Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 11 Nov 2006 10:30 unsettled wrote: > He also doesn't seem to mind a large part of that going to > pay medical care for random strangers What random strangers ? > including those who > are getting medical care for their ongoing smoking and drug > addiction. Aren't lung cancers covered by US health insurance ? Graham
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 10:31 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:q5kbl2lbmph5kvljaqfsrd3okalmm921up(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:58:29 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:7gs9l2d2b5tpkeo6r93fkkp8nskbfitte1(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:11:12 -0000, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>news:vk59l2phvmcn4ilmj8cn6kvgape1ip72h5(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:28:43 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> >>>>> wrote:>>>here. >>>>>>Again, I resent having my money wasted in the way that it is. >>>>> >>>>> Move then? >>>> >>>>Great mindset. >>> >>> Just reductio ad absurdum... >> >>Possibly, however it creates the situation where any complaints or hopes >>to >>improve a much loved country can be met with dismissive retort. > > I'm surprised that you, someone who apparently plays at > sophistication missed, along with the Lucas buffoon, the > significance of the question mark at the end of "Move then?" > > Oh, well... Question mark or not, it was still dismissive. To now feign shock and horror at how you, John Fields, paragon of all that is nice in the world, you who would *never* tell someone to "blow [you]", would be so sorely misunderstood is plain, simple, hypocrisy and fight-picking. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 10:35 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4jv8$8ss_027(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <Pwe5h.8473$9v5.327(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:3070a$45554ce3$4fe71df$2923(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:02:02 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>He also doesn't seem to mind a large part of that going to >>>>>pay medical care for random strangers including those who >>>>>are getting medical care for their ongoing smoking and drug >>>>>addiction. >>> >>>> Do you seriously believe that your insurance premiums are used only to >>>> fund *your* medical needs? >>> >>> Since you asked. >>> >>> My insurance premiums are insufficient to cover my >>> medical expenses. I am at a slight loss in the >>> medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as >>> the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. I >>> pay for the coverage because it is quite likely >>> I'll need more as I age and there's a penalty if >>> one doesn't sign on when it becomes available to >>> them. >>> >>> Now reread what I wrote and take the narrow meaning: >>> "He (add emphasis to that word) also doesn't seem >>> to mind...." >>> >>> For the most part private US insurance severely >>> limits benefits available for addictions and mental >>> health issues. I can pretty much guarantee that we >>> won't do lung translants for folks still smoking. >> >>A lung transplant would be cheap compared to what they *do* do for smokers >>(ex *and* current). Lifelon treatments for emphysema. Years and years of >>cancer treatments, including expensive chemo and radiation treatments, >>which >>morph into more and more expensive as the patient very slowly dies. >>Expensive treatments for the heart disease caused by smoking, including >>bypass surgery, heart transplants, and other forms of open-heart surgery. > > Those services were already paid for by the tax. What the hell are you on about? 1) We were talking private insurance, 2) If that is *already* paid for by tax, then I guess the horror that the unsettled/BAH creature was trying to create at the thought of tax money paying for treatment of the unwashed masses of smokers, was all just meaningless bluster, since by its own admission, it already happens under the US system. > In Mass., all that > lovely money, not only has been spent twice, it's been borrowed against > (I think) two times. Yeah, we all know how corrupt Massachusetts is--why do you imply that that corruption will happen with a nationalized health care system. If we've learned one thing from the Big Dig, it's "don't let Massachusetts handle any more big projects, and certainly don't let them administer a national health care system." Eric Lucas
From: JoeBloe on 11 Nov 2006 10:37 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:33:35 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> Gave us: > But not understanding >what he's talking about never stopped him anyway. Severe understatement.
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 10:38
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4k2o$8ss_028(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ej28ps$j3j$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ej211j$8qk_003(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <455485EB.84F083F4(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >>>> >>>>Why ? >>> >>>It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially housing. >>>It eliminates wage competition. People's real productivity is >>>no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. >> >>By that argument, you support slavery. > > I support the exact opposite. The scenario above promotes it. How, exactly? Let's make a comparion: Slavery--people can be forced to work for $0/day No minimum wage--people can be forced to work for $1/day Minimum wage--people cannot be forded to work for less than $41/day. Let's see....$1 or $41...which is closer to $0??? Your twisted logic continues to amaze me. Eric Lucas |