Mark & Juanita wrote:


Yep, it's working great in Great Britain, isn't it? Canada is
headed the same direction. Right now it's wait times, rationing will
come next. Problem with socialism it that you eventually run out of
other peoples' money.

Heh! According to my GE rep, there are more MRI machines in Seattle than in
all of Canada. According to one set of numbers, there are 222 MRI machines
in Canada. There are 163 hospitals in my town, almost all have at least one
MRI machine and the larger more than one. My town also has 55 private
imaging centers, each with up to four MRI machines. Many - I'd guess a
hundred or more - physicians have their own MRI machine. So, then, there are
probably 3-500 MRI machines in my little burg.

In my own case, I twisted my knee quite badly. Got in to see my internist
that afternoon. He doped me up with some pain killers and he arranged for an
MRI the next morning. By noon the next day the result was in.

In Canada, waits far exceeding 24 hours are the norm. Twenty-four WEEKS is
more common.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:02:30 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

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.

Universal health care can be implemented in several ways, single
payer is not the only way. Perhaps you could say "this never works"
to all of the countries that have UHC? They'd laugh and declare you
nuts. But I guess everyone's out of step but you.

In many cases "it works" because the people don't know or expect any better.
For example, in the UK they don't expect anesthetics for tooth extractions.

J. Clarke wrote:
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".

well, blame it on my local newspaper, which i had assumed had read it.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...-benefits.html

....the biggest tax increases will come in Medicare payroll taxes. Those take
two forms, both starting in 2013:
If the Senate passes the package of changes, the biggest tax increases will
come in Medicare payroll taxes. Those take two forms, both starting in 2013:

.. Single people earning more than $200,000 and couples starting at $250,000
will pay 0.9 percent more on their wages and self-employment income.

.. For people at those income levels, all their investment earnings will be
taxed 3.8 percent, marking the first time the hospital-insurance tax has hit
non-wage income.

The other major tax increase under the law hits the most generous
health-insurance plans. Those don't apply only to upper-income people. State
and local employees and other union workers have won excellent health
coverage in recent years rather than big pay increases.

Starting in 2018, family insurance plans valued at more than $27,500 would
pay a 40 percent tax above that level.

....

Beginning in 2014, young adults will be required to purchase insurance or
face tax penalties. Those will be phased in, reaching $695 per year by 2016
for an individual or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is larger.
Young adults will be eligible for subsidies, though, if they meet income.

chaniarts wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
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".

well, blame it on my local newspaper, which i had assumed had read it.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...-benefits.html

snip

actually, what i was remembering was this article from yesterday's paper

http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...Taxes0324.html

Here are some of the key provisions of the bill as they affect individuals,
outlined by tax researcher CCH.

Provision: No-coverage penatly.
The basics: People who don't obtain health insurance and aren't exempt could
face a penalty starting in 2014 of at least $95 that would rise sharply
later. Exempt individuals will include those with too little income to file
a tax return.
Tax details: This penalty will be a flat tax or a percentage of income,
whichever is more. In 2014, it will be $95 or 1 percent of income, rising to
$695 or 2.5 percent of income by 2016. Those under 18 and college students
will pay half.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:21:47 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:02:30 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

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.

Universal health care can be implemented in several ways, single payer
is not the only way. Perhaps you could say "this never works" to all
of the countries that have UHC? They'd laugh and declare you nuts.
But I guess everyone's out of step but you.


Yep, it's working great in Great Britain, isn't it? Canada is headed
the same direction. Right now it's wait times, rationing will come
next . Problem with socialism it that you eventually run out of other
peoples' money.

Isn't it amazing that the only examples opponents come up with are
England and Canada? Yes, England's plan is screwed up. But I've spent a
lot of time talking to Canadians about their plan and all of them, while
admitting it could stand improvement, are on the whole quite pleased with
it.

I'll see your Canada and raise you Japan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...ystem_in_Japan

Let me know what you think after (if?) you read it.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:22:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

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 they do, The USA will officially join the "third world" - and
recalling the troops from Afghanistan will put them in as much danger
as leavint them there.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
CW wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
J. Clarke wrote:

My point is that the Gestapo's razor wire could not keep people in a
little tiny prison, let alone a whole country,
Didn't do too bad containing the East Germans.

If it had been a single fence, it wouldn't have stopped anybody. The guard
towers, dog runs and 100 yards of clear (shooting) space between fences had
a lot to do with it. They rarely shot anyone though. They usually just put
the dogs on them.

How many of the 916 who died trying to cross were killed by the dogs?

How many of those poor suckers were killed trying to get INTO the
socialist *******s prison?

--
Jack
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
http://jbstein.com

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:02:30 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

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.

