On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:33:50 -0400, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

On 3/23/2010 9:33 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:54:03 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"CW" wrote in message
...

"LDosser" wrote in message
...

Illegal Aliens. They deserve a bus ride to the Mexican border.


It's been tried. They generally beat the bus back.


Razor wire backed by an electric fence - the kind the Gestapo used.

My favorite fantasy is a vaporizing laser system on both borders.
No fuss, no muss, no burial fees, no transportation fees, no legal
fees, just a big puff of smoke as you're instantly toasted. The perp's
minerals will enrich the ground they drop to.


And the borders could serve as a weapons testing ground. I like it!

cough due process cough

And you really think you're good Americans don't you.

What? We put up fences, we put up "KEEP OUT" and "No Trespassing"
signs (in THEIR language), and we have been returning thousands for
years. Ain't that process enough? Screw 'em if they can't take a
joke.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:01:36 -0400, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

On 3/24/2010 3:40 AM, LDosser wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 3/23/2010 9:33 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:54:03 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:
And the borders could serve as a weapons testing ground. I like it!

cough due process cough

And you really think you're good Americans don't you.


Well, we do seem to have a sense of humor. You, OTOH ...

Such suggestions were funny when I was 9. I outgrew them. Maybe you
should.

Tolerance, I say tolerance is a VIRTUE, son.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:49:34 -0500, the infamous Morris Dovey
scrawled the following:

On 3/23/2010 8:29 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

My favorite fantasy is a vaporizing laser system on both borders.
No fuss, no muss, no burial fees, no transportation fees, no legal
fees, just a big puff of smoke as you're instantly toasted. The perp's
minerals will enrich the ground they drop to.

Neener, neener - my fantasies are better than your fantasies!

http://images.google.com/images?q=mexican%20actresses

You must be a _lot_ older than I'd guessed...

Instant Visas can be arranged. (and are now)

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:23:07 -0700, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
scrawled the following:

"Morris Dovey" wrote:

Neener, neener - my fantasies are better than your fantasies!

http://images.google.com/images?q=mexican%20actresses

I'm with Mooris.

Gee, I'd rather be with one of the Mexican actresses. You
californicators are weird, Lew.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

LDosser wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
LDosser wrote:
.... snip
ACORN is Folding.

Nah, just re-constituting. The name will change, the fraud and deceit
will continue, just under a new name -- maybe PINE or PONDEROSA, but same
bunch.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-
acorn24-2010mar24,0,186369.story

Your source is essentially making my point. Several additional
references in this link:
http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2010...y-renames-new-
york-chapter/

Key quote: "More state-level name changes are expected soon while the
basic structure of ACORN, which is controlled from the top using
interlocking directorates, remains essentially intact.
The ACORN networksÂ*interlocking directorates are deliberately organized to
help ACORN escape legal and public scrutiny ... ."




--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 24, 1:06Â*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:


2) The Republicans always have to have a margin of victory that exceeds
the margin of vote fraud. Â*In this case, the anger is so significant, the
margin of fraud would be noticeable even to the leftist media.


*shaking my head in disbelief*
YOU dare to talk about vote fraud after what happened in 2000 Florida?

So, regale us with your wisdom on what even the liberal media eventually
had to admit was a correct vote count. The fraud was people trying to
discern the "intent" of the voter rather than expecting that voters would be
smart enough to properly mark their ballots and check them prior to
submitting them. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

Yeah, I dare talk about vote fraud when in Minnesota, the Republican
(RINO, but still an R) won, but they kept recounting until the democrat won.
I dare talk about vote fraud in the Washington governor's race where they
kept re-counting and "finding" ballots until the democrat won. I dare talk
about vote fraud when ACORN registered voters in Florida, Nevada, Colorado,
Ohio, and other states with the names of the players on the Cowboys' front
line, Mickey Mouse, and Donald Duck -- those voters may or may not have
voted, but the margins of registration helped set precinct judge levels and
had impacts on various oversight rules. I dare talk about fraud when the
number of votes in various precincts exceeded the number of registered
voters. I dare talk about fraud when two Black Panthers in camo and with
nightsticks were videotaped intimidating voters outside of a precinct yet
the current Attorney General refused to prosecute. I dare talk about vote
fraud when the various concern organizations pitch a fit when people dare
demand that voters show ID before being given a ballot.

