<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_22_0929202</id>
	<title>House Passes Massive Medical Insurance Bill, 219-212</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269259920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The votes are in: yesterday evening, after a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-21-abortion-compromise-health-care\_N.htm">last-minute compromise over abortion payments</a>, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill effecting major changes in American medical finance. From the BBC's coverage: "The president is <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8579322.stm">expected to sign the House-passed Senate bill as early as Tuesday</a>, after which it will be officially enacted into law. However, it will contain some very unpopular measures that Democratic senators have agreed to amend. The Senate will be able to make the required changes in a separate bill using a procedure known as reconciliation, which allows budget provisions to be approved with 51 votes - rather than the 60 needed to overcome blocking tactics." No Republican voted in favor of the bill; 34 Democrats voted against. As law, the system set forth would extend insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million Americans, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-22/house-approves-landmark-u-s-health-care-overhaul-legislation.html">impose new taxes on high-income earners</a> as well as provide some tax breaks and subsidies for others, and considerably <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world\_us/88797017.html">toughen the regulatory regime under which insurance companies operate</a>. The anticipated insurance regime phases in (starting with children, and expanding to adults in 2014) a requirement that insurance providers accept those with preexisting conditions, and creates a system of fines, expected to be administered by the IRS, for those who fail or refuse to obtain health insurance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The votes are in : yesterday evening , after a last-minute compromise over abortion payments , the US House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill effecting major changes in American medical finance .
From the BBC 's coverage : " The president is expected to sign the House-passed Senate bill as early as Tuesday , after which it will be officially enacted into law .
However , it will contain some very unpopular measures that Democratic senators have agreed to amend .
The Senate will be able to make the required changes in a separate bill using a procedure known as reconciliation , which allows budget provisions to be approved with 51 votes - rather than the 60 needed to overcome blocking tactics .
" No Republican voted in favor of the bill ; 34 Democrats voted against .
As law , the system set forth would extend insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million Americans , impose new taxes on high-income earners as well as provide some tax breaks and subsidies for others , and considerably toughen the regulatory regime under which insurance companies operate .
The anticipated insurance regime phases in ( starting with children , and expanding to adults in 2014 ) a requirement that insurance providers accept those with preexisting conditions , and creates a system of fines , expected to be administered by the IRS , for those who fail or refuse to obtain health insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The votes are in: yesterday evening, after a last-minute compromise over abortion payments, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill effecting major changes in American medical finance.
From the BBC's coverage: "The president is expected to sign the House-passed Senate bill as early as Tuesday, after which it will be officially enacted into law.
However, it will contain some very unpopular measures that Democratic senators have agreed to amend.
The Senate will be able to make the required changes in a separate bill using a procedure known as reconciliation, which allows budget provisions to be approved with 51 votes - rather than the 60 needed to overcome blocking tactics.
" No Republican voted in favor of the bill; 34 Democrats voted against.
As law, the system set forth would extend insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million Americans, impose new taxes on high-income earners as well as provide some tax breaks and subsidies for others, and considerably toughen the regulatory regime under which insurance companies operate.
The anticipated insurance regime phases in (starting with children, and expanding to adults in 2014) a requirement that insurance providers accept those with preexisting conditions, and creates a system of fines, expected to be administered by the IRS, for those who fail or refuse to obtain health insurance.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568782</id>
	<title>Government</title>
	<author>mcfedr</author>
	<datestamp>1269273780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't see what you guy's problem with government doing things is. Surely something like health care, which everybody should have the right to, and therefore isn't a viable business environment, should be run by someone with no interest in trying to make money out of it. Health care should be about providing for people, not making money for share holders, something that no money making business will ever achieve.

That all assumes that you do want there to be health care for all, not just those wealthy enough to afford it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't see what you guy 's problem with government doing things is .
Surely something like health care , which everybody should have the right to , and therefore is n't a viable business environment , should be run by someone with no interest in trying to make money out of it .
Health care should be about providing for people , not making money for share holders , something that no money making business will ever achieve .
That all assumes that you do want there to be health care for all , not just those wealthy enough to afford it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't see what you guy's problem with government doing things is.
Surely something like health care, which everybody should have the right to, and therefore isn't a viable business environment, should be run by someone with no interest in trying to make money out of it.
Health care should be about providing for people, not making money for share holders, something that no money making business will ever achieve.
That all assumes that you do want there to be health care for all, not just those wealthy enough to afford it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569954</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>jwl17330536</author>
	<datestamp>1269277140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?"

I don't know, but should it?  What is in place to ensure that someone who is poor has the same car as someone who is wealthy?

Life isn't fair!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 3 ) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy ?
" I do n't know , but should it ?
What is in place to ensure that someone who is poor has the same car as someone who is wealthy ?
Life is n't fair !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?
"

I don't know, but should it?
What is in place to ensure that someone who is poor has the same car as someone who is wealthy?
Life isn't fair!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570112</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where there is force charity can not exist.  I do not believe the guarantee of welfare is worth sacrificing any pretense of freedom and individual right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where there is force charity can not exist .
I do not believe the guarantee of welfare is worth sacrificing any pretense of freedom and individual right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where there is force charity can not exist.
I do not believe the guarantee of welfare is worth sacrificing any pretense of freedom and individual right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573192</id>
	<title>Deficit hawks' new religion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's funny watching the conservative Republicans and libertarians wet their pants over this.
<br>
<br>
I don't remember too many libertarians or conservatives throwing a fit over the trillion dollars we threw away in Iraq.  It's funny how the teabaggers sat on their asses for 8 years while conservatives looted our country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny watching the conservative Republicans and libertarians wet their pants over this .
I do n't remember too many libertarians or conservatives throwing a fit over the trillion dollars we threw away in Iraq .
It 's funny how the teabaggers sat on their asses for 8 years while conservatives looted our country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny watching the conservative Republicans and libertarians wet their pants over this.
I don't remember too many libertarians or conservatives throwing a fit over the trillion dollars we threw away in Iraq.
It's funny how the teabaggers sat on their asses for 8 years while conservatives looted our country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573492</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269288480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>P.S.</p><p>Let me share MY viewpoint of the situation: - The Senate Bill passed the Senate 60-to-whatever. In the Senate 60 votes have been required since time immemorial. Even Senator Obama said that during his time in the Senate, and he REFUSED to change the rule during his time there.</p><p>Next the Democrats questioned if they even need to vote. Pelosi said she could just "deem" it passed without a rollcall vote! Then she changed her mind but even the fact she Considered it makes me question her honesty or legality. ----- Now the bill has passed the House, which means the Senate has to vote a SECOND time on the revised bill, per the Constitution and 200-yr-old tradition. The Democrats say 51 is enough, but the Republicans naturally question if the bill could pass, PER THE RULES which require 60.</p><p>The Republicans are merely trying to follow the laws of the House and Senate, while the Democrats seem intent upon "deeming" the laws unnecessary (like they deem the Constitution as non-existent) and ignoring all parliamentary procedure, including not taking votes (Slaughter rule). It reminds me of this scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecn0BgX-hg&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecn0BgX-hg&amp;feature=related</a> [youtube.com] - Ignore the vote, ignore the law, just shove it through.</p><p>Anyway that's my view from the sidelines.</p><p>Bottom Line: I expect this Pelosicare government Welfare-style program to be as corrupt as the non-legal corrupt process that produced it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>P.S.Let me share MY viewpoint of the situation : - The Senate Bill passed the Senate 60-to-whatever .
In the Senate 60 votes have been required since time immemorial .
Even Senator Obama said that during his time in the Senate , and he REFUSED to change the rule during his time there.Next the Democrats questioned if they even need to vote .
Pelosi said she could just " deem " it passed without a rollcall vote !
Then she changed her mind but even the fact she Considered it makes me question her honesty or legality .
----- Now the bill has passed the House , which means the Senate has to vote a SECOND time on the revised bill , per the Constitution and 200-yr-old tradition .
The Democrats say 51 is enough , but the Republicans naturally question if the bill could pass , PER THE RULES which require 60.The Republicans are merely trying to follow the laws of the House and Senate , while the Democrats seem intent upon " deeming " the laws unnecessary ( like they deem the Constitution as non-existent ) and ignoring all parliamentary procedure , including not taking votes ( Slaughter rule ) .
It reminds me of this scene : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = -ecn0BgX-hg&amp;feature = related [ youtube.com ] - Ignore the vote , ignore the law , just shove it through.Anyway that 's my view from the sidelines.Bottom Line : I expect this Pelosicare government Welfare-style program to be as corrupt as the non-legal corrupt process that produced it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P.S.Let me share MY viewpoint of the situation: - The Senate Bill passed the Senate 60-to-whatever.
In the Senate 60 votes have been required since time immemorial.
Even Senator Obama said that during his time in the Senate, and he REFUSED to change the rule during his time there.Next the Democrats questioned if they even need to vote.
Pelosi said she could just "deem" it passed without a rollcall vote!
Then she changed her mind but even the fact she Considered it makes me question her honesty or legality.
----- Now the bill has passed the House, which means the Senate has to vote a SECOND time on the revised bill, per the Constitution and 200-yr-old tradition.
The Democrats say 51 is enough, but the Republicans naturally question if the bill could pass, PER THE RULES which require 60.The Republicans are merely trying to follow the laws of the House and Senate, while the Democrats seem intent upon "deeming" the laws unnecessary (like they deem the Constitution as non-existent) and ignoring all parliamentary procedure, including not taking votes (Slaughter rule).
It reminds me of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecn0BgX-hg&amp;feature=related [youtube.com] - Ignore the vote, ignore the law, just shove it through.Anyway that's my view from the sidelines.Bottom Line: I expect this Pelosicare government Welfare-style program to be as corrupt as the non-legal corrupt process that produced it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567794</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Digital Mage</author>
	<datestamp>1269271260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't worry about people emigrating....odds are they would move to a country with a government run health care system anyway...they just don't realize it.  Even Rush made that mistake with this quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know. I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented -- I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica</p></div><p>By the way, Costa Rica has a health care system subsidized by the state:<br><a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/357920/costa\_rica\_a\_look\_at\_its\_national\_healthcare.html?cat=5" title="associatedcontent.com">http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/357920/costa\_rica\_a\_look\_at\_its\_national\_healthcare.html?cat=5</a> [associatedcontent.com]</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..and with the way real estate prices have gone in the U.S. they won't be moving anytime soon.  In 5 years they'll have forgotten about what they were bitching about anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't worry about people emigrating....odds are they would move to a country with a government run health care system anyway...they just do n't realize it .
Even Rush made that mistake with this quote : I do n't know .
I 'll just tell you this , if this passes and it 's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented -- I am leaving the country .
I 'll go to Costa RicaBy the way , Costa Rica has a health care system subsidized by the state : http : //www.associatedcontent.com/article/357920/costa \ _rica \ _a \ _look \ _at \ _its \ _national \ _healthcare.html ? cat = 5 [ associatedcontent.com ] ..and with the way real estate prices have gone in the U.S. they wo n't be moving anytime soon .
In 5 years they 'll have forgotten about what they were bitching about anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't worry about people emigrating....odds are they would move to a country with a government run health care system anyway...they just don't realize it.
Even Rush made that mistake with this quote:I don't know.
I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented -- I am leaving the country.
I'll go to Costa RicaBy the way, Costa Rica has a health care system subsidized by the state:http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/357920/costa\_rica\_a\_look\_at\_its\_national\_healthcare.html?cat=5 [associatedcontent.com] ..and with the way real estate prices have gone in the U.S. they won't be moving anytime soon.
In 5 years they'll have forgotten about what they were bitching about anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569798</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1269276720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Theoretically nothing.  Though some states have shown mumblings of interest in stepping in and imposing limits themselves in the wake of some of the latest premium increases.
<br> <br>
2) Most states currently mandate minimum care standards, which is the biggest impediment to "shopping across state lines".  They should probably be standardized nation-wide, but this bill didn't do that.
<br> <br>
3) That's a non-feature of our system.  We tried to provide a certain minimum level of care to everyone, but people should be able to pay for additional costs they'd like to incur.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Theoretically nothing .
Though some states have shown mumblings of interest in stepping in and imposing limits themselves in the wake of some of the latest premium increases .
2 ) Most states currently mandate minimum care standards , which is the biggest impediment to " shopping across state lines " .
They should probably be standardized nation-wide , but this bill did n't do that .
3 ) That 's a non-feature of our system .
We tried to provide a certain minimum level of care to everyone , but people should be able to pay for additional costs they 'd like to incur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Theoretically nothing.
Though some states have shown mumblings of interest in stepping in and imposing limits themselves in the wake of some of the latest premium increases.
2) Most states currently mandate minimum care standards, which is the biggest impediment to "shopping across state lines".
They should probably be standardized nation-wide, but this bill didn't do that.
3) That's a non-feature of our system.
We tried to provide a certain minimum level of care to everyone, but people should be able to pay for additional costs they'd like to incur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567548</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269270660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An illegal immigrant gets a runny nose and goes to the ER and gets treated....</p><p>All of us tax-paying, legal, citizens, still foot the bill for them not paying.</p><p>what does this change for any of that?</p><p>Nothing.</p><p>Get rid of the fucking illegals in this country and our tax money footing the bill for educating their kids, delivering their babies (who should be illegal regardless of being born on our soil), etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An illegal immigrant gets a runny nose and goes to the ER and gets treated....All of us tax-paying , legal , citizens , still foot the bill for them not paying.what does this change for any of that ? Nothing.Get rid of the fucking illegals in this country and our tax money footing the bill for educating their kids , delivering their babies ( who should be illegal regardless of being born on our soil ) , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An illegal immigrant gets a runny nose and goes to the ER and gets treated....All of us tax-paying, legal, citizens, still foot the bill for them not paying.what does this change for any of that?Nothing.Get rid of the fucking illegals in this country and our tax money footing the bill for educating their kids, delivering their babies (who should be illegal regardless of being born on our soil), etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567098</id>
	<title>I live in the UK...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and today, I had to take a day off work because my son has an ear infection. So I called the doctor at 8.30, and got an appointment at 11. By midday, I had a bottle of Amoxicillin and some good advice. At no point during this morning did any money, or insurance details, change hands.</p><p>Because I used to live in a poor part of town and have never got around to changing my doctor, all of the other people in the surgery were significantly less well-off than me. But it was funny -- they all expected their children's ears to be healed just as much as I did! And, get this, the doctor proceeded to help them as if they were <i>just the same as me</i>! It was almost as if it were a self-evident truth, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights or something</p><p>This is a day for America to be proud of itself. As usual, it took a while, but the most prosperous country on Earth stepped up and Did The Right Thing. Your grand-children will be proud of you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and today , I had to take a day off work because my son has an ear infection .
So I called the doctor at 8.30 , and got an appointment at 11 .
By midday , I had a bottle of Amoxicillin and some good advice .
At no point during this morning did any money , or insurance details , change hands.Because I used to live in a poor part of town and have never got around to changing my doctor , all of the other people in the surgery were significantly less well-off than me .
But it was funny -- they all expected their children 's ears to be healed just as much as I did !
And , get this , the doctor proceeded to help them as if they were just the same as me !
It was almost as if it were a self-evident truth , that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights or somethingThis is a day for America to be proud of itself .
As usual , it took a while , but the most prosperous country on Earth stepped up and Did The Right Thing .
Your grand-children will be proud of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and today, I had to take a day off work because my son has an ear infection.
So I called the doctor at 8.30, and got an appointment at 11.
By midday, I had a bottle of Amoxicillin and some good advice.
At no point during this morning did any money, or insurance details, change hands.Because I used to live in a poor part of town and have never got around to changing my doctor, all of the other people in the surgery were significantly less well-off than me.
But it was funny -- they all expected their children's ears to be healed just as much as I did!
And, get this, the doctor proceeded to help them as if they were just the same as me!
It was almost as if it were a self-evident truth, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights or somethingThis is a day for America to be proud of itself.
As usual, it took a while, but the most prosperous country on Earth stepped up and Did The Right Thing.
Your grand-children will be proud of you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Republicans are opposed because it's obama's idea.</p><p>Then you have 'news' channels that do everything in their power to attack the president (which according to their own rule was very unpatriotic just one president ago), so again, because it's obama's idea.</p><p>And aside from that, there's a lot of FUD, leading to a lot of opposition amongst the people (kill squads for the elderly, all doctors stopping their work because they won't get paid, tripling of taxes, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Republicans are opposed because it 's obama 's idea.Then you have 'news ' channels that do everything in their power to attack the president ( which according to their own rule was very unpatriotic just one president ago ) , so again , because it 's obama 's idea.And aside from that , there 's a lot of FUD , leading to a lot of opposition amongst the people ( kill squads for the elderly , all doctors stopping their work because they wo n't get paid , tripling of taxes , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republicans are opposed because it's obama's idea.Then you have 'news' channels that do everything in their power to attack the president (which according to their own rule was very unpatriotic just one president ago), so again, because it's obama's idea.And aside from that, there's a lot of FUD, leading to a lot of opposition amongst the people (kill squads for the elderly, all doctors stopping their work because they won't get paid, tripling of taxes, etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567384</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269270240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone can make themselves sound reasonable when they are permitted to create their own definitions of words in order to bolster their biased viewpoint.<br>Kudos to you, and looking forward to the publication of your entire new dictionary of redefined words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone can make themselves sound reasonable when they are permitted to create their own definitions of words in order to bolster their biased viewpoint.Kudos to you , and looking forward to the publication of your entire new dictionary of redefined words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone can make themselves sound reasonable when they are permitted to create their own definitions of words in order to bolster their biased viewpoint.Kudos to you, and looking forward to the publication of your entire new dictionary of redefined words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566752</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1269268620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Preexisting conditions include chronic diseases and congenital conditions.  It doesn't include an acute process that requires immediate intervention.  Routine procedures like a c-section, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, pneumonia, and trauma (MVA) usually affect younger adults.  You'll be paying upwards of $20k per event and you won't be able to enroll in a plan and submit the bills retroactively.  You can't plan your health care like your retirement.  You plan for the worst and be thankful for your good luck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Preexisting conditions include chronic diseases and congenital conditions .
It does n't include an acute process that requires immediate intervention .
Routine procedures like a c-section , cholecystectomy , appendectomy , pneumonia , and trauma ( MVA ) usually affect younger adults .
You 'll be paying upwards of $ 20k per event and you wo n't be able to enroll in a plan and submit the bills retroactively .
You ca n't plan your health care like your retirement .
You plan for the worst and be thankful for your good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Preexisting conditions include chronic diseases and congenital conditions.
It doesn't include an acute process that requires immediate intervention.
Routine procedures like a c-section, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, pneumonia, and trauma (MVA) usually affect younger adults.
You'll be paying upwards of $20k per event and you won't be able to enroll in a plan and submit the bills retroactively.
You can't plan your health care like your retirement.
You plan for the worst and be thankful for your good luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573666</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1269289080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?</p><p>Because a system that will allow them both to die is better than one that provides an option if you are willing and able to pay for it?  If a procedure costs 1 million to do you think a poor person is going to be able to get the procedure under any government plan?  the procedure will just not exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy ? Because a system that will allow them both to die is better than one that provides an option if you are willing and able to pay for it ?
If a procedure costs 1 million to do you think a poor person is going to be able to get the procedure under any government plan ?
the procedure will just not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?Because a system that will allow them both to die is better than one that provides an option if you are willing and able to pay for it?
If a procedure costs 1 million to do you think a poor person is going to be able to get the procedure under any government plan?
the procedure will just not exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565968</id>
	<title>Got a better solution?</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1269266280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really am unsure if the government should take care of these people, as they are already a drain on our society to begin with...</p></div><p>If you have a better system, please let us know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really am unsure if the government should take care of these people , as they are already a drain on our society to begin with...If you have a better system , please let us know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really am unsure if the government should take care of these people, as they are already a drain on our society to begin with...If you have a better system, please let us know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576946</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269259140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didnt like it so I left.  I got nationalized health care when I left USA and got Australian Permanent Residency, but I'm not going back just because the USA got this bill passed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I didnt like it so I left .
I got nationalized health care when I left USA and got Australian Permanent Residency , but I 'm not going back just because the USA got this bill passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didnt like it so I left.
I got nationalized health care when I left USA and got Australian Permanent Residency, but I'm not going back just because the USA got this bill passed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574280</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1269291480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.</i></p><p>To understand the answers, you need to understand the true purpose of the bill.</p><p>The Democrats want to completely socialize health care: they call it "single payer", i.e. the US Government is the only entity to pay for health care.  The Democrats knew they couldn't get there immediately, but rather needed to pretend to do something else.</p><p><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/49788" title="cnsnews.com">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/49788</a> [cnsnews.com]</p><p>This bill is over 2700 pages long, and I haven't read it.  So, I'm relying on various news sources for this analysis.  But as I understand it, here is how the bill works:</p><p>Each American is required to buy health insurance.  Anyone who cannot afford it can apply to the government for help.  But those who don't buy insurance, can simply pay a "fine" to the government.  This fine will cost <em> <b>less</b> </em> than the insurance would have cost.</p><p>This bill also requires insurance companies to accept anyone, and pay for their care, regardless of pre-existing conditions.</p><p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.faqs/index.html" title="cnn.com">http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.faqs/index.html</a> [cnn.com]</p><p>So, in short: I could cancel all my insurance, and pay a fine to the government, and no insurance company gets any of that money.  Then one day I could discover that I had cancer, buy insurance, and that insurance company would be compelled to accept me as a patient and pay for my cancer treatment.  Or, one day I could get in a car crash, then buy the insurance and get treated.</p><p>Because the above would completely destroy the actuarial basis of insurance, all the companies currently providing health insurance would be forced by cold hard economic reality to stop selling insurance.  If they didn't stop on their own, they would go out of business, and close down.</p><p>The end game is that the US government would announce that due to the entirely unexpected and unforeseeable wave of insurance companies closing down, the US government would start offering insurance.  That, or else it would buy the remaining insurance companies the way the government bought failing car manufacturers.</p><p>And there you go: single-payer.  The US government would provide all "insurance" (really, it wouldn't look anything like insurance at that point, but the name would be kept for sentimental reasons).</p><p>Also, the bill as written saves a tiny bit of money: over ten years, it saves (IIRC) about 160 billion dollars.  However, the bill as written includes drastic cuts to Medicare to help pay for it; and the bill does not include the "Doc Fix", so it assumes that bad cuts to doctor pay will be allowed to stand.  Also, this bill includes the provision that the broad increases in taxes go into effect immediately, but the benefits don't start to get paid out for four years.  I do not expect the cuts to Medicare to be allowed to stand; I expect to see another bill to increase taxes in order to put back everything that was cut.  In short, I am expecting the actual costs of this bill to be far in excess of what was promised.</p><p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/04/health-cost-projections-to-2019-the-doc-fix-trick-again/" title="cato-at-liberty.org">http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/04/health-cost-projections-to-2019-the-doc-fix-trick-again/</a> [cato-at-liberty.org]</p><p>I view this bill as a complete disaster.  Either everything I have read about it is wrong, or else all the cheerful and happy postings I have read here on Slashdot are uninformed.</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in ?
In other words , will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply ?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.To understand the answers , you need to understand the true purpose of the bill.The Democrats want to completely socialize health care : they call it " single payer " , i.e .
the US Government is the only entity to pay for health care .
The Democrats knew they could n't get there immediately , but rather needed to pretend to do something else.http : //www.cnsnews.com/news/print/49788 [ cnsnews.com ] This bill is over 2700 pages long , and I have n't read it .
So , I 'm relying on various news sources for this analysis .
But as I understand it , here is how the bill works : Each American is required to buy health insurance .
Anyone who can not afford it can apply to the government for help .
But those who do n't buy insurance , can simply pay a " fine " to the government .
This fine will cost less than the insurance would have cost.This bill also requires insurance companies to accept anyone , and pay for their care , regardless of pre-existing conditions.http : //www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.faqs/index.html [ cnn.com ] So , in short : I could cancel all my insurance , and pay a fine to the government , and no insurance company gets any of that money .
Then one day I could discover that I had cancer , buy insurance , and that insurance company would be compelled to accept me as a patient and pay for my cancer treatment .
Or , one day I could get in a car crash , then buy the insurance and get treated.Because the above would completely destroy the actuarial basis of insurance , all the companies currently providing health insurance would be forced by cold hard economic reality to stop selling insurance .
If they did n't stop on their own , they would go out of business , and close down.The end game is that the US government would announce that due to the entirely unexpected and unforeseeable wave of insurance companies closing down , the US government would start offering insurance .
That , or else it would buy the remaining insurance companies the way the government bought failing car manufacturers.And there you go : single-payer .
The US government would provide all " insurance " ( really , it would n't look anything like insurance at that point , but the name would be kept for sentimental reasons ) .Also , the bill as written saves a tiny bit of money : over ten years , it saves ( IIRC ) about 160 billion dollars .
However , the bill as written includes drastic cuts to Medicare to help pay for it ; and the bill does not include the " Doc Fix " , so it assumes that bad cuts to doctor pay will be allowed to stand .
Also , this bill includes the provision that the broad increases in taxes go into effect immediately , but the benefits do n't start to get paid out for four years .
I do not expect the cuts to Medicare to be allowed to stand ; I expect to see another bill to increase taxes in order to put back everything that was cut .
In short , I am expecting the actual costs of this bill to be far in excess of what was promised.http : //www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/04/health-cost-projections-to-2019-the-doc-fix-trick-again/ [ cato-at-liberty.org ] I view this bill as a complete disaster .
Either everything I have read about it is wrong , or else all the cheerful and happy postings I have read here on Slashdot are uninformed.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in?
In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.To understand the answers, you need to understand the true purpose of the bill.The Democrats want to completely socialize health care: they call it "single payer", i.e.
the US Government is the only entity to pay for health care.
The Democrats knew they couldn't get there immediately, but rather needed to pretend to do something else.http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/49788 [cnsnews.com]This bill is over 2700 pages long, and I haven't read it.
So, I'm relying on various news sources for this analysis.
But as I understand it, here is how the bill works:Each American is required to buy health insurance.
Anyone who cannot afford it can apply to the government for help.
But those who don't buy insurance, can simply pay a "fine" to the government.
This fine will cost  less  than the insurance would have cost.This bill also requires insurance companies to accept anyone, and pay for their care, regardless of pre-existing conditions.http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.faqs/index.html [cnn.com]So, in short: I could cancel all my insurance, and pay a fine to the government, and no insurance company gets any of that money.
Then one day I could discover that I had cancer, buy insurance, and that insurance company would be compelled to accept me as a patient and pay for my cancer treatment.
Or, one day I could get in a car crash, then buy the insurance and get treated.Because the above would completely destroy the actuarial basis of insurance, all the companies currently providing health insurance would be forced by cold hard economic reality to stop selling insurance.
If they didn't stop on their own, they would go out of business, and close down.The end game is that the US government would announce that due to the entirely unexpected and unforeseeable wave of insurance companies closing down, the US government would start offering insurance.
That, or else it would buy the remaining insurance companies the way the government bought failing car manufacturers.And there you go: single-payer.
The US government would provide all "insurance" (really, it wouldn't look anything like insurance at that point, but the name would be kept for sentimental reasons).Also, the bill as written saves a tiny bit of money: over ten years, it saves (IIRC) about 160 billion dollars.
However, the bill as written includes drastic cuts to Medicare to help pay for it; and the bill does not include the "Doc Fix", so it assumes that bad cuts to doctor pay will be allowed to stand.
Also, this bill includes the provision that the broad increases in taxes go into effect immediately, but the benefits don't start to get paid out for four years.
I do not expect the cuts to Medicare to be allowed to stand; I expect to see another bill to increase taxes in order to put back everything that was cut.
In short, I am expecting the actual costs of this bill to be far in excess of what was promised.http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/04/health-cost-projections-to-2019-the-doc-fix-trick-again/ [cato-at-liberty.org]I view this bill as a complete disaster.
Either everything I have read about it is wrong, or else all the cheerful and happy postings I have read here on Slashdot are uninformed.steveha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566982</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>intelligent people such as slashdotters</p></div><p>Slashdotters are just like any other subset of people:  Plenty here (on "both" sides) are reacting on pure emotion.  This is the same site where Microsoft is the Devil, Apple is Lord, and Google is the Messiah.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>intelligent people such as slashdottersSlashdotters are just like any other subset of people : Plenty here ( on " both " sides ) are reacting on pure emotion .
This is the same site where Microsoft is the Devil , Apple is Lord , and Google is the Messiah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>intelligent people such as slashdottersSlashdotters are just like any other subset of people:  Plenty here (on "both" sides) are reacting on pure emotion.
This is the same site where Microsoft is the Devil, Apple is Lord, and Google is the Messiah.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569766</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Drekkahn</author>
	<datestamp>1269276600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No you didnt. You just said you heard because you thought you would make a smart "show on the other foot comment". The entire premise of your post was to make up a scenario that was not true just so you could try and impress yourself with how clever you were.

Why would anyone leave the US over this? Think about it. The Demoncrats just passed a Healthcare bill that was in direct opposition to the overwhelming majority of Americans? What do you think will become of that? Do you think that the people will just say "ah shucks" guess we will have to live with our elected officials going against our wishes?

No. We are simply going to get rid of the lot. President. Gone. Congress Gone. This vote probably killed off the Democratic party as far as independants go. It will never recover. You cant go against your constituants, that brand will never leave the Demoncratic party...ever....</htmltext>
<tokenext>No you didnt .
You just said you heard because you thought you would make a smart " show on the other foot comment " .
The entire premise of your post was to make up a scenario that was not true just so you could try and impress yourself with how clever you were .
Why would anyone leave the US over this ?
Think about it .
The Demoncrats just passed a Healthcare bill that was in direct opposition to the overwhelming majority of Americans ?
What do you think will become of that ?
Do you think that the people will just say " ah shucks " guess we will have to live with our elected officials going against our wishes ?
No. We are simply going to get rid of the lot .
President. Gone .
Congress Gone .
This vote probably killed off the Democratic party as far as independants go .
It will never recover .
You cant go against your constituants , that brand will never leave the Demoncratic party...ever... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you didnt.
You just said you heard because you thought you would make a smart "show on the other foot comment".
The entire premise of your post was to make up a scenario that was not true just so you could try and impress yourself with how clever you were.
Why would anyone leave the US over this?
Think about it.
The Demoncrats just passed a Healthcare bill that was in direct opposition to the overwhelming majority of Americans?
What do you think will become of that?
Do you think that the people will just say "ah shucks" guess we will have to live with our elected officials going against our wishes?
No. We are simply going to get rid of the lot.
President. Gone.
Congress Gone.
This vote probably killed off the Democratic party as far as independants go.
It will never recover.
You cant go against your constituants, that brand will never leave the Demoncratic party...ever....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567564</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269270660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where would they emigrate to which has first world living standards but not a universal health care system (basic one or otherwise)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where would they emigrate to which has first world living standards but not a universal health care system ( basic one or otherwise ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where would they emigrate to which has first world living standards but not a universal health care system (basic one or otherwise)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568038</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1269271920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Democrats: "OK, suit yourselves, here it comes"</p></div></blockquote><p>It's probably because I'm really sleepy right now, but that reminded me of the first battle in <i>Wrath of Khan</i>.</p><p>Next thing you know, the Republicans will be panicking that their shields are dropping. One could only hope.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democrats : " OK , suit yourselves , here it comes " It 's probably because I 'm really sleepy right now , but that reminded me of the first battle in Wrath of Khan.Next thing you know , the Republicans will be panicking that their shields are dropping .
One could only hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democrats: "OK, suit yourselves, here it comes"It's probably because I'm really sleepy right now, but that reminded me of the first battle in Wrath of Khan.Next thing you know, the Republicans will be panicking that their shields are dropping.
One could only hope.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31614792</id>
	<title>Re:Also Ironic</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1269545100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It was the "free health care for everyone" people who choose fund a procedure that ends a baby's life.</i></p><p>Slight problem with your storyline: this bill doesn't fund abortions.  Not only is the Hyde Amendment in effect (bans use of federal funds for abortions), it's also reinforced with an executive order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the " free health care for everyone " people who choose fund a procedure that ends a baby 's life.Slight problem with your storyline : this bill does n't fund abortions .
Not only is the Hyde Amendment in effect ( bans use of federal funds for abortions ) , it 's also reinforced with an executive order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the "free health care for everyone" people who choose fund a procedure that ends a baby's life.Slight problem with your storyline: this bill doesn't fund abortions.
Not only is the Hyde Amendment in effect (bans use of federal funds for abortions), it's also reinforced with an executive order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568226</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1269272400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you think the bill is so big? It's got all kinds of rules to stop people from doing things like that..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you think the bill is so big ?
It 's got all kinds of rules to stop people from doing things like that. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you think the bill is so big?
It's got all kinds of rules to stop people from doing things like that..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567270</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government likes when it can use your opinions to divide yourselves. Remember a house divided cannot stand.</p><p>What you really being seeing is another opportunity for them to put their foot in the door using a pre-existing opinion. Now it is only time before that foot kicks the door a little more open. Understand?</p><p>Being is I predicted the recession a decade ago I sure hope I'm wrong on this. Think about a country on the verge of bankruptcy, and an increasing number of states showing their defiance to the bill by amending their own constitutions. Looks like history could soon repeat itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government likes when it can use your opinions to divide yourselves .
Remember a house divided can not stand.What you really being seeing is another opportunity for them to put their foot in the door using a pre-existing opinion .
Now it is only time before that foot kicks the door a little more open .
Understand ? Being is I predicted the recession a decade ago I sure hope I 'm wrong on this .
Think about a country on the verge of bankruptcy , and an increasing number of states showing their defiance to the bill by amending their own constitutions .
Looks like history could soon repeat itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government likes when it can use your opinions to divide yourselves.
Remember a house divided cannot stand.What you really being seeing is another opportunity for them to put their foot in the door using a pre-existing opinion.
Now it is only time before that foot kicks the door a little more open.
Understand?Being is I predicted the recession a decade ago I sure hope I'm wrong on this.
Think about a country on the verge of bankruptcy, and an increasing number of states showing their defiance to the bill by amending their own constitutions.
Looks like history could soon repeat itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569576</id>
	<title>Fantastic!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269276060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got $100 to put into a travel fund if it helps that venomous malevolent hate monger to get out of here. The only problem is that I wouldn't wish him on anyone else.</p><p>I wonder how much Virgin Galactic would charge for a one-way trip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got $ 100 to put into a travel fund if it helps that venomous malevolent hate monger to get out of here .
The only problem is that I would n't wish him on anyone else.I wonder how much Virgin Galactic would charge for a one-way trip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got $100 to put into a travel fund if it helps that venomous malevolent hate monger to get out of here.
The only problem is that I wouldn't wish him on anyone else.I wonder how much Virgin Galactic would charge for a one-way trip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567492</id>
	<title>Give me your poor, your naive, your idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269270480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I'll give you the bill that was just passed.  Today marks the death of liberty and freedom.  Welcome to just being another country folks!  YAY leftist douchbags!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'll give you the bill that was just passed .
Today marks the death of liberty and freedom .
Welcome to just being another country folks !
YAY leftist douchbags !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'll give you the bill that was just passed.
Today marks the death of liberty and freedom.
Welcome to just being another country folks!
YAY leftist douchbags!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572842</id>
	<title>Re:Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedi</title>
	<author>alfredo</author>
	<datestamp>1269286020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it was the insurance company that was defining pre existing conditions, not the doctor. My wife's insurer reversed their decision to cover my wife's brain surgery while she was in recovery from the surgery.  They stuck us with a $60,000 dollar bill (1980's pricing), and dropped her from their rolls. I guess when they saw how much the surgery would cost they decided her illness was "pre existing."

She had been paying into the insurance for 8 years, but the fast growing tumor in her brain was a preexisting condition.  Yeah right

I had to get a government job to get insurance for both of us (FEHB). Now that I am disabled from my job, I still carry that insurance because we can't change to a cheaper plan.  As it is now, health insurance takes up 60\% of my pension. At the current rate of premium increases, two years from now they (CIGNA) will take 100\% of my pension.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it was the insurance company that was defining pre existing conditions , not the doctor .
My wife 's insurer reversed their decision to cover my wife 's brain surgery while she was in recovery from the surgery .
They stuck us with a $ 60,000 dollar bill ( 1980 's pricing ) , and dropped her from their rolls .
I guess when they saw how much the surgery would cost they decided her illness was " pre existing .
" She had been paying into the insurance for 8 years , but the fast growing tumor in her brain was a preexisting condition .
Yeah right I had to get a government job to get insurance for both of us ( FEHB ) .
Now that I am disabled from my job , I still carry that insurance because we ca n't change to a cheaper plan .
As it is now , health insurance takes up 60 \ % of my pension .
At the current rate of premium increases , two years from now they ( CIGNA ) will take 100 \ % of my pension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it was the insurance company that was defining pre existing conditions, not the doctor.
My wife's insurer reversed their decision to cover my wife's brain surgery while she was in recovery from the surgery.
They stuck us with a $60,000 dollar bill (1980's pricing), and dropped her from their rolls.
I guess when they saw how much the surgery would cost they decided her illness was "pre existing.
"

She had been paying into the insurance for 8 years, but the fast growing tumor in her brain was a preexisting condition.
Yeah right

