

Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Indeed I'd think they often are but not for these concepts.....Rod

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:33 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:24:22 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
That's the problem with
socialized systems, eventually people who aren't paying for the benefits
start taking more and more advantage of those benefits, forcing those who
are paying taxes to provide those benefits to have to pay more.
If insurance companies can avoid that scenario, I see no reason why a
government agency can't do the same. I frequently read of someone
arrested for defrauding SS or Medicare or the IRS. Of course they don't
catch them all, but neither do the insurance companies. But both should
be able to hold fraud to an acceptable level.
Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
"qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.
Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this
entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
system to the detriment of the contributors. So, the contributor
is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate
in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
who contribute nothing. Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
qualifies as a noble act. I find that alone astonishing and
a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
the intellectual/political left have become...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
If somebody stands on the ledge and gives all indications of jumping
off... do we try to talk them out of it?
Yes we do (if we're decent people). What we don't do is pick
up a gun and force our other neighbor who scared of heights
to go out on the ledge on our behalf and then take credit for
our "charity". Get the difference?

Of course I get the difference because it is not the same argument.
Straw man with a hint of red herring. Now I'm supposed to go chasing
you curve ball? Naaa.. I'm a bit more aware of that tactic of yours.


I see. So when your position is shown to be a fraud, you shrug
and refuse to defend it.


How do you consolidate cops cruising down your street even though you
don't want protection? Or do you?
I'm not sure what you mean by "consolidate cops" but ... one of the
very few things that government is *supposed* to do is interdict
in matters of fraud, force, and threat.

How kind of you to allow that much. So if a plague were to sweep the
country, too bad, so sad, we all die? It wouldn't be cool for medical
professionals to organize and force people to get immunized, right? Do
you get the difference?

There is no difference. Your analysis is bogus. Someone with a communicable
disease who does not get vaccinated or treated is committing an act
of *force* upon their fellow citizens by exposing them to the disease
knowingly - presumably against their will.

That is necessary to maintain
a democratic republic designed to protect individual liberty.
Cops, courts, the military and so forth are a necessary part of
protecting the liberty of the citizens.

But not, under any circumstances would a universal medical solution be
allowed, right?

Sure - if it's voluntary.

The CDC, a tax funded set up, is fraudulent?

To the extent that the CDC needs to exist to prevent examples
like the one you cite - people knowingly infecting one another -
it is legitimate. As a general matter though, there is no
Constitutional authority for the Federal government to do this
sort of thing.



Handing out other people's
money taken at the point of a gun to do social engineering is not
part of defending liberty. Get the difference?

You know I get the difference. You seem to have trouble deciding at
what point life and liberty are separated.


They are the same thing. You take my money, you took my life because
I spent some hours producing that money that I cannot get back.

But enough of your decoy arguments, that's okay in chess, but I'm not
very good at chess.

Evidently. Wanna play for money?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people
defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no
different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the
inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who
"qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.

A scenerio of pay your money and get your stuff is realistically a store and
not a Government......

Correct - which is why government has no business in this area.


Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people
who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run
programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic
standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many
class members who pay nothing but get program benefits.

And a society that does not care for those in need is better because?

That is not the alternative. The alternative is to allow people
to keep what is theirs, thereby creating so much aggregate wealth
that there is plenty of charity available for those really in need.

Historically and/or simply world wide why are the most productive and
successful countries those with more social programs than those with little
to none? Should the aggregate whole produce and have less merely based on
your principle of self reliance first and last?

You have correlation and cause mixed up. The US - though blighted
by collectivist sewage - is nowhere near as collectivized as most
of Western Europe and has, for the most part, far out performed
Europe in productivity and "success" (if by that you actually mean
wealth creation).




They do this
entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the
system to the detriment of the contributors.

Are you missing the purpose?....a big pool of people with some swimming,
some treading water and others being furnished a life jacket.......the
pooling of resources, abilities and talent makes for a stronger whole. If

But cutting every lifejacket in half so everyone
gets a small piece leads to a net increase in drowning.

private voluntary charity is good (you seem to be a strong proponent) why
would a country whom cares and provides for those less fortunate not be good
as well? When my kids were home, while I much preferred voluntary household

Because the act is involuntary, and done under threat of force. This is
called "stealing".

contributions or efforts, mandatory chores were both needed and a price for
living here.

