From: "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" on
In article
<RKALm.24235$Wf2.15038(a)newsfe23.iad>,
Ohioguy <none(a)none.net> wrote:

> >At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.
>
> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in
> the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run.
> It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
> Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business,
> then get a return on their investment.
>
> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and
> would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills. It
> typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.

So there is no need to vaccinate at risk
people because they would never spread
any disease or infection?



>
>
> > OhioGuy seems to have the mentality typical of the flyover states.
>
> Wow, is that how you wackos (I don't like the term liberal - it seems
> too dignified for the range of ideas you espouse) refer to most of the
> US these days?
>
>
> > the gubmint completely out of his life UNLESS it's shoving money into his
>
> I want the government to perform basic duties. I would prefer that
> they don't hand out money. However, in this case, we were already
> buying a house that is going to be eligible, and I'm pretty well
> convinced that we can make better use of it than some bureaucrats. They
> would probably build a bridge to nowhere, or fund a scientific study
> that everyone with some common sense already knows the answer to.


So you are an IMBYNY?*


>
>
> >But you're willing to suck at the teat of the govt for the tax credit?
>
> Your inference would be correct, if this was a recurring thing such
> as welfare, medicare, or social security. "sucking at the teat"
> generally means making someone dependent upon regular "feedings".
> However, I believe this program is a 1 time tax credit that is made
> available to what is likely to be a rather small portion of the
> population. I also don't think that the primary goals of welfare,
> medicare or social security are to help stimulate the economy.
>
> This is essentially a tax credit - similar in some ways to a
> deduction.

It is not "essentially" a tax credit, it
IS a tax credit and in no way similar to
a deduction. People who have no tax
liability, and that will include me,
will receive the full amount of the
credit as a nice check if they meet the
requirements, and for this one, it will
also include me. Almost makes me wish I
had bought a car for the credit.

Of course this credit is meant for first
time home buyers, which you aren't



> Of course, I would much prefer that we have a flat tax, or
> ideally a "fair tax".

Ah, a "fair tax"...who gets to decide
what that is?


> Either one of those would get rid of deductions
> and exemptions. Everyone would pay a fair share of taxes, depending on
> their consumption.

Which means it would be opposed by those
who have the most money and the most
power.

It would also mean a lowering of
consumption so the tax rate would
continue to spiral up while the
consumption continued to spiral down.



> The overall "hidden" taxes we pay on everything
> would disappear, and the economy would benefit like crazy.

Right. GM, Ford, GE, P&G etc would all
raise their prices to make up the
difference...they do have stockholders
that expect a nice return on their
investment



*In my backyard, not yours
From: h on

"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-bugged(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:atlas-bugged-976179.11090514112009(a)aries.ka.weretis.net...
> In article
> <RKALm.24235$Wf2.15038(a)newsfe23.iad>,
> Ohioguy <none(a)none.net> wrote:
>
>> >At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have
>> >kids.
>>
>> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in
>> the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run.
>> It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
>> Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business,
>> then get a return on their investment.
>>
>> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and
>> would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills. It
>> typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
>
> So there is no need to vaccinate at risk
> people because they would never spread
> any disease or infection?
>
Well, depends on what you call "at risk". Supposedly, since I'm well over
50, I'm "at risk" for swine flu and should be vaccinated. I don't think so.
I rely on something I call an immune system. I do not believe in "wellcare"
or whatever the current name is for "prophylactic care". If I have bleeding
I can't stop or a broken bone then I'll see a doctor. Other than that, not
so much.


From: Rod Speed on
h wrote
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds <atlas-bugged(a)invalid.invalid> wrote
>> Ohioguy <none(a)none.net> wrote

>>>> At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.

>>> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with
>>> kids in the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run. It is a short term investment, with
>>> a long term
>>> return on investment. Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business, then get a return on
>>> their investment.

>>> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor
>>> or take pills. It typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.

>> So there is no need to vaccinate at risk people because they would never spread any disease or infection?

> Well, depends on what you call "at risk". Supposedly, since I'm well over 50, I'm "at risk" for swine flu and should
> be vaccinated. I don't think so. I rely on something I call an immune system.

Fat lot of good that did those who ended up with polio.

> I do not believe in "wellcare" or whatever the current name is for "prophylactic care".

More fool you, particularly with infectious disease
and that magnificent protection against it, vaccination.

> If I have bleeding I can't stop or a broken bone
> then I'll see a doctor. Other than that, not so much.

And its that mentality that has seen it so difficult to eliminate the remaining important infectious diseases.


From: "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" on
In article <hdnqc5$ava$1(a)aioe.org>,
"h" <tmclone(a)searchmachine.com> wrote:

> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-bugged(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:atlas-bugged-976179.11090514112009(a)aries.ka.weretis.net...
> > In article
> > <RKALm.24235$Wf2.15038(a)newsfe23.iad>,
> > Ohioguy <none(a)none.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >At least socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have
> >> >kids.
> >>
> >> As I explained before, the tax credit benefits families with kids in
> >> the short run, and then those kids turn into taxpayers in the long run.
> >> It is a short term investment, with a long term return on investment.
> >> Sort of like how people put money down up front to start a business,
> >> then get a return on their investment.
> >>
> >> Also, socialized medicine does not benefit those who are healthy, and
> >> would otherwise have no need to visit a doctor or take pills. It
> >> typically benefits the very old, at the expense of the young.
> >
> > So there is no need to vaccinate at risk
> > people because they would never spread
> > any disease or infection?
> >
> Well, depends on what you call "at risk". Supposedly, since I'm well over
> 50, I'm "at risk" for swine flu and should be vaccinated.

Actually you are at the lower limit of
not "at risk" unless of course you have
an underlaying disease or illness



> I don't think so.
> I rely on something I call an immune system.

I used to think of humans as monolithic,
lacking in genetic variablity. I now
recognize that the variability is much
more prominent than I thought. Which
means in any group of people there will
probably be someone immune to any one
disease/illness. Of course we subject to
so many environmental factors that we
cannot control so I suspect most of us
are victims of some kind of
disease/illness/poisoning that we can
generally shrug off and historically
did. But a 1% chance of flu immunity
multiplied by a 1% chance of not having
a precursor to some disease/illness and
now you are possibly talking about 1
chance in 10000.





I do not believe in "wellcare"
> or whatever the current name is for "prophylactic care". If I have bleeding
> I can't stop or a broken bone then I'll see a doctor. Other than that, not
> so much.


Good luck