That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.
J, if you didn't bring enough penis for everyone, you shouldn't have brought any penis at all.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you Normal Nice Guy.
Obviously you're tired of this Miss P. You either didn't read or misread my argument because you grossly mischaracterized it, more so than you usually do. I'm dropping this argument because we've explored both the moral & economic implications of it.I'll state my position a final time - but will not respond to any commentary.Economic - UHC will be inefficient ---> government programs are inherently inefficient ---> number of hands (IRS on onward = administrative cost) the money passes through b/t taxpayer & recipient. Moral - Those who could afford HC should pay for it before they buy a new car or jacket, failing to = no HC & rightly so. Those unable to afford it should take care of themselves & failing to should = no public HC & rightly so.I'm done, not another comment.
Economic - UHC will be inefficient ---> government programs are inherently inefficient ---> number of hands (IRS on onward = administrative cost) the money passes through b/t taxpayer & recipient.
They really should try to do everything they can to keep these gunmen alive. Then throw them into the general prison population.
Page created in 1.77 seconds with 19 queries.