RE: Re: Please Boycott Whole Foods!!!

[Guest guest]

Well, nothing in my words would suggest I'm agreeing with any argument. I

have agreed with some statements posted during this thread, but am trying to

stay out of it because I don't have time to get involved. The point of my

post was simply that here is another uninsured person who can't afford

health care and is strongly against the government's proposed plans. There

seems to be some misinformation posted earlier that those who oppose

Obamacare are heartless, financially stable insured people.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Suze

> Ok - I made the assumption that since you were agreeing, that you

> agreed with the argument. If you don't, then I apologize.

>

> > Why are you quoting me? I didn't make an argument. If you were

> > referring to

> > the person I was responding to, you should respond to *their* email,

> > not

> > mine.

> >

> > Suze

> >

> > > And the amusing thing about this 'argument' is that the point is

> > made

> > > that as things stand now, we have the right to 'choose', and the

> > Obama

> > > 'plan' would not take that away.

> > >

> > >

> > > > I also don't have health insurance, can't afford and am fully

> > > > against the

> > > > Obamacare plan.

> > > >

> > > > Suze

> > > >

> > > > > I don't have insurance and am fully against it. Oh, and i can't

> > > > afford to

> > > > see a doc if i

> > > > > want to either as we are paycheck to paycheck. I did live in a

> > > > foreign

> > > > country for

> > > > > several yrs with this system and i saw it did ot really work

> > as is

> > > > ebing

> > > > discussed.

> > > > > The nationals were thankful for american docs and a system that

> > > > was not

> > > > bound by

> > > > > the system. Not saying the one weh ave here is perfect, but at

> > > > least we

> > > > have rights

> > > > > to choose, there they do not and get what they are given period.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It honestly baffles me. You must all have insurance.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is a group dedicated to wellness and health, right?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Certainly I didn't post anything that suggested that people who oppose

'obamacare' are heartless, etc...I do hope that the threat by some

Democrats to vote 'no'

if it doesn't contain a 'public option' is a real one. To my mind it

becomes a threshold thing - at what point does the sellout to private

corporations make the thing worth opposing. But obviously, my

opposition would come from the side of a true single payer option...

I do think that some of the opinions and arguments expressed here

against any government involvement in healthcare sound like they are

coming right out of Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh, etc - it's amusing to

me to watch people who are so agitated by food propaganda, so ready to

accept propaganda by the extreme right on issues like this.

> Well, nothing in my words would suggest I'm agreeing with any

> argument. I

> have agreed with some statements posted during this thread, but am

> trying to

> stay out of it because I don't have time to get involved. The point

> of my

> post was simply that here is another uninsured person who can't afford

> health care and is strongly against the government's proposed plans.

> There

> seems to be some misinformation posted earlier that those who oppose

> Obamacare are heartless, financially stable insured people.

> Nothing could be further from the truth.

>

> Suze

>

> > Ok - I made the assumption that since you were agreeing, that you

> > agreed with the argument. If you don't, then I apologize.

> >

> > > Why are you quoting me? I didn't make an argument. If you were

> > > referring to

> > > the person I was responding to, you should respond to *their*

> email,

> > > not

> > > mine.

> > >

> > > Suze

> > >

> > > > And the amusing thing about this 'argument' is that the point is

> > > made

> > > > that as things stand now, we have the right to 'choose', and the

> > > Obama

> > > > 'plan' would not take that away.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > I also don't have health insurance, can't afford and am fully

> > > > > against the

> > > > > Obamacare plan.

> > > > >

> > > > > Suze

> > > > >

> > > > > > I don't have insurance and am fully against it. Oh, and i

> can't

> > > > > afford to

> > > > > see a doc if i

> > > > > > want to either as we are paycheck to paycheck. I did live

> in a

> > > > > foreign

> > > > > country for

> > > > > > several yrs with this system and i saw it did ot really work

> > > as is

> > > > > ebing

> > > > > discussed.

> > > > > > The nationals were thankful for american docs and a system

> that

> > > > > was not

> > > > > bound by

> > > > > > the system. Not saying the one weh ave here is perfect,

> but at

> > > > > least we

> > > > > have rights

> > > > > > to choose, there they do not and get what they are given

> period.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It honestly baffles me. You must all have insurance.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is a group dedicated to wellness and health, right?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Thats insane. If the government pays then the government will decide

what medical treatment is or is not allowed. And given the history of

government working to destroy alternative medicine that would be

catastrophic.

Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote:

>

>

> It seems obvious to me that if you remove the insurance companies, and

> have the government pay (single payer), you are obviously addressing

> " usurious " costs. In fact, this is one of the arguments of the

> opposition - that a public option is " unfair " to private insurance

> companies, who won't be able to compete.

> Re: Please Boycott Whole Foods!!!

>

>

>

> > Healthcare is a RIGHT, and the only way to

> > accomplish that is through

> > a single payer system.:

>

> The pursuit of health is a right. Today's " health care " is

> profit-generating products and services.

>

> Who all has profited while Americans pay more for less?

>

> Fiddling with " who pays " without addressing usurious costs is just

> adding all the uninsured to the sucker pool of those who enrich the

> providers.

>

> I don't think this is too OT for the group, but I was wondering...

> if we have laws about usury, making it illegal to make too much profit

> off loans, why can't we have laws about health care usury?

>

> Connie

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well, let's see....the quoted passage of mine address what was

referred to as " usorious " costs, and simply states that if you take

out the middle man, costs to people will come down.

You retort that this is insane, but you don't address the point at

all. Generally in a discussion there is some semblance of continuity -

if you want to argue that my point is insane, actually refer to it in

some coherent way.

Do most insurance plans now pay for alternative healthcare? Do

corporate insurance companies decide what treatment is allowed? Do

they disallow insurance if you have a preexisting condition, or if you

get sick? What happens if you're poor or unemployed?

I'm surprised that I haven't heard that they are going to 'pull the

plug on Grandma'. Anyone?

> Thats insane. If the government pays then the government will decide

> what medical treatment is or is not allowed. And given the history of

> government working to destroy alternative medicine that would be

> catastrophic.

>

> Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote:

> >

> >

> > It seems obvious to me that if you remove the insurance companies,

> and

> > have the government pay (single payer), you are obviously addressing

> > " usurious " costs. In fact, this is one of the arguments of the

> > opposition - that a public option is " unfair " to private insurance

> > companies, who won't be able to compete.

> > Re: Please Boycott Whole Foods!!!

> >

> >

> >

> > > Healthcare is a RIGHT, and the only way to

> > > accomplish that is through

> > > a single payer system.:

> >

> > The pursuit of health is a right. Today's " health care " is

> > profit-generating products and services.

> >

> > Who all has profited while Americans pay more for less?

> >

> > Fiddling with " who pays " without addressing usurious costs is just

> > adding all the uninsured to the sucker pool of those who enrich the

> > providers.

> >

> > I don't think this is too OT for the group, but I was wondering...

> > if we have laws about usury, making it illegal to make too much

> profit

> > off loans, why can't we have laws about health care usury?

> >

> > Connie

> >

> >