Universal health care can be implemented in several ways, single payer is
not the only way. Perhaps you could say "this never works" to all of the
countries that have UHC? They'd laugh and declare you nuts. But I guess
everyone's out of step but you.

Well me, and about 70% of America.

Or, it never does work, and everyone is out of step but you.

Or you, and about 26% of Amerika.

--
Jack
Got Change: General Motors ===== Government Motors!
http://jbstein.com

On Mar 25, 3:40*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

*Yep, it's working great in Great Britain, isn't it? *Canada is
headed the same direction. *Right now it's wait times, rationing will
come next. Problem with socialism it that you eventually run out of
other peoples' money.

Heh! According to my GE rep, there are more MRI machines in Seattle than in
all of Canada. According to one set of numbers, there are 222 MRI machines
in Canada. There are 163 hospitals in my town, almost all have at least one
MRI machine and the larger more than one. My town also has 55 private
imaging centers, each with up to four MRI machines. Many - I'd guess a
hundred or more - physicians have their own MRI machine. So, then, there are
probably 3-500 MRI machines in my little burg.

In my own case, I twisted my knee quite badly. Got in to see my internist
that afternoon. He doped me up with some pain killers and he arranged for an
MRI the next morning. By noon the next day the result was in.

In Canada, waits far exceeding 24 hours are the norm. Twenty-four WEEKS is
more common.

My wife, Angela, runs the Heart & Stroke Prevention unit at our MRI-
equipped local hospital. There are 8 MRI's within 45 mins to an hour
from here. She has had emerg referrals handled by the local MRI in 20
minutes. Of the 4 doctors attached to her unit, 1 is always on call.

THAT, Bub, is the hard-core reality of medical care in this county of
100,000 people. Nobody gets turned away, no billing.
Some local doctors are actively seeking patients to flesh out new
practices. So, your information, Bub, is incorrect.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:55:31 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

YOU dare to talk about vote fraud after what happened in 2000 Florida?
You mean when a few socialist, democratic controlled, Florida counties
tried to punch out multiple voter cards at a time in a lame attempt to
defeat the overwhelming support of their constituents for Bush? This of
course resulted in the infamous hanging chards that for some reason
where always cast in favor of the dimwit AlGore.

Yes, there *are* alternate universes. Jack lives in one :-).

If you say so, it must be so...

I guess you think it was Bush supporters that tried to punch multiple
cards for AlGore and produced all those hanging chards?

You're right! Doesn't make much sense on my universe.

--
Jack
Got Change: More Taxes! More Spending! More Debt!
http://jbstein.com

On Mar 25, 3:42*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:02:30 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

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.

Universal health care can be implemented in several ways, single
payer is not the only way. *Perhaps you could say "this never works"
to all of the countries that have UHC? *They'd laugh and declare you
nuts. *But I guess everyone's out of step but you.

In many cases "it works" because the people don't know or expect any better.
For example, in the UK they don't expect anesthetics for tooth extractions.

That's because they're tough enough to play Rugby and aren't as wimpy
as some other people.

HeyBub wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
So you are saying you are not allowed to teach your kids birth control
in Bergen county New Jersey?

Damn, government control has gotten way out of hand in your area, you
should move...

Well, if you don't wish to move to a state that supports the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I suggest you point out Article I
to your local dictator. If you can't straighten things out with
Article I, perhaps Article II can give you some help... Good luck.

Inasmuch as Article I deals with the Congress and Article II enumerates the
powers of the president, I suspect you're referring to Amendment I (freedom
of religion except polygamy, etc.)

Yes, Amendment I, dealing with free speech and religion and

and Article II (keep and bear arms except
in Chicago, etc.).

:-)


--
Jack
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
http://jbstein.com

Steve wrote:
On 2010-03-23 13:18:50 -0400, Jack Stein said:

death of robust US medical research and development

One hell of a lot more is spent on marketing and intellectual property
protection than R&D. And don't even get me started on ag-chem and GM.
Monsanto, for one, is truly evil.

And socialists from the world over slither into the US with pockets full
of money for the great marketing and copyright laws of the capitalist
pigs, right?

--
Jack
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
does not first take from somebody else.
http://jbstein.com

LDosser wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message

Mark & Juanita wrote:

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.

Into what?

Last count it was the umbrella organization for about 250+ socialist
groups, including SEIU.

--
Jack
"I'm not as dumb as you look."
http://jbstein.com

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

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

Don't ever underestimate the left wing media machine. I would think
any voting district that had more voters than registered voters would
be BIG news, and HOTLY investigated and prosecuted. Nope, hardly
raised an eyebrow.

