Re: BUSH IN ISREAL


"Dutch" <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ojD1k.6559$C12.4520@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
"Dutch" <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dRs1k.6037$C12.1366@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
"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.
No, you're no challenge, and you're an ill-mannered prick.

Dutch, you're a shithead.
I'm an arrogant, annoying, self rightious SOB.
But only when I'm right.

When you THINK you're right, which is all the time. Therefore you are an
ill-mannered prick all the time.

No, only when I AM right.



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?
Probably plenty, most unwisely, and their children suffer as a result of
that short-sightedness.

No, shithead.
Most of them don't have children.
See, idiot, having kids is expensive... people GET health insurance prior
to that.

Making up reality to suit you as you go along I see.
No, stating the truth.



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.
All of the above is pure bull***

No, you fucking moron.
It's all 100% true.

No, it's nonsense.
No, it's documentedly true.
Stop being a *** for brains.



. Getting sick is not only likely, it's
a guarantee, and if buying health insurance is not cost effect then its
too expensive. Every other civilized country considers it a fundamental
need. The US will also, within 2-4 years.

Dutch, your shithead excuses notwithstanding, health insurance is
relatively inexpensive.
However, for anyone under 35 in good health, it's generally UNNEEDED.

Insurance is never NEEDED if one is prepared to accept the possibility of
financial devastation caused by a health crisis.



Or if one has an extremely low risk.


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.
No, they protect people, who happen to live in neighborhoods, usually.
They protect neighborhoods. All the people in them. They can't identify
the people first, then look at a list of subscribers.

They protect everyone, the people, because they are all fellow citizens,
that's how most countries view health care

No, shithead.
They protect everyone because selective protection isn't practical.


You get a benefit from the cops being there, so it isn't an opt-out
area.
You get a benefit from health insurance.
You're a major shithead.
You get no real benefit from your neighbor having health insurance, you
imbecile.

Fire protection covers neighborhoods, and letting your house burn down
would cause someone else's to burn down.
Not necessarily, if your house sits on a large lot so that a fire would
not threaten other homes you're protected just the same.

You don't understand how fire works either.
Just how retarded ARE you?

Non-responsive bs.

No, fuckface.
quite responsive to your stupidity.




There simply is no basic difference, protection of health fits well into
the category of a collective responsibility. Its how we see it in Canada
and how the rest of the civilized world sees it. The US is lagging
behind in this area.

No, shithead.
Morons see it as something they need.
Intelligent people see it as something they MAY need, and get it when
needed.

Wrong, you don't understand the principle of insurance.
No, fuckhead, YOU don't.



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.
Medical research and health care are not the same thing.

No, shithead, but the desire for profit is eliminated by nationalized
health care.

Medical research companies exist here, there is a big one near here.

And they sell drugs to the US.
And we pay their R&D costs.



Doctors don't need competition to diagnose and treat patients, they need
lots of patients with insurance so they can serve their mandate and make
money.

No, fuckhead.
Doctors lower the price because of competition.

Nonsense.
You're clinically insane.
HMO's went to doctors decades ago and negotiated better rates for their
customers.



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.
See above, Canada is a world leader in many areas of medical research.
It is a separate discipline from medical *care*.

No, fuckhead.
Medical research is done to try and sell drugs at a profit. They can't DO
that if national health care hits.

Untrue, drug patents apply under nationalized insurance.

You're a fucking retard.
The government sets the payment rates under national insurance.
That's too risky for anyone to deal with.








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.
I'm not just expressing my personal opinion, my view is shared by most
of the world and increasing numbers of Americans.

No, your view isn't shared by anyone who isn't already inclined towards
government run socialism.

Don't kick yourself in the face with your knee-jerk reactions.

No knee jerk at all.



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.
Then choice, per se, is not the issue.

Sure it is.

I just demonstrated that it's not. You don't care about choice per se, you
are anti-socialist.

No, fuckhead, you didn't demonstrate a thing.


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.
A lot of things come to mind..

What mind?

The one I use, like the one you have stopped using.

You have no mind, clearly.

Yet you do it anyway, why? Because a catastrophic illness or injury may
be lurking right around the corner, and that could bankrupt you.

Correct. I own a house. I have assets I could lose.
If I were a 23 year old renter, I wouldn't touch it without reason.

