Image of the day

Captured by
andrews porter

Hart nebula

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: Terry Friedrichsen

October 17, 2008 01:31 PM Forum: Polls

Wins the 2008 World Series

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Steve Maiaroto said:

Come on people is a crime to root for Philly? We are ahead 3 games to 1

Why, yes, I believe it is ... grin

February 18, 2009 01:10 PM Forum: Polls

Obama's Stimulus Package ...

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Paul McCarty said:

Kind of funny, because if the plan doesn't work, we're done for. It will be real funny hearing "I told you so" when none of us have jobs and our democracy is collapsed.

The plan may not work, but at this point, what else is there to lose?

The Democrats could always contemplate helping us lose yet ANOTHER trillion dollars, I guess.

It's an article of faith among the Democrats that the stimulus is a necessity. Nearly half of the American people disagree, but the Dems keep pushing.

Why? Are you kidding? This is a Democrat's wet dream: a situation in which they can spend, nearly unopposed, almost a TRILLION DOLLARS on exactly the kind of feel-good stuff they LOVE to spend money on.

But hey, your grandkids will be perfectly happy to pay the money back, so let's spend it like we've got it ...

Donald Allen said:
Funny, we have stimulus not going to work, which means economy will not do well, ...

The "article of faith" thing rises again. The apparent conflict in the polls is due to the fact that a whole lot of folks believe the economy will recover WITHOUT the Democrats pouring tons of money down the drain.

... cutting taxes for rich people ...

Rich people invest their money, which creates jobs, and that's a net win for everybody. But the real answer is to stop spending more money than we have (something *neither* party is capable of), and cut taxes for *everybody*.

March 9, 2010 11:47 AM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

I'm in the "one thing at a time" group. The plain fact is that a lot of Americans have a good health care plan through their job; there's no need to touch that. (I'm not a FAN of having health care through your job -- it means that if you lose your job, you lose your health care, and that's just dumb. But the system exists, and it works for a lot of folks.) What needed to happen was not a rewrite of close to 3000 pages of the entire system, but just a fix for those who can't get health care for various reasons (can't afford it, pre-existing conditions, whatever).

Interstate competition, tort reform, etc., are all issues that can be dealt with one at a time with targeted legislation, instead of carpet-bombing the entire landscape the way the current bill does.

March 11, 2010 11:43 AM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Mark Rieck said:
In case you were not aware or have been misinformed, if you have an existing policy through an employer now, you can keep that.

No, you can't, unless you're talking about COBRA, which only lasts for 18 months (and is expensive, to boot). Believe me, I tried.

What I *did* find out is that my employer *could have* purchased healthcare coverage that its employees could keep when they leave. But that was an extra cost that my employer opted not to incur.

March 12, 2010 02:48 AM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Congratulations, Luca -- I was wondering how long it would be before some essentially-clueless lefty would scream "racist" at anyone opposed to government-run healthcare. Here's a big tip: there are lots better reasons to disagree with the loony left than "racism".

I already get to keep less than half of the money I make, thanks to taxes (and that doesn't even *count* the government taking between 5 and 8 percent on every purchase I make) -- how much more do you think it would be fair for me to have to pay? And "keep paying until there are no lefties standing there with their hand out" is the wrong answer.

I presume that you feel so strongly about how wonderful taxes are that you voluntarily send the government *extra* money every year, no?

(Oh, and a big "+1" to the person who called Social Security a giant Ponzi scheme, which would be illegal for anyone but the government. And to illustrate how well the government does running *that*, I recall from back when I got out of college that CBS News did a study showing that if you could keep your Social Security taxes and invest them *yourself*, you'd get a monthly payout that was TWICE AS BIG as what Social Security would actually pay. Thanks loads for that.)

A study by one of President Obama's own advisors showed that every dollar of tax cuts *increased* the economy by $3. Overtaxing the rich is actually *counterproductive* to the economy.

March 12, 2010 06:19 PM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Luca Grella said:
How do you know that I am pro government health care? Did I even ever mention that?

That's a non-denial denial if I ever heard one.


You (meaning republicans) never get to the issue, you reply by insults and intimidations and by making general ideological statements .

What?! This is really funny. *You're* the one who shouted "racist". Go back and read what I wrote; I didn't insult you except possibly by calling you a "lefty". I *did* call you essentially clueless for calling "racism" at your earliest opportunity.

You have this 100% turned around; it's the *liberals* who use insult and intimidation ("racist!") instead of arguing the issues. On another web site, I'm already embroiled in a battle with liberals who think "screw you" is a devastating debate point-scorer.

Ann Coulter wrote a whole book about this, and predictably the liberals called her names for it.


Stay on the issue and answer quite a legitimate question:

Heh; that's funny, too. The one time I asked a bunch of liberals here a question, I got no answers, just replies impugning my motives for asking.


Do you think there is a moral responsibility for the people (50,000 a year)
who die for lack of health care??

