[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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,

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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?

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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?

[Clyde Slick]

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

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.