Coward X2
On top of not dealing with the cites that show that you are indeed in favor of continuing limiting the freedoms of the American worker, you are still attacking someone else. In the end, it is just an attempt to distract others to the fact that you are incapable of dealing with the facts.
It’s true JK Rowling’s tax burden is worth more than probably every single person in this thread, so her life is more valuable than all of us combined!
Do I have to assume that you also have “time-line blindness” like many right wingers suffer?
Unfortunately, not even in England they offer treatment for that syndrome. 
That last Harry Potter book was pretty damn good, you have to admit.
I had several posts with questions for those of a libertarian bent. Some were addressed, some weren’t. Let me paste a paragraph asking some that weren’t (and feel free to ignore if they don’t apply to your particular political POV; they were not asked with you in particular in mind):
What government involvement or regulation causes it to be so unprofitable to insure and/or treat so many people without back-breaking costs/premiums passed on to said people? Why would lack of whatever government involvement/regulation cause it to become profitable? With that unprofitability, what would cause companies to fill the demand produced by those people? What would be their motive? Or else, what would keep them from going under and/or having to stave off shareholders/owners angry at the reduced profit?
Like Hell I do! The entire arc of his existential duality was compromised, the thanotological principles are bogus, and Vandermort is like, ewwww!
Oops. Another lie:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=429829&page=3
It seems that many of the right wingers in this thread believe that a Wizard did it. 
Pay no attention to all that socialistic health care help -that she got when she was in need- behind the curtain!
And on preview: I see that the coward freedom hater is still at it.
Well, we have already spent decades identifying those who decide to live on the taxpayer, and they are still doing it…
I am? Huh. I thought I was pointing out that that people value that which they work for far more than anything they are just handed. And that the more you just hand to people. the more dependent they become, and dependent people don’t tend to be very productive.
But you just go ahead and assume anything you want, I’m sure it’s much more fun for you that way.
Regulation (such as licensing and or education requirements) increases the barrier to entry. The higher the barrier to entry into the market the less competition there is.
Clearly, the example presented was not as you describe. Not all poor people will fit your cartoon view of the world.
But as I posted already, many who are indeed working are still living under the fear of going bankrupt under the current rotten system that we have.
But without those regulations, how much quality competition would be added, compared to the “noise” of quacks and the completely unqualified? How would you determine where to draw the regulation line, if any? And how would any of that affect the profitability of treating/insuring those it is unprofitable to treat/insure?
It doesn’t matter! Stop overcomplicating it! The bottom line is her wallet proves that she is more valuable than you!
So who is paying for them now? Since you’re not working, and you’ve allegedly grown up?
Which has what to do with what I posted?
What stuns me most is the impression I get that some people would oppose this thing even if it worked! Even if a trivial contribution from the fortunate and a generous determination from the rest of us…even if that resulted in millions of people living longer, better lives…
They would be against it on principle! Principle! What kind of totally fucked up morally bass-ackwards* principle* would that be? I can understand an argument about whether it will work or not, clearly that cannot be certain, there’s an element of risk.
But to refuse to alleviate suffering and death on the basis of some abstract political science principle is to be morally retarded. The mind putters along quite well, but the spirit is a two year old child seizing a toy firetruck and screaming “Mine”!
Ooops!!! Yeah, I forgot about that. That was only to pay off the hospital bills that incurred – it was only temporary, and it NEVER covered my meds, or doctor’s visits, or anything else I needed. Once those bills were paid off – bam!
I don’t think you understand just how HARD it is to GET assistance. And I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a compassionless, colder, more hateful individual here.
Yes, I forgot. You want to think I lied, go right ahead. In fact, I’d prefer you do.
[sub]Seriously, people, why would I lie? I know people can look up what I’ve said before, so if I made a mistake, please, correct me. It’s not like I give a shit what Crafter_Man and Carol_Stream think.[/sub]
Honestly, I don’t know. I was just stating the economic theory as I learned it in my economics class.
It was until she wrote that horrible epilogue to Book 7. AFAIC, now she can just languish in that ER waiting room like the rest of the unwashed.
I work 2 PT jobs in the healthcare industry and don’t get health insurance with either one–and both hospitals which employ me are “faith-based” non-profits who pride themselves on their charity and compassion, except of course for assisting their PT employees with something as basic as health insurance.
We lost ours (lovely, lovely Blue Cross) when my husband lost his job in February. The COBRA is killing our budget; we are just lucky to not have any real bad chronic illnesses.
Still, I can’t have my foot surgery because then I’d be off for 6 weeks (no work, no pay for my jobs means no income at all for the family) and I can’t have my varicose vein surgery for ditto.
Both of which put me at higher risk for either additional injury or joint issues OR a blood clot in my leg which could either cause localized problems in my leg OR break off and travel to my lungs and kill me. But forget about that pesky health insurance–who needs it? :rolleyes:
How do you figure that 47%, going on 57%, is a trivial contribution?