I had to get a government job to get insurance for both of us (FEHB).
Now that I am disabled from my job, I still carry that insurance because we can't change to a cheaper plan.
As it is now, health insurance takes up 60\% of my pension.
At the current rate of premium increases, two years from now they (CIGNA) will take 100\% of my pension.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573034</id>
	<title>Re:it is unconstitutional</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1269286800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the federal government can not force anyone or everyone to buy anything, not a TV, a particular brand of automobile or heath insurance, i hope this falls on its face before it gets implemented.</i></p><p>However they sure as hell can pass tax incentives to encourage you to buy things. I got a $1500 tax credit this year for making energy improvements to my home.</p><p>I am sure that in the near future you will be looking at tax incentives that will make it very attractive to buy health insurance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the federal government can not force anyone or everyone to buy anything , not a TV , a particular brand of automobile or heath insurance , i hope this falls on its face before it gets implemented.However they sure as hell can pass tax incentives to encourage you to buy things .
I got a $ 1500 tax credit this year for making energy improvements to my home.I am sure that in the near future you will be looking at tax incentives that will make it very attractive to buy health insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the federal government can not force anyone or everyone to buy anything, not a TV, a particular brand of automobile or heath insurance, i hope this falls on its face before it gets implemented.However they sure as hell can pass tax incentives to encourage you to buy things.
I got a $1500 tax credit this year for making energy improvements to my home.I am sure that in the near future you will be looking at tax incentives that will make it very attractive to buy health insurance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572516</id>
	<title>Re:I'm fairly sure a brain is not required either</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1269284880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be noted that, while Marx did use the term "socialism" for a very specific thing in his theory, the term existed long before him, and had a broader meaning both before and after that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be noted that , while Marx did use the term " socialism " for a very specific thing in his theory , the term existed long before him , and had a broader meaning both before and after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be noted that, while Marx did use the term "socialism" for a very specific thing in his theory, the term existed long before him, and had a broader meaning both before and after that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573084</id>
	<title>Why</title>
	<author>alfredo</author>
	<datestamp>1269286980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do we need health insurance companies?  What do they do to keep us healthy? What purpose do they serve?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we need health insurance companies ?
What do they do to keep us healthy ?
What purpose do they serve ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we need health insurance companies?
What do they do to keep us healthy?
What purpose do they serve?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568930</id>
	<title>Those were dark times, Harry, dark times.</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1269274140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I felt a great disturbance in The Force...as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.  Welcome to crappy Canadian healthcare.  There is no "right" to healthcare.  Nowhere does it even hint at this in the Constitution.  This is all being shoved up our collective ass through the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I felt a great disturbance in The Force...as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced .
Welcome to crappy Canadian healthcare .
There is no " right " to healthcare .
Nowhere does it even hint at this in the Constitution .
This is all being shoved up our collective ass through the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I felt a great disturbance in The Force...as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Welcome to crappy Canadian healthcare.
There is no "right" to healthcare.
Nowhere does it even hint at this in the Constitution.
This is all being shoved up our collective ass through the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579152</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269275580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the stupid rules on tobacco should be repealed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the stupid rules on tobacco should be repealed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the stupid rules on tobacco should be repealed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569456</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs killing bill</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1269275700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should not have been marked as a troll, as it is completely factual and noting concepts that have been in this legislation for some time.  At least if you can believe anything that is in this legislation.</p><p>This is indeed a jobs killing bill and I'm glad to see that somebody had the guts to cite just why that would be the case.  Troll (-1) does not mean "I disagree with your viewpoint", and the comment was spot on in terms of being a related comment to the main post of this slashdot article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should not have been marked as a troll , as it is completely factual and noting concepts that have been in this legislation for some time .
At least if you can believe anything that is in this legislation.This is indeed a jobs killing bill and I 'm glad to see that somebody had the guts to cite just why that would be the case .
Troll ( -1 ) does not mean " I disagree with your viewpoint " , and the comment was spot on in terms of being a related comment to the main post of this slashdot article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should not have been marked as a troll, as it is completely factual and noting concepts that have been in this legislation for some time.
At least if you can believe anything that is in this legislation.This is indeed a jobs killing bill and I'm glad to see that somebody had the guts to cite just why that would be the case.
Troll (-1) does not mean "I disagree with your viewpoint", and the comment was spot on in terms of being a related comment to the main post of this slashdot article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567008</id>
	<title>Welfare State != Democratic Republic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stupid idea all around.  Socialized medicine is a complete and utter failure everywhere that it has been implemented.  Welcome to Obamacare, a subsidiary of the welfare state paid for by honest workers so the slackers can get away with doing nothing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid idea all around .
Socialized medicine is a complete and utter failure everywhere that it has been implemented .
Welcome to Obamacare , a subsidiary of the welfare state paid for by honest workers so the slackers can get away with doing nothing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid idea all around.
Socialized medicine is a complete and utter failure everywhere that it has been implemented.
Welcome to Obamacare, a subsidiary of the welfare state paid for by honest workers so the slackers can get away with doing nothing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568480</id>
	<title>I just don't get it</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1269273060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do so many in the US really think their system is great?<br>
I really don't get it. 32 million left uncovered to die because they are sick or poor? You judge a society by how it treats it's sick and poor! The very people who are against covering these people seem to be the loudest christians!? How christian is it to leave the sick and poor to die!? Making it even more confusing, the argument is "Why should we pay for them?". I just can't get my head round the morality of it. It's so alien. I swear it's because it's the US, that so many in the US think it's best. Far too much chanting "USA! USA! USA!" to stop and critically look. From the outside, the US looks brutal and uncaring. When I'm sick, I get tucked up in bed by nanny state, and she looks after me until I'm a well tax payer again. If a crime is committed against me, I tell nanny state and she does her best to catch the criminal. When my house is on fire nanny state puts it out for me. If I loose my job, nanny state feeds and shelters me. All she asks from me is to pay taxes and obey laws that hold society together. Yes, she is fat and inefficient, but she covers all and does the job with a heart in the right place, answerable to the people directly. The market solutions may be more efficient, but they never cover all, and their heart is replaced by creed. Give me nanny state!<br>
What is really funny is you could cut and paste arguments made before the UK got the NHS and use them in today's US debate. This bill doesn't give the US a NHS, but it appears to be a step in the right direction. Hopefully a step towards a more caring, less brutal US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do so many in the US really think their system is great ?
I really do n't get it .
32 million left uncovered to die because they are sick or poor ?
You judge a society by how it treats it 's sick and poor !
The very people who are against covering these people seem to be the loudest christians ! ?
How christian is it to leave the sick and poor to die ! ?
Making it even more confusing , the argument is " Why should we pay for them ? " .
I just ca n't get my head round the morality of it .
It 's so alien .
I swear it 's because it 's the US , that so many in the US think it 's best .
Far too much chanting " USA !
USA ! USA !
" to stop and critically look .
From the outside , the US looks brutal and uncaring .
When I 'm sick , I get tucked up in bed by nanny state , and she looks after me until I 'm a well tax payer again .
If a crime is committed against me , I tell nanny state and she does her best to catch the criminal .
When my house is on fire nanny state puts it out for me .
If I loose my job , nanny state feeds and shelters me .
All she asks from me is to pay taxes and obey laws that hold society together .
Yes , she is fat and inefficient , but she covers all and does the job with a heart in the right place , answerable to the people directly .
The market solutions may be more efficient , but they never cover all , and their heart is replaced by creed .
Give me nanny state !
What is really funny is you could cut and paste arguments made before the UK got the NHS and use them in today 's US debate .
This bill does n't give the US a NHS , but it appears to be a step in the right direction .
Hopefully a step towards a more caring , less brutal US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do so many in the US really think their system is great?
I really don't get it.
32 million left uncovered to die because they are sick or poor?
You judge a society by how it treats it's sick and poor!
The very people who are against covering these people seem to be the loudest christians!?
How christian is it to leave the sick and poor to die!?
Making it even more confusing, the argument is "Why should we pay for them?".
I just can't get my head round the morality of it.
It's so alien.
I swear it's because it's the US, that so many in the US think it's best.
Far too much chanting "USA!
USA! USA!
" to stop and critically look.
From the outside, the US looks brutal and uncaring.
When I'm sick, I get tucked up in bed by nanny state, and she looks after me until I'm a well tax payer again.
If a crime is committed against me, I tell nanny state and she does her best to catch the criminal.
When my house is on fire nanny state puts it out for me.
If I loose my job, nanny state feeds and shelters me.
All she asks from me is to pay taxes and obey laws that hold society together.
Yes, she is fat and inefficient, but she covers all and does the job with a heart in the right place, answerable to the people directly.
The market solutions may be more efficient, but they never cover all, and their heart is replaced by creed.
Give me nanny state!
What is really funny is you could cut and paste arguments made before the UK got the NHS and use them in today's US debate.
This bill doesn't give the US a NHS, but it appears to be a step in the right direction.
Hopefully a step towards a more caring, less brutal US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565746</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1269265380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wel, good luck and god speed to them.  I hope they can find another country with a similar standard of living where the government won't run their health care.  It always makes me smile when right-wingers threaten to leave for Europe or Canada if Hillary/Obama/Whomever gets elected president.  'Cause, you know... Belgium's all christian and conservative and crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wel , good luck and god speed to them .
I hope they can find another country with a similar standard of living where the government wo n't run their health care .
It always makes me smile when right-wingers threaten to leave for Europe or Canada if Hillary/Obama/Whomever gets elected president .
'Cause , you know... Belgium 's all christian and conservative and crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wel, good luck and god speed to them.
I hope they can find another country with a similar standard of living where the government won't run their health care.
It always makes me smile when right-wingers threaten to leave for Europe or Canada if Hillary/Obama/Whomever gets elected president.
'Cause, you know... Belgium's all christian and conservative and crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565942</id>
	<title>It's not that simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions, I don't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore. It is like selling "fire insurance" coverage for houses that are already on fire. That is not really "insurance".</p> </div><p>You forgot the important qualifier.  "a form of risk management <b>PRIMARILY</b> used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss".  Insurance can be to hedge against gains, it can be to share risk, it can be to shift risk to another party.  It's not so simple as a single sentence quoted from wikipedia.  You cannot cover pre-existing conditions unless you force everyone to have coverage, otherwise the smart play is to buy insurance only after you get sick which destroys the financial structure of insurance (no premiums being paid in).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions , I do n't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore .
It is like selling " fire insurance " coverage for houses that are already on fire .
That is not really " insurance " .
You forgot the important qualifier .
" a form of risk management PRIMARILY used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss " .
Insurance can be to hedge against gains , it can be to share risk , it can be to shift risk to another party .
It 's not so simple as a single sentence quoted from wikipedia .
You can not cover pre-existing conditions unless you force everyone to have coverage , otherwise the smart play is to buy insurance only after you get sick which destroys the financial structure of insurance ( no premiums being paid in ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions, I don't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore.
It is like selling "fire insurance" coverage for houses that are already on fire.
That is not really "insurance".
You forgot the important qualifier.
"a form of risk management PRIMARILY used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss".
Insurance can be to hedge against gains, it can be to share risk, it can be to shift risk to another party.
It's not so simple as a single sentence quoted from wikipedia.
You cannot cover pre-existing conditions unless you force everyone to have coverage, otherwise the smart play is to buy insurance only after you get sick which destroys the financial structure of insurance (no premiums being paid in).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Glonoinha</author>
	<datestamp>1269265740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Republicans are opposed because it's socialism.  The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.</p><p>This will not end well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Republicans are opposed because it 's socialism .
The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.This will not end well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republicans are opposed because it's socialism.
The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.This will not end well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31589388</id>
	<title>Re:The Day the Music Died</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1269339240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is, who do the Republicans have to run against Obama that can win?</p><p>I think the passage of health care pretty much guarantees it can't be Mitt Romney, who a year ago I probably would have pointed out as one of the stronger candidates.  He's in a shitty position now where Republican voter opinion on health care essentially forces him to run against his own record.  A semi-competent opponent (and love him or hate him, Obama is certainly that) will tear him to shreds on that enormous flip-flop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is , who do the Republicans have to run against Obama that can win ? I think the passage of health care pretty much guarantees it ca n't be Mitt Romney , who a year ago I probably would have pointed out as one of the stronger candidates .
He 's in a shitty position now where Republican voter opinion on health care essentially forces him to run against his own record .
A semi-competent opponent ( and love him or hate him , Obama is certainly that ) will tear him to shreds on that enormous flip-flop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is, who do the Republicans have to run against Obama that can win?I think the passage of health care pretty much guarantees it can't be Mitt Romney, who a year ago I probably would have pointed out as one of the stronger candidates.
He's in a shitty position now where Republican voter opinion on health care essentially forces him to run against his own record.
A semi-competent opponent (and love him or hate him, Obama is certainly that) will tear him to shreds on that enormous flip-flop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567996</id>
	<title>Open a window!</title>
	<author>Chris Tucker</author>
	<datestamp>1269271800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The stench of the Randroid droppings is thick in the air this morning!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The stench of the Randroid droppings is thick in the air this morning !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stench of the Randroid droppings is thick in the air this morning!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572678</id>
	<title>Re:I just don't get it</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1269285300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't you know that the freedom to let other people die is protected by the U.S. Constitution?</p><p>Why do you hate America??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you know that the freedom to let other people die is protected by the U.S. Constitution ? Why do you hate America ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you know that the freedom to let other people die is protected by the U.S. Constitution?Why do you hate America?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570522</id>
	<title>Re:Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedi</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1269278760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Expecting insurance companies to insure people who are 100\% certain to incur consistent and high medical expenses is insane."</p><p>No, it is not. We are all 100\% certain to incur medical expenses sooner or later.  What constitutes high and consistent is subjective.  If you ask an insurance company, high and subjective occurs at the first claim.  They drop you and you become uninsurable.</p><p>"Lumping them in with everyone else is even more insane."</p><p>It's not insane, it's exactly what you do.  It wouldn't be insurance if you didn't.</p><p>Insurance companies only want to sell policies to people who will make no claims and they've been extremely good at doing just that.  What they do isn't insurance, it's stealing money from people while sticking the individual with the ultimate bill anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Expecting insurance companies to insure people who are 100 \ % certain to incur consistent and high medical expenses is insane .
" No , it is not .
We are all 100 \ % certain to incur medical expenses sooner or later .
What constitutes high and consistent is subjective .
If you ask an insurance company , high and subjective occurs at the first claim .
They drop you and you become uninsurable .
" Lumping them in with everyone else is even more insane .
" It 's not insane , it 's exactly what you do .
It would n't be insurance if you did n't.Insurance companies only want to sell policies to people who will make no claims and they 've been extremely good at doing just that .
What they do is n't insurance , it 's stealing money from people while sticking the individual with the ultimate bill anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Expecting insurance companies to insure people who are 100\% certain to incur consistent and high medical expenses is insane.
"No, it is not.
We are all 100\% certain to incur medical expenses sooner or later.
What constitutes high and consistent is subjective.
If you ask an insurance company, high and subjective occurs at the first claim.
They drop you and you become uninsurable.
"Lumping them in with everyone else is even more insane.
"It's not insane, it's exactly what you do.
It wouldn't be insurance if you didn't.Insurance companies only want to sell policies to people who will make no claims and they've been extremely good at doing just that.
What they do isn't insurance, it's stealing money from people while sticking the individual with the ultimate bill anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571990</id>
	<title>Re:consequences</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1269283200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill is a first step to saving our children's lives. Literally. Our nation spends twice as much per capita on health care than most civilized nations, but our infant mortality rates are about the highest in civilized world. Republicans bleat that this is because our system saves a lot of premature babies who then later die. But the fact is that we have a higher rate of premature babies than most other civilized nations in the world. Why is this? <i>Unhealthy mothers have unhealthy kids.</i> This makes sense, doesn't it? Studies have shown that sick mothers have a higher rate of complications, pre-term births, and sick babies. Our health care system fails young women of childbearing age, and they have sick babies. This bill will provide access to care to more women, and they'll tend to have healthier babies.</p><p>Furthermore, the consequences of sickness are severe. One of the most significant factors in determining a child's performance in school is whether they eat enough food or whether they are sick. Sick or starving kids do not do well in school. Again, commonsense. If we have a healthier population, we can have a better economic edge. Our kids will do better in school if they're not sick all the time. They'll take less sick days if they're properly vaccinated or see the doctor early before they're crippled by treatable illnesses like diabetes or hypertension.</p><p>This is a first step that can save our nation. We need to be healthy to compete. This bill literally will save lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill is a first step to saving our children 's lives .
Literally. Our nation spends twice as much per capita on health care than most civilized nations , but our infant mortality rates are about the highest in civilized world .
Republicans bleat that this is because our system saves a lot of premature babies who then later die .
But the fact is that we have a higher rate of premature babies than most other civilized nations in the world .
Why is this ?
Unhealthy mothers have unhealthy kids .
This makes sense , does n't it ?
Studies have shown that sick mothers have a higher rate of complications , pre-term births , and sick babies .
Our health care system fails young women of childbearing age , and they have sick babies .
This bill will provide access to care to more women , and they 'll tend to have healthier babies.Furthermore , the consequences of sickness are severe .
One of the most significant factors in determining a child 's performance in school is whether they eat enough food or whether they are sick .
Sick or starving kids do not do well in school .
Again , commonsense .
If we have a healthier population , we can have a better economic edge .
Our kids will do better in school if they 're not sick all the time .
They 'll take less sick days if they 're properly vaccinated or see the doctor early before they 're crippled by treatable illnesses like diabetes or hypertension.This is a first step that can save our nation .
We need to be healthy to compete .
This bill literally will save lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill is a first step to saving our children's lives.
Literally. Our nation spends twice as much per capita on health care than most civilized nations, but our infant mortality rates are about the highest in civilized world.
Republicans bleat that this is because our system saves a lot of premature babies who then later die.
But the fact is that we have a higher rate of premature babies than most other civilized nations in the world.
Why is this?
Unhealthy mothers have unhealthy kids.
This makes sense, doesn't it?
Studies have shown that sick mothers have a higher rate of complications, pre-term births, and sick babies.
Our health care system fails young women of childbearing age, and they have sick babies.
This bill will provide access to care to more women, and they'll tend to have healthier babies.Furthermore, the consequences of sickness are severe.
One of the most significant factors in determining a child's performance in school is whether they eat enough food or whether they are sick.
Sick or starving kids do not do well in school.
Again, commonsense.
If we have a healthier population, we can have a better economic edge.
Our kids will do better in school if they're not sick all the time.
They'll take less sick days if they're properly vaccinated or see the doctor early before they're crippled by treatable illnesses like diabetes or hypertension.This is a first step that can save our nation.
We need to be healthy to compete.
This bill literally will save lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566760</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>tizzo</author>
	<datestamp>1269268680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couple of corrections:</p><p>First, health care is in no way worse than it was 12 years ago.</p><p>Second, all of the concessions made to get health care passed were made to entice Democrats.  No concessions were made to Republicans, and no Republicans voted for any version of the bill.</p><p>Third, Republicans have had detailed proposals on the table, all of which addresses specific problems with specific solutions, since before the first Democratic bill was ever conceived.  You're right that they failed to enact any of these when they had power, and for that they deserve scorn.  But supporting the democratic bill on those grounds is a bit like shooting yourself in the head because your mother served meatloaf for dinner even though she had steak in the fridge.</p><p>Fourth, the backroom deals were not eliminated, they are still there along with a bunch of new ones.</p><p>Fifth, this is the first ever use of reconciliation for something that isn't reconciliation.  And there has never been anything bigger than this, let alone anything bigger than this passed by reconciliation.</p><p>Sixth, support for this bill is under 40\%.  That is not "mildly unpopular".</p><p>Seventh, our proposal is not "doing nothing".  If anything, the democratic proposal would be more accurately described as "doing nothing" on the grounds that while it does do a ton of stuff, none of it addresses any of the things that are wrong with health care in the US today - with the possible exception of the individual mandate, which is unconstitutional.</p><p>Imagine that there's a garbage can on fire in your back yard.  A couple hundred firefighters respond.  They evacuate your neighbors from their homes, dig trenches around the garbage can and bulldoze your home to prevent the fire from spreading, but nobody throws any water on the fire.  This is a little bit like what this bill does.  You couldn't exactly accuse the firefighters of "doing nothing", but it would surely be absurd to accuse the homeowner, standing helplessly by watching this happen while imploring the firefighters to please just throw water on the fire and leave my house standing, of advocating "doing nothing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Couple of corrections : First , health care is in no way worse than it was 12 years ago.Second , all of the concessions made to get health care passed were made to entice Democrats .
No concessions were made to Republicans , and no Republicans voted for any version of the bill.Third , Republicans have had detailed proposals on the table , all of which addresses specific problems with specific solutions , since before the first Democratic bill was ever conceived .
You 're right that they failed to enact any of these when they had power , and for that they deserve scorn .
But supporting the democratic bill on those grounds is a bit like shooting yourself in the head because your mother served meatloaf for dinner even though she had steak in the fridge.Fourth , the backroom deals were not eliminated , they are still there along with a bunch of new ones.Fifth , this is the first ever use of reconciliation for something that is n't reconciliation .
And there has never been anything bigger than this , let alone anything bigger than this passed by reconciliation.Sixth , support for this bill is under 40 \ % .
That is not " mildly unpopular " .Seventh , our proposal is not " doing nothing " .
If anything , the democratic proposal would be more accurately described as " doing nothing " on the grounds that while it does do a ton of stuff , none of it addresses any of the things that are wrong with health care in the US today - with the possible exception of the individual mandate , which is unconstitutional.Imagine that there 's a garbage can on fire in your back yard .
A couple hundred firefighters respond .
They evacuate your neighbors from their homes , dig trenches around the garbage can and bulldoze your home to prevent the fire from spreading , but nobody throws any water on the fire .
This is a little bit like what this bill does .
You could n't exactly accuse the firefighters of " doing nothing " , but it would surely be absurd to accuse the homeowner , standing helplessly by watching this happen while imploring the firefighters to please just throw water on the fire and leave my house standing , of advocating " doing nothing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couple of corrections:First, health care is in no way worse than it was 12 years ago.Second, all of the concessions made to get health care passed were made to entice Democrats.
No concessions were made to Republicans, and no Republicans voted for any version of the bill.Third, Republicans have had detailed proposals on the table, all of which addresses specific problems with specific solutions, since before the first Democratic bill was ever conceived.
You're right that they failed to enact any of these when they had power, and for that they deserve scorn.
But supporting the democratic bill on those grounds is a bit like shooting yourself in the head because your mother served meatloaf for dinner even though she had steak in the fridge.Fourth, the backroom deals were not eliminated, they are still there along with a bunch of new ones.Fifth, this is the first ever use of reconciliation for something that isn't reconciliation.
And there has never been anything bigger than this, let alone anything bigger than this passed by reconciliation.Sixth, support for this bill is under 40\%.
That is not "mildly unpopular".Seventh, our proposal is not "doing nothing".
If anything, the democratic proposal would be more accurately described as "doing nothing" on the grounds that while it does do a ton of stuff, none of it addresses any of the things that are wrong with health care in the US today - with the possible exception of the individual mandate, which is unconstitutional.Imagine that there's a garbage can on fire in your back yard.
A couple hundred firefighters respond.
They evacuate your neighbors from their homes, dig trenches around the garbage can and bulldoze your home to prevent the fire from spreading, but nobody throws any water on the fire.
This is a little bit like what this bill does.
You couldn't exactly accuse the firefighters of "doing nothing", but it would surely be absurd to accuse the homeowner, standing helplessly by watching this happen while imploring the firefighters to please just throw water on the fire and leave my house standing, of advocating "doing nothing".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575690</id>
	<title>So what about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269253620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what happens to those of us who took lower-paying jobs, i.e. for local governments, in large part due to security and health benefits?  People working for city and state governments for less money than private sector will have even less motivation to stay.  Looks like a big shortage of public servants, in the near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what happens to those of us who took lower-paying jobs , i.e .
for local governments , in large part due to security and health benefits ?
People working for city and state governments for less money than private sector will have even less motivation to stay .
Looks like a big shortage of public servants , in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what happens to those of us who took lower-paying jobs, i.e.
for local governments, in large part due to security and health benefits?
People working for city and state governments for less money than private sector will have even less motivation to stay.
Looks like a big shortage of public servants, in the near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566076</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1269266700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is the nature of a welfare state that people will take advantage of it (at both ends - the guys with the $10,000 suits on Wall Street are just as bad as the guy who lives off food stamps and pops out 6 kids to get more), but the vast majority of those at the bottom are not there by choice and do not game the system, and are as a result even worse off.</p><p>There will always be scroungers in a welfare system, but the trick is not to get conned into believing that it is anywhere near a majority of those who require the system to survive. The government does attempt (sometimes ineffectually) to prevent abuse of the system, but some abuse is inevitable. It's the small price to pay for a welfare state that looks after those who don't have the means to look after themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the nature of a welfare state that people will take advantage of it ( at both ends - the guys with the $ 10,000 suits on Wall Street are just as bad as the guy who lives off food stamps and pops out 6 kids to get more ) , but the vast majority of those at the bottom are not there by choice and do not game the system , and are as a result even worse off.There will always be scroungers in a welfare system , but the trick is not to get conned into believing that it is anywhere near a majority of those who require the system to survive .
The government does attempt ( sometimes ineffectually ) to prevent abuse of the system , but some abuse is inevitable .
It 's the small price to pay for a welfare state that looks after those who do n't have the means to look after themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the nature of a welfare state that people will take advantage of it (at both ends - the guys with the $10,000 suits on Wall Street are just as bad as the guy who lives off food stamps and pops out 6 kids to get more), but the vast majority of those at the bottom are not there by choice and do not game the system, and are as a result even worse off.There will always be scroungers in a welfare system, but the trick is not to get conned into believing that it is anywhere near a majority of those who require the system to survive.
The government does attempt (sometimes ineffectually) to prevent abuse of the system, but some abuse is inevitable.
It's the small price to pay for a welfare state that looks after those who don't have the means to look after themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568330</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1269272640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where would he go?  Most other first-world countries have a more socialist health care system than this bill creates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where would he go ?
Most other first-world countries have a more socialist health care system than this bill creates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where would he go?
Most other first-world countries have a more socialist health care system than this bill creates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566270</id>
	<title>It's unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; This bill has so many things about it that are unconstitutional.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; On the simplest level, the requirement to buy insurance is tantamount to a license for being an American. I hate to break this to the Democrats, but my citizenship, by birth, is not revocable by them or anyone else. And the conditions for its exercise will not be licensed nor legislated by anyone.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Fuck the State.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Non-Americans don't seem to understand the issue with this bill and that is simply because they capitulated on their Rights as human beings generations ago. And just because something makes you feel good, doesn't make it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    This bill has so many things about it that are unconstitutional .
    On the simplest level , the requirement to buy insurance is tantamount to a license for being an American .
I hate to break this to the Democrats , but my citizenship , by birth , is not revocable by them or anyone else .
And the conditions for its exercise will not be licensed nor legislated by anyone .
    Fuck the State .
    Non-Americans do n't seem to understand the issue with this bill and that is simply because they capitulated on their Rights as human beings generations ago .
And just because something makes you feel good , does n't make it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    This bill has so many things about it that are unconstitutional.
    On the simplest level, the requirement to buy insurance is tantamount to a license for being an American.
I hate to break this to the Democrats, but my citizenship, by birth, is not revocable by them or anyone else.
And the conditions for its exercise will not be licensed nor legislated by anyone.
    Fuck the State.
    Non-Americans don't seem to understand the issue with this bill and that is simply because they capitulated on their Rights as human beings generations ago.
And just because something makes you feel good, doesn't make it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565738</id>
	<title>Mixed Feelings from someone who has seen the worst</title>
	<author>ndavis</author>
	<datestamp>1269265380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This bill while sounding like an okay step (I haven't read the entire bill).  I say this because although I didn't understand it at the time I witnessed my Nana go from being self sufficient to living with my Aunt all because her insurance company refused to help her when she was diagnosed with breast cancer.<br> <br>

Due to the insurance company not covering her she had a choice of dying and leaving some money to her kids and grandkids or spending every penny she had.  This debate delayed her actions and she ended up dying with nothing as she used her entire savings as well as selling her assets to try and stay alive.  If the insurance company had just done what she was paying them to do she wouldn't have died at that time but she was afraid of being a burdon on her kids. <br> <br>

However I still think the goverment should have changed the private companies by making them not for profit companies that could hold money to cover claims but could not have shareholders so they would not be at the mercy of profits to give to shareholders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill while sounding like an okay step ( I have n't read the entire bill ) .
I say this because although I did n't understand it at the time I witnessed my Nana go from being self sufficient to living with my Aunt all because her insurance company refused to help her when she was diagnosed with breast cancer .
Due to the insurance company not covering her she had a choice of dying and leaving some money to her kids and grandkids or spending every penny she had .
This debate delayed her actions and she ended up dying with nothing as she used her entire savings as well as selling her assets to try and stay alive .
If the insurance company had just done what she was paying them to do she would n't have died at that time but she was afraid of being a burdon on her kids .
However I still think the goverment should have changed the private companies by making them not for profit companies that could hold money to cover claims but could not have shareholders so they would not be at the mercy of profits to give to shareholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill while sounding like an okay step (I haven't read the entire bill).
I say this because although I didn't understand it at the time I witnessed my Nana go from being self sufficient to living with my Aunt all because her insurance company refused to help her when she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
Due to the insurance company not covering her she had a choice of dying and leaving some money to her kids and grandkids or spending every penny she had.
This debate delayed her actions and she ended up dying with nothing as she used her entire savings as well as selling her assets to try and stay alive.
If the insurance company had just done what she was paying them to do she wouldn't have died at that time but she was afraid of being a burdon on her kids.
However I still think the goverment should have changed the private companies by making them not for profit companies that could hold money to cover claims but could not have shareholders so they would not be at the mercy of profits to give to shareholders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565608</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1269264780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 How It Really Works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 How It Really Works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 How It Really Works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567788</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1269271200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.</p><p>Only for those who already pay for insurance, and only assuming that the insurance companies will pass on the savings to you, which they won't. Except, they won't get any savings, because:</p><p>&gt; This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.</p><p>When people don't have to pay for doctors, they go more often, raising the overall health care expenditures and cancelling any savings you may have incurred for increasing the insured pool. So, if anything, your rates will go up, and MUCH higher.</p><p>&gt; Cancers are caught sooner, infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood.</p><p>Cancer screening is <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/026558\_cancer\_cancer\_screening\_Prostate.html" title="naturalnews.com">not</a> [naturalnews.com]<br>good for you. Yes, early detection can be helpful for some cancers, but false positives and<br>unnecessary treatments can cause a great deal of harm. Prostate cancer, which you mention, is an<br>excellent example. Very few men die from prostate cancer, treated or not, because it grows so slowly<br>that you are much more likely to die from other causes before it kills you. In most cases, treating<br>it will just cause you lots of misery that chemo and radiation create.</p><p>Even when you have some other cancer, you need to realize that with the exception of breast and<br>testicular cancer, nearly all of them are fatal. You might buy yourself a few years with treatment,<br>but you'll die anyway. It might be worth taking a hard look at your own life and see if you really<br>want to have an extra few years at the cost of pain and suffering that chemo will give you. (In<br>socialized health care, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html" title="telegraph.co.uk">other</a> [telegraph.co.uk]<br>people may make this decision for you)</p><p>Other infections are also frequently overtreated. Your body really is very very good at fighting<br>diseases. Give it food and water, and it will kill the infection all by itself. For centuries,<br>people have got by just fine without ever seeing a doctor, and you would do well to try to do<br>the same. Doctors often cause more harm than not and avoiding them really is good for you.</p><p>&gt; What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated<br>&gt; to their choices. No one chooses to get prostate cancer, no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.</p><p>On the contrary, health is very much related to your choices. Smoking and obesity are both personal<br>choices and are the most damaging things you can do to yourself. Nearly all diseases, cancers, and<br>heart problems are manyfold more likely if you make these choices. Then there's the impact of<br><a href="http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/stress" title="cancer.gov">stress</a> [cancer.gov]), which damages your<br>immune system and contributes to many disorders, possibly including cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.Only for those who already pay for insurance , and only assuming that the insurance companies will pass on the savings to you , which they wo n't .
Except , they wo n't get any savings , because : &gt; This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.When people do n't have to pay for doctors , they go more often , raising the overall health care expenditures and cancelling any savings you may have incurred for increasing the insured pool .
So , if anything , your rates will go up , and MUCH higher. &gt; Cancers are caught sooner , infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood.Cancer screening is not [ naturalnews.com ] good for you .
Yes , early detection can be helpful for some cancers , but false positives andunnecessary treatments can cause a great deal of harm .
Prostate cancer , which you mention , is anexcellent example .
Very few men die from prostate cancer , treated or not , because it grows so slowlythat you are much more likely to die from other causes before it kills you .
In most cases , treatingit will just cause you lots of misery that chemo and radiation create.Even when you have some other cancer , you need to realize that with the exception of breast andtesticular cancer , nearly all of them are fatal .
You might buy yourself a few years with treatment,but you 'll die anyway .
It might be worth taking a hard look at your own life and see if you reallywant to have an extra few years at the cost of pain and suffering that chemo will give you .
( Insocialized health care , other [ telegraph.co.uk ] people may make this decision for you ) Other infections are also frequently overtreated .
Your body really is very very good at fightingdiseases .
Give it food and water , and it will kill the infection all by itself .
For centuries,people have got by just fine without ever seeing a doctor , and you would do well to try to dothe same .
Doctors often cause more harm than not and avoiding them really is good for you. &gt; What selfish libertarians like yourself do n't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated &gt; to their choices .
No one chooses to get prostate cancer , no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.On the contrary , health is very much related to your choices .
Smoking and obesity are both personalchoices and are the most damaging things you can do to yourself .
Nearly all diseases , cancers , andheart problems are manyfold more likely if you make these choices .
Then there 's the impact ofstress [ cancer.gov ] ) , which damages yourimmune system and contributes to many disorders , possibly including cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.Only for those who already pay for insurance, and only assuming that the insurance companies will pass on the savings to you, which they won't.
Except, they won't get any savings, because:&gt; This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.When people don't have to pay for doctors, they go more often, raising the overall health care expenditures and cancelling any savings you may have incurred for increasing the insured pool.
So, if anything, your rates will go up, and MUCH higher.&gt; Cancers are caught sooner, infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood.Cancer screening is not [naturalnews.com]good for you.
Yes, early detection can be helpful for some cancers, but false positives andunnecessary treatments can cause a great deal of harm.
Prostate cancer, which you mention, is anexcellent example.
Very few men die from prostate cancer, treated or not, because it grows so slowlythat you are much more likely to die from other causes before it kills you.
In most cases, treatingit will just cause you lots of misery that chemo and radiation create.Even when you have some other cancer, you need to realize that with the exception of breast andtesticular cancer, nearly all of them are fatal.
You might buy yourself a few years with treatment,but you'll die anyway.
It might be worth taking a hard look at your own life and see if you reallywant to have an extra few years at the cost of pain and suffering that chemo will give you.
(Insocialized health care, other [telegraph.co.uk]people may make this decision for you)Other infections are also frequently overtreated.
Your body really is very very good at fightingdiseases.
Give it food and water, and it will kill the infection all by itself.
For centuries,people have got by just fine without ever seeing a doctor, and you would do well to try to dothe same.
Doctors often cause more harm than not and avoiding them really is good for you.&gt; What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated&gt; to their choices.
No one chooses to get prostate cancer, no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.On the contrary, health is very much related to your choices.
Smoking and obesity are both personalchoices and are the most damaging things you can do to yourself.
Nearly all diseases, cancers, andheart problems are manyfold more likely if you make these choices.
Then there's the impact ofstress [cancer.gov]), which damages yourimmune system and contributes to many disorders, possibly including cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572694</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1269285360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.</i></p><p>Funny, that has never happened [if you can show me an expansion of health care access that didn't result in higher per capita medical costs, let me know!]  Health costs go up because there is higher demand for medical care when more people can obtain it.</p><p>In every country with universal health care, physician pay is significantly limited (either directly like the NHS/Medicare/Medicaid, or indirectly though "negotiations" between doctors and the government as in Japan, German, France, etc.), and access to newer treatments and drugs is limited.  That only slows the rate of medical cost increases though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something funny : if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.Funny , that has never happened [ if you can show me an expansion of health care access that did n't result in higher per capita medical costs , let me know !
] Health costs go up because there is higher demand for medical care when more people can obtain it.In every country with universal health care , physician pay is significantly limited ( either directly like the NHS/Medicare/Medicaid , or indirectly though " negotiations " between doctors and the government as in Japan , German , France , etc .
) , and access to newer treatments and drugs is limited .
That only slows the rate of medical cost increases though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.Funny, that has never happened [if you can show me an expansion of health care access that didn't result in higher per capita medical costs, let me know!
]  Health costs go up because there is higher demand for medical care when more people can obtain it.In every country with universal health care, physician pay is significantly limited (either directly like the NHS/Medicare/Medicaid, or indirectly though "negotiations" between doctors and the government as in Japan, German, France, etc.
), and access to newer treatments and drugs is limited.
That only slows the rate of medical cost increases though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570440</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>fullfactorial</author>
	<datestamp>1269278580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in?  In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply?  This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.
</p></div><p>Insurers have new regulations. First, 85\% of revenue must go towards providing care, which caps administrative costs (and profit) at 15\%. This isn't a huge difference from the current system; most insurers keep similar margins, and grow revenue through volume. It sounds crazy, but insurers actually depend on doctors and hospitals doing too many tests and procedures.
</p><p>Second, health insurers are no longer protected from anti-monopoly laws. This should actually help, because currently most regions are locked into 1 or 2 insurance choices.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?
</p></div><p>
The bill has pretty specific requirements for what plans can be eligible for assistance and/or tax credits. I.E. You can't start a health insurance company that just hands out band-aids. Additionally, there will be expanded eligibility for Medicare and insurance exchange programs; competing for customers will keep insurers from cutting too much.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?
</p></div><p>
That doesn't even happen in Canada--the wealthy can always turn to medical tourism if they want special treatment. The poor will still get inferior care, but inferior is better than non-existent or bankrupt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in ?
In other words , will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply ?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market .
Insurers have new regulations .
First , 85 \ % of revenue must go towards providing care , which caps administrative costs ( and profit ) at 15 \ % .
This is n't a huge difference from the current system ; most insurers keep similar margins , and grow revenue through volume .
It sounds crazy , but insurers actually depend on doctors and hospitals doing too many tests and procedures .
Second , health insurers are no longer protected from anti-monopoly laws .
This should actually help , because currently most regions are locked into 1 or 2 insurance choices .
2 ) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for ?
The bill has pretty specific requirements for what plans can be eligible for assistance and/or tax credits .
I.E. You ca n't start a health insurance company that just hands out band-aids .
Additionally , there will be expanded eligibility for Medicare and insurance exchange programs ; competing for customers will keep insurers from cutting too much .
3 ) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy ?
That does n't even happen in Canada--the wealthy can always turn to medical tourism if they want special treatment .
The poor will still get inferior care , but inferior is better than non-existent or bankrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in?
In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.
Insurers have new regulations.
First, 85\% of revenue must go towards providing care, which caps administrative costs (and profit) at 15\%.
This isn't a huge difference from the current system; most insurers keep similar margins, and grow revenue through volume.
It sounds crazy, but insurers actually depend on doctors and hospitals doing too many tests and procedures.
Second, health insurers are no longer protected from anti-monopoly laws.
This should actually help, because currently most regions are locked into 1 or 2 insurance choices.
2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?
The bill has pretty specific requirements for what plans can be eligible for assistance and/or tax credits.
I.E. You can't start a health insurance company that just hands out band-aids.
Additionally, there will be expanded eligibility for Medicare and insurance exchange programs; competing for customers will keep insurers from cutting too much.
3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?
That doesn't even happen in Canada--the wealthy can always turn to medical tourism if they want special treatment.
The poor will still get inferior care, but inferior is better than non-existent or bankrupt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568458</id>
	<title>Universal Health Care for ALL!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269273000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My comrades, now its more important than ever to continue the struggle for a strong public option and universal healthcare for all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My comrades , now its more important than ever to continue the struggle for a strong public option and universal healthcare for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My comrades, now its more important than ever to continue the struggle for a strong public option and universal healthcare for all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568408</id>
	<title>Welcome to DrugeDot</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1269272820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just watch as slashdot conservatives with mod points go bananas moderating any liberal or moderate comments into oblivion while moderating all the conservative posts through the stratosphere.  It's a good thing we have a good mechanism in place to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh, nevermind, we don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just watch as slashdot conservatives with mod points go bananas moderating any liberal or moderate comments into oblivion while moderating all the conservative posts through the stratosphere .
It 's a good thing we have a good mechanism in place to ... oh , nevermind , we do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just watch as slashdot conservatives with mod points go bananas moderating any liberal or moderate comments into oblivion while moderating all the conservative posts through the stratosphere.
It's a good thing we have a good mechanism in place to ... oh, nevermind, we don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569070</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, all of the concessions made to get health care passed were made to entice Democrats.  No concessions were made to Republicans, and no Republicans voted for any version of the bill.</p></div><p>So the two hundred plus Republican amendments in the bill are what?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Second , all of the concessions made to get health care passed were made to entice Democrats .
No concessions were made to Republicans , and no Republicans voted for any version of the bill.So the two hundred plus Republican amendments in the bill are what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second, all of the concessions made to get health care passed were made to entice Democrats.
No concessions were made to Republicans, and no Republicans voted for any version of the bill.So the two hundred plus Republican amendments in the bill are what?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569824</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1269276780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The part you quoted is just the purpose statement; it confers no powers on its own. It's especially not a blank check to do anything portrayed as promoting "the general Welfare". For an action to be Constitutional it must fall within one of the explicitly enumerated powers of the branch in question.</p><p>So far as that goes, "guaranteed healthcare"&mdash;even the idealized version too many people incorrectly <em>think</em> was just passed&mdash;does not necessarily "promote the general Welfare" of American citizens. You have to look at the costs, not just the supposed benefits, and the costs, monetary and otherwise, are just way too high. In the end the only ones who can decide whether their welfare has been promoted are those who will be affected by the changes, and at last count some 60\% of them believe otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The part you quoted is just the purpose statement ; it confers no powers on its own .
It 's especially not a blank check to do anything portrayed as promoting " the general Welfare " .
For an action to be Constitutional it must fall within one of the explicitly enumerated powers of the branch in question.So far as that goes , " guaranteed healthcare "    even the idealized version too many people incorrectly think was just passed    does not necessarily " promote the general Welfare " of American citizens .
You have to look at the costs , not just the supposed benefits , and the costs , monetary and otherwise , are just way too high .
In the end the only ones who can decide whether their welfare has been promoted are those who will be affected by the changes , and at last count some 60 \ % of them believe otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The part you quoted is just the purpose statement; it confers no powers on its own.
It's especially not a blank check to do anything portrayed as promoting "the general Welfare".
For an action to be Constitutional it must fall within one of the explicitly enumerated powers of the branch in question.So far as that goes, "guaranteed healthcare"—even the idealized version too many people incorrectly think was just passed—does not necessarily "promote the general Welfare" of American citizens.
You have to look at the costs, not just the supposed benefits, and the costs, monetary and otherwise, are just way too high.
In the end the only ones who can decide whether their welfare has been promoted are those who will be affected by the changes, and at last count some 60\% of them believe otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570154</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1269277680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a good idea.</p><p>Each year, tax a person a dollar a year for every pound they weigh, but give them credits for good health:<br>* A dollar for every pound they can bench<br>* 10 dollars for every point they score on the VO2 max test<br>* other measures of good health.</p><p>Quick and clean incentive to get healthy.</p><p>The fast food and snack industry would whine, but screw them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a good idea.Each year , tax a person a dollar a year for every pound they weigh , but give them credits for good health : * A dollar for every pound they can bench * 10 dollars for every point they score on the VO2 max test * other measures of good health.Quick and clean incentive to get healthy.The fast food and snack industry would whine , but screw them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a good idea.Each year, tax a person a dollar a year for every pound they weigh, but give them credits for good health:* A dollar for every pound they can bench* 10 dollars for every point they score on the VO2 max test* other measures of good health.Quick and clean incentive to get healthy.The fast food and snack industry would whine, but screw them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569964</id>
	<title>It is not that it passed.</title>
	<author>funwithBSD</author>
	<datestamp>1269277200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But how it passed.</p><p>Tiberius Gracchus lives on in Obama, Pelosi and Reed.</p><p>Now the question is, it took 150 years from when Gracchus broke the Roman Republic until Caesar, how long before our first Dictator?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how it passed.Tiberius Gracchus lives on in Obama , Pelosi and Reed.Now the question is , it took 150 years from when Gracchus broke the Roman Republic until Caesar , how long before our first Dictator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how it passed.Tiberius Gracchus lives on in Obama, Pelosi and Reed.Now the question is, it took 150 years from when Gracchus broke the Roman Republic until Caesar, how long before our first Dictator?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570598</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1269279060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since no one has attempted to give you a legitimate answer, here we go:</p><p>1) Insurance companies are mandated to spend 85\% of the premiums they receive on medical care.  So they can raise premiums, but they will also have to raise the amount of money they spend out.  For this reason, free market principles should ensure that insurance premiums are tied quite closely to medical costs since a company with inflated premiums can always be undercut by one with premiums closer to the cost of care.</p><p>2) Once again, free market principles, why would I buy an insurance policy that doesn't cover my insurance needs?  And since the law prevents insurers from canceling your coverage if you become sick, I imagine that means they cannot drop your coverage to exclude your illness either.</p><p>3) Ensuring equal coverage for everyone was never a principle concept behind health insurance reform.  Ensuring that everyone has access to health care was.  There's a difference between flying your private jet to New York to see the best doctors in the world and being able to afford to take your child to the local clinic when she has a fever.</p><p>Your three questions are interesting and important, but I don't think they qualify as the biggest issues with US health care today.</p><p>In my mind, among the biggest issues in US health care are:<br>1) millions of Americans currently have no access to health care other than going to the emergency room (which tends to be a very expensive way to treat people).<br>2) employer-provided health insurance is beginning to show cracks as premiums rise and the recession continues.  Small businesses are starting to cut coverage or drop it altogether.  And people who lose their jobs are faced with paying the full cost of insurance or having no coverage.<br>3) individuals and people with pre-existing conditions do not have affordable options for health insurance for themselves and their families.</p><p>this legislation addresses these problems at least in part.</p><p>1) all people will be required to have health insurance.  which means more healthy people in the system.  it also means that people who are just beginning to get sick will (hopefully) be able to seek treatment before their conditions become emergencies.  not only does that mean a healthier more productive populace, but it also should lower medical costs and ease crowding at emergency rooms.</p><p>2) small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance through the exchanges which will pool their risk pools together so they can get similar kinds of deals that huge businesses have for their employees. also, standardization of plans should prevent insurance companies from playing games to confuse buyers, allowing apples-to-apples comparisons between insurers.</p><p>3) like small businesses, individuals will be able to shop for health insurance through the exchanges.  also, while federal law prohibited employers from denying insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions, that law did not apply to individuals until now.</p><p>2 &amp; 3 are tightly bound together.  if a stable individual market for insurance comes to be because of this bill, it will remove a huge pressure from small-businesses and .  Entrepreneurs can quit their jobs to start the next Google or Facebook knowing that they and their family are still covered.  And small businesses (under 50 employees) will be able to hire employees, pay them a decent salary and let them use their earnings to pay for their own insurance plan (rather than quietly taxing their earnings and sending that money to the insurer).</p><p>healthcare in this country is a very complex entity with many interwoven aspects.  It's hard to look into the future and see what will work and what wont.  but one thing was clear was that the way health insurance was being run was not sustainable.</p><p>there's another aspect of this bill that is often overlooked.  If the insurance companies find a way to worm around the intent of the law, then Congress will most likely find a way to stop it.  Insurers know tha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since no one has attempted to give you a legitimate answer , here we go : 1 ) Insurance companies are mandated to spend 85 \ % of the premiums they receive on medical care .
So they can raise premiums , but they will also have to raise the amount of money they spend out .
For this reason , free market principles should ensure that insurance premiums are tied quite closely to medical costs since a company with inflated premiums can always be undercut by one with premiums closer to the cost of care.2 ) Once again , free market principles , why would I buy an insurance policy that does n't cover my insurance needs ?
And since the law prevents insurers from canceling your coverage if you become sick , I imagine that means they can not drop your coverage to exclude your illness either.3 ) Ensuring equal coverage for everyone was never a principle concept behind health insurance reform .
Ensuring that everyone has access to health care was .
There 's a difference between flying your private jet to New York to see the best doctors in the world and being able to afford to take your child to the local clinic when she has a fever.Your three questions are interesting and important , but I do n't think they qualify as the biggest issues with US health care today.In my mind , among the biggest issues in US health care are : 1 ) millions of Americans currently have no access to health care other than going to the emergency room ( which tends to be a very expensive way to treat people ) .2 ) employer-provided health insurance is beginning to show cracks as premiums rise and the recession continues .
Small businesses are starting to cut coverage or drop it altogether .
And people who lose their jobs are faced with paying the full cost of insurance or having no coverage.3 ) individuals and people with pre-existing conditions do not have affordable options for health insurance for themselves and their families.this legislation addresses these problems at least in part.1 ) all people will be required to have health insurance .
which means more healthy people in the system .
it also means that people who are just beginning to get sick will ( hopefully ) be able to seek treatment before their conditions become emergencies .
not only does that mean a healthier more productive populace , but it also should lower medical costs and ease crowding at emergency rooms.2 ) small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance through the exchanges which will pool their risk pools together so they can get similar kinds of deals that huge businesses have for their employees .
also , standardization of plans should prevent insurance companies from playing games to confuse buyers , allowing apples-to-apples comparisons between insurers.3 ) like small businesses , individuals will be able to shop for health insurance through the exchanges .
also , while federal law prohibited employers from denying insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions , that law did not apply to individuals until now.2 &amp; 3 are tightly bound together .
if a stable individual market for insurance comes to be because of this bill , it will remove a huge pressure from small-businesses and .
Entrepreneurs can quit their jobs to start the next Google or Facebook knowing that they and their family are still covered .
And small businesses ( under 50 employees ) will be able to hire employees , pay them a decent salary and let them use their earnings to pay for their own insurance plan ( rather than quietly taxing their earnings and sending that money to the insurer ) .healthcare in this country is a very complex entity with many interwoven aspects .
It 's hard to look into the future and see what will work and what wont .
but one thing was clear was that the way health insurance was being run was not sustainable.there 's another aspect of this bill that is often overlooked .
If the insurance companies find a way to worm around the intent of the law , then Congress will most likely find a way to stop it .
Insurers know tha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since no one has attempted to give you a legitimate answer, here we go:1) Insurance companies are mandated to spend 85\% of the premiums they receive on medical care.
So they can raise premiums, but they will also have to raise the amount of money they spend out.
For this reason, free market principles should ensure that insurance premiums are tied quite closely to medical costs since a company with inflated premiums can always be undercut by one with premiums closer to the cost of care.2) Once again, free market principles, why would I buy an insurance policy that doesn't cover my insurance needs?
And since the law prevents insurers from canceling your coverage if you become sick, I imagine that means they cannot drop your coverage to exclude your illness either.3) Ensuring equal coverage for everyone was never a principle concept behind health insurance reform.
Ensuring that everyone has access to health care was.
There's a difference between flying your private jet to New York to see the best doctors in the world and being able to afford to take your child to the local clinic when she has a fever.Your three questions are interesting and important, but I don't think they qualify as the biggest issues with US health care today.In my mind, among the biggest issues in US health care are:1) millions of Americans currently have no access to health care other than going to the emergency room (which tends to be a very expensive way to treat people).2) employer-provided health insurance is beginning to show cracks as premiums rise and the recession continues.
Small businesses are starting to cut coverage or drop it altogether.
And people who lose their jobs are faced with paying the full cost of insurance or having no coverage.3) individuals and people with pre-existing conditions do not have affordable options for health insurance for themselves and their families.this legislation addresses these problems at least in part.1) all people will be required to have health insurance.
which means more healthy people in the system.
it also means that people who are just beginning to get sick will (hopefully) be able to seek treatment before their conditions become emergencies.
not only does that mean a healthier more productive populace, but it also should lower medical costs and ease crowding at emergency rooms.2) small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance through the exchanges which will pool their risk pools together so they can get similar kinds of deals that huge businesses have for their employees.
also, standardization of plans should prevent insurance companies from playing games to confuse buyers, allowing apples-to-apples comparisons between insurers.3) like small businesses, individuals will be able to shop for health insurance through the exchanges.
also, while federal law prohibited employers from denying insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions, that law did not apply to individuals until now.2 &amp; 3 are tightly bound together.
if a stable individual market for insurance comes to be because of this bill, it will remove a huge pressure from small-businesses and .
Entrepreneurs can quit their jobs to start the next Google or Facebook knowing that they and their family are still covered.
And small businesses (under 50 employees) will be able to hire employees, pay them a decent salary and let them use their earnings to pay for their own insurance plan (rather than quietly taxing their earnings and sending that money to the insurer).healthcare in this country is a very complex entity with many interwoven aspects.
It's hard to look into the future and see what will work and what wont.
but one thing was clear was that the way health insurance was being run was not sustainable.there's another aspect of this bill that is often overlooked.
If the insurance companies find a way to worm around the intent of the law, then Congress will most likely find a way to stop it.
Insurers know tha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566214</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>MadDogX</author>
	<datestamp>1269267180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Republicans are opposed because it's socialism.  The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.</p><p>This will not end well.</p></div><p>Yeah. Just like when the National Health Service was created in the UK over 60 years ago. If only someone had stopped it, the UK wouldn't have devolved into one of those horrible socialist tyrannies, stricken with poverty and... oh, wait...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Republicans are opposed because it 's socialism .
The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.This will not end well.Yeah .
Just like when the National Health Service was created in the UK over 60 years ago .
If only someone had stopped it , the UK would n't have devolved into one of those horrible socialist tyrannies , stricken with poverty and... oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republicans are opposed because it's socialism.
The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.This will not end well.Yeah.
Just like when the National Health Service was created in the UK over 60 years ago.
If only someone had stopped it, the UK wouldn't have devolved into one of those horrible socialist tyrannies, stricken with poverty and... oh, wait...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570122</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1269277620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that the legislation is being written in such a way that to overturn the law (when it is passed), it will be so expensive to "undo" the changes that have happened that they won't want to reverse course.</p></div><p>Screw that. Do it anyway. Blame it on the Democrats, like Obama is blaming everything on Bush. If they hadn&rsquo;t screwed things up so well, we wouldn&rsquo;t be in the situation we&rsquo;re in, but it would cost less to fix it than it will in the long run if we don&rsquo;t.</p><p>The Republicans didn&rsquo;t want this, we the people didn&rsquo;t want this, the Democrats arrogantly pushed it through anyway, and now we&rsquo;re going to have to pay the price for that one way or the other. I prefer to reverse it as soon as possible, cost be damned, and chalk it up to lessons learned.</p><p>I said from the beginning &ndash; before Obama&rsquo;s election &ndash; that if elected he&rsquo;d screw things up so royally that he&rsquo;d basically destroy the Democrat party. While I hate to watch my prediction come true, at least perhaps a few more people will realize now that extreme liberalism promises all sorts of miraculous things but it isn&rsquo;t good for the country at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the legislation is being written in such a way that to overturn the law ( when it is passed ) , it will be so expensive to " undo " the changes that have happened that they wo n't want to reverse course.Screw that .
Do it anyway .
Blame it on the Democrats , like Obama is blaming everything on Bush .
If they hadn    t screwed things up so well , we wouldn    t be in the situation we    re in , but it would cost less to fix it than it will in the long run if we don    t.The Republicans didn    t want this , we the people didn    t want this , the Democrats arrogantly pushed it through anyway , and now we    re going to have to pay the price for that one way or the other .
I prefer to reverse it as soon as possible , cost be damned , and chalk it up to lessons learned.I said from the beginning    before Obama    s election    that if elected he    d screw things up so royally that he    d basically destroy the Democrat party .
While I hate to watch my prediction come true , at least perhaps a few more people will realize now that extreme liberalism promises all sorts of miraculous things but it isn    t good for the country at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the legislation is being written in such a way that to overturn the law (when it is passed), it will be so expensive to "undo" the changes that have happened that they won't want to reverse course.Screw that.
Do it anyway.
Blame it on the Democrats, like Obama is blaming everything on Bush.
If they hadn’t screwed things up so well, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in, but it would cost less to fix it than it will in the long run if we don’t.The Republicans didn’t want this, we the people didn’t want this, the Democrats arrogantly pushed it through anyway, and now we’re going to have to pay the price for that one way or the other.
I prefer to reverse it as soon as possible, cost be damned, and chalk it up to lessons learned.I said from the beginning – before Obama’s election – that if elected he’d screw things up so royally that he’d basically destroy the Democrat party.
While I hate to watch my prediction come true, at least perhaps a few more people will realize now that extreme liberalism promises all sorts of miraculous things but it isn’t good for the country at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569610</id>
	<title>Despite what Terry Pratchett said...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1269276180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insurance is not like betting.</p><p>You are not <b>betting</b> that the cancer will not metastasize - you are <b>making sure</b>  that if it does the patient will get the necessary treatment.</p><p>You've been brainwashed into thinking that it is OK and even necessary to run everything as a for-profit operation. Hint - it isn't.<br>Things like education, health-care, transport networks, defense, environment etc. are primarily SERVICES. They provide support and continuous operation of a civilized society.<br>That is why it is A-OK for money gathered from the taxes to be spent on those.<br>It is your money being used to provide you with a better quality of life. It is also other people's money.<br>And it is gathered from EVERYONE, all of the time, so any-time ANY-ONE needs it - it is there.</p><p>THAT is your flying car. Your jet-pack.<br>May not be as flashy as in The Jetsons, but it will keep you alive and slashdotting for a long time.<br>We are going onto a 100-year lifespan nowadays, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&amp;sid=aGCHVoAxPlu8" title="bloomberg.com">haven't you heard?</a> [bloomberg.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insurance is not like betting.You are not betting that the cancer will not metastasize - you are making sure that if it does the patient will get the necessary treatment.You 've been brainwashed into thinking that it is OK and even necessary to run everything as a for-profit operation .
Hint - it is n't.Things like education , health-care , transport networks , defense , environment etc .
are primarily SERVICES .
They provide support and continuous operation of a civilized society.That is why it is A-OK for money gathered from the taxes to be spent on those.It is your money being used to provide you with a better quality of life .
It is also other people 's money.And it is gathered from EVERYONE , all of the time , so any-time ANY-ONE needs it - it is there.THAT is your flying car .
Your jet-pack.May not be as flashy as in The Jetsons , but it will keep you alive and slashdotting for a long time.We are going onto a 100-year lifespan nowadays , have n't you heard ?
[ bloomberg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insurance is not like betting.You are not betting that the cancer will not metastasize - you are making sure  that if it does the patient will get the necessary treatment.You've been brainwashed into thinking that it is OK and even necessary to run everything as a for-profit operation.
Hint - it isn't.Things like education, health-care, transport networks, defense, environment etc.
are primarily SERVICES.
They provide support and continuous operation of a civilized society.That is why it is A-OK for money gathered from the taxes to be spent on those.It is your money being used to provide you with a better quality of life.
It is also other people's money.And it is gathered from EVERYONE, all of the time, so any-time ANY-ONE needs it - it is there.THAT is your flying car.
Your jet-pack.May not be as flashy as in The Jetsons, but it will keep you alive and slashdotting for a long time.We are going onto a 100-year lifespan nowadays, haven't you heard?
[bloomberg.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567508</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269270540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I know so many people in this country who try to game our systems of unemployment and welfare, and quite frankly its rather sad. I really am unsure if the government should take care of these people, as they are already a drain on our society to begin with...<br></i><br>You know them personally? If so, tell me how they game the system, since you have to work quite a while to get unemployment, and it's time-limited, and TANF (which replaced AFDC in 1996) has a two year time limit with a lifetime limit of five years.</p><p>Food stamps benefit WalMart and McDonald's, who don't pay their impoverished employees anough to eat. It's not the poor who benefit from food stamps, it's their employers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know so many people in this country who try to game our systems of unemployment and welfare , and quite frankly its rather sad .
I really am unsure if the government should take care of these people , as they are already a drain on our society to begin with...You know them personally ?
If so , tell me how they game the system , since you have to work quite a while to get unemployment , and it 's time-limited , and TANF ( which replaced AFDC in 1996 ) has a two year time limit with a lifetime limit of five years.Food stamps benefit WalMart and McDonald 's , who do n't pay their impoverished employees anough to eat .
It 's not the poor who benefit from food stamps , it 's their employers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know so many people in this country who try to game our systems of unemployment and welfare, and quite frankly its rather sad.
I really am unsure if the government should take care of these people, as they are already a drain on our society to begin with...You know them personally?
If so, tell me how they game the system, since you have to work quite a while to get unemployment, and it's time-limited, and TANF (which replaced AFDC in 1996) has a two year time limit with a lifetime limit of five years.Food stamps benefit WalMart and McDonald's, who don't pay their impoverished employees anough to eat.
It's not the poor who benefit from food stamps, it's their employers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565928</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd love to leave, but Canada and the UK are worse in terms of government interference in private citizens' lives. All I can do is bend over for the new taxes. =/</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to leave , but Canada and the UK are worse in terms of government interference in private citizens ' lives .
All I can do is bend over for the new taxes .
= /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to leave, but Canada and the UK are worse in terms of government interference in private citizens' lives.
All I can do is bend over for the new taxes.
=/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565900</id>
	<title>Re:Hurry up and wait</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1269266100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The apocalypse comes when the Chinese decide not to loan us any more money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The apocalypse comes when the Chinese decide not to loan us any more money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The apocalypse comes when the Chinese decide not to loan us any more money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1269268800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health.  Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life (and most Americans do more than one).  Incidental injuries like the ones you've listed are relatively inexpensive to treat compared to the medical conditions caused by the things I've listed above.  The only major exception is cancer, which is often associated with lifestyle too.</p><p>I am not a libertarian, but let me ask you:</p><p>  Who is more selfish: someone who refuses to pay for your care, or someone who demands that you pay for their care?</p><p>As a society, we seem to have lost all respect for other people's boundaries.  And to be sure, our boundaries are what define us.  That means that we have lost all respect for each other.  It is never appropriate to compel or demand that someone do something.  We are human beings and we need more respect than that.  I am not a beast of burden, I am a human being.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health .
Alcoholism , cigarette addiction , poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life ( and most Americans do more than one ) .
Incidental injuries like the ones you 've listed are relatively inexpensive to treat compared to the medical conditions caused by the things I 've listed above .
The only major exception is cancer , which is often associated with lifestyle too.I am not a libertarian , but let me ask you : Who is more selfish : someone who refuses to pay for your care , or someone who demands that you pay for their care ? As a society , we seem to have lost all respect for other people 's boundaries .
And to be sure , our boundaries are what define us .
That means that we have lost all respect for each other .
It is never appropriate to compel or demand that someone do something .
We are human beings and we need more respect than that .
I am not a beast of burden , I am a human being .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health.
Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life (and most Americans do more than one).
Incidental injuries like the ones you've listed are relatively inexpensive to treat compared to the medical conditions caused by the things I've listed above.
The only major exception is cancer, which is often associated with lifestyle too.I am not a libertarian, but let me ask you:  Who is more selfish: someone who refuses to pay for your care, or someone who demands that you pay for their care?As a society, we seem to have lost all respect for other people's boundaries.
And to be sure, our boundaries are what define us.
That means that we have lost all respect for each other.
It is never appropriate to compel or demand that someone do something.
We are human beings and we need more respect than that.
I am not a beast of burden, I am a human being.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567944</id>
	<title>I checked, insurance is more expensive</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1269271620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost</p></div><p>Specifically, a 30yo. male non-smoker living in Austin, Texas with Blue Cross/Blue Shield:</p><ul><li> $250 deductible costs $270 per month ($3240 per year)</li><li> $1,000 deductible costs $185 per month ($2220 per year)</li><li> $2,500 deductible costs $136 per month ($1632 per year)</li><li> $5,000 deductible costs $110 per month ($1320 per year)</li><li> $10,000 deductible costs $93 per month ($1116 per year)</li></ul><p>(All plans include prescription coverage but no dental.  And are the no frills hook-em-with-low-cost-then-upsell-them-with-addons plans.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds like more than health insurance would normally costSpecifically , a 30yo .
male non-smoker living in Austin , Texas with Blue Cross/Blue Shield : $ 250 deductible costs $ 270 per month ( $ 3240 per year ) $ 1,000 deductible costs $ 185 per month ( $ 2220 per year ) $ 2,500 deductible costs $ 136 per month ( $ 1632 per year ) $ 5,000 deductible costs $ 110 per month ( $ 1320 per year ) $ 10,000 deductible costs $ 93 per month ( $ 1116 per year ) ( All plans include prescription coverage but no dental .
And are the no frills hook-em-with-low-cost-then-upsell-them-with-addons plans .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds like more than health insurance would normally costSpecifically, a 30yo.
male non-smoker living in Austin, Texas with Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $250 deductible costs $270 per month ($3240 per year) $1,000 deductible costs $185 per month ($2220 per year) $2,500 deductible costs $136 per month ($1632 per year) $5,000 deductible costs $110 per month ($1320 per year) $10,000 deductible costs $93 per month ($1116 per year)(All plans include prescription coverage but no dental.
And are the no frills hook-em-with-low-cost-then-upsell-them-with-addons plans.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570046</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1269277380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And socialized medicine would do that.  Requiring Americans to buy private insurance doesn't fit into that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And socialized medicine would do that .
Requiring Americans to buy private insurance does n't fit into that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And socialized medicine would do that.
Requiring Americans to buy private insurance doesn't fit into that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566106</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1269266880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins</p></div><p>
I'm pretty sure that <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/p/5qpmd.html" title="yahoo.com">4.4\%</a> [yahoo.com] isnt a large profit margin, and certainly could not be altered in any meaningful way to reduce rates. Paying $600 per month? Lets cut out the insurance companies profits.. now you save $28 per month!! woohooo!!!111oneone!!!<br>
<br>
You have been sold a lie about where the problem is. The problem is not insurance company profits. The problem is that Americans get every possible test and procedure done, which is what makes the rates high.<br>
<br>
The idea that this bill wont effect people that are currently happy with their insurance is nonsense. They are going to end up paying more, now that pre-existing conditions must be covered. Also, what about the people that are unhappy with their insurance coverage? How are they going to feel about higher rates?<br>
<br>
You've been sold a lie and you will be bitching about rising insurance rates in about 2 years time, because you will not remember that you were wrong here today. The insurance companies are not raping you. The other people in your plan are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins I 'm pretty sure that 4.4 \ % [ yahoo.com ] isnt a large profit margin , and certainly could not be altered in any meaningful way to reduce rates .
Paying $ 600 per month ?
Lets cut out the insurance companies profits.. now you save $ 28 per month ! !
woohooo ! ! ! 111oneone ! ! ! You have been sold a lie about where the problem is .
The problem is not insurance company profits .
The problem is that Americans get every possible test and procedure done , which is what makes the rates high .
The idea that this bill wont effect people that are currently happy with their insurance is nonsense .
They are going to end up paying more , now that pre-existing conditions must be covered .
Also , what about the people that are unhappy with their insurance coverage ?
How are they going to feel about higher rates ?
You 've been sold a lie and you will be bitching about rising insurance rates in about 2 years time , because you will not remember that you were wrong here today .
The insurance companies are not raping you .
The other people in your plan are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins
I'm pretty sure that 4.4\% [yahoo.com] isnt a large profit margin, and certainly could not be altered in any meaningful way to reduce rates.
Paying $600 per month?
Lets cut out the insurance companies profits.. now you save $28 per month!!
woohooo!!!111oneone!!!

