Why We Don't Want "Free" Medical Care

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:25:27 +0000 in
relation to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy, Mike.....
put forth:

Following up to Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

I said that 100 posts ago, you're wasting your time, stick to abuse,
its more fun.

Whatever you say, dip****!

not *me*, kangeroolover!

Meh, whatever. It's like one big dys****tional family here.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

John Kulp: "Statistics don't lie. Liars use statistics"

John Kulp: "Where's the statistics on those like..."

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:08:33 +0000 in
relation to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy, Mike.....
put forth:

Following up to Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

I was surprised china didnt have one, I wonder how it matches the
death penalty map.

With 1.3 billion people, I'm not surprised. Just because they are
socialist, doesn't mean the government pretends to care about its
people!

true, I thought there might be something basic.

I can tell you've never been to a real third world country!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

John Kulp: "Statistics don't lie. Liars use statistics"

John Kulp: "Where's the statistics on those like..."

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:12:14 GMT in relation
to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy,
(John Kulp) put forth:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:46:58 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:28:18 GMT in relation
to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy,
(John Kulp) put forth:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:47:26 +0100, Keith Anderson
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:34:50 +0000, Mike.....
wrote:

Following up to Tim C. wrote:

I think he just has a need to slam "socialised medicine".

An idea I think we all had after reading the subject line before even
opening the first post.

Which is why I've read responses, but not Kulp's posts themselves
except for the first few.

Thin skin have we? Don't like criticism from reputable sources
(liberal ones) of your sacred cows?

No one is criticising the article, just you.

Because they can't? Because it's true?

No one said the article was false IIRC.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

John Kulp: "Statistics don't lie. Liars use statistics"

John Kulp: "Where's the statistics on those like..."

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:11:45 GMT in relation
to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy,
(John Kulp) put forth:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:45:41 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:25:22 GMT in relation
to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy,
(John Kulp) put forth:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:44:28 +0000, Mike.....
wrote:

given the responses to my giving him the members of the (hopefully)
appropriate heath auth. didnt go along the lines of "oh, I see some
are local politicians/doctors" or something similar (which Jay
managed) I think he just has a need to slam "socialised medicine". I
therefore decided not to bother any more.

You are such a pinhead that you still don't realize I didn't write the
article but simply posted it for discussion.

You posted an article you don't vouch for? Why on earth would you do
that?

No I don't vouch for articles I haven't researched or written. I
posted it for discussion and critiquing. No one has refuted one word
of it with any proof nor have any reporters I have seen which leads me
to conclude it was correct. Otherwise, its facts would have been
ripped apart.

Interesting form of logic that. Is your blood blue because your veins
are?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

John Kulp: "Statistics don't lie. Liars use statistics"

John Kulp: "Where's the statistics on those like..."

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:10:11 GMT in relation
to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy,
(John Kulp) put forth:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:44:10 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:20:59 GMT in relation
to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy,
(John Kulp) put forth:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:05:46 +0100, Tim C.
wrote:

I know /what/ you did, but I'm still a little unclear as to really
/why/ you did it.

I've already answered this several times so I won't bother again.

Your answer can't have been too good if none of us got it!

I don't use you as a test of comprehension.

Do you use anything?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

John Kulp: "Statistics don't lie. Liars use statistics"

John Kulp: "Where's the statistics on those like..."

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:03:37 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:59:40 GMT in relation
to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy,
(John Kulp) put forth:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:22:08 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:59:44 GMT in relation
to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy,
(John Kulp) put forth:

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:53:00 -0800 (PST), chattachitta
wrote:

On 5 Mar, 10:47, Keith Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:34:50 +0000, Mike.....

wrote:
Following up to Tim C. wrote:

I think he just has a need to slam "socialised medicine".

An idea I think we all had after reading the subject line before even
opening the first post.

Which is why I've read responses, but not Kulp's posts themselves
except for the first few.

Keith (formerly of Bristol UK)
now moved to Berlin/nach Berlin umgezogen

indeed, he is Kulpable......

How clever. Did you just graduate from kindergarten too?

He's just making idle chattachitta.

Now that actually was clever.

By your measure perhaps. I thought it was pathetic, but wrote it for
others to enjoy.