Your home is a private place. At most, you could kick out the kids who
would not pay. What you could not do, was make your neighbors pay for
your kids to stay there. Big difference.


So, the contributor
is forced - at the point of the government's gun -

The gun thing is far more rhetorical than informational, even downright
irritating at times.....It is also far from unique to Gov. run social
welfare programs. Seriously refuse any Gov. mandate from military service to
seat belts and eventually you'll find a gun poking you where it shouldn't.

That's exactly right - that's *why* the Framers limited the scope and
power of the government so carefully - to the defense of liberty itself
and little more - well, that and running the Post Office.
You seem to think that if it's OK for a cop to stick a gun in a
criminals gut to stop them, that this constitutes moral authority
for the state to put a gun to my head and pay for your childrens'
rent (by analogy).


to participate
in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people
who contribute nothing.

The price of admission.....and also seriously dwarfed by current and past

I had to read the document that granted me admission. It's called
the Constitution Of The United State. No such price is stipulated
anywhere therein. You are inventing this out of whole cloth.

fiscal disasters....one might even argue that welfare queens are much
cheaper to keep than our cherished wallstreet types.

The slimiest "wall street types" do more good (unintentionally) for
more people in an afternoon than the whole of the welfare system does
in a decade. That said, welfare for *anyone* is morally repugnant.
Face it, you are articulating a loud form of class warfare.
Welfare recipients are the noble poor, and successful and rich
business people are eeeeeeevil. Try that theory out the next time
you're looking for work - see how many of those po' folks are in
a position to help you.




Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this
qualifies as a noble act.

It is...without doubt the majority of citizens wish to pool resources and
provide for the elderly, those in need and the disabled. Ultimately a

And I am among them. I "pool" my resources to help via private charity.
Why do you mistrust your fellow citizens so much that you insist on
using force to make them do what you think they want to do anyway?
Here's a hint: Another core tenet of collectivism is a fundamental
lack of respect for other people - not just their wallets - but their
persons, intentions and actions.

serious justification for any sovereign country is to fulfill the will, the
needs or even the whim of the populous...... why else would it exist?

This nation exists to preserve liberty, not flog your collectivist
nonsense. Well, it used to. Now evil ideas like yours are prevailing
and the path to hell has been nicely paved.


I find that alone astonishing and
a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of
the intellectual/political left have become...

Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Indeed I'd think they often are but not for these concepts.....Rod

Proving that collectivism is not the sole province of the left...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article ,
says...
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote:

................................................. .....................

Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
to simplify the house keeping function?

Classic Lew, when confronted with an argument he cannot defend;
stick fingers in ears, hum loudly.

Gets to be a little much to still have to ignore this guy after
blocking him.

Yep, that's Lew.

--
Keith

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
but no one wants to hear them ... they're too busy demanding
"free" healthcare ...

Well, I have to admit, you are the quintessential bulldog refusing to
relinquish your grip for any reason. Your teeth are embedded into the word
"free". It's NOT free, it's health insurance paid for by the citizens and
collected by employers. Only difference to your private insurance system is
that it's a much larger system and it's administered by the government.

And if you bothered to look into it, that minimum wage for health insurance
premium exemption is pretty low. ($20,000) in Ontario, Canada. That leaves
a huge lot of people over the $20,000 threshold who do pay for it. The
maximum one would pay is $900 a year, even if they're billionaires. So you
tell me, who exactly are the indigent stealing from? I don't see any filthy
rich being forced into servitude by the thieving poor. If anything, the
reverse is true with the filthy rich using whatever method they can find to
increase their holdings while the poor get poorer. If it was a static
system, I might agree some with your viewpoint, but it's not by a long shot.

Your whole viewpoint is based on the fear that somewhere, somehow your
personal worth is going to be snatched away from you by the "collectivists".
The sad fact is that if anything is taken from you, it's going to be the
rich and powerful who do the taking, not the less affluent of society. All
the businesses that are cheated and defrauded and bilked of millions of
dollars into bankruptcy in the US, it's always the CEO's and people of power
who do the taking. Yet, here you are jumping on the little guy solely
because of your misdirected delusion of fear.