You have been sold a lie about where the problem is.
The problem is not insurance company profits.
The problem is that Americans get every possible test and procedure done, which is what makes the rates high.
The idea that this bill wont effect people that are currently happy with their insurance is nonsense.
They are going to end up paying more, now that pre-existing conditions must be covered.
Also, what about the people that are unhappy with their insurance coverage?
How are they going to feel about higher rates?
You've been sold a lie and you will be bitching about rising insurance rates in about 2 years time, because you will not remember that you were wrong here today.
The insurance companies are not raping you.
The other people in your plan are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570238</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Answer this question then.  Does the preamble enumerate any specific powers to anyone?  Or is it simply a statement of the desire of the document?</p><p>Perhaps if you read it like this:</p><p>"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..., we delgate these powers to the federal government, we delegate these powers to the individual states, and anything that is not specifically delegated remains in the hands of the individual citizens."</p><p>There are specific enumerated powers for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Answer this question then .
Does the preamble enumerate any specific powers to anyone ?
Or is it simply a statement of the desire of the document ? Perhaps if you read it like this : " in Order to form a more perfect Union , establish Justice , insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defence , promote the general Welfare... , we delgate these powers to the federal government , we delegate these powers to the individual states , and anything that is not specifically delegated remains in the hands of the individual citizens .
" There are specific enumerated powers for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Answer this question then.
Does the preamble enumerate any specific powers to anyone?
Or is it simply a statement of the desire of the document?Perhaps if you read it like this:"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..., we delgate these powers to the federal government, we delegate these powers to the individual states, and anything that is not specifically delegated remains in the hands of the individual citizens.
"There are specific enumerated powers for a reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566000</id>
	<title>I'm not from the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not from the US, but, imho, what is currently wrong with the US health care is:</p><p>1) It costs more than needed in the US, and most money goes to administration/lawyers/patents/... instead of going to the actual production of medicine and the actual work done by doctors. Health care of the same or better quality can be provided much cheaper.<br>2) In the insurance system, people are excluded based on the current status of their body. Nobody should be excluded based on that.</p><p>I'm not sure if the new system now voted for, improves the above points, but the old one scores very bad at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not from the US , but , imho , what is currently wrong with the US health care is : 1 ) It costs more than needed in the US , and most money goes to administration/lawyers/patents/... instead of going to the actual production of medicine and the actual work done by doctors .
Health care of the same or better quality can be provided much cheaper.2 ) In the insurance system , people are excluded based on the current status of their body .
Nobody should be excluded based on that.I 'm not sure if the new system now voted for , improves the above points , but the old one scores very bad at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not from the US, but, imho, what is currently wrong with the US health care is:1) It costs more than needed in the US, and most money goes to administration/lawyers/patents/... instead of going to the actual production of medicine and the actual work done by doctors.
Health care of the same or better quality can be provided much cheaper.2) In the insurance system, people are excluded based on the current status of their body.
Nobody should be excluded based on that.I'm not sure if the new system now voted for, improves the above points, but the old one scores very bad at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568648</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1269273480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Constitution says what the government may do. If it's not specifically in there, they're not supposed to do it.</p><p>But that really hasn't been the case for a long time now, has it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Constitution says what the government may do .
If it 's not specifically in there , they 're not supposed to do it.But that really has n't been the case for a long time now , has it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Constitution says what the government may do.
If it's not specifically in there, they're not supposed to do it.But that really hasn't been the case for a long time now, has it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569062</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does this mean for the everyday average leech?  I am uninsured.  They pass a law saying "you have to have health insurance or we fine you $800 a month."  I made something like $2000 last year total; less than 3 months worth of health insurance fines.  I'm basically a dependent of my parents but some legaleze in our insurance says I am not covered because I am over 21 (I actually think this is bullshit and they are just screwing me over).  If I just straight up do not have cash will the government step up and help me pay for insurance?  OH WAIT.  Republicans killed the public option right?</p><p>What are the regulations on immigrants in foreign countries with free healthcare?  If I have a serious illness and travel to some nation with free healthcare and pass out in the middle of the street, will they fix me up for free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does this mean for the everyday average leech ?
I am uninsured .
They pass a law saying " you have to have health insurance or we fine you $ 800 a month .
" I made something like $ 2000 last year total ; less than 3 months worth of health insurance fines .
I 'm basically a dependent of my parents but some legaleze in our insurance says I am not covered because I am over 21 ( I actually think this is bullshit and they are just screwing me over ) .
If I just straight up do not have cash will the government step up and help me pay for insurance ?
OH WAIT .
Republicans killed the public option right ? What are the regulations on immigrants in foreign countries with free healthcare ?
If I have a serious illness and travel to some nation with free healthcare and pass out in the middle of the street , will they fix me up for free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does this mean for the everyday average leech?
I am uninsured.
They pass a law saying "you have to have health insurance or we fine you $800 a month.
"  I made something like $2000 last year total; less than 3 months worth of health insurance fines.
I'm basically a dependent of my parents but some legaleze in our insurance says I am not covered because I am over 21 (I actually think this is bullshit and they are just screwing me over).
If I just straight up do not have cash will the government step up and help me pay for insurance?
OH WAIT.
Republicans killed the public option right?What are the regulations on immigrants in foreign countries with free healthcare?
If I have a serious illness and travel to some nation with free healthcare and pass out in the middle of the street, will they fix me up for free?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."</p><p>Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the "general welfare" of American citizens?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We the People of the United States , in Order to form a more perfect Union , establish Justice , insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defence , promote the general Welfare... " Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the " general welfare " of American citizens ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the "general welfare" of American citizens?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</id>
	<title>Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1269264120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the bill does a lot of good things. It stops insurance companies basically doing whatever they like, which was the main problem with the US health system. But it actually rewards those same insurance companies by delivering millions of new customers to them. A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins and made them actually compete for business, instead of retaining their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Dilbert\_Future" title="wikipedia.org">confusopoly</a> [wikipedia.org]. And then there's the issue that women will now be required to purchase abortion coverage separately because the government is forbidden to pay for that procedure. This is basically a regression, since lots of plans will probably stop covering abortion in order to be eligible for government subsidised customers. Overall though, lots more people who were unable to get coverage will now be able to get it. Imperfect as it is, this bill will save lives, and contrary to what Fox will tell you, it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the bill does a lot of good things .
It stops insurance companies basically doing whatever they like , which was the main problem with the US health system .
But it actually rewards those same insurance companies by delivering millions of new customers to them .
A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins and made them actually compete for business , instead of retaining their confusopoly [ wikipedia.org ] .
And then there 's the issue that women will now be required to purchase abortion coverage separately because the government is forbidden to pay for that procedure .
This is basically a regression , since lots of plans will probably stop covering abortion in order to be eligible for government subsidised customers .
Overall though , lots more people who were unable to get coverage will now be able to get it .
Imperfect as it is , this bill will save lives , and contrary to what Fox will tell you , it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the bill does a lot of good things.
It stops insurance companies basically doing whatever they like, which was the main problem with the US health system.
But it actually rewards those same insurance companies by delivering millions of new customers to them.
A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins and made them actually compete for business, instead of retaining their confusopoly [wikipedia.org].
And then there's the issue that women will now be required to purchase abortion coverage separately because the government is forbidden to pay for that procedure.
This is basically a regression, since lots of plans will probably stop covering abortion in order to be eligible for government subsidised customers.
Overall though, lots more people who were unable to get coverage will now be able to get it.
Imperfect as it is, this bill will save lives, and contrary to what Fox will tell you, it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572884</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269286200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USian people you are referring to are the willfully ignorant tea partiers.  The tea partiers are undereducated, inbreded white supremesists who will follow whatever the GOP and their libertarian lapdogs tell them to do.  This is why they are always against health care, clean water, education, transportation, equal pay for all, and laws that prevent drunk driving aand air that is free from tobacco smoke.  When they do get edumacated they always choose the conservative brainwashing camps commonly refeered to "Community Colleges" rather than real institutes of higher learning such as your universities.</p><p>--<br>"Evento rerum stolidi didicere magistro" - The stupid have no teacher except their own experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USian people you are referring to are the willfully ignorant tea partiers .
The tea partiers are undereducated , inbreded white supremesists who will follow whatever the GOP and their libertarian lapdogs tell them to do .
This is why they are always against health care , clean water , education , transportation , equal pay for all , and laws that prevent drunk driving aand air that is free from tobacco smoke .
When they do get edumacated they always choose the conservative brainwashing camps commonly refeered to " Community Colleges " rather than real institutes of higher learning such as your universities.-- " Evento rerum stolidi didicere magistro " - The stupid have no teacher except their own experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USian people you are referring to are the willfully ignorant tea partiers.
The tea partiers are undereducated, inbreded white supremesists who will follow whatever the GOP and their libertarian lapdogs tell them to do.
This is why they are always against health care, clean water, education, transportation, equal pay for all, and laws that prevent drunk driving aand air that is free from tobacco smoke.
When they do get edumacated they always choose the conservative brainwashing camps commonly refeered to "Community Colleges" rather than real institutes of higher learning such as your universities.--"Evento rerum stolidi didicere magistro" - The stupid have no teacher except their own experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572498</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269284820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Indeed but, to play devil's advocate, doesn't that describe almost every country.</p></div><p>Pretty much. Most economic definitions require that the taxation also be progressive to qualify as 'socialism" but that certainly doesn't disqualify the US. It does disqualify a few countries, but not any that have stable economic systems that have lasted more than a generation with those policies. Pretty much every country has an economy that blends capitalism, socialism, and communism. Generally when any economy moves too far in any one direction, that's when their economy destabilizes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And a term like 'socialist' would be fairly meaningless if it described almost everyone.</p></div><p>When applied to government's it is fairly meaningless in an economic sense. It can be used to describe governments that implement extreme levels of socialism in their economy, but is rarely used that way. Rather it mostly is applied as a convenient label to countries that claim to be working towards a more socialist economic system, but need strict dictatorship or oligarchy power to do it... and they promise it will happen eventually, just not now. But as the term "socialist" is being applied to healthcare in the US, yes it is absolutely meaningless to call a country "socialist". The term is used not to inform or describe anything, but to incite emotion.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the US is still relatively 'un-socialised' compared to most other Western countries (particularly European).</p></div><p>In some ways yes and in some ways no. If you make the progressiveness of taxes a measure, than yes, we're less socialist and have been since the 80's. (But I would not call it an economic success.) If you're talking about overall taxation, well those numbers are almost meaningless since they don't account for the billions of dollars in loans taken out on behalf of the citizenry, as deferred taxes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The government 'does' less, and has less of a hand in things in the US than it does in most of Europe. The flip side of this though is that the US collects considerably less of its citizens money in taxes -</p></div><p>The government does not do less, it does different things. For example, it subsidizes oil companies. It spends outrageous amounts on the "socialist" military. Overall we spend as much or more per person as other counties we just don't collect the taxes for it, instead mortgaging the wealth of future generations by racking up incredible levels of debt. (Now don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to debt and because of the way currency is evaluated, borrowing money actually does generate wealth in the process, balanced against risking our entire economy. Borrowing has it's place, but the extremes we have taken are unsustainable.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This data is a bit old (2005) but check out the green (personal tax) line.</p> </div><p>Hopefully you already saw my explanation of why these numbers don't show the real picture.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I suppose at its core, this is what issues like this are about - do you prefer to pay more in tax but have more stuff provided free to you? Or keep more of your money but have to pay more in day to day life?</p></div><p>You could sum it up that way, but that's a bit simplistic.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Advantage of the former is convenience and efficiency, advantage of the latter is that it potentially could be cheaper overall since you have more choice.</p></div><p>Obviously I think we need a balanced approach with socialism where it makes sense (fire departments) and capitalism where it makes sense (movie industry). The trick is figuring out where it makes sense to apply what. Economies of scale, show that for some things (like healthcare) it can be done much, much cheaper when done en masse, for the same or better quality. That's a good reason to support socialized healthcare, but not the best one in my mind. I like economics, and economically, some markets are poor fits with capitalism. Capitalism requires that both parties can make informed decisions and buyers can comparison shop. In instances like fire prevention service and healthcare, that is often not the case at all. Further, the economic and social harm of poor service or lack of service, cascade into the rest of society. If you can't reach a bargain with the commercial fire department, the fire may spread to several neighbors, and that may be good business for the fire prevention company, but it is bad for society because it destroys wealth (see the broken window fallacy before disputing this). </p><p>Similarly, people who can't afford healthcare don't get preventative care which spreads sickness and many eventually end up being cared for anyway by our society which is unwilling to let it's people all suffer beyond a certain point. If we took the money the government pays now on subsidies for helping the blind and spent some of it providing free health care for people who may be coming down with preventable forms of blindness, we'd save money and the US would not have the highest incidents of blindness from preventable causes in the first world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed but , to play devil 's advocate , does n't that describe almost every country.Pretty much .
Most economic definitions require that the taxation also be progressive to qualify as 'socialism " but that certainly does n't disqualify the US .
It does disqualify a few countries , but not any that have stable economic systems that have lasted more than a generation with those policies .
Pretty much every country has an economy that blends capitalism , socialism , and communism .
Generally when any economy moves too far in any one direction , that 's when their economy destabilizes.And a term like 'socialist ' would be fairly meaningless if it described almost everyone.When applied to government 's it is fairly meaningless in an economic sense .
It can be used to describe governments that implement extreme levels of socialism in their economy , but is rarely used that way .
Rather it mostly is applied as a convenient label to countries that claim to be working towards a more socialist economic system , but need strict dictatorship or oligarchy power to do it... and they promise it will happen eventually , just not now .
But as the term " socialist " is being applied to healthcare in the US , yes it is absolutely meaningless to call a country " socialist " .
The term is used not to inform or describe anything , but to incite emotion.I think the US is still relatively 'un-socialised ' compared to most other Western countries ( particularly European ) .In some ways yes and in some ways no .
If you make the progressiveness of taxes a measure , than yes , we 're less socialist and have been since the 80 's .
( But I would not call it an economic success .
) If you 're talking about overall taxation , well those numbers are almost meaningless since they do n't account for the billions of dollars in loans taken out on behalf of the citizenry , as deferred taxes.The government 'does ' less , and has less of a hand in things in the US than it does in most of Europe .
The flip side of this though is that the US collects considerably less of its citizens money in taxes -The government does not do less , it does different things .
For example , it subsidizes oil companies .
It spends outrageous amounts on the " socialist " military .
Overall we spend as much or more per person as other counties we just do n't collect the taxes for it , instead mortgaging the wealth of future generations by racking up incredible levels of debt .
( Now do n't get me wrong .
I 'm not opposed to debt and because of the way currency is evaluated , borrowing money actually does generate wealth in the process , balanced against risking our entire economy .
Borrowing has it 's place , but the extremes we have taken are unsustainable .
) This data is a bit old ( 2005 ) but check out the green ( personal tax ) line .
Hopefully you already saw my explanation of why these numbers do n't show the real picture.I suppose at its core , this is what issues like this are about - do you prefer to pay more in tax but have more stuff provided free to you ?
Or keep more of your money but have to pay more in day to day life ? You could sum it up that way , but that 's a bit simplistic .
Advantage of the former is convenience and efficiency , advantage of the latter is that it potentially could be cheaper overall since you have more choice.Obviously I think we need a balanced approach with socialism where it makes sense ( fire departments ) and capitalism where it makes sense ( movie industry ) .
The trick is figuring out where it makes sense to apply what .
Economies of scale , show that for some things ( like healthcare ) it can be done much , much cheaper when done en masse , for the same or better quality .
That 's a good reason to support socialized healthcare , but not the best one in my mind .
I like economics , and economically , some markets are poor fits with capitalism .
Capitalism requires that both parties can make informed decisions and buyers can comparison shop .
In instances like fire prevention service and healthcare , that is often not the case at all .
Further , the economic and social harm of poor service or lack of service , cascade into the rest of society .
If you ca n't reach a bargain with the commercial fire department , the fire may spread to several neighbors , and that may be good business for the fire prevention company , but it is bad for society because it destroys wealth ( see the broken window fallacy before disputing this ) .
Similarly , people who ca n't afford healthcare do n't get preventative care which spreads sickness and many eventually end up being cared for anyway by our society which is unwilling to let it 's people all suffer beyond a certain point .
If we took the money the government pays now on subsidies for helping the blind and spent some of it providing free health care for people who may be coming down with preventable forms of blindness , we 'd save money and the US would not have the highest incidents of blindness from preventable causes in the first world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed but, to play devil's advocate, doesn't that describe almost every country.Pretty much.
Most economic definitions require that the taxation also be progressive to qualify as 'socialism" but that certainly doesn't disqualify the US.
It does disqualify a few countries, but not any that have stable economic systems that have lasted more than a generation with those policies.
Pretty much every country has an economy that blends capitalism, socialism, and communism.
Generally when any economy moves too far in any one direction, that's when their economy destabilizes.And a term like 'socialist' would be fairly meaningless if it described almost everyone.When applied to government's it is fairly meaningless in an economic sense.
It can be used to describe governments that implement extreme levels of socialism in their economy, but is rarely used that way.
Rather it mostly is applied as a convenient label to countries that claim to be working towards a more socialist economic system, but need strict dictatorship or oligarchy power to do it... and they promise it will happen eventually, just not now.
But as the term "socialist" is being applied to healthcare in the US, yes it is absolutely meaningless to call a country "socialist".
The term is used not to inform or describe anything, but to incite emotion.I think the US is still relatively 'un-socialised' compared to most other Western countries (particularly European).In some ways yes and in some ways no.
If you make the progressiveness of taxes a measure, than yes, we're less socialist and have been since the 80's.
(But I would not call it an economic success.
) If you're talking about overall taxation, well those numbers are almost meaningless since they don't account for the billions of dollars in loans taken out on behalf of the citizenry, as deferred taxes.The government 'does' less, and has less of a hand in things in the US than it does in most of Europe.
The flip side of this though is that the US collects considerably less of its citizens money in taxes -The government does not do less, it does different things.
For example, it subsidizes oil companies.
It spends outrageous amounts on the "socialist" military.
Overall we spend as much or more per person as other counties we just don't collect the taxes for it, instead mortgaging the wealth of future generations by racking up incredible levels of debt.
(Now don't get me wrong.
I'm not opposed to debt and because of the way currency is evaluated, borrowing money actually does generate wealth in the process, balanced against risking our entire economy.
Borrowing has it's place, but the extremes we have taken are unsustainable.
)This data is a bit old (2005) but check out the green (personal tax) line.
Hopefully you already saw my explanation of why these numbers don't show the real picture.I suppose at its core, this is what issues like this are about - do you prefer to pay more in tax but have more stuff provided free to you?
Or keep more of your money but have to pay more in day to day life?You could sum it up that way, but that's a bit simplistic.
Advantage of the former is convenience and efficiency, advantage of the latter is that it potentially could be cheaper overall since you have more choice.Obviously I think we need a balanced approach with socialism where it makes sense (fire departments) and capitalism where it makes sense (movie industry).
The trick is figuring out where it makes sense to apply what.
Economies of scale, show that for some things (like healthcare) it can be done much, much cheaper when done en masse, for the same or better quality.
That's a good reason to support socialized healthcare, but not the best one in my mind.
I like economics, and economically, some markets are poor fits with capitalism.
Capitalism requires that both parties can make informed decisions and buyers can comparison shop.
In instances like fire prevention service and healthcare, that is often not the case at all.
Further, the economic and social harm of poor service or lack of service, cascade into the rest of society.
If you can't reach a bargain with the commercial fire department, the fire may spread to several neighbors, and that may be good business for the fire prevention company, but it is bad for society because it destroys wealth (see the broken window fallacy before disputing this).
Similarly, people who can't afford healthcare don't get preventative care which spreads sickness and many eventually end up being cared for anyway by our society which is unwilling to let it's people all suffer beyond a certain point.
If we took the money the government pays now on subsidies for helping the blind and spent some of it providing free health care for people who may be coming down with preventable forms of blindness, we'd save money and the US would not have the highest incidents of blindness from preventable causes in the first world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573390</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>PieceofLavalamp</author>
	<datestamp>1269288000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.<br>
<br>
Why would getting extra money from the gov't make prices go up? What exactly are you asking about? Im confused<br>
<br>
2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?<br>
<br>
A large chunk of the legislation is to restrict what health insurance companies can do. To specifically address that i'll quote the reuters article.<br>
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319" title="reuters.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319</a> [reuters.com] <br>
<br>
 WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015<br>

*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.<br>
<br>

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012<br>
*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.<br>

 *An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.<br>

*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.<br>
<br>

3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?<br>
The wealthy will always be treated better. That just the way things work. Will everyone recieve the care they need? Probably, it just might not be as cushy.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in ?
In other words , will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply ?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market .
Why would getting extra money from the gov't make prices go up ?
What exactly are you asking about ?
Im confused 2 ) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for ?
A large chunk of the legislation is to restrict what health insurance companies can do .
To specifically address that i 'll quote the reuters article .
http : //www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319 [ reuters.com ] WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015 * Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services .
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012 * Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form " accountable care organizations " to improve quality and efficiency of care .
* An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes .
* The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services , which oversees the government programs , begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions .
3 ) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy ?
The wealthy will always be treated better .
That just the way things work .
Will everyone recieve the care they need ?
Probably , it just might not be as cushy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in?
In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.
Why would getting extra money from the gov't make prices go up?
What exactly are you asking about?
Im confused

2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?
A large chunk of the legislation is to restrict what health insurance companies can do.
To specifically address that i'll quote the reuters article.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319 [reuters.com] 

 WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015

*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.
WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012
*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.
*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.
*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.
3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?
The wealthy will always be treated better.
That just the way things work.
Will everyone recieve the care they need?
Probably, it just might not be as cushy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572274</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1269284040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that was precisely GP's point. Going by the American Right's definition of "socialism" as any form of government taxation &amp; spending, every single country in the world is "socialist".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that was precisely GP 's point .
Going by the American Right 's definition of " socialism " as any form of government taxation &amp; spending , every single country in the world is " socialist " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that was precisely GP's point.
Going by the American Right's definition of "socialism" as any form of government taxation &amp; spending, every single country in the world is "socialist".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575938</id>
	<title>news for nerds? really?</title>
	<author>sloth jr</author>
	<datestamp>1269254700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This entire thread seems so very against the charter  of slashdot. Though clearly a polarizing issue in the US, maybe there are other forums that can hammer out the inevitable right-versus-left polemic.<br><br>Litmus test: does story subject use or create technology to yield unexpected results? If yes - approve for publication. If not - reject.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This entire thread seems so very against the charter of slashdot .
Though clearly a polarizing issue in the US , maybe there are other forums that can hammer out the inevitable right-versus-left polemic.Litmus test : does story subject use or create technology to yield unexpected results ?
If yes - approve for publication .
If not - reject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This entire thread seems so very against the charter  of slashdot.
Though clearly a polarizing issue in the US, maybe there are other forums that can hammer out the inevitable right-versus-left polemic.Litmus test: does story subject use or create technology to yield unexpected results?
If yes - approve for publication.
If not - reject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573316</id>
	<title>And we still lose our rights</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1269287700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those of you that can't see how this violates our 4th Amendment rights, I'll make it easy with a car analogy - soon enough they'll be able to legally require you to purchase a car, just for the sake of forcing you to purchase car insurance. So much for your right the the security of your personal effects, property, and papers. How can you be secure when someone else tells you what to do with YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY?</p><p>While you people cheer for your 'victory' you cheer for the steady erosion of our security and liberties. You've just applauded the government being able to tell you to 'give your money to this industry or go to jail.'</p><p>Enjoy your 'victory' fools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you that ca n't see how this violates our 4th Amendment rights , I 'll make it easy with a car analogy - soon enough they 'll be able to legally require you to purchase a car , just for the sake of forcing you to purchase car insurance .
So much for your right the the security of your personal effects , property , and papers .
How can you be secure when someone else tells you what to do with YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY ? While you people cheer for your 'victory ' you cheer for the steady erosion of our security and liberties .
You 've just applauded the government being able to tell you to 'give your money to this industry or go to jail .
'Enjoy your 'victory ' fools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you that can't see how this violates our 4th Amendment rights, I'll make it easy with a car analogy - soon enough they'll be able to legally require you to purchase a car, just for the sake of forcing you to purchase car insurance.
So much for your right the the security of your personal effects, property, and papers.
How can you be secure when someone else tells you what to do with YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY?While you people cheer for your 'victory' you cheer for the steady erosion of our security and liberties.
You've just applauded the government being able to tell you to 'give your money to this industry or go to jail.
'Enjoy your 'victory' fools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569602</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269276180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health. Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life (and most Americans do more than one).</p></div><p>Not just that, they are <i>the biggest</i> factor in healthcare costs.  Something like 70\% of all healthcare costs are lifestyle related.  I really wish the healthcare bill had focused on reducing those, instead of some weird insurance reform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health .
Alcoholism , cigarette addiction , poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life ( and most Americans do more than one ) .Not just that , they are the biggest factor in healthcare costs .
Something like 70 \ % of all healthcare costs are lifestyle related .
I really wish the healthcare bill had focused on reducing those , instead of some weird insurance reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health.
Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life (and most Americans do more than one).Not just that, they are the biggest factor in healthcare costs.
Something like 70\% of all healthcare costs are lifestyle related.
I really wish the healthcare bill had focused on reducing those, instead of some weird insurance reform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565478</id>
	<title>Not reform, capitulation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill sells out the American people to some of the largest campaign contributors.  The insurance companies, the AMA, and the pharmaceutical companies will reap hundreds of billions from their investment of tens of millions in bribes.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill sells out the American people to some of the largest campaign contributors .
The insurance companies , the AMA , and the pharmaceutical companies will reap hundreds of billions from their investment of tens of millions in bribes.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill sells out the American people to some of the largest campaign contributors.
The insurance companies, the AMA, and the pharmaceutical companies will reap hundreds of billions from their investment of tens of millions in bribes.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576700</id>
	<title>Re:It's not that simple</title>
	<author>Renevith</author>
	<datestamp>1269257880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it can be to share <b>risk</b>, it can be to shift <b>risk</b> to another party</p></div><p>Exactly. There is very little <b>risk</b> associated with pre-existing conditions, just cost.</p><p>I agree with the GP's <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1590674&amp;cid=31565690" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">reply</a> [slashdot.org] to another post: that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for the government to mandate or provide coverage for such conditions. It's just not "insurance" at that point.</p><p>IAAA (Actuary), so my training is largely in insurance and risk.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it can be to share risk , it can be to shift risk to another partyExactly .
There is very little risk associated with pre-existing conditions , just cost.I agree with the GP 's reply [ slashdot.org ] to another post : that does n't mean it 's a bad thing for the government to mandate or provide coverage for such conditions .
It 's just not " insurance " at that point.IAAA ( Actuary ) , so my training is largely in insurance and risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it can be to share risk, it can be to shift risk to another partyExactly.
There is very little risk associated with pre-existing conditions, just cost.I agree with the GP's reply [slashdot.org] to another post: that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for the government to mandate or provide coverage for such conditions.
It's just not "insurance" at that point.IAAA (Actuary), so my training is largely in insurance and risk.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571828</id>
	<title>Also Ironic</title>
	<author>postermmxvicom</author>
	<datestamp>1269282720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was the "free health care for everyone" people who choose fund a procedure that ends a baby's life. What <i> <b>is</b> </i> your point?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the " free health care for everyone " people who choose fund a procedure that ends a baby 's life .
What is your point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the "free health care for everyone" people who choose fund a procedure that ends a baby's life.
What  is  your point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565796</id>
	<title>Itsaboutdamoneydummy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THIS is ONLY about power and money, NOTHING to do with helping people.<br>Don't kid yourself, they (Democrats) want this so they can control MORE or YOUR money.<br>Bend over, we have some more taxes you might (or not, we don't care) enjoy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS is ONLY about power and money , NOTHING to do with helping people.Do n't kid yourself , they ( Democrats ) want this so they can control MORE or YOUR money.Bend over , we have some more taxes you might ( or not , we do n't care ) enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS is ONLY about power and money, NOTHING to do with helping people.Don't kid yourself, they (Democrats) want this so they can control MORE or YOUR money.Bend over, we have some more taxes you might (or not, we don't care) enjoy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567720</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1269271080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well under this government run system you will still have to worry about how you will provide heath insurance for your family but now you have to worry that if you don't pay they will throw you in prison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well under this government run system you will still have to worry about how you will provide heath insurance for your family but now you have to worry that if you do n't pay they will throw you in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well under this government run system you will still have to worry about how you will provide heath insurance for your family but now you have to worry that if you don't pay they will throw you in prison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567936</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1269271620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From their perspective, the number of lives lost due to poor health care is completely dwarfed by the lives lost due to abortion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From their perspective , the number of lives lost due to poor health care is completely dwarfed by the lives lost due to abortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From their perspective, the number of lives lost due to poor health care is completely dwarfed by the lives lost due to abortion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565666</id>
	<title>Reform?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many political stories will we see posted to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</p><p>this legislation had nothing to do with health care or insurance reform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many political stories will we see posted to / .
? this legislation had nothing to do with health care or insurance reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many political stories will we see posted to /.
?this legislation had nothing to do with health care or insurance reform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31614692</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1269544800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Specifically an Army and a Navy.  Since the Air Force is neither, it's unconstitutional until an amendment is passed to allow funding for it.  Ditto for the CIA, the NSA, and all the other <a href="http://intelligence.gov/about-the-intelligence-community/" title="intelligence.gov">intelligence agencies</a> [intelligence.gov] not a part of the Army or the Navy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically an Army and a Navy .
Since the Air Force is neither , it 's unconstitutional until an amendment is passed to allow funding for it .
Ditto for the CIA , the NSA , and all the other intelligence agencies [ intelligence.gov ] not a part of the Army or the Navy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specifically an Army and a Navy.
Since the Air Force is neither, it's unconstitutional until an amendment is passed to allow funding for it.
Ditto for the CIA, the NSA, and all the other intelligence agencies [intelligence.gov] not a part of the Army or the Navy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569158</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1269274740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How long until Americans figure out that it is much cheaper to pay the fines and pick up health insurance when you need it (now that insurers are required to sign people with preexisting conditions) than to pay premiums year-round?</p></div><p>NPR has done stories about how people do this in Massachusetts.  The average cost to insurance companies for people who report receiving 6 months or less of coverage per year is north of $10k while average costs for the average person who has insurance for all 12 months is closer to $2.5k.  (Note: Please don't quote these numbers, they are being pulled from the depths of my memory.)

</p><p>Humanity can rest easy knowing these types of self-serving creeps are in a very small percentage of the minority.  Still, I'd rather support people playing these types of insurance games because the costs to the hospitals get really high when people procrastinate seeking help until three years after the onset of symptoms.

