THE QUESTION - some of you shouldn't look - you have been warned

-On socialist governments, you are looking to examples of dictatorships again, and it just -isn't where they exist. If you want to see a socialist government, you are looking at -Norway.

Um, Norway is a Monarchy. Norway has a KING. Norway is the world's THIRD largest oil producer and exporter. Norway has LOTS of money for their 4.5 million people. (N.Y. City alone has 8.2 million "legal" people). Norway can be seen border to border in a day's drive. Norway can AFFORD to cover everyone. They get their money from OIL. Since Norway is part of the "oil industry", and pulling in billions and billions of HUGE profits from oil, and you HATE the "oil industry", why cite Norway as such a wonderful system? Living in Norway must get pretty boring since you can't have what your neighbor doesn't have. They "want for nothing" because they CAN"T HAVE ANYTHING and have been conditioned to accept that as "the norm".
Since the liberals in *this* country want to finance "universal healthcare", why don't they allow the drilling of OUR OWN OIL?? Hmmm, do you want to re-read the Mirriam-Webster definition of fascism? It's not the "evil Republicans", nor is it the "Democrats", it's the entire system that they (the entrenched politicians) struggle to gain power over. Once the Constitution has been abandoned as "an outdated document", it's all over. And BOTH "parties" had better wise up, and soon or there will be nothing left to "lord over".

Thomas Jefferson once said "The politicians and the lawyers will be the pallbearers of this nation". It's coming true..

-Wow. How unfortunate to have to respond to the crazy Right Winger
-Fortunately, he, and the President, are in the wacky fringe minority
-Osama Bin Laden believes, and Counsil is right there with him. Not suprisingly, the -Republican Party is there, too.
-Ending racist instigation, another reason to vote ...

Insult, after insult. You placed me in some sort of category that I am not in. Why is it that the extreme leftists do that when asked about something? When a different opinion is brought to light?
But you aren't talking *to* me, you are talking *about* me. Are you supposed to be making some sort of point?

I never *once* said I liked George Bush. Yet you claim I am a "crazy Right Winger". But since I *dared* to question you, I must be one "of them".

-Counsil dodges my question about Bush's anti-global warming propaganda

Again, talking *about* me instead of *to* me. I dodged nothing. I merely didn't kiss your () and that is something you just can't stand.

-Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" Cousil would benefit greatly

I saw it and just shook my head at the non-truths, and half-truths. Boy, that "movie" sure did get some people thinking it's time to panic and just shovel your money to Mr. Gore's "organization", and to HATE anyone that doesn't believe it. Nice, more of the same hate-breeding.

Since you are incapable of being civilized, and insist on name-calling and insults, my "conversation" with you is over. I mean, I must be talking to a wall, because you talk to "the crowd" instead of me. You have no manners whatsoever, and you call *me* the "crazy Right Winger".

I believe Iraq has now been unbanned.

Um, the United Kingdom is also a monarchy. In reality, the monarchs of both countries are figureheads who have little or nothing to do with making decisions or running the government.

"So, erecting a "public" system, does indeed give entitlement to *our* money. Where do you think the money comes from?"

What I meant was that this "entitlement" is not a right bestowed upon us from above or anything like that. As I said, it would be a choice made advisedly and by mutual consent. Not universal consent, of course. It would be nice if people like you could opt out of contributing to (and benefiting from) such a system since you find it so disturbing. Of course, then all the rich people with actual money to contribute and their own medical staffs on call would opt out too, and it could not be funded.

"Conservatives? Claims? So in other words, I, as a "conservative" (in your eyes)just lie and say I'll, or have helped, others? That's on the edge of being an insult."

Give me a break. You're just looking for a reason to be offended here. I don't keep track of your good deeds or those of anyone else, so I said "claims". And are you saying you're not a conservative? Just about everything you've said in this thread indicates that you are. Maybe you don't like political pigeonholing? In that case, you might reciprocate by refraining from referring to people as liberals.

"Because this "conservative" does not make "false claims"."

Who are you quoting here?

Me: -Yet what are people in duress supposed to do? They get sick, or are lying beside a road -with a broken body. Are they supposed to first scrounge around to discover which -individual or which private charity deems them worthy of assistance? No. They should know -where to go, confident that they will receive the care they need without being judged.

You: If anybody has been outright *refused* medical treatment and care from a *publicly* funded hospital, you let me know. I'll stand right beside you on that one! ALL "publicly funded" hospitals are required to treat *anyone* who comes into their emergency rooms regardless of who, what, and "how much". Here in Pennsylvania, there is nobody, I mean NOBODY, that is ever refused treatment by a publicly funded medical facility. Have you ever heard of St. Jude's Childrens's Hospital? It is entirely funded by donations! And NO child is ever turned away, Period! I even donate to them with my meager wages! Why? Because this "conservative" does not make "false claims". I do it by choice, not because some bureaucrat takes my money (calls it taxes) and gives "part" of it where "they" feel it should go. I know where, and how to spend *my* money, thank you."

