Here kitty, kitty

"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:33:13 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:19:04 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
But we have been paying a, "premium on our income tax forms" now
for a number of years. that is, unless you subscribe to the
"Arbornomics" theory that there exists a money tree in Washington
DC that can be plucked for money. Where do you think the money to
treat all those bums off the street comes from? the hospitals
certainly can't print it in their basements. Why, the staste pays
them out of our tax dollars, of course, and they also get federal
money too. (also, of course out of our tax dollars) So what's the
difference?
In a true capitalistic system, there would be lots of medical
insurance companies all competing with each other to give the best
medical service for your dollars. People who couldn't afford
medical services would, (are you ready for this?) DIE!! And,
knowing this, they would (presumably) cut a little money out of
their pay checks to buy that insurance from one or more of many
companies who were all competing for their money. (what a
concept!) The government would have little or nothing to do with
it. Why, with any luck, they would only charge us about 10% of our
pay in income taxes instead of the nearly 50% they are currently
charging. (Federal, state, property, auto reg fees, and sales
taxes all in that figure) IOW, we might actually retreat from half
socialized to 10 or 15% socialized! Why, I might even be able to
afford a couple of more cats!

At least, I would have the FREEDOM to buy whatever it is that I
wanted with that extra money, instead of having to accept whatever
the government thinks would be best for the society to give me.

....and therin lies the main difference between the socialized
system of doing things and the capitalistic way of doing them. The
freedom to choose what YOU want to do with your money, versus the
government dictating to you what THEY want to do with your money.
Its really a very simple concept. Freedom, versus Totalitarianism.

Don't be obtuse. If you don't have health insurance, most hospitals
will still treat you. Who do you think pays for the treatment? The
hospital passes those costs onto those who pay; also, the increased
costs of medical care are passed onto insurance companies which in
turn pass the increased costs onto consumers of health care insurance.

You are free to buy any kind of health insurance that you want to. You
are also free NOT to buy health insurance, but if you don't, you have
to pay the government a tax penalty on your 1040 form.

I imagine that hospitals who treat those without insurance will be
able to get some kind of reimbursement from the federal government
based on name and social security number.

You still don't understand. I never asked my government to treat people
without health insurance. The liberals did that without my permission. As
soon as they did that, they threw away capitalism and adopted socialism. I
am a libertarian. This is the antithesis of socialism. Now that we have a
socialized medical system, you are using it to justify your illogical
problems that wouldn;t be here had you not adopted socialism to begin
with.
And, to describe a uniquely socialistic problem to me and complain that my
capitalism can't solve it is duplicious and illogical.

Of course I understand. You are immoral and have no ethical
responsibility towards your fellow man.

I'm certain that you worship Ayn Rand.

If by "immoral" you mean that I think the world owes me a living, then you
are wrong. If you don't eat, you will starve to death. But I don't believe
the government (read other taxpayers) have to feed you if you have all your
fingers and toes and can work for a living. Does that make me immoral? If
you get sick and can't afford to avail yourself of medical services, do I
believe the taxpayers should have to take care of you? Hell no I don't. When
you had that extra money, you bought yourself a Porsche instead of driving a
Volkswagon (which I drove for years because I had medical insurance) So, if
that makes me immoral, then you have a vastly different concept of,
"Morality" than do I. I was raised to take care of myself and pay my own
way, and not live off the government dole. That's not immorality. That's
common sense. Why? precisely because that is what gives us the freedom to
buy what we want and not take whatever the government hands out to us. I
hope that in your socialized world, (that is sure to come) your government
doles out all the things that you dearly love to have and allows you to do
all the things that you dearly love to do, but I doubt very much that that
will be the case. It would be true in an ant colony, because all the ants
are exactly alike and they all seem to be happy with their circumstance...
Unfortunately, you and I happen to be Human Beings......

"Mack A. Damia" I'm certain that you worship Ayn Rand.

I don't, "worship" anybody, but Ayn Rand knew the best way to evaluate
everything, and was a capitalist of the first order. When it came to brains,
she beat the hell out of Nancy Pelosi.....

"Mack A. Damia" Of course I understand. You are immoral and have no
ethical
responsibility towards your fellow man.

do you really think it is immoral to teach people to stand on their own two
feet and not live off the government dole? In my opinion, it is immoral to
teach people to be dependent on their government and not to take care of
themselves if they are capable of doing so.

"Mack A. Damia"

This discussion should move to misc.legal, and not stay on
rec.pets.cats.health+behavior. You are a member of both, so why don't we do
that?

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:44:49 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Mack A. Damia" Of course I understand. You are immoral and have no
ethical
responsibility towards your fellow man.

do you really think it is immoral to teach people to stand on their own two
feet and not live off the government dole? In my opinion, it is immoral to
teach people to be dependent on their government and not to take care of
themselves if they are capable of doing so.

And you know that all the people on welfare and who are receiving food
stamps are aptly capable of taking care of themselves, don't you?

You know nothing.

--

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:41:12 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Mack A. Damia" I'm certain that you worship Ayn Rand.

