Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
The extremists are at it again. They're saying that requiring the uninsured to pay a penalty is taxation. But only when the insurance in question is health insurance. When it's motor vehicle insurance, why then the ****uplicans are all in favor of taxing the uninsured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 40 states levy an "uninsured motorist fee". At first glance, the difference seems related to (surprise!) money. When an uninsured motorist damages you or your vehicle, you have to pay the bills yourself. But when an uninsured patient gets sick, the hospital or the government covers the cost. Thus are all hypocrisies resolved in ****uplican-world. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
On Sep 20, 4:02*pm, George M. Middius
wrote: The extremists are at it again. They're saying that requiring the uninsured to pay a penalty is taxation. But only when the insurance in question is health insurance. When it's motor vehicle insurance, why then the ****uplicans are all in favor of taxing the uninsured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 40 states levy an "uninsured motorist fee". At first glance, the difference seems related to (surprise!) money. When an uninsured motorist damages you or your vehicle, you have to pay the bills yourself. But when an uninsured patient gets sick, the hospital or the government covers the cost. Thus are all hypocrisies resolved in ****uplican-world. A solution would be to only require health insurance against catastrophic health events. then, the penalty could be reduced to only cover the risks of that portion. For day to day' events, the young and healthy can self insure, iof they wish. You need to realize that the requirement for.auto insurnace is for the liability for damage to to others portion, not for the self insurance portion. But I know that neither side is interested in talking compromise, |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
Clyde Slick said: The extremists are at it again. They're saying that requiring the uninsured to pay a penalty is taxation. But only when the insurance in question is health insurance. When it's motor vehicle insurance, why then the ****uplicans are all in favor of taxing the uninsured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 40 states levy an "uninsured motorist fee". At first glance, the difference seems related to (surprise!) money. When an uninsured motorist damages you or your vehicle, you have to pay the bills yourself. But when an uninsured patient gets sick, the hospital or the government covers the cost. Thus are all hypocrisies resolved in ****uplican-world. A solution would be to only require health insurance against catastrophic health events. then, the penalty could be reduced to only cover the risks of that portion. Why don't you take some responsibility for the treasonous yapping of those you choose to travel with? For day to day' events, the young and healthy can self insure, iof they wish. You need to realize that the requirement for.auto insurnace is for the liability for damage to to others portion, not for the self insurance portion. Your idea is seriously flawed. Is cancer a "catastrophic event"? But I know that neither side is interested in talking compromise, If you mean compromise on establishing a universal coverage system, how will you choose which of us gets insurance and which don't? Or do you mean compromise on letting the priests of free enterprise choose between their profits and your health? |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... The extremists are at it again. They're saying that requiring the uninsured to pay a penalty is taxation. But only when the insurance in question is health insurance. When it's motor vehicle insurance, why then the ****uplicans are all in favor of taxing the uninsured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 40 states levy an "uninsured motorist fee". At first glance, the difference seems related to (surprise!) money. When an uninsured motorist damages you or your vehicle, you have to pay the bills yourself. But when an uninsured patient gets sick, the hospital or the government covers the cost. Thus are all hypocrisies resolved in ****uplican-world. Georgie, Your point is fair enough. But why do you attribute uninsured motorist fees to Republicans? Gary Eickmeier |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
Bosey bestirs himself from his estival hibernation. The extremists are at it again. They're saying that requiring the uninsured to pay a penalty is taxation. But only when the insurance in question is health insurance. When it's motor vehicle insurance, why then the ****uplicans are all in favor of taxing the uninsured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 40 states levy an "uninsured motorist fee". At first glance, the difference seems related to (surprise!) money. When an uninsured motorist damages you or your vehicle, you have to pay the bills yourself. But when an uninsured patient gets sick, the hospital or the government covers the cost. Thus are all hypocrisies resolved in ****uplican-world. Georgie, Hi Bosey! You're so Earnest. Your point is fair enough. But why do you attribute uninsured motorist fees to Republicans? I already said that. Crawl back into your cave. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
