The young college-aged British woman who had a family history of cervical cancer, and tried to get a PAP smear, would probably disagree with you. Why? Because at ages 21, 22, 23 they refused to give her the PAP screening for early detection/prevention.
At age 25 she died of cancer. There's a reason why the UK health organization called NICE is nicknamed "nasty" by people on the street (according to MEP Daniel Hannan). ALSO what's so damn great about having a UK health monopoly? A government monopoly is no better than one run by Microsoft, Comcast, or Exxon. It still takes-away choice.
Worse - it takes away your control over your wallet, since politicians can just vacuum-up as much money as they want.
Ahhh. I've been marked a "troll" because I simply repeated what Mr. Frank said on camera. Brilliant.
Oh well. When 2020 comes and the Democrats are saying, "Healthcare is broke. The public option did not work. We need a complete takeover of healthcare by the government, as they have in Canada, Europe, and other nations around the world," remember that Mr. Frank told you it would happen.
I don't understand your question, nor its relevance to my comments regarding only 8 million citizens being not covered by government/private programs, the inaccuracy of the postcard-based survey, the new ~$2500 fine imposed by this bill, or the illegal grab for power by the central government (equivalent to if the EU suddenly announced it will fine individual citizens).
(shrug). My insurance premium is zero. That's because I pay cash for everything. It's cheaper.
The Government has refused to give a "cost of living" increase to Social Security recipients. And yet prices have clearly gone higher. How can we trust these people???
>>>The legislation kind of makes up for that by forcing everybody to buy health insurance (with threats of jail or heavy fines if they don't),
Please show me where in the People's Constitution Congress is authorized to levy fine for failure to buy a product. Oh wait... here it is: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words the Congress is forbidden. The States can levy fines. The U.S. can not.
What about those of us who don't want any coverage at all? (By choice)
Oh that's right. We get fined almost $3000. Funny how you conveniently forgot that part. Freedom of choice and individual liberty is effectively dead. Congress might as well rename itself Microsoft or Comcast, since they follow the same anti-choice modus operandi
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it to be truth. The average guy on the street doesn't say "citation please". He trusts the politicians to be honest, and so effectively the politicians can just make up any numbers they want.
Uh... no. Canadian hospitals ask for ID, and if you wave a US license the hospital will refuse to serve you. The only exception is in cases of emergency (like a car accident), in which case the American will be handed a bill.
>>>wasn't America built on immigrant labor?
LEGAL immigrant labor. Illegals that were rejected at Ellis Island were sent back home. We have the right to control who enters our land, just the same as you can stop me from walking into your living room.
Why wouldn't you want citizens status to be verified, prior to their receiving taxpayer dollars? That's like saying you don't want people's drivers' licenses checked to see if they are allowed to drive, or to be laid-off your job and replaced with a bunch of illegal programmers from India.
These human beings coming-in from Canada are no different than thieves breaking into your home. If I find some fool in my house, he's going to get arrested, and the same needs to happen to these Intruders into the United States. We have a process - first you file for a visa, which is equivalent to asking for permission, and then you come in.
>>>Whether they come to the ER without coverage or are enrolled in a government subsidized insurance program, you will pay. At least, in the latter case, they will contribute something >>>
I don't follow your logic. How will illegal non-citizens support the government program when they are (1) not paying income or social security/medicare taxes and (2) not eligible to join the government program?
I think I prefer the old system, where the ER's provide free care to anyone who asks, and the money comes out of CEOs and other corporate executives' pockets. (i.e. smaller profits==less pay)
Or be fined ~$2500 per family for not having insurance.
Also the public option is only the first step towards government monopoly of healthcare. That's an almost-exact quote from Congressman Barney Frank's mouth. They want the US to be like the UK.
I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020. Mr. Frank probably won't be there on that date, but that's the roadmap the Democrats have laid-out. They want the US to have a UK-style government monopoly.
Under the old system there were only 8 million citizens (key word) that were not already covered by existing government programs (medicare, schip) or private insurance (typically provided by the employer). The 42 million number that keeps getting cited is pure propaganda, includes ten million illegal non-citizens, was derived from a mail-in postcard, and therefore highly inaccurate. The number was derived non-scientifically, and you can not trust it.
