Re: BUSH IN ISREAL


"Dutch" <leechap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6b621e50-8f2d-46d6-8a40-8e53495bb070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 3, 5:55 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Dutch" <n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:AH%0k.327$js6.100@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:esudnRDSjY4Nb97VRVn_vwA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dutch"

Apparently you have not read it at all.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/
"Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. Even within these
groups, though, certain requirements must be met. These may include
your
age, whether you are pregnant, disabled, blind, or aged; your income
and
resources (like bank accounts, real property, or other items that can
be
sold for cash);"

Who am I to believe, you, or the Medicaid website?

You seem to think (or you are just a complete dolt, of which you
provide
evidence every post)

Yea, sure, let's not bother trying to maintain a modicum of respect or
decorum.

Dutch, noone respects you because you're an idiot.
You've been corrected 100 times in this thread.

By people with blinding anti-socialist bias. I have you killfiled at
home, but I'm stuck waiting at the library, so here goes nothing...


***
You got tired of having your ass handed to you, yes.



that "resources (like bank accounts, real property, or
other items that can be sold for cash" means "anything of value"

What does "anything of value" mean in this context if not "cash value"?

... it does
not ... you can have some "resources" ... if these "resources" are
"meager" enough, you can qualify for medicaid ... if they are not
"meager" enough, then you have enough "resources" to afford medical
insurance so you do NOT qualify for medicaid.

Exactly my point. People who are well off, with solid jobs, are in good
shape. People hovering around or below the poverty line are covered, but
a
huge chunk of the population are not.

No, you moron.
Almost anyone can afford health insurance.

"Almost" being the operative word, hence the 47 million uninsured
Americans in 2006 (not in dispute)

***
Shithead, how many of them choose not to buy it?


Many choose not to buy it.

No doubt, many because rent and food come first, and every one of them
gets sick in their lifetime, meaning many of them end up driven to
poverty and desperation by something that that should be covered by a
social network. The rest of the world GETS this. You should not be
allowed to opt out of a fundamental NEED.

***
You're a fucking moron.
Many choose not to buy it because being sick is unlikely, because the cost
of insurance is more than their expected medical bills, and it's not cost
effective to buy insurance unless you're likely to need it.
It is NOT a fundamental need.





You continue to post nonsense about medical care in the USA so we have
never been able to discuss how to make our system better.

What I have posted are facts supported by legitimate cites. I'm willing
to
discuss how to make your system better, but I'm not an expert. I would
say
that your system should maintain most of the free-enterprise components
it
has now, but in place of the hodge-podge of government sponsored
services
there should be one, mandatory universal coverage, with payroll
deductions
a proportion of net income. Anyone who wishes alternate insurance should
have the option to purchase it instead and have the deduction apply
towards it.

Why should anyone be forced to buy insurance for something that can't harm
anyone else?

The same reason people are all covered by police and fire protection
paid for out of taxes. Also adults make poor choices for their
children.
***
You're a shithead.
Police protection protects neighborhoods.
You get a benefit from the cops being there, so it isn't an opt-out area.
Fire protection covers neighborhoods, and letting your house burn down would
cause someone else's to burn down.





You refuse to do anything more than say that Canada has a "better"
system

That's a misquote and an oversimplification. The Canadian system *is*
better, for some, worse for others. What I have said is that it is
philosophically different.

and "other
civilized countries" have an even better system

That is supported by objective studies.

No, it's supported by SUBjective studies.

Every one I've seen, done by international and American organizations.

***
That ignore the benefiit competition brings to innovation in medical
science.




but the big picture is lost in your glee for skipping all details.

You're the one skipping details. All you want to do is categorize things
in simplistic black vs white terms that make it convenient for you to
attack.

No, convenient to debunk.

Unsuccessfully. Every bit of data supports the case for universal
medical insurance.

Wrong, *** for brains.
The data on lack of competition stagnating research is undeniable.







If you cannot afford health care insurance, you have too new a car
and
too big a house and eat out too much and buy designer clothes and a
host of other things that cost money ... it is called "living beyond
your means" ... it is not that complicated to understand.

That's a possible scenario, but what about people who do none of the
above and still can't afford medical insurance? Why do you assume that
everyone can afford insurance? Or rather why do you assume that anyone
who can't must be a fool and wastrel? Deducting a proportion of
everyone's wages for medical insurance solves that problem. Nobody can
foolishly ignore their health needs.

You keep changing what you say to something new. You use words
foolishly. Your argument is obfuscation.

No I am not. Every time I pose the same dilemma, you skate around it, so
I
restate it. The obfuscation is in your perception.

No, Pickel perceives this issue correctly.

You share his myopia

**
No, I share his ability to see your stupidity.



It's a matter of choice, complicated by your total lack of understanding
about what 'afford' means.