Tighten your bulldog teeth as much as you want, but it's wasted effort for
the wrong reason.

B A R R Y wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:


I do know that the naked short selling is now prohibited.

I read that only applies to a list of mostly-financial stocks.


Lee, You were right. I just read that the no-shorting rule now
applies to 800+ stocks.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

Re-instating those two regulations seems to make some sense, particularly
the need to eliminate naked short-selling.


Unfortunately, a rebuild of Glass-Steagal now appears impossible.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Awwwwwwwwwwww ... will I catch anything communicable?


Not from me, and not because I wouldn't participate. G

On Sep 23, 5:08*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


To the extent that the CDC needs to exist to prevent examples
like the one you cite - people knowingly infecting one another -


There you go again, injecting parameters which weren't part of the
original discussion.

About the chess game?

No, I won't play with you, which means you already lost.

r

krw writes:
In article ,
says...
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote:

................................................. .....................

Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
to simplify the house keeping function?

Classic Lew, when confronted with an argument he cannot defend;
stick fingers in ears, hum loudly.

Classic Keith. Express disdain and contempt for anyone who disagrees.

scott

Tim Daneliuk writes:

I don't know how. But just to make it clear to you: I do not reject
evolution as a mechanism out of hand. I reject the blind worship of
science as being the only way we can know truth.

Blind? You don't really understand the scientific method, do you?

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
That is not the alternative. The alternative is to allow people
to keep what is theirs, thereby creating so much aggregate wealth
that there is plenty of charity available for those really in need.

That's some feeble attempt at a joke right? In our North American society,
the rich are richer than ever before and the divide between rich and poor
grows exponentionally on a daily basis. Very few are contributing to those
charities you're exalting. The rich of our society are essentially a case of
absolute power corrupting absolutely. There's little interest in charitable
contributions other than the occasional lip service to silence the masses.

At one point I believed you were a little smarter than that. But, it's
obvious that you're so petrified at losing hold of the little that you have
that it's obliterated any semblence of logic you have or once had. Life must
be tough for you cowering in fear behind your barricades.

In article ,
says...
krw writes:
In article ,
says...
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote:

................................................. .....................

Haven't you people figured out how to use the "block sender" feature
to simplify the house keeping function?

Classic Lew, when confronted with an argument he cannot defend;
stick fingers in ears, hum loudly.

Classic Keith. Express disdain and contempt for anyone who disagrees.

Classic Lurndal, another attempt to censor anyone who disagrees with
the might Scott.

--
Keith

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
but no one wants to hear them ... they're too busy demanding
"free" healthcare ...

Well, I have to admit, you are the quintessential bulldog refusing to
relinquish your grip for any reason. Your teeth are embedded into the word
"free". It's NOT free, it's health insurance paid for by the citizens and
collected by employers. Only difference to your private insurance system
is
that it's a much larger system and it's administered by the government.

First, the Canadian system is not by any means larger than the private
insurance system in the US. Approximately 2/3 of US citizens have private
health insurance, which works out to about 200 million people. Last I
checked, Canada's population is about 33 million.

And if you bothered to look into it, that minimum wage for health
insurance
premium exemption is pretty low. ($20,000) in Ontario, Canada. That
leaves
a huge lot of people over the $20,000 threshold who do pay for it. The
maximum one would pay is $900 a year, even if they're billionaires.

In 2004, there were 47 million people on Medicaid. If $900/person/year
covered the costs, Medicaid would have cost $42 billion. The US spent $295
billion. Scale that up to 305 million people and let me know what the price
tag will be.

todd

B A R R Y wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Awwwwwwwwwwww ... will I catch anything communicable?


Not from me, and not because I wouldn't participate. G

I only ask because I cannot count on Nationalized Healthcare
to save me from myself (and you people)...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:08 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

To the extent that the CDC needs to exist to prevent examples
like the one you cite - people knowingly infecting one another -


There you go again, injecting parameters which weren't part of the
original discussion.

About the chess game?