Anyway, an example of the effects of ACORN is Al Franken, socialist
******* from Minnesota. Franken won by 312 votes. ACORN claimed to
have registered 48,000. The fact ACORN uses tax money to registers
ONLY socialist Democrats, and the fact ACORN is guilty as hell in
registration fraud makes the math a little hard to do.

Jack, ACORN IS FOLDING.

Into what?

--
Jack
The Problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of Other Peoples Money!
http://jbstein.com

J. Clarke wrote:

If they are crossing the border from Mexico at other than authorized
stations, they have Self Identified. Same with Canada.

Yawol Herr Oberfuhrer.

Damn! Have I stumpled into yet another DUI road check?

--
Jack
Got Change: Individual Freedom ======= Government Control!
http://jbstein.com

On 3/25/2010 4:37 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:21:47 -0700, Mark& Juanita wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:02:30 -0400, Jack Stein wrote:

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.

Universal health care can be implemented in several ways, single payer
is not the only way. Perhaps you could say "this never works" to all
of the countries that have UHC? They'd laugh and declare you nuts.
But I guess everyone's out of step but you.


Yep, it's working great in Great Britain, isn't it? Canada is headed
the same direction. Right now it's wait times, rationing will come
next . Problem with socialism it that you eventually run out of other
peoples' money.

Isn't it amazing that the only examples opponents come up with are
England and Canada? Yes, England's plan is screwed up. But I've spent a
lot of time talking to Canadians about their plan and all of them, while
admitting it could stand improvement, are on the whole quite pleased with
it.

I'll see your Canada and raise you Japan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...ystem_in_Japan

Let me know what you think after (if?) you read it.

Let me know what you think when the elderly retirees outnumber the
workers. Japan's in trouble and they know it.

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.

But harder to find.

--
Jack
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.
http://jbstein.com

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
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.


I'd rather they didn't but, do to timing, I think they will. Thought this
since he was elected.

Larry Jaques wrote:
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

The plan for the health insurance companies seems to be to regulate them
until they're insolvent, then take them over because they're "too big to
fail" and now we have the government health insurance option - and the
only option. Should only take 3-5 years under the new law.

Jack Stein wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
CW wrote:
"Jack Stein" wrote in message
J. Clarke wrote:

My point is that the Gestapo's razor wire could not keep people in
a little tiny prison, let alone a whole country,
Didn't do too bad containing the East Germans.

If it had been a single fence, it wouldn't have stopped anybody. The
guard towers, dog runs and 100 yards of clear (shooting) space
between fences had a lot to do with it. They rarely shot anyone
though. They usually just put the dogs on them.

How many of the 916 who died trying to cross were killed by the dogs?

How many of those poor suckers were killed trying to get INTO the
socialist *******s prison?

Don't know, but the 916 were trying to get out - east to west.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

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.

And because I am a member of a big group, my rates are low, while some poor
slob with a small company has to pay far higher rates. This is fair? Or
should everyone get insurance at basically the same rates?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2010-03-25 15:40:03 -0400, "Phil Anderson" said:

How is that your business?

Strictly speaking, it's not. I am, however, curious as to the reasons
for objection to mandatory insurance. And sorry, I do not believe these
great altruists really give a good god damn about freedom and liberty
-- truth be told, they're ****ed about another tax, not that they
object to or cannot afford insurance.

Several years ago, I worked with several members of the John Birch
Society. Two of these guys were scared ****less of the world around
them. That's why they were members -- they felt it gave them a defense
against shadows.

The third guy was fearless -- he was a Bircher because these principles
were his and this was his way to challenge the world, to not back down.

Guess which man I respected, though I did not share his views?

On 2010-03-25 01:26:15 -0400, Larry Jaques said:

(raises hand)
I can't afford it now and sure won't be able to afford Obamacare.

That's an honest response. Thank you, sir.

On 2010-03-24 23:23:03 -0400, "Lew Hodgett" said:

Understand the "Seed Police" have become quite zealous.

Not just for cross-pollianted seed either. Put down that heirloom
tomato and come out with your hands up!

On 2010-03-25 17:30:52 -0400, Jack Stein said:

And socialists from the world over slither into the US with pockets
full of money for the great marketing and copyright laws of the
capitalist pigs, right?

We don' need no steenkin' Socialists, we've got Disney!

On 2010-03-23 16:48:02 -0400, Jack Stein said:

Jack
Somewhere In Kenya, a Village is Missing it's IDIOT!

Hey, Jack -- just what is your ethnicity? I want to be certain my
forthcoming smear of you is accurate.

On 2010-03-24 13:35:02 -0400, Gordon Shumway said:

"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

Straight outta the Teabagger Catechism.