On Sep 20, 5:50*pm, George M. Middius
wrote: Clyde Slick said: The extremists are at it again. They're saying that requiring the uninsured to pay a penalty is taxation. But only when the insurance in question is health insurance. When it's motor vehicle insurance, why then the ****uplicans are all in favor of taxing the uninsured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 40 states levy an "uninsured motorist fee". At first glance, the difference seems related to (surprise!) money. When an uninsured motorist damages you or your vehicle, you have to pay the bills yourself. But when an uninsured patient gets sick, the hospital or the government covers the cost. Thus are all hypocrisies resolved in ****uplican-world. A solution would be to only require health insurance against catastrophic health events. then, the penalty could be reduced to only cover the risks of that portion. * Why don't you take some responsibility for the treasonous yapping of those you choose to travel with? For day to day' events, the young and healthy can self insure, iof they wish. You need to realize that the requirement for.auto insurnace is for the liability for damage to to others portion, not for the self insurance portion. Your idea is seriously flawed. Is cancer a "catastrophic event"? yes But I know that neither side is interested in talking compromise, If you mean compromise on establishing a universal coverage system, how will you choose which of us gets insurance and which don't? Or do you mean compromise on letting the priests of free enterprise choose between their profits and your health? having politiicians decide for us is worse. they aqre the one's who deny governemnt employees the right to strike, and even deny them the right ot binding arbitration. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
On Sep 20, 6:25*pm, George M. Middius
wrote: Hi Bosey! You're so Earnest. Your point is fair enough. But why do you attribute uninsured motorist fees to Republicans? I already said that. Crawl back into your cave. Birdhouses woulde be more appropriate. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
Clyde Slick said: The extremists are at it again. They're saying that requiring the uninsured to pay a penalty is taxation. But only when the insurance in question is health insurance. When it's motor vehicle insurance, why then the ****uplicans are all in favor of taxing the uninsured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 40 states levy an "uninsured motorist fee". At first glance, the difference seems related to (surprise!) money. When an uninsured motorist damages you or your vehicle, you have to pay the bills yourself. But when an uninsured patient gets sick, the hospital or the government covers the cost. Thus are all hypocrisies resolved in ****uplican-world. A solution would be to only require health insurance against catastrophic health events. Your idea is seriously flawed. Is cancer a "catastrophic event"? yes No. But I know that neither side is interested in talking compromise, If you mean compromise on establishing a universal coverage system, how will you choose which of us gets insurance and which don't? Or do you mean compromise on letting the priests of free enterprise choose between their profits and your health? having politiicians decide for us is worse. You're doing it again. Have you been hanging out with Witless today? Try it again, this time including the word "universal". Also, you're apparently not aware that even the ****uplicans in Congress support a requirement for insurance companies to maintain coverage and not deny coverage in the first place. So no "bureaucrats" are going to give you a death sentence because nobody will be allowed to deny coverage. they aqre the one's who deny governemnt employees the right to strike, and even deny them the right ot binding arbitration. Check your mirror. The foam is probably down to your shoulders by now. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Bosey bestirs himself from his estival hibernation. The extremists are at it again. They're saying that requiring the uninsured to pay a penalty is taxation. But only when the insurance in question is health insurance. When it's motor vehicle insurance, why then the ****uplicans are all in favor of taxing the uninsured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 40 states levy an "uninsured motorist fee". At first glance, the difference seems related to (surprise!) money. When an uninsured motorist damages you or your vehicle, you have to pay the bills yourself. But when an uninsured patient gets sick, the hospital or the government covers the cost. Thus are all hypocrisies resolved in ****uplican-world. Georgie, Hi Bosey! You're so Earnest. Your point is fair enough. But why do you attribute uninsured motorist fees to Republicans? I already said that. Crawl back into your cave. Just humor me. I'm fascinated. Why do you attribute a certain policy to Republicans? Gary Eickmeier |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