No, I won't play with you, which means you already lost.

r

Actually ... it mean you have no madd chess skillz ... you
are what we call a patzer...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
That is not the alternative. The alternative is to allow people
to keep what is theirs, thereby creating so much aggregate wealth
that there is plenty of charity available for those really in need.

That's some feeble attempt at a joke right? In our North American society,
the rich are richer than ever before and the divide between rich and poor
grows exponentionally on a daily basis. Very few are contributing to those

You need to lay off the crack pipe. There are fewer people who are
"poor" in objective terms than at any time in Western history. THe
big "divide" you mention does exist ... because more people than ever
are, um *rich*.

charities you're exalting. The rich of our society are essentially a case of
absolute power corrupting absolutely. There's little interest in charitable
contributions other than the occasional lip service to silence the masses.


Is it hard to sleep at night with that much bile for people that have
more than you? Is it possible they do so because you are their
inferior?

At one point I believed you were a little smarter than that. But, it's
obvious that you're so petrified at losing hold of the little that you have
that it's obliterated any semblence of logic you have or once had. Life must
be tough for you cowering in fear behind your barricades.

I am "terrified" that collectivist bottom feeders with little or no
real skin in the game of life will terrorize those of us who are
productive. There are only three kinds of people in the world,
Makers, Fakers, and Takers. You are certainly not the first.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
but no one wants to hear them ... they're too busy demanding
"free" healthcare ...

Well, I have to admit, you are the quintessential bulldog refusing to
relinquish your grip for any reason. Your teeth are embedded into the word

Because neither you nor anyone else in this thread has provided even
the slightest argument for doing so. "Neener Neener" is not an argument,
so you'll need to retool your "reasoning".

"free". It's NOT free, it's health insurance paid for by the citizens and
collected by employers. Only difference to your private insurance system is
that it's a much larger system and it's administered by the government.

Horse Hockey. The government system is both compulsory AND provides
benefits to those who pay *nothing*. Find me a private sector example
that does the same.


And if you bothered to look into it, that minimum wage for health insurance
premium exemption is pretty low. ($20,000) in Ontario, Canada. That leaves
a huge lot of people over the $20,000 threshold who do pay for it. The

So, I guess if just a few people steal, it makes stealing OK, huh?

maximum one would pay is $900 a year, even if they're billionaires. So you
tell me, who exactly are the indigent stealing from? I don't see any filthy

Those who do pay.

rich being forced into servitude by the thieving poor. If anything, the
reverse is true with the filthy rich using whatever method they can find to
increase their holdings while the poor get poorer. If it was a static
system, I might agree some with your viewpoint, but it's not by a long shot.

You really, really need a crash course in economics. It is the rich who
form the capital that animates the economy, not the poor. Well .. the
rich and the middle class do. Your class hatred it unbecoming of
a self-anointed savior of mankind.


Your whole viewpoint is based on the fear that somewhere, somehow your
personal worth is going to be snatched away from you by the "collectivists".

No, my viewpoint is based on the fact that stealing is morally wrong and
that voluntary charity is honorable, noble, and benefits both the giver
and the recipient. Your worldview, by contrast, is built on theft, fear,
and loathing of anyone with more than you as best as I can determine.

The sad fact is that if anything is taken from you, it's going to be the
rich and powerful who do the taking, not the less affluent of society. All

What utterly foolish nonsense. I have actually personally known a
few of the ultra wealthy. They gave me a job. The moochers never did.

the businesses that are cheated and defrauded and bilked of millions of
dollars into bankruptcy in the US, it's always the CEO's and people of power
who do the taking. Yet, here you are jumping on the little guy solely
because of your misdirected delusion of fear.

Yawn and barf. The next time you need a hand up or hand out, ask your
local crack whore, drug addict, drunk, or lazy slob for help and see
where that gets you. Then shave, get a haircut, take a shower and
present yourself at the door of the eeeeeeevil rich and see where that
leads. There is no inherent virtue or vice in wealth OR poverty. But
those of means hire other people. The greediest SOB who changes
Ferraris like underwear may not be nice, but in their quest for
more wealth they create opportunity for the rest of us. That's
Reality Sparky, whether you like it or not.


