Lucky...

There's good science folks; brush and floss and you will NEVER get cavities. And far from free. We're going circular here, you cannot get HC unless you are very ill and even then you will be hounded until you pay or BK. - > 1/2 the BK's are related to medical bills - They can refuse you care unless it is a true emergency - The incentive is to quit work so you can receive state assistance That's obscene as per the definition I posted that no one substantively responded to.

Nope, I want baseline rules, meaning the lowest a person can go, to be similar. I want the rich to pay for the government that affords them major success. I stated that they don't have, as in never? Where? Or your interpetation? The ability is greatly limited thx to neo-conservative measures like union-busting, etc. Yea, you and Bill like to list Africa, parts of Asia, etc... toilets of the world. Let's compare the US to descent places and watch how we sink.

I mean that in reagrd to baseline rules, esp HC. The US was the bastion for class mobility, many foreigners would come her for that, now they realize it's piss.

OK, how's this: I currently have teeth with cavities, if we had humane HC I could have those filled and be done. Since we don't I would have to wait until it became abscessed and became infected to the point that I was in tears before they saw me. Then the extraction, surgery to remove infected tissue and antibiotics. A simple process turns ugly and expensive due to what you call our free system now, the system that would chase me around for years to collect. I didn't write that, at least in this thread and I don't recall writing what you placed in quotes; not sure if you were trying to quote me. The closest I wrote was: OK, my bad then, having, let's say, marginal kidney failure that you have to wait until you're passed out to get help, dialysis, etc is just great. And we just established that HC is not currently free, as you are in a cycle of debt and run. I posted the definition of obscene, I think by the non-response, hence acquiescence that our current system is obscene. Can't understand why you're redefining what we've agreed upon. If you had to wait hours to get free HC then you would be right, but since you only qualify for ER care if you're in bad shape and it's not free as we've established, then this example is void.

Yes, just as Clinton wanted both and got one. When Clinton's HC failed, he still raised taxes; the 2 are not correlated. I don't think you earn >250k as Obama states, you will not be affected other than your dislike of the thought that people might be getting HC who didn't previously have it. Once again: Explain how you "give" anything away if HC is passed. Explain how the taxing and spending process is linear. In the past 28 years or more, the absolute trend is that spending and taxing are inverse processes. Explain how the processes are somehow tied togetehr.

OK, fine, your guess. Look at all the minorities that have come out of the woodwork, look at the Hsipanics that were dumped on by Bush and the R's: bro, you're making a guess based upon nothing substantive. I would wait for a real shift in something other than a few Tea Party nuts carrying guns before I made that claim. more people are pissed than "a few tea party nuts carrying guns". i also think the dems know they are at their peak and that's why they want to ram healthcare through now. they won't have the numbers to do it later. hell, it looks like they don't have the numbers to do it now. That's a really nice guess. I have a guess too. I'm going to let the facts play out and as of yet, I don't see an end to the Dem run.

what are you talking about? what point did i make that i'm not backing up? quote please. I've posted several times, even started a thread over it. Let's start anew: Tell me when a major federal tax cut has led to a great situation. IOW's, lowered unemp, raised the market, raised the GDP, turned a deficit into a surplus, curbed the debt increase, etc. Or Show me the opposite. A tax major fed tax incr that has led to disaster.

Written by a guy who will be affected more than most people in here. Even Warren Buffet agrees, raise taxes and all does well. It seems the people who will be affected the least tend to whine the most.

Neither, you can afford premium insurance and that won't change. Your taxes won't be attributed to HC, so you won't pay for others. It already costs 2-3 T per year and it's inefficient. That's a gross exaggeration that it will cost an additional 2-3T per year if that's what you meant. There are enough clean-ups in HC that we can derive some of the costs from that.

On this, we agree. However the solution should involve creating less lazy people, not more. That's right and when you give incentive to quit your job as social svs will be more available, then people do just that. Let's provide basic svs and then teh incentive to work will be to have money, it won't be a business decision where moeny is on one end and HC the other.

If education and HC were gov provided, we would be winners. Since HC is based upon your wealth status, we have stark winners and stark losers. You don't have to be a millionaire to be a winner, just have basic human svs and be as healthy as you genetically can be.

Thx for the comprehensive response. Metaphorically, you cannot own a home, get a car loan, etc. You are indebted to these hospitals if you play the ER game, I'm sure will agree. Are we going to go into the hyperbole route again? We both shut down Mike with your definition of it. It must be a figure of speech that is exaggerated. How is, "obscene" a figure of speech or an exaggeration? I mean it litterally and I posted a defintion of it that oddly, no one responded to. Everyone doesn't get free HC, the hospital bills them. They pursue them, garnish them, etc. Do I have to post the definitioon of, "free?"

Me too. Explain how you "give" anything away if HC is passed. Explain how the taxing and spending process is linear. In the past 28 years or more, the absolute trend is that spending and taxing are inverse processes.

OK, fine, your guess. Look at all the minorities that have come out of the woodwork, look at the Hsipanics that were dumped on by Bush and the R's: bro, you're making a guess based upon nothing substantive. I would wait for a real shift in something other than a few Tea Party nuts carrying guns before I made that claim.