You didn't address my point at all. My point was, that someone in trouble shouldn't have to hunt around to figure out who is willing to help him. It should be clear and consistent for all citizens.

By the way, do you feel you should be completely untaxed? If so, what would you do, decide how much you think the military is worth to you, send them a check, send a buck to NASA, tear up any pleas arriving from HEW, send a few bucks for highway maintenance, burn any solicitations from Medicaid, and so forth? How much would you send to pay the interest on the national debt?

I am aware that hospitals are required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. If they're poor, good luck to them in getting out of it with any of whatever assets they might have remaining. That's the part I mentioned about people who are uncovered being beggared by their encounter with American medicine. It happens often enough even with people who do have some form of coverage but which nevertheless is insufficient to cover their needs.

Also, I trust you realize that people without coverage often go without common screenings and exams. That means that serious conditions can go unnoticed until too late. That means these people either die, or receive emergency treatment which is many times more expensive to all of us than simple preventive care would have been.

St Jude's: no doubt they do many great things, but I think you're oversimplifying their admission policy just a little. If it were a case of "No child is ever turned away, period!" they wouldn't need the eligibility requirements detailed on their web site.

"Come on Joe, I actually thought you were smarter than that. Do I have to hold your hand and spoon-feed that publicly, and widely available information to you? How about *you* NOT take *my* word for it, and actually go and find out for *yourself*. I'm not going to hand feed you anything, but I will give you a clue.. Claude Castonguay "

Okay, please do stow your snotty patronization. When someone refers to something in writing, it is not uncommon to go so far as to actually supply the name of the person to whom you refer. Now that I've read about Mr. Castonguay, I see that he wants to amend the Canadian system in various ways, not demolish it. You see that their system is imperfect, and therefore it must be inferior to ours, which is also highly imperfect, but evidently in a manner which is less personally offensive to you. You keep talking about all these foreigners who have the means and the desire to come here for medical treatment which is unavailable in their backward lands. What about all the average citizens of these lands who are in fact treated successfully in their own countries by their own system? Are they dropping like flies? Why do you discount the obvious benefit which people like them, who in many cases would not be able to afford any insurance if they lived here, receive from these systems? Do you deny there is any value provided to them at all? I would prefer to see everyone having access to basic medical care than to have millions who have to struggle for that while a few avail themselves of extremely expensive and exotic treatments. Until everyone has basic access, those partaking of the medical cutting edge are giving off a real Marie Antoinette vibe.

Also, would you expect the government to take over hospitals and medical practices, which is what "government run" would mean? I think that's far from clear. The government would be paying them, not operating them. It's called "single payer", not "single operator." Any plan which is likely to be adopted will probably involve leaving the actual health care providers in private hands.

Okay, I'm tired of this.

-What I meant was that this "entitlement" is not a right bestowed upon us from above or -anything like that.

Then you might want to look up what the word means before using it. That's what you said so I have no choice to believe that is what you meant. People use certain words freely with no clue of their actual meaning. It seems the "catch phrase of the day" has been based on words with wrong meanings.

-I don't keep track of your good deeds or those of anyone else, so I said "claims".

Um, saying someone just makes "claims" implies they are not speaking the truth. But let's review it in the entire context of your statement.

-You say you are willing to help the unfortunate; fine. Lots of conservatives make similar -claims.

Sounds to me like you are advocating these "claims" to be untrue. But that could be just the way I was taught grammar.

-And are you saying you're not a conservative? Just about everything you've said in this -thread indicates that you are. Maybe you don't like political pigeonholing? In that case, -you might reciprocate by refraining from referring to people as liberals.

Well Joe, is being conservative in my lifestyle, in many ways, make me a "Republican"? It seems that "liberals" seem to equate conservatism with being a "Republican". I am not a "Republican". I am not "of the party". But I am mostly a moderate. Am I conservative? Yes, in many ways I am. I conserve on the things I use myself, I conserve on the amount of "toys" I have, I conserve because I'll need it later and don't want to be left in the dust when a "crisis situation" actually hits. And since I have no desire to spend someone else's money, I am most certainly not a "Liberal". In my view, Liberals want to spend other people's money, and not their own. And from what I gathered from you, you want to spend someone else's money for something you can't pay for yourself.

You yourself said...

-I would be happy to pay some of my money (if I had any) to prevent people from suffering -that kind of misery and indignity.