</p><p>And a funny thing... I've never heard people critical of the health insurance industry advocate for killing people who don't have the cash or the insurance to pay for an expensive, but necessary operation.  It seems like making the argument, "I don't want to pay because I don't want to use it" is the same as "I would rather choose between dying miserably or paying for the procedure out of pocket and potentially ruining my family financially than 'assuring' that I receive necessary care in case something goes wrong with me."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until Americans figure out that it is much cheaper to pay the fines and pick up health insurance when you need it ( now that insurers are required to sign people with preexisting conditions ) than to pay premiums year-round ? NPR has done stories about how people do this in Massachusetts .
The average cost to insurance companies for people who report receiving 6 months or less of coverage per year is north of $ 10k while average costs for the average person who has insurance for all 12 months is closer to $ 2.5k .
( Note : Please do n't quote these numbers , they are being pulled from the depths of my memory .
) Humanity can rest easy knowing these types of self-serving creeps are in a very small percentage of the minority .
Still , I 'd rather support people playing these types of insurance games because the costs to the hospitals get really high when people procrastinate seeking help until three years after the onset of symptoms .
And a funny thing... I 've never heard people critical of the health insurance industry advocate for killing people who do n't have the cash or the insurance to pay for an expensive , but necessary operation .
It seems like making the argument , " I do n't want to pay because I do n't want to use it " is the same as " I would rather choose between dying miserably or paying for the procedure out of pocket and potentially ruining my family financially than 'assuring ' that I receive necessary care in case something goes wrong with me .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until Americans figure out that it is much cheaper to pay the fines and pick up health insurance when you need it (now that insurers are required to sign people with preexisting conditions) than to pay premiums year-round?NPR has done stories about how people do this in Massachusetts.
The average cost to insurance companies for people who report receiving 6 months or less of coverage per year is north of $10k while average costs for the average person who has insurance for all 12 months is closer to $2.5k.
(Note: Please don't quote these numbers, they are being pulled from the depths of my memory.
)

Humanity can rest easy knowing these types of self-serving creeps are in a very small percentage of the minority.
Still, I'd rather support people playing these types of insurance games because the costs to the hospitals get really high when people procrastinate seeking help until three years after the onset of symptoms.
And a funny thing... I've never heard people critical of the health insurance industry advocate for killing people who don't have the cash or the insurance to pay for an expensive, but necessary operation.
It seems like making the argument, "I don't want to pay because I don't want to use it" is the same as "I would rather choose between dying miserably or paying for the procedure out of pocket and potentially ruining my family financially than 'assuring' that I receive necessary care in case something goes wrong with me.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568048</id>
	<title>The Day the Music Died</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269271980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only good things to come out of this are that it pretty much guarantees Obama will be a single term president and that the outing of Democrats will continue in November elections. I'm not sure that the $5 trillion cost is really worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only good things to come out of this are that it pretty much guarantees Obama will be a single term president and that the outing of Democrats will continue in November elections .
I 'm not sure that the $ 5 trillion cost is really worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only good things to come out of this are that it pretty much guarantees Obama will be a single term president and that the outing of Democrats will continue in November elections.
I'm not sure that the $5 trillion cost is really worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566786</id>
	<title>If insurance so good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; How come members of congress are not on it, but they have their own Cadillac system which is also exempt from higher taxation?</p><p>
&nbsp; What good for the goose not good for the gender?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  How come members of congress are not on it , but they have their own Cadillac system which is also exempt from higher taxation ?
  What good for the goose not good for the gender ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  How come members of congress are not on it, but they have their own Cadillac system which is also exempt from higher taxation?
  What good for the goose not good for the gender?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566404</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1269267660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Libertarians are the biggest hypocrites, anyway.</p><p>In Germany, one part of the ruling coalition is the German equivalent of the libertarian party: FDP. When they were in the opposition, they were the loudest against big government, welfare, taxes, corruption and so on.</p><p>Only 100 days after they went to power, FDP has risen the number of civil servants and repealed the law which mandated lowering the number of them every year.<br>FDP ministers have put their army buddies, elder FDP officials and other buddies into high positions, they have lowered the tax for a corporation that donated to FDP, and the head of the FDP has actively promoted the business of his gay boyfriend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Libertarians are the biggest hypocrites , anyway.In Germany , one part of the ruling coalition is the German equivalent of the libertarian party : FDP .
When they were in the opposition , they were the loudest against big government , welfare , taxes , corruption and so on.Only 100 days after they went to power , FDP has risen the number of civil servants and repealed the law which mandated lowering the number of them every year.FDP ministers have put their army buddies , elder FDP officials and other buddies into high positions , they have lowered the tax for a corporation that donated to FDP , and the head of the FDP has actively promoted the business of his gay boyfriend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Libertarians are the biggest hypocrites, anyway.In Germany, one part of the ruling coalition is the German equivalent of the libertarian party: FDP.
When they were in the opposition, they were the loudest against big government, welfare, taxes, corruption and so on.Only 100 days after they went to power, FDP has risen the number of civil servants and repealed the law which mandated lowering the number of them every year.FDP ministers have put their army buddies, elder FDP officials and other buddies into high positions, they have lowered the tax for a corporation that donated to FDP, and the head of the FDP has actively promoted the business of his gay boyfriend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566656</id>
	<title>Who is going to pay? Is it at all constitutional?</title>
	<author>Leafwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1269268380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who is going to pay for this? <br>
The people is going to pay for it.<br> <br>

Okay, but isn't the US in a recession? Is it wise to raise the taxes in a recession?<br> <br>

And is it at all constitutional ?<br>
Ron Paul clearly think it's not.<br>
<a href="http://www.campaignforliberty.com/" title="campaignforliberty.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.campaignforliberty.com/</a> [campaignforliberty.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is going to pay for this ?
The people is going to pay for it .
Okay , but is n't the US in a recession ?
Is it wise to raise the taxes in a recession ?
And is it at all constitutional ?
Ron Paul clearly think it 's not .
http : //www.campaignforliberty.com/ [ campaignforliberty.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is going to pay for this?
The people is going to pay for it.
Okay, but isn't the US in a recession?
Is it wise to raise the taxes in a recession?
And is it at all constitutional ?
Ron Paul clearly think it's not.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ [campaignforliberty.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572416</id>
	<title>Re:If you're not a Christian, don't talk like one</title>
	<author>SirLoinOfBeef</author>
	<datestamp>1269284520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It really bugs me when non-Christians take it on themselves to paraphrase the Bible.  If you're not a believer, the LEAST you could do is find an actual passage to back yourself up, rather than just popping off what you yourself admit is, at best, an uninformed opinion.</p></div><p>Fair enough.  Maybe, as a Christian, you can help me find the Biblical passage where Jesus, after excoriating the lepers for their questionable lifestyle choices,  refuses to heal them until he's duly compensated.  I know it's in here, somewhere...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really bugs me when non-Christians take it on themselves to paraphrase the Bible .
If you 're not a believer , the LEAST you could do is find an actual passage to back yourself up , rather than just popping off what you yourself admit is , at best , an uninformed opinion.Fair enough .
Maybe , as a Christian , you can help me find the Biblical passage where Jesus , after excoriating the lepers for their questionable lifestyle choices , refuses to heal them until he 's duly compensated .
I know it 's in here , somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really bugs me when non-Christians take it on themselves to paraphrase the Bible.
If you're not a believer, the LEAST you could do is find an actual passage to back yourself up, rather than just popping off what you yourself admit is, at best, an uninformed opinion.Fair enough.
Maybe, as a Christian, you can help me find the Biblical passage where Jesus, after excoriating the lepers for their questionable lifestyle choices,  refuses to heal them until he's duly compensated.
I know it's in here, somewhere...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572802</id>
	<title>Re:propaganda</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1269285900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's true that we don't know the whole scope of the issue and, while my background is in medicine and not economic theory, there are other, more reputable sources that argue otherwise.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/business/03view.html?ex=1359694800&amp;en=e2a7992c36d4a0ad&amp;ei=5124&amp;partner=permalink&amp;exprod=permalink" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/business/03view.html?ex=1359694800&amp;en=e2a7992c36d4a0ad&amp;ei=5124&amp;partner=permalink&amp;exprod=permalink</a> [nytimes.com]

<a href="http://www.cato.org/pub\_display.php?pub\_id=3122" title="cato.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.cato.org/pub\_display.php?pub\_id=3122</a> [cato.org]

I agree that Medicare is a much more pressing issue at the present.  The analogy is that</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true that we do n't know the whole scope of the issue and , while my background is in medicine and not economic theory , there are other , more reputable sources that argue otherwise .
http : //www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/business/03view.html ? ex = 1359694800&amp;en = e2a7992c36d4a0ad&amp;ei = 5124&amp;partner = permalink&amp;exprod = permalink [ nytimes.com ] http : //www.cato.org/pub \ _display.php ? pub \ _id = 3122 [ cato.org ] I agree that Medicare is a much more pressing issue at the present .
The analogy is that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true that we don't know the whole scope of the issue and, while my background is in medicine and not economic theory, there are other, more reputable sources that argue otherwise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/business/03view.html?ex=1359694800&amp;en=e2a7992c36d4a0ad&amp;ei=5124&amp;partner=permalink&amp;exprod=permalink [nytimes.com]

http://www.cato.org/pub\_display.php?pub\_id=3122 [cato.org]

I agree that Medicare is a much more pressing issue at the present.
The analogy is that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566002</id>
	<title>Joy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is RIDICULOUS!</p><p>Now we're caught up with the other european countries that were "ahead" of us.</p><p>Joy.</p><p>The question is, how many people realize that not a single major invention/achievement has come out of them. YAY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is RIDICULOUS ! Now we 're caught up with the other european countries that were " ahead " of us.Joy.The question is , how many people realize that not a single major invention/achievement has come out of them .
YAY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is RIDICULOUS!Now we're caught up with the other european countries that were "ahead" of us.Joy.The question is, how many people realize that not a single major invention/achievement has come out of them.
YAY.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568752</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>ericrost</author>
	<datestamp>1269273720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health.  Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life </p></div><p>So, you want to completely deny the coercion of the tobacco companies who knew the facts on nicotine addiction but continued to advertise them as a lifestyle enhancement and deny the health implications? You want to ask Native Americans how much of a choice alcoholism is? Have you noticed where the subsidies from the USDA go? We, economically, make it such that if you are lower middle class, the only nutrition you can afford is of such poor quality that you are just about guaranteed to either be starving or obese, not healthy. Its hard to not be sedentary when you're either dealing with malnutrition or horrid side effects from the onset of diabetes due to our ag system being a subsidized corn syrup production model.</p><p>Learn a little bit about the socio-economic factors and the serious corporate corruption in our system that cause these things before you start immediately blaming the "lazy poor". How many poor people do you know? I grew up wondering where the next meal was coming from and it wasn't because my mother wanted to work two jobs and never see her kids.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health .
Alcoholism , cigarette addiction , poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life So , you want to completely deny the coercion of the tobacco companies who knew the facts on nicotine addiction but continued to advertise them as a lifestyle enhancement and deny the health implications ?
You want to ask Native Americans how much of a choice alcoholism is ?
Have you noticed where the subsidies from the USDA go ?
We , economically , make it such that if you are lower middle class , the only nutrition you can afford is of such poor quality that you are just about guaranteed to either be starving or obese , not healthy .
Its hard to not be sedentary when you 're either dealing with malnutrition or horrid side effects from the onset of diabetes due to our ag system being a subsidized corn syrup production model.Learn a little bit about the socio-economic factors and the serious corporate corruption in our system that cause these things before you start immediately blaming the " lazy poor " .
How many poor people do you know ?
I grew up wondering where the next meal was coming from and it was n't because my mother wanted to work two jobs and never see her kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health.
Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life So, you want to completely deny the coercion of the tobacco companies who knew the facts on nicotine addiction but continued to advertise them as a lifestyle enhancement and deny the health implications?
You want to ask Native Americans how much of a choice alcoholism is?
Have you noticed where the subsidies from the USDA go?
We, economically, make it such that if you are lower middle class, the only nutrition you can afford is of such poor quality that you are just about guaranteed to either be starving or obese, not healthy.
Its hard to not be sedentary when you're either dealing with malnutrition or horrid side effects from the onset of diabetes due to our ag system being a subsidized corn syrup production model.Learn a little bit about the socio-economic factors and the serious corporate corruption in our system that cause these things before you start immediately blaming the "lazy poor".
How many poor people do you know?
I grew up wondering where the next meal was coming from and it wasn't because my mother wanted to work two jobs and never see her kids.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573044</id>
	<title>Re:This was a tough one</title>
	<author>spectro</author>
	<datestamp>1269286800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't underestimate Obama's campaigning machine. Republicans think they already won the mid-terms but I disagree.</p><p>The fact that the President just needed to step-up his game for a couple weeks to get this bill passed speaks volumes of his campaigning ability. Now this same machine is at the service of all congressmen who voted yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't underestimate Obama 's campaigning machine .
Republicans think they already won the mid-terms but I disagree.The fact that the President just needed to step-up his game for a couple weeks to get this bill passed speaks volumes of his campaigning ability .
Now this same machine is at the service of all congressmen who voted yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't underestimate Obama's campaigning machine.
Republicans think they already won the mid-terms but I disagree.The fact that the President just needed to step-up his game for a couple weeks to get this bill passed speaks volumes of his campaigning ability.
Now this same machine is at the service of all congressmen who voted yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494</id>
	<title>Ironic</title>
	<author>Burpmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1269264120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was the "right to life" people that threatened to block life-saving medical care for millions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the " right to life " people that threatened to block life-saving medical care for millions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the "right to life" people that threatened to block life-saving medical care for millions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580664</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1269338520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope they leave.  WE THE PEOPLE don't need any more "I ON MY OWN" people walking around thinking foolishly that they did it all on their own and don't need anyone.</p><p>If you don't want or need your fellow countrymen (who make up this great country), then please GTFO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they leave .
WE THE PEOPLE do n't need any more " I ON MY OWN " people walking around thinking foolishly that they did it all on their own and do n't need anyone.If you do n't want or need your fellow countrymen ( who make up this great country ) , then please GTFO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they leave.
WE THE PEOPLE don't need any more "I ON MY OWN" people walking around thinking foolishly that they did it all on their own and don't need anyone.If you don't want or need your fellow countrymen (who make up this great country), then please GTFO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566712</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>rswail</author>
	<datestamp>1269268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bankrupting the health insurance industry would be one of the most productive things you could do to assist the US economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bankrupting the health insurance industry would be one of the most productive things you could do to assist the US economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bankrupting the health insurance industry would be one of the most productive things you could do to assist the US economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580096</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1269286860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Subsidies don't increase premiums... And it doesn't limit the dynamics, but this is mostly a good thing. So long as there is good competition (this bill aims to create a much healthier competitive market). Then prices will lower. I doubt a bill making a single payer system would have passed even when obama was really popular.<br> <br>