Insurance works best with a large pool of high and low risk clients. I pay
reasonable premiums into a plan when young and healthy and benefit when I
am older and more vulnerable. Its a good system.
I could choose not to pay at all when I was young and save the money, then
buy in when the risk is actually a concern.
It's a much better system.




The best insurance is the insurance you never collect on.

No, the best insurance makes sense minimizing your risk.

Non sequitur, you never want to collect on your insurance.
Wrong, idiot.
If I buy health insurance, I WANT to need it in excess of my expense for it,
or it's wasted.
There are plenty of people who do.



If good insurance is a burden, then its too expensive, the insurance
companies are making a killing.

No, fuckhead.
I'm in good health.
Health insurance, run by ANYONE, overprices the insurance to healthy
people and underprices sick people.
Mandating it makes it MUCH worse.

Not at all, it increases the pool of payees, eliminates the profit margin
and streamlines the bureaucracies.

No, fuckhead.
It increases the bureacracies tenfold, as it's run by the government.
Medicare shows how not to run an insurance company.




Healthy people like you subsidize those who are less fortunate, and they
do the same for you if you become ill.

Oh, I have hypothyroidism.
It just costs less than what I pay for my insurance.

Everyone has issues from time to time. Its just simpler to deal with it
all in one medical plan.
No, it's more expensive to mandate it.





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.
No, we embrace it because it gives people peace of mind, and its the
right thing to do for one another. It also costs less.

When did Canada join Europe?

In this respect, 70 years ago.

You failed geography 70 years ago?
How fucking old are you, Dutchie?


It doesn't, it isn't, AND it doesn't.

None of what I said is seriously debatable.
Yes, it's all laughably wrong.'

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

Call 911 from Bill Gates' house, then do it from the projects in New
York.

There are probably more police in the projects, so they will be there
quicker.
There aren't.
You lose again.


You're more a fool than I thought if you're advocating basing policy and
principle on bias against the poor, or any other group.

Shithead, I didn't advocate 'basing policy' on anything.
I pointed out how the real world works, you fucking moron.



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.
So you think the police deliberately protect wealthy people more than
poor?
Yes.
How?

They respond to phone calls faster. They put more manpower into solving
their cases. They treat them better.

Is that policy?

Sure.

Will they admit to it?

Most cops will, off the record.
Guys with more influence get more priorities.



Do they quickly look at a victim's clothes when he's being
mugged and just walk away if he looks too shabby? What if he's a
billionaire who just dresses in shabby clothes? There are plenty of
them.

Dutch, are you such an idiot that you think crimes are generally dealt
with while they're being committed?

Your arguments are pathetic.

No, shithead.
Your stupidity is.

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.
The providers of health care don't require competition, there is plenty
of demand for their services.
They require PROFITS to stay open, you imbecile.

Insurance companies making profits out of health care premiums helps
nobody but insurance companies.

Retard, they pressure providers into lowering costs.

So they can make more profits, it doesn't help patients whose premiums
keeping rising.


Idiot boy, it lowers the costs considerably.

The blood test for my physical billed out at just under $300.
The negotiated BCBS rate was 88.50



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.
It would be nothing of the kind. The money that used to go into
insurance company coffers could go directly into improving care.
No, it'd go into trying to replace doctors who quit because they weren't
making money.

Government insurance is mandated non-profit.

Yeah, you're a simpleton.
There's plenty of graft and manipulation in government programs now.

Is that another human weakness you advocate basing policy on?


Yeah, reality.
When mankind becomes wonderful, then socialism will work.
Call me in a century or two.


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.
Thats circular. there are many people left out. You're "I'm all right
Jack" mentality is going to die out in America.

No, idiot.
People who choose not to insure don't want to pay for it.

Too bad, everyone needs medical care sometimes.

But most people don't need much of it until later in life.



Now get a real newsreader.
The newsreader you're using (OE) is the one that doesn't insert carats
in quoted printable, which Google Groups uses, nor does Windows Mail
which I usually use. Thunderbird, which I am using right now, does.

No, imbecile.
OE inserts carots everywhere.

Google groups inbeds something that prevents it.

I told you the reason, quoted printable (QP) look it up, idiot.

*** you, retard


.