Funny thing is, the Republicans never seem to have benefited from any of
those actual, documented, real cases. The best the left can come up with is
the Florida example in which the Republicans for once were able to avert
voter fraud and letting the Dems steal the election.

Yeah, I dare state that.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"LDosser" wrote:

ALL of them. ALL Incumbents regardless of party. The problem is not so
much Liberal/Conservative or Democrat/Republican as it is 535 people who
think they are Entitled to hold office and in their arrogance believe
they know what is good for everyone else.

Don't forget the Senate.

That gives you another 100 seats.

435 in the House + 100 in the Senate = what I said: 535. 536 if you want to
count Obama.


Why not run for office if you are so upset?

It's a steep slope. I'll be happy enough working for whoever runs against
the incumbents.


That gives you a shot at three seats at a minimum.


Lew

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:37:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I would absolutely *never* wish him any sort of harm. Besides being
cruel,
in bad taste, and immoral to do so, I much prefer that the Upscales of
this
world live long enough to face the consequences of the ideas they support.

You wish me harm every day by calling me evil and a thief for working
while receiving health care. The really sad thing is that you're just
not bright enough to realize it.

And as far as facing the consequences, when might that be Tim? I've
been using a wheelchair now for almost 30 years and held down a job
for almost all of them. I'm getting tired of the waiting, just like
all the other 30+ million Canadians that use our universal healthcare
plan.

Waiting for what?

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
LDosser wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
LDosser wrote:
... snip
ACORN is Folding.

Nah, just re-constituting. The name will change, the fraud and deceit
will continue, just under a new name -- maybe PINE or PONDEROSA, but
same
bunch.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-
acorn24-2010mar24,0,186369.story

Your source is essentially making my point. Several additional
references in this link:
http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2010...y-renames-new-
york-chapter/

Key quote: "More state-level name changes are expected soon while the
basic structure of ACORN, which is controlled from the top using
interlocking directorates, remains essentially intact.
The ACORN network?Ts interlocking directorates are deliberately
organized to
help ACORN escape legal and public scrutiny ... ."

There's a lot more scrutiny at the local level than the national.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:40:23 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote:

The mentally disabled, and all disabled for that matter, are eligible in
the US for free medical, including prescriptions, as long as they don't
have, and can't afford to pay their own way. This is via the SSI
program, or, Supplemental Security Income program administered by the
Social Security Administration.

And that's exactly where assholes like you and Tim Daneliuk sink into
your self serving morass of idiocy.

Like all Canadians, I receive publicly funded medical care. In turn
that care keeps me healthy enough to work, earn money and pay what I
think are considerable taxes. The money I have left over goes to pay
rent on my modest apartment, buy food and pay for other needs just
like every other hard working Canadian. I contribute back to the
system that helps me to keep working.

Along come idiots like you and Daneliuk who'd have me be totally
subsistent on social insurance to qualify for health care. In other
words, I'd be a drain on the medical system, a drain on the social
insurance system and a general drain on all that society would deign
to give me.

Which costs more? You two assholes put your combined IQ's of 20
together and figure out how it makes more sense for someone to subsist
solely on public support, giving nothing back and sitting around all
day watching TV.

Morons!

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:07:33 -0400, Jack Stein
wrote:
I'm willing to bet that Tim has never, and will never say or even think
that you die from anything... You sir, using the term in the most
inscrutable ways, are the fool.

Tim and apparently you would have me doing nothing except rotting my
life away in front of a television, never being able to give anything
back or really feeling totally alive.

If the option were open to me, I'd laugh at the absurdness of both of
you freaking out at the receipt of some immense insurance bill and
dropping dead from heart attacks. The two of you would sentence me to
some type of living death. I'm more compassionate than that and would
wish you a real death instead.

There's worse things than dying. If you're lucky, you might realize it
before you both drop dead.

Got it?

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:44:11 -0600, Gordon Shumway
wrote:


Why is it that when you disagree with another point of view your
predictable response is to call that person a pathetic bigot? I
believe that you, being extremely narrow minded, are the true bigot.
You and your buddy upscale need to take your mutual admiration society
elsewhere.

And there's the only type of response a self serving bigot like you
can use. Hardly surprising.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:04:43 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

In the mean time, open wide and swallow your medicine.
It's good for youG.