2) This will likely happen. There will probably be laws created as these issues come up. That said, there wasn't anything like that in the past system so it is still an improvement.<br> <br>
3) They wont. The US people would never pass anything coming close to that. BUT it does succeed in "Making sure 'everyone has something'" which is obviously better than some people having nothing. Over time that 'something' can be improved until everyone has decent healthcare. Which is a good goal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Subsidies do n't increase premiums... And it does n't limit the dynamics , but this is mostly a good thing .
So long as there is good competition ( this bill aims to create a much healthier competitive market ) .
Then prices will lower .
I doubt a bill making a single payer system would have passed even when obama was really popular .
2 ) This will likely happen .
There will probably be laws created as these issues come up .
That said , there was n't anything like that in the past system so it is still an improvement .
3 ) They wont .
The US people would never pass anything coming close to that .
BUT it does succeed in " Making sure 'everyone has something ' " which is obviously better than some people having nothing .
Over time that 'something ' can be improved until everyone has decent healthcare .
Which is a good goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Subsidies don't increase premiums... And it doesn't limit the dynamics, but this is mostly a good thing.
So long as there is good competition (this bill aims to create a much healthier competitive market).
Then prices will lower.
I doubt a bill making a single payer system would have passed even when obama was really popular.
2) This will likely happen.
There will probably be laws created as these issues come up.
That said, there wasn't anything like that in the past system so it is still an improvement.
3) They wont.
The US people would never pass anything coming close to that.
BUT it does succeed in "Making sure 'everyone has something'" which is obviously better than some people having nothing.
Over time that 'something' can be improved until everyone has decent healthcare.
Which is a good goal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569544</id>
	<title>Nobody Seems to Get It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269275940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't the cost of insurance.  The problem is the cost of health care.  Reduce the cost of health care and insurance companies will be able to make a profit without exclusions.   Reduce the cost of health care, and insurance won't be as necessary.  Reduce the cost of health care and more people will be able to use the system.</p><p>This bill isn't about health care reform. It's about forcing the 30 million young healthy people who don't need insurance to pay premiums to cover the expense of health care for those who consume more than they pay for.</p><p>What surprises me is that nobody seems to be recognizing the incredible secondary effects of this bill.  Forcing people to buy insurance they hadn't planned on when they bought their house is going to drive a lot more foreclosures.  A lot of smaller business owners are going to be terminating employees because they can't afford to pay for the mandatory coverage.  A lot of big corporations aren't going to hire anyone until the need is desperate.</p><p>This bill is going to deepen the recession, increase the number of foreclosures, and make finding a job almost impossible for the long term unemployed.  Will it reduce the cost of health care? No.  Will it reduce the cost of insurance?  No.  Will it limit the spiraling cost of heath care and insurance in the future?  No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't the cost of insurance .
The problem is the cost of health care .
Reduce the cost of health care and insurance companies will be able to make a profit without exclusions .
Reduce the cost of health care , and insurance wo n't be as necessary .
Reduce the cost of health care and more people will be able to use the system.This bill is n't about health care reform .
It 's about forcing the 30 million young healthy people who do n't need insurance to pay premiums to cover the expense of health care for those who consume more than they pay for.What surprises me is that nobody seems to be recognizing the incredible secondary effects of this bill .
Forcing people to buy insurance they had n't planned on when they bought their house is going to drive a lot more foreclosures .
A lot of smaller business owners are going to be terminating employees because they ca n't afford to pay for the mandatory coverage .
A lot of big corporations are n't going to hire anyone until the need is desperate.This bill is going to deepen the recession , increase the number of foreclosures , and make finding a job almost impossible for the long term unemployed .
Will it reduce the cost of health care ?
No. Will it reduce the cost of insurance ?
No. Will it limit the spiraling cost of heath care and insurance in the future ?
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't the cost of insurance.
The problem is the cost of health care.
Reduce the cost of health care and insurance companies will be able to make a profit without exclusions.
Reduce the cost of health care, and insurance won't be as necessary.
Reduce the cost of health care and more people will be able to use the system.This bill isn't about health care reform.
It's about forcing the 30 million young healthy people who don't need insurance to pay premiums to cover the expense of health care for those who consume more than they pay for.What surprises me is that nobody seems to be recognizing the incredible secondary effects of this bill.
Forcing people to buy insurance they hadn't planned on when they bought their house is going to drive a lot more foreclosures.
A lot of smaller business owners are going to be terminating employees because they can't afford to pay for the mandatory coverage.
A lot of big corporations aren't going to hire anyone until the need is desperate.This bill is going to deepen the recession, increase the number of foreclosures, and make finding a job almost impossible for the long term unemployed.
Will it reduce the cost of health care?
No.  Will it reduce the cost of insurance?
No.  Will it limit the spiraling cost of heath care and insurance in the future?
No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571418</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269281700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure it's about the same proportion as those who left the US under Bush: a couple of people per million who made that threat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure it 's about the same proportion as those who left the US under Bush : a couple of people per million who made that threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure it's about the same proportion as those who left the US under Bush: a couple of people per million who made that threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569118</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fines are around $700, if I read that correctly.</p><p>That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.  I pay $600 for my international travel health insurance, per year (this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US, and while I travel elsewhere.)</p></div><p>Either you need to check your plan to see that you actually have the coverage you think you do, or you need to tell us all what the plan is so that we can sign up for it. When I first traveled to the US my insurance was several thousand dollars for 6 months. Now that I live here insurance for my wife and I is about $600 a month. $600 a year? No bloody way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fines are around $ 700 , if I read that correctly.That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost .
I pay $ 600 for my international travel health insurance , per year ( this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US , and while I travel elsewhere .
) Either you need to check your plan to see that you actually have the coverage you think you do , or you need to tell us all what the plan is so that we can sign up for it .
When I first traveled to the US my insurance was several thousand dollars for 6 months .
Now that I live here insurance for my wife and I is about $ 600 a month .
$ 600 a year ?
No bloody way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fines are around $700, if I read that correctly.That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.
I pay $600 for my international travel health insurance, per year (this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US, and while I travel elsewhere.
)Either you need to check your plan to see that you actually have the coverage you think you do, or you need to tell us all what the plan is so that we can sign up for it.
When I first traveled to the US my insurance was several thousand dollars for 6 months.
Now that I live here insurance for my wife and I is about $600 a month.
$600 a year?
No bloody way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571170</id>
	<title>Re:Hurry up and wait</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1269281100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, by midterm elections we'll still be trying to read this 2000-page bill to figure out what it says...  Most of the provisions - good or bad (depending on your opinion) - don't go into effect for a few years.</p><p>My main objection to the think was the closed door process.  Sure, I don't approve of the Republican's approach to the whole thing, but the Democrats could have at least let C-Span televise the working sessions.</p><p>I still don't know why the list of reforms needs a 2000-page bill.  I think most of the reforms are actually good ones, although I'd have preferred to see at least a few things go further.  On the other hand, sometimes when you have a long journey you need to start out with the first step...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , by midterm elections we 'll still be trying to read this 2000-page bill to figure out what it says... Most of the provisions - good or bad ( depending on your opinion ) - do n't go into effect for a few years.My main objection to the think was the closed door process .
Sure , I do n't approve of the Republican 's approach to the whole thing , but the Democrats could have at least let C-Span televise the working sessions.I still do n't know why the list of reforms needs a 2000-page bill .
I think most of the reforms are actually good ones , although I 'd have preferred to see at least a few things go further .
On the other hand , sometimes when you have a long journey you need to start out with the first step.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, by midterm elections we'll still be trying to read this 2000-page bill to figure out what it says...  Most of the provisions - good or bad (depending on your opinion) - don't go into effect for a few years.My main objection to the think was the closed door process.
Sure, I don't approve of the Republican's approach to the whole thing, but the Democrats could have at least let C-Span televise the working sessions.I still don't know why the list of reforms needs a 2000-page bill.
I think most of the reforms are actually good ones, although I'd have preferred to see at least a few things go further.
On the other hand, sometimes when you have a long journey you need to start out with the first step...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565770</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The concept of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death\_spiral\_(insurance)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">death spiral</a> [wikipedia.org] is a pretty simple one IMO, and it really is a pure game theoretic concept that is subject to any system exposed to self selection bias.</p><p>When you remove the capacity for discrimination via "preexisting condition", please explain to me an alternative to a insurance coverage, public option or private, that will not be subject to harshly rising premiums?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The concept of the death spiral [ wikipedia.org ] is a pretty simple one IMO , and it really is a pure game theoretic concept that is subject to any system exposed to self selection bias.When you remove the capacity for discrimination via " preexisting condition " , please explain to me an alternative to a insurance coverage , public option or private , that will not be subject to harshly rising premiums ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concept of the death spiral [wikipedia.org] is a pretty simple one IMO, and it really is a pure game theoretic concept that is subject to any system exposed to self selection bias.When you remove the capacity for discrimination via "preexisting condition", please explain to me an alternative to a insurance coverage, public option or private, that will not be subject to harshly rising premiums?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566156</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>WebmasterNeal</author>
	<datestamp>1269267000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice (I'm replying simply so I can find this comment again someday.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice ( I 'm replying simply so I can find this comment again someday .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice (I'm replying simply so I can find this comment again someday.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578594</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>NuShrike</author>
	<datestamp>1269270180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to be not a new question, and generally leans toward your interpretation:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General\_Welfare\_clause" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General\_Welfare\_clause</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to be not a new question , and generally leans toward your interpretation : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General \ _Welfare \ _clause [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to be not a new question, and generally leans toward your interpretation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General\_Welfare\_clause [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571062</id>
	<title>Re:Beware, lawmakers: November is coming.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269280800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't about health care, or being compassionate about your fellow man. It's about control, and political power.</p><p>No one in this country is denied medical care. Any indigent person can get free, paid for, care at any hospital that accepts medicare reimbursement.<br>Just walk into the emergency room. That's the law, and has been for years. Medicare has a built-in provision for covering that when the hospital settles up with CMS through their annual cost report. It's called a DSH payment. DSH stands for disproportionate share payment, and refers to hospitals that handle a disproportionate share of indigent, "unable to pay" cases. That's right - Medicare was already picking up this cost.</p><p>The "number of uninsured" figure you hear in the media is inflated. If you change jobs, and switch from one employers plan to another, you are counted as uninsured for the entire year. When in reality you might have to sit through a 30 day waiting period. It's disingenuous at best, fraudulent at worst.</p><p>No if all you wanted to do is "fix the broken healthcare system", you only needed to do 3 things:</p><p>1) Enact Tort Reform on malpractice cases. Place a cap on awards at $100K. This will drive down costs because: a) Doctors won't have to practice defensive medicine and order excessive tests to cover their butts, b) Malpractice costs will go down, because like all insurance premiums they are loss experience rated, c) Once physicians costs go down, they're charges will be forced to go down as well because health insurers will mandate it.<br>Now this will NEVER happen. Why? Because all our so called representative were lawyers before getting elected, and one thing a lawyer will never do is take food off of the table of another lawyer. We've let the fox guard the chicken coop on this one.</p><p>2) Regulate health insurers to mandate that health insurance premiums be loss experience rated. That way when their payouts go down as a result of #1 above, the premiums they charge will be forced to go down.</p><p>3) Remove the artifical restriction that prohibits interstate competition among health insurance companies.</p><p>None of these requires a tax increase, none of these requires thousands of new bureaucrats, none of these grows government, and none of these infringes on the fundamental, basic rights of American Taxpayers. But what happened? None of the above for starters. No - it's never been about fixing healthcare. It's always been about control and political power. Like the Federal Govt taking direct control of 1/7 of the United States economy in terms of GDP.</p><p>Bottom line - it's all a bunch of bulls*it, glossed over by smoke and mirrors, and you pathetic suckers all fell for it.<br>Democraps, republiturds, none of them are worth a damn. All they do is a perpetual "divide and conquer" on "we the people" in order<br>to keep us busy sniping and picking at each other, while they loot and plunder this country for their own benefit. If "we the people"<br>ever wake up and realize what is being done to us, they're all in a heap of trouble. Flush 'em all down the toilet, and get people<br>in there that will repeal this before the damage done is permanent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about health care , or being compassionate about your fellow man .
It 's about control , and political power.No one in this country is denied medical care .
Any indigent person can get free , paid for , care at any hospital that accepts medicare reimbursement.Just walk into the emergency room .
That 's the law , and has been for years .
Medicare has a built-in provision for covering that when the hospital settles up with CMS through their annual cost report .
It 's called a DSH payment .
DSH stands for disproportionate share payment , and refers to hospitals that handle a disproportionate share of indigent , " unable to pay " cases .
That 's right - Medicare was already picking up this cost.The " number of uninsured " figure you hear in the media is inflated .
If you change jobs , and switch from one employers plan to another , you are counted as uninsured for the entire year .
When in reality you might have to sit through a 30 day waiting period .
It 's disingenuous at best , fraudulent at worst.No if all you wanted to do is " fix the broken healthcare system " , you only needed to do 3 things : 1 ) Enact Tort Reform on malpractice cases .
Place a cap on awards at $ 100K .
This will drive down costs because : a ) Doctors wo n't have to practice defensive medicine and order excessive tests to cover their butts , b ) Malpractice costs will go down , because like all insurance premiums they are loss experience rated , c ) Once physicians costs go down , they 're charges will be forced to go down as well because health insurers will mandate it.Now this will NEVER happen .
Why ? Because all our so called representative were lawyers before getting elected , and one thing a lawyer will never do is take food off of the table of another lawyer .
We 've let the fox guard the chicken coop on this one.2 ) Regulate health insurers to mandate that health insurance premiums be loss experience rated .
That way when their payouts go down as a result of # 1 above , the premiums they charge will be forced to go down.3 ) Remove the artifical restriction that prohibits interstate competition among health insurance companies.None of these requires a tax increase , none of these requires thousands of new bureaucrats , none of these grows government , and none of these infringes on the fundamental , basic rights of American Taxpayers .
But what happened ?
None of the above for starters .
No - it 's never been about fixing healthcare .
It 's always been about control and political power .
Like the Federal Govt taking direct control of 1/7 of the United States economy in terms of GDP.Bottom line - it 's all a bunch of bulls * it , glossed over by smoke and mirrors , and you pathetic suckers all fell for it.Democraps , republiturds , none of them are worth a damn .
All they do is a perpetual " divide and conquer " on " we the people " in orderto keep us busy sniping and picking at each other , while they loot and plunder this country for their own benefit .
If " we the people " ever wake up and realize what is being done to us , they 're all in a heap of trouble .
Flush 'em all down the toilet , and get peoplein there that will repeal this before the damage done is permanent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about health care, or being compassionate about your fellow man.
It's about control, and political power.No one in this country is denied medical care.
Any indigent person can get free, paid for, care at any hospital that accepts medicare reimbursement.Just walk into the emergency room.
That's the law, and has been for years.
Medicare has a built-in provision for covering that when the hospital settles up with CMS through their annual cost report.
It's called a DSH payment.
DSH stands for disproportionate share payment, and refers to hospitals that handle a disproportionate share of indigent, "unable to pay" cases.
That's right - Medicare was already picking up this cost.The "number of uninsured" figure you hear in the media is inflated.
If you change jobs, and switch from one employers plan to another, you are counted as uninsured for the entire year.
When in reality you might have to sit through a 30 day waiting period.
It's disingenuous at best, fraudulent at worst.No if all you wanted to do is "fix the broken healthcare system", you only needed to do 3 things:1) Enact Tort Reform on malpractice cases.
Place a cap on awards at $100K.
This will drive down costs because: a) Doctors won't have to practice defensive medicine and order excessive tests to cover their butts, b) Malpractice costs will go down, because like all insurance premiums they are loss experience rated, c) Once physicians costs go down, they're charges will be forced to go down as well because health insurers will mandate it.Now this will NEVER happen.
Why? Because all our so called representative were lawyers before getting elected, and one thing a lawyer will never do is take food off of the table of another lawyer.
We've let the fox guard the chicken coop on this one.2) Regulate health insurers to mandate that health insurance premiums be loss experience rated.
That way when their payouts go down as a result of #1 above, the premiums they charge will be forced to go down.3) Remove the artifical restriction that prohibits interstate competition among health insurance companies.None of these requires a tax increase, none of these requires thousands of new bureaucrats, none of these grows government, and none of these infringes on the fundamental, basic rights of American Taxpayers.
But what happened?
None of the above for starters.
No - it's never been about fixing healthcare.
It's always been about control and political power.
Like the Federal Govt taking direct control of 1/7 of the United States economy in terms of GDP.Bottom line - it's all a bunch of bulls*it, glossed over by smoke and mirrors, and you pathetic suckers all fell for it.Democraps, republiturds, none of them are worth a damn.
All they do is a perpetual "divide and conquer" on "we the people" in orderto keep us busy sniping and picking at each other, while they loot and plunder this country for their own benefit.
If "we the people"ever wake up and realize what is being done to us, they're all in a heap of trouble.
Flush 'em all down the toilet, and get peoplein there that will repeal this before the damage done is permanent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572152</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1269283680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins and made them actually compete for business</i></p><p>There is no real market for individual insurance in the US because of the WWII-era tax break for employer-provided coverage.  Then states make most of the rules on individual insurance including coverage mandates.</p><p>You seem to think there is a lot of cuts to be made in the individual insurance industry, in which case you should start your own insurance company as you are a genius.  It certainly is not due to profit, as insurance companies rarely have profits much over 3\%.  The 85\% limitation may push some costs like 24x7 call centers into 9x5 call centers and reducing other insurance company services that are not direct medical care.</p><p>However the truth is that high US medical costs are due to higher physician pay (double the European average) and greater use of newer treatments and drugs (as defined as three years old or younger).</p><p><i>it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.</i></p><p>It will raise my taxes.  But it won't end up raising my premiums?  Really?  We'll see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins and made them actually compete for businessThere is no real market for individual insurance in the US because of the WWII-era tax break for employer-provided coverage .
Then states make most of the rules on individual insurance including coverage mandates.You seem to think there is a lot of cuts to be made in the individual insurance industry , in which case you should start your own insurance company as you are a genius .
It certainly is not due to profit , as insurance companies rarely have profits much over 3 \ % .
The 85 \ % limitation may push some costs like 24x7 call centers into 9x5 call centers and reducing other insurance company services that are not direct medical care.However the truth is that high US medical costs are due to higher physician pay ( double the European average ) and greater use of newer treatments and drugs ( as defined as three years old or younger ) .it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.It will raise my taxes .
But it wo n't end up raising my premiums ?
Really ? We 'll see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A competitive public option would have pushed down insurance company margins and made them actually compete for businessThere is no real market for individual insurance in the US because of the WWII-era tax break for employer-provided coverage.
Then states make most of the rules on individual insurance including coverage mandates.You seem to think there is a lot of cuts to be made in the individual insurance industry, in which case you should start your own insurance company as you are a genius.
It certainly is not due to profit, as insurance companies rarely have profits much over 3\%.
The 85\% limitation may push some costs like 24x7 call centers into 9x5 call centers and reducing other insurance company services that are not direct medical care.However the truth is that high US medical costs are due to higher physician pay (double the European average) and greater use of newer treatments and drugs (as defined as three years old or younger).it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.It will raise my taxes.
But it won't end up raising my premiums?
Really?  We'll see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574914</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269250440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> as opposed to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness: i don't know why that's "patriotism"<br>---Ok, so if it's somebody else's industry wanting to profit, it's selfish.  If it's your industry (job) wanting to profit, it's somehow noble.  Got it.</p><p>
&nbsp; a corporation takes care of its stockholders and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing rates<br>---Middle class americans ARE the stockholders.  The rates are voluntary,  you don't have to sign up with your employer's health plan.</p><p>if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated. even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? does the hospital turn them away for not having cash? can you live in a society that does that?<br>---This is so asinine.  Nobody forces you to buy a car.  You can walk, take the bus, cabs, subways.  You can actually live in this country without owning your own car.  It's kind of hard to say the same for medical insurance.  If you want to get out of paying your tax, your only option is death.</p><p>I thought techies were supposed to be logical, why is slashdot filled with such imbeciles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as opposed to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness : i do n't know why that 's " patriotism " ---Ok , so if it 's somebody else 's industry wanting to profit , it 's selfish .
If it 's your industry ( job ) wanting to profit , it 's somehow noble .
Got it .
  a corporation takes care of its stockholders and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing rates---Middle class americans ARE the stockholders .
The rates are voluntary , you do n't have to sign up with your employer 's health plan.if you understand why you ca n't drive legally without car insurance , you understand why health insurance must be mandated .
even the young and healthy break their arms .
then , what happens ?
does the hospital turn them away for not having cash ?
can you live in a society that does that ? ---This is so asinine .
Nobody forces you to buy a car .
You can walk , take the bus , cabs , subways .
You can actually live in this country without owning your own car .
It 's kind of hard to say the same for medical insurance .
If you want to get out of paying your tax , your only option is death.I thought techies were supposed to be logical , why is slashdot filled with such imbeciles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> as opposed to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness: i don't know why that's "patriotism"---Ok, so if it's somebody else's industry wanting to profit, it's selfish.
If it's your industry (job) wanting to profit, it's somehow noble.
Got it.
  a corporation takes care of its stockholders and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing rates---Middle class americans ARE the stockholders.
The rates are voluntary,  you don't have to sign up with your employer's health plan.if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated.
even the young and healthy break their arms.
then, what happens?
does the hospital turn them away for not having cash?
can you live in a society that does that?---This is so asinine.
Nobody forces you to buy a car.
You can walk, take the bus, cabs, subways.
You can actually live in this country without owning your own car.
It's kind of hard to say the same for medical insurance.
If you want to get out of paying your tax, your only option is death.I thought techies were supposed to be logical, why is slashdot filled with such imbeciles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580656</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1269338400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>are there people who are now seriously considering emigrating because they believe the government has failed them?</i> <br> <br>Yes.  But it isn't the government that failed.  That's easy to change.  It's up for election every 6 years or less, and can be changed by the people quite easily if they all agreed.  The problem is that the people failed the government.  We got the government we deserved.  And so I considered leaving.  I started the process before the primaries, so it had nothing to do with Obama (or anyone specific in government, as that's easily fixed).  But I've moved away (to a country with national health care, not that there are many places without it, other than the US which will be lacking it even after this bill) and have been gone for 6 months, and have no intention of moving back unless the voters stop voting from fear.  I'd rather them vote from hate than fear, as at least hate is often justified.<br> <br>I don't know about anyone else, but I fled because of the government the voters keep putting in charge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>are there people who are now seriously considering emigrating because they believe the government has failed them ?
Yes. But it is n't the government that failed .
That 's easy to change .
It 's up for election every 6 years or less , and can be changed by the people quite easily if they all agreed .
The problem is that the people failed the government .
We got the government we deserved .
And so I considered leaving .
I started the process before the primaries , so it had nothing to do with Obama ( or anyone specific in government , as that 's easily fixed ) .
But I 've moved away ( to a country with national health care , not that there are many places without it , other than the US which will be lacking it even after this bill ) and have been gone for 6 months , and have no intention of moving back unless the voters stop voting from fear .
I 'd rather them vote from hate than fear , as at least hate is often justified .
I do n't know about anyone else , but I fled because of the government the voters keep putting in charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are there people who are now seriously considering emigrating because they believe the government has failed them?
Yes.  But it isn't the government that failed.
That's easy to change.
It's up for election every 6 years or less, and can be changed by the people quite easily if they all agreed.
The problem is that the people failed the government.
We got the government we deserved.
And so I considered leaving.
I started the process before the primaries, so it had nothing to do with Obama (or anyone specific in government, as that's easily fixed).
But I've moved away (to a country with national health care, not that there are many places without it, other than the US which will be lacking it even after this bill) and have been gone for 6 months, and have no intention of moving back unless the voters stop voting from fear.
I'd rather them vote from hate than fear, as at least hate is often justified.
I don't know about anyone else, but I fled because of the government the voters keep putting in charge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566454</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;patriotism, as in caring for the health of your nation, the welfare of your fellow man, belief in the common good, as opposed<br>&gt;to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness: i don't know why that's "patriotism"</p><p>America has been a country marked by upward mobility ("The American Dream").  People object because this is one more chain on those who are doers in order to mandate support for those who can not or will not.  It removes the choice for charity from the individual and places it with the bureaucracy.</p><p>&gt;morality, as in standing up and saying that i don't believe in a society where a corporation takes care of its stockholders<br>&gt;and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing rates</p><p>The rates will go up as we include more with pre-existing conditions in the pool.  Your expectation while understandable is naive.</p><p>&gt;freedom, from disease and sickness, as opposed to the false "freedom" to choose between paying for your broken arm, or<br>&gt;depending upon society to pay for your broken arm because you can't afford it (while you rail about your "right" to "choose"<br>&gt;to not have health insurance)</p><p>I think a big objection is to the scale and perceived likelihood for success given the massive failure of SS and Medicare that are looming.  Also, this legislation is a tax of the worst kind.  I means that you cannot stop working...  it is like a tax on simply living.</p><p>&gt;if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated.<br>&gt;even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? does the hospital turn them away for not having cash? can you<br>&gt;live in a society that does that?</p><p>I do not understand.  Choosing to live and choosing to drive on public streets are two very different things.</p><p>&gt;furthermore, what currently happens if they have no health insurance? hospitals have unpaid bills, and remains eternally on<br>&gt;the verge of bankruptcy, eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds. in other words: you already pay for it, but now &gt;you pay for it in the most common sense way</p><p>Currently, these costs get rolled into the pricing and are borne by the paying customers.  A main argument is that this is expensive as the uninsured seek treatment at the most expensive point of service (the ER).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; patriotism , as in caring for the health of your nation , the welfare of your fellow man , belief in the common good , as opposed &gt; to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness : i do n't know why that 's " patriotism " America has been a country marked by upward mobility ( " The American Dream " ) .
People object because this is one more chain on those who are doers in order to mandate support for those who can not or will not .
It removes the choice for charity from the individual and places it with the bureaucracy. &gt; morality , as in standing up and saying that i do n't believe in a society where a corporation takes care of its stockholders &gt; and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing ratesThe rates will go up as we include more with pre-existing conditions in the pool .
Your expectation while understandable is naive. &gt; freedom , from disease and sickness , as opposed to the false " freedom " to choose between paying for your broken arm , or &gt; depending upon society to pay for your broken arm because you ca n't afford it ( while you rail about your " right " to " choose " &gt; to not have health insurance ) I think a big objection is to the scale and perceived likelihood for success given the massive failure of SS and Medicare that are looming .
Also , this legislation is a tax of the worst kind .
I means that you can not stop working... it is like a tax on simply living. &gt; if you understand why you ca n't drive legally without car insurance , you understand why health insurance must be mandated. &gt; even the young and healthy break their arms .
then , what happens ?
does the hospital turn them away for not having cash ?
can you &gt; live in a society that does that ? I do not understand .
Choosing to live and choosing to drive on public streets are two very different things. &gt; furthermore , what currently happens if they have no health insurance ?
hospitals have unpaid bills , and remains eternally on &gt; the verge of bankruptcy , eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds .
in other words : you already pay for it , but now &gt; you pay for it in the most common sense wayCurrently , these costs get rolled into the pricing and are borne by the paying customers .
A main argument is that this is expensive as the uninsured seek treatment at the most expensive point of service ( the ER ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;patriotism, as in caring for the health of your nation, the welfare of your fellow man, belief in the common good, as opposed&gt;to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness: i don't know why that's "patriotism"America has been a country marked by upward mobility ("The American Dream").
People object because this is one more chain on those who are doers in order to mandate support for those who can not or will not.
It removes the choice for charity from the individual and places it with the bureaucracy.&gt;morality, as in standing up and saying that i don't believe in a society where a corporation takes care of its stockholders&gt;and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing ratesThe rates will go up as we include more with pre-existing conditions in the pool.
Your expectation while understandable is naive.&gt;freedom, from disease and sickness, as opposed to the false "freedom" to choose between paying for your broken arm, or&gt;depending upon society to pay for your broken arm because you can't afford it (while you rail about your "right" to "choose"&gt;to not have health insurance)I think a big objection is to the scale and perceived likelihood for success given the massive failure of SS and Medicare that are looming.
Also, this legislation is a tax of the worst kind.
I means that you cannot stop working...  it is like a tax on simply living.&gt;if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated.&gt;even the young and healthy break their arms.
then, what happens?
does the hospital turn them away for not having cash?
can you&gt;live in a society that does that?I do not understand.
Choosing to live and choosing to drive on public streets are two very different things.&gt;furthermore, what currently happens if they have no health insurance?
hospitals have unpaid bills, and remains eternally on&gt;the verge of bankruptcy, eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds.
in other words: you already pay for it, but now &gt;you pay for it in the most common sense wayCurrently, these costs get rolled into the pricing and are borne by the paying customers.
A main argument is that this is expensive as the uninsured seek treatment at the most expensive point of service (the ER).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565748</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1269265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Or was this the Democrats' intention?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes. They desperately need the tax revenue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or was this the Democrats ' intention ? Yes .
They desperately need the tax revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or was this the Democrats' intention?Yes.
They desperately need the tax revenue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565944</id>
	<title>Yes, update Wikipedia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to Wikipedia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Insurance</a> [wikipedia.org] is, "a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss".</p><p>But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions, I don't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore.  It is like selling "fire insurance" coverage for houses that are already on fire.  That is not really "insurance".</p><p>You can call the new health care legislation many things, but it is more in the nature of a new medical welfare program than any form of insurance as we know it, since it does not appear that costs are based on actuarial risks.</p></div><p>From one (non-Free) dictionary:<br>"1 a : the business of insuring persons or property b : coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril c : the sum for which something is insured<br>2 : a means of guaranteeing protection or safety "</p><p>From another,<br>" 1 arrange for compensation in the event of damage to or loss of (property, life, or a person), in exchange for regular payments to a company. 2 secure the payment of (a sum) in this way. 3 (insure against) protect (someone) against (a possible eventuality). 4 another term for ENSURE."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Wikipedia , Insurance [ wikipedia.org ] is , " a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss " .But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions , I do n't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore .
It is like selling " fire insurance " coverage for houses that are already on fire .
That is not really " insurance " .You can call the new health care legislation many things , but it is more in the nature of a new medical welfare program than any form of insurance as we know it , since it does not appear that costs are based on actuarial risks.From one ( non-Free ) dictionary : " 1 a : the business of insuring persons or property b : coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril c : the sum for which something is insured2 : a means of guaranteeing protection or safety " From another , " 1 arrange for compensation in the event of damage to or loss of ( property , life , or a person ) , in exchange for regular payments to a company .
2 secure the payment of ( a sum ) in this way .
3 ( insure against ) protect ( someone ) against ( a possible eventuality ) .
4 another term for ENSURE .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Wikipedia, Insurance [wikipedia.org] is, "a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss".But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions, I don't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore.
It is like selling "fire insurance" coverage for houses that are already on fire.
That is not really "insurance".You can call the new health care legislation many things, but it is more in the nature of a new medical welfare program than any form of insurance as we know it, since it does not appear that costs are based on actuarial risks.From one (non-Free) dictionary:"1 a : the business of insuring persons or property b : coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril c : the sum for which something is insured2 : a means of guaranteeing protection or safety "From another," 1 arrange for compensation in the event of damage to or loss of (property, life, or a person), in exchange for regular payments to a company.
2 secure the payment of (a sum) in this way.
3 (insure against) protect (someone) against (a possible eventuality).
4 another term for ENSURE.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565518</id>
	<title>Re:Jobs killing bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The jobs killing bill just passed. </i></p><p>Don't worry, I am sure he could have got his liver transplant under the new scheme too. It would be nice if more people without corporate jets were able to benefit from that, but I don't think it will reduce red tape by that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The jobs killing bill just passed .
Do n't worry , I am sure he could have got his liver transplant under the new scheme too .
It would be nice if more people without corporate jets were able to benefit from that , but I do n't think it will reduce red tape by that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The jobs killing bill just passed.
Don't worry, I am sure he could have got his liver transplant under the new scheme too.
It would be nice if more people without corporate jets were able to benefit from that, but I don't think it will reduce red tape by that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571622</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please backup your comments with some facts. Could you point to any 'half' the democrats' comprised on with republicans? I said comprise with republicans, not comprise with fellow democrats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please backup your comments with some facts .
Could you point to any 'half ' the democrats ' comprised on with republicans ?
I said comprise with republicans , not comprise with fellow democrats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please backup your comments with some facts.
Could you point to any 'half' the democrats' comprised on with republicans?
I said comprise with republicans, not comprise with fellow democrats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569740</id>
	<title>This will NOT fix healthcare.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269276540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Egads.  I'd expected  Slashdot to have a higher collective IQ.</p><p>Instead it's infested with libtards.  And I'm not a wingnut saying that.</p><p>Fixing healthcare requires 2 things: (no, I didn't come up with these, but I don't remember who did)</p><p>1) Changing insurance so the companies make more money for providing service than denying it.  Although any actual analysis shows their profits as a percentage of premiums are not excessive.  Can you think of any other industry that makes more $ by providing *less* service?</p><p>2) Changing health care so it pays to keep you healthy instead of merely treating you once you're sick.</p><p>This bill does neither of these things.</p><p>It contains one decent thing- the interstate insurance exchanges.  Competition is good.  You hear auto insurance ads every day- when was the last time you saw a health insurance ad?</p><p>It contains a truckload of crap-<br>-eliminates the exclusion of pre-existing conditions, while having inadequate penalties for not having insurance.  The obvious math has been posted above.  If you can't work such basic arithmetic, go back to preschool.  They could have done something smarter- like changing the rules so that if you're denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition, the insurance company has to refund every penny you ever paid them (since they said your policy was invalid)</p><p>It creates a huge new bureacracy.</p><p>It's not long-term solvent.  The taxes start right away, but the benefits wait 4 years.  So it's 10 yrs of taxes for 6 yrs of benefits.  Anyone want to check the balance sheet after 11yrs?</p><p>It's riddled with payoffs.  If it's such a great thing that we really need, and since the Dems had a filibuster-proof supermajority for 11 months, why didn't this sail through?  Because it stinks.  Instead it's filled with payoffs to states, judgeships for congressman's brothers, etc.</p><p>Did they take on the malpractice lawsuit problem? Nope- too many congress critters are trial lawyers.</p><p>I recently ate lunch with a guy whose wife is a child psychologist.  She used to work in a hospital that took Medicaid patients, and now works in one that doesn't.  Her old patients are seeking her out and paying cash (that they can hardly afford) because the Medicaid  payments are so low the doctors can only give 15 minute appointments- basically med checks, not real listening and diagnosis.  To see the future study the past- and this picture isn't pretty.</p><p>Computer people are fond of defining idiocy as "doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different result".  Well- I guess those thinking this is a good thing fit this description.</p><p>I've long loved the quote from Ben Franklin- "He who would trade his liberty for security will have neither".  I usually quoted it in reference to the (misnamed) Patriot Act, but it applies here.  So all of you who are celebrating that your health care is now "secure" should enjoy the party- for the shackles this "security" brings are coming and they will be heavy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Egads .
I 'd expected Slashdot to have a higher collective IQ.Instead it 's infested with libtards .
And I 'm not a wingnut saying that.Fixing healthcare requires 2 things : ( no , I did n't come up with these , but I do n't remember who did ) 1 ) Changing insurance so the companies make more money for providing service than denying it .
Although any actual analysis shows their profits as a percentage of premiums are not excessive .
Can you think of any other industry that makes more $ by providing * less * service ? 2 ) Changing health care so it pays to keep you healthy instead of merely treating you once you 're sick.This bill does neither of these things.It contains one decent thing- the interstate insurance exchanges .
Competition is good .
You hear auto insurance ads every day- when was the last time you saw a health insurance ad ? It contains a truckload of crap--eliminates the exclusion of pre-existing conditions , while having inadequate penalties for not having insurance .
The obvious math has been posted above .
If you ca n't work such basic arithmetic , go back to preschool .
They could have done something smarter- like changing the rules so that if you 're denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition , the insurance company has to refund every penny you ever paid them ( since they said your policy was invalid ) It creates a huge new bureacracy.It 's not long-term solvent .
The taxes start right away , but the benefits wait 4 years .
So it 's 10 yrs of taxes for 6 yrs of benefits .
Anyone want to check the balance sheet after 11yrs ? It 's riddled with payoffs .
If it 's such a great thing that we really need , and since the Dems had a filibuster-proof supermajority for 11 months , why did n't this sail through ?
Because it stinks .
Instead it 's filled with payoffs to states , judgeships for congressman 's brothers , etc.Did they take on the malpractice lawsuit problem ?
Nope- too many congress critters are trial lawyers.I recently ate lunch with a guy whose wife is a child psychologist .
She used to work in a hospital that took Medicaid patients , and now works in one that does n't .
Her old patients are seeking her out and paying cash ( that they can hardly afford ) because the Medicaid payments are so low the doctors can only give 15 minute appointments- basically med checks , not real listening and diagnosis .
To see the future study the past- and this picture is n't pretty.Computer people are fond of defining idiocy as " doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different result " .
Well- I guess those thinking this is a good thing fit this description.I 've long loved the quote from Ben Franklin- " He who would trade his liberty for security will have neither " .
I usually quoted it in reference to the ( misnamed ) Patriot Act , but it applies here .
So all of you who are celebrating that your health care is now " secure " should enjoy the party- for the shackles this " security " brings are coming and they will be heavy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Egads.
I'd expected  Slashdot to have a higher collective IQ.Instead it's infested with libtards.
And I'm not a wingnut saying that.Fixing healthcare requires 2 things: (no, I didn't come up with these, but I don't remember who did)1) Changing insurance so the companies make more money for providing service than denying it.
Although any actual analysis shows their profits as a percentage of premiums are not excessive.
Can you think of any other industry that makes more $ by providing *less* service?2) Changing health care so it pays to keep you healthy instead of merely treating you once you're sick.This bill does neither of these things.It contains one decent thing- the interstate insurance exchanges.
Competition is good.
You hear auto insurance ads every day- when was the last time you saw a health insurance ad?It contains a truckload of crap--eliminates the exclusion of pre-existing conditions, while having inadequate penalties for not having insurance.
The obvious math has been posted above.
If you can't work such basic arithmetic, go back to preschool.
They could have done something smarter- like changing the rules so that if you're denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition, the insurance company has to refund every penny you ever paid them (since they said your policy was invalid)It creates a huge new bureacracy.It's not long-term solvent.
The taxes start right away, but the benefits wait 4 years.
So it's 10 yrs of taxes for 6 yrs of benefits.
Anyone want to check the balance sheet after 11yrs?It's riddled with payoffs.
If it's such a great thing that we really need, and since the Dems had a filibuster-proof supermajority for 11 months, why didn't this sail through?
Because it stinks.
Instead it's filled with payoffs to states, judgeships for congressman's brothers, etc.Did they take on the malpractice lawsuit problem?
Nope- too many congress critters are trial lawyers.I recently ate lunch with a guy whose wife is a child psychologist.
She used to work in a hospital that took Medicaid patients, and now works in one that doesn't.
Her old patients are seeking her out and paying cash (that they can hardly afford) because the Medicaid  payments are so low the doctors can only give 15 minute appointments- basically med checks, not real listening and diagnosis.
To see the future study the past- and this picture isn't pretty.Computer people are fond of defining idiocy as "doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different result".
Well- I guess those thinking this is a good thing fit this description.I've long loved the quote from Ben Franklin- "He who would trade his liberty for security will have neither".
I usually quoted it in reference to the (misnamed) Patriot Act, but it applies here.
So all of you who are celebrating that your health care is now "secure" should enjoy the party- for the shackles this "security" brings are coming and they will be heavy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573840</id>
	<title>Re:I'm fairly sure a brain is not required either</title>
	<author>jammer170</author>
	<datestamp>1269289800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Damn you cheap bastards! One day it'll bite your butt to be so selfish.</p></div><p>The joke's on you, because you'll be paying for my medical treatment of the bite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn you cheap bastards !
One day it 'll bite your butt to be so selfish.The joke 's on you , because you 'll be paying for my medical treatment of the bite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn you cheap bastards!
One day it'll bite your butt to be so selfish.The joke's on you, because you'll be paying for my medical treatment of the bite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571054</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Paul Pierce</author>
	<datestamp>1269280740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can drive legally without car insurance, but only in two states.  You should be able to choose to drive without car insurance.
<br> <br>
Making car insurance mandatory has not lowered rates as far as I know in any of the 48 states.
<br> <br>
I get amazed at how many people are not for 'freedom' in things like this.  I may be an idiot if I don't have insurance, but that should be my choice.  If I'm mid twenties making ok money, then I should be able to risk not having car or health insurance if I want.  Lets say I want out of my current situation, save up, start my own business; well health insurance can very easily run me dry - especially if my company doesn't cover much or any, and I can get stuck where I am.  Odds are for 3-4 years I can go without it and not need it even once.  In 4 years I can save up a lot.  If in those 4 years I need something, I pay for it, if I don't my credit gets totally screwed and I lose everything I've been working for; so I might take out a loan and pay it off.  On top of that I get a worse price than a health insurance company does - so unless I default then I don't hurt the system.  I don't use any of 'your' money.  If it is something drastic that costs me hundreds of thousands of dollars, then yes I can't pay all that off and you will pay for it - the system will pay for it; however if you or I with insurance also have something of that magnitude then other people will also pay for it.  In my lifetime I will never put that much money into the system, so having a child or two can easily put you in a position where the insurance company has paid more for you than you will ever put in.
<br> <br>
The argument you, and many others make, is a very poor argument; but unfortunately usually wins out in politics.  It is very similar to an alarm system on a house.  Do you know anyone that would argue that an alarm system is a bad idea? anyone?  Yet how many people do you know have one?  According to your argument for the better good the state, heck the Federal government, should make it mandatory for every house to have an alarm.  Everyone will be safer that way, you can't argue against that - its perfect f'd up logic that totally forgets the principles that this country was founded on and has made us ahead of the rest of the world.  Some people prefer Universal Canadian Health care, this country was not founded by people that felt that way.  People didn't get in boats from Europe to come over here for Universal Health Care, they came for freedom.  I'm afraid too many generations have past and we have forgotten just that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can drive legally without car insurance , but only in two states .
You should be able to choose to drive without car insurance .
Making car insurance mandatory has not lowered rates as far as I know in any of the 48 states .
I get amazed at how many people are not for 'freedom ' in things like this .
I may be an idiot if I do n't have insurance , but that should be my choice .
If I 'm mid twenties making ok money , then I should be able to risk not having car or health insurance if I want .
Lets say I want out of my current situation , save up , start my own business ; well health insurance can very easily run me dry - especially if my company does n't cover much or any , and I can get stuck where I am .
Odds are for 3-4 years I can go without it and not need it even once .
In 4 years I can save up a lot .
If in those 4 years I need something , I pay for it , if I do n't my credit gets totally screwed and I lose everything I 've been working for ; so I might take out a loan and pay it off .
On top of that I get a worse price than a health insurance company does - so unless I default then I do n't hurt the system .
I do n't use any of 'your ' money .
If it is something drastic that costs me hundreds of thousands of dollars , then yes I ca n't pay all that off and you will pay for it - the system will pay for it ; however if you or I with insurance also have something of that magnitude then other people will also pay for it .
In my lifetime I will never put that much money into the system , so having a child or two can easily put you in a position where the insurance company has paid more for you than you will ever put in .
The argument you , and many others make , is a very poor argument ; but unfortunately usually wins out in politics .
It is very similar to an alarm system on a house .
Do you know anyone that would argue that an alarm system is a bad idea ?
anyone ? Yet how many people do you know have one ?
According to your argument for the better good the state , heck the Federal government , should make it mandatory for every house to have an alarm .
Everyone will be safer that way , you ca n't argue against that - its perfect f 'd up logic that totally forgets the principles that this country was founded on and has made us ahead of the rest of the world .
Some people prefer Universal Canadian Health care , this country was not founded by people that felt that way .
People did n't get in boats from Europe to come over here for Universal Health Care , they came for freedom .
I 'm afraid too many generations have past and we have forgotten just that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can drive legally without car insurance, but only in two states.
You should be able to choose to drive without car insurance.
Making car insurance mandatory has not lowered rates as far as I know in any of the 48 states.
I get amazed at how many people are not for 'freedom' in things like this.
I may be an idiot if I don't have insurance, but that should be my choice.
If I'm mid twenties making ok money, then I should be able to risk not having car or health insurance if I want.
Lets say I want out of my current situation, save up, start my own business; well health insurance can very easily run me dry - especially if my company doesn't cover much or any, and I can get stuck where I am.
Odds are for 3-4 years I can go without it and not need it even once.
In 4 years I can save up a lot.
If in those 4 years I need something, I pay for it, if I don't my credit gets totally screwed and I lose everything I've been working for; so I might take out a loan and pay it off.
On top of that I get a worse price than a health insurance company does - so unless I default then I don't hurt the system.
I don't use any of 'your' money.
If it is something drastic that costs me hundreds of thousands of dollars, then yes I can't pay all that off and you will pay for it - the system will pay for it; however if you or I with insurance also have something of that magnitude then other people will also pay for it.
In my lifetime I will never put that much money into the system, so having a child or two can easily put you in a position where the insurance company has paid more for you than you will ever put in.
The argument you, and many others make, is a very poor argument; but unfortunately usually wins out in politics.
It is very similar to an alarm system on a house.
Do you know anyone that would argue that an alarm system is a bad idea?
anyone?  Yet how many people do you know have one?
According to your argument for the better good the state, heck the Federal government, should make it mandatory for every house to have an alarm.
Everyone will be safer that way, you can't argue against that - its perfect f'd up logic that totally forgets the principles that this country was founded on and has made us ahead of the rest of the world.
Some people prefer Universal Canadian Health care, this country was not founded by people that felt that way.
People didn't get in boats from Europe to come over here for Universal Health Care, they came for freedom.
I'm afraid too many generations have past and we have forgotten just that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573596</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269288840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it does not.  James Madison wrote that provision and he clearly stated he meant it was the *general purpose* of the government being created and what follows are the *specific powers* that are being created to implement that purpose. Direct info below:</p><p>"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs, was not contemplated by its creators."</p><p>"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." James Madison as he vetoed a bill.</p><p>"There is nothing more natural than to begin with a general statement and then qualify it with specifics. [In other words read the WHOLE sentence, not just the first clause.] If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." James Madison.</p><p>And if you still have doubt, just read the Constitution itself:</p><p>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." "The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does not .
James Madison wrote that provision and he clearly stated he meant it was the * general purpose * of the government being created and what follows are the * specific powers * that are being created to implement that purpose .
Direct info below : " With respect to the words " general welfare , " I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them .
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character , which there is a host of proofs , was not contemplated by its creators .
" " I can not undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending , on objects of benevolence , the money of their constituents.... " James Madison as he vetoed a bill .
" There is nothing more natural than to begin with a general statement and then qualify it with specifics .
[ In other words read the WHOLE sentence , not just the first clause .
] If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money , and will promote the General Welfare , the Government is no longer a limited one , possessing enumerated powers , but an indefinite one .
" James Madison.And if you still have doubt , just read the Constitution itself : " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the States respectively , or to the people .
" " The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution .
" Thomas Jefferson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it does not.
James Madison wrote that provision and he clearly stated he meant it was the *general purpose* of the government being created and what follows are the *specific powers* that are being created to implement that purpose.
Direct info below:"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs, was not contemplated by its creators.
""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." James Madison as he vetoed a bill.
"There is nothing more natural than to begin with a general statement and then qualify it with specifics.
[In other words read the WHOLE sentence, not just the first clause.
] If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.
" James Madison.And if you still have doubt, just read the Constitution itself:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
" "The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution.
" Thomas Jefferson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568630</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269273420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey there. In case you hadn't noticed:</p><p>1) The constitution is a set of general rules, oft amended in the history of the USA.</p><p>2) The constitution is not brought to us by divine omniscient superbeing(s) and is therefore almost certainly a flawed document.</p><p>3) Laws extend the constitution to specifics. We can guarantee anything we want to try and guarantee.</p><p>Cheers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey there .
In case you had n't noticed : 1 ) The constitution is a set of general rules , oft amended in the history of the USA.2 ) The constitution is not brought to us by divine omniscient superbeing ( s ) and is therefore almost certainly a flawed document.3 ) Laws extend the constitution to specifics .
We can guarantee anything we want to try and guarantee.Cheers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey there.
In case you hadn't noticed:1) The constitution is a set of general rules, oft amended in the history of the USA.2) The constitution is not brought to us by divine omniscient superbeing(s) and is therefore almost certainly a flawed document.3) Laws extend the constitution to specifics.
We can guarantee anything we want to try and guarantee.Cheers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565898</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>i\_ate\_god</author>
	<datestamp>1269266100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a bit extreme considering that, while I may be paying to keep my fellow canadian healthier, I am not subsidizing his purchase of a 52in TV. Of course there are incentives to be better than your neighbour, it's to get all the things you couldn't get if you didn't try hard enough.</p><p>I don't see why people keep thinking socialized medicine is the end of social classes. It's not, it's simply strengthening some foundational work of society, that's it. Healthier people are more productive and cheaper people. So it's better for you who wants that big screen TV because healthcare costs for employers and government will be less over time, as people can have access to basic care whenever they need it, leading to healthier people.</p><p>This is not the same as destroying social classes that give the incentive to work (or cheat) harder. I would be a bum and depend on tax-funded government healthcare, but then all I'd have in life is tax-funded government healthcare. So what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a bit extreme considering that , while I may be paying to keep my fellow canadian healthier , I am not subsidizing his purchase of a 52in TV .
Of course there are incentives to be better than your neighbour , it 's to get all the things you could n't get if you did n't try hard enough.I do n't see why people keep thinking socialized medicine is the end of social classes .
It 's not , it 's simply strengthening some foundational work of society , that 's it .
Healthier people are more productive and cheaper people .
So it 's better for you who wants that big screen TV because healthcare costs for employers and government will be less over time , as people can have access to basic care whenever they need it , leading to healthier people.This is not the same as destroying social classes that give the incentive to work ( or cheat ) harder .
I would be a bum and depend on tax-funded government healthcare , but then all I 'd have in life is tax-funded government healthcare .
So what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a bit extreme considering that, while I may be paying to keep my fellow canadian healthier, I am not subsidizing his purchase of a 52in TV.
Of course there are incentives to be better than your neighbour, it's to get all the things you couldn't get if you didn't try hard enough.I don't see why people keep thinking socialized medicine is the end of social classes.
It's not, it's simply strengthening some foundational work of society, that's it.
Healthier people are more productive and cheaper people.
So it's better for you who wants that big screen TV because healthcare costs for employers and government will be less over time, as people can have access to basic care whenever they need it, leading to healthier people.This is not the same as destroying social classes that give the incentive to work (or cheat) harder.
I would be a bum and depend on tax-funded government healthcare, but then all I'd have in life is tax-funded government healthcare.
So what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</id>
	<title>Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long until Americans figure out that it is much cheaper to pay the fines and pick up health insurance when you need it (now that insurers are required to sign people with preexisting conditions) than to pay premiums year-round?</p><p>Or was this the Democrats' intention? Bankrupt the insurance industry and come in as Mr. Government, Savior of All.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until Americans figure out that it is much cheaper to pay the fines and pick up health insurance when you need it ( now that insurers are required to sign people with preexisting conditions ) than to pay premiums year-round ? Or was this the Democrats ' intention ?
Bankrupt the insurance industry and come in as Mr. Government , Savior of All .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until Americans figure out that it is much cheaper to pay the fines and pick up health insurance when you need it (now that insurers are required to sign people with preexisting conditions) than to pay premiums year-round?Or was this the Democrats' intention?
Bankrupt the insurance industry and come in as Mr. Government, Savior of All.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565500</id>
	<title>Re:Hoorah!</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1269264180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/skeptical</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps .
/skeptical</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps.
/skeptical</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570558</id>
	<title>my prescribed remedy</title>
	<author>viridari</author>
	<datestamp>1269278880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, <b>it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it</b>, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their <b>right<b>, it is their <b>duty</b>, to <b>throw off such government</b>, and to provide new guards for their future security.</b></b></i></htmltext>
<tokenext>We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights , that among these are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness .
That to secure these rights , governments are instituted among men , deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed .
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends , it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it , and to institute new government , laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form , as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness .
Prudence , indeed , will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer , while evils are sufferable , than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed .
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations , pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism , it is their right , it is their duty , to throw off such government , and to provide new guards for their future security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566130</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1269266940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nowhere in the Bible does it mention that one day there would be a US Constitution and it would be a sacred and unalterable document, no matter how society evolved since its creation. So, as a Biblical literalist(OK not really, just for the purposes of this argument), I don't believe that your "US Constitution" has any authority in the matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nowhere in the Bible does it mention that one day there would be a US Constitution and it would be a sacred and unalterable document , no matter how society evolved since its creation .
So , as a Biblical literalist ( OK not really , just for the purposes of this argument ) , I do n't believe that your " US Constitution " has any authority in the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nowhere in the Bible does it mention that one day there would be a US Constitution and it would be a sacred and unalterable document, no matter how society evolved since its creation.
So, as a Biblical literalist(OK not really, just for the purposes of this argument), I don't believe that your "US Constitution" has any authority in the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31583570</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1269358800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the people" voted for somebody who wasn't a blue blood country club Republican.  As much as I like the guy on a personal level, John McCain was hardly the most conservative guy in the Republican Party.  Indeed, it has been suggested that he might do something like Jim Jeffords and become a Democrat, or at least a "moderate independent" and caucus with the Democrats.</p><p>The choice was either a 3rd party candidate that was cannon fodder, somebody from the liberal wing of the Republican Party, or Obama.  With weak support for McCain by his supposed base, Obama won by default.  It also didn't hurt that folks were blinded by the fact that Obama was black and that they were voting for his skin color more than his actual policies.</p><p>The USA population as a whole has a center-right political viewpoint, and Obama certainly does not represent that sort of philosophy.</p><p>Sadly, I think it is the bluebloods that are going to take back control of the US government, which is something I don't want to see.  Bush was a blueblood Republican too, which also tended to hurt his popularity among Republicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the people " voted for somebody who was n't a blue blood country club Republican .
As much as I like the guy on a personal level , John McCain was hardly the most conservative guy in the Republican Party .
Indeed , it has been suggested that he might do something like Jim Jeffords and become a Democrat , or at least a " moderate independent " and caucus with the Democrats.The choice was either a 3rd party candidate that was cannon fodder , somebody from the liberal wing of the Republican Party , or Obama .
With weak support for McCain by his supposed base , Obama won by default .
It also did n't hurt that folks were blinded by the fact that Obama was black and that they were voting for his skin color more than his actual policies.The USA population as a whole has a center-right political viewpoint , and Obama certainly does not represent that sort of philosophy.Sadly , I think it is the bluebloods that are going to take back control of the US government , which is something I do n't want to see .
Bush was a blueblood Republican too , which also tended to hurt his popularity among Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the people" voted for somebody who wasn't a blue blood country club Republican.
As much as I like the guy on a personal level, John McCain was hardly the most conservative guy in the Republican Party.
Indeed, it has been suggested that he might do something like Jim Jeffords and become a Democrat, or at least a "moderate independent" and caucus with the Democrats.The choice was either a 3rd party candidate that was cannon fodder, somebody from the liberal wing of the Republican Party, or Obama.
With weak support for McCain by his supposed base, Obama won by default.
It also didn't hurt that folks were blinded by the fact that Obama was black and that they were voting for his skin color more than his actual policies.The USA population as a whole has a center-right political viewpoint, and Obama certainly does not represent that sort of philosophy.Sadly, I think it is the bluebloods that are going to take back control of the US government, which is something I don't want to see.
Bush was a blueblood Republican too, which also tended to hurt his popularity among Republicans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573232</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1269287400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both labels (pro-life and pro-choice) are over-generalizations meant to garner more widespread appeal, so pretty much anything either side does can be interpreted as "ironic" if you parse the label too broadly.  Fundamentally, those on the pro-life side also believe in personal responsibility: if you choose not to buy health insurance, then being unable to afford life-saving medical care if something goes wrong was your own choice (yes, they are for choice, see what I said above about over-generalizations).  The fetus OTOH doesn't have a say in the matter, so they feel a moral responsibility to speak up on behalf of the fetus.
<br> <br>
More accurate labels for the two sides would be pro- and anti- abortion.  Or even, pro- and anti- abortion in certain cases.  There is no irony here unless you misunderstand (naively or deliberately) the rationale of those you oppose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both labels ( pro-life and pro-choice ) are over-generalizations meant to garner more widespread appeal , so pretty much anything either side does can be interpreted as " ironic " if you parse the label too broadly .
Fundamentally , those on the pro-life side also believe in personal responsibility : if you choose not to buy health insurance , then being unable to afford life-saving medical care if something goes wrong was your own choice ( yes , they are for choice , see what I said above about over-generalizations ) .
The fetus OTOH does n't have a say in the matter , so they feel a moral responsibility to speak up on behalf of the fetus .
More accurate labels for the two sides would be pro- and anti- abortion .
Or even , pro- and anti- abortion in certain cases .
There is no irony here unless you misunderstand ( naively or deliberately ) the rationale of those you oppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both labels (pro-life and pro-choice) are over-generalizations meant to garner more widespread appeal, so pretty much anything either side does can be interpreted as "ironic" if you parse the label too broadly.
Fundamentally, those on the pro-life side also believe in personal responsibility: if you choose not to buy health insurance, then being unable to afford life-saving medical care if something goes wrong was your own choice (yes, they are for choice, see what I said above about over-generalizations).
The fetus OTOH doesn't have a say in the matter, so they feel a moral responsibility to speak up on behalf of the fetus.
More accurate labels for the two sides would be pro- and anti- abortion.
Or even, pro- and anti- abortion in certain cases.
There is no irony here unless you misunderstand (naively or deliberately) the rationale of those you oppose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572838</id>
	<title>Damn</title>
	<author>multi io</author>
	<datestamp>1269286020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a non-US citizen, I wonder what's gonna happen now to all those heart-wrenching US medical dramas if every kindhearted-yet-ill-and-uninsured Ghetto kid that needs a new aortic valve can just get one without any tough ethical/legal/financial dilemma. That's gonna be horrible!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a non-US citizen , I wonder what 's gon na happen now to all those heart-wrenching US medical dramas if every kindhearted-yet-ill-and-uninsured Ghetto kid that needs a new aortic valve can just get one without any tough ethical/legal/financial dilemma .
That 's gon na be horrible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a non-US citizen, I wonder what's gonna happen now to all those heart-wrenching US medical dramas if every kindhearted-yet-ill-and-uninsured Ghetto kid that needs a new aortic valve can just get one without any tough ethical/legal/financial dilemma.
That's gonna be horrible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572708</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269285360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Preamble gives motiviation for the rest of the document that implements it.  The Constitution includes no provision for public healthcare, or for most of the other garbage the federal government has taken upon themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Preamble gives motiviation for the rest of the document that implements it .
The Constitution includes no provision for public healthcare , or for most of the other garbage the federal government has taken upon themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Preamble gives motiviation for the rest of the document that implements it.
The Constitution includes no provision for public healthcare, or for most of the other garbage the federal government has taken upon themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>jameson</author>
	<datestamp>1269267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fines are around $700, if I read that correctly.</p><p>That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.  I pay $600 for my international travel health insurance, per year (this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US, and while I travel elsewhere.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fines are around $ 700 , if I read that correctly.That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost .
I pay $ 600 for my international travel health insurance , per year ( this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US , and while I travel elsewhere .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fines are around $700, if I read that correctly.That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.
I pay $600 for my international travel health insurance, per year (this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US, and while I travel elsewhere.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567454</id>
	<title>Wot wot?</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1269270420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> House Passes Massive Medical Insurance Bill, 219-212</p></div><p>Calm, rational discussion of its effects ensues.</p><p>(QD takes slow puff of cigar and a contemplative sip brandy)</p><p>So, gentlemen and gentlewomen, what sort of contraption has our legislative conclave unleashed into the wild?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>House Passes Massive Medical Insurance Bill , 219-212Calm , rational discussion of its effects ensues .
( QD takes slow puff of cigar and a contemplative sip brandy ) So , gentlemen and gentlewomen , what sort of contraption has our legislative conclave unleashed into the wild ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> House Passes Massive Medical Insurance Bill, 219-212Calm, rational discussion of its effects ensues.
(QD takes slow puff of cigar and a contemplative sip brandy)So, gentlemen and gentlewomen, what sort of contraption has our legislative conclave unleashed into the wild?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569826</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269276780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt; 1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.</p><p>If the premiums can only go up if the actual cost goes up not for profits sake. The insurance co. will now mandated to spend $0.8 to $0.85 or so of every premium dollar it receives. Right now, that number is between $0.6 to $0.8. Therefore, if the money rolls in, either hospitals and doctors get richer (i.e. costs increase) or premiums drop. The CBO estimates premiums will drop due to other restrictions on hospitals (like per-incident charges instead of per-visit charges etc.) Let's see what happens.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt; 2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?</p><p>State by state regulations, just like it is now. And the mandated spending I mentioned previously. The pre existing conditions ban is a bit of a joke. The fine is $100 a a day. So if your treatment costs over $36,600 a year, it would be more profitable for the insurance co. to deny you coverage.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt; How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?<br>That will never happen. That doesn't happen even in socialist paradises. The best this act will do is to provide expanded coverage to 32 million people and hopefully doesn't increase costs too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; 1 ) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in ?
In other words , will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply ?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.If the premiums can only go up if the actual cost goes up not for profits sake .
The insurance co. will now mandated to spend $ 0.8 to $ 0.85 or so of every premium dollar it receives .
Right now , that number is between $ 0.6 to $ 0.8 .
Therefore , if the money rolls in , either hospitals and doctors get richer ( i.e .
costs increase ) or premiums drop .
The CBO estimates premiums will drop due to other restrictions on hospitals ( like per-incident charges instead of per-visit charges etc .
) Let 's see what happens. &gt; &gt; &gt; 2 ) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for ? State by state regulations , just like it is now .
And the mandated spending I mentioned previously .
The pre existing conditions ban is a bit of a joke .
The fine is $ 100 a a day .
So if your treatment costs over $ 36,600 a year , it would be more profitable for the insurance co. to deny you coverage. &gt; &gt; &gt; How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy ? That will never happen .
That does n't happen even in socialist paradises .
The best this act will do is to provide expanded coverage to 32 million people and hopefully does n't increase costs too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt; 1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in?
In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.If the premiums can only go up if the actual cost goes up not for profits sake.
The insurance co. will now mandated to spend $0.8 to $0.85 or so of every premium dollar it receives.
Right now, that number is between $0.6 to $0.8.
Therefore, if the money rolls in, either hospitals and doctors get richer (i.e.
costs increase) or premiums drop.
The CBO estimates premiums will drop due to other restrictions on hospitals (like per-incident charges instead of per-visit charges etc.
) Let's see what happens.&gt;&gt;&gt; 2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?State by state regulations, just like it is now.
And the mandated spending I mentioned previously.
The pre existing conditions ban is a bit of a joke.
The fine is $100 a a day.
So if your treatment costs over $36,600 a year, it would be more profitable for the insurance co. to deny you coverage.&gt;&gt;&gt; How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?That will never happen.
That doesn't happen even in socialist paradises.
The best this act will do is to provide expanded coverage to 32 million people and hopefully doesn't increase costs too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565722</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>silverbax</author>
	<datestamp>1269265320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup. That pretty much sums it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
That pretty much sums it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
That pretty much sums it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577682</id>
	<title>Re:consequences</title>
	<author>Huzzah!</author>
	<datestamp>1269263520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to worry, we all know that controlling costs is something our government does best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to worry , we all know that controlling costs is something our government does best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to worry, we all know that controlling costs is something our government does best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566320</id>
	<title>Welcome</title>
	<author>KingofGnG</author>
	<datestamp>1269267420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to the civil world, America....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the civil world , America... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the civil world, America....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570254</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1269278040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got that completely wrong.  Allowing people to choose things that may not be in their best health interest is called freedom.</p><p>The original poster, and you, can't think straight. Complaining about smoking and beer is far closer to your "socialistic/marxist ideals" than universal healthcare is.  We end up paying for emergency healthcare for the uninsured anyway.  A program to address the insurance problem is better and cheaper in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got that completely wrong .
Allowing people to choose things that may not be in their best health interest is called freedom.The original poster , and you , ca n't think straight .
Complaining about smoking and beer is far closer to your " socialistic/marxist ideals " than universal healthcare is .
We end up paying for emergency healthcare for the uninsured anyway .
A program to address the insurance problem is better and cheaper in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got that completely wrong.
Allowing people to choose things that may not be in their best health interest is called freedom.The original poster, and you, can't think straight.
Complaining about smoking and beer is far closer to your "socialistic/marxist ideals" than universal healthcare is.
We end up paying for emergency healthcare for the uninsured anyway.
A program to address the insurance problem is better and cheaper in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570450</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269278580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day, or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves."</p><p>What is the value of a life then?  What is the cost of mistakes, choices, and life events, versus contributions to society?</p><p>Not all contributions can be easily quantified into cost and profit.  It easy to look at someone and make assumptions of their 'value'.  But we really have no idea what type of life they've had, and what the rest of their life will be.  We haven't lived it.  Which lives have they (or will they) enrich or burden?</p><p>It's unfortunate that you can't find any incentive to better yourself, but are unwilling to help others who have.  All they need is some help escaping whatever burden that has kept them from it (in this case, health).  As a Canadian, I pay taxes to support the health care and well-being of others, fully aware that such services are there if I need them myself.  The quality, cost, and care of such services can be argued, and will always be argued about in my country.  It's not a perfect system, but the intent is there.  Health care for all, for the benefit of all.</p><p>I have always found it puzzling that our American friends south of us, with all our similarities, have such a divide on something that we have long integrated into our country, and our culture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day , or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it 's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves .
" What is the value of a life then ?
What is the cost of mistakes , choices , and life events , versus contributions to society ? Not all contributions can be easily quantified into cost and profit .
It easy to look at someone and make assumptions of their 'value' .
But we really have no idea what type of life they 've had , and what the rest of their life will be .
We have n't lived it .
Which lives have they ( or will they ) enrich or burden ? It 's unfortunate that you ca n't find any incentive to better yourself , but are unwilling to help others who have .
All they need is some help escaping whatever burden that has kept them from it ( in this case , health ) .
As a Canadian , I pay taxes to support the health care and well-being of others , fully aware that such services are there if I need them myself .
The quality , cost , and care of such services can be argued , and will always be argued about in my country .
It 's not a perfect system , but the intent is there .
Health care for all , for the benefit of all.I have always found it puzzling that our American friends south of us , with all our similarities , have such a divide on something that we have long integrated into our country , and our culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day, or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves.
"What is the value of a life then?
What is the cost of mistakes, choices, and life events, versus contributions to society?Not all contributions can be easily quantified into cost and profit.
It easy to look at someone and make assumptions of their 'value'.
But we really have no idea what type of life they've had, and what the rest of their life will be.
We haven't lived it.
Which lives have they (or will they) enrich or burden?It's unfortunate that you can't find any incentive to better yourself, but are unwilling to help others who have.
All they need is some help escaping whatever burden that has kept them from it (in this case, health).
As a Canadian, I pay taxes to support the health care and well-being of others, fully aware that such services are there if I need them myself.
The quality, cost, and care of such services can be argued, and will always be argued about in my country.
It's not a perfect system, but the intent is there.
Health care for all, for the benefit of all.I have always found it puzzling that our American friends south of us, with all our similarities, have such a divide on something that we have long integrated into our country, and our culture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569966</id>
	<title>Re:How can China compete against us now?</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1269277200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, maybe more people will be entrepreneurs now because striking out on your own and trying to start a business isn't gambling with the life of your family, should you have one.  To what degree would that happen vs. what you're saying happen?</p><p>Anecdotally, one of my friends seriously looked at starting his own business last year and ultimately did not because he realized that there was no way he would be able to afford health insurance comparable to what his current (private sector, incidentally) job provided.  Faced with a choice between trying to innovate and get rich (in theory, what the free market encourages) he chose being able to take care of his family.</p><p>It's not hard to simply a complex issue, but it's hard to do so honestly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , maybe more people will be entrepreneurs now because striking out on your own and trying to start a business is n't gambling with the life of your family , should you have one .
To what degree would that happen vs. what you 're saying happen ? Anecdotally , one of my friends seriously looked at starting his own business last year and ultimately did not because he realized that there was no way he would be able to afford health insurance comparable to what his current ( private sector , incidentally ) job provided .
Faced with a choice between trying to innovate and get rich ( in theory , what the free market encourages ) he chose being able to take care of his family.It 's not hard to simply a complex issue , but it 's hard to do so honestly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, maybe more people will be entrepreneurs now because striking out on your own and trying to start a business isn't gambling with the life of your family, should you have one.
To what degree would that happen vs. what you're saying happen?Anecdotally, one of my friends seriously looked at starting his own business last year and ultimately did not because he realized that there was no way he would be able to afford health insurance comparable to what his current (private sector, incidentally) job provided.
Faced with a choice between trying to innovate and get rich (in theory, what the free market encourages) he chose being able to take care of his family.It's not hard to simply a complex issue, but it's hard to do so honestly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569172</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.</i> </p><p>The problem is that the "what may be annually spared" part is defined by the government and not the individual.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a Jefferson quote stating that paying 50 cents on the dollar in taxes was what he meant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual .
" -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison , 1784 .
The problem is that the " what may be annually spared " part is defined by the government and not the individual .
You 'd be hard-pressed to find a Jefferson quote stating that paying 50 cents on the dollar in taxes was what he meant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.
" -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.
The problem is that the "what may be annually spared" part is defined by the government and not the individual.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a Jefferson quote stating that paying 50 cents on the dollar in taxes was what he meant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568270</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1269272520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>It also doesn't mean "Create a Welfare State"</p><p>The context you're using it in would mean that *anything* that can improve a person's life should be provided by the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.It also does n't mean " Create a Welfare State " The context you 're using it in would mean that * anything * that can improve a person 's life should be provided by the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.It also doesn't mean "Create a Welfare State"The context you're using it in would mean that *anything* that can improve a person's life should be provided by the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565756</id>
	<title>Co-pays? Can 32,000,000 afford those too?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, now that <i>supposedly</i> everyone will now have insurance what about the 32,000,000 people having to pay the co-pays? And what about the costs of prescription drugs? I know people on some regimes that cost them $300+ a month in bills. They have pretty good jobs and have a Health Savings Account that helps them pay those bills but can the 32,000,000, who couldn't afford to purchase health insurance, be able to afford those costs? And another question, for those Americans that couldn't afford health care and had jobs and had assistance via Medicaid, will they continue to receive assistance via Medicaid. Medicaid already did help keep some of those costs down that I just mentioned but the government considers health care insurance as part of your income in this new bill (I believe - if I'm wrong then just ignore and I'm sorry) which means that would raise some people AGI so that they would no longer receive Medicaid.</p><p>Did we need Health Care Reform? Yes, I agree that we do. Is that what we received with this bill? No, I think that we didn't. I think we just helped the government raise taxes for everyone. When congress and the senate sit down and work through the tax issue it will be brought up that raising taxed for the higher income people would not be very democratic and that everyone should help foot some of the this bill. Even if it they don't, and I don't have that much faith in our government not to, people with high incomes have usually had great loopholes to lower the AGI. </p><p>Did you know that you can donate almost up to 50\% of your stuff to reduce your AGI? So, a single person making $100,000 donates up to $25,000 (charity, IRAs, etc) will have an AGI of $75,000 minus $5,700 for the standard deduction making their AGI $69,300. Now figure out any deductions for mortgages. Agreed this is an overly simplistic view of the situation but if you are making more the $100k a year why aren't you protecting it?
</p><p>I just hope that during this current recession that details of this bill and the trillion dollars it will cost in the next 10 years is something that America can afford and it will help continue to slow our economy more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , now that supposedly everyone will now have insurance what about the 32,000,000 people having to pay the co-pays ?
And what about the costs of prescription drugs ?
I know people on some regimes that cost them $ 300 + a month in bills .
They have pretty good jobs and have a Health Savings Account that helps them pay those bills but can the 32,000,000 , who could n't afford to purchase health insurance , be able to afford those costs ?
And another question , for those Americans that could n't afford health care and had jobs and had assistance via Medicaid , will they continue to receive assistance via Medicaid .
Medicaid already did help keep some of those costs down that I just mentioned but the government considers health care insurance as part of your income in this new bill ( I believe - if I 'm wrong then just ignore and I 'm sorry ) which means that would raise some people AGI so that they would no longer receive Medicaid.Did we need Health Care Reform ?
Yes , I agree that we do .
Is that what we received with this bill ?
No , I think that we did n't .
I think we just helped the government raise taxes for everyone .
When congress and the senate sit down and work through the tax issue it will be brought up that raising taxed for the higher income people would not be very democratic and that everyone should help foot some of the this bill .
Even if it they do n't , and I do n't have that much faith in our government not to , people with high incomes have usually had great loopholes to lower the AGI .
Did you know that you can donate almost up to 50 \ % of your stuff to reduce your AGI ?
So , a single person making $ 100,000 donates up to $ 25,000 ( charity , IRAs , etc ) will have an AGI of $ 75,000 minus $ 5,700 for the standard deduction making their AGI $ 69,300 .
Now figure out any deductions for mortgages .
Agreed this is an overly simplistic view of the situation but if you are making more the $ 100k a year why are n't you protecting it ?
I just hope that during this current recession that details of this bill and the trillion dollars it will cost in the next 10 years is something that America can afford and it will help continue to slow our economy more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, now that supposedly everyone will now have insurance what about the 32,000,000 people having to pay the co-pays?
And what about the costs of prescription drugs?
I know people on some regimes that cost them $300+ a month in bills.
They have pretty good jobs and have a Health Savings Account that helps them pay those bills but can the 32,000,000, who couldn't afford to purchase health insurance, be able to afford those costs?
And another question, for those Americans that couldn't afford health care and had jobs and had assistance via Medicaid, will they continue to receive assistance via Medicaid.
Medicaid already did help keep some of those costs down that I just mentioned but the government considers health care insurance as part of your income in this new bill (I believe - if I'm wrong then just ignore and I'm sorry) which means that would raise some people AGI so that they would no longer receive Medicaid.Did we need Health Care Reform?
Yes, I agree that we do.
Is that what we received with this bill?
No, I think that we didn't.
I think we just helped the government raise taxes for everyone.
When congress and the senate sit down and work through the tax issue it will be brought up that raising taxed for the higher income people would not be very democratic and that everyone should help foot some of the this bill.
Even if it they don't, and I don't have that much faith in our government not to, people with high incomes have usually had great loopholes to lower the AGI.
Did you know that you can donate almost up to 50\% of your stuff to reduce your AGI?
So, a single person making $100,000 donates up to $25,000 (charity, IRAs, etc) will have an AGI of $75,000 minus $5,700 for the standard deduction making their AGI $69,300.
Now figure out any deductions for mortgages.
Agreed this is an overly simplistic view of the situation but if you are making more the $100k a year why aren't you protecting it?
I just hope that during this current recession that details of this bill and the trillion dollars it will cost in the next 10 years is something that America can afford and it will help continue to slow our economy more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575390</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The real genius of the Constitution is that they gave us the power to change it."</p><p>Yes. It's called the article V amendment process. What amendment to the constitution are you speaking of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The real genius of the Constitution is that they gave us the power to change it. " Yes .
It 's called the article V amendment process .
What amendment to the constitution are you speaking of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The real genius of the Constitution is that they gave us the power to change it."Yes.
It's called the article V amendment process.
What amendment to the constitution are you speaking of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565676</id>
	<title>Re:Hurry up and wait</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1269265140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assumed that by now they would have begun the process of rounding up all the US citizens over 40 and putting them before the death panels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assumed that by now they would have begun the process of rounding up all the US citizens over 40 and putting them before the death panels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assumed that by now they would have begun the process of rounding up all the US citizens over 40 and putting them before the death panels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Timewasted</author>
	<datestamp>1269264480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand that many hard working people deserve health insurance.  I think it would be great if I could switch careers or start a small business and not have to worry about how I will provide health insurance for my family and I.  <br> <br>

However, I have one major issue... I know so many people in this country who try to game our systems of unemployment and welfare, and quite frankly its rather sad.  I really am unsure if the government should take care of these people, as they are already a drain on our society to begin with...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that many hard working people deserve health insurance .
I think it would be great if I could switch careers or start a small business and not have to worry about how I will provide health insurance for my family and I . However , I have one major issue... I know so many people in this country who try to game our systems of unemployment and welfare , and quite frankly its rather sad .
I really am unsure if the government should take care of these people , as they are already a drain on our society to begin with.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that many hard working people deserve health insurance.
I think it would be great if I could switch careers or start a small business and not have to worry about how I will provide health insurance for my family and I.   