Is it ok to you Mr Terry Friedrichsen that people die because they cannot afford the treatment?

I'll answer your question, though I note that you didn't answer any of *mine*.

The answer to that question is "no", but hear me out before you label me a 3-headed baby-eating monster.

There are always going to be poor people, unable to afford whatever it is they need or want. It's easy to make people, but hard to make money. The only people with a moral obligation to help you meet your basic needs are your parents.

I might choose to give a fraction of my income towards assisting those less fortunate, but it is *always* going to be a losing battle. I am under no obligation to bankrupt myself or deny myself such comforts as I can afford.

I would not expect the government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on healthcare to keep me alive because I couldn't afford it (or the requisite insurance) on my own. I have, in the past, made the decision to forgo health insurance because it was more money than I could afford; I sucked it up rather than whining that the government should insure me.

The government can't fix everything; in fact, long historical experience demonstrates that the government isn't very good at fixing things even when it *tries*. Just take a look at the vast sums spent on "entitlement" programs already, and measure how little benefit is actually derived from them.

And no, it's not "OK" by me that people die because they cannot afford treatment. Lots of *other* ways people die are not "OK" with me, either. But there's only so much that can be done about any of it, and too much money is being spent already.

Now how about it if you go back to my previous post and answer the questions *I* posed?


March 13, 2010 12:08 AM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Luca Grella said:
when sombedy assumes that you are a foreigner and feels entitled to throw me out of the country because I disagree, that to me is a textbook
example of racism.

Well, your definition of racism is extremely distorted. It has nothing to do with "foreigners" or being thrown out of anyplace over a dispute of opinion.

we die anyway so why bother, right?

But we already *do* spend hundreds of billions of dollars on entitlement programs. At some point, it simply has to stop.

I don't know how much you should pay,

Well, *I* do. And I'm paying enough already. Don't steal any more of my money.


I can speak for myself and I would be very willing wto pay more taxes to fix this mess rather than paying more to the insurance companies.

Nothing's stopping you. Please feel free to send extra money to the U. S. Treasury any time you want. Let us know when you actually do.

March 13, 2010 02:11 AM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Luca Grella said:
<>

My definition is spot on, xenophobia *is* racism , only not "justified" by taxonomic differences.

You *really* need a better dictionary, or you haven't read the one you have.


<>
Obama in the budget of 2011 has tried to create a panel to cut some of those but unfortunately many GOP senators opposed the panel just to deny a victory to the president.
Social security and medicare had a surplus about ten years ago, you must remember that.

So even Obama thinks we spend too much money on entitlement programs? He has an odd way of showing it.


<<< Don't steal any more of my money>>>

keep it and spend it on the next stupidest war maybe against Iran

I'm not happy about war, but unfortunately, we live in a world where it is sometimes necessary in order to keep the crazies from destroying us.

Besides, we all heard during the election campaign from the Democrats that Afghanistan was the *correct* war. Are you backing away from that now?


<<>>

so long dear

Just as I thought -- like essentially all liberals, you're a lot more eager to spend *my* money than your own.

March 15, 2010 01:17 PM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Mark Rieck said:
What does investment of millions upon millions of dollars do for a HCI company? Research and development? Expansion of operations? Of course not. The more that is invested, the more responsibility shifts away from health care interests for countless millions of policy holders and towards the profit interests of a miniscule (by comparison) number of large shareholders.

First, let me state that I am no great friend of the health insurance companies. I can't even *get* health insurance right now, so some laws smacking them straight in the teeth would get nothing but cheers from me.

But this analysis ignores a few things. First, every state has insurance regulators, part of whose job is to watch over insurance company rates. They can and do have the legal force to deny rate increases.

Second, I don't know about other states, but California, at least, has a law that mandates that insurance companies must spend at least 70% of their premiums on benefits. Thus they cannot simply ignore their policyholders to the benefit of their shareholders.

Third, companies have a fiduciary duty to make money for their shareholders to the best of their ability. Besides that, the stockholders get to vote, and if you're not making them money, they're apt to go looking for someone who will. And, after all, if you want someone to buy your stock, you have to make it attractive. Finally, who's going to buy insurance from a company that's not financially healthy and has a significant risk of being unable to meet its obligations?


Last Summer's talk of 'death panels' was not only despicable on the part of all those involved, ...

I'll grant that that terminology was a deliberate emotional charging of an issue ... but "mandatory end-of-life counseling" with some government bureaucrat was a *really* bad idea. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" is essentially *always* a lie.

Here's a challenge for you: come up with a better two-word name than "death panel" for this bit of government "assistance".


March 15, 2010 12:37 AM Forum: Polls

Health Care

Posted By Terry Friedrichsen

Let me try once more to get you to answer *my* question, since I answered yours.

Where's the limit to how much taxes we should pay? I already pay over half my income in taxes. I presume that you'll grant that the limit should be less than 100%. Can you narrow down the range a little more? How much is enough?