Tighten your bulldog teeth as much as you want, but it's wasted effort for
the wrong reason.



As Rand once commented, in a debate between the Irrational and the
Rational, the Irrational always wins. So .. you're right.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Maxwell Lol wrote:
Tim Daneliuk writes:

I don't know how. But just to make it clear to you: I do not reject
evolution as a mechanism out of hand. I reject the blind worship of
science as being the only way we can know truth.

Blind? You don't really understand the scientific method, do you?

I understand it quite well. The *method* is - as best as we can
make it - unbiased. But the people who practice it are not
unbiased. I spent a number of years in research. If it's not
clear to you, then let me be the first to clue you in. There
is *lots* of bias in the business of science. What gets published
does go through peer review. But what gets funded doesn't come
anywhere near to that level of standard. Moreover, a lot of
what does get funded never sees the light of day in publication.
When scientists wander around declaring the primacy of science
and the absence of God, as the radical atheists do regularly,
they are not practicing science, they are engaging in theology.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:


"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
That is not the alternative. The alternative is to allow people
to keep what is theirs, thereby creating so much aggregate wealth
that there is plenty of charity available for those really in need.

That's some feeble attempt at a joke right? In our North American society,
the rich are richer than ever before and the divide between rich and poor
grows exponentionally on a daily basis.

That's a statement laced with hyperbole. Growing exponentially on a daily
basis? Since the left seems to believe that history started in 2000 when
the evil Bush took office, let's take a look at the 2006 IRS statistics
(latest year available) for the top 1% of taxpayers: Their share of total
income over the past 8 years (and we'll go back a couple of years to the
glorious Clinton years):

Top 1%
Year %Adjusted Gross Income Share
1998 18.47
1999 19.51
2000 20.81
2001 17.53
2002 16.12
2003 16.77
2004 19.00
2005 21.20
2006 22.06

Now, for the top 50%
Year %Adjusted Gross Income Share
1998 86.33
1999 86.75
2000 87.01
2001 86.19
2002 85.77
2003 86.01
2004 86.58
2005 87.17
2006 87.49

Hardly an exponential growth on a daily basis. Note that during the bulk
of the eeevil Bush years, top 1% AGI share actually dropped and then has
risen the past couple of years. Top 50% has remained roughly the same.


Very few are contributing to those
charities you're exalting.

Do you have a cite for this?

The rich of our society are essentially a case
of absolute power corrupting absolutely. There's little interest in
charitable contributions other than the occasional lip service to silence
the masses.

Well, that's certainly true of the Dem side of the aisle, they seem to
believe that charity begins in other peoples' wallets. Let's see, Biden
gave what, $3000 on $3M in income, but he wants the rest of us to do our
patriotic duty and pay more taxes so he can appear generous by giving away
the money he takes from the rest of us. Obama didn't give much to charity
until he was called on it. Al Gore was equally parsimonious in his gifts
to charity. Yeah, you're right -- those are the people seeking more and
more power; they are more than willing to give away others' money, just
keep our hands off of their stack.


At one point I believed you were a little smarter than that. But, it's
obvious that you're so petrified at losing hold of the little that you
have that it's obliterated any semblence of logic you have or once had.
Life must be tough for you cowering in fear behind your barricades.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"todd" wrote in message
First, the Canadian system is not by any means larger than the private
insurance system in the US. Approximately 2/3 of US citizens have
private
health insurance, which works out to about 200 million people. Last I
checked, Canada's population is about 33 million.

My mistake, I thought the US system was comprised of a bunch of
independent
insurance companies.

That may be what you thought, but it isn't what you wrote. But even if you
wrote it, you original point would still be wrong. Wellpoint Inc. has
approximately 34 million subscribers to its medical plans. 3433.

In 2004, there were 47 million people on Medicaid. If $900/person/year
covered the costs, Medicaid would have cost $42 billion.

The $900 I stated is the Ontario maximum. For most people, the premiums
paid
are quite a bit cheaper.

