On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing
conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing
condition.
That is not how health status insurance works. It is insurance against
an
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Trent Shipleytship...@deru.com wrote:
The people outside the boundary are not my responsibility. They are not
my people. Furthermore, they don't participate in my moral economy.
The status of the poor in my country has an immediate effect on me. I
may be
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Trent Shipleytship...@deru.com wrote:
So insurance could charge someone with type II diabetes more, but not
someone with type I diabetes. You could charge more to people who,
smoke, are over weight, who don't exercise, or who practice un-safe sex.
You
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Lance A. Brownla...@bearcircle.net wrote:
The analogy between auto and health insurance fails in one regard: Most
of the time, a 5x increase in auto insurance premiums is a direct result
of decisions by the covered person. Many of causes for increases in
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:52 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
OK, I fear this won't work, but I'm going to try.
Work? How does it work?
So, you can decide that everyone else is crazy or you can decide that there
are areas that you can learn more about.
I choose
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:02 PM, John Williamsjwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote:
So, you consider his post to me thoughtful, constructive, and worthy of
respect?
Yes.
Martin
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Doug Pensinger wrote (in html, and it's a hell to reformat):
I do occasionally blow up. Once when I was accused of racism,
once when a private discussion I'd had with someone was forwarded
to the list, and ISTR Nick and I talking completely at
cross-purposes. I was really annoyed on Friday
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
Another good reason for heath status insurance
John, you realize what you are arguing, don't you. If
On 18/08/2009, at 12:11 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
What you are searching for is akin to trying to find an even prime
number.
It's really easy to find one...
...but then you go looking for another...
Charlie.
But There's One, So There Must Be Another Eventually Maru
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those
who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the
insurance market to function rationally.
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:03, John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing
conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing
condition.
That is not how
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market,
You call it interference, I call it participation.
Well, at least you don't try to hide your bias.
Dave
___
It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude
to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts
during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I
have been asking some uncomfortable questions, but not making any
obviously rude remarks.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
There is a reason why there isn't affordable long term insurance.
Yes, government interference and people who would rather spend other
people's money for their own insurance.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance
companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing,
but not based in reality: insurance allways takes into account risks.
No,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Dave Landdml...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market,
You call it interference, I call it participation.
I'd agree with forced participation.
Here's an example of
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those
who cannot afford to pay
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:11 AM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance
companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing,
but not based in reality:
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:57, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it
seems to me that it would be simpler just to
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status
insurance works. It
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:57, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote:
If the government is going to
Hello all --
I didn't mean to drop out of this, ummm, 'discussion', but I lost the email
I intended to respond to over the w/e. What can I say? I turned 61 and had
to put a 9 year old cat down due to cancer -- not a good day until Charlie
reminded me 61 is a prime number! Cheered me right up.
John Williams wrote:
It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude
to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts
during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I
have been asking some uncomfortable questions, but not making any
On 17 Aug 2009 at 17:06, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
No, considering pre-existing
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
That doesn't really prove anything. For instance,
a flame war would produce a large number of posts,
but one could hardly call that communication.
Of course it does not prove anything, but it is highly suggestive.
While
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Andrew
Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote:
And in most cases, the likelyhood of you developing those conditions
is dependent on pre-existing conditions!
I have not seen any evidence that suggests this. There are a large
number of conditions that can result
On 8/17/2009 8:04:00 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
That doesn't really prove anything. For instance,
a flame war would produce a large number of posts,
but one could hardly call that
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote:
Your statement reads quite humorously.G
That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and
rude and sincere. Feel free to give my posts the benefit of the
doubt...
On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net
wrote:
Your statement reads quite humorously.G
That's great! Apparently there is a fine line between humorous and
rude and sincere. Feel free to give
Do you think you're fooling anyone with this schtick?
I hope not. It is certainly not my intention to fool anyone.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote:
On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net
wrote:
Your statement reads quite humorously.G
That's great! Apparently there
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:02 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
Hi. Seriously, are you trolling, or just
dense? : ) We rank respect the way most communities
do--completely informally.
Not trolling.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do,
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, indeed.
We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help observing are at two
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote:
Actually, a health insurance market without government interference
would be a lot more consumer-driven than the current system, which
is why I mentioned it. In nearly all cases, if there is to be a
Howso?
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
Is health care so unimportant that it deserves no regulation?
We are starting from different worldviews, I think. I believe in
freedom for people to make agreements with each other as they choose
-- that is my starting
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a sense of community here, along with the usual
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
explicit and implicit standards of behavior and discourse. We do, indeed.
We don't like straw men or trolls (which I can't help
Did someone say John's been on this list for 10 years? Did I misread
that??
I told John many of us had been. Maybe that got mangled. Maybe by me. :-)
Dan M.
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote:
On 8/17/2009 9:12:11 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net
wrote:
On 8/17/2009 8:48:30 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:54 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a sense of community here, along with the usual collaterals of
explicit and implicit standards of behavior and
Original Message:
-
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:08:44 -0700
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
I was just asking questions.
Actually, the same question has been asked and answered N
John Williams wrote:
...
We don't like straw men or trolls
...
There's that we several more times. How many people subscribe to this
email list, and how many of them do you speak for when you say we? How
did you determine that these people have that view?
You're not going to claim that all
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:22 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
Actually, the same question has been asked and answered N times.
N=1, David just answered the question, mostly. we apparently refers
to an unnamed group of about 50 people.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
I note you snipped the etiquette guidelines. : )
I did snip it. I did read it.
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
- Original Message -
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:53 PM,
We know each other and know each
other's positions.
What about those of us who try not to have positions?
___
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
No, when I say we in this context, I mean that we have in the past booted
people from the list as a group in most cases. There being no one person in
particular one can suck up to in order to avoid consequences, it behooves
everyone to be generally inoffensive. A few people have been
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrobxponent...@comcast.net wrote:
But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you pegged
as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be.
My apologies for not being as perceptive as you are.
No, when I say we
- Original Message -
From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:05 PM,
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrobxponent...@comcast.net wrote:
But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you
pegged as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to be.
My apologies for not being as perceptive as you
On 8/17/2009 11:03:58 PM, Trent Shipley (tship...@deru.com) wrote:
No, when I say we in this context, I mean that we have in the past
booted people from the list as a group in most cases. There being no one
person in particular one can suck up to in order to avoid consequences, it
behooves
On 8/17/2009 11:04:59 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM, xponentrobxponent...@comcast.net
wrote:
But no, I do not give you the benefit of the doubt. I think I have you
pegged as exactly the kind of intentionally obtuse person you appear to
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote:
On 8/17/2009 11:09:15 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Jo Anneevens...@hevanet.com wrote:
And there I rest my case on the tone thing.
I wrote that as clearly and as
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:15 PM, xponentrobxponent...@comcast.net wrote:
No one particular cares how many lurkers there are.
I care, that is why I asked.
It is pretty much the same as using we when speaking for Americans even
though Americans are very diverse there is still considerable
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:36 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote:
It is interesting what some people find rude which does not seem rude
to others. I suspect that a neutral observer would look at my posts
during the last few weeks and judge that they are not at all rude. I
have
Trent Shipley wrote:
We know each other and know each
other's positions.
What about those of us who try not to have positions?
Don't worry Trent, you are as ambiguous as ever. 8^)
Doug
___
58 matches
Mail list logo