Bosey, please pay attention. But why do you attribute uninsured motorist fees to Republicans? I already said that. Crawl back into your cave. Just humor me. I'm fascinated. Why do you attribute a certain policy to Republicans? Why do you keep destroying line lengths when you quote text? |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
On Sep 20, 8:33*pm, George M. Middius
wrote: Bosey, please pay attention. But why do you attribute uninsured motorist fees to Republicans? I already said that. Crawl back into your cave. Just humor me. I'm fascinated. Why do you attribute a certain policy to Republicans? Why do you keep destroying line lengths when you quote text? he has to fit it in those little holes |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
On Sep 20, 7:20*pm, George M. Middius
wrote: Clyde Slick said: The extremists are at it again. They're saying that requiring the uninsured to pay a penalty is taxation. But only when the insurance in question is health insurance. When it's motor vehicle insurance, why then the ****uplicans are all in favor of taxing the uninsured. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 40 states levy an "uninsured motorist fee". At first glance, the difference seems related to (surprise!) money. When an uninsured motorist damages you or your vehicle, you have to pay the bills yourself. But when an uninsured patient gets sick, the hospital or the government covers the cost. Thus are all hypocrisies resolved in ****uplican-world. A solution would be to only require health insurance against catastrophic health events. Your idea is seriously flawed. Is cancer a "catastrophic event"? yes No. But I know that neither side is interested in talking compromise, If you mean compromise on establishing a universal coverage system, how will you choose which of us gets insurance and which don't? Or do you mean compromise on letting the priests of free enterprise choose between their profits and your health? having politiicians decide for us is worse. You're doing it again. Have you been hanging out with Witless today? Try it again, this time including the word "universal". Also, you're apparently not aware that even the ****uplicans in Congress support a requirement for insurance companies to maintain coverage and not deny coverage in the first place. That has absolutley nothing to do with what I was saying. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... On Sep 20, 8:33 pm, George M. Middius wrote: Bosey, please pay attention. But why do you attribute uninsured motorist fees to Republicans? I already said that. Crawl back into your cave. Just humor me. I'm fascinated. Why do you attribute a certain policy to Republicans? Why do you keep destroying line lengths when you quote text? he has to fit it in those little holes I think I'm going to have to leave Wonderland again. One asshole can't answer a simple question, another asshole keeps talking about birdhouses. Do you people have a life at all? Gary Eickmeier |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
Bosey ruffles his feathers in indignation. I already said that. Crawl back into your cave. Just humor me. I'm fascinated. Why do you attribute a certain policy to Republicans? Why do you keep destroying line lengths when you quote text? he has to fit it in those little holes I think I'm going to have to leave Wonderland again. One asshole can't answer a simple question, It's not a case of "can't answer", Bosey. It's "already explained". I think you need to forage for a higher grade of worms -- clearly you're not getting enough protein for your brain to operate properly. another asshole keeps talking about birdhouses. It's a joke at your expense. Please pretend you don't know what it means. Do you people have a life at all? Well, you fixed the line length problem, but you managed to turn off the s before quoted text. Even the Feckless Ferstlerian knew how to post legibly on Usenet. If you do mince off into the sunset, don't forget to flash the wooden Indian. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Such hypocrisy!
On Sep 20, 9:43*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:13*pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message .... On Sep 20, 8:33 pm, George M. Middius wrote: Bosey, please pay attention. But why do you attribute uninsured motorist fees to Republicans? I already said that. Crawl back into your cave. Just humor me. I'm fascinated. Why do you attribute a certain policy to Republicans? Why do you keep destroying line lengths when you quote text? he has to fit it in those little holes I think I'm going to have to leave Wonderland again. One asshole can't answer a simple question, *Because his ideology is based on fantasy and he likes it that way. *Nothing will change that. Both you and Mr. Eickmeier need remedial reading lessons. Read the first post and while you do ask the question "Why aren't the republicans bitching about this?" Perhaps then you'll see why Mr. Eickmeier's question wasn't worth an answer. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bwian McCarty Hypocrisy Champ!!! | Marketplace | |||
Dean's Hypocrisy | Audio Opinions |