Mark & Juanita wrote in news:2eOdnRHzb4uWwNfRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:
Only respondng to this portion ...
If we go back in time, we'd still live in the era of monopolies and robber barons. Individualism, initiative, even greed CAN coexist with sensible regulation. Now on to what is sensible .
No, thats called BULLSHIT!
Yeah, win-win. When's the last time you tried competing with something that controls you, and owns the printing presses?
Hey Han, individualists don't believe in "kicking everyone else down under the mud". That's the job for states. Pies can and do get larger if governments will allow them to. If the state keeps taking it's half they won't. "10% is good enough for Jesus, it should be enough for Uncle Sam."
He may be a genius, but is also a fool.
Huh?
PPoE was self-insured, as all Fortune 10 companies are.
You really are that clueless?
The president has said over and over "If you like your current plan, you can keep it."
I can't tell you how relieved I am that the government, in its infinite benevolence, will allow me to keep my present insurance. After all, they could have put me in jail if I wanted to make my own choice, but, instead, in a spirit of freedom, are allowing me to do what I think best for myself.
Some would call that arrogance; The president hopes we'll recognize it as an act of kindness and a generous gift.
You continue to confuse greed with the normal desire to succeed. Greed is not good, it is the excessive desire to attain more than deserved.
Do you, or the "ancient worthy" think it is excessive to build a home, marry or father a child?
I didn't think so... Greed would be I build a house, then shoot you in the head and take your house. Get it? Building a house is not greed, taking someone else's likely is.
Greed may have helped him steal the limelight if someone else came up with the cure first, but normal desire to succeed would not cause that to happen. One is normal search for success, one is excessive desire to get something not deserved.
The insurance providers cannot compete with the government, who writes and enforces the regulations (controls them) and can print money at will. In no time there will be one provider, the government...
Did I really have to explain that to a Texan?
I'm guessing, but I think he might be on the receiving end of the tax burden, rather the competitive side that pays the bill.
Then it was PPoE Rules. See Han's response. His experience is the same as mine.
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in news:i2fqkr$l87$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:
Now I'm curious, and a dags didn't help. What is PPoE in this context?
Then you should be willing to give us a description of what *you* think socialism is.
It's an economic system where a strong, centralized government controls the means of production. What do you think it is?
I suggest you go do your homework.
Mark's point proven.
He's got it right on, irrespective of your squealing:
Previous Place of Employment. As opposed to CPoE. ;-)
Cut it out with the 'squealing' already. DO try to be civilized!
Stein's definition is waaaay too broad... and therefore incomplete. Government under Bush controlled all kinds of production, like defence contractors, oil companies... and so on. Stein talks about control when he should be talking ownership..WAY different and shows his backwater redneck ignorance.
MUCH better definition than Stein's and you were a good boy and did your homework. But lay off the invectives, mmk?
What? You're riding on the coattails of Mark? No mind of your own?
HomeOwnersHub website 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.