Under the new system, families will be fined ~$2500 for not buying an insurance plan. The last thing a poor person or a laid-off person needs is another major bill. That's completely outrageous. Furthermore it takes away the freedom of choice. And what's next? Will Congress start fining people because they choose not to buy a hybrid car? Once the legal precedent is set, there's no limit to their power to control what we buy or don't buy.
I will not pay. Congress can shove that fine up its marble ass.
>>>artists actually should be fairly compensated for what they do, but also that million-dollar judgments in favor of record companies against Joe Schmoe Filesharer doesn't have anything to do with that. >>>
Yes. Just as I get paid an hourly wage for my creative endeavors (schematics), so too should artists. That does NOT mean they are entitled to write a single book or song in their 20s, and then sit on their ass for the rest of their lives. None of the rest of us get to be lazy shits. Many of us work well into our 70s or 80s
>>>How can anyone honestly believe someones skills could be worth 2.2 million per year? Are his skills really that rare? Or maybe it's because big business leadership is an exclusive club where friends reward friends with huge sums of money?
No. It's a good thing we geeks know how to hack their billion-dollar bank acccounts.
Also what this COO is REALLY talking-about : you'll no longer be able to watch free episodes on syfy.com, tnt.com, abcfamily.com, and other cable websites. What is currently free will be removed from those sites and locked behind a Comcast website. Which means people like me will no longer be able to watch Greek or Stargate Universe (since I'm not a cable subscriber).
They are trying to sell this as an "improvement" but I'm not seeing it.
Actually America has long been the nation of volunteerism. Americans donate more money than any other nation (per capita). It's only the corporations that are being greedy self-centered tyrants (which makes sense since megacorps are not people & don't have souls or morals).
>>>Yes you do. If you buy a plane ticket but don't like the flight do you not get to pay?
I do if the stewardess dumps a pile of Transformer... ooops I mean shit in my lap. Satisfaction guaranteed or a refund (or free trip next time). Even candy bar manufacturers will refund your money if you find your snack unsatifactory. If candy bar makers can do that, why can't media companies?
Well whatever. If they are not going to offer a refund for shit like TF2, then I'm not going to pay $20 on a gamble. I can't afford it.
>>>The people who should be scared are the broadcast stations. Their days are numbered.
Not really. From my location I get 49 broadcast channels that are completely free. It's hard to beat that deal. Well okay my $15/month DSL is not bad but it's still not free, and definitely trumps $65/month for Comcast
>>>Keeping the subscribers but moving eyeballs to the [Cable subscribers] web.
Comcast, Cox, and Time-Warner are all working on this together. Their ultimate goal is to remove the free videos from scifi.com, abcfamily.com, tnt.com, and other cable websites to a central location that is locked behind a wall. No more free rides for us non-cable subscribers.
QUOTE: "TV Everywhere is an authentication system whereby certain premium content (TV shows, movies, etc.) are available online -- but only if you can prove that you have a subscription to a multiservice operator (e.g. cable, satellite, telco TV)..... Cable companies pay big chunks of money to cable networks (USA, MTV, FX) to carry their programming. Comcast and its ilk are none too happy when these networks then turn around and put said content on the Internet for free."
So basically slashdotters are correct to be suspicious of this guy's "change consumer habits" statement.
The problem with our society is everybody WANTS something, and they expect the government to provide it. Nobody stops and thinks, "Does our company (Disney, MGM, or whatever) really need to hang-onto copyright for another 50 years and earn another billion dollars from sales of Snow White?" The answer is virtually all cases is no. The answer is that you could think about your fellow man and donate your wealth (or movies) to the public (domain) instead of only thinking of yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>hoards of American women from crossing the border to deliver their babies
This. Does. Not. Happen. Stop making up bullshit; it's smelly and I don't feel like standing in it.
The young college-aged British woman who had a family history of cervical cancer, and tried to get a PAP smear, would probably disagree with you. Why? Because at ages 21, 22, 23 they refused to give her the PAP screening for early detection/prevention.
