So when will the stock market plummet back to 7000 level?

[Hoosier4life2005]

I guess the people on this board are smarter than the dictionary when it comes to clarifying words.  Hmmphf.  Thanks for setting me straight FDjake.. (thumbs up).

Whenever I need to know the deffinition of a word, ill now ask Jake or Furnished.   

[sellnbama]

I seen Rick Perry on the that terrible Foxnews(which just dominated the ratings,,btw CNN last place)which mentioned kinda along that same principle as beck.If we open up interstate buying healthcare insurance,,it drives down costs,and makes them compete.Makes sense to me(an evil capitalist).

Now if "universal healthcare" bankrupts us(if at all possible,more than now)we all go down in flames.I like Perry's proposal,,so if one state goes belly up you just move your business to another.Rather than the alternative,,moving to a country(perhaps to the one all our doctors who are capitalists go)that has merged back to private healthcare.

[fdjake]

I've  never seen a DICTIONARY that could turn $40,000 into $80,000 so I agree....

The people here ARE smarter than a DICTIONARY!!!!

and...........YOU'RE WELCOME!!!!

[PositiveOutlook]

Furnishedowner,

"I won't catch your AIDs, TB, etc. because YOU will also be receiving health care. Including preventative health care."

The logic problem is on your side...  even with your panacea of 100% government run healthcare, the deseases you list will still be communicable...  treatment is still available TODAY....

As I've said before...  you practice capitalism for yourself, but want socialism for others... why???  Why would you not be advocating policies that promote the very thing you practice??  To me, a capitalist is someone who practices it AND promotes it...  Or are you just better than everyone else or is it a case of the heart being bigger than the head?...  It just doesn't make sense living the life of a capitalist, but promoting the life of a socialist, you don't see the glaring inconsistency here?...  the more you do for someone, the less they will do for themselves...  just look at the inner cities... free lodging, free healthcare, free food, free, free, free...  All paid for by the government...  and yet look at the miserable existence they live... WHY would you want that life for ANYONE???  Do you consider that compassionate?

Who do you think will pay for the taxes they are going to raise as part of funding this healthcare debacle?  Businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them... the cost goes down to whomever their market is...

How does adding TRILLIONS of dollars to the existing "broken" system, which will not even get to the panacea of 100% coverage (what happens to the rest?), SAVE money???

See, from what I read of your posts, you just WANT it, and you are willing to self-delude to get it...  it doesn't matter the destruction that it will leave in it's path...  Medicaid - BROKE, Medicare - BROKE, Social Security - BROKE, and now the answer is to add MORE of this???  The government couldn't even handle the vaccinations right, and they almost a years notice, and promoting it all over the place, and you think this is the way to go???

Where is the logic in that???

[furnishedowner]

hoosier,
The Glenn Beck plan, as you mentioned it, asked "How would the states do after a year on that plan?"  With Massachusetts (universal health care) and Texas (nothing) as the examples.

IT"S THE WRONG QUESTION!

The question should be "How are the PEOPLE doing after a year on those plans?"

I don't have time to look it up, but it is my recollection that Texas is near the bottom in getting health care to the poor.  That Texas has high infant mortality, high numbers of un-vaccinated children, and also has about the highest percentage of children/adults with no health coverage whatsoever.

So let's see what the mortality rate is after a year from cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, prematurity, flu.  Let's compare how the citizens of those two states are doing health-wise.  That's what this is all about.  Not the state budget.

sellnbama,
You mentioned opening up the interstate buying of health care insurance--does anyone know WHY we don't have this?  Did the insurance companies divide up the pie or did the government only license certain companies in some states?

Can anyone tell us why we don't have a complete menu of insurance offerings now?  Would this increase their costs of doing business so much that they have to be regional only?  Would this create billing nightmares for hospitals and doctors?

Is this already an anti-trust violation?

Furnishedowner

[sellnbama]

Furnished,
I'm thinking that it's a little of both govt/insurance co. being corrupt is the answer to why we can't buy health insurance among states.I know here in alabama blue cross/sheild is it,,and to me that's corrupt as hell.And does'nt that also violate monopoly laws? How about this too,I pay into a govt pool that's only catastrophic insurance say it picks up @ $10k for example.Then I keep my private insurance for under $10k at a fraction of the cost I'm paying now,or even better the option to buy nationwide.I'd be happy as heck w/ that.

Now for the people who can't afford to pay anything(provided they check intensly into their "qualification").I suggest the hospital,govt,insurance co have a pool that they all contribute to in order to divide this burden.And unlike welfare,food stamps,etc a board is assigned to oversee these people's employment/income until they are able to stand on their own.JUst a thought,,I don't mind contributing as long as it helps the helpless not the hopeless.The hopeless are bankrupting you and me........period.     

[John_in_NC]

Wow look what I found!

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/XH5W4vffBbY/


in case you don't know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tudor_Jones