Re: How to be an RSG liberal

In article <ZLCdnUlC6Yxt4DXUnZ2dnUVZ_oiWnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
BAR <Screw@xxxxxxx> wrote:

William A. T. Clark wrote:
In article <X4udnREdDta1_jrUnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
BAR <Screw@xxxxxxx> wrote:

William A. T. Clark wrote:
In article <DaqdnWUahfJG0DjUnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
BAR <Screw@xxxxxxx> wrote:

William A. T. Clark wrote:
In article <8JqdncglptKEPTnUnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
BAR <Screw@xxxxxxx> wrote:

.. . . snip, snip . . .



Why, Why, Why ???

Because, apart from the stuff I posted, the rest is silly nonsense.

That's where your problems start. Seek a counselor.

- Show quoted text -
Market forces have been allowed to work. It's not government that
has
caused the run-up in healty care costs. It's the fact that 40m
people
don't have health insurance, so the industry passes on the costs of
treating them to all the rest of us.
If you show up at a car dealer and take a car without paying for it
you
are stealing.

If you got to a grocery store and take food without paying for it
you
are stealing.

If you got to a retail store and take items without paying them you
are
stealing.

But, if you go to a hospital and receive medical treatment and you
don't
pay for it they government says have a nice day.

Call me heartless and cruel all you want. But, stealing is stealing
regardless of whether it is a DVD or medical treatment.
Indeed, so why not just let them die? What an excellent solution that
would be.
It is their choice to seek and pay for their own health care. You have
no right to health care.
Especially if they do not have the money in the first place? Right. I
am
not sure what you mean by a "right" to health care, but it seems to me
that any civilized society has an obligation to take care of the sick.
Without food you die. Am I obligated to buy you food?
Our society clearly regards providing food as an obligation, otherwise
we wouldn't spend tax dollars on agricultural subsidies. So, yes, you
already ARE "buying" food.
An obligation according to whom? Have we moved to an ethical and moral
obligation.

An obligation according to anyone who would like to maintain some social
order in society. It is simply a matter of self preservation.

You and I come from two different schools of social thought. You want to
take care of everyone with other peoples money. I want everyone to take
care of themselves with their own money.

Which is wonderful, provided they have some. When it is involuntarily
removed, as we are seeing in Dubya's economic shambles, then your
philosophy falls apart.

If so, what is ethical and moral about compelling your
friends and neighbors to support your causes at the point of a gun?

Nothing - so why are we in Iraq, "compelling our friends and neighbors
there to support our cause at the point of a gun"?

Oil. If the idiots would let us drill here in the USA we wouldn't have
to protect the oil flow from the middle east.

Oh, it's all about oil now, is it? Well better tell that to Bush and
co., because they certainly have not increased the flow to the US from
Iraq in spite of the billions of dollars they have thrown away there.

This whole BS about "reliance on foreign oil" is just a canard. They
don't wan't us using oil regardless of where it is drilled.

Silly nonsense. However, it IS imperative that we develop alternative
energy sources post haste, because the oil supply will run dry in the
not too distant future.

It is in our own interests after all.
It is in their own self interest to take care of themselves. We should
be teaching our children to be self supporting rather than sticking
their hands out. When someone is down on their luck and needs assistance
I am willing to help them get back on their feet if they are willing to
get back on their feet. But, if all they want to do is to have me
provide for them for the rest of their lives then I am under no
obligation to help them in any way.
You need to grow out of the "undeserving poor" mentality. It's Victorian
and it misses the mark for the majority of those struggling, especially
in today's economy with job losses and unemployment.
By what right do you obligate the fruits of my labor to your causes. You
are free to do whatever you want with your property and I should be free
to do whatever I want with my property. You chaff at the bit when
someone tries to push their moral and religious views upon you but you
have no problem pushing your views upon others. Why?

Which would be fine if the "fruits of my labors" were not supporting
some fraction of yours through my taxes. You can't really be dumb enough
to believe that you can operate independently of society, can you?

Should the goal be that you keep as much of your money and property as
you can and I keep as much of my property as I can.

No, the goal should be to have as satisfying a life as possible. If the
only way you can measure that is by how much cash you grab for yourself,
then I feel sorry for you.

But it is good to know that you really would just let them die. At
least
you are honest about your intentions.
If they do not want to help themselves why should I help them?
You have no evidence that most of these people "do not want to help
themselves". Just your own self-centered prejudice. This is the kind of
thinking that justified the Holocaust.
And you have no evidence that they want your kind of help either.

