From: Coffee's For Closers on
In article <ZsOdnbCqpNIpKmXXnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)posted.hiwaay2>,
gheston(a) says...

> Money to pay for all that health care has to come from somewhere, and
> the only source of money the government has is taxpayers.

As long as it some other taxpayor being extorted, then the
gimmie-gimmie types are convinced that that health care is

> That's also assuming there are any doctors left to provide
> the care.

Let's all just whine and guilt-trip them, and I am sure they will
stick around.

> The quickest way to reduce the cost of health care is tort reform--
> which does not appear in the House-passed monstrosity based on all
> reports.

Another great way to reduce the cost of health care is for people
to put down the doughnut, and get off the couch. Which does not
appear in the legislation. And also does not appear in the minds
of many people who feel entitled to "free" health care.

Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
From: tmclone on
On Nov 10, 4:22 pm, Coffee's For Closers <Usenet2...(a)THE-DOMAIN-
IN.SIG> wrote:

> There is also social pressure to be married and have kids.  A lot
> of this is based on envy from people who are trapped by those
> things having "happened" without serious consideration or
> decision-making.

I find the phrase, "And then the children came along" very funny.
What, were there small proto-humans just walking down the street and
you were stupid enough to invite them in? Most people spend more time
deciding where to vacation than they do deciding whether OR NOT they
want to breed. I actually had someone tell me, "But, but, you CAN'T
not have children!" Oh, really? Just watch me. My tubal turns 28 this

From: Rod Speed on
Balvenieman wrote
> me(a) wrote

>> do something

> Reagan, Bush, and Bush tried to address medical malpractice reform
> as well as more general tort reform but Congress would have none of
> it. Republicans tried to bring it up in the '90's but Bubba and the
> Hillbilly would have none of it.

> Get Real: Beyond dismantling Medicare, there essentially is no "something"
> that government can do regarding health care that is not detrimental to the
> long-term prosperity and fiscal wellbeing of the nation.

Mindlessly silly. Everyone else gets health care for HALF the
percentage of GDP that the US does and does better on any
sensible measure like longevity and years in good health too.

> Some of us dinosaurs believe that there is no "something" about medical
> care that is legitimately within the purview of the national government.

Who cares ? What matters is that hardly anyone agrees with you fools on that.

> Ultimately, there is no difference between medical care and food:

Wrong, as always. You are never ever in the situation where
the cost of the food you need to keep you alive will bankrupt
you and if you are desperate for food, there are always
some charitys that will hand out free food.

> Ethically, nobody has a "right" to either

Irrelevant to whether it makes sense for there to be decent arrangements
for the provision of medical services to those who will die without them
and to those who will have a much worse quality of life without them.

> and, ultimately, both are subject to the same
> supply-demand laws that govern availability and price.

Even more utterly mindlessly silly.

You can always grow your own food, you cant do your own heart bypass etc.

> I don't mind stating that I am absolutely opposed to having
> any proportion of my taxes used to subsidize medical care to
> any total stranger with whom I have absolutely no relationship.

Who cares ? Basically there arent enough fools as stupid as you to matter.

> The "something", in this discussion, though, being "tort reform":

Wrong, as always.

> While some argue that limits on jury awards would substantially
> reduce (by 10-15%) hidden costs of medical care, others argue
> that when compared to total medical costs, costs of malpractice
> litigation are insignificant (1-1�%). OF COURSE each side can
> produce data, surveys and "studies" that support its position.

There is no data that substantiates the first claim.

> In my view, tort reform is a dead puppy among the national
> political class regardless of whether left or right. All are too
> dependent on the ABA money, the distribution of influence, etc. etc.

The real reason is that its just too hard and too many of the politicians are lawyers.

> The greater issue, though, is that "reform" at the national
> level, even if restricted to medical malpractice, would
> transfer to the national government yet another body
> of law that the Constitution reserves to the states.

Wrong, as always.

> To those who would like to preserve the Republic or,
> at least, to forestall its demise this is a serious issue.

There arent enough fools that stupid to matter a damn.

> Some portion of the argument is presented here:



Just another couple of completely mindless steaming turds.

From: Napoleon on
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:27:46 -0800, Coffee's For Closers
<Usenet2009(a)THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:

>He died and THEN retired?

Yes. He died, and the next day his retirement came through.

>Except for the single people.

True. But single people would save a hell of alot with socialized
medicine too. Single people pay premiums, which they would no longer
need to do.

>And the responsible married adults who don't wish to leech off of
>their spouse. Or whose spouse refuses to allow leeching.

What's leeching? What's the point of getting married if everyone is
living separately? One spouse takes care of the home (and children if
there are any) and the other works for the man. You call that
leeching? Mighty sad if you do.

>So, you would prefer that the single people be extorted by the
>taxman to subsidise the non-working half of married couples?

I don't prefer anything. I'm telling you how the tax code is set up -
and that ain't going to change. The tax code is social engineering,
just like everything else.

>So, instead of just leeching off of her husband, the housewife is
>also entitled to leech off of single working women?

Here we go again with the leeching. Have a problem with the tax code
take it up with congress, and good luck with that.
From: h on

"Balvenieman" <balvenieman(a)> wrote in message
> "h" <tmclone(a)> wrote:
>> I wish that sterility were the default and you had to ACTIVELY do
>>something to cause fertility
> I couldn't agree more, in principal: New issues should first be
> sterilized and then, at maturity (certainly no younger than 30-35),
> required to follow some procedure to get unsterilized. Which begs the
> question: Who determines the standards and the procedure? It could be
> argued that each couple should be limited to two progeny, thereby
> replacing each parent and maintaining stable population. The World, as
> we all know, being perfect premature deaths would compensate for
> accidental pregnancies and births. The irony of voluntary population
> control is that those citizens who are willing, voluntarily, to limit
> their progeny, for the sake of the planet's wellbeing AWA that of future
> generations, are likely to be the very ones that society most needs.
> That is to say, they are those who are intellectually more capable of
> perceiving and addressing a problem with some expectation of resolving
> it and, implicitly, the ones more capable of raising competent children.
> Unfortunately, while those enlightened citizens conscienciously eschew
> reproduction, the less capable and/or insightful will continue to breed
> like field mice resulting in a population topheavy with carjackers,
> viewers of "The View", and Golgafrinchians. So: Waddayagonnadoo? You
> can't just shoot the bastards....
> --

Yup. Human intelligence is self-limiting be stupid people do the vast
majority of the breeding.