It's graduated, but the entire tax tables need to be hammered up. You never have addressed how everything goes better when taxes are raised. You have never shown me teh brilliance when tax cuits are imposed. I've shown the opposite, guess you don't want to back up your point.

I'm really not. I don't have HC, but I don't have major bills or kids to support, so it's not that bad, I just want HC that doesn't exclude preexisters, etc. As for realistic, uni-care not realistic? 4% of the world doing it differently is not realistic; you have that backwards. 12T debt is unrealistic, but the neo-cons have found a way. So what you call unrealistic is reality. Now your tangenting to assume parents would sue. And an educated kid, even if being held back is what is needed, creates a winning society. When you see how stratified the society is, the winners know who they are. And bringing people up is a way of lowering the bar? I see that as raising the bar, but that's just me. Who said anything about making them the same? I wouldn't want that, that's akin to Communism. I want a variable and I want sucess to be rewarded, just not failure to be punnished. Widens the gap - doesn't get much wider than we now have it....don't get your logic there. Countries with Socialism have a closer disparity; your point isn't factually supported in any way. Animosity of those people - There is far more animosity here now than in Socialized countries. I want to tax to make the rich pay for their gluttony. They will still be filthy rich, and that's ok, just quit getting the free riude up top, even Warren Buffet said soemthing like that. Free svs - tie in how taxing and spending are related. Not in some common sense moddel, but in reality.

Isn't this why we have Medicare/Medicaid? If that's broken, why not fix just that part of the system. It doesn't cover people that lose their job and have to retrain and go w/o HC for years sometimes. And a myriad of other situations that aren't based upon laziness. How about low income young families that never really had it? Quit and fall into state gov aid or keep woring and be above the threshold to get aid, barely. The system advantages people to be lazy in that regard.

None at all, I think it would be a fun society if the top 1% held 99% of all wealth....kind of a throwback to the renesance era. Uh not quite. Actually it's the same, but I won't blow your defense of the poor rich. Like that oxymoron? http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html Also, the more important question is of where the class pread is going. Is it widening, maintaining or shrinking? Even if maintaining, it's just like a Communist nation with most wealth at the top. And they're still pulling away. Not limiting, but redistributing it for a more well-off country. I tis currently the top 20% holding 93% of the cash, I propose that if the top 20% held 99% of teh cash, would that scare you; I see your answer is no. See the sematics? You;re saying bring down, I'm saying bring up. It's really more of your pessimism vs my optimism for the poor and MC. I would adjust taxes based upon how the wealth is distributed. We don;t want a country where most people are the same status, but we also don't want a country that's to spread that we have massive billionaires and massive homeless. Or we could keep it and apply it to the poor millionaires that are being treated unFAIRly so we can use your logic. FAIR is subjective, if you use it I'll use it and we won;t have the same definition. And your tiring bringing down the rich rhetoric is as pessimistic as it gets. I want to open programs from shelters to job training and on to bring people up. As well I want the debt controlled, that little 12T from your side. Just keep ignoring class disparity and family privs. Yea, our baseline is that of a 3rd world country. And you want it reduced. And you want to be a pessimist, I want to bring everyone up with education and HC. Perhaps you're acquainted with the debt that your party has given us most of. Just like the military overspending I constantly hear you bitching about, social svs get tacked on to the rubber check so the wealthy can slide. Yes, quick, post a partial sentence of mine to avoid context. That is my main point, how am I changing? I have FAR more concern over providing, then cost. Just as the military, if we can't afford it we do it anyway. I see yours is the concern over the wealth of the rich. Kinda brings me to my compassion thread. Also, no comment over how your assertion of selfish for me wanting basic HC is selfish based upon my defintion of it. Nice, run, be free. Yes, and the wealth gap resilts in the inaffordability of basic things like HC; you might have seen a thing or 2 in teh news about that little issue. Reducing the wealth gap would bring HC, education, and wellness, you don't want that - you like our exclusive society. ***LUCKY: Greedy - So I'm greedy if I want basic HC because I'm grasping, rapacious, selfish, avaricious, ravenous, voracious, gluttonous, insatiable, covetous and anxious. Yea, that as well make s a lot of sense, whereas the rich wanting tax cuts so they can climb back on Forbes' list are not these things. --------------------------------------- Nope. You're greedy because you want to further tax the rich for the purpose of bringing them down to other people's levels. You're greedy because you don't think laying the massive majority of the tax burden on the top 1% is enough. You're greedy because the billions of dollars they pay in taxes every year to fund pet projects isn't enough for you. We have a safety provided by the government and funded by the elite's taxes. But that's not enough. You want more and you want it provided at the expense of those better off than you. That's greed. Read much? I do think laying the massive tax burden on the rich would be a good statrt, now they're at 40%, not > 50%. Get your numbers straight before posting your oh so cogent arguments. Gluttonous and selflish are synoimous with greed, so to want basic ammenities is not greed. To be sad because I am not on the Forbes list anymore is greed.