Har! That one made me laugh. About time I read something in this
thread that was funny.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:37:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I would absolutely *never* wish him any sort of harm. Besides being cruel,
in bad taste, and immoral to do so, I much prefer that the Upscales of this
world live long enough to face the consequences of the ideas they support.

You wish me harm every day by calling me evil and a thief for working
while receiving health care. The really sad thing is that you're just
not bright enough to realize it.

And as far as facing the consequences, when might that be Tim? I've
been using a wheelchair now for almost 30 years and held down a job
for almost all of them. I'm getting tired of the waiting, just like
all the other 30+ million Canadians that use our universal healthcare
plan.

It really is refreshing to see all you miscreants coming out of the
woodworking and whining like little babies that you have to pay for
something. Welcome to the real world!

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:49:40 -0700, "LDosser"
wrote:

Something we can agree on. But I note that the manufacturing moving off
shore did not directly add to the deficit.

Maybe not, but it certainly subtracted future profit all in the name
of immediate gain. Sum total is the same.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:14:10 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

You specifically stated that "the current number of physicians per people
in Canada is NOT significantly different" So, what did I fail to read that
makes my rebuttal of that erroneous remark incorrect?

It isn't significantly different when you consider that the US spends
almost twice as much money on its healthcare. We're talking
percentages here or did that escape you somehow?

You just had to go and ahead and confirm that you indeed aren't too
bright. Thanks, I appreciate it.

I suppose the fact that it is not just doctors that make health care has
escaped you. MRI's, CAT scanners, and other equipment are also part of the
health care system. In the US, we have more than one or tow MRI machines
per state compared to what ya'll have in Canada.

Yes. So what? The US has 10x the population of Canada. It's a virtual
certainly that the US will have more of everything than Canada.
Judging by your comments and replies, it looks like you're trying to
confirm that the US also has more idiots.

You want to flaunt your pride and claim that the US is better in
everything, hey go for it. Nothing wrong with a little national pride.
One thing escapes me though. Canada has universal health care and has
had it for quite a few years. Canada has made their health care system
work. It's not perfect, but it mostly fulfills its function. The US on
the other hand has had and seems to be having trouble with their
health care evidenced by your citizens being split down the middle
when it comes to health care. Do we Canadians have something that
works better than the US? Guess it had to happen sometime eh?

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:37:53 -0700, "LDosser"
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:37:20 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
world live long enough to face the consequences of the ideas they support.

Waiting for what?

As Timbit stated "facing the consequences of the ideas I support".

All this is very simple. By law until now, a hospital (I think doctors
too, but IANAL) has to give you care, whether you can pay for it or not.
This change in law ensures that somehow the hospital gets paid back.

Your solution would be that the hospital could refuse to give you care
until you provide proof of financial responsibility. Happy bleeding!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"LDosser" wrote in -
september.org:

ACORN FOLDED. Just this week.

This shows what a few stupid people can do to an otherwise good
organization. The groaning old party should take a lesson and do something
about teapartiers.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/25/2010 7:23 AM, Han wrote:
All this is very simple. By law until now, a hospital (I think doctors
too, but IANAL) has to give you care, whether you can pay for it or not.
This change in law ensures that somehow the hospital gets paid back.

Your solution would be that the hospital could refuse to give you care
until you provide proof of financial responsibility. Happy bleeding!

The law in most localities requires that hospital emergency rooms
provide services to all comers.

And the hospital does get paid back--the take it out of the pockets of
insurance companies and people who pay out of pocket but aren't too poor
to afford the bill.

Steve wrote:
On 2010-03-23 22:02:52 -0400, "J. Clarke"
said:
And suppose everyone here has it, or nobody here has it, or some of
us have it and some of us don't, what of it? I'm sorry, but your
poll has no relevance to the point in question.

My question does have relevence, without regard to
"mandated-whether-I-want-it-or-not."

Do you have health insurance?

Do you want health insurance?

IF you want health insurance, but DO NOT have it, why?

If you DO NOT want health insurance, why?

Health is probably more germane to the general population than having
a Unisaw. If the government were mandating the purchase of that item,
I would agree with you. And let's disregard the entire SawStop issue,
as that IS irrelevent to this question.

BTW, in my state, at least, you have to provide proof of financial
responsibilty (i.e., insurance) before you can license a car. If
you're driving without insurance, you'd better damn well pray you
don't hit a BMW driven by a lawyer.