I don't need any - my reasons for offering what support and help I can
out of my good fortune are not predicated on being flattered by
receiving their grateful thanks. I don't need that. You seem to have
difficulty seeing that anyone's motivation might differ from your own.

Great do it with your own money and leave me to do with my money what I
want. Or do you subscribe to the liberal view that I can't be trusted to
spend my money the way the liberals believe that I should sped it? Bill
Clinton vocalized that and never recanted. No one else on the left ever
stated that it was incorrect.

More silly nonsense.

There is actually a world of difference between taking a car, which
is
a
free and conscious choice, and getting ill, which in almost every
case
is not. Our refusal to confront universal health care means that the
poor generally only use medical facilities after they have become
chronically ill, and so very expensive to treat, rather than being
nicely middle class and being able to pay to go to the doctor for the
regular check ups that allow for early detection and so pre-empt
chronic
disease.
Who is going to arbitrate the cause of your illness or injury and
determine if it is self inflicted or accidental?
Self inflicted or accidental have nothing whatever to do with the point
being made. Nice try at deflection, though.
Sure it does. If a block falls off a building and lands on a guys foot
and breaks his toe it is an accident. But, if a guy kicks a building out
of anger and breaks his toe it is self inflicted. I am more inclined to
help in the former and in the latter tell the guy to suck it up learn
from his mistakes.
So all smokers should immediately be denied health benefits for smoking
related illnesses. Anyone who participates in sport or exercise should
be denied health benefits for any injuries, and so on. See what a blind
alley you end up in with this kind of thinking?
All people should either pay for their medical needs from their own
pockets or purchase insurance to cover their medical needs. It is the
same as life insurance. It is a matter of choice. Damn that choice word
bit you in the ass again. You make your choices and you suffer the
consequence of your choices.

So you think people "choose" to be unemployed? You think that those
retirees from Delphi who have now had their health insurance pulled out
from under them have any "choice". This "choice" crap is just another
wingnut excuse to justify the Bush "I've got mine, you can drop dead"
mentality that has bankrupted this country.

Nobody ever said life was fair.

When you coddle people for too long they become dependent. The Democrats
have been coddling people for far too long. Turning a great, independent
and self reliant people into a bunch of babies who cannot and will not
do for themsleves because they have been told that mother government
will take care of them from craddle to the grave.

Oh, so this is being "coddled" is it? Being put out of work, while your
CEO takes home a multi million dollar pay packet is being "coddled"?
Watching your life savings go down the drain because
Madoff/Ebbers/Samson etc., have carpetbagged it is being "coddled"? You
really need to set the Limbaugh cartoon analysis aside, and look at the
real world for once.


If you want health care then you should pay for your health care. Why
should I be compelled at the point of a gun to pay for your health
care?
We should be searching for was to reduce health care cost rather than
trying to figure out how to confiscate money from everyone to pay for
ridiculously increasing costs.
So if you want to drive a car, you should build your own roads? If you
want to be safe in your town, you should form your own police force?
Really? The fact is that, as pointed out above (and carefully ignored),
we will save money by treating everyone early enough to prevent easily
curable afflictions from developing into catastrophic and extremely
expensive ones.
I pay for the roads and police with the taxes I pay when I purchase the
car and with the taxes I pay when I fuel the car.
Exactly. You endorse funding these community services from your taxes,
paid according to income, but somehow health care is different? Strange
planet you live on.
If I don't use the roads by owning a car or purchasing gasoline then I
don't pay for those services because I do not need those services.

But you do own a car, and the gasoline tax does not cover the costs of
maintaining the roads network. Even if you don't own a car you still pay
for the roads in other taxation. You are just being dishonest to try to
wriggle out of this contradiction.

It shouldn't be that way. The roads should be self supporting.

How? You are just being stupid for the sake of it now.

Yes health care is different.

No it is not.

Nice explanation.

Explanation already clearly given above, and only responded too with
your dumb one liner. the onus is on you if you want to make the case
that it is. Be my guest.

I have a friend who is involved in just such charitable activities. He
works all around the world providing vaccinations and basic medical care
for people who can't afford it. But, it is coming from private resources
not government funds. How much had you donated?
If you really think anyone is going to give you a donation figure on a
public forum then you are even dumber than I thought. Let's just say
that my conscience and I are at peace on this one. Or perhaps you can
get the ball rolling by declaring your charitable donations here?
I am not asking for a donation. I am not advocating spending your money
or anyone else's money. I want you to spend your money as you see fit
and I want to be left to spend my money as I see fit.