AKA.... I can't so I'll say it's been done and run. Dude, there is no legislative correlation between ANY spending and ANY taxation. You might say the difference is the deficit/surplus which affects the debt that will never get paid off, but no correlation betwen welfare and your wallet: NONE. In fact, taking the last 4 presidents over 28 years, as they spent more they taxed less, so there is an inverse correlation between spending and taxing. Of course you will 1-line me and run; I'm used to it. Show me. Reagan blew military spending thru the roof and cut taxes, GWB did the same. GHWB and Clinton cut spending, esp military spending and raised taxes: go figure!!!! Your point has just been dumped. I don't expect you to own up to it, but it would be refreshing.

This is a tired regurgitation of the same old 'people who want HC are greedy' argument. I want to see everyone win. Rich people are often employers of some kind and if their employees are well they are more productive and more mentally healthy. I don't want teh demise of anyone, I want a reasonable baseline of health and well-being for all. Collectively they do as the MC goes away and most go south.

Lucky and others like him want more of it taken away from you than what already is -- how do you like that? You have to tie together the national cost of a HC plan to your tax rate. Of course you can't, they're not related.

OK, my bad then, having, let's say, marginal kidney failure that you have to wait until you're passed out to get help, dialysis, etc is just great. Also, look in your wallet and check out your fucking credit cards, many I'm sure. Your nice house, car, etc. If you play the ER game you are in debtor's prison until you can BK, then of course you will need ER help again, so you are rigth back there. Real nice, Bill. I can honestly say I've never heard you come off as a neo-con. Compare Africa, parts of Asia, India and other toilets to make the US system of health look good. Let's use Scandinavia.....Canada, parts of W Europe. Written by someone with, I'm sure, a very good HC plan to a person that has rarely had it as an adult. Speaking of obscene

Awwww, did I catch a nerve? Pitiful? Awww, I hope I didn't hurt feelings. You exonerated newly laid off, but didn't mention the others, which, in most circles, denotes an automatic exclusion too. Kinda like calling a girl a dirty whore, she replies she's not dirty; we infer she has acquiesced the whore part. Same deal here. It really perplexes me that conservatives just don't come out and say they don't care one bit about the poor, it isn't as if we wonder. I wrote: I know, poor young families, recently laid off, just had their carreer field contracted, people with pre-existing medical conditions that cannot work due to it.,..... yea, I get it, lazy worhtless Americans. And you only excused the newly laid off. I think you just answered. If I have to convince you that there are people hurting then you are already desesitized. Let's nit beat this dead horse, we know you don't care. And I said, let's watch the polls that matter; they come out in November. I've been thru this a thousand times, but show me a major federal tax cut that has helped or a tax increase that has hurt us. Show simple data. Don't be abstract or oscure, major data from majot tax changes. If you want me to I will.

No, but if it went to people who don't have as much for legitimate reasons like many do, then I would find it pallatable. What's a "legitimate" reason in Monopoly? Make your question more clear.

Within the bounds set by the rich. Doesn't it mean anything to you when the truth is that the top 20% hold 93% of the cash? Explain that. Gee I dunno, do upperclass Canadians feel that way? I guess they still live there so it can't be that bad. No, taxing the top 10% is a great start and it will bring them up. At what point would you ever advocate taxing the rich? The gap is widening with no indication it will stop, so what does it take? If teh top 20% hold 99% of the cash? WHne does your alarm go off? Firstly, let's throw outthis FAIR word. I say it's not fair that all don't have HC, you say fuck fair. You cry about taxes on teh rich; it's not fair. I say fuck fair. That's a subjective word. I was simply advocating that different classes should have similar laws and not be exclusive. If you want to get us to think everyone has an equal chance then you aren't being honest. What I was talking about is special privs for the rich. I want a society that has a baseline of care that no one falls below. The rich occassionally fall off and enjoy the safety net too. We already have them, the elite don't want fund them. Legitimate reasons are homelesness, not being able to afford HC, illness, etc. They are there, the elite won;t let them be funded. I bet you grab a forbes and cry when someone gets bumped off the bottom. SELFISH: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. JEALOUS: feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages GREEDY: grasping, rapacious, selfish. 1, 3. See avaricious. 2. ravenous, voracious, gluttonous, insatiable. 3. covetous, anxious. So let's see how basic HC falls into this..... Selfish - devoted to or caring only for oneself pretty much describes people who do not want others to have gov-provided HC under teh giuse of cost, esp when most of these subjects have no issue with 1 T on Iraq. And concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. really nails the GOP and their followers. Jealous - So I'm jealous of the rich if I want basic HC because I'm feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages. Wanting a hair transplant would fit in there, wanting a checkup does not. Greedy - So I'm greedy if I want basic HC because I'm grasping, rapacious, selfish, avaricious, ravenous, voracious, gluttonous, insatiable, covetous and anxious. Yea, that as well make s a lot of sense, whereas the rich wanting tax cuts so they can climb back on Forbes' list are not these things. BRILLIANT. THTA'S MY POINT AND BILL MAHER JUST STATE DON LENO TOO; HOW DO YOU GET THE UNDERCLASS THAT WOULD BE HELPED BY HC REFORM TO VOTE AGAINST IT? It's like getting the cows to volunteer to walk to slaughter to save the rancher money. It's just insane.