|
|
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) That really is the point. The government has no business subsidizing medical treatment. Everything the government gets involved in goes thru the roof price-wise. That's the same problem with insurance, if the consumer doesn't have to pay the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) I live about a mile from where the studio used to be. (...) Yes, it was a fantastic radio station. We used to get up every morning to that song "G-Good Morning" (I wish I knew who sang that and how I could get a copy of it). My kids were at (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Hmm. That sounds familiar. Had a 50's sound, recommended against playing with that dweeb, Bruno. It rings a bell, but I can't remember for sure. I'd be willing to bet the song was pro-tolerance. (...) Oops, my bad. I assumed Disney snarfed (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) One reason the gov't is so rabid about seatbelts is because a lot of the medical treatment provided to accident victims (often greatly in excess of existing insurance coverage) comes from public funds. Likewise, the argument goes, since a (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) these (...) it? (...) a (...) of (...) the (...) on (...) killed (...) No need to be so smug. For one, we lose the liberty of choosing what to do with the additional money we are required to shell out - regardless of how small the amount. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