I don't, "worship" anybody, but Ayn Rand knew the best way to evaluate
everything, and was a capitalist of the first order. When it came to brains,
she beat the hell out of Nancy Pelosi.....

She was a mentally ill woman who reacted against the harsh political
and economic conditions of her native country.

Her philosophy has no place in a civilized society.

--

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:38:05 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:33:13 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Mack A. Damia wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:19:04 -0800, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
But we have been paying a, "premium on our income tax forms" now
for a number of years. that is, unless you subscribe to the
"Arbornomics" theory that there exists a money tree in Washington
DC that can be plucked for money. Where do you think the money to
treat all those bums off the street comes from? the hospitals
certainly can't print it in their basements. Why, the staste pays
them out of our tax dollars, of course, and they also get federal
money too. (also, of course out of our tax dollars) So what's the
difference?
In a true capitalistic system, there would be lots of medical
insurance companies all competing with each other to give the best
medical service for your dollars. People who couldn't afford
medical services would, (are you ready for this?) DIE!! And,
knowing this, they would (presumably) cut a little money out of
their pay checks to buy that insurance from one or more of many
companies who were all competing for their money. (what a
concept!) The government would have little or nothing to do with
it. Why, with any luck, they would only charge us about 10% of our
pay in income taxes instead of the nearly 50% they are currently
charging. (Federal, state, property, auto reg fees, and sales
taxes all in that figure) IOW, we might actually retreat from half
socialized to 10 or 15% socialized! Why, I might even be able to
afford a couple of more cats!

At least, I would have the FREEDOM to buy whatever it is that I
wanted with that extra money, instead of having to accept whatever
the government thinks would be best for the society to give me.

....and therin lies the main difference between the socialized
system of doing things and the capitalistic way of doing them. The
freedom to choose what YOU want to do with your money, versus the
government dictating to you what THEY want to do with your money.
Its really a very simple concept. Freedom, versus Totalitarianism.

Don't be obtuse. If you don't have health insurance, most hospitals
will still treat you. Who do you think pays for the treatment? The
hospital passes those costs onto those who pay; also, the increased
costs of medical care are passed onto insurance companies which in
turn pass the increased costs onto consumers of health care insurance.

You are free to buy any kind of health insurance that you want to. You
are also free NOT to buy health insurance, but if you don't, you have
to pay the government a tax penalty on your 1040 form.

I imagine that hospitals who treat those without insurance will be
able to get some kind of reimbursement from the federal government
based on name and social security number.

You still don't understand. I never asked my government to treat people
without health insurance. The liberals did that without my permission. As
soon as they did that, they threw away capitalism and adopted socialism. I
am a libertarian. This is the antithesis of socialism. Now that we have a
socialized medical system, you are using it to justify your illogical
problems that wouldn;t be here had you not adopted socialism to begin
with.
And, to describe a uniquely socialistic problem to me and complain that my
capitalism can't solve it is duplicious and illogical.

Of course I understand. You are immoral and have no ethical
responsibility towards your fellow man.

I'm certain that you worship Ayn Rand.

If by "immoral" you mean that I think the world owes me a living, then you
are wrong. If you don't eat, you will starve to death. But I don't believe
the government (read other taxpayers) have to feed you if you have all your
fingers and toes and can work for a living. Does that make me immoral? If
you get sick and can't afford to avail yourself of medical services, do I
believe the taxpayers should have to take care of you? Hell no I don't. When
you had that extra money, you bought yourself a Porsche instead of driving a
Volkswagon (which I drove for years because I had medical insurance) So, if
that makes me immoral, then you have a vastly different concept of,
"Morality" than do I. I was raised to take care of myself and pay my own
way, and not live off the government dole. That's not immorality. That's
common sense. Why? precisely because that is what gives us the freedom to
buy what we want and not take whatever the government hands out to us. I
hope that in your socialized world, (that is sure to come) your government
doles out all the things that you dearly love to have and allows you to do
all the things that you dearly love to do, but I doubt very much that that
will be the case. It would be true in an ant colony, because all the ants
are exactly alike and they all seem to be happy with their circumstance...
Unfortunately, you and I happen to be Human Beings......

You benefit from the labors of others - then and now. You benefit
from the sacrifices of others - then and now. You condemn those in
poverty; yet, there is a poverty in your soul. May God forgive you.

--

Per Bill Graham:
but Ayn Rand knew the best way to evaluate
everything, and was a capitalist of the first order.

I thought she was a popular book author.

Am I missing something?
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:11:31 -0800, Spam?uster
wrote:

On 2/17/2013 2:08 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
Jeßus wrote:

Jesus is relevent to all countries. I love Jesus and Jesus love's me
and you and all the world.

Dr. C Love
Doctor of Homeopathy
Master of Reikki Therapy

Always remember:
Jesus love's you and so do I!
Every single one of you!

Believing is seeing - Think about it!

In article ,
Dr. C Love wrote:


Jesus is relevent to all countries.

Then let countries believe in Jesus godhood, but people needn't.
--