At age 25 she died of cancer. There's a reason why the UK health organization called NICE is nicknamed "nasty" by people on the street (according to MEP Daniel Hannan). ALSO what's so damn great about having a UK health monopoly? A government monopoly is no better than one run by Microsoft, Comcast, or Exxon. It still takes-away choice.
Worse - it takes away your control over your wallet, since politicians can just vacuum-up as much money as they want.
Ahhh. I've been marked a "troll" because I simply repeated what Mr. Frank said on camera. Brilliant.
Oh well. When 2020 comes and the Democrats are saying, "Healthcare is broke. The public option did not work. We need a complete takeover of healthcare by the government, as they have in Canada, Europe, and other nations around the world," remember that Mr. Frank told you it would happen.
Sorry.
I don't understand your question, nor its relevance to my comments regarding only 8 million citizens being not covered by government/private programs, the inaccuracy of the postcard-based survey, the new ~$2500 fine imposed by this bill, or the illegal grab for power by the central government (equivalent to if the EU suddenly announced it will fine individual citizens).
(shrug). My insurance premium is zero.
That's because I pay cash for everything.
It's cheaper.
The Government has refused to give a "cost of living" increase to Social Security recipients.
And yet prices have clearly gone higher.
How can we trust these people???
>>>The legislation kind of makes up for that by forcing everybody to buy health insurance (with threats of jail or heavy fines if they don't),
Please show me where in the People's Constitution Congress is authorized to levy fine for failure to buy a product. Oh wait... here it is: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In other words the Congress is forbidden. The States can levy fines. The U.S. can not.
What about those of us who don't want any coverage at all? (By choice)
Oh that's right. We get fined almost $3000. Funny how you conveniently forgot that part. Freedom of choice and individual liberty is effectively dead. Congress might as well rename itself Microsoft or Comcast, since they follow the same anti-choice modus operandi
Of course not.
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it to be truth. The average guy on the street doesn't say "citation please". He trusts the politicians to be honest, and so effectively the politicians can just make up any numbers they want.
>>>Isn't that what U.S citizen do to Canada now?
Uh... no. Canadian hospitals ask for ID, and if you wave a US license the hospital will refuse to serve you. The only exception is in cases of emergency (like a car accident), in which case the American will be handed a bill.
>>>wasn't America built on immigrant labor?
LEGAL immigrant labor. Illegals that were rejected at Ellis Island were sent back home. We have the right to control who enters our land, just the same as you can stop me from walking into your living room.
Why wouldn't you want citizens status to be verified, prior to their receiving taxpayer dollars? That's like saying you don't want people's drivers' licenses checked to see if they are allowed to drive, or to be laid-off your job and replaced with a bunch of illegal programmers from India.
These human beings coming-in from Canada are no different than thieves breaking into your home. If I find some fool in my house, he's going to get arrested, and the same needs to happen to these Intruders into the United States. We have a process - first you file for a visa, which is equivalent to asking for permission, and then you come in.
You don't just break in.
>>>Whether they come to the ER without coverage or are enrolled in a government subsidized insurance program, you will pay. At least, in the latter case, they will contribute something
>>>
I don't follow your logic. How will illegal non-citizens support the government program when they are (1) not paying income or social security/medicare taxes and (2) not eligible to join the government program?
I think I prefer the old system, where the ER's provide free care to anyone who asks, and the money comes out of CEOs and other corporate executives' pockets. (i.e. smaller profits==less pay)
Or be fined ~$2500 per family for not having insurance.
Also the public option is only the first step towards government monopoly of healthcare. That's an almost-exact quote from Congressman Barney Frank's mouth. They want the US to be like the UK.
P.S.
I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020. Mr. Frank probably won't be there on that date, but that's the roadmap the Democrats have laid-out. They want the US to have a UK-style government monopoly.
Under the old system there were only 8 million citizens (key word) that were not already covered by existing government programs (medicare, schip) or private insurance (typically provided by the employer). The 42 million number that keeps getting cited is pure propaganda, includes ten million illegal non-citizens, was derived from a mail-in postcard, and therefore highly inaccurate. The number was derived non-scientifically, and you can not trust it.