However, I have one major issue... I know so many people in this country who try to game our systems of unemployment and welfare, and quite frankly its rather sad.
I really am unsure if the government should take care of these people, as they are already a drain on our society to begin with...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566108</id>
	<title>Re:Beware, lawmakers: November is coming.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhh, Democrats ran largely on a platform of healthcare reform (among other things).  If the American people had wanted absolutely nothing to be done, they would have elected Republicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh , Democrats ran largely on a platform of healthcare reform ( among other things ) .
If the American people had wanted absolutely nothing to be done , they would have elected Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh, Democrats ran largely on a platform of healthcare reform (among other things).
If the American people had wanted absolutely nothing to be done, they would have elected Republicans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568820</id>
	<title>In other news:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269273900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glenn Beck was found dead in his room at the mental asylum, where he was taken on the evening before, because he tried to storm the White House with his assault rifle, clad in tin foil and tea party stickers.<br>He hung himself after cutting off his penis, swallowing it whole and failing to suffocate in the process. The note that he left states that he thought that that was still better than what the government would force upon him by tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glenn Beck was found dead in his room at the mental asylum , where he was taken on the evening before , because he tried to storm the White House with his assault rifle , clad in tin foil and tea party stickers.He hung himself after cutting off his penis , swallowing it whole and failing to suffocate in the process .
The note that he left states that he thought that that was still better than what the government would force upon him by tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glenn Beck was found dead in his room at the mental asylum, where he was taken on the evening before, because he tried to storm the White House with his assault rifle, clad in tin foil and tea party stickers.He hung himself after cutting off his penis, swallowing it whole and failing to suffocate in the process.
The note that he left states that he thought that that was still better than what the government would force upon him by tomorrow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568382</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>VJ42</author>
	<datestamp>1269272760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.</p></div><p>I'm not American, but (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and <b>provide for the</b> common Defence and <b>general Welfare</b> of the United States</p></div><p>Health care sounds like providing for the general welfare to me</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution .
Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.I 'm not American , but ( Article I , Section 8 , Clause 1 ) : The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes , Duties , Imposts and Excises , to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United StatesHealth care sounds like providing for the general welfare to me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution.
Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.I'm not American, but (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1):The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United StatesHealth care sounds like providing for the general welfare to me
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573438</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269288180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... contrary to what Fox will tell you, it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.</p></div><p>I may have mis-interpreted the summaries of the bill.  Are these really just obstructionist talking point?</p><p>- Does it raise taxes on people who make lots of money?</p><p>- Does it cut reimbursement to doctors for treating medicare patients?</p><p>- Does it tax employers who provide really terrific health care plans to employees?  To the point where employers might cut back on that sort of thing?</p><p>I'm not saying that the bill isn't good on balance.  But I want to be clear what you mean when you say "it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... contrary to what Fox will tell you , it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.I may have mis-interpreted the summaries of the bill .
Are these really just obstructionist talking point ? - Does it raise taxes on people who make lots of money ? - Does it cut reimbursement to doctors for treating medicare patients ? - Does it tax employers who provide really terrific health care plans to employees ?
To the point where employers might cut back on that sort of thing ? I 'm not saying that the bill is n't good on balance .
But I want to be clear what you mean when you say " it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... contrary to what Fox will tell you, it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.I may have mis-interpreted the summaries of the bill.
Are these really just obstructionist talking point?- Does it raise taxes on people who make lots of money?- Does it cut reimbursement to doctors for treating medicare patients?- Does it tax employers who provide really terrific health care plans to employees?
To the point where employers might cut back on that sort of thing?I'm not saying that the bill isn't good on balance.
But I want to be clear what you mean when you say "it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575326</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1269252000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't start a health insurance company that just hands out band-aids.</p> </div><p>WTH? So I spent all afternoon filling out those LLC forms on LegalZoom for nothing?!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't start a health insurance company that just hands out band-aids .
WTH ? So I spent all afternoon filling out those LLC forms on LegalZoom for nothing ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't start a health insurance company that just hands out band-aids.
WTH? So I spent all afternoon filling out those LLC forms on LegalZoom for nothing?!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566796</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.</p></div><p>So what?</p><p>No, seriously. So what? Why are so many of you Americans so hung up on your Constitution that you can't allow your elected representatives to work for the good of your citizens simply because your Founding Fathers didn't have enough foresight to anticipate all of the problems that you would have hundreds of years after their deaths?</p><p>If you're so hung up on insisting that no one in Government do anything unless it's explicitly stated in the Constitution, then fix the Constitution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution .
Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.So what ? No , seriously .
So what ?
Why are so many of you Americans so hung up on your Constitution that you ca n't allow your elected representatives to work for the good of your citizens simply because your Founding Fathers did n't have enough foresight to anticipate all of the problems that you would have hundreds of years after their deaths ? If you 're so hung up on insisting that no one in Government do anything unless it 's explicitly stated in the Constitution , then fix the Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution.
Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.So what?No, seriously.
So what?
Why are so many of you Americans so hung up on your Constitution that you can't allow your elected representatives to work for the good of your citizens simply because your Founding Fathers didn't have enough foresight to anticipate all of the problems that you would have hundreds of years after their deaths?If you're so hung up on insisting that no one in Government do anything unless it's explicitly stated in the Constitution, then fix the Constitution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</id>
	<title>patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269264900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>patriotism, as in caring for the health of your nation, the welfare of your fellow man, belief in the common good, as opposed to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness: i don't know why that's "patriotism"</p><p>morality, as in standing up and saying that i don't believe in a society where a corporation takes care of its stockholders and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing rates</p><p>freedom, from disease and sickness, as opposed to the false "freedom" to choose between paying for your broken arm, or depending upon society to pay for your broken arm because you can't afford it (while you rail about your "right" to "choose" to not have health insurance)</p><p>if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated. even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? does the hospital turn them away for not having cash? can you live in a society that does that?</p><p>furthermore, what currently happens if they have no health insurance? hospitals have unpaid bills, and remains eternally on the verge of bankruptcy, eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds. in other words: you already pay for it, but now you pay for it in the most common sense way</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>patriotism , as in caring for the health of your nation , the welfare of your fellow man , belief in the common good , as opposed to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness : i do n't know why that 's " patriotism " morality , as in standing up and saying that i do n't believe in a society where a corporation takes care of its stockholders and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing ratesfreedom , from disease and sickness , as opposed to the false " freedom " to choose between paying for your broken arm , or depending upon society to pay for your broken arm because you ca n't afford it ( while you rail about your " right " to " choose " to not have health insurance ) if you understand why you ca n't drive legally without car insurance , you understand why health insurance must be mandated .
even the young and healthy break their arms .
then , what happens ?
does the hospital turn them away for not having cash ?
can you live in a society that does that ? furthermore , what currently happens if they have no health insurance ?
hospitals have unpaid bills , and remains eternally on the verge of bankruptcy , eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds .
in other words : you already pay for it , but now you pay for it in the most common sense way</tokentext>
<sentencetext>patriotism, as in caring for the health of your nation, the welfare of your fellow man, belief in the common good, as opposed to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness: i don't know why that's "patriotism"morality, as in standing up and saying that i don't believe in a society where a corporation takes care of its stockholders and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing ratesfreedom, from disease and sickness, as opposed to the false "freedom" to choose between paying for your broken arm, or depending upon society to pay for your broken arm because you can't afford it (while you rail about your "right" to "choose" to not have health insurance)if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated.
even the young and healthy break their arms.
then, what happens?
does the hospital turn them away for not having cash?
can you live in a society that does that?furthermore, what currently happens if they have no health insurance?
hospitals have unpaid bills, and remains eternally on the verge of bankruptcy, eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds.
in other words: you already pay for it, but now you pay for it in the most common sense way</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567116</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>VJ42</author>
	<datestamp>1269269580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Republicans are opposed because it's socialism.  The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.</p><p>This will not end well.</p></div><p>As another non-American, it doesn't look particularly socialist to me. Even if it was "socialist" so's the police, fire service, army etc. Why not health care; it works here in the UK, or are you one of those people who believe "Stephen Hawking would have died under the British system" - Something I saw one of your politicians actually say (on youTube).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Republicans are opposed because it 's socialism .
The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.This will not end well.As another non-American , it does n't look particularly socialist to me .
Even if it was " socialist " so 's the police , fire service , army etc .
Why not health care ; it works here in the UK , or are you one of those people who believe " Stephen Hawking would have died under the British system " - Something I saw one of your politicians actually say ( on youTube ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republicans are opposed because it's socialism.
The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.This will not end well.As another non-American, it doesn't look particularly socialist to me.
Even if it was "socialist" so's the police, fire service, army etc.
Why not health care; it works here in the UK, or are you one of those people who believe "Stephen Hawking would have died under the British system" - Something I saw one of your politicians actually say (on youTube).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572226</id>
	<title>Re:I'm fairly sure a brain is not required either</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1269283920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Universal health care would be socialist.<br>
Government directed health insurance (which this bill is) is fascist<br>
Actually health care was a major part of the discussions.  One or two of the founders was a doctor, set up hospitals where they lived.  Look it up yourself, you seem to need to read a few facts anyways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Universal health care would be socialist .
Government directed health insurance ( which this bill is ) is fascist Actually health care was a major part of the discussions .
One or two of the founders was a doctor , set up hospitals where they lived .
Look it up yourself , you seem to need to read a few facts anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Universal health care would be socialist.
Government directed health insurance (which this bill is) is fascist
Actually health care was a major part of the discussions.
One or two of the founders was a doctor, set up hospitals where they lived.
Look it up yourself, you seem to need to read a few facts anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571344</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1269281520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Republicans had control of the Presidency and the Congress and did nothing with regard to health care reform other than Medicare Part D, which will cost $725 billion over the next nine years. The Republicans refused to do anything when they had the chance, and now are complaining that they're being left out of a chance to do something. I'm sorry guys, but you squandered the chance to do things your way.</p><p>The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 cost over a trillion dollars--in other words, much bigger than this bill--were both passed by reconciliation. And the 2003 was not a reconciliation. It passed the Senate 51-50 with Cheney breaking the tie. So again, Republicans are full of shit, hypocritical, and never miss a chance to play loose with the facts and politics with your lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Republicans had control of the Presidency and the Congress and did nothing with regard to health care reform other than Medicare Part D , which will cost $ 725 billion over the next nine years .
The Republicans refused to do anything when they had the chance , and now are complaining that they 're being left out of a chance to do something .
I 'm sorry guys , but you squandered the chance to do things your way.The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 cost over a trillion dollars--in other words , much bigger than this bill--were both passed by reconciliation .
And the 2003 was not a reconciliation .
It passed the Senate 51-50 with Cheney breaking the tie .
So again , Republicans are full of shit , hypocritical , and never miss a chance to play loose with the facts and politics with your lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republicans had control of the Presidency and the Congress and did nothing with regard to health care reform other than Medicare Part D, which will cost $725 billion over the next nine years.
The Republicans refused to do anything when they had the chance, and now are complaining that they're being left out of a chance to do something.
I'm sorry guys, but you squandered the chance to do things your way.The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 cost over a trillion dollars--in other words, much bigger than this bill--were both passed by reconciliation.
And the 2003 was not a reconciliation.
It passed the Senate 51-50 with Cheney breaking the tie.
So again, Republicans are full of shit, hypocritical, and never miss a chance to play loose with the facts and politics with your lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567208</id>
	<title>Congratulations</title>
	<author>GerryHattrick</author>
	<datestamp>1269269760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congratulations, USians, you may eventually be able to enjoy the long-standing advantages of the rest of the free world (and even some of the un-free world).  But take my tip from now on - for details, get the advice of qualified actuaries, not politicians.  Even full-state-guaranteed systems fail if they are actuarially unsustainable.  Yes, IAAL - at least in this field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , USians , you may eventually be able to enjoy the long-standing advantages of the rest of the free world ( and even some of the un-free world ) .
But take my tip from now on - for details , get the advice of qualified actuaries , not politicians .
Even full-state-guaranteed systems fail if they are actuarially unsustainable .
Yes , IAAL - at least in this field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, USians, you may eventually be able to enjoy the long-standing advantages of the rest of the free world (and even some of the un-free world).
But take my tip from now on - for details, get the advice of qualified actuaries, not politicians.
Even full-state-guaranteed systems fail if they are actuarially unsustainable.
Yes, IAAL - at least in this field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573392</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269288000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should really check your sources OzPeter.  Rush said he would go to Costa Rica for his healthcare if this came to be.  In case you didn't know, healthcare companies are setting up shop down there.  No taxes, very little regulation, etc.  So you can get U.S. quality healthcare at a fraction of the cost, including the round trip flight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should really check your sources OzPeter .
Rush said he would go to Costa Rica for his healthcare if this came to be .
In case you did n't know , healthcare companies are setting up shop down there .
No taxes , very little regulation , etc .
So you can get U.S. quality healthcare at a fraction of the cost , including the round trip flight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should really check your sources OzPeter.
Rush said he would go to Costa Rica for his healthcare if this came to be.
In case you didn't know, healthcare companies are setting up shop down there.
No taxes, very little regulation, etc.
So you can get U.S. quality healthcare at a fraction of the cost, including the round trip flight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573952</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269290160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated."</p><p>The difference is that you don't have to own a car. You can walk, take a bus, ride with somebody, whatever. Unlike car insurance, health insurance is mandated</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" if you understand why you ca n't drive legally without car insurance , you understand why health insurance must be mandated .
" The difference is that you do n't have to own a car .
You can walk , take a bus , ride with somebody , whatever .
Unlike car insurance , health insurance is mandated</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated.
"The difference is that you don't have to own a car.
You can walk, take a bus, ride with somebody, whatever.
Unlike car insurance, health insurance is mandated</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580624</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1269337980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down. This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense. Cancers are caught sooner, infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood. What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices. No one chooses to get prostate cancer, no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.</p></div><p>The more ridiculous thing is that the costs for all (including the libertarians and republitards) would go down dramatically.   But they refrain... why?  FOR SPITE.</p><p>It's like watching some fool shoot himself in the foot trying to look tough with a gun.  Get over yourselves.  Single Payer is awesome.  Quit acting butthurt just because it wasn't your idea and you're so self-interested that all the good ideas gotta come from you.</p><p>If you want to be alone, get out of OUR country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something funny : if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down .
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense .
Cancers are caught sooner , infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood .
What selfish libertarians like yourself do n't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices .
No one chooses to get prostate cancer , no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.The more ridiculous thing is that the costs for all ( including the libertarians and republitards ) would go down dramatically .
But they refrain... why ? FOR SPITE.It 's like watching some fool shoot himself in the foot trying to look tough with a gun .
Get over yourselves .
Single Payer is awesome .
Quit acting butthurt just because it was n't your idea and you 're so self-interested that all the good ideas got ta come from you.If you want to be alone , get out of OUR country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.
Cancers are caught sooner, infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood.
What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices.
No one chooses to get prostate cancer, no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.The more ridiculous thing is that the costs for all (including the libertarians and republitards) would go down dramatically.
But they refrain... why?  FOR SPITE.It's like watching some fool shoot himself in the foot trying to look tough with a gun.
Get over yourselves.
Single Payer is awesome.
Quit acting butthurt just because it wasn't your idea and you're so self-interested that all the good ideas gotta come from you.If you want to be alone, get out of OUR country.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569604</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1269276180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or was this the Democrats' intention? Bankrupt the insurance industry and come in as Mr. Government, Savior of All.</p></div><p>I sure hope so! It's about time someone got tough on corporate crime!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or was this the Democrats ' intention ?
Bankrupt the insurance industry and come in as Mr. Government , Savior of All.I sure hope so !
It 's about time someone got tough on corporate crime !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or was this the Democrats' intention?
Bankrupt the insurance industry and come in as Mr. Government, Savior of All.I sure hope so!
It's about time someone got tough on corporate crime!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567798</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1269271260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt that.</p><p>No politician wants to be the one that "Takes away your free health care!"</p><p>At most they'll put on a show, say they "Really tried", and then go back to being the stupid party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that.No politician wants to be the one that " Takes away your free health care !
" At most they 'll put on a show , say they " Really tried " , and then go back to being the stupid party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that.No politician wants to be the one that "Takes away your free health care!
"At most they'll put on a show, say they "Really tried", and then go back to being the stupid party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566814</id>
	<title>Here in my country</title>
	<author>vescovi</author>
	<datestamp>1269268800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in a 3rd world country, and we have universal health care. It doesnt matter if you are poor and cant pay: if you have a heart attack, a ambulance will take you to the hospital, and you will have treatment. Well, you will not have 5 star treatment, with naked nurses and stuff, maybe you even have a room, but hey, this is a 3rd world country! They will ask you (or look in your wallet) if you have some private-insurance, and take you to a private hospital if you do.

If all the public hospitals are full, the private ones WILL accept you, and the government will pay then later.

Of course, it has some flaws. If you need som exam, u may wait for months (it depends on what state you are, some are better than others)... but if you have diseases like diabets, heart problems and stuff like that, you will have FREE medication, for the rest of your life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in a 3rd world country , and we have universal health care .
It doesnt matter if you are poor and cant pay : if you have a heart attack , a ambulance will take you to the hospital , and you will have treatment .
Well , you will not have 5 star treatment , with naked nurses and stuff , maybe you even have a room , but hey , this is a 3rd world country !
They will ask you ( or look in your wallet ) if you have some private-insurance , and take you to a private hospital if you do .
If all the public hospitals are full , the private ones WILL accept you , and the government will pay then later .
Of course , it has some flaws .
If you need som exam , u may wait for months ( it depends on what state you are , some are better than others ) ... but if you have diseases like diabets , heart problems and stuff like that , you will have FREE medication , for the rest of your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in a 3rd world country, and we have universal health care.
It doesnt matter if you are poor and cant pay: if you have a heart attack, a ambulance will take you to the hospital, and you will have treatment.
Well, you will not have 5 star treatment, with naked nurses and stuff, maybe you even have a room, but hey, this is a 3rd world country!
They will ask you (or look in your wallet) if you have some private-insurance, and take you to a private hospital if you do.
If all the public hospitals are full, the private ones WILL accept you, and the government will pay then later.
Of course, it has some flaws.
If you need som exam, u may wait for months (it depends on what state you are, some are better than others)... but if you have diseases like diabets, heart problems and stuff like that, you will have FREE medication, for the rest of your life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567962</id>
	<title>Why 2014?</title>
	<author>cowtamer</author>
	<datestamp>1269271680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why we have to wait until 2014 to get pre-existing condition exceptions repealed.  I'm proud of the Congress for some sort of insurance reform, but am appalled that such a basic part of this reform goes into effect so late.</p><p>Perhaps I'm missing something about how these laws work...</p><p>From one of the articles:</p><blockquote><div><p>People with "preexisting" health problems: Six months after the bills are enacted, health plans would be prohibited from excluding children who have preexisting conditions. In 2014, this prohibition would be extended to adults. That year, insurers would no longer be allowed to set annual limits, rescind coverage, or impose excessive waiting periods before coverage starts.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why we have to wait until 2014 to get pre-existing condition exceptions repealed .
I 'm proud of the Congress for some sort of insurance reform , but am appalled that such a basic part of this reform goes into effect so late.Perhaps I 'm missing something about how these laws work...From one of the articles : People with " preexisting " health problems : Six months after the bills are enacted , health plans would be prohibited from excluding children who have preexisting conditions .
In 2014 , this prohibition would be extended to adults .
That year , insurers would no longer be allowed to set annual limits , rescind coverage , or impose excessive waiting periods before coverage starts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why we have to wait until 2014 to get pre-existing condition exceptions repealed.
I'm proud of the Congress for some sort of insurance reform, but am appalled that such a basic part of this reform goes into effect so late.Perhaps I'm missing something about how these laws work...From one of the articles:People with "preexisting" health problems: Six months after the bills are enacted, health plans would be prohibited from excluding children who have preexisting conditions.
In 2014, this prohibition would be extended to adults.
That year, insurers would no longer be allowed to set annual limits, rescind coverage, or impose excessive waiting periods before coverage starts.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566864</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should not work hard to provide health insurance for yourself and your family. You should work hard to provide health care for yourself and your family.<br>
<br>
See the difference?<br>
<br>
If you are free to choose how you provide that health care, then find a high deductible plan. You pay more out of pocket for any health events that come up, but are still protected from catastrophic ruin. The premiums for these plans are significantly less than the plans that let everyone in them fuck everyone else in them.<br>
<br>
Combine a high deductible plan with a health savings account (and tax deductions apply to these) and you can have the opportunity to optimize/minimize monthly expenses. You know what routine care (checkups, etc..) costs you so there is no reason for your premiums to supplement people with higher routine costs (often higher simply because the the disconnect between premiums and actual costs.. they make poor decisions about who performs that routine care, how often they seek out that care, and even about what care is administered)<br>
<br>
This is basically the "pay your own way" method and it works. Unless you are chronically unhealthy now, this has become <b>the</b> route to go. Thanks to the pre-existing conditions mandate, there is no risk of this turning into a bad decision.<br>
<br>
There are now two classes of people. Generally heathy people who will have high deductable plans and health savings accounts, and the chronically ill who burden each other with their higher costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should not work hard to provide health insurance for yourself and your family .
You should work hard to provide health care for yourself and your family .
See the difference ?
If you are free to choose how you provide that health care , then find a high deductible plan .
You pay more out of pocket for any health events that come up , but are still protected from catastrophic ruin .
The premiums for these plans are significantly less than the plans that let everyone in them fuck everyone else in them .
Combine a high deductible plan with a health savings account ( and tax deductions apply to these ) and you can have the opportunity to optimize/minimize monthly expenses .
You know what routine care ( checkups , etc.. ) costs you so there is no reason for your premiums to supplement people with higher routine costs ( often higher simply because the the disconnect between premiums and actual costs.. they make poor decisions about who performs that routine care , how often they seek out that care , and even about what care is administered ) This is basically the " pay your own way " method and it works .
Unless you are chronically unhealthy now , this has become the route to go .
Thanks to the pre-existing conditions mandate , there is no risk of this turning into a bad decision .
There are now two classes of people .
Generally heathy people who will have high deductable plans and health savings accounts , and the chronically ill who burden each other with their higher costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should not work hard to provide health insurance for yourself and your family.
You should work hard to provide health care for yourself and your family.
See the difference?
If you are free to choose how you provide that health care, then find a high deductible plan.
You pay more out of pocket for any health events that come up, but are still protected from catastrophic ruin.
The premiums for these plans are significantly less than the plans that let everyone in them fuck everyone else in them.
Combine a high deductible plan with a health savings account (and tax deductions apply to these) and you can have the opportunity to optimize/minimize monthly expenses.
You know what routine care (checkups, etc..) costs you so there is no reason for your premiums to supplement people with higher routine costs (often higher simply because the the disconnect between premiums and actual costs.. they make poor decisions about who performs that routine care, how often they seek out that care, and even about what care is administered)

This is basically the "pay your own way" method and it works.
Unless you are chronically unhealthy now, this has become the route to go.
Thanks to the pre-existing conditions mandate, there is no risk of this turning into a bad decision.
There are now two classes of people.
Generally heathy people who will have high deductable plans and health savings accounts, and the chronically ill who burden each other with their higher costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570402</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269278460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But... But... How would they find a first-world country that DOESN'T offer socialized healthcare???</p><p>What a dilemma!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But... But... How would they find a first-world country that DOES N'T offer socialized healthcare ? ?
? What a dilemma !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But... But... How would they find a first-world country that DOESN'T offer socialized healthcare??
?What a dilemma!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31615344</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1269546960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm pretty sure that 4.4\%  isnt a large profit margin</i></p><p>I'm petty sure that's calculated <i>after</i> paying their board members 7 figure salaries, the CEO an 8 figure salary, and millions more for lobbying and advertising.</p><p><i>The problem is not insurance company profits. </i></p><p>Yeah, it is.  Medicare and the VA (socialized medicine) have 2\%-4\% overhead, compared to 20\%-30\% for private insurance companies.</p><p><i>The problem is that Americans get every possible test and procedure done, which is what makes the rates high.</i></p><p>Right, because only the United States has hypochondriacs.  Otherwise Japan and France and...the rest of the industrialized world...would be overwhelmed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that 4.4 \ % isnt a large profit marginI 'm petty sure that 's calculated after paying their board members 7 figure salaries , the CEO an 8 figure salary , and millions more for lobbying and advertising.The problem is not insurance company profits .
Yeah , it is .
Medicare and the VA ( socialized medicine ) have 2 \ % -4 \ % overhead , compared to 20 \ % -30 \ % for private insurance companies.The problem is that Americans get every possible test and procedure done , which is what makes the rates high.Right , because only the United States has hypochondriacs .
Otherwise Japan and France and...the rest of the industrialized world...would be overwhelmed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that 4.4\%  isnt a large profit marginI'm petty sure that's calculated after paying their board members 7 figure salaries, the CEO an 8 figure salary, and millions more for lobbying and advertising.The problem is not insurance company profits.
Yeah, it is.
Medicare and the VA (socialized medicine) have 2\%-4\% overhead, compared to 20\%-30\% for private insurance companies.The problem is that Americans get every possible test and procedure done, which is what makes the rates high.Right, because only the United States has hypochondriacs.
Otherwise Japan and France and...the rest of the industrialized world...would be overwhelmed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567808</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269271260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.</p></div><p>You really are stupid aren't you? The US Constitution does not prohibit the US Government from passing legislation which addresses things not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. New laws are supposed to abide by the principles set forth in the US Constitution, however. The healthcare legislation does not violate the US Constitution. The President fighting an undeclared war in a foreign country does violate the US Constitution yet the Republican Party and its supporters seem to be fine with such violation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution .
Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.You really are stupid are n't you ?
The US Constitution does not prohibit the US Government from passing legislation which addresses things not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution .
New laws are supposed to abide by the principles set forth in the US Constitution , however .
The healthcare legislation does not violate the US Constitution .
The President fighting an undeclared war in a foreign country does violate the US Constitution yet the Republican Party and its supporters seem to be fine with such violation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution.
Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.You really are stupid aren't you?
The US Constitution does not prohibit the US Government from passing legislation which addresses things not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution.
New laws are supposed to abide by the principles set forth in the US Constitution, however.
The healthcare legislation does not violate the US Constitution.
The President fighting an undeclared war in a foreign country does violate the US Constitution yet the Republican Party and its supporters seem to be fine with such violation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573154</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here are some quick (perhaps not well-thought-out) takes on 2) and 3):</p><p>2) competition?</p><p>3) the poor may not be assured of having the same treatments available, but perhaps more people will have at least some basic or better treatments available. I personally think it is unrealistic to try to give the very latest and greatest testing and treatments to everyone in this country, unless we are all prepared to pay an even higher (VERY HIGH) percentage of our incomes toward health care costs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are some quick ( perhaps not well-thought-out ) takes on 2 ) and 3 ) : 2 ) competition ? 3 ) the poor may not be assured of having the same treatments available , but perhaps more people will have at least some basic or better treatments available .
I personally think it is unrealistic to try to give the very latest and greatest testing and treatments to everyone in this country , unless we are all prepared to pay an even higher ( VERY HIGH ) percentage of our incomes toward health care costs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are some quick (perhaps not well-thought-out) takes on 2) and 3):2) competition?3) the poor may not be assured of having the same treatments available, but perhaps more people will have at least some basic or better treatments available.
I personally think it is unrealistic to try to give the very latest and greatest testing and treatments to everyone in this country, unless we are all prepared to pay an even higher (VERY HIGH) percentage of our incomes toward health care costs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565904</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>dr2chase</author>
	<datestamp>1269266100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought <a href="http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo" title="frumforum.com">David Frum's analysis</a> [frumforum.com] was pretty interesting; he's conservative, and thinks that the Republicans blew it by digging in (see the Digg analysis not far from here in the comments -- I think he agrees with that).  This is roughly a Republican bill, if your Republican is Richard Nixon, or pre-presidential-run Mitt Romney.
<p>
Note, especially, his dig at the "news" media and the yelling heads -- essentially, we are in 100\% agreement on that point, that people like Limbaugh make money on conflict/controversy, not compromise/consensus, and they are in it for the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought David Frum 's analysis [ frumforum.com ] was pretty interesting ; he 's conservative , and thinks that the Republicans blew it by digging in ( see the Digg analysis not far from here in the comments -- I think he agrees with that ) .
This is roughly a Republican bill , if your Republican is Richard Nixon , or pre-presidential-run Mitt Romney .
Note , especially , his dig at the " news " media and the yelling heads -- essentially , we are in 100 \ % agreement on that point , that people like Limbaugh make money on conflict/controversy , not compromise/consensus , and they are in it for the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought David Frum's analysis [frumforum.com] was pretty interesting; he's conservative, and thinks that the Republicans blew it by digging in (see the Digg analysis not far from here in the comments -- I think he agrees with that).
This is roughly a Republican bill, if your Republican is Richard Nixon, or pre-presidential-run Mitt Romney.
Note, especially, his dig at the "news" media and the yelling heads -- essentially, we are in 100\% agreement on that point, that people like Limbaugh make money on conflict/controversy, not compromise/consensus, and they are in it for the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580194</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1269374580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>we the people didnt want this</p></div></blockquote><p>
Hey, you fucking moron... You are not "the people". "The people" voted for Obama and his health care plan.

</p><p>So shut the fuck up. I'm getting sick and tired of teabaggers and other right-wing fucktards going on about how they, as a minority, represent the majority.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we the people didnt want this Hey , you fucking moron... You are not " the people " .
" The people " voted for Obama and his health care plan .
So shut the fuck up .
I 'm getting sick and tired of teabaggers and other right-wing fucktards going on about how they , as a minority , represent the majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we the people didnt want this
Hey, you fucking moron... You are not "the people".
"The people" voted for Obama and his health care plan.
So shut the fuck up.
I'm getting sick and tired of teabaggers and other right-wing fucktards going on about how they, as a minority, represent the majority.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575392</id>
	<title>Re:This was a tough one</title>
	<author>Saint Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1269252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have incredibly shitty health care options (contractor) - HSAs with high deductibles, limited PPOs with annual caps, and I LOATHE this health care bill.  Because I'm already paying the way for all the other fat-ass schlubs in america to live off MY income, and it's only going to get worse.</p><p>The only thing that makes me happy is gradually the rest of you are going to start having the options I've had for years.  You ain't going to like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have incredibly shitty health care options ( contractor ) - HSAs with high deductibles , limited PPOs with annual caps , and I LOATHE this health care bill .
Because I 'm already paying the way for all the other fat-ass schlubs in america to live off MY income , and it 's only going to get worse.The only thing that makes me happy is gradually the rest of you are going to start having the options I 've had for years .
You ai n't going to like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have incredibly shitty health care options (contractor) - HSAs with high deductibles, limited PPOs with annual caps, and I LOATHE this health care bill.
Because I'm already paying the way for all the other fat-ass schlubs in america to live off MY income, and it's only going to get worse.The only thing that makes me happy is gradually the rest of you are going to start having the options I've had for years.
You ain't going to like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569588</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>BoberFett</author>
	<datestamp>1269276120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Rush will leave the US just like all those high profile Democrats did after Bush won like they said they would. Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Rush will leave the US just like all those high profile Democrats did after Bush won like they said they would .
Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Rush will leave the US just like all those high profile Democrats did after Bush won like they said they would.
Oh wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920</id>
	<title>consequences</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1269271560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wrote about this before, but the biggest problem with this bill is that it doesn't meet the original aims of fixing healthcare.  During the election, the proposal was to reduce the cost of healthcare, thereby extending coverage to uninsured Americans.  Many of the cost-saving measures originally proposed were dropped and now we have a bill that only extends coverage, but doesn't fundamentally reduce the costs in a meaningful way.  Democratic and Republican ideologies prevented this from becoming a true overhaul of our healthcare.  It's depressing that something this important became cannon-fodder for midterm elections.  My fear is that we missed our only opportunity to get this right and will have to bear the consequences of what's been passed today.  I think back to the architect of the Social Security Act, who's name I can't recall and I don't have time to google, stated from it's inception that it was not durable long-term solution, yet almost 75 years later we still haven't done anything to prevent it's insolvency.

We saw something like this on a smaller scale when the Bush administration expanded Medicare to part D, but underestimated the costs of the program (and publicly accused heathcare providers for "stealing" from the government).  I'm afraid that the assumptions that the Democrats are making about how this will be paid for in the future are grossly off the mark, and our generation and that of our children (for those readers in their forties) will be paying the penalty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote about this before , but the biggest problem with this bill is that it does n't meet the original aims of fixing healthcare .
During the election , the proposal was to reduce the cost of healthcare , thereby extending coverage to uninsured Americans .
Many of the cost-saving measures originally proposed were dropped and now we have a bill that only extends coverage , but does n't fundamentally reduce the costs in a meaningful way .
Democratic and Republican ideologies prevented this from becoming a true overhaul of our healthcare .
It 's depressing that something this important became cannon-fodder for midterm elections .
My fear is that we missed our only opportunity to get this right and will have to bear the consequences of what 's been passed today .
I think back to the architect of the Social Security Act , who 's name I ca n't recall and I do n't have time to google , stated from it 's inception that it was not durable long-term solution , yet almost 75 years later we still have n't done anything to prevent it 's insolvency .
We saw something like this on a smaller scale when the Bush administration expanded Medicare to part D , but underestimated the costs of the program ( and publicly accused heathcare providers for " stealing " from the government ) .
I 'm afraid that the assumptions that the Democrats are making about how this will be paid for in the future are grossly off the mark , and our generation and that of our children ( for those readers in their forties ) will be paying the penalty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote about this before, but the biggest problem with this bill is that it doesn't meet the original aims of fixing healthcare.
During the election, the proposal was to reduce the cost of healthcare, thereby extending coverage to uninsured Americans.
Many of the cost-saving measures originally proposed were dropped and now we have a bill that only extends coverage, but doesn't fundamentally reduce the costs in a meaningful way.
Democratic and Republican ideologies prevented this from becoming a true overhaul of our healthcare.
It's depressing that something this important became cannon-fodder for midterm elections.
My fear is that we missed our only opportunity to get this right and will have to bear the consequences of what's been passed today.
I think back to the architect of the Social Security Act, who's name I can't recall and I don't have time to google, stated from it's inception that it was not durable long-term solution, yet almost 75 years later we still haven't done anything to prevent it's insolvency.
We saw something like this on a smaller scale when the Bush administration expanded Medicare to part D, but underestimated the costs of the program (and publicly accused heathcare providers for "stealing" from the government).
I'm afraid that the assumptions that the Democrats are making about how this will be paid for in the future are grossly off the mark, and our generation and that of our children (for those readers in their forties) will be paying the penalty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31608498</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269516720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This kind of sounds like my friend, who has no understanding of history whatsoever, watches a film about the "poor" Marie Antoinette and says: "What kind of cruel people could do that?" Honestly, I think those people will be fine wherever they go. Let them move some place else and exploit people there. That is one less you have to worry about. It's not like America is lacking rich people.</p><p>You'd have to be a sad person to blackmail your nation in either giving up health care for the needy or losing them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of sounds like my friend , who has no understanding of history whatsoever , watches a film about the " poor " Marie Antoinette and says : " What kind of cruel people could do that ?
" Honestly , I think those people will be fine wherever they go .
Let them move some place else and exploit people there .
That is one less you have to worry about .
It 's not like America is lacking rich people.You 'd have to be a sad person to blackmail your nation in either giving up health care for the needy or losing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of sounds like my friend, who has no understanding of history whatsoever, watches a film about the "poor" Marie Antoinette and says: "What kind of cruel people could do that?
" Honestly, I think those people will be fine wherever they go.
Let them move some place else and exploit people there.
That is one less you have to worry about.
It's not like America is lacking rich people.You'd have to be a sad person to blackmail your nation in either giving up health care for the needy or losing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578142</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Robopath</author>
	<datestamp>1269266640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pushed down insurance margins below the 3.4-5\% that they make now? So you mean you want to eliminate the insurance companies to increase competition? Not likely. Also- there are far fewer people standing on the abortion topic than the socialist party would have you believe. Nevertheless people will be supporting abortion who wish not to, as their tax dollars will become part of the collective.

Look up adverse selection death spiral. Link below.

<a href="http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html" title="usnews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html</a> [usnews.com]

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death\_spiral\_(insurance)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death\_spiral\_(insurance)</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pushed down insurance margins below the 3.4-5 \ % that they make now ?
So you mean you want to eliminate the insurance companies to increase competition ?
Not likely .
Also- there are far fewer people standing on the abortion topic than the socialist party would have you believe .
Nevertheless people will be supporting abortion who wish not to , as their tax dollars will become part of the collective .
Look up adverse selection death spiral .
Link below .
http : //www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html [ usnews.com ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death \ _spiral \ _ ( insurance ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pushed down insurance margins below the 3.4-5\% that they make now?
So you mean you want to eliminate the insurance companies to increase competition?
Not likely.
Also- there are far fewer people standing on the abortion topic than the socialist party would have you believe.
Nevertheless people will be supporting abortion who wish not to, as their tax dollars will become part of the collective.
Look up adverse selection death spiral.
Link below.
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains.html [usnews.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death\_spiral\_(insurance) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569974</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country.</b>
</p><p>
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on "the common good": roads, schools, military, police, firebrigades...
</p><p>
Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for
</p></div><p>Bzzt, wrong!
</p><p>
The first United States income tax was imposed in July 1861, at 3\% of all incomes over 800 dollars in order to help pay for the war effort in the American Civil War. This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income\_tax" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>
How did the United State provide those services prior to 1861? Tariffs on foreign imports was a major source of funding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country .
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on " the common good " : roads , schools , military , police , firebrigades.. . Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for Bzzt , wrong !
The first United States income tax was imposed in July 1861 , at 3 \ % of all incomes over 800 dollars in order to help pay for the war effort in the American Civil War .
This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862 Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] How did the United State provide those services prior to 1861 ?
Tariffs on foreign imports was a major source of funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country.
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on "the common good": roads, schools, military, police, firebrigades...

Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for
Bzzt, wrong!
The first United States income tax was imposed in July 1861, at 3\% of all incomes over 800 dollars in order to help pay for the war effort in the American Civil War.
This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862 Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] 
How did the United State provide those services prior to 1861?
Tariffs on foreign imports was a major source of funding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572268</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1269284040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullet to your head might promote the ''general welfare'' of American citizens some day.  Always best to side with government having less power rather than more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullet to your head might promote the ''general welfare' ' of American citizens some day .
Always best to side with government having less power rather than more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullet to your head might promote the ''general welfare'' of American citizens some day.
Always best to side with government having less power rather than more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568896</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>forebees</author>
	<datestamp>1269274080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You idiot! Now you've gone a blown it.</p><p>When their brains explode all over the country trying get their minds around that one *you* will be responsible for picking up the pieces.</p><p>I remember some Ambos and Firebrigade officers once telling me about their 'Sussan bags'</p><p>"this goes with this, goes with this, goes with this, this goes with that at Susssan's"</p><p><a href="http://www.madisonmag.com.au/fashion/aussie-heroes.htm" title="madisonmag.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.madisonmag.com.au/fashion/aussie-heroes.htm</a> [madisonmag.com.au]</p><p>(Australian joke)</p><p>You might need your own Susanne bag for all the bit's you're gonna have to pick up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You idiot !
Now you 've gone a blown it.When their brains explode all over the country trying get their minds around that one * you * will be responsible for picking up the pieces.I remember some Ambos and Firebrigade officers once telling me about their 'Sussan bags ' " this goes with this , goes with this , goes with this , this goes with that at Susssan 's " http : //www.madisonmag.com.au/fashion/aussie-heroes.htm [ madisonmag.com.au ] ( Australian joke ) You might need your own Susanne bag for all the bit 's you 're gon na have to pick up ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You idiot!
Now you've gone a blown it.When their brains explode all over the country trying get their minds around that one *you* will be responsible for picking up the pieces.I remember some Ambos and Firebrigade officers once telling me about their 'Sussan bags'"this goes with this, goes with this, goes with this, this goes with that at Susssan's"http://www.madisonmag.com.au/fashion/aussie-heroes.htm [madisonmag.com.au](Australian joke)You might need your own Susanne bag for all the bit's you're gonna have to pick up ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566574</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1269268140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How long until Americans figure out that it is much cheaper to pay the fines and pick up health insurance when you need it (now that insurers are required to sign people with preexisting conditions) than to pay premiums year-round?</p><p>Or was this the Democrats' intention? Bankrupt the insurance industry and come in as Mr. Government, Savior of All.</p></div></blockquote><p>Everyone now knows it's a losers game to have insurance. People who have insurance will pay for the people that join in after they get cancer, so it gets more and more unoptimal to have insurance as time goes on and people quit their insurance coverage.</p><p>And yeah, with Obama talking about being able to block rate hikes, it's essentially a takeover of the industry if he does it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until Americans figure out that it is much cheaper to pay the fines and pick up health insurance when you need it ( now that insurers are required to sign people with preexisting conditions ) than to pay premiums year-round ? Or was this the Democrats ' intention ?
Bankrupt the insurance industry and come in as Mr. Government , Savior of All.Everyone now knows it 's a losers game to have insurance .
People who have insurance will pay for the people that join in after they get cancer , so it gets more and more unoptimal to have insurance as time goes on and people quit their insurance coverage.And yeah , with Obama talking about being able to block rate hikes , it 's essentially a takeover of the industry if he does it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until Americans figure out that it is much cheaper to pay the fines and pick up health insurance when you need it (now that insurers are required to sign people with preexisting conditions) than to pay premiums year-round?Or was this the Democrats' intention?
Bankrupt the insurance industry and come in as Mr. Government, Savior of All.Everyone now knows it's a losers game to have insurance.
People who have insurance will pay for the people that join in after they get cancer, so it gets more and more unoptimal to have insurance as time goes on and people quit their insurance coverage.And yeah, with Obama talking about being able to block rate hikes, it's essentially a takeover of the industry if he does it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567518</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1269270600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.</p><p>Nope. The funny thing is that as health care lowers in cost, people go see doctors more often. Your cancer hypothesis aside (and it's probably true), this results in a net increase in health care costs.</p><p>Supply and demand is a bitch, ain't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Here 's something funny : if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.Nope .
The funny thing is that as health care lowers in cost , people go see doctors more often .
Your cancer hypothesis aside ( and it 's probably true ) , this results in a net increase in health care costs.Supply and demand is a bitch , ai n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.Nope.
The funny thing is that as health care lowers in cost, people go see doctors more often.
Your cancer hypothesis aside (and it's probably true), this results in a net increase in health care costs.Supply and demand is a bitch, ain't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566880</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1269268920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you seem to be asking about is will there be any real and meaningful accountability? I think your questions are very important and relevant! By the time you figure it out, you will have been further blindsided and bullshitted to the point you don't even bother to think this way any more. Also, your strength to stand up will have been sapped to the point that all you care about is trying to focus on how to carve something out of this life for yourself and perhaps your family before you die. To quote one of my favorite movies (fight club):  "We are the middle children of history, with no purpose or place. We have no great war, or great depression. The great war is a spiritual war. The great depression is our lives. We were raised by television to believe that we'd be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars -- but we won't. And we're learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed-off." But, sadly my point is that nobody is truly standing up to make those accountable for their actions. Even if you did have the power and position to do anything about "it", what would it matter? To me this isn't about democrats or republicans (except who gets the bigger piece of pie), it's about taking a cruel look at a fucked up economy and realizing the simple truth - which is people live and die and those who are able are going to milk the living for whatever they can get. It's like the matrix, except the machines are the insurance companies who will feed the government. You are a part of a system that they designed and control. You notice how you don't hear about social security much any more? That ought to be a clue! Learn to listen for the things you don't hear. To finish sharing my thoughts, look at my earlier post: Today is soylent green day. I thing I asked some pretty important questions too.    P.S. I leave you with one question: Even if you could understand it all, what would you do?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you seem to be asking about is will there be any real and meaningful accountability ?
I think your questions are very important and relevant !
By the time you figure it out , you will have been further blindsided and bullshitted to the point you do n't even bother to think this way any more .
Also , your strength to stand up will have been sapped to the point that all you care about is trying to focus on how to carve something out of this life for yourself and perhaps your family before you die .
To quote one of my favorite movies ( fight club ) : " We are the middle children of history , with no purpose or place .
We have no great war , or great depression .
The great war is a spiritual war .
The great depression is our lives .
We were raised by television to believe that we 'd be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars -- but we wo n't .
And we 're learning that fact .
And we 're very , very pissed-off .
" But , sadly my point is that nobody is truly standing up to make those accountable for their actions .
Even if you did have the power and position to do anything about " it " , what would it matter ?
To me this is n't about democrats or republicans ( except who gets the bigger piece of pie ) , it 's about taking a cruel look at a fucked up economy and realizing the simple truth - which is people live and die and those who are able are going to milk the living for whatever they can get .
It 's like the matrix , except the machines are the insurance companies who will feed the government .
You are a part of a system that they designed and control .
You notice how you do n't hear about social security much any more ?
That ought to be a clue !
Learn to listen for the things you do n't hear .
To finish sharing my thoughts , look at my earlier post : Today is soylent green day .
I thing I asked some pretty important questions too .
P.S. I leave you with one question : Even if you could understand it all , what would you do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you seem to be asking about is will there be any real and meaningful accountability?
I think your questions are very important and relevant!
By the time you figure it out, you will have been further blindsided and bullshitted to the point you don't even bother to think this way any more.
Also, your strength to stand up will have been sapped to the point that all you care about is trying to focus on how to carve something out of this life for yourself and perhaps your family before you die.
To quote one of my favorite movies (fight club):  "We are the middle children of history, with no purpose or place.
We have no great war, or great depression.
The great war is a spiritual war.
The great depression is our lives.
We were raised by television to believe that we'd be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars -- but we won't.
And we're learning that fact.
And we're very, very pissed-off.
" But, sadly my point is that nobody is truly standing up to make those accountable for their actions.
Even if you did have the power and position to do anything about "it", what would it matter?
To me this isn't about democrats or republicans (except who gets the bigger piece of pie), it's about taking a cruel look at a fucked up economy and realizing the simple truth - which is people live and die and those who are able are going to milk the living for whatever they can get.
It's like the matrix, except the machines are the insurance companies who will feed the government.
You are a part of a system that they designed and control.
You notice how you don't hear about social security much any more?
That ought to be a clue!
Learn to listen for the things you don't hear.
To finish sharing my thoughts, look at my earlier post: Today is soylent green day.
I thing I asked some pretty important questions too.
P.S. I leave you with one question: Even if you could understand it all, what would you do?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566748</id>
	<title>Oh god we are screwed, the public education system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>has ruined a once great nation.   This bill will make insurance companies insane profits, cover a bunch of illegals, pay for abortions, and limit health coverage to those that really need it.   All so a retarded foreign bastard can be the next Hitler, thanks idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>has ruined a once great nation .
This bill will make insurance companies insane profits , cover a bunch of illegals , pay for abortions , and limit health coverage to those that really need it .
All so a retarded foreign bastard can be the next Hitler , thanks idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has ruined a once great nation.
This bill will make insurance companies insane profits, cover a bunch of illegals, pay for abortions, and limit health coverage to those that really need it.
All so a retarded foreign bastard can be the next Hitler, thanks idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566618</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty sure Rush never said any such thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure Rush never said any such thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure Rush never said any such thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567026</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Epic win.  I LOLed so freaking hard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Epic win .
I LOLed so freaking hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epic win.
I LOLed so freaking hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572716</id>
	<title>Re:My poor dog</title>
	<author>jjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1269285420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're delusional.  Every other first world country with full-blooded UHC pays less overall for their health care, and beats the U.S. by almost any aggregate measure like life expectancy or infant mortality.  Everyone else in a first world country gets more, better health care, and pays less.</p><p>The only way this reform bill fails is the way that half-measures often do:  as a bad compromise.  You want real health reform?  Pick one from this list, and copy what they've done:  France, England, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're delusional .
Every other first world country with full-blooded UHC pays less overall for their health care , and beats the U.S. by almost any aggregate measure like life expectancy or infant mortality .
Everyone else in a first world country gets more , better health care , and pays less.The only way this reform bill fails is the way that half-measures often do : as a bad compromise .
You want real health reform ?
Pick one from this list , and copy what they 've done : France , England , Canada , Switzerland , Sweden.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're delusional.
Every other first world country with full-blooded UHC pays less overall for their health care, and beats the U.S. by almost any aggregate measure like life expectancy or infant mortality.
Everyone else in a first world country gets more, better health care, and pays less.The only way this reform bill fails is the way that half-measures often do:  as a bad compromise.
You want real health reform?
Pick one from this list, and copy what they've done:  France, England, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565988</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>fluffernutter</author>
	<datestamp>1269266340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Non-American here.. can you explain how this bill limits the insurance companies at all?  The free market system being what it is, it seems to me that premiums will just go up as the flood of subsidy money comes into the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Non-American here.. can you explain how this bill limits the insurance companies at all ?
The free market system being what it is , it seems to me that premiums will just go up as the flood of subsidy money comes into the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Non-American here.. can you explain how this bill limits the insurance companies at all?
The free market system being what it is, it seems to me that premiums will just go up as the flood of subsidy money comes into the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565858</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thoughts about Rush Limbaugh leaving: Don't let the door hit on your way out.</p><p>Good riddance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thoughts about Rush Limbaugh leaving : Do n't let the door hit on your way out.Good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thoughts about Rush Limbaugh leaving: Don't let the door hit on your way out.Good riddance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580212</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1269374760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In the meantime, there are thousands of medical school instructors who are calling it quits and other physicians who are leaving the profession with decades of experience.</p></div></blockquote><p>
This is of course pure and utter BS. There's no reaso why they would quit. Just more insane scare mongering from right-wing fucktards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the meantime , there are thousands of medical school instructors who are calling it quits and other physicians who are leaving the profession with decades of experience .
This is of course pure and utter BS .
There 's no reaso why they would quit .
Just more insane scare mongering from right-wing fucktards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the meantime, there are thousands of medical school instructors who are calling it quits and other physicians who are leaving the profession with decades of experience.
This is of course pure and utter BS.
There's no reaso why they would quit.
Just more insane scare mongering from right-wing fucktards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566088</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pros:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - Lots more people will get some kind of health insurance. (mediocre at best)</p><p>Cons:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - More socialism in the USA.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - Government run insurance pays out less to doctors.  Therefore there is less incentive to become a doctor.  Therefore the best and brightest minds will choose other,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; more lucrative professions.  Then we will get crappy health care from average minded people.  Think of it like this, before you could have some of the brightest minds in<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the country diagnosing you and operating on you.  Now it will be someone who wasnt smart enough to take on a different more lucrative professions.  I dont know about<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; other people but I dont want anyone but the smartest people cutting me open to operate on me.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - The USA is already in debt and this wont help.  Health Care needs reform that will lower the deficit, decrease medicare/medicaid fraud and set a limit on how much money<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; people can get for suing doctors.  When you agree to go to a doctor you are willingly putting your life in their hands.  If they do the best they know how and screw up, they<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; shouldnt get sued.  Americas legal system is screwed up and allows for too many fraudulent and unjustified lawsuits to happen.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - I am not against everyone getting health care it would be great.  Just like socialism or communism would be great if they worked.  Idealistically ideas like this sound good, but<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; in practice they always fail and always will.  What people seem to forget is who is going to pay for all of this.  The more that socialistic/communistic ideas are introduced into<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; our government the less incentive there is to become wealthy because everything will be taken away by the government.  When there is no incentive to work, people wont.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Our whole lives is based off of the idea that if we do something we get something.  No one does something for nothing.  Most of our high paying jobs today will be vacant in<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the future, people will take the easy way out and choose less demanding professions because why bother if you wont get paid more.  In the end socialism cant work because<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; of the human element.  Lots of democrats (i.e. pure socialists) and republicans (i.e. liberals with some socialistic tendencies) would like you to think that everyone will just get<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; along and do their part to support our country.  People just dont work like that.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - Health care is not a right.  It is a privilege and something the Federal government should stay out of.  If the more liberal leaning states want to implement their own universal<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; health care, then so be it.  But I wouldnt be living in one of those states.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pros :         - Lots more people will get some kind of health insurance .
( mediocre at best ) Cons :         - More socialism in the USA .
        - Government run insurance pays out less to doctors .
Therefore there is less incentive to become a doctor .
Therefore the best and brightest minds will choose other ,             more lucrative professions .
Then we will get crappy health care from average minded people .
Think of it like this , before you could have some of the brightest minds in             the country diagnosing you and operating on you .
Now it will be someone who wasnt smart enough to take on a different more lucrative professions .
I dont know about             other people but I dont want anyone but the smartest people cutting me open to operate on me .
        - The USA is already in debt and this wont help .
Health Care needs reform that will lower the deficit , decrease medicare/medicaid fraud and set a limit on how much money             people can get for suing doctors .
When you agree to go to a doctor you are willingly putting your life in their hands .
If they do the best they know how and screw up , they             shouldnt get sued .
Americas legal system is screwed up and allows for too many fraudulent and unjustified lawsuits to happen .
        - I am not against everyone getting health care it would be great .
Just like socialism or communism would be great if they worked .
Idealistically ideas like this sound good , but             in practice they always fail and always will .
What people seem to forget is who is going to pay for all of this .
The more that socialistic/communistic ideas are introduced into             our government the less incentive there is to become wealthy because everything will be taken away by the government .
When there is no incentive to work , people wont .
            Our whole lives is based off of the idea that if we do something we get something .
No one does something for nothing .
Most of our high paying jobs today will be vacant in             the future , people will take the easy way out and choose less demanding professions because why bother if you wont get paid more .
In the end socialism cant work because             of the human element .
Lots of democrats ( i.e .
pure socialists ) and republicans ( i.e .
liberals with some socialistic tendencies ) would like you to think that everyone will just get             along and do their part to support our country .
People just dont work like that .
        - Health care is not a right .
It is a privilege and something the Federal government should stay out of .
If the more liberal leaning states want to implement their own universal             health care , then so be it .
But I wouldnt be living in one of those states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pros:
        - Lots more people will get some kind of health insurance.
(mediocre at best)Cons:
        - More socialism in the USA.
        - Government run insurance pays out less to doctors.
Therefore there is less incentive to become a doctor.
Therefore the best and brightest minds will choose other,
            more lucrative professions.
Then we will get crappy health care from average minded people.
Think of it like this, before you could have some of the brightest minds in
            the country diagnosing you and operating on you.
Now it will be someone who wasnt smart enough to take on a different more lucrative professions.
I dont know about
            other people but I dont want anyone but the smartest people cutting me open to operate on me.
        - The USA is already in debt and this wont help.
Health Care needs reform that will lower the deficit, decrease medicare/medicaid fraud and set a limit on how much money
            people can get for suing doctors.
When you agree to go to a doctor you are willingly putting your life in their hands.
If they do the best they know how and screw up, they
            shouldnt get sued.
Americas legal system is screwed up and allows for too many fraudulent and unjustified lawsuits to happen.
        - I am not against everyone getting health care it would be great.
Just like socialism or communism would be great if they worked.
Idealistically ideas like this sound good, but
            in practice they always fail and always will.
What people seem to forget is who is going to pay for all of this.
The more that socialistic/communistic ideas are introduced into
            our government the less incentive there is to become wealthy because everything will be taken away by the government.
When there is no incentive to work, people wont.
            Our whole lives is based off of the idea that if we do something we get something.
No one does something for nothing.
Most of our high paying jobs today will be vacant in
            the future, people will take the easy way out and choose less demanding professions because why bother if you wont get paid more.
In the end socialism cant work because
            of the human element.
Lots of democrats (i.e.
pure socialists) and republicans (i.e.
liberals with some socialistic tendencies) would like you to think that everyone will just get
            along and do their part to support our country.
People just dont work like that.
        - Health care is not a right.
It is a privilege and something the Federal government should stay out of.
If the more liberal leaning states want to implement their own universal
            health care, then so be it.
But I wouldnt be living in one of those states.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567730</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269271080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You fail at reading comprehension. Let me complete your quote....</p><p>"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."</p><p>We can get the meaning of the "general welfare" part by eliminating the rest of the list.</p><p>"We the people of the United States in order promote the general welfare do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"</p><p>They are promoting the general welfare by establishing this constitutional government they will describe later in the document. It's not a general enumerated power to do whatever the fuck Congress thinks will promote the general welfare.</p><p>The constitution is very specific about what the feds are supposed to do (Art 1, sec 8) and very specific that they are supposed to do nothing else (Amendment X).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You fail at reading comprehension .
Let me complete your quote.... " We the people of the United States , in order to form a more perfect union , establish justice , insure domestic tranquility , provide for the common defense , promote the general welfare , and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America .
" We can get the meaning of the " general welfare " part by eliminating the rest of the list .
" We the people of the United States in order promote the general welfare do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America " They are promoting the general welfare by establishing this constitutional government they will describe later in the document .
It 's not a general enumerated power to do whatever the fuck Congress thinks will promote the general welfare.The constitution is very specific about what the feds are supposed to do ( Art 1 , sec 8 ) and very specific that they are supposed to do nothing else ( Amendment X ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You fail at reading comprehension.
Let me complete your quote...."We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We can get the meaning of the "general welfare" part by eliminating the rest of the list.
"We the people of the United States in order promote the general welfare do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"They are promoting the general welfare by establishing this constitutional government they will describe later in the document.
It's not a general enumerated power to do whatever the fuck Congress thinks will promote the general welfare.The constitution is very specific about what the feds are supposed to do (Art 1, sec 8) and very specific that they are supposed to do nothing else (Amendment X).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571294</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269281400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Promote doesn't equal provide. Liberals continue to fail on this point.</p><p>Socialism never works, because it punishes success and rewards apathy and failure.</p><p>We must allow for failure, or else there will be no excellence. We run races, not to punish those that lose, but to reward those that win. Liberals think races are cruel and thus tell people to play soccer, and not keep score for fear of hurting little Johnnie's Feelings should he lose (fail).</p><p>While it may work for six year olds, it doesn't work on 30 year olds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Promote does n't equal provide .
Liberals continue to fail on this point.Socialism never works , because it punishes success and rewards apathy and failure.We must allow for failure , or else there will be no excellence .
We run races , not to punish those that lose , but to reward those that win .
Liberals think races are cruel and thus tell people to play soccer , and not keep score for fear of hurting little Johnnie 's Feelings should he lose ( fail ) .While it may work for six year olds , it does n't work on 30 year olds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Promote doesn't equal provide.
Liberals continue to fail on this point.Socialism never works, because it punishes success and rewards apathy and failure.We must allow for failure, or else there will be no excellence.
We run races, not to punish those that lose, but to reward those that win.
Liberals think races are cruel and thus tell people to play soccer, and not keep score for fear of hurting little Johnnie's Feelings should he lose (fail).While it may work for six year olds, it doesn't work on 30 year olds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575906</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269254580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah man. Empty cynicism and apathy! It's so cool!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah man .
Empty cynicism and apathy !
It 's so cool !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah man.
Empty cynicism and apathy!
It's so cool!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568968</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1269274260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think anybody has yet wrapped their minds around the scope of the bill, but here's my understanding:</p><p>1) Not much.  In theory, a high percentage of premiums (I've heard 85\%) must go directly to care, limiting profits to insurance companies.  However, that doesn't prevent the cost of care from increasing to compensate.</p><p>2) Oh, there's various rules included in there to provide protections.  In reality, this doesn't mean much: there's too many loopholes in any system this complex.  For an example, look at the recent credit card reform, which tried to plug the loopholes that exploit the consumer.  Even now the credit card companies are compensating and finding new, creative ways of imposing fees and fines within the new system.</p><p>3) Impossible to do: the wealthy can always bypass insurance completely and simply pay for any procedure they want anyway.  I think the gap has been closed somewhat, but don't expect it to go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anybody has yet wrapped their minds around the scope of the bill , but here 's my understanding : 1 ) Not much .
In theory , a high percentage of premiums ( I 've heard 85 \ % ) must go directly to care , limiting profits to insurance companies .
However , that does n't prevent the cost of care from increasing to compensate.2 ) Oh , there 's various rules included in there to provide protections .
In reality , this does n't mean much : there 's too many loopholes in any system this complex .
For an example , look at the recent credit card reform , which tried to plug the loopholes that exploit the consumer .
Even now the credit card companies are compensating and finding new , creative ways of imposing fees and fines within the new system.3 ) Impossible to do : the wealthy can always bypass insurance completely and simply pay for any procedure they want anyway .
I think the gap has been closed somewhat , but do n't expect it to go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anybody has yet wrapped their minds around the scope of the bill, but here's my understanding:1) Not much.
In theory, a high percentage of premiums (I've heard 85\%) must go directly to care, limiting profits to insurance companies.
However, that doesn't prevent the cost of care from increasing to compensate.2) Oh, there's various rules included in there to provide protections.
In reality, this doesn't mean much: there's too many loopholes in any system this complex.
For an example, look at the recent credit card reform, which tried to plug the loopholes that exploit the consumer.
Even now the credit card companies are compensating and finding new, creative ways of imposing fees and fines within the new system.3) Impossible to do: the wealthy can always bypass insurance completely and simply pay for any procedure they want anyway.
I think the gap has been closed somewhat, but don't expect it to go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566414</id>
	<title>An Illegal Assault...</title>
	<author>Ferretman</author>
	<datestamp>1269267720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...on my right of association (by forcing me to purchase a good or service).

Freedom died a little bit with this monstrosity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...on my right of association ( by forcing me to purchase a good or service ) .
Freedom died a little bit with this monstrosity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...on my right of association (by forcing me to purchase a good or service).
Freedom died a little bit with this monstrosity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566512</id>
	<title>You Are Less Free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not care how people around the globe want to handle medical expense insurance or the delivery of health care. I am an American, not a Canadian nor a Brit. Yesterday, the elected leaders of the United States of America decided that we are no longer a nation of laws but rather of men (see John Adams). We are, and have been, operating outside of the bounds of the U.S. Constitution, the framework that is supposed to reign in the excesses of Federal power. Today, our government has dictated that you must purchase a product which meets their standards in order to remain a law abiding citizen of the United States. We can argue what the bill will or will not do, but one thing is certain. We are less free today than we were yesterday, and for that all Americans should weep. Our Federal government has failed in its primary responsibility as our Founders declared in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.&mdash;That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." They have failed to make secure our Creator-given rights, seeking rather to deprive us of our rights, our liberties, in the face of a large majority opposing this legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not care how people around the globe want to handle medical expense insurance or the delivery of health care .
I am an American , not a Canadian nor a Brit .
Yesterday , the elected leaders of the United States of America decided that we are no longer a nation of laws but rather of men ( see John Adams ) .
We are , and have been , operating outside of the bounds of the U.S. Constitution , the framework that is supposed to reign in the excesses of Federal power .
Today , our government has dictated that you must purchase a product which meets their standards in order to remain a law abiding citizen of the United States .
We can argue what the bill will or will not do , but one thing is certain .
We are less free today than we were yesterday , and for that all Americans should weep .
Our Federal government has failed in its primary responsibility as our Founders declared in the Declaration of Independence : " We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.    That to secure these rights , Governments are instituted among Men , deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed .
" They have failed to make secure our Creator-given rights , seeking rather to deprive us of our rights , our liberties , in the face of a large majority opposing this legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not care how people around the globe want to handle medical expense insurance or the delivery of health care.
I am an American, not a Canadian nor a Brit.
Yesterday, the elected leaders of the United States of America decided that we are no longer a nation of laws but rather of men (see John Adams).
We are, and have been, operating outside of the bounds of the U.S. Constitution, the framework that is supposed to reign in the excesses of Federal power.
Today, our government has dictated that you must purchase a product which meets their standards in order to remain a law abiding citizen of the United States.
We can argue what the bill will or will not do, but one thing is certain.
We are less free today than we were yesterday, and for that all Americans should weep.
Our Federal government has failed in its primary responsibility as our Founders declared in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
" They have failed to make secure our Creator-given rights, seeking rather to deprive us of our rights, our liberties, in the face of a large majority opposing this legislation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566722</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disagree != Troll</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disagree ! = Troll</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disagree != Troll</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569778</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1269276600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Almost everybody thinks reform is needed. Almost nobody thinks that Congress is competent enough to make good reforms.</i></p><p>And therefore government should never ever do anything ever again (unless it involves invading other countries, waging the war on drugs, fighting against abortion, denying gay rights, excising evolution from school curricula, ignoring global warming, or basically doing anything else I happen to agree with).</p><p>QED</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost everybody thinks reform is needed .
Almost nobody thinks that Congress is competent enough to make good reforms.And therefore government should never ever do anything ever again ( unless it involves invading other countries , waging the war on drugs , fighting against abortion , denying gay rights , excising evolution from school curricula , ignoring global warming , or basically doing anything else I happen to agree with ) .QED</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost everybody thinks reform is needed.
Almost nobody thinks that Congress is competent enough to make good reforms.And therefore government should never ever do anything ever again (unless it involves invading other countries, waging the war on drugs, fighting against abortion, denying gay rights, excising evolution from school curricula, ignoring global warming, or basically doing anything else I happen to agree with).QED</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571680</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1269282420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(1) The bill requires health insurance companies to pay out at least 85\% of their premiums in health care expenditures. Some insurance companies already average 90\% but most average about 70\%. This should drive health insurance premiums down.</p><p>(2) Insurance companies already create rules that limit their payouts through annual and lifetime limits, and preexisting condition exclusions. These are all eliminated under the bill. State run exchanges will allow each state to create a basic package of health insurance benefits that insurance companies can bid to provide. The states are allowed to make the packages as sparse or as luxurious as they choose. These will assure basic packages at competitive prices.</p><p>(3) The poor will never have the same access to care as the wealthy so long as there is a private market for health care goods. You shouldn't look to equal access as much as you should look to breadth of access (everyone has health care) and basic level of health care (you can get something on the low end of coverage).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) The bill requires health insurance companies to pay out at least 85 \ % of their premiums in health care expenditures .
Some insurance companies already average 90 \ % but most average about 70 \ % .
This should drive health insurance premiums down .
( 2 ) Insurance companies already create rules that limit their payouts through annual and lifetime limits , and preexisting condition exclusions .
These are all eliminated under the bill .
State run exchanges will allow each state to create a basic package of health insurance benefits that insurance companies can bid to provide .
The states are allowed to make the packages as sparse or as luxurious as they choose .
These will assure basic packages at competitive prices .
( 3 ) The poor will never have the same access to care as the wealthy so long as there is a private market for health care goods .
You should n't look to equal access as much as you should look to breadth of access ( everyone has health care ) and basic level of health care ( you can get something on the low end of coverage ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) The bill requires health insurance companies to pay out at least 85\% of their premiums in health care expenditures.
Some insurance companies already average 90\% but most average about 70\%.
This should drive health insurance premiums down.
(2) Insurance companies already create rules that limit their payouts through annual and lifetime limits, and preexisting condition exclusions.
These are all eliminated under the bill.
State run exchanges will allow each state to create a basic package of health insurance benefits that insurance companies can bid to provide.
The states are allowed to make the packages as sparse or as luxurious as they choose.
These will assure basic packages at competitive prices.
(3) The poor will never have the same access to care as the wealthy so long as there is a private market for health care goods.
You shouldn't look to equal access as much as you should look to breadth of access (everyone has health care) and basic level of health care (you can get something on the low end of coverage).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576940</id>
	<title>Re:Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269259140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your error, and the error of the way insurance is currently structured, is to identify the loss to be hedged against as the medical costs of specific individuals.  This model is no longer workable, and needs to be replaced with a system that takes a broader view of the loss to be hedged.</p><p>The current system developed in an environment where medical information was much harder to come by and the risks presented by individuals was much more difficult to identify.  For example, imagine that your fire insurance provider got a lot better at predicting fires, and was able to tell that your house was going to burn down in 15 years.  Would anyone insure you?  No.  This is how medical insurance currently works.</p><p>The solution is to *require* everyone to be insured.  Now you are no longer hedging against individuals getting sick, but you are treating the risk systematically.  This new insurance model looks more like risk management systems that anticipate failure from a certain number of manufactured products.  Taken as a whole, the group is being insured, and risk is being distributed among the group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your error , and the error of the way insurance is currently structured , is to identify the loss to be hedged against as the medical costs of specific individuals .
This model is no longer workable , and needs to be replaced with a system that takes a broader view of the loss to be hedged.The current system developed in an environment where medical information was much harder to come by and the risks presented by individuals was much more difficult to identify .
For example , imagine that your fire insurance provider got a lot better at predicting fires , and was able to tell that your house was going to burn down in 15 years .
Would anyone insure you ?
No. This is how medical insurance currently works.The solution is to * require * everyone to be insured .
Now you are no longer hedging against individuals getting sick , but you are treating the risk systematically .
This new insurance model looks more like risk management systems that anticipate failure from a certain number of manufactured products .
Taken as a whole , the group is being insured , and risk is being distributed among the group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your error, and the error of the way insurance is currently structured, is to identify the loss to be hedged against as the medical costs of specific individuals.
This model is no longer workable, and needs to be replaced with a system that takes a broader view of the loss to be hedged.The current system developed in an environment where medical information was much harder to come by and the risks presented by individuals was much more difficult to identify.
For example, imagine that your fire insurance provider got a lot better at predicting fires, and was able to tell that your house was going to burn down in 15 years.
Would anyone insure you?
No.  This is how medical insurance currently works.The solution is to *require* everyone to be insured.
Now you are no longer hedging against individuals getting sick, but you are treating the risk systematically.
This new insurance model looks more like risk management systems that anticipate failure from a certain number of manufactured products.
Taken as a whole, the group is being insured, and risk is being distributed among the group.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565560</id>
	<title>Already got an email from my doctor...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's closing his practice at the end of this year... in fairness, he's been talking about it for a couple of years. He quit seeing medicare patients 2 years ago (but thankfully still sees my dad since I make up the difference of what medicare refuses to pay).</p><p>On the business side of the coin, my accountants tell me I am going to cut costs equivalent to laying off almost 15\% of my workforce to pay for the additional burden this "health" bill creates. My other option is to shrink my business enough that it fits underneath the cutoff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's closing his practice at the end of this year... in fairness , he 's been talking about it for a couple of years .
He quit seeing medicare patients 2 years ago ( but thankfully still sees my dad since I make up the difference of what medicare refuses to pay ) .On the business side of the coin , my accountants tell me I am going to cut costs equivalent to laying off almost 15 \ % of my workforce to pay for the additional burden this " health " bill creates .
My other option is to shrink my business enough that it fits underneath the cutoff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's closing his practice at the end of this year... in fairness, he's been talking about it for a couple of years.
He quit seeing medicare patients 2 years ago (but thankfully still sees my dad since I make up the difference of what medicare refuses to pay).On the business side of the coin, my accountants tell me I am going to cut costs equivalent to laying off almost 15\% of my workforce to pay for the additional burden this "health" bill creates.
My other option is to shrink my business enough that it fits underneath the cutoff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568984</id>
	<title>Re:Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedi</title>
	<author>dmr001</author>
	<datestamp>1269274260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea is supposed to be it requires you to have insurance before you get sick... just like having fire insurance is required (by mortgage lenders) before your house catches on fire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is supposed to be it requires you to have insurance before you get sick... just like having fire insurance is required ( by mortgage lenders ) before your house catches on fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea is supposed to be it requires you to have insurance before you get sick... just like having fire insurance is required (by mortgage lenders) before your house catches on fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>KenRH</author>
	<datestamp>1269267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country.</b>
</p><p>
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on "the common good": roads, schools, military, police, firebrigades...
</p><p>
Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country .
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on " the common good " : roads , schools , military , police , firebrigades.. . Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for</tokentext>
<sentencetext> U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country.
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on "the common good": roads, schools, military, police, firebrigades...

Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565430</id>
	<title>Hoorah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269263700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congrats US citizens! You're on your way to a non-broken health care system!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congrats US citizens !
You 're on your way to a non-broken health care system !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congrats US citizens!
You're on your way to a non-broken health care system!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567232</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269269880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call it irony, I'd call it hypocracy. Ever notice that most "right to life" people are also for the death penalty, and most "pro-choice" people are fine with drugs being illegal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call it irony , I 'd call it hypocracy .
Ever notice that most " right to life " people are also for the death penalty , and most " pro-choice " people are fine with drugs being illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call it irony, I'd call it hypocracy.
Ever notice that most "right to life" people are also for the death penalty, and most "pro-choice" people are fine with drugs being illegal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576638</id>
	<title>Re:Health Insurance bill not Health Care bill</title>
	<author>approachingZero </author>
	<datestamp>1269257640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>'what does this bill do to reduce Health Care costs?' Absofirickinlutley NOTHING. This bill was about changing the relationship between the government and the governed. That's all. And they really couldn't have cared less what that cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'what does this bill do to reduce Health Care costs ?
' Absofirickinlutley NOTHING .
This bill was about changing the relationship between the government and the governed .
That 's all .
And they really could n't have cared less what that cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'what does this bill do to reduce Health Care costs?
' Absofirickinlutley NOTHING.
This bill was about changing the relationship between the government and the governed.
That's all.
And they really couldn't have cared less what that cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565996</id>
	<title>Re:Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedi</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1269266400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Precisely right. You can&rsquo;t &ldquo;insure&rdquo; someone who has a pre-existing medical condition that will require continual expensive treatments. You can subsidize them, but that&rsquo;s not &ldquo;insurance&rdquo;.</p><p>Insurance is for things that you hope aren&rsquo;t coming, not for things that you know are.</p><p>Expecting insurance companies to insure people who are 100\% certain to incur consistent and high medical expenses is insane. Lumping them in with everyone else is even more insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precisely right .
You can    t    insure    someone who has a pre-existing medical condition that will require continual expensive treatments .
You can subsidize them , but that    s not    insurance    .Insurance is for things that you hope aren    t coming , not for things that you know are.Expecting insurance companies to insure people who are 100 \ % certain to incur consistent and high medical expenses is insane .
Lumping them in with everyone else is even more insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precisely right.
You can’t “insure” someone who has a pre-existing medical condition that will require continual expensive treatments.
You can subsidize them, but that’s not “insurance”.Insurance is for things that you hope aren’t coming, not for things that you know are.Expecting insurance companies to insure people who are 100\% certain to incur consistent and high medical expenses is insane.
Lumping them in with everyone else is even more insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1269265800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, because Rush couldn&rsquo;t be syndicated here if he was physically located somewhere else?</p><p>I&rsquo;ll tell you what will happen, though: As we sit here discussing this, lawsuits are being filed to challenge this unconstitutional and unpopular bill. It will immediately be locked up in legal proceedings, and it will take years to get this straightened out. Last but not least, this November there will be a huge upset when the Democrats who voted for this hear from their constituents, and the Republicans, with a newly-won huge majority, will immediately proceed to overturn this and any other sweeping changes that Democrats try to enact between now and then.</p><p>I called it here first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , because Rush couldn    t be syndicated here if he was physically located somewhere else ? I    ll tell you what will happen , though : As we sit here discussing this , lawsuits are being filed to challenge this unconstitutional and unpopular bill .
It will immediately be locked up in legal proceedings , and it will take years to get this straightened out .
Last but not least , this November there will be a huge upset when the Democrats who voted for this hear from their constituents , and the Republicans , with a newly-won huge majority , will immediately proceed to overturn this and any other sweeping changes that Democrats try to enact between now and then.I called it here first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, because Rush couldn’t be syndicated here if he was physically located somewhere else?I’ll tell you what will happen, though: As we sit here discussing this, lawsuits are being filed to challenge this unconstitutional and unpopular bill.
It will immediately be locked up in legal proceedings, and it will take years to get this straightened out.
Last but not least, this November there will be a huge upset when the Democrats who voted for this hear from their constituents, and the Republicans, with a newly-won huge majority, will immediately proceed to overturn this and any other sweeping changes that Democrats try to enact between now and then.I called it here first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573096</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269286980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health. Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life (and most Americans do more than one).</p></div><p>I read an interesting study once. Obese people die earlier than other people and overall their healthcare costs end up being less. Most people still favor them being excepted from universal healthcare plans. This is because people are much more interested in punishing those they feel have done wrong than in getting the best "selfish" option for themselves.</p><p>One of the nice things about socialized medicine is that people see doctors regularly and those doctors have more opportunities to educate and treat people with alcohol addictions and dietary problems. The rates of problems as a result of both tend to drop when universal healthcare is implemented, at least it has in other countries.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Who is more selfish: someone who refuses to pay for your care, or someone who demands that you pay for their care?</p></div><p>I'm not big on morality, but if you're going to get to the heart of unfairness and immorality one has to go a lot deeper. It's unfair some people are born wealthy and healthy and others are not. As a society we can address and redress this unfairness or we can ignore it. It comes down to basic philosophical issues, often whether or not we believe there is a god or power out there taking care of fairness for us and we all deserve what we get, or whether as a society we should be struggling to be as fair as possible.</p><p>In my mind,  a fair society would have 100\% inheritance tax and every individual would begin life with an equal share. Further, we'd pool our money to pay for the healthcare of those born with congenital conditions or injured for reasons not their fault. Then whether a person can afford healthcare or not would be purely a matter of their own actions and we could justly blame them for poor planning or poor lifestyle or poor economic sense. We don't live in such a society and I don't think trying to create one is practical at this time. So I'm willing to compromise. The government can tax the rich to subsidize the poor as one way of mitigating the financial inequity people started with and I don't see that as the least bit unfair or "selfish" compared to some people starting out with so much more. Maybe there could be an an option of opting out of all government services and taxes while still living here, you don't have to pay for the health of society, but if people come after you with guns the police don't bother stopping them. What do you think is truly fair?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health .
Alcoholism , cigarette addiction , poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life ( and most Americans do more than one ) .I read an interesting study once .
Obese people die earlier than other people and overall their healthcare costs end up being less .
Most people still favor them being excepted from universal healthcare plans .
This is because people are much more interested in punishing those they feel have done wrong than in getting the best " selfish " option for themselves.One of the nice things about socialized medicine is that people see doctors regularly and those doctors have more opportunities to educate and treat people with alcohol addictions and dietary problems .
The rates of problems as a result of both tend to drop when universal healthcare is implemented , at least it has in other countries .
Who is more selfish : someone who refuses to pay for your care , or someone who demands that you pay for their care ? I 'm not big on morality , but if you 're going to get to the heart of unfairness and immorality one has to go a lot deeper .
It 's unfair some people are born wealthy and healthy and others are not .
As a society we can address and redress this unfairness or we can ignore it .
It comes down to basic philosophical issues , often whether or not we believe there is a god or power out there taking care of fairness for us and we all deserve what we get , or whether as a society we should be struggling to be as fair as possible.In my mind , a fair society would have 100 \ % inheritance tax and every individual would begin life with an equal share .
Further , we 'd pool our money to pay for the healthcare of those born with congenital conditions or injured for reasons not their fault .
Then whether a person can afford healthcare or not would be purely a matter of their own actions and we could justly blame them for poor planning or poor lifestyle or poor economic sense .
We do n't live in such a society and I do n't think trying to create one is practical at this time .
So I 'm willing to compromise .
The government can tax the rich to subsidize the poor as one way of mitigating the financial inequity people started with and I do n't see that as the least bit unfair or " selfish " compared to some people starting out with so much more .
Maybe there could be an an option of opting out of all government services and taxes while still living here , you do n't have to pay for the health of society , but if people come after you with guns the police do n't bother stopping them .
What do you think is truly fair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health.
Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life (and most Americans do more than one).I read an interesting study once.
Obese people die earlier than other people and overall their healthcare costs end up being less.
Most people still favor them being excepted from universal healthcare plans.
This is because people are much more interested in punishing those they feel have done wrong than in getting the best "selfish" option for themselves.One of the nice things about socialized medicine is that people see doctors regularly and those doctors have more opportunities to educate and treat people with alcohol addictions and dietary problems.
The rates of problems as a result of both tend to drop when universal healthcare is implemented, at least it has in other countries.
Who is more selfish: someone who refuses to pay for your care, or someone who demands that you pay for their care?I'm not big on morality, but if you're going to get to the heart of unfairness and immorality one has to go a lot deeper.
It's unfair some people are born wealthy and healthy and others are not.
As a society we can address and redress this unfairness or we can ignore it.
It comes down to basic philosophical issues, often whether or not we believe there is a god or power out there taking care of fairness for us and we all deserve what we get, or whether as a society we should be struggling to be as fair as possible.In my mind,  a fair society would have 100\% inheritance tax and every individual would begin life with an equal share.
Further, we'd pool our money to pay for the healthcare of those born with congenital conditions or injured for reasons not their fault.
Then whether a person can afford healthcare or not would be purely a matter of their own actions and we could justly blame them for poor planning or poor lifestyle or poor economic sense.
We don't live in such a society and I don't think trying to create one is practical at this time.
So I'm willing to compromise.
The government can tax the rich to subsidize the poor as one way of mitigating the financial inequity people started with and I don't see that as the least bit unfair or "selfish" compared to some people starting out with so much more.
Maybe there could be an an option of opting out of all government services and taxes while still living here, you don't have to pay for the health of society, but if people come after you with guns the police don't bother stopping them.
What do you think is truly fair?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565758</id>
	<title>Beware, lawmakers: November is coming.</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1269265500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>November. Remember? The time when so-called representatives find out what happens to them, under our style of non-violent revolution, when they subvert the will of the people they&rsquo;re elected by.</p><p>I can&rsquo;t wait. This should be fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>November .
Remember ? The time when so-called representatives find out what happens to them , under our style of non-violent revolution , when they subvert the will of the people they    re elected by.I can    t wait .
This should be fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>November.
Remember? The time when so-called representatives find out what happens to them, under our style of non-violent revolution, when they subvert the will of the people they’re elected by.I can’t wait.
This should be fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565678</id>
	<title>Bad formatting hides sloppy thinking.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1269265140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 1,990-page <a href="http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111\_ahcaa.pdf" title="house.gov">health care bill (PDF)</a> [house.gov] is ugly. It's full of
insufficiently rigorous thinking and poor quality communication.

<br> <br>Most of the manner in which the new legislation will operate is not
specified in the bill. For example, on page 77 it says, <i>"The Secretary
shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described
in paragraph (2)."</i>

<br> <br>The U.S. Congress uses an outdated font. It is not
possible to generate a readable copy because each line is preceded by a
number. There are numerous quirks, like sometimes capitalizing the word
"website".

<br> <br>Here is a guess: Possibly there is no one in the media who writes
about the bill who has actually read and understood the bill.

<br> <br>Still, in my opinion the bill is better than nothing. As many have
mentioned, the present U.S. health care system would otherwise be one of the
biggest causes of U.S. government bankruptcy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1,990-page health care bill ( PDF ) [ house.gov ] is ugly .
It 's full of insufficiently rigorous thinking and poor quality communication .
Most of the manner in which the new legislation will operate is not specified in the bill .
For example , on page 77 it says , " The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph ( 2 ) .
" The U.S. Congress uses an outdated font .
It is not possible to generate a readable copy because each line is preceded by a number .
There are numerous quirks , like sometimes capitalizing the word " website " .
Here is a guess : Possibly there is no one in the media who writes about the bill who has actually read and understood the bill .
Still , in my opinion the bill is better than nothing .
As many have mentioned , the present U.S. health care system would otherwise be one of the biggest causes of U.S. government bankruptcy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1,990-page health care bill (PDF) [house.gov] is ugly.
It's full of
insufficiently rigorous thinking and poor quality communication.
Most of the manner in which the new legislation will operate is not
specified in the bill.
For example, on page 77 it says, "The Secretary
shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described
in paragraph (2).
"