Such self-loathing you have.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:37:07 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

In article , John Kulp
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:34:54 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

In article , John Kulp
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:42:36 -0800, Go Fig wrote:


Don't understand what government provided and run healthcare is huh?

Don't dodge the issue. Health care and politics are just as
intertwined in the US as in Europe or anywhere else.

I never said they weren't. What has that got to do with whether the
government provides healthcare or not? That's the issue, not whether
politics are involved or not.

And Article I. Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says that the Feds
have NO authority to do so either. Let the States do as they please.

If you are saying that the Constitution prevents the Federal
Government from instituting a national healthcare system, that is
nonsense.

That is not what the Constitution says... it is very clear on the
powers and providing for health care is not one of them.

The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says not you.

And this is the standard:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....articlei.html

Which one of these clauses gives authority ????

The innumerable Supreme Court decisions on Medicare and Medicaid
upholding them, that's what.


It's
plain silly to say there can't be a national healthcare program when
several already exist. See the VA, Medicare and Medicaid for
starters.

Like I said, Congress has the authority to form a military.

This is probably beyond you, but the VA, Medicare and Medicaid have
absolutely nothing to do with forming a military.



Why do you think in more than 200 years there is not a single Federal
Hospital for the citizens.. in fact, when it was proposed more than 150
years ago, this is what the President (a Democrat) said:

There are. See the VA and military hospitals for starters.


"If Congress has the power to make provisions for the indigent insane,
the whole field of public beneficence is thrown open to the care and
culture of the federal government. I readily acknowledge the duty
incumbent on us all to provide for those who, in the mysterious order
of providence, are subject to want and to disease of body or mind, but
I cannot find any authority in the Constitution that makes the federal
government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United
States."

It did that with Medicare,

So he was right in 1854, but not right in 1960... let me guess its a
"living" document ?

A. nobody said he was right in 1854

B. that's right. It's a living document being what the Supreme Court
says it is and has been from the very beginning.




It is technically crafted to avoid strict Constitutional challenges,
just like welfare.

So what? It's a national healthcare system just like I said. So are
the VA and military's.




the VA, the military, etc.

If you have read the Constitution, Congress has the authority to
provide for a military.

Which, as I said, has absolutely nothing to do with national
healthcare, but keep trying.


You said it prevented a national healthcare system from being
established which is baloney. The VA isn't military btw it is for
military veterans.



There is absolutely nothing preventing it if Congress wants to pass it
and the President sign the bill.

No, but the Court will rule on its Constitutionality and this is not
the court of the 70s.

I sincerely doubt that it would get anywhere near the Supreme Court as
it is prima facie laughable.

Then point to the authority, it is a straightforward question.

Go look up all the decisions on Medicare and Medicaid. It's an easy
decision. Or just sit there and deny they and the VA exist if you
want. Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society as well?

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:59:44 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:37:07 -0800 in
relation to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy, Go Fig
put forth:

In article , John Kulp
wrote:

I sincerely doubt that it would get anywhere near the Supreme Court as
it is prima facie laughable.

Then point to the authority, it is a straightforward question.

John, when everyone is siding with Go Fig against you, you have lost.
I believe this is the first time it's happened.

I haven't seen that, but if they are on this issue, they would be
certifiably nuts, which would be their problem not mine.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:56:52 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:


If you trust unelected corporations instead...

You mean the ones that produce all the medical technology you use, the
drugs you use, etc, etc?

Yes, those. They always act in the public interest.

Then you have nothing to fear then do you?

Idiocy in large groups frightens me. I'm glad no one else agrees with
you.

That's funny, because you asked me to post my version of how I thought
healthcare should work and I did. Then I found the Germans have done
just about exactly what I suggested and has one of the most successful
healthcare systems in Europe. So I guess all the Germans are idiots
then huh?

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:08:35 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

On the particular moment of Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:07:54 +0000 in
relation to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy, Mike.....
put forth:

Following up to Go Fig wrote:

True, but nobody starves in UK.

Do you have homeless ?

A few and public housing to avoid the problem. Sadly Thatcher sold a
lot off so there isnt quite enough and in some cases the people are
difficult cases.

The homeless are usually homeless due to mental illness, not for lack
of options.

Gee, jiust like in the US. Thanks to liberals who passed laws putting
them there.