Thanks for bolstering my point. Where does the rest of the money come from,
then? Because those premiums wouldn't even *begin* to cover the costs in
the government-run healthcare we already have here.

todd

"todd" wrote in message
First, the Canadian system is not by any means larger than the private
insurance system in the US. Approximately 2/3 of US citizens have private
health insurance, which works out to about 200 million people. Last I
checked, Canada's population is about 33 million.

My mistake, I thought the US system was comprised of a bunch of independent
insurance companies.

In 2004, there were 47 million people on Medicaid. If $900/person/year
covered the costs, Medicaid would have cost $42 billion.

The $900 I stated is the Ontario maximum. For most people, the premiums paid
are quite a bit cheaper.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Actually ... it mean you have no madd chess skillz ... you
are what we call a patzer...

Well I do have chess skills. Nothing professional, but a number of years in
school and after with a few chess clubs. What's your rating? Are you even
rated?

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Makers, Fakers, and Takers. You are certainly not the first.

But, not like you with your wagons circled and cowering terrified in your
hole. And you forgot to mention one other category. That's the liar category
developed solely for scared little rabbits like you. You subsist on greed,
but unfortunately you just haven't had the chutzpah to attain the station in
life to accommodate that greed.

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
So, I guess if just a few people steal, it makes stealing OK, huh?

Since healthcare is a legal, enshrined right in Canada, the only stealing
that's going on is your feeble opinion further warping your inane logic.
But, I guess that's your business. You seem to relish playing the fool in
this newsgroup. You have very little support with your screwed up thought
processes and have quite effectively lowered yourself to the status of
newgroup clown.

The only problem I have at this point is that I seem to get some type of
perverse pleasure from poking you with a sharp stick. I'll get tired of you
eventually since your rhetoric repeats itself ad nauseam.

What else have you got? You're going to have to try a little harder to keep
me entertained if I'm going poke you some more.

"todd" wrote in message
Thanks for bolstering my point. Where does the rest of the money come
from,

Quite obviously it's subsidized by the government using taxes paid by the
people. So what? What exactly is your point?

In article , "Upscale" wrote:

"todd" wrote in message
Thanks for bolstering my point. Where does the rest of the money come
from,

Quite obviously it's subsidized by the government using taxes paid by the
people. So what? What exactly is your point?

The point is, it's "subsidized by the government using taxes paid by the
people" -- in other words, you're paying for it. That means it's not free.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"todd" wrote in message
Thanks for bolstering my point. Where does the rest of the money come
from,

Quite obviously it's subsidized by the government using taxes paid by the
people. So what? What exactly is your point?

That contrary to the original assertion, "The maximum one would pay is $900
a year, even if they're billionaires", is bull. I also see you've
conveniently dropped the part about the Canadian system being bigger "a much
larger system" than private insurance in the US.

todd

"Upscale" wrote

My mistake, I thought the US system was comprised of a bunch of
independent
insurance companies.

Nay, lad ... you've got it only partly right.

Driver runs into tree with his car. First guy on scene runs to the mangled
vehicle, opens the door and asks the driver: "Are you badly hurt?".

Driver groggily looks up from his daze and says: "How the hell should I
know? ... I'm not a lawyer!"

(Eat your heart out jo4hn ...)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
So, I guess if just a few people steal, it makes stealing OK, huh?

Since healthcare is a legal, enshrined right in Canada, the only stealing
that's going on is your feeble opinion further warping your inane logic.

It is *legal*, it is still stealing - i.e., It is immoral. Your
inability to grasp that the law is not the instrument that defines
morality may explain why you keep defending evil.


But, I guess that's your business. You seem to relish playing the fool in
this newsgroup. You have very little support with your screwed up thought
processes and have quite effectively lowered yourself to the status of
newgroup clown.

You are still appealing to the collective for some moral authority,
I see. As you flail around irrationally, grasping the coattails of
others and putting words in their mouths does not give your
argument any credence - it undermines it. Whether or not any or
all of the others here "support" my argument bears in no way to
its merits and thus I couldn't care less one way or another.


The only problem I have at this point is that I seem to get some type of
perverse pleasure from poking you with a sharp stick. I'll get tired of you
eventually since your rhetoric repeats itself ad nauseam.