Very nice, but unfortunately not possible, unless you adopt the mountain
man lifestyle. Once you emerge into society in general, you acquire
certain obligations that constrain this ideal.

Buy me a new car. You have more money than me so you can afford it.

I can, but you don't deserve it. Sorry.

I typicaly donate twice as much in a single year to my charities than VP
Joe Biden has donated to charity in the last 10 years combined.

Terrible thing to have to brag about your donations in public. I would
hope you had more class than that.

Isn't it sad to find out the President of the US donated used underwear
to Goodwill and took a tax deduction for it. Isn't it sad that Al Gore,
the inventor of the Internet, gave a whopping $300 to charity one year
while he was VP? Isn't it sad that Joe Biden the current VP gives a
measly $350 a year to charity while admonishing people that it is their
patriotic duty to pay taxes.

Oh, for God's sake, grow up. Trolling the web for silly National
Enquirer stories should be beneath even you. Biden gives a career to
public service, holds a not very well paid position, and all you can do
is find stupid stuff like this. No wonder you guys got routed in
November.

What great examples these self described compassionate leaders are to
the rest of us.

It sure as hell is government's fault for the run up in health care
costs. When your force, via law, those who provide health to give it
to
some for free and make others take up the slack for those receiving
it
for free.
How many poor physicians do you know?
Well, how many?
It is irrelevant.
No, it is absolutely relevant. Doctors make a lot of money. High
salaries can be justified for the best in any field, but there are a lot
of mediocre doctors earning way above their due. That and
over-specialization have a lot to do with excessive health care costs.
I will take this as an admission that you disagree with Congressional
Democrats and Dear Leader Obama that limiting CEO's to salaries of
$500,000 is just plain old stupidity.

No, I think that $500,000 a year is a high enough salary for anyone to
do their job.

Why? Why should your ability to earn be limited by some arbitrary number
that is based on nothing but jealousy?

Nothing to do with jealousy - I am sure you would be content to be paid
$500,00 a year, wouldn't you? Or do you think that a CEO of a bank that
has been so poorly run that it loses $2.24 billion in one quarter and
eventually has to be bailed out by the government, should walk away with
$161.5 million? In what other walk of life, save for batting in the
major leagues, could be so well rewarded for being such a dismal failure?

Why does it cost a hospital $50 to give a patient an aspirin? Why does
the physician have to order what appear to be unnecessary tests?
It doesn't - they are operating a gray market universal health care
system. How much better to put the whole thing on a properly structured
footing, so that the costs of treating the indigent doesn't fall solely
on the backs of those that have health insurance.
When you receive an aspirin at a hospital it does not cost you the $.07
it costs you when you buy it at the drug store. You want the same people
who buy $600 hammers and $2000 toilets to run health care.
Excuse me? When I get a hip replacement, the hospital charges me $16,500
for the prosthesis, which I know for a fact costs at most $500. Seems to
me we are way past the $600 hammer already here.
$500 in material maybe. But, the prosthesis didn't just jump out of the
mold. But, of course you know about the cost of research and development
and hos the research and development costs are recovered over time. But,
you are a magnanimous person so I assume that you do not copyright any
of your work or have anything patented, why would you, it just increases
the cost to the end-user and that is wrong by your own admission.

No, the materials cost less than $25 per pound, so $500 is the suppliers
cost to the hospital, and includes all their recovered R&D. The
additional $16,000 was added on by the hospital, not the manufacturer,
and goes to the hospital, not the manufacturer or the surgeon. Clear,
now?

What was the total cost, excluding the surgeon's and anesthesiologist's,
fees?

For my oldest daughter be in the Neo Natal ICU after she was born cost
$25,000 per month. This didn't include any equipment, services, drugs,
nurses or doctors fees.

About $50,000 for two nights in hospital including the surgery. The
hospital stay works out at about $12,000 per day. Now, you do understand
that the $16,500 was a listed line item on the bill for the prosthesis
alone, don't you? And that that prosthesis cost the hospital $500 to
purchase? Good.

Here is a novel idea. As Obama has stated we do health care the same way
he has said that we do Congressional appropriations. Pay as you go.

If you are so passionate about extending health care to everyone why
don't you get involved personally and start up a charity that will pay
for health care for those who can't afford it. Why does the government
have to do it. Surely you an intelligent man such as yourself can do it
better than everyone else.
Again, then why does the government have to build roads? Have a charity
do it. Why does it have to fund a police force? Have a charity do it.
There will always be charities rightly helping to provide services to
the poor, but the baseline should be the responsibility of the community
as a whole. It is in our interests if we ever want to control these out
of control health care costs.
Let's return to the days of toll roads. You wouldn't mind paying $1 for
the trip form your driveway to the main road would you?