So you want to reach into *my* pocket to pay for one, or more of your ideals? You see Joe, the big difference between me, and you, is that I *do* help, I do give to help prevent, or ease the suffering of others. And I do it without demanding that anyone reach into *your* pockets to help. And if I am taxed yet another $30, $40, $50/week, I will not be able to help those in need around me. If I could afford the $50/week, I would be buying my own health insurance. But with this vision of grandeur you have, you would TAKE that money and "give" me health care. I would have lost my freedom to give on my own because I wouldn't have it to give on my own. And those around me would go without food, clothing, or a Xmas gift for their children. But hey, they would have "Health Care". It would be taken by force, by no choice of my own simply because the "Liberals" say "it's best for me".

-You didn't address my point at all. My point was, that someone in trouble shouldn't have -to hunt around to figure out who is willing to help him. It should be clear and consistent -for all citizens.

Um, Joe, just dial 911. The only thing you need to hunt for is a telephone.

-By the way, do you feel you should be completely untaxed?

Not at all Joe. It's the *overtaxing* that bothers me. We already spend close to 60% of our wages in taxes. There are the State and local taxes, sales taxes, taxes galore on utilities, lights, phone, heating, taxes on your property, taxes on the gas you put in your car, taxes on the tires for your car, and many more "hidden" taxes that people just ignore. Many of these taxes were for social programs, and for some programs that have come and gone, but the taxes are still there. Why? Government Waste. So my faith in a Government Instituted "Health Care System" is nil. It will just be another black hole sucking money out of the people.

-St Jude's: no doubt they do many great things, but I think you're oversimplifying their -admission policy just a little. If it were a case of "No child is ever turned away, -period!" they wouldn't need the eligibility requirements detailed on their web site.

Um, the "eligibility requirements" you speak of have nothing to do with how much you can afford to pay them. It is a hospital for children with serious needs, not stubbed toes and hangnails.

Now that I've read about Mr. Castonguay, I see that he wants to amend the Canadian system in various ways, not demolish it.

That's because this "dream" of "universal health care for all" can never be realized. But now they want their cake and eat it too! They'll still tax you, but you still have to pay yourself. Sounds a lot like the "black hole" I mentioned above. It will end up, just like all the rest, just another tax on everyone, but only a few will actually benefit from it. There are just too many people, and too little sources to pay for it. Only a small country, such as Norway, that has the OIL GLUT to feed it, will ever work. In a FREE society, like ours, it will *never* work.
Did you actually notice the population of Norway is only 4.6 million (or close to that), and just to population of NYC alone is 8.2 million. It would seemingly take all of Norway's oil revenues just to cover New York City *alone*. And Norway is the 3rd largest oil producer/exporter in the *world* Joe. Just how do these "smarter" Liberals plan on financing this "utopian" society of theirs? They are most certainly not going to spend any of *their* money!

What is the sense in "Governmentizing" something, only to "give" it back to the private sector? It is a short-sighted "dream" that only a few will get rich off of. Yes, those who are at the top will have made money, while those at the bottom will have gotten poorer.

-In my opinion, medical insurance "providers" are crooked rackets which should be dissolved -and made illegal. They are nothing more than parasites, contributing nothing.

Yes Joe, let's just get rid of the competition and have a monopolistic medical insurance company called "The Government" where you pay them, and pay for your services too. All the while the "CEOs" of that monolithic company take home 6 figure incomes and get "full benefits" to boot. Yeah, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. How about you?

-Any plan which is likely to be adopted will probably involve leaving the actual health -care providers in private hands.

And when the Doctors and Nurses get their paychecks for minimum wage, since that comes from the Government, just how much "quality care" will you be expecting? You can't have it both ways. It's either private, or Government, not both. I don't suppose there would be any "conditions" set by which the medical industry would be required to follow in order to get, and spend that money? And when the Government says "this is all you get because there isn't enough", what then? The people will not be able to afford their own since the Government is taking it in TAXES that are supposedly paying for it in the first place? Would the Government then raise taxes to cover it? Leaving the people yet more poor than before?

Hey Joe, if you want to get health care, you're free to get a group of people together and share the cost. Just don't reach into my pocket for your group's costs. But it's just not that easy is it? Most people are unwilling to help share the load. And it's hard to get any insurance company to give a "Group Plan" to a group of individuals. So if you want to help, tell your Elected Representatives to legislate laws that allows for "Group Plans" for groups if individuals. I've been telling mine for years, but it falls on deaf ears. Why? There is no "glory" in it. No way to "control" my money if that were to happen. We wouldn't be talking about "Universal Health Care".

Why will neither prominent party give the President line item veto power? Because they want to be able to siphon off taxpayer dollars for their own personal use in "Pork Barrel" waste. The President, *any* President, would have the ability to say "Nope, you're not wasting this 20 gazillion dollars". Then, We The People, would not need to be taxed so much. Then, We The People, would have money in our pockets. Then, We The People, wouldn't have to worry about the price at the pump, the cost of health care, or if we'll be able to eat tomorrow.