No. In your state you have to prove "financial responsibility" and the most
common way to do that is to have insurance. Another way is to have
sufficient liquid funds to meet your state's financial minimum requirement -
it's called "self insurance."

Under the new plan, there is NO provision to self-insure.

Here's an article, from just today, how a family was able to save $7,000 per
year on health insurance by self-insuring the first $10,000 in medical
costs.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...e_on_heal.html

This family's choice is removed under the new health plan - this family
WON'T be able to keep their existing plan.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, regale us with your wisdom on what even the liberal media
eventually had to admit was a correct vote count. The fraud was
people trying to discern the "intent" of the voter rather than
expecting that voters would be smart enough to properly mark their
ballots and check them prior to submitting them. Sorry, that dog
don't hunt.

Yeah, I dare talk about vote fraud when in Minnesota, the Republican
(RINO, but still an R) won, but they kept recounting until the
democrat won. I dare talk about vote fraud in the Washington
governor's race where they kept re-counting and "finding" ballots
until the democrat won. I dare talk about vote fraud when ACORN
registered voters in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, and other
states with the names of the players on the Cowboys' front line,
Mickey Mouse, and Donald Duck -- those voters may or may not have
voted, but the margins of registration helped set precinct judge
levels and had impacts on various oversight rules. I dare talk about
fraud when the number of votes in various precincts exceeded the
number of registered voters. I dare talk about fraud when two Black
Panthers in camo and with nightsticks were videotaped intimidating
voters outside of a precinct yet the current Attorney General refused
to prosecute. I dare talk about vote fraud when the various concern
organizations pitch a fit when people dare demand that voters show ID
before being given a ballot.

Funny thing is, the Republicans never seem to have benefited from
any of those actual, documented, real cases. The best the left can
come up with is the Florida example in which the Republicans for once
were able to avert voter fraud and letting the Dems steal the
election.

Yeah, I dare state that.

Democrats (liberals) believe, really believe, the end justifies the means.
If it takes fraud, intimidation, payoffs, whatever, to get their candidate
in place, the minor infractions are worth the result.

The examples you cite are recent: I refer you to the 1948 run-off election
for U.S. Senator from Texas. When the counting was done, Coke Stevenson led
by over 2,000 votes. Votes continued to straggle in, the lead switched back
and forth, until the final 203 votes came in from the small town of Alice,
Texas. 202 of those votes were for Stevenson's opponent, and in a startling
mathematical oddity, all the voters voted in alphabetical order.

As a result, Lyndon Johnson was elected to the U.S. Senate and his 87-vote
margin earned him the sobriquet of "Landslide Lyndon."

On the other hand, Republicans believe in process and the rule of law - the
end is justified by the means. That is, Republicans don't cheat.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:35:25 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

On the other hand, Republicans believe in process and the rule of law - the
end is justified by the means. That is, Republicans don't cheat.

Right! Pristine, unspoiled innocence without a mean bone in their
angelic bodies. You go on believing that ****.

The republicans believe in rule of law and don't cheat as long as it's
something they want. When it isn't what they want, they turn into
demons of vengeance and damnation.

Heh, heh. Some of the beliefs expounded here are truly out of this
world.

Thanks for the laugh. Gets my day off to a great start. Only problem
is that I have to find a way to stop laughing so I can get some work
done.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:07:06 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:53:40 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Keith Nuttle
wrote:

You have to wait months for procedures because there are significantly
less doctors per 1000 people in Canada than in the US.

I suggest you do a little research before you blindingly jump on
Nuttle's incorrect bandwagon.

The current number of physicians per people in Canada is NOT
significantly different. Despite spending more per capita, the U.S.
does not deliver better medical care than many other countries.

26 Number of physicians per 10,000 people in the United States
19 Number of physicians per 10,000 people in Canada

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=1894853

Then why is this happening? (237 million hits for it.)
http://www.google.com/search?q=canad...patients+to+US


What nobody has discussed here yet is the action by current doctors if
Obamacare passed. Many have threatened to quit practicing and retire.
How many will, and how many will follow? Where does that leave us?
http://fwd4.me/6Ir

It's not just the bad policy, it's the consequence of enacting it.
Time will tell just how bad it is.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Mar 25, 9:44*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 3/25/2010 12:05 AM, LDosser wrote:





"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
On 3/24/2010 9:55 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message

* Those legislators who have decided to govern against the will of
the people (anywhere from 60 to 80% opposition depending upon the
poll) have sown the wind. *They can expect to reap the whirlwind
come November.