Now you are just being silly for the sake of getting off this nasty hook.

What is wrong with Pay-Go, Dear Leader Obama is a big fan of it in word
if not in deed.

And how many people do you have to employ to collect this road toll? And
how cost efficient is that? I thought so.


As always you are looking in the wrong direction. But, its a nice try
at
class warfare, Billy. By the way, aren't you overpaid? Why should you
receive as much as you do? Surely you could get by on quite a bit
less.
Class warfare has nothing to do with it, although I can see your
desperation to try to cloud the issue. I could certainly get by on less
than I am being paid, which is why I exercise what I see as an
obligation to donate as much as I can to causes that help others who
are
less fortunate. I am sure you do the same. However, what I earn for
what
I do and contribute pales in comparison with what many others earn for
doing far less that is of value to society. You are headed down yet
another silly cul de sac with that particular tack.
Class warfare has everything to do with it. Obama's rant last night on
national TV was all about class warfare. The mean evil banks, the evil
2% top wage earners. Tax the rich.
I can well understand that the spectacle of a President who can
eloquently form and express ambitions and ideas is foreign to you,
especially after what we have endured for the past eight years. But
please try to think about what he says, rather than simply reaching for
the cliche bottle. You sound like a talk show blowhard with this stuff.
Reality is a concept that escapes Dear Leader Obama. Obama is only
interested in getting re-elected in 2012, whatever happens past that is
beyond his concern.

Right. As you say, he has no interest in getting us out of the shambles
that his predecessor left him and us with.

Do grow up.

Clinton left Bush a pile of crap. Bush I left Clinton a pile of crap.
Carter left Reagan a pile of crap. Nothing new its what happens and it
is part of the play book on setting expectations. Always claim that you
predecessor left everything all screwed up. That way anything you do is
looked upon as an improvement.

Clinton left Bush a trillion dollar budget surplus, which he squandered
in tax breaks for the rich and a mega-billion dollar invasion of Iraq,
just to show Daddy he could go one better than him. Eight years is all
the time you need in office to be fully responsible for the outcome, and
I will hold Obama up to that scrutiny in 2016.

You are all talk and no action. You talk a big game but when push comes
to shove you step out of the way and want someone else to do the heavy
lifting and that someone else is always government.
Ridiculous, simply ridiculous.
True.

Me I would like to get government out of my life. Let me live my life
the way I want to, just as our founding fathers wanted to when we threw
off the shackles of our British overlords.
Fine talk, but you can't. Not without heading for a cabin in the hills
and living off the land, anyway. My taxes subsidize things you benefit
from and vice versa. That's just the way it is.
The is a balance and we have gone past the tipping point to too much
government control and interference.

Been listening to too much Limbaugh, have we?

Sounds to me like you know more about what Limbaugh is saying than I do.

I know enough about him to know this is the kind of dishonest crap he
feeds off. I always listen to him when I am in need of a good laugh.

Please remember that this country has been independent for over 200
years. It is long past time that you got that chip off your shoulder,
even if you do speak English :-)
I don't speak English I speak American.

Sorry, but you don't. There is no such official language - you speak
English. Too bad for you - but Spanish is still available.

Nope I speak American.

Sorry, but you don't. You may speak English badly, but it is still (a
form of) English :-)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Got Stem Cell Research?
    ... comparing costs as a percentage of GDP is a nothing argument. ... What is their GDP? ... GDP goes up, health care costs, while staying ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: The Way We Die Now
    ... And when someone pays for what you need or want, they can pay, or they can refuse to pay for what you want, that is something everyone should be able to understand. ... And then your "choice" to live or die is yours alone to make, not some third party, who can also make that choice for you, by refusing to provide the care you may want. ... That son, John Kitzhaber, knew exactly what his mother's decision ... American political debate on health care treats end-of-life care like ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT - Appreciation for a broken medical system
    ... doctor and to the US medical system. ... I only care that the problem was resolved. ... congress wouldn't be drafting legislation concerning health ... future costs for medical care. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Obamacare
    ... pay for it. ... I'm forced by law to buy vehicle insurance. ... Would you care to provide a short snappy ... Getting costs under control is going to cut the costs somewhere ...
    (misc.health.diabetes)
  • Re: An announcement
    ... but that EVERYONE, including the working young and well, pay their fair ... Most employers don't offer any health insurance at all. ... the payer of health care costs is, ...
    (alt.vacation.las-vegas)