On 2010-03-22 23:28:29 -0400, Robatoy said:

By golly, me thinks you are correct, sir. We've been Godwinned.

That happened at the first advocation of Gestapo and razor wire...
amazing that anyone would espouse practices of a despised former enemy.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:57:25 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
I've never called you a thief (though you continue to demonstrate that
you're a liar for saying so). I have called your *views* evil because
you defend a system built on theft.

You precipitated your first attack on me some three years ago the
moment I said that I approved of the Canadian universal health care
system. You directly called me evil and a thief. Not my views or the
system I support, but me directly. Shall I search out those initial
text messages and show you to be an admitted liar.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:57:25 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

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.

Again, more of your compassion.

Oh, I have plenty of compassion, just not for greedy little self
absorbed whining crybabies like you. People like you earn every bit of
the enmity and ill will you get.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:38:17 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

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

Initially, I was drawn in by Tim Daneliuk's attack on me for receiving
support in the Canadian health care system. It's just progressed from
there.

Agreed, I have no direct involvement with what's been happening in the
US health care scene, but I do approve of it and for that, I'm
occasionally attacked too.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:40:39 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

In Canada, waits far exceeding 24 hours are the norm. Twenty-four WEEKS is
more common.

Six months eh? You're full of absolute bull****. I've had extensive
experience in the Canadian health care system over the last thirty
years, I've NEVER had to wait more than 30 days for ANYTHING medically
related.

On 3/25/2010 8:52 PM, Steve wrote:
On 2010-03-25 15:40:03 -0400, "Phil Anderson" said:

How is that your business?

Strictly speaking, it's not. I am, however, curious as to the reasons
for objection to mandatory insurance.

The reason is that if the government can tell us that we _must_ buy one
product then they can tell us that we _must_ by _any_ product. They can
tell us "you must buy an American car every year to save the auto
industry" or you _must_ buy anything else that they think "promotes the
general welfare".

And sorry, I do not believe these
great altruists really give a good god damn about freedom and liberty --
truth be told, they're ****ed about another tax, not that they object to
or cannot afford insurance.

Altruism be damned, we don't like the government poking its nose in our
business.

John Birch crap snipped

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:45:34 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I have since repeated (endlessly) to make it clear to you that
I am attacking: a) Your ideas and b) Your defense of the system,
NOT your use of a system which is mandatory. So do continue fighting
a straw man. It remains endlessly entertaining.

And you can endlessly continue that lie. Initially you attacked me
personally.


*** Both parties--just walk away. It's not worth it. Taking it from someone
who's trying to do the same (when jabbed)!




After you realized it was beneficial to your argument, you
changed it to calling the system and my ideas evil.

You see asshole, that's why I'm going to come after you for as long as
I'm able. You attacked me personally as well as questioned my ethics
and honesty. Maybe you can bull**** your way out of much of what
you've said, but for this, there's no excuse or explanation that will
exempt you.

"Robatoy" wrote

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


He promise to put is in more debt than ever before? I missed that part

"J. Clarke" wrote

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.

I was referring to present fine in MA, not to the Federal laws just passed.
Right now, MA residents can save thousands by paying the fine if they
prefer.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:36:49 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:57:25 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
I've never called you a thief (though you continue to demonstrate that
you're a liar for saying so). I have called your *views* evil because
you defend a system built on theft.

You precipitated your first attack on me some three years ago the
moment I said that I approved of the Canadian universal health care
system. You directly called me evil and a thief. Not my views or the
system I support, but me directly. Shall I search out those initial
text messages and show you to be an admitted liar.

Um, Uppy. Most people learn to either
A) Develop a thick skin for Usenet reading.
or
B) Plonk the *******s the second they become an irritant.
or
C) Both of the above.

Your wishing that he suffer a debilitating problem and keeping track
of his posts for over 3 years indicates that you may be overinvested
in this thing. Chill, mon.

Plonk him and forget him.

--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:45:34 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I have since repeated (endlessly) to make it clear to you that
I am attacking: a) Your ideas and b) Your defense of the system,
NOT your use of a system which is mandatory. So do continue fighting
a straw man. It remains endlessly entertaining.

And you can endlessly continue that lie. Initially you attacked me
personally. After you realized it was beneficial to your argument, you
changed it to calling the system and my ideas evil.

You see asshole, that's why I'm going to come after you for as long as
I'm able. You attacked me personally as well as questioned my ethics
and honesty. Maybe you can bull**** your way out of much of what
you've said, but for this, there's no excuse or explanation that will
exempt you.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:49:10 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Does that mean I am free to come to your home and help myself to
whatever *I* would like? After all, you wouldn't want to be "greedy".

Please do visit my home. It would please me to see you in person.