Choice? Can Americans choose to smoke pot, take heroine or cocaine?
"Choice" is a smokescreen for anti-socialist throwback dogmatism.

***
No, fuckhead. Choice is about choosing whether to self insure and run the
risk of getting sick when quite unlikely, or not.

My health insurance continues to be a financial loser. If I paid full price
at the doctor and pocketed just MY share of the premiums, I'd be in better
shape financially.








YOU started the discussion about not being able to pay your monthly
bills. Now you want to say the person you are talking about has "none
of
the above" ... do you mean that the person has no mortgage and no car
and
"can't afford" these things? There are many people that might fit that
description. We have many people drawing food stamps, living in
subsidized housing, working a little on the side for cigarettes,
getting
"free" medical care ... do you see a disincentive for those folks to
start working on their own?

I'm NOT TALKING about people on food stamps, that is and has been all
along a diversion that you have introduced. I realize that they are
covered, although the issue of how well thy are covered is another
discussion. I'm talking about working people, families whose jobs and
budgets are inadequate to afford medical insurance. And yes there will
be
some who simply don't bother out of foolishness.

As for "foolish" people ... ignoring their health needs is not the only
thing they are foolish about. Why do you only pick that one? (I know
you don't really want to stop there ... you are more than willing to
let
the government prevent people from being foolish with their time and
talent and treasure.)

That's the philosphical point I have been trying to get across. As
Canadians, British, French, Germans, etc.. we simply are not willing to
stand by and watch people go without medical care, just as you do not
let
people opt out of paying taxes and decline police and fire protection.
We
see medical care as part of shared social responsibility.

It isn't the same at all.
A different kind of risk, with far different likelihoods and liabilities
to
the rest of the area.

It is perceived by the rest of the civilized world as part of that
group. I may be a minority opinion on this newsgroup, but not in the
rest of the world, maybe not even in America any more.

***
You're a simpleton.
Anyone with an IQ in double digits can see the difference.

Europeans are conditioned to be socialistic. That's why they embrace it.





Labels are meaningless, compartmentalizing others makes it easier for
you, but it does not elucidate anything. In the context of Canadian
thinking on health insurance I am considered ANTI-socialist.

By whom, the communists?

That shows how little you understand of how Canadians view health care
insurance. The vast majority, from all sides of the spectrum, are of the
view that is is inherently wrong for anyone to receive superior health
care as a result of being financially better off than another person. It
is seen as similar to a wealthy person receiving better police
protection.

Which, yet again you imbecile, they do.


To put it another way, health care is seen as a fundamental right.
This is you, being a shithead.


Dutch, you're a shithead.
Rich people DO receive better police protection.

If they do, it is due to a flawed police force. In principle, every
citizen should get the same.
***
WHEN they do, it is because of human nature.
They have more influence, they get treated better.
Idiots talk about how things work in principle.
Bright people discuss the actual real world.








What do people who pay for "private alternatives" get that is not
already provided by the government?

They get quicker access instead of going on a waiting list. There are
clinics with MRIs, and those that do hip replacements, etc. I think
this
helps the system, by shortening the waiting lists.

That's it, huh ... just the waiting list for MRIs and hip replacements
... and the "etc."

Here's the website for the new one in our area
http://www.nationalsurgery.com/FCSC/index.phpI hadn't looked at it
before. They offer quite a range of procedures. This a new concept in
Canada, still very controversial.

I thought you had "universal health care?" I must have misunderstood.

I've told you repeatedly that you are misconstruing the meaning of
universal health care, but you think you know everything. It means
that
everyone is covered by one medical insurance plan, and that plan
covers
all medically necessary services, and the amount each person pays is
proportionate to his income, up to a maximum.

Everyone is "covered" but being covered does not mean that "all
medically
necessary services" are available "universally" ... as a matter of
fact,
those that live in some places have more "services" available to them
...
but even they might be covered but unable to avail themselves of the
services at the time they need it.

No insurance plan can change physical reality, some large hospitals have
more facilities or better doctors, or whatever. That's true everywhere.

Yes, but in the US, our for-profit health care has more services available
BY FAR.

I wouldn't throw out existing service levels, the system just needs to
be applied more broadly, so everyone gets basic comprehensive care,
paid for by income-based taxation.

***
Then you're a bigger shithead.
Without the incentive for profit, the 'existing levels' decline, you moron.


Then The result would be a great system,
easier to manage the government portion, cheaper overall, with gold
standard care available to those who want it, and nobody would be left
out.

***
No, shithead. The results would be a stagnant, declining system.

As it stands the government in the US is already the largest
single provider of health insurance, and it still leaves millions of
people out.

***

It doesn't leave anyone eligible out.

Now get a real newsreader.




.