Depends on how many fake voter registrations ACORN can get going so
the votes don't exceed the number of registered voters., and if the
socialist *******s can get the illegal alien vote legalized... well,
it's over.

ACORN is Folding.

I heard today Obama has reopened the taxpayers money drain into ACORNS
pockets. *There is no way the socialist democratic party will let
ACORN die since ACORN is 100% socialist democrat supporter, and best
of all gets taxpayer money to fund its dirty work. *Even if the name
changes, it is still ACORN, with it's several hundred corrupt fronts..
--
Jack
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
http://jbstein.com

It really is FOLDING.

But the same people will show up in other venues, peddling their
political
malignancies, and sponging off the working folk to pay for it. *The name
and structure of the organization is immaterial ...

Smaller bugs are easier to crush.

I don't know that the replacement will be smaller. ACORN was built on
a Communist cell model with lots of smaller interlocking agencies,

Like The US Gov't and the military?

Robatoy wrote:
On Mar 25, 9:44 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 3/25/2010 12:05 AM, LDosser wrote:





"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
On 3/24/2010 9:55 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
LDosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
Those legislators who have decided to govern against the will of
the people (anywhere from 60 to 80% opposition depending upon the
poll) have sown the wind. They can expect to reap the whirlwind
come November.
Depends on how many fake voter registrations ACORN can get going so
the votes don't exceed the number of registered voters., and if the
socialist *******s can get the illegal alien vote legalized... well,
it's over.
ACORN is Folding.
I heard today Obama has reopened the taxpayers money drain into ACORNS
pockets. There is no way the socialist democratic party will let
ACORN die since ACORN is 100% socialist democrat supporter, and best
of all gets taxpayer money to fund its dirty work. Even if the name
changes, it is still ACORN, with it's several hundred corrupt fronts.
--
Jack
Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
http://jbstein.com
It really is FOLDING.
But the same people will show up in other venues, peddling their
political
malignancies, and sponging off the working folk to pay for it. The name
and structure of the organization is immaterial ...
Smaller bugs are easier to crush.
I don't know that the replacement will be smaller. ACORN was built on
a Communist cell model with lots of smaller interlocking agencies,

Like The US Gov't and the military?


The US gov bureaucracy - yes. The US military - no, it's a hierarchical
organization.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:30:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

(Since Lew -already- called me a bigot, I thought I'd measure up. Crom
knows we don't want to make libtards feel bad.)

Who in this group that doesn't share his beliefs has he not called a
bigot? So far, in this thread alone, I count five.

Gordon Shumway

Our Constitution needs to be used less as a shield
for the guilty and more as a sword for the victim.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:37:19 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Tim and apparently you would have me doing nothing except rotting my
life away in front of a television, never being able to give anything
back or really feeling totally alive.

Speaking for myself, I wish you no such thing.

Of course you do. You exude that wish every time you call me evil and
a thief. As long as your wishes are satisfied, you don't give a rat's
ass how someone person would be affected, just as long as you don't
have to contribute to it. You're selfish and greedy. Unfortunately,
you wouldn't realize it if you smacked you in the face.

The more I talk to you, the more I believe you would benefit from
experiencing some type of debilitating illness to wake you up from
your self imposed bunker mentality.

You're a coward Daneliuk. You carefully avoid answering the question.
Which costs more to the system, my receiving health care and being
able to work and paying taxes or my having to be on social assistance
to receive health care?

Answer the question coward. Answer the question.






If the option were open to me, I'd laugh at the absurdness of both of
you freaking out at the receipt of some immense insurance bill and
dropping dead from heart attacks. The two of you would sentence me to
some type of living death. I'm more compassionate than that and would
wish you a real death instead.

It is not compassionate, it is the statement of an angry, selfish
person.


There's worse things than dying. If you're lucky, you might realize it
before you both drop dead.

Got it?

No one wishes you a "living death" or any other kind of harm.
But your (very real) needs do not constitute a morally legitimate
claims on the life and time of other people. I need food every day,
but that doesn't mean I get to take what I want from the supermarket
and not pay for it. You defend theft apparently because you think
that need constitutes title to property. I don't.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Phisherman" wrote
I understand that you can pay the IRS a fine instead of buying
insurance. The bill requires additional IRS operations to check if
all is covered and that all people are controlled on a monthly basis.
Look on the bright side: The bonus is the it doubles as a simulus
bill too, more IRS agent jobs are created.

