Eh?  Oh, because I work for the State of Texas and they pay for my health
care I suppose that means I'm using government sponsored health care.  That
would be accurate.  My concern, iam, is that competition will be eliminated
under a single payer system.  Despite some of the rhetoric coming from
proponents of the as yet unfully formed Health Care Reform Bill I believe
this is the goal.  I think this will stifle inovation and absolutely cripple
quality.  I hope I am wrong.

I, of course, have no interest in cutting off my nose to spite my face.  I
will take full atvantage of any government programs offered just as I expect
my fellow citizens to do.  That doesn't mean I think they are a good idea or
good for our country.  Instead of spending time earning a living or exceling
at my job to get a promotion to buy better health care/faster car/bigger
house etc. I'll be spending my talents and efforts into finding government
programs to take advantage of.  I just don't see this sort of thing as
productive for society as a whole.  Again, I hope I'm wrong.

dj


On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:22 AM, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:

> Don  I know you have government sponsored health care   does that mean you
> are willing to give up your social health care because it is universal
> government health care?
> Allan
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:05 AM,
>> ornamentalmind<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "This is human nature. Sneaky and selfish to the bitter end." = DJ
>> >
>> > IF wanting to see universal healthcare for all rather than the only
>> > for the elite, then give me some of that selfishness!
>>
>> Ah, yes.  The end justifies the means.  There are many over the years
>> that share this same philosophy with you.  Chairman Mao, Joseph
>> Stalin, Saul Alinsky, etc., etc.
>>
>> dj
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Aug 27, 12:24 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Too many factors left undefined.  Is he guilty?  If so, what did he
>> >> do?  If he stole a car drunk and ran over a kid getting off a school
>> >> bus by accident then I want him to come home.  If he buggered(very
>> >> popular word in ME lately) my son I'd let him die in prison and not go
>> >> to the funeral.  There are qualifiers for everything.  As rule, I'd
>> >> vote against a policy of compassionate early release.  That doesn't
>> >> mean I wouldn't do my best to circumvent this rule if it benefited me
>> >> somehow.   Case in point; the late Senator Edward Kennedy's dying wish
>> >> was to reverse a rule he supported 4 years ago that benefited the
>> >> Democratic party at the time and screwed the republicans.  Now the
>> >> shoe is on the other foot and he shamelessly wanted things back the
>> >> way they were before he made the change.  This is human nature.
>> >> Sneaky and selfish to the bitter end.
>> >>
>> >> dj
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:49 AM,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [email protected]<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Sorry sir I totaly disagree, lets measure up your one example against
>> >> > what could be considerd the norm.  A quick straw poll should suffice.
>> >>
>> >> > So hands up all of those members here if caught up in the same
>> >> > situation would like to see their father or son come home to die, and
>> >> > hands up all of those who would not?
>> >>
>> >> > On 26 Aug, 10:49, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> For sure, Lee, especially in consideration of the nature of these
>> >> >> crimes, the heinous and monstrous intent.  Not to mention the
>> cultural
>> >> >> aspect, as I pointed out earlier and provided a link, the Muslim
>> >> >> family wants the teenage girl, (their own daughter) dead just on the
>> >> >> basis of religious conversion.  But your assumption in a case where
>> >> >> that girl was in prison for a heinous crime would be that the family
>> >> >> was suffering and felt punished and that it would be compassionate
>> to
>> >> >> let the girl out of prison, send her home to her family because she
>> >> >> was terminally ill.    Unreasonable assumption? Absolutely!
>> >>
>> >> >> On Aug 26, 4:01 am, "[email protected]" <
>> [email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > Slip I have admited there is a bit of that about it, but as I have
>> >> >> > asked you do you belive it is an 'unreasonable' assumption to
>> make?
>> >>
>> >> >> > On 26 Aug, 08:58, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > > Don, logically there is no basis for Lee's view.  It's all based
>> on
>> >> >> > > assumptive reasoning.  We don't know how these family members
>> are
>> >> >> > > feeling and cannot presume they are suffering or feeling
>> punished by
>> >> >> > > the incarceration or by society and again if al-megrahi lives
>> through
>> >> >> > > a whole year there is going to be some heads rolling.  I saw one
>> of
>> >> >> > > the victims stating that her husband was supposed to die of
>> cancer 5
>> >> >> > > years ago and he's still around.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > On Aug 25, 11:43 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > > >  Why should the inocent be punished? -Lee
>> >>
>> >> >> > > > They aren't punished.  I don't doubt they suffer but it's
>> incorrect to
>> >> >> > > > say they are punished.  They are, I suppose in a way, also
>> victims of
>> >> >> > > > their relative's actions.  As I think Slip touched on earlier
>> the only
>> >> >> > > > person that owes these people something is the perpetrator of
>> the
>> >> >> > > > crime.  Certainly I understand compassion for them.  It
>> doesn't make
>> >> >> > > > me want to release a hardened criminal to make them feel
>> better.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > > I'm not sure how many of you took the time to read Tink's
>> little bio.
>> >> >> > > > What stood out for me is his attitude that his incarceration
>> was
>> >> >> > > > unjustified because his infractions were minimal.  I saw a
>> pattern of
>> >> >> > > > 'poor me, I'm the victim.'  This, in my admittedly limited
>> experience,
>> >> >> > > > seems a quite common attitude amongst convicts.  Recidivism
>> being what
>> >> >> > > > it is I'd want to address this personality flaw were I the
>> criminal
>> >> >> > > > type.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > > I'm just sayin'
>> >>
>> >> >> > > > dj
>> >>
>> >> >> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:10 AM,
>> >>
>> >> >> > > > [email protected]<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > > > >> By your logic we should show compassion to a pair of
>> murderers because
>> >> >> > > > >> they are, lets say, orphans.  Never mind they are orphans
>> because they
>> >> >> > > > >> murdered their parents for the inheritance.  It would be
>> hypocritical
>> >> >> > > > >> of me to concern myself with HOW they became orphans, yes?
>>  The poor
>> >> >> > > > >> dears deserve our sympathy.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > > > Opps forgot to address this.
>> >>
>> >> >> > > > > You assume dear boy that the compassion I speak of is to the
>> man
>> >> >> > > > > realsed, and yes there is some there, but I mean mostly his
>> family.
>> >> >> > > > > Why should the inocent be punished?- Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> >>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> (
>  )
> I_D Allan
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to