Of course you enjoy this kind of perverse self-mutilation. When you
defend the indefensible, the immoral, and the evil, you get that what
you deserve, the cognitive dissonance that follows. Your only remaining
tactic is to swing in circles blaming me because you feel so bad about
yourself.


What else have you got? You're going to have to try a little harder to keep
me entertained if I'm going poke you some more.







--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Actually ... it mean you have no madd chess skillz ... you
are what we call a patzer...

Well I do have chess skills. Nothing professional, but a number of years in
school and after with a few chess clubs. What's your rating? Are you even
rated?



I was.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Makers, Fakers, and Takers. You are certainly not the first.

But, not like you with your wagons circled and cowering terrified in your
hole.

As best as I can determine, I do not fear collectivists. I hold them
in utter contempt for their irrationality and evil practices.

And you forgot to mention one other category. That's the liar category
developed solely for scared little rabbits like you.

I am unclear on just what I've lied about. Do clarify it that for me.
If you cannot, this makes you, um .... the liar.

You subsist on greed,
but unfortunately you just haven't had the chutzpah to attain the station in
life to accommodate that greed.

I subsist without threatening, harming, or stealing from others. That
isn't greed, it's known as "civil behaviour". You might try to develop
a bit of that yourself.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 24, 10:47*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


As best as I can determine, I do not fear collectivists. *I hold them
in utter contempt for their irrationality and evil practices.


I think what's at issue here, is that you hurl about the term
'collectivist' in a random and sanctimonious way. Enhanced by a
sprinkling of smug, arrogant self-righteousness, your arguments do
appear, to some, to hold some substance, but I see right through the
hollowness.

I suppose we should all consider ourselves 'chosen' that you'll even
speak to us.

But I admit, you talk **** rather well.

r

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:47 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

As best as I can determine, I do not fear collectivists. I hold them
in utter contempt for their irrationality and evil practices.


I think what's at issue here, is that you hurl about the term
'collectivist' in a random and sanctimonious way. Enhanced by a
sprinkling of smug, arrogant self-righteousness, your arguments do
appear, to some, to hold some substance, but I see right through the
hollowness.

Let's see if I can provide the substance you feel is missing:

A "collectivist" is ordinarily understood to be someone who favors the
interests of the group (the "collective") over those of the
individual. There are degrees of this viewpoint. Some collectivists
believe the interests of the group entirely trump those of the
individual - historically, this has been expressed by the Communists,
the German 3rd Reich, the Italian Fascists, the Red Chinese, Japan
under Tojo, most of Africa, most of the 3rd world, and so forth. In
every case cited, collectivism worked out very nicely for everyone.
Witness, for example, the fine quality of life the Africans have
enjoyed as they've protected their various tribal collectives.

Another view some at least try to hold is that the interest of the
group and the individual must be "balanced". This is the view of most
European neo-Leninists (Social Democrats) and so-called 'liberals' in
the Anglosphere. This inevitably devolves into more and more power for
the collective because no person or government can every agree what
"balance" means. By default, power then flows to the few who govern
the collective. That's how modern Marxists like Barak Obama ascend to
power. It's also how phony conservatives like John McCain get a shot
at power - they promise to protect the individual, and promptly start
making laws for "the good of the nation". This kind of collectivism
has also worked out very well. It has given the Western powers a
crushing burden of debt because of social services spending, and the
consequent corruption of government that follows the money. This has
also led abuses of individual liberty. Examples include hate-speech
laws in the US and Speech Tribunals in Canada, wherein unpopular
speech is actually prosecuted as criminal. There are many other
examples of the evils that follow collectivism - not the least of
which is the current economic mess in the West.

Then there are those of us who are anti-collectivist to our roots. We
believe that the only role of government is to keep us free. This
restricts government to interdicting in matters of force, fraud, or
threat. This limitation is necessary because government without such
limitation will naturally use its power to oppress people as the
examples above demonstrate. We who oppose collectivism also tend to
have a much higher degree of confidence in the intellect, good will,
and ethics of our fellow citizens: We believe that good people will
step up to help those in real need without having to stick a gun to
the head of those good people and make them do it. We are generally
called "libertarians" (which is different than "Libertarian", a
political party).