Under the new system, families will be fined ~$2500 for not buying an insurance plan. The last thing a poor person or a laid-off person needs is another major bill. That's completely outrageous. Furthermore it takes away the freedom of choice. And what's next? Will Congress start fining people because they choose not to buy a hybrid car? Once the legal precedent is set, there's no limit to their power to control what we buy or don't buy.
I will not pay. Congress can shove that fine up its marble ass.
Global warming will not increase the amount of sunlight received in Norway. The people will still be light-skinned.
I want to carry a gun as self-defense against pedophiles and terrorists. It's for the children.
"No" - democrat
See? That argument doesn't always work.
>>>artists actually should be fairly compensated for what they do, but also that million-dollar judgments in favor of record companies against Joe Schmoe Filesharer doesn't have anything to do with that.
>>>
Yes. Just as I get paid an hourly wage for my creative endeavors (schematics), so too should artists. That does NOT mean they are entitled to write a single book or song in their 20s, and then sit on their ass for the rest of their lives. None of the rest of us get to be lazy shits. Many of us work well into our 70s or 80s
>>>How can anyone honestly believe someones skills could be worth 2.2 million per year? Are his skills really that rare? Or maybe it's because big business leadership is an exclusive club where friends reward friends with huge sums of money?
No. It's a good thing we geeks know how to hack their billion-dollar bank acccounts.
Also what this COO is REALLY talking-about : you'll no longer be able to watch free episodes on syfy.com, tnt.com, abcfamily.com, and other cable websites. What is currently free will be removed from those sites and locked behind a Comcast website. Which means people like me will no longer be able to watch Greek or Stargate Universe (since I'm not a cable subscriber).
They are trying to sell this as an "improvement" but I'm not seeing it.
Actually America has long been the nation of volunteerism. Americans donate more money than any other nation (per capita). It's only the corporations that are being greedy self-centered tyrants (which makes sense since megacorps are not people & don't have souls or morals).
>>>the big 3 automakers survived because the US politicians paid them billions and billions, with our tax money, for decades
That sounds like BS.
Citation please, or retract
Alright. I'll wait for it to appear in Walmart's 5 dollar bin
>>>Yes you do. If you buy a plane ticket but don't like the flight do you not get to pay?
I do if the stewardess dumps a pile of Transformer... ooops I mean shit in my lap. Satisfaction guaranteed or a refund (or free trip next time). Even candy bar manufacturers will refund your money if you find your snack unsatifactory. If candy bar makers can do that, why can't media companies?
Well whatever. If they are not going to offer a refund for shit like TF2, then I'm not going to pay $20 on a gamble. I can't afford it.
BTW how you like working for RIAA?
>>>The people who should be scared are the broadcast stations. Their days are numbered.
Not really. From my location I get 49 broadcast channels that are completely free. It's hard to beat that deal. Well okay my $15/month DSL is not bad but it's still not free, and definitely trumps $65/month for Comcast
>>>Keeping the subscribers but moving eyeballs to the [Cable subscribers] web.
Comcast, Cox, and Time-Warner are all working on this together. Their ultimate goal is to remove the free videos from scifi.com, abcfamily.com, tnt.com, and other cable websites to a central location that is locked behind a wall. No more free rides for us non-cable subscribers.
QUOTE: "TV Everywhere is an authentication system whereby certain premium content (TV shows, movies, etc.) are available online -- but only if you can prove that you have a subscription to a multiservice operator (e.g. cable, satellite, telco TV)..... Cable companies pay big chunks of money to cable networks (USA, MTV, FX) to carry their programming. Comcast and its ilk are none too happy when these networks then turn around and put said content on the Internet for free."
So basically slashdotters are correct to be suspicious of this guy's "change consumer habits" statement.
The problem with our society is everybody WANTS something, and they expect the government to provide it. Nobody stops and thinks, "Does our company (Disney, MGM, or whatever) really need to hang-onto copyright for another 50 years and earn another billion dollars from sales of Snow White?" The answer is virtually all cases is no. The answer is that you could think about your fellow man and donate your wealth (or movies) to the public (domain) instead of only thinking of yourself.