Pelosi,and Biden ran on the platform of "We'll straighten out Washington". They said they would not try and indict the "Bush Administration" so it didn't hurt the country. What did they do? The first thing was call for suing the "Bush Administration". The second thing was Pelosi putting "raspberry tarts" in the White House. OOOHHH, that was important. Then "let's pretty up the beaches", another extremely important, and pressing "issue" Pelosi had "fixed". Then they decided to raise the minimum wage. OK, I have no problem with people making more money. But the problem is who pays for that? Gee, in a matter of 2 years, I'll be back to a minimum wage job! The small company I work for simply can't afford to pay any more! And make no mistake, there are thousands of small companies that are in the same boat. What's going to happen with new taxes being added? These thousands of small companies, that employ tens of thousands of people, will simply cease to exist. Then you'll have tens of thousands more that are in the poor house. But hey, we'll have Health Care, raspberry tarts in the White House, and pretty beaches.

So, a few years go by and they say "Gee, we need more money to run this "Universal Health Care" since we lost some of out income to people losing their jobs, I know, let's tax the rich some more". Oh, there aren't as many "rich" people any more, so let's drop the level in which we declare someone to be "rich". How about taking the upper part of the middle class and call them "the rich". Now we can tax them! Problem solved! NOT! It's going to spiral out of control and put America in a crisis you've never seen when most of the people are dirt poor from being robbed by the Government. And people that believe that "Utopia" can be achieved, will have been the cause of the downfall of America.

So just you go ahead and reach into someone else's pockets for your short-lived utopia and enjoy it while you can. It won't last very long..

Joe Bergeron said:

Um, the United Kingdom is also a monarchy. In reality, the monarchs of both countries are figureheads who have little or nothing to do with making decisions or running the government.

And what point is it you are trying to make?

Look at the Monarch as being the highest paid corporate officer of an insurance company, or an oil company. They draw the highest salary, and get more benefits than anyone else in that country. And don't have to lift a finger to do it. All while the lowly people work their tails off to supply them with taxes. Boy, you ought to move there yourself Joe! It sounds like just what you want!

I was trying to say that the technically "monarchical" form of their governments makes little difference in the way they are run, you sarcastic nincompoop. They're basically there because the people like them.

I've had enough of you. Go call me a fascist because I find you so unpleasant to deal with.

-you sarcastic nincompoop.

Gee, more name calling.. That's a surprise!

-Go call me a fascist

Nah, you're just Joe.

-because I find you so unpleasant to deal with.

Because I don't subscribe to the same political views as you? Because I won't pat you on the back and say "don't worry Joe, if he won't give, we'll pass a law to steal his money legally". Or is because I won't lay down and submit to the views of those who are jealous of another person's wealth?

Oh well, I guess there are some that willing to give up when the going gets tough.

-You're taking someone's straight answer and trying to be abusive.

Straight answers? What is wrong with debating someone's views?

-This really is bad behavior.

Boy, I guess I had better straighten up and never debate anyone.

-You've convinced me you are just trying to be a disruption.

Why? Because I question those that want me to lie down and be taken advantage of? Because I seek solutions that won't cost an arm and a leg?

-The truth of the matter is it's fine with you to freeload on the rest of us..

Now you are calling me a freeloader? I pay taxes every week that come out of my paycheck. How is that "freeloading"???

-knowing if you are in a car accident and badly injured, we'll pay for your treatment.

You won't pay anything genius. My car insurance, or the other person's, will cover any accident-related injuries. And yes, I actually pay car insurance which includes coverage for medical costs. So where in the hell to you get off calling me a freeloader???

-But otherwise, you get to go on without having 10% of your income soaked up by health care.

Don't you mean an *additional* 10% *if* that is what they settle on?

I haven't seen any concrete "plan" which defines anything. All I hear is this "dream" that everyone will be covered, even me, whether I want it or not. The only thing that is concrete, is that everyone *will* be paying something.

What really gets me is that you, and many others, want to help the "unfortunate". Well, that is until you find out they oppose your views. Then they suddenly become "freeloaders", or "disruptive" and are a menace to your dream. All while the actual freeloaders, those that do not pay taxes, or otherwise contribute, are some how vindicated merely by "not having opposing views".
You pass judgement based soley on political views. You condemn those who think different. You qualify, or disqualify merely because one thinks differently. When you fail to convince someone of your viewpoint, you call them "disruptive", or "freeloaders on *your* system. You twist one's words and reciprocate with hatred.. Yeah, there is no fascism in America.

-I've got your number

Is that supposed to mean something?