Collectivists operate by force and mob rule masking their intentions
and methods in the guise of doing good things. Libertarians operate by
cooperation and good will and manage to do good things without harming
those around them.

Still think this is "random and sanctimonious"? If you do, here's a
way to shut me up: Show me a single example of collectivist rule that
does not over time cause harm to individual liberty and lead to a net
reduction in freedom. Hint: You won't find one.




I suppose we should all consider ourselves 'chosen' that you'll even
speak to us.

You chose to engage every bit as much as I did. This is called
a "conversation".


But I admit, you talk **** rather well.

Good conversations are built on good manners. Using vulgar language
undermines the former because it demonstrates a lack of the latter.
Grow up.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article ,
Tim Daneliuk wrote:




Good conversations are built on good manners. Using vulgar language
undermines the former because it demonstrates a lack of the latter.
Grow up.

Sorry. I forgot the height of your horse.

"todd" wrote in message
That contrary to the original assertion, "The maximum one would pay is
$900
a year, even if they're billionaires", is bull.

Really? Read the second paragraph and then tell me it's bull again.
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/media/2004/bk-ohp.html

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
It is *legal*, it is still stealing - i.e., It is immoral. Your
inability to grasp that the law is not the instrument that defines
morality may explain why you keep defending evil.

Oh, excuse me. If you say it, then it must be immoral. Kind of like your
second amendment eh? You know, the one that protects the right to keep and
bear arms. But, that wouldn't be immoral would it, shooting some hapless
government employee come to tax you further for healthcare? How many guns do
you have Tim? You cry so much about the collectivists lining up to take your
money that I'm betting cower in fear at night with a gun beside you.

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
It is *legal*, it is still stealing - i.e., It is immoral. Your
inability to grasp that the law is not the instrument that defines
morality may explain why you keep defending evil.

Oh, excuse me. If you say it, then it must be immoral. Kind of like
your

I'm not the only one who says so, nor am I the first. Pretty much
everyone I know (except you evidently) thinks that stealing is wrong,
even if they have no particularly deep religious practice.

second amendment eh? You know, the one that protects the right to
keep and bear arms. But, that wouldn't be immoral would it, shooting
some hapless

The "Rights" enshrined in the US Constitution are understood to be
"natural rights" - the government is not *granting* them, but rather
affirming them. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the actual right
being affirmed is that right to self-defense and defense of property.

government employee come to tax you further for healthcare? How many
guns do

It would be immoral to initiate violent force in the absence of a
similar level of threat.

you have Tim? You cry so much about the collectivists lining up to
take your money that I'm betting cower in fear at night with a gun
beside you.

I never cower in fear. I have never had to use a weapon or even my
fists in violence. That's because I behave in a civil manner and the
respect the property and person of the people around me. In
particular, I do not try to steal from them in the name of my
self-anointed charity by assuming that I know better than them what
they should do with their lives and property. You should try this some
time. You end up get along with people much better that way.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
As best as I can determine, I do not fear collectivists. I hold them
in utter contempt for their irrationality and evil practices.

Of course you wouldn't think so. However, the past few days reading your
thoughts on the immorality of universal health care has displayed your naked
fear for all to see. Can't get away from that.

Upscale wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
Then there are those of us who are anti-collectivist to our roots. We
believe that the only role of government is to keep us free.

Yup, you're even more deluded than I thought. That vaunted "freedom" you
support with all your might is mostly an illusion. You (and our society)
haven't had the full freedom you're talking about for centuries.

And you oppressive collectivists - the self anointed saviors of
mankind - lacking any skill to do much on your own - are happy to
continue and even grow the enslavement. You are actually
*proud* of the loss of freedom the West as undergone. Your ideas
are really revolting. It's a shame you can't spend a few years
in a true Marxist paradise that embraces your values fully. Sadly
(for you), they're almost all gone now, having failed under the
weight of their own evil.


It's an illusion and has been for a long, long time. You only survive
because you've settled into a comfortable state of self-delusion. I guess
that's something that makes us uniquely human, the ability to delude
ourselves. Only problem is that you've taken it to the extreme. You're sick
Tim, get some help.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/