The Terrible Sweal

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or a severe short-term memory problem?

You're rotten lying scumbag fuck. If you're proud of that, it's just what I'd expect of such a completely degenerate piece of shit. If Greg seems to think its okay for you to lie and abuse others, then his forum is not a wothwhile place to be. You can't match me in argument, so you resort to infamy. You know what that makes you? Low. Weak.

Bored of the pointless snipes of people who cannot manage a real discussion? Yes.

And you conveniently cutout the part where I said, "Exaggerated maybe, but not so far of a stretch as to lack all credit." I ignored it because it was a worthless, opinionated, irrelevant partisan apologia. Why should I acknowledge such tripe?

Only those who cannot afford it would not 'want' to buy full coverage. Certainly we all have budgets and make choices. Some peoples budgets and choices are constrained by low incomes. Maybe that comes as news to you, but tha would mean you live in some kind of cloistered unreal type of existence ad have little to add to conversations about public policy.

Hugo, you are a rotten lying shitbag. GFY.

Because of their self-righteous busybody moralism. But so what? Their morals don't matter one damn bit in public polic questions. Ain't that just too bad. People who find it unpleasant don't need to observe it. My God! Not ... dance music!

I am agrieved by this epiphany that the erudition of my diction is vexatious to your sensibilities. I deeply regret the (apparently pernicious) super-sufficiency of my rebarbative armamentarium. Please accept my condolences for the insuffiency of your vocabulary.

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time. The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary. None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased. Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade. HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA! Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own. Jerry, did you not NOTICE Netherland's very first sentence, or did you not CARE that your reply was completely misplaced? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweal, your negativity has surpassed being merely a little bit annoying and moved on to being simply boring and tiresome. Get back to me when you have a point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Missed that one too? My point is that your technique is sleazy and your content is wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is that only a lefty could find a way to fault a man for spending time with his own son. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But who did that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Look back, Harper was called "Pathetic" for hanging out with his son. Also in one of the first posts a Layton supporter suggested Harper is a "@%^@$(&*" for hanging out with his son instead of going to a parade. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe, but not in the post you took issue with.

Only those who cannot afford it would not 'want' to buy full coverage.

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time. The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary. None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased. Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade. HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA! Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own. Jerry, did you not NOTICE Netherland's very first sentence, or did you not CARE that your reply was completely misplaced? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweal, your negativity has surpassed being merely a little bit annoying and moved on to being simply boring and tiresome. Get back to me when you have a point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Missed that one too? My point is that your technique is sleazy and your content is wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is that only a lefty could find a way to fault a man for spending time with his own son. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But who did that?

Lower general taxes? That would be a much bigger cash transfer to the rich than the poor. Why not refund all savings to people on an equal basis? Could be good. Regulate, regulate. Sweal, I would never have though that you've got a functionary's view of life. Why would we want to have a single type of core-care? Heck, even eggs don't come in one-size. We already regulate complex and important products. Like, oh, INSURANCE for example. We already provide core standarization in insurance products such as life insurance. Comprehensive healthcare is probably more complex and would justify an more comprehensive standardization of core requirements. If disputes arise, the insured persons are in extremely prejudiced circumstances as compared to the insurers and so greater protection for them is justifiable. Now you kind of make sense, and I even like the "logic" of the $154,000 cut-off.Everybody has enough money to buy health insurance. IOW, everybody is insured. That sounds like the State pays a basic health insurance premium for all and then otherwise gets out of the health business. If we had that, or a variant, Canada's health system would improve. Well, now we might be getting somewhere.

Which means nothing in isolation. If we are getting value for our money, doesn't it make sense to pay these taxes? I certainly concede that a discussion of whether we are getting value for our money is worthwhile, but it seems to me that conservatives approach that question, if at all, with preset conclusions in their minds. 1-We all know that federal and provincial taxes pay for much more than health care alone. 2-Maybe we do have the best health care system in the world. Do you want to have a serious discussion on that? Obviously your hospital is poorly adminstered, or your provincial government is not overseeing them properly, or nurses don't care about people anymore, or the doctor on duty was drunk, or the federal government is not transfering enough money for health care, or you needed complex treatment which required planning and thought, or ... You could be perfectly right. It does not address the problems inherent in two-tier care. 1-It would not mean more supply, it would mean re-directed supply. 2-A couple of hundred dollars a month for every Canadian would be about $72 billion a year. In 2001, at an estimated 9% GDP the cost of healthcare under the current system amounted to about $85 billion. cite By these figures you in effect suggest that market discipline could produce a savings of 13billion per year. (Or alternatively you don't suggest that and simply want better care for yourself.) Obviously, I would doubt such saving are to be found, but let's leave that aside for the moment. What if the government stopped paying for or managing health care and just bought a $2400 policy for every Canadian each year? Would that suit you?

Do you know what a straw man argument is? It is a logical fallacy and you just committed it big time. The idea is, you build up somebody else's position (usually making it sound really weak) then tear it back down and criticize the very position that you yourself created and ASSUMED was held by your adversary. None of what you have said about Harper is true, it's only what you SUPPOSE. And being a lefty, your supposition about his intentions is almost certainly biased. Nice try. Only a lefty would get angry at a father for hanging with his son instead of going to a parade. HaHAHAAAAHAHAHA! Look at this piece of idiocy or mendacity. Jerry gives a pedantic (and manque) rant on strawmen, then turns right around and does a blindingly obvious one of his own. Jerry, did you not NOTICE Netherland's very first sentence, or did you not CARE that your reply was completely misplaced? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sweal, your negativity has surpassed being merely a little bit annoying and moved on to being simply boring and tiresome. Get back to me when you have a point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Missed that one too? My point is that your technique is sleazy and your content is wrong.

Well shame on me. I guess maybe it would be better for me to be less willing to discuss stuff with you.