asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP

> In article >,
> Free Lunch > wrote:
>>
>> Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is
>> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance
>> companies and affordability.


If we followed the rest of life with your logic on HEALTH CARE then we
would all drive Mercedes Benz and the NATION would be bankrupted buying
Mercedes and keeping them all running.


People that can't drive like *blind people* would have a brand new shiny
Mercedes that they can't even use, just like healthy people are given
health care that they don't use.


That's your government Socialist planning.

"Rich Piehl" > wrote in message
news:egM2o.47289>> So LBJ was a Republican? Nice revisionist history.
>
> No, it is you with the revisionist history
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...zVXkAWj26ws1AQ

Michael Steele? You can do better than that. Don't you have any Rush
O'Becknitty quotes?

On 7/24/2010 9:00 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:54:36 -0500, "bugo" > wrote in
> misc.transport.road:
>
>>
>>
>> "Rich Piehl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 7/23/2010 9:19 PM, bugo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Otto Yamamoto" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:00:43 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you like everything that Europe does so much, their power
>>>>>> plants
>>>>>> their governments, their cars, their rails, their transit system their
>>>>>> socialistic governments (that some in this group have denied are
>>>>>> socialistic)
>>>>>
>>>>> Right: http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart Socialists would show up
>>>>> in the upper left hand quadrant of the chart. Looks kinda lonely there
>>>>> to
>>>>> me, empty, in fact. Now, if you use the irrelevant American manufactured
>>>>> political spectrum in the European context, you are DOING IT WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incidentally, http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 shows
>>>>> pretty
>>>>> much the same picture-nobody comes up in the 'Socialist' quad.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35epsdq is a chart of how states with purely
>>>>> Democratic party senatorial representation shake out: not a socialist in
>>>>> the bunch; in point of fact, some verge to fascism.
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3ye6vl6 is all 50 states, same thing. Interesting in
>>>>> a
>>>>> country supposedly crawling with commies, you can't seem to find any in
>>>>> any positions of power.
>>>>>
>>>>> The political 'spectrum' in this country is contrived:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit
>>>>> the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within
>>>>> that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views.
>>>>> That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while
>>>>> all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by
>>>>> the limits put on the range of the debate.'-Noam Chomsky.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might have seen that before. Perhaps you should peruse
>>>>> http://infoshop.org/page/Quotes and get a feel for what *real* leftists
>>>>> (not 'liberals' or 'progressives') think of the alleged 'socialists' you
>>>>> all dribble on about.
>>>>
>>>> I wish these right wingers who cry on and on about "socialism" could be
>>>> forced to live a year in the old USSR. They would find out how good they
>>>> have it here and they would find out the "socialists" (really
>>>> center-rightists) aren't nearly as bad as Real True Communists.
>>>
>>> This from the person who didn't know that it was the Republicans that
>>> brought about civil rights laws in this country - not the democrats.
>>
>> So LBJ was a Republican? Nice revisionist history.
>
> Well, LBJ made it possible for the Republicans to pursue the Southern
> Strategy.


LBJ was an asshole and he made it possible for anyone to do a better job
then he did, until Jimmy carter and Obama came along and did even worse.


Democrat-Socialist one term wonders.

"Beam Me Up Scotty" > wrote in
message
> Democrat-Socialist one term wonders.

Your "socialist" is getting so old. As I said, go live in North Korea for a
year and you'll see how un-socialist our current leaders are.

I wish our leaders were actually socialist. It would be funny watching the
right-wing nutjobs heads really spin.

"Beam Me Up Scotty" > wrote in
message ...
>
>> In article >,
>> Free Lunch > wrote:
>>>
>>> Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is
>>> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance
>>> companies and affordability.
>
> Don't we ration food and water and clothes? Should the government hand
> out those little *Mao suits* to each and every American rather than
> allowing us to buy expensive designer clothes while the poor have to
> wear K-mart clothes?

There's a huge ****ing difference between wearing fancy clothes and dying
because you can't afford insurance or because the criminal insurance
companies refuse to pay for your treatment. Have some perspective.

"Beam Me Up Scotty" > wrote in
message ...
>
>> In article >,
>> Free Lunch > wrote:
>>>
>>> Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is
>>> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance
>>> companies and affordability.
>
>
> If we followed the rest of life with your logic on HEALTH CARE then we
> would all drive Mercedes Benz and the NATION would be bankrupted buying
> Mercedes and keeping them all running.

Health care is a basic human right, and a necessity. Nobody "needs" a M-B.
You're full of logical fallacies today, aren't you?

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:05:23 -0500, Rich Piehl
> wrote:

>>much snipped
>
>This from the person who didn't know that it was the Republicans that
>brought about civil rights laws in this country - not the democrats.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were by the Republicans but the
1964 Civil Right package was by the Democrats or are you referring to
some other civil rights laws?

Clark Morris
>
>Google European Socialism and do some reading for a change.

Beam Me Up Scotty > wrote in
:

>
>> In article >,
>> Free Lunch > wrote:
>>>
>>> Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is
>>> rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance
>>> companies and affordability.
>
> Don't we ration food and water and clothes? Should the government hand
> out those little *Mao suits* to each and every American rather than
> allowing us to buy expensive designer clothes while the poor have to
> wear K-mart clothes?
>
>

I suspect the insurance companies have lower overhead costs(less waste of
premium dollars) than the US government group that will manage Obamacare.
And it's probably far easier to deal with them than that USGov't group.

In every other nation that has socialist healthcare,the rationing is more
severe,sophisticated diagnostic machines much fewer in number,meaning long
wait times for scans,and much longer wait times for needed surgeries.
also,those other countries don't develop as many new drugs as the US,so
patients have to make do with older,less effective drugs.

It's no wonder some of their officials choose to come to the US for their
surgeries and treatment.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Hey Rich, got a question: do you smoke? I don't remember.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:31:29 GMT, (Matthew
Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:

>In article >,
>Free Lunch > wrote:
>>
>>Health care has always been rationed. The question is how it is
>>rationed. Right now, in this country, it is rationed by insurance
>>companies and affordability.
>
>Equivocation: misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense.
>
>Yes, as a technical economic term, "rationing" can cover the situation where a
>resource is dispensed according to no criteria other than who is
>willing and able to pay for it. However, the common use of the term,
>and the meaning intended by those objecting to rationing of health
>care, does not include that case.

Oh, I agree that they like to cherry-pick about this and that they
misrepresent how coverage is handled by both Medicare and by private
insurers. Still, health insurers ration far more severely than Medicare
does. Economic constraints are the most important rationing effect in
the United States for people who cannot get or cannot afford insurance,
but intentional limitation of services are also done today and have been
done for many years by insurance companies.