O/T: One Down

Page 14 of 14  
Larry Jaques wrote:

I wonder if the angry minority knows it is indeed a minority? I also wonder why so many of them are so quick to think of violence as being a legitimate response to the reality that election results have consequences?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin said:

Indeed.
I have another interesting question: (to me, anyway) If everyone who currently pays for health care insurance - directly or indirectly - were assured that for the same money they could cover everyone in the country with the same or improved levels of health care, would they still be opposed to a Canadian/Aussie type health care system? Or is that simply too much socialism for their psyches to absorb?
Greg G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg G. wrote:

Here's a parallel question:
If you were assured that all your needs: Food, shelter, clothing, medicine, love, sex, and perpetual happiness were guaranteed, would you give up your liberty? Because that's more-or-less what the ruling class wanabees ALWAYS promise (and never deliver) in order to become the ruling class. The healthcare business is just another sideshow in that circus.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg G. wrote:

I wonder how many of the people who curse the "socialism" of various other national health care systems even know how they actually work? Is a system where people are free to choose their doctors etc. and where doctors work for themselves or a hospital actually "socialist" just because payment comes through govt.-administered insurance? Is the govt. requiring private insurance companies to offer at least one policy meeting a minimum level of coverage "socialism"? Or is "socialism" largely the preferred bogeyman of those who don't know how the rest of the world does it, they just know they don't like whatever it is?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"DGDevin" wrote:

Thought that was a prerequisite for membership in the flat earth society.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

Sure. Socialism is not defined by the actions of the consumer - it is defined by control over the means of production or service rendered.

Um, not exactly. It IS over-regulation, though. An insurance policy is a contract and the government should certainly have the means to enforce contracts. But an agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller should be, in the main, sacrosanct.
In your example, I have no problem with the government requiring an insurance company to OFFER specific, minimum, coverage, but it doesn't stop there. The government also wants to set the PRICE the insurance company can charge - and that's the problem.
Anyone can get health coverage in the U.S. - they just can't get it at a price they're willing to pay.

That too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

Uh, the "Tea Party" types are not violent.
This may come as a shock to progressives who, in their own lives, equate anger with death and destruction (and that's perhaps why they oppose such things as concealed handgun laws), but it is possible to be angry, irate, or even mimic the antics of the third monkey on Noah's gangplank, without coming to blows. Really.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.