In Massachusetts you have to pay a fine. Insurance for a young
healthy single person that would rather go without is about $5000 a
year and the fine is something like a few hundred bucks. Tough
choice.

i think the fine will start at 1% gross income or $95, whichever is larger.
it escalates to 4%/$500 in 2014.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:52:40 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Gallup poll was skewed. Democrat/Republican/Independent internals
skewed heavily Democrat. It was also adults vs. likely voters.
Rasmussen poll of likely voters shows 41% favor, 54% opposed. Intensity
of likely voters is also significant: 26% strongly favor, 45% strongly
oppose. You do the math regarding what that means for November

The math would be much easier if someone could get a handle on ACORN and
voter fraud. ACORN is being prosecuted in 14 states at least for
registering fake voters.

ACORN FOLDED. Just this week.

On paper. Their devilish Democrat workers are still in their covertly
linked companies, continuing to carry out their dastardly deeds, dude.
Similarly, once you knock out a drug lord, another (usually from the
same organization) rushes to fill his place. Why? Because the money
is still there to be made.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On 25 Mar 2010 11:26:54 GMT, the infamous Han
scrawled the following:

"LDosser" wrote in -
september.org:

ACORN FOLDED. Just this week.

This shows what a few stupid people can do to an otherwise good
organization. The groaning old party should take a lesson and do something
about teapartiers.

You drank too much Koolaid, Han. Please follow the lawsuits against
them. I'm sure a whole lot more info about their deeds will come out.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:01:40 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:02:52 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Suppose the government told you that you _must_ buy a Unisaw whether you
want one or not and whether you can afford one or not. Would you say
that that was acceptable? If not then why is them telling you that you
_must_ buy insurance acceptable?

To bolster your argument you're comparing a table saw to country wide
health insurance?

That's not even remotely on the level of an apples and oranges
comparison. It's just a fall flat, 6 1/2 IQ demonstration of shooting
your foot off with a bazooka.

No, Uppy. He made a valid point.

Why are you in this debate, anyway? You don't even live here!
What do you expect to win?

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:35:02 -0600, the infamous Gordon Shumway
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:13:44 -0500, Upscale
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:07:59 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Choices have consequences. One who chooses a dissolute life-style - or even
one who failed to provide for his own contingencies - must face the harvest
of that which he sowed.

And, that is what has come to pass. The US people made a choice on a
particular leader and that leader has made a choice on healthcare. Cry
in your soup as much as you want, but deal with it instead of doing
all this shrill whining and running around that the sky is falling.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of
entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be easier to
limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the
necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate
willing to have such a man for their President.

“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who
is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools
should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him
their prince.

“The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a
fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those
who made him their president."

-- Author Unknown

A clear, valid, and scary thought. Thanks, Gordon and Anon.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:02:30 -0400, the infamous Jack Stein
scrawled the following:

J. Clarke wrote:

Whether it works well is irrelevant. Whether one benefits is
irrelevant. The issue is the power of the government to compel someone
to purchase a commercial product. If they can order you to purchase
insurance, what prevents them from ordering you to purchase a Unisaw?

Good point. Expanding on that, what they want is "single payer" or
socialized, government controlled and owned medical system. This never
works, and is anti-American to the extreme. The US government is not to
be in the business of business. The socialist democrats have usurped GM
and Chrysler, about taken over the banking industry, education, public
transit, gambling, sports stadiums, in my state liquor stores and who
know what else.

Now they want the big enchilada, health care. People generally lose
more and more as big brother clenches his powerful, tyrannical jaws
around freedom.

Those who seek to control us are gaining ever more control. It goes
beyond politics, too. Reps put in the Patriot Acts. Dems grabbed GM,
mortgages, and some banks. Now Dems are after more of the treasury and
a life-or-death rebalancing. Scary times.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:10:43 -0400, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

On 3/25/2010 12:02 AM, LDosser wrote:
Fix what they've done. Fast!

Treat the insurance companies like utilities. What they have done
instead is give the insurance companies the greatest windfall in history.

So how do you propose to fix what they've done? First you have to get
the current bunch out of office.

That has already started, and will be in full effect come November, I
assure you. Those assholes are being voted out of office quickly.

