That's some feeble attempt at a joke right? In our North American society, the rich are richer than ever before and the divide between rich and poor grows exponentionally on a daily basis. Very few are contributing to those charities you're exalting. The rich of our society are essentially a case of absolute power corrupting absolutely. There's little interest in charitable contributions other than the occasional lip service to silence the masses.
At one point I believed you were a little smarter than that. But, it's obvious that you're so petrified at losing hold of the little that you have that it's obliterated any semblence of logic you have or once had. Life must be tough for you cowering in fear behind your barricades.
First, the Canadian system is not by any means larger than the private insurance system in the US. Approximately 2/3 of US citizens have private health insurance, which works out to about 200 million people. Last I checked, Canada's population is about 33 million.
In 2004, there were 47 million people on Medicaid. If $900/person/year covered the costs, Medicaid would have cost $42 billion. The US spent $295 billion. Scale that up to 305 million people and let me know what the price tag will be.
You need to lay off the crack pipe. There are fewer people who are "poor" in objective terms than at any time in Western history. THe big "divide" you mention does exist ... because more people than ever are, um *rich*.
Is it hard to sleep at night with that much bile for people that have more than you? Is it possible they do so because you are their inferior?
I am "terrified" that collectivist bottom feeders with little or no real skin in the game of life will terrorize those of us who are productive. There are only three kinds of people in the world, Makers, Fakers, and Takers. You are certainly not the first.
I understand it quite well. The *method* is - as best as we can make it - unbiased. But the people who practice it are not unbiased. I spent a number of years in research. If it's not clear to you, then let me be the first to clue you in. There is *lots* of bias in the business of science. What gets published does go through peer review. But what gets funded doesn't come anywhere near to that level of standard. Moreover, a lot of what does get funded never sees the light of day in publication. When scientists wander around declaring the primacy of science and the absence of God, as the radical atheists do regularly, they are not practicing science, they are engaging in theology.
That's a statement laced with hyperbole. Growing exponentially on a daily basis? Since the left seems to believe that history started in 2000 when the evil Bush took office, let's take a look at the 2006 IRS statistics (latest year available) for the top 1% of taxpayers: Their share of total income over the past 8 years (and we'll go back a couple of years to the glorious Clinton years):
Hardly an exponential growth on a daily basis. Note that during the bulk of the eeevil Bush years, top 1% AGI share actually dropped and then has risen the past couple of years. Top 50% has remained roughly the same.
Do you have a cite for this?
Well, that's certainly true of the Dem side of the aisle, they seem to believe that charity begins in other peoples' wallets. Let's see, Biden gave what, $3000 on $3M in income, but he wants the rest of us to do our patriotic duty and pay more taxes so he can appear generous by giving away the money he takes from the rest of us. Obama didn't give much to charity until he was called on it. Al Gore was equally parsimonious in his gifts to charity. Yeah, you're right -- those are the people seeking more and more power; they are more than willing to give away others' money, just keep our hands off of their stack.
That may be what you thought, but it isn't what you wrote. But even if you wrote it, you original point would still be wrong. Wellpoint Inc. has approximately 34 million subscribers to its medical plans. 34>33.
Thanks for bolstering my point. Where does the rest of the money come from, then? Because those premiums wouldn't even *begin* to cover the costs in the government-run healthcare we already have here.
Well I do have chess skills. Nothing professional, but a number of years in school and after with a few chess clubs. What's your rating? Are you even rated?
But, not like you with your wagons circled and cowering terrified in your hole. And you forgot to mention one other category. That's the liar category developed solely for scared little rabbits like you. You subsist on greed, but unfortunately you just haven't had the chutzpah to attain the station in life to accommodate that greed.
Since healthcare is a legal, enshrined right in Canada, the only stealing that's going on is your feeble opinion further warping your inane logic. But, I guess that's your business. You seem to relish playing the fool in this newsgroup. You have very little support with your screwed up thought processes and have quite effectively lowered yourself to the status of newgroup clown.
The only problem I have at this point is that I seem to get some type of perverse pleasure from poking you with a sharp stick. I'll get tired of you eventually since your rhetoric repeats itself ad nauseam.
What else have you got? You're going to have to try a little harder to keep me entertained if I'm going poke you some more.
That contrary to the original assertion, "The maximum one would pay is $900 a year, even if they're billionaires", is bull. I also see you've conveniently dropped the part about the Canadian system being bigger "a much larger system" than private insurance in the US.
It is *legal*, it is still stealing - i.e., It is immoral. Your inability to grasp that the law is not the instrument that defines morality may explain why you keep defending evil.
You are still appealing to the collective for some moral authority, I see. As you flail around irrationally, grasping the coattails of others and putting words in their mouths does not give your argument any credence - it undermines it. Whether or not any or all of the others here "support" my argument bears in no way to its merits and thus I couldn't care less one way or another.
Of course you enjoy this kind of perverse self-mutilation. When you defend the indefensible, the immoral, and the evil, you get that what you deserve, the cognitive dissonance that follows. Your only remaining tactic is to swing in circles blaming me because you feel so bad about yourself.
As best as I can determine, I do not fear collectivists. I hold them in utter contempt for their irrationality and evil practices.
I am unclear on just what I've lied about. Do clarify it that for me. If you cannot, this makes you, um .... the liar.
I subsist without threatening, harming, or stealing from others. That isn't greed, it's known as "civil behaviour". You might try to develop a bit of that yourself.
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.