Others warn of an impending cull of libtards. Who knows what will
happen? I just pray that nobody takes out The O.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:04:44 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
So how do you propose to fix what they've done? First you have to get the
current bunch out of office.

ALL of them. ALL Incumbents regardless of party. The problem is not so much
Liberal/Conservative or Democrat/Republican as it is 535 people who think
they are Entitled to hold office and in their arrogance believe they know
what is good for everyone else.

Hear, hear! One term and you're GONE!

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Mar 25, 2:25*pm, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:04:44 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
So how do you propose to fix what they've done? *First you have to get the
current bunch out of office.

ALL of them. ALL Incumbents regardless of party. The problem is not so much
Liberal/Conservative or Democrat/Republican as it is 535 people who think
they are Entitled to hold office and in their arrogance believe they know
what is good for everyone else.

Hear, hear! *One term and you're GONE!

Gone because Obama delivered on a campaign promise? Same people will
probably put him back for another 4 years.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:20:43 -0400, the infamous "J. Clarke"
scrawled the following:

On 3/24/2010 10:29 PM, Phisherman wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:26:01 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:04:29 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

You're not allowed to be uninsured anymore. They can confiscate your
property for that now.

Absolutely nothing new there. It's just a different sort of tax,
similar to the confiscation ability your IRS has had and used for
many, many years. Feeble attempt to make it sound like something new
and different.


I understand that you can pay the IRS a fine instead of buying
insurance. The bill requires additional IRS operations to check if
all is covered and that all people are controlled on a monthly basis.
Look on the bright side: The bonus is the it doubles as a simulus bill
too, more IRS agent jobs are created.

Upscale's problem is that he does not understand that purchasing a
product from a business is not a tax.

Nor does he understand that adding to the gov't roles is a greater
burden on society rather than a benefit.


Let's see, 16k x $50k/yr = $800,000,000 taken right out of the
healthcare system by bean counters, ant that's just the first line of
bureaucracy. There are HOW many _brand_new_ agencies being created
for this happy horse****? 159?
http://forum.starnewsonline.com/view...6&t=332&p=3766

Yeah, his plan will work just fine, cutting costs and increasing
services to the people. Uh huh. In a @#$%^& pig's eye! This new
thing is a total cluster**** if I ever heard of one.

Care to comment on his economics, Uppy?

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On 3/25/2010 1:13 PM, chaniarts wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
wrote
I understand that you can pay the IRS a fine instead of buying
insurance. The bill requires additional IRS operations to check if
all is covered and that all people are controlled on a monthly basis.
Look on the bright side: The bonus is the it doubles as a simulus
bill too, more IRS agent jobs are created.

In Massachusetts you have to pay a fine. Insurance for a young
healthy single person that would rather go without is about $5000 a
year and the fine is something like a few hundred bucks. Tough
choice.

i think the fine will start at 1% gross income or $95, whichever is larger.
it escalates to 4%/$500 in 2014.

The law is online, read it before you express opinions. It starts at
$95 in 2014, increases to 350 in 2015, and 750 in 2016. Those amounts
are per person with a cap of 3 times that amount for any given taxpayer.
Thus if you and your wife file a joint return and have a kid it can be
$2250. After that there is a cost of living adjustment in subsequent
years. There's nothing about 1 percent of gross income.

There is an exemption if one's "required contribution" is more than 8
percent of "household income" with the "required contribution" being the
premium on the cheapest "bronze plan".

Steve types some stuff that has nothing to do with the REAL issue.

I'll provide some answers that are more on point than your questions:

Do you have health insurance?
In this free country of the United States, why do you want to know?

Do you want health insurance?
How is that your business?

IF you want health insurance, but DO NOT have it, why?
Why do you want to know?

If you DO NOT want health insurance, why?
This is a biggie! NOT your business.

Health is probably more germane to the general population than having a
Unisaw. If the government were mandating the purchase of that item, I
would agree with you. And let's disregard the entire SawStop issue, as
that IS irrelevent to this question.
As are your questions.

BTW, in my state, at least, you have to provide proof of financial
responsibilty (i.e., insurance) before you can license a car. If you're
driving without insurance, you'd better damn well pray you don't hit a BMW
driven by a lawyer.
You (I) (we) don't have to have a car. We pretty much do have to have a
body.

Here's another tip for you: Don't bet against the house.
Finally, a very germane statement.

Phil