 The U.S. Congress uses an outdated font.
It is not
possible to generate a readable copy because each line is preceded by a
number.
There are numerous quirks, like sometimes capitalizing the word
"website".
Here is a guess: Possibly there is no one in the media who writes
about the bill who has actually read and understood the bill.
Still, in my opinion the bill is better than nothing.
As many have
mentioned, the present U.S. health care system would otherwise be one of the
biggest causes of U.S. government bankruptcy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</id>
	<title>Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1269264480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really a total troll here, but I have heard that people like Rush Limbaugh have stated that they would leave the US if this bill was passed.  Not that he will be missed by me, but are there people who are now seriously considering emigrating because they believe the government has failed them?  I know that there have been a lot of trash talk from right leaning people along the lines of "if you don't like it here then leave", but I am curious to know what will happen now that the boot is on the other foot.  Maybe it could be a good poll?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really a total troll here , but I have heard that people like Rush Limbaugh have stated that they would leave the US if this bill was passed .
Not that he will be missed by me , but are there people who are now seriously considering emigrating because they believe the government has failed them ?
I know that there have been a lot of trash talk from right leaning people along the lines of " if you do n't like it here then leave " , but I am curious to know what will happen now that the boot is on the other foot .
Maybe it could be a good poll ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really a total troll here, but I have heard that people like Rush Limbaugh have stated that they would leave the US if this bill was passed.
Not that he will be missed by me, but are there people who are now seriously considering emigrating because they believe the government has failed them?
I know that there have been a lot of trash talk from right leaning people along the lines of "if you don't like it here then leave", but I am curious to know what will happen now that the boot is on the other foot.
Maybe it could be a good poll?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570614</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269279120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, if health care was free I wouldn't see the doctor more often.  It's a pain in the ass that why don't go has nothing to do with cost.</p><p>Now the test to detect that cancers won&rsquo;t be perform which is why we have far more cancer survivor in the US compared to Universal health care state, look it up yourself.  Our life expectancy is low because we are a nation of fat asses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , if health care was free I would n't see the doctor more often .
It 's a pain in the ass that why do n't go has nothing to do with cost.Now the test to detect that cancers won    t be perform which is why we have far more cancer survivor in the US compared to Universal health care state , look it up yourself .
Our life expectancy is low because we are a nation of fat asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, if health care was free I wouldn't see the doctor more often.
It's a pain in the ass that why don't go has nothing to do with cost.Now the test to detect that cancers won’t be perform which is why we have far more cancer survivor in the US compared to Universal health care state, look it up yourself.
Our life expectancy is low because we are a nation of fat asses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31582106</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Rangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1269352560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Republicans are opposed because it's socialism.  The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.</p><p>This will not end well.</p></div><p>Honestly, the ignorance of this statement leaves me speechless.  Ignoring all the other reasons, the biggest reason why this is a bogus argument is because neither Soviet Russia nor North Korea were socialist or even communist.  They are/were dictatorships, pure and simple.  So, before you go painting those countries with the same socialism brush, perhaps you should check what shade of political paint they are actually using under all the propaganda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Republicans are opposed because it 's socialism .
The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.This will not end well.Honestly , the ignorance of this statement leaves me speechless .
Ignoring all the other reasons , the biggest reason why this is a bogus argument is because neither Soviet Russia nor North Korea were socialist or even communist .
They are/were dictatorships , pure and simple .
So , before you go painting those countries with the same socialism brush , perhaps you should check what shade of political paint they are actually using under all the propaganda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republicans are opposed because it's socialism.
The same kind of socialism that drove the economies of North Korea and Soviet Russia into the ground.This will not end well.Honestly, the ignorance of this statement leaves me speechless.
Ignoring all the other reasons, the biggest reason why this is a bogus argument is because neither Soviet Russia nor North Korea were socialist or even communist.
They are/were dictatorships, pure and simple.
So, before you go painting those countries with the same socialism brush, perhaps you should check what shade of political paint they are actually using under all the propaganda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573414</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269288060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that's the Preamble. It's an introduction that explains the some of the goals that led them to "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".</p><p>But the Constitution was meant to limit governmental power. This fact has long been overlooked by all three branches of the U.S. Government, both parties, and most of the citizens of the United States.</p><p>It's saying, "here are some benefits that we hope the following document will provide". That's different from saying, "The government has the full authority to take any actions, including but not limited to those outlined in the following document, as long as they contribute to these goals".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that 's the Preamble .
It 's an introduction that explains the some of the goals that led them to " do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America " .But the Constitution was meant to limit governmental power .
This fact has long been overlooked by all three branches of the U.S. Government , both parties , and most of the citizens of the United States.It 's saying , " here are some benefits that we hope the following document will provide " .
That 's different from saying , " The government has the full authority to take any actions , including but not limited to those outlined in the following document , as long as they contribute to these goals " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that's the Preamble.
It's an introduction that explains the some of the goals that led them to "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".But the Constitution was meant to limit governmental power.
This fact has long been overlooked by all three branches of the U.S. Government, both parties, and most of the citizens of the United States.It's saying, "here are some benefits that we hope the following document will provide".
That's different from saying, "The government has the full authority to take any actions, including but not limited to those outlined in the following document, as long as they contribute to these goals".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569090</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated. even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? </p></div><p>What? The only mandated car insurance is LIABILITY insurance so that others are protected if you do something stupid while driving not comprehensive insurance which protects you. So a comparison between car insurance and health insurance is not valid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you understand why you ca n't drive legally without car insurance , you understand why health insurance must be mandated .
even the young and healthy break their arms .
then , what happens ?
What ? The only mandated car insurance is LIABILITY insurance so that others are protected if you do something stupid while driving not comprehensive insurance which protects you .
So a comparison between car insurance and health insurance is not valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated.
even the young and healthy break their arms.
then, what happens?
What? The only mandated car insurance is LIABILITY insurance so that others are protected if you do something stupid while driving not comprehensive insurance which protects you.
So a comparison between car insurance and health insurance is not valid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567906</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1269271560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down. This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense. Cancers are caught sooner, infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood.</p></div></blockquote><p>Here's something funny:  This bill doesn't set up things so that everyone pays jointly for healthcare, it sets things up so everyone pays jointly for healthcare insurance.  (Which isn't the same thing at all.)<br>
&nbsp; <br>And even if everyone does get insurance, it doesn't really change things much.  People will still avoid going to the doctor because they can't take a day off work.  (Not that his bill provides access to doctors anyhow.)  People will still not go to the doctor because of minor symptoms (thus catching things early) because of the crowds at the ER (still the only access to medical care people have), or the massive and intrusive paperwork, etc...<br>
&nbsp; <br>That's the truly sickening thing about this bill - <i>it doesn't actually fix health care</i>.  It's a massive expansion of welfare, combined with some minor regulatory changes to insurance, that doesn't fix the actual problems with actual health care.  It not only leaves the (massively broken) for-profit medical insurance and medical care systems in place, it hands those systems the keys to the asylum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something funny : if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down .
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense .
Cancers are caught sooner , infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood.Here 's something funny : This bill does n't set up things so that everyone pays jointly for healthcare , it sets things up so everyone pays jointly for healthcare insurance .
( Which is n't the same thing at all .
)   And even if everyone does get insurance , it does n't really change things much .
People will still avoid going to the doctor because they ca n't take a day off work .
( Not that his bill provides access to doctors anyhow .
) People will still not go to the doctor because of minor symptoms ( thus catching things early ) because of the crowds at the ER ( still the only access to medical care people have ) , or the massive and intrusive paperwork , etc.. .   That 's the truly sickening thing about this bill - it does n't actually fix health care .
It 's a massive expansion of welfare , combined with some minor regulatory changes to insurance , that does n't fix the actual problems with actual health care .
It not only leaves the ( massively broken ) for-profit medical insurance and medical care systems in place , it hands those systems the keys to the asylum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.
Cancers are caught sooner, infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood.Here's something funny:  This bill doesn't set up things so that everyone pays jointly for healthcare, it sets things up so everyone pays jointly for healthcare insurance.
(Which isn't the same thing at all.
)
  And even if everyone does get insurance, it doesn't really change things much.
People will still avoid going to the doctor because they can't take a day off work.
(Not that his bill provides access to doctors anyhow.
)  People will still not go to the doctor because of minor symptoms (thus catching things early) because of the crowds at the ER (still the only access to medical care people have), or the massive and intrusive paperwork, etc...
  That's the truly sickening thing about this bill - it doesn't actually fix health care.
It's a massive expansion of welfare, combined with some minor regulatory changes to insurance, that doesn't fix the actual problems with actual health care.
It not only leaves the (massively broken) for-profit medical insurance and medical care systems in place, it hands those systems the keys to the asylum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510</id>
	<title>So the government is forcing me to buy something</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1269264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People like to harp on Massachusetts as Taxachusetts, especially after Mitt Romney(R) forced the people of his state to buy insurance whether they wanted it or not, thus creating a new expense people had to pay, but now the federal government has seen fit to follow the Republicans down the social/fascist rabbit hole.</p><p>The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day, or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves.</p><p>What about my coworkers who refuse to walk up one flight of stairs or drink a liter of Pepsi every day?  Why should I have to pay for their medical expenses when they can't be bothered to take care of themselves?</p><p>Further, why should I have to buy something I don't want?  Are you next going to force me to go to a store and buy something to keep the store alive?</p><p>The ONLY winners in this whole fiasco are the insurance companies who will reap huge profits from the influx of money and still, despite the wording of the bill, will not cover everyone or every procedure.</p><p>While the Republicans can try to claim they stood their ground on this bill, they shouldn't be too smug as their party started this nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People like to harp on Massachusetts as Taxachusetts , especially after Mitt Romney ( R ) forced the people of his state to buy insurance whether they wanted it or not , thus creating a new expense people had to pay , but now the federal government has seen fit to follow the Republicans down the social/fascist rabbit hole.The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day , or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it 's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves.What about my coworkers who refuse to walk up one flight of stairs or drink a liter of Pepsi every day ?
Why should I have to pay for their medical expenses when they ca n't be bothered to take care of themselves ? Further , why should I have to buy something I do n't want ?
Are you next going to force me to go to a store and buy something to keep the store alive ? The ONLY winners in this whole fiasco are the insurance companies who will reap huge profits from the influx of money and still , despite the wording of the bill , will not cover everyone or every procedure.While the Republicans can try to claim they stood their ground on this bill , they should n't be too smug as their party started this nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like to harp on Massachusetts as Taxachusetts, especially after Mitt Romney(R) forced the people of his state to buy insurance whether they wanted it or not, thus creating a new expense people had to pay, but now the federal government has seen fit to follow the Republicans down the social/fascist rabbit hole.The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day, or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves.What about my coworkers who refuse to walk up one flight of stairs or drink a liter of Pepsi every day?
Why should I have to pay for their medical expenses when they can't be bothered to take care of themselves?Further, why should I have to buy something I don't want?
Are you next going to force me to go to a store and buy something to keep the store alive?The ONLY winners in this whole fiasco are the insurance companies who will reap huge profits from the influx of money and still, despite the wording of the bill, will not cover everyone or every procedure.While the Republicans can try to claim they stood their ground on this bill, they shouldn't be too smug as their party started this nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574872</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>realnrh</author>
	<datestamp>1269250260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congratulations! You have either a cult or a conspiracy theory. In either case, "Everyone but my chosen leader is not trustworthy, but my chosen leader is without flaw."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations !
You have either a cult or a conspiracy theory .
In either case , " Everyone but my chosen leader is not trustworthy , but my chosen leader is without flaw .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations!
You have either a cult or a conspiracy theory.
In either case, "Everyone but my chosen leader is not trustworthy, but my chosen leader is without flaw.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566234</id>
	<title>Re:Hurry up and wait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the bill doesn't go into effect until 2014.  Whether or not anything happens between now and the election means nothing.</p><p>This bill will make the cost of health insurance sky rocket.  Most of it needs to be repealed.</p><p>16,000 new IRS agents, 0 new doctors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the bill does n't go into effect until 2014 .
Whether or not anything happens between now and the election means nothing.This bill will make the cost of health insurance sky rocket .
Most of it needs to be repealed.16,000 new IRS agents , 0 new doctors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the bill doesn't go into effect until 2014.
Whether or not anything happens between now and the election means nothing.This bill will make the cost of health insurance sky rocket.
Most of it needs to be repealed.16,000 new IRS agents, 0 new doctors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571910</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What idiot liberals like yourself don't realize is that a persons health IS mostly related to their choices. One chooses to get lung cancer, one chooses to eat McDonalds, one chooses to get liver disease.</p><p>Here's something funny: you're 100\% wrong. You know nothing of economics. What you're reciting is basic "common sense" that also happens to be a total fallacy.</p><p>That fallacy is: prices are determined by expense.</p><p>WRONG!</p><p>If that were the case a 50lb bag of rice would cost the same in an American supermarket as in a Jamaican supermarket.</p><p>Prices are determined by profit maximization, with competition vs. monopoly putting downward pressure on that equilibrium via market competition.</p><p>Excessive profits invite competition which is why not every necessity is priced to gouge the consumer. In many cases: the competition is so intense, and the profit margins are so low: being in business barely justifies itself.</p><p>This is seen in almost any industry which has to compete with the price of overseas labor. The free-trade proponents arguing that American's shouldn't be doing those jobs if they can be done more cheaply overseas.</p><p>It is products and services which have high barriers to entry which invite monopolies. This means that it is difficult for competitors to enter the market due to the high initial investment required and the scarcity of start-up capital. IE. Semiconductor manufacture/Health Insurance/Petroleum Refineries/etc.</p><p>Monopolies set prices based not on expenses. Expense determined prices exist only in cut throat competitive industries. IE. Airlines</p><p>Monopolies set prices based on profit maximization. This is because they have no competition putting downward pressure on their ability to charge whatever the market will bear. They can enjoy outrageous profit margins without inviting the average jackass to open up shop across the street who will work for $2/hr to call himself a business owner. aka: Farmers/Logging companies/ect.</p><p>Expenses determine prices ONLY in that they impact the attractiveness of a market/product to potential competitors.</p><p>So how are prices ACTUALLY determined?</p><p>Jack and Jill represent the working class. They own nothing but the health problems incured as a result of their marketing/peer pressure induced lifestyles. IE: Lung damage, heart disease, liver problems, debt.</p><p>Carl represents the middle class. He has overextended his finances to make a speculative investment in a real estate bubble taking advantage of the maximum available leverage provided by his local mortgage servicing institution(glorified change machine/customer service representative.)</p><p>Ted represents the upper class, he owns the hospital, the bank, and the insurance company.</p><p>Example #1:<br>Four friends are looking to buy non-mandatory car insurance. The price of car insurance is $100/month.</p><p>Carl and Ted buy car insurance because they don't want to get sued. Ted make's $100 profit.<br>Jack doesn't buy car insurance because he doesn't own anything and doesn't care if he get's sued.</p><p>Jack and Jill went up the hill in his 1991 Honda Civic to have some sex and drink a pint of booze. Jack got drunk and totaled Carl's car, and Jill got thrown from the vehicle.</p><p>Carl is crippled, loses his job, misses a house payment, &amp; Jill has to have her legs amputated due to a spinal injury.</p><p>Ted get's Carl's hard saved equity in his house, loses the opportunity to sell Jack and Jill insurance at $100 a month, and because of democrat passed legislation: is footed with the expense of cutting off Jill's legs with a PHD.</p><p>Ted pays Carl/Jill a disability check for the rest of Carl's short paraplegic life via tax dollars on the profit he made selling Carl's house, as he writes off $100/month in business expenses due to a lack of customers.</p><p>Example #2:<br>Four friends are looking to buy non-mandatory car insurance. The price of car insurance is $40/month.</p><p>Carl, Jack, Jill, and Ted buy car insurance because they don't want to get sued.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What idiot liberals like yourself do n't realize is that a persons health IS mostly related to their choices .
One chooses to get lung cancer , one chooses to eat McDonalds , one chooses to get liver disease.Here 's something funny : you 're 100 \ % wrong .
You know nothing of economics .
What you 're reciting is basic " common sense " that also happens to be a total fallacy.That fallacy is : prices are determined by expense.WRONG ! If that were the case a 50lb bag of rice would cost the same in an American supermarket as in a Jamaican supermarket.Prices are determined by profit maximization , with competition vs. monopoly putting downward pressure on that equilibrium via market competition.Excessive profits invite competition which is why not every necessity is priced to gouge the consumer .
In many cases : the competition is so intense , and the profit margins are so low : being in business barely justifies itself.This is seen in almost any industry which has to compete with the price of overseas labor .
The free-trade proponents arguing that American 's should n't be doing those jobs if they can be done more cheaply overseas.It is products and services which have high barriers to entry which invite monopolies .
This means that it is difficult for competitors to enter the market due to the high initial investment required and the scarcity of start-up capital .
IE. Semiconductor manufacture/Health Insurance/Petroleum Refineries/etc.Monopolies set prices based not on expenses .
Expense determined prices exist only in cut throat competitive industries .
IE. AirlinesMonopolies set prices based on profit maximization .
This is because they have no competition putting downward pressure on their ability to charge whatever the market will bear .
They can enjoy outrageous profit margins without inviting the average jackass to open up shop across the street who will work for $ 2/hr to call himself a business owner .
aka : Farmers/Logging companies/ect.Expenses determine prices ONLY in that they impact the attractiveness of a market/product to potential competitors.So how are prices ACTUALLY determined ? Jack and Jill represent the working class .
They own nothing but the health problems incured as a result of their marketing/peer pressure induced lifestyles .
IE : Lung damage , heart disease , liver problems , debt.Carl represents the middle class .
He has overextended his finances to make a speculative investment in a real estate bubble taking advantage of the maximum available leverage provided by his local mortgage servicing institution ( glorified change machine/customer service representative .
) Ted represents the upper class , he owns the hospital , the bank , and the insurance company.Example # 1 : Four friends are looking to buy non-mandatory car insurance .
The price of car insurance is $ 100/month.Carl and Ted buy car insurance because they do n't want to get sued .
Ted make 's $ 100 profit.Jack does n't buy car insurance because he does n't own anything and does n't care if he get 's sued.Jack and Jill went up the hill in his 1991 Honda Civic to have some sex and drink a pint of booze .
Jack got drunk and totaled Carl 's car , and Jill got thrown from the vehicle.Carl is crippled , loses his job , misses a house payment , &amp; Jill has to have her legs amputated due to a spinal injury.Ted get 's Carl 's hard saved equity in his house , loses the opportunity to sell Jack and Jill insurance at $ 100 a month , and because of democrat passed legislation : is footed with the expense of cutting off Jill 's legs with a PHD.Ted pays Carl/Jill a disability check for the rest of Carl 's short paraplegic life via tax dollars on the profit he made selling Carl 's house , as he writes off $ 100/month in business expenses due to a lack of customers.Example # 2 : Four friends are looking to buy non-mandatory car insurance .
The price of car insurance is $ 40/month.Carl , Jack , Jill , and Ted buy car insurance because they do n't want to get sued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What idiot liberals like yourself don't realize is that a persons health IS mostly related to their choices.
One chooses to get lung cancer, one chooses to eat McDonalds, one chooses to get liver disease.Here's something funny: you're 100\% wrong.
You know nothing of economics.
What you're reciting is basic "common sense" that also happens to be a total fallacy.That fallacy is: prices are determined by expense.WRONG!If that were the case a 50lb bag of rice would cost the same in an American supermarket as in a Jamaican supermarket.Prices are determined by profit maximization, with competition vs. monopoly putting downward pressure on that equilibrium via market competition.Excessive profits invite competition which is why not every necessity is priced to gouge the consumer.
In many cases: the competition is so intense, and the profit margins are so low: being in business barely justifies itself.This is seen in almost any industry which has to compete with the price of overseas labor.
The free-trade proponents arguing that American's shouldn't be doing those jobs if they can be done more cheaply overseas.It is products and services which have high barriers to entry which invite monopolies.
This means that it is difficult for competitors to enter the market due to the high initial investment required and the scarcity of start-up capital.
IE. Semiconductor manufacture/Health Insurance/Petroleum Refineries/etc.Monopolies set prices based not on expenses.
Expense determined prices exist only in cut throat competitive industries.
IE. AirlinesMonopolies set prices based on profit maximization.
This is because they have no competition putting downward pressure on their ability to charge whatever the market will bear.
They can enjoy outrageous profit margins without inviting the average jackass to open up shop across the street who will work for $2/hr to call himself a business owner.
aka: Farmers/Logging companies/ect.Expenses determine prices ONLY in that they impact the attractiveness of a market/product to potential competitors.So how are prices ACTUALLY determined?Jack and Jill represent the working class.
They own nothing but the health problems incured as a result of their marketing/peer pressure induced lifestyles.
IE: Lung damage, heart disease, liver problems, debt.Carl represents the middle class.
He has overextended his finances to make a speculative investment in a real estate bubble taking advantage of the maximum available leverage provided by his local mortgage servicing institution(glorified change machine/customer service representative.
)Ted represents the upper class, he owns the hospital, the bank, and the insurance company.Example #1:Four friends are looking to buy non-mandatory car insurance.
The price of car insurance is $100/month.Carl and Ted buy car insurance because they don't want to get sued.
Ted make's $100 profit.Jack doesn't buy car insurance because he doesn't own anything and doesn't care if he get's sued.Jack and Jill went up the hill in his 1991 Honda Civic to have some sex and drink a pint of booze.
Jack got drunk and totaled Carl's car, and Jill got thrown from the vehicle.Carl is crippled, loses his job, misses a house payment, &amp; Jill has to have her legs amputated due to a spinal injury.Ted get's Carl's hard saved equity in his house, loses the opportunity to sell Jack and Jill insurance at $100 a month, and because of democrat passed legislation: is footed with the expense of cutting off Jill's legs with a PHD.Ted pays Carl/Jill a disability check for the rest of Carl's short paraplegic life via tax dollars on the profit he made selling Carl's house, as he writes off $100/month in business expenses due to a lack of customers.Example #2:Four friends are looking to buy non-mandatory car insurance.
The price of car insurance is $40/month.Carl, Jack, Jill, and Ted buy car insurance because they don't want to get sued.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570590</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1269279000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.</i> <br> <br>

Just to throw in behind what the other commenters are saying, the bill also sets up a national "marketplace" for health insurance providers, which theoretically allows people to purchase insurance from a wider range of providers and might break up some of the local oligarchies.  Combine that with the fact that you can't be excluded for pre-existing conditions anymore, allowing you to move to different providers without being denied for previous care, and you might see a situation where prices stabilize due to an increase in competition.  Granted, I'm not immediately holding my breath that it'll work out as planned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in ?
In other words , will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply ?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market .
Just to throw in behind what the other commenters are saying , the bill also sets up a national " marketplace " for health insurance providers , which theoretically allows people to purchase insurance from a wider range of providers and might break up some of the local oligarchies .
Combine that with the fact that you ca n't be excluded for pre-existing conditions anymore , allowing you to move to different providers without being denied for previous care , and you might see a situation where prices stabilize due to an increase in competition .
Granted , I 'm not immediately holding my breath that it 'll work out as planned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in?
In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.
Just to throw in behind what the other commenters are saying, the bill also sets up a national "marketplace" for health insurance providers, which theoretically allows people to purchase insurance from a wider range of providers and might break up some of the local oligarchies.
Combine that with the fact that you can't be excluded for pre-existing conditions anymore, allowing you to move to different providers without being denied for previous care, and you might see a situation where prices stabilize due to an increase in competition.
Granted, I'm not immediately holding my breath that it'll work out as planned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569368</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>wtbname</author>
	<datestamp>1269275400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah Yeah Yeah.</p><p>This seems like an unbiased accurate summary of how the bill got passed.</p><p>I tell you what though...</p><p>When Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell are sitting in their Georgetown social club sipping 30 year old brandy, they are yucking it up about idiots like you think there's a difference between them, or that you still actually believe one damn word they say.</p><p>Actually, cancel that. They don't give a half a shit between them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah Yeah Yeah.This seems like an unbiased accurate summary of how the bill got passed.I tell you what though...When Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell are sitting in their Georgetown social club sipping 30 year old brandy , they are yucking it up about idiots like you think there 's a difference between them , or that you still actually believe one damn word they say.Actually , cancel that .
They do n't give a half a shit between them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah Yeah Yeah.This seems like an unbiased accurate summary of how the bill got passed.I tell you what though...When Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell are sitting in their Georgetown social club sipping 30 year old brandy, they are yucking it up about idiots like you think there's a difference between them, or that you still actually believe one damn word they say.Actually, cancel that.
They don't give a half a shit between them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31598936</id>
	<title>Re:If you're not a Christian, don't talk like one</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1269450360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your sig reminded me of the quote that most singularly illustrates the whole process the Democrats used to ram through this legislation:</p><p>"The truly liberal mind is by definition uncertain; it admits it may be wrong, but once set and the decision made the wavering stops, and no sort of hell can sway it."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -- D.F. Jones, THE FALL OF COLOSSUS</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your sig reminded me of the quote that most singularly illustrates the whole process the Democrats used to ram through this legislation : " The truly liberal mind is by definition uncertain ; it admits it may be wrong , but once set and the decision made the wavering stops , and no sort of hell can sway it .
"       -- D.F .
Jones , THE FALL OF COLOSSUS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your sig reminded me of the quote that most singularly illustrates the whole process the Democrats used to ram through this legislation:"The truly liberal mind is by definition uncertain; it admits it may be wrong, but once set and the decision made the wavering stops, and no sort of hell can sway it.
"
      -- D.F.
Jones, THE FALL OF COLOSSUS
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567724</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269271080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>p&gt;if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated. even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? does the hospital turn them away for not having cash? can you live in a society that does that?</p></div><p>I do understand this, but you don't. car insurance is for when you hit OTHER people. do you break other peoples' arms?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>p &gt; if you understand why you ca n't drive legally without car insurance , you understand why health insurance must be mandated .
even the young and healthy break their arms .
then , what happens ?
does the hospital turn them away for not having cash ?
can you live in a society that does that ? I do understand this , but you do n't .
car insurance is for when you hit OTHER people .
do you break other peoples ' arms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>p&gt;if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated.
even the young and healthy break their arms.
then, what happens?
does the hospital turn them away for not having cash?
can you live in a society that does that?I do understand this, but you don't.
car insurance is for when you hit OTHER people.
do you break other peoples' arms?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570404</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1269278460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, calling an Objectivist a Libertarian is far too kind.  Libertarians don't preach selfishness as a virtue.  Only the Randians who have mostly hijacked the movement would find that a complement.</p><p>I prefer the more accurate term, Sociopath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , calling an Objectivist a Libertarian is far too kind .
Libertarians do n't preach selfishness as a virtue .
Only the Randians who have mostly hijacked the movement would find that a complement.I prefer the more accurate term , Sociopath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, calling an Objectivist a Libertarian is far too kind.
Libertarians don't preach selfishness as a virtue.
Only the Randians who have mostly hijacked the movement would find that a complement.I prefer the more accurate term, Sociopath.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570550</id>
	<title>Libertarian "do not transport" bracelets</title>
	<author>frog\_strat</author>
	<datestamp>1269278880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The govt could offer them.  So when the libertarians are lying on the ground after a car crash the emergency personnel would know not to interfere with their lives.  They could be exempted from having to buy insurance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The govt could offer them .
So when the libertarians are lying on the ground after a car crash the emergency personnel would know not to interfere with their lives .
They could be exempted from having to buy insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The govt could offer them.
So when the libertarians are lying on the ground after a car crash the emergency personnel would know not to interfere with their lives.
They could be exempted from having to buy insurance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569942</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>selfish libertarians</p></div><p>This is a problematic way to describe most libertarians I've known, because:</p><p>1.) They see selfishness as a good thing, in the sense of acting in their own self-interest</p><p>2.) They have such a narrow, small-minded, and poorly-conceived view of "self-interest", that they wind up taking action <i>against</i> their own self-interest most of the time.</p><p>You would be better served with descriptors such as unrealistic, or perhaps ignorant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>selfish libertariansThis is a problematic way to describe most libertarians I 've known , because : 1 .
) They see selfishness as a good thing , in the sense of acting in their own self-interest2 .
) They have such a narrow , small-minded , and poorly-conceived view of " self-interest " , that they wind up taking action against their own self-interest most of the time.You would be better served with descriptors such as unrealistic , or perhaps ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>selfish libertariansThis is a problematic way to describe most libertarians I've known, because:1.
) They see selfishness as a good thing, in the sense of acting in their own self-interest2.
) They have such a narrow, small-minded, and poorly-conceived view of "self-interest", that they wind up taking action against their own self-interest most of the time.You would be better served with descriptors such as unrealistic, or perhaps ignorant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572236</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure that adding politics to the equation will remedy the problem.<br>
&nbsp; <br>The bill the was just passed is the platform for nationalized health care - I would expect contruction on this platform to begin over the next few years.  It will probably start with a few lives being lost because the procedure was too expensive to be fully covered, so the government will step in and fix that situation as well.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The current reform package is a puppy compared to where we are probably headed.  I can understand why people might not be supportive.  How many well run government programs do you know of?  How many of the well run programs are as politically charged as this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure that adding politics to the equation will remedy the problem .
  The bill the was just passed is the platform for nationalized health care - I would expect contruction on this platform to begin over the next few years .
It will probably start with a few lives being lost because the procedure was too expensive to be fully covered , so the government will step in and fix that situation as well .
      The current reform package is a puppy compared to where we are probably headed .
I can understand why people might not be supportive .
How many well run government programs do you know of ?
How many of the well run programs are as politically charged as this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure that adding politics to the equation will remedy the problem.
  The bill the was just passed is the platform for nationalized health care - I would expect contruction on this platform to begin over the next few years.
It will probably start with a few lives being lost because the procedure was too expensive to be fully covered, so the government will step in and fix that situation as well.
  
    The current reform package is a puppy compared to where we are probably headed.
I can understand why people might not be supportive.
How many well run government programs do you know of?
How many of the well run programs are as politically charged as this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569056</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  That's why we passed this bill.</p><p>Do try to keep up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
That 's why we passed this bill.Do try to keep up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
That's why we passed this bill.Do try to keep up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566758</id>
	<title>Re:Beware, lawmakers: November is coming.</title>
	<author>Algan</author>
	<datestamp>1269268680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My rep voted for the health care bill, which is what I wanted. He believes in network neutrality. He runs on a platform of social liberalism. He is a scientist, while his main opponent is a lawyer.<br>Yeah, I think he still has my vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My rep voted for the health care bill , which is what I wanted .
He believes in network neutrality .
He runs on a platform of social liberalism .
He is a scientist , while his main opponent is a lawyer.Yeah , I think he still has my vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My rep voted for the health care bill, which is what I wanted.
He believes in network neutrality.
He runs on a platform of social liberalism.
He is a scientist, while his main opponent is a lawyer.Yeah, I think he still has my vote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576102</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269255420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This does nothing to guarantee HEALTHCARE.  It only guarantees INSURANCE.  These days, very different things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does nothing to guarantee HEALTHCARE .
It only guarantees INSURANCE .
These days , very different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does nothing to guarantee HEALTHCARE.
It only guarantees INSURANCE.
These days, very different things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565732</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>JustASlashDotGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1269265380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Imperfect as it is, this bill will save lives, and contrary to what Fox will tell you, it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.</i></p><p>Have you read the assumptions the CBO was told to follow in getting their budget numbers?  CNN had an article yesterday stating that the Democrats assume that this bill will make employer offered health care more expensive due to the extra taxes.  As a result they expect employer to discontinue the more expensive coverage they provide for their employees and instead purchase cheaper insurance (IE: $3000+ / year less.. that number sound familiar?).  It further goes on to say that now that the employer i saving $3000+<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/year per employee that they will all give their employees a $3000+/year raise, which will then be taxed via 'income tax' rates, which is greater than the insurance tax.</p><p>So yes...   Employees will get to keep the health insurance offered by their employer, however Obama never said that the insurance offered will stay the same.</p><p>This bill had a lot of good things in it that both sides agreed on, however it also had a lot of bad things in it.  Why else do you think they it was pushed their and passed via reconciliation on Sunday night.  Reconciliation isn't all bad.. it's been used for tax cuts in the past, however it's never been used to reshape 1/6 of our economy when 55\% American public opposed it.</p><p>So, how many of you think your boss will give you a big raise just because he had to cut cost on healthcare?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imperfect as it is , this bill will save lives , and contrary to what Fox will tell you , it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.Have you read the assumptions the CBO was told to follow in getting their budget numbers ?
CNN had an article yesterday stating that the Democrats assume that this bill will make employer offered health care more expensive due to the extra taxes .
As a result they expect employer to discontinue the more expensive coverage they provide for their employees and instead purchase cheaper insurance ( IE : $ 3000 + / year less.. that number sound familiar ? ) .
It further goes on to say that now that the employer i saving $ 3000 + /year per employee that they will all give their employees a $ 3000 + /year raise , which will then be taxed via 'income tax ' rates , which is greater than the insurance tax.So yes... Employees will get to keep the health insurance offered by their employer , however Obama never said that the insurance offered will stay the same.This bill had a lot of good things in it that both sides agreed on , however it also had a lot of bad things in it .
Why else do you think they it was pushed their and passed via reconciliation on Sunday night .
Reconciliation is n't all bad.. it 's been used for tax cuts in the past , however it 's never been used to reshape 1/6 of our economy when 55 \ % American public opposed it.So , how many of you think your boss will give you a big raise just because he had to cut cost on healthcare ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imperfect as it is, this bill will save lives, and contrary to what Fox will tell you, it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.Have you read the assumptions the CBO was told to follow in getting their budget numbers?
CNN had an article yesterday stating that the Democrats assume that this bill will make employer offered health care more expensive due to the extra taxes.
As a result they expect employer to discontinue the more expensive coverage they provide for their employees and instead purchase cheaper insurance (IE: $3000+ / year less.. that number sound familiar?).
It further goes on to say that now that the employer i saving $3000+ /year per employee that they will all give their employees a $3000+/year raise, which will then be taxed via 'income tax' rates, which is greater than the insurance tax.So yes...   Employees will get to keep the health insurance offered by their employer, however Obama never said that the insurance offered will stay the same.This bill had a lot of good things in it that both sides agreed on, however it also had a lot of bad things in it.
Why else do you think they it was pushed their and passed via reconciliation on Sunday night.
Reconciliation isn't all bad.. it's been used for tax cuts in the past, however it's never been used to reshape 1/6 of our economy when 55\% American public opposed it.So, how many of you think your boss will give you a big raise just because he had to cut cost on healthcare?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579606</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269280200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why, because Rush couldn&rsquo;t be syndicated here if he was physically located somewhere else?</p><p>I&rsquo;ll tell you what will happen, though: As we sit here discussing this, lawsuits are being filed to challenge this unconstitutional and unpopular bill. It will immediately be locked up in legal proceedings, and it will take years to get this straightened out. Last but not least, this November there will be a huge upset when the Democrats who voted for this hear from their constituents, and the Republicans, with a newly-won huge majority, will immediately proceed to overturn this and any other sweeping changes that Democrats try to enact between now and then.</p><p>I called it here first.</p></div><p>  Congratulations, that's as close to fantasy politics porn as I've every read  anywhere. Hope you had fun.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , because Rush couldn    t be syndicated here if he was physically located somewhere else ? I    ll tell you what will happen , though : As we sit here discussing this , lawsuits are being filed to challenge this unconstitutional and unpopular bill .
It will immediately be locked up in legal proceedings , and it will take years to get this straightened out .
Last but not least , this November there will be a huge upset when the Democrats who voted for this hear from their constituents , and the Republicans , with a newly-won huge majority , will immediately proceed to overturn this and any other sweeping changes that Democrats try to enact between now and then.I called it here first .
Congratulations , that 's as close to fantasy politics porn as I 've every read anywhere .
Hope you had fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, because Rush couldn’t be syndicated here if he was physically located somewhere else?I’ll tell you what will happen, though: As we sit here discussing this, lawsuits are being filed to challenge this unconstitutional and unpopular bill.
It will immediately be locked up in legal proceedings, and it will take years to get this straightened out.
Last but not least, this November there will be a huge upset when the Democrats who voted for this hear from their constituents, and the Republicans, with a newly-won huge majority, will immediately proceed to overturn this and any other sweeping changes that Democrats try to enact between now and then.I called it here first.
Congratulations, that's as close to fantasy politics porn as I've every read  anywhere.
Hope you had fun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566590</id>
	<title>Call me skeptical . . .</title>
	<author>approachingZero </author>
	<datestamp>1269268200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will this save anyone a dime? Can the U.S. Government provide heath care less expensively or more efficiently than the private sector? Health care Insurance companies had around a 2\% profit margin. My guess is that insurance companies are actually going to come out of this happy happy feelgood government oversight and regulation bill with more profits then they had before. Same with drug companies. Democrats could have included such crazy ideas as allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines but somehow that didn't make it into the bill. You know, the same way car insurance works? And just so everyone is clear on this, few people actually know what is going to happen because this law is over 2000 pages long and was cooked up behind closed doors with NO debate. In a nutshell - we've been taken to the cleaners and the grins will soon disappear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this save anyone a dime ?
Can the U.S. Government provide heath care less expensively or more efficiently than the private sector ?
Health care Insurance companies had around a 2 \ % profit margin .
My guess is that insurance companies are actually going to come out of this happy happy feelgood government oversight and regulation bill with more profits then they had before .
Same with drug companies .
Democrats could have included such crazy ideas as allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines but somehow that did n't make it into the bill .
You know , the same way car insurance works ?
And just so everyone is clear on this , few people actually know what is going to happen because this law is over 2000 pages long and was cooked up behind closed doors with NO debate .
In a nutshell - we 've been taken to the cleaners and the grins will soon disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this save anyone a dime?
Can the U.S. Government provide heath care less expensively or more efficiently than the private sector?
Health care Insurance companies had around a 2\% profit margin.
My guess is that insurance companies are actually going to come out of this happy happy feelgood government oversight and regulation bill with more profits then they had before.
Same with drug companies.
Democrats could have included such crazy ideas as allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines but somehow that didn't make it into the bill.
You know, the same way car insurance works?
And just so everyone is clear on this, few people actually know what is going to happen because this law is over 2000 pages long and was cooked up behind closed doors with NO debate.
In a nutshell - we've been taken to the cleaners and the grins will soon disappear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567758</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>need4mospd</author>
	<datestamp>1269271140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They'll probably do the same thing the all the Democrats did in 2004 when Bush was elected a second time. Research a few hours on the internet about living in another country and daydream about how awesome it would be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll probably do the same thing the all the Democrats did in 2004 when Bush was elected a second time .
Research a few hours on the internet about living in another country and daydream about how awesome it would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll probably do the same thing the all the Democrats did in 2004 when Bush was elected a second time.
Research a few hours on the internet about living in another country and daydream about how awesome it would be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</id>
	<title>It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution .
Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution.
Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576342</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269256320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No actually, costs go up.  Death is always the cheapest cure to a disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No actually , costs go up .
Death is always the cheapest cure to a disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No actually, costs go up.
Death is always the cheapest cure to a disease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565652</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Saint Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1269265020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Horseshit.  This is a summary of how you choose to view it; the "script" as it were.  It ain't reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Horseshit .
This is a summary of how you choose to view it ; the " script " as it were .
It ai n't reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Horseshit.
This is a summary of how you choose to view it; the "script" as it were.
It ain't reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568730</id>
	<title>An outsiders questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269273660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not an American citizen and have only a passing interest in the internal shenanigans of American politics, however for some reason this healthcare bill is international news.  Having scan read a few articles on the subject, I have to admit that I am I do not understand the issues surrounding this bill.</p><p>From my outsiders point of view this whole thing seems to me that America is arguing over how much pain the poorest members of its population should endure before the richer members of the population subsidise their healthcare needs.  Would that statement summarise this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not an American citizen and have only a passing interest in the internal shenanigans of American politics , however for some reason this healthcare bill is international news .
Having scan read a few articles on the subject , I have to admit that I am I do not understand the issues surrounding this bill.From my outsiders point of view this whole thing seems to me that America is arguing over how much pain the poorest members of its population should endure before the richer members of the population subsidise their healthcare needs .
Would that statement summarise this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not an American citizen and have only a passing interest in the internal shenanigans of American politics, however for some reason this healthcare bill is international news.
Having scan read a few articles on the subject, I have to admit that I am I do not understand the issues surrounding this bill.From my outsiders point of view this whole thing seems to me that America is arguing over how much pain the poorest members of its population should endure before the richer members of the population subsidise their healthcare needs.
Would that statement summarise this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31593364</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269360660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they leave the country due to universal health care then what country are they going to go to that doesn't have it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they leave the country due to universal health care then what country are they going to go to that does n't have it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they leave the country due to universal health care then what country are they going to go to that doesn't have it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571330</id>
	<title>Re:I just don't get it</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269281460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the media doesn't give balance weight to any discussion, they only report what's the loudest. As such the tea baggers get far more attention then they actually represent.</p><p>No it's not great, but it is pretty good. That makes it hard for people who don't like change. All the arguments are either plain wrong, or not even wrong.</p><p>I have yet to hear any interview with a tea bagger where they either completely misrepresent the constitution, or claim quote a portion of the bill that doesn't exist.</p><p>I mean, these people think the founders didn't write the constitution to change, think religion should be in the government, and have no clue what the Boston tea party was actually about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the media does n't give balance weight to any discussion , they only report what 's the loudest .
As such the tea baggers get far more attention then they actually represent.No it 's not great , but it is pretty good .
That makes it hard for people who do n't like change .
All the arguments are either plain wrong , or not even wrong.I have yet to hear any interview with a tea bagger where they either completely misrepresent the constitution , or claim quote a portion of the bill that does n't exist.I mean , these people think the founders did n't write the constitution to change , think religion should be in the government , and have no clue what the Boston tea party was actually about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the media doesn't give balance weight to any discussion, they only report what's the loudest.
As such the tea baggers get far more attention then they actually represent.No it's not great, but it is pretty good.
That makes it hard for people who don't like change.
All the arguments are either plain wrong, or not even wrong.I have yet to hear any interview with a tea bagger where they either completely misrepresent the constitution, or claim quote a portion of the bill that doesn't exist.I mean, these people think the founders didn't write the constitution to change, think religion should be in the government, and have no clue what the Boston tea party was actually about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575188</id>
	<title>Re:propaganda</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1269251520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because really, how is a system that's funded directly out of paychecks ever going to go "insolvent"?</p></div><p>If you look at it as "they never committed to any particular level of payout, so they can just cut payouts as revenues decrease" then no, there is no threat of insolvency. However, what really matters to most people planning their retirement is whether SS will be enough to support them, and in that sense there is a minimum cost per retiree. SS isn't a savings program; the payments for current retirees come out of the paychecks of those working today. At first this worked well enough, because there were far more workers than retirees. In the near future that balance is going to be reversed, at which point <em>something</em> has to change if SS is to remain relevant. The government&mdash;not CATO or any other partisan organization&mdash;recently sent out a notice admitting as much. Simply put, if the current payouts per retiree and SS tax rates remain as they are today, SS <em>will</em> be bankrupt before I retire. They can either let the payouts drop, in which case SS becomes irrelevant[1] and everyone has to save for their own retirement anyway, or they can significantly raise taxes on today's workers.</p><p>[1] So far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant anyway; I never expected it to still be around when I retire, and even if it is I won't apply for it. That would be immorally passing my own retirement costs on to the next generation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because really , how is a system that 's funded directly out of paychecks ever going to go " insolvent " ? If you look at it as " they never committed to any particular level of payout , so they can just cut payouts as revenues decrease " then no , there is no threat of insolvency .
However , what really matters to most people planning their retirement is whether SS will be enough to support them , and in that sense there is a minimum cost per retiree .
SS is n't a savings program ; the payments for current retirees come out of the paychecks of those working today .
At first this worked well enough , because there were far more workers than retirees .
In the near future that balance is going to be reversed , at which point something has to change if SS is to remain relevant .
The government    not CATO or any other partisan organization    recently sent out a notice admitting as much .
Simply put , if the current payouts per retiree and SS tax rates remain as they are today , SS will be bankrupt before I retire .
They can either let the payouts drop , in which case SS becomes irrelevant [ 1 ] and everyone has to save for their own retirement anyway , or they can significantly raise taxes on today 's workers .
[ 1 ] So far as I 'm concerned it 's irrelevant anyway ; I never expected it to still be around when I retire , and even if it is I wo n't apply for it .
That would be immorally passing my own retirement costs on to the next generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because really, how is a system that's funded directly out of paychecks ever going to go "insolvent"?If you look at it as "they never committed to any particular level of payout, so they can just cut payouts as revenues decrease" then no, there is no threat of insolvency.
However, what really matters to most people planning their retirement is whether SS will be enough to support them, and in that sense there is a minimum cost per retiree.
SS isn't a savings program; the payments for current retirees come out of the paychecks of those working today.
At first this worked well enough, because there were far more workers than retirees.
In the near future that balance is going to be reversed, at which point something has to change if SS is to remain relevant.
The government—not CATO or any other partisan organization—recently sent out a notice admitting as much.
Simply put, if the current payouts per retiree and SS tax rates remain as they are today, SS will be bankrupt before I retire.
They can either let the payouts drop, in which case SS becomes irrelevant[1] and everyone has to save for their own retirement anyway, or they can significantly raise taxes on today's workers.
[1] So far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant anyway; I never expected it to still be around when I retire, and even if it is I won't apply for it.
That would be immorally passing my own retirement costs on to the next generation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31583698</id>
	<title>I wish it was true...</title>
	<author>alispguru</author>
	<datestamp>1269359400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, with very few exceptions, preventive care does not reduce health care costs.<br> <br>

Things like vaccination and sanitation are cheap, and easily pay for themselves.  Almost all other preventive care costs more than just treating the disease as it is detected - screening for low-probability problems is expensive, and unless the screen is very accurate, money spent on treatment for false positives can overwhelm savings from early detection.<br> <br>

Remember the breast cancer screening recommendations awhile back?  The data on those said that for every cancerous tumor detected when screening women under 50, they also found multiple benign lumps which triggered useless (and potentially dangerous, when you factor in iatrogenic infections) biopsies.<br> <br>

There are good arguments for universal health care.  Reducing cost is not one of them, people who crunch the real health care numbers know this, and it troubles me when anyone makes an argument they know to be false.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , with very few exceptions , preventive care does not reduce health care costs .
Things like vaccination and sanitation are cheap , and easily pay for themselves .
Almost all other preventive care costs more than just treating the disease as it is detected - screening for low-probability problems is expensive , and unless the screen is very accurate , money spent on treatment for false positives can overwhelm savings from early detection .
Remember the breast cancer screening recommendations awhile back ?
The data on those said that for every cancerous tumor detected when screening women under 50 , they also found multiple benign lumps which triggered useless ( and potentially dangerous , when you factor in iatrogenic infections ) biopsies .
There are good arguments for universal health care .
Reducing cost is not one of them , people who crunch the real health care numbers know this , and it troubles me when anyone makes an argument they know to be false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, with very few exceptions, preventive care does not reduce health care costs.
Things like vaccination and sanitation are cheap, and easily pay for themselves.
Almost all other preventive care costs more than just treating the disease as it is detected - screening for low-probability problems is expensive, and unless the screen is very accurate, money spent on treatment for false positives can overwhelm savings from early detection.
Remember the breast cancer screening recommendations awhile back?
The data on those said that for every cancerous tumor detected when screening women under 50, they also found multiple benign lumps which triggered useless (and potentially dangerous, when you factor in iatrogenic infections) biopsies.
There are good arguments for universal health care.
Reducing cost is not one of them, people who crunch the real health care numbers know this, and it troubles me when anyone makes an argument they know to be false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31593548</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good job. I quoted you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good job .
I quoted you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good job.
I quoted you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570082</id>
	<title>Re:In other news:</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1269277440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really think he believes the shit he spews?</p><p>You really think he believes it that ardently?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really think he believes the shit he spews ? You really think he believes it that ardently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really think he believes the shit he spews?You really think he believes it that ardently?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31591326</id>
	<title>The HealthCare Bill is Unconstitutional!!!</title>
	<author>XtremeMachineX</author>
	<datestamp>1269347640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of what you Socialists from within the US and from foreign counties think about how great "Socialized Medicine" is, do not realize that under the US Constitution the federal government does not have the power, nor the authority to enacts laws and regulations on private insurance companies, nor create a single payer health care system. There is nothing in Article Six, which states the powers of the Federal Government, that says that it has the right to regulate or establish a health care system.

According to The Tenth Amendment which states; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The States do have the right to if they wanted to establish one within its borders.

The Federal Government would have to Amend the Constitution in order to have the power to regulate health care.

I bet that most of you, if not all of you, did not realize that every law at the Federal level of government is Unconstitutional! This includes drug laws. Why do you think that in the early 20 century they had to make a constitutional amendment banning alcohol?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of what you Socialists from within the US and from foreign counties think about how great " Socialized Medicine " is , do not realize that under the US Constitution the federal government does not have the power , nor the authority to enacts laws and regulations on private insurance companies , nor create a single payer health care system .
There is nothing in Article Six , which states the powers of the Federal Government , that says that it has the right to regulate or establish a health care system .
According to The Tenth Amendment which states ; " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the States respectively , or to the people .
" The States do have the right to if they wanted to establish one within its borders .
The Federal Government would have to Amend the Constitution in order to have the power to regulate health care .
I bet that most of you , if not all of you , did not realize that every law at the Federal level of government is Unconstitutional !
This includes drug laws .
Why do you think that in the early 20 century they had to make a constitutional amendment banning alcohol ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of what you Socialists from within the US and from foreign counties think about how great "Socialized Medicine" is, do not realize that under the US Constitution the federal government does not have the power, nor the authority to enacts laws and regulations on private insurance companies, nor create a single payer health care system.
There is nothing in Article Six, which states the powers of the Federal Government, that says that it has the right to regulate or establish a health care system.
According to The Tenth Amendment which states; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
" The States do have the right to if they wanted to establish one within its borders.
The Federal Government would have to Amend the Constitution in order to have the power to regulate health care.
I bet that most of you, if not all of you, did not realize that every law at the Federal level of government is Unconstitutional!
This includes drug laws.
Why do you think that in the early 20 century they had to make a constitutional amendment banning alcohol?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572592</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>avandesande</author>
	<datestamp>1269285060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how are they supposed to grow their business? Of course, new and more expensive treatments that drive up costs so they can skim even more.<br>Contrary to what many believe, insurance companies want costs to keep increasing as long as they can jack up rates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how are they supposed to grow their business ?
Of course , new and more expensive treatments that drive up costs so they can skim even more.Contrary to what many believe , insurance companies want costs to keep increasing as long as they can jack up rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how are they supposed to grow their business?
Of course, new and more expensive treatments that drive up costs so they can skim even more.Contrary to what many believe, insurance companies want costs to keep increasing as long as they can jack up rates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571174</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269281100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do, however, live in a society and profit off of the work of others. At its most basic, you profit off of someone else enlisting in the army for you. You profit off of someone else spending 30 years in school to become a doctor. You profit off of someone else being on call for 48 hours straight in a firehouse. All of these examples - and there are a million more if you want to hear them - require that you pay for someone else to perform a service that you may or may not need. But the mere existence of the service vastly improves your quality of life. In short, you're paying into a pool of money so that your quality of life gets raised along with everyone else's.</p><p>Same with health insurance. It can only work if everyone pays a certain amount of their income into a general pool at all time. Otherwise, the amount of gaming that the system allows for is atrocious.</p><p>Lastly, you mention lifestyle having a big impact on health. Let me clue you in on something else: an active lifestyle leads to a ton of injuries as well. Spraining an ankle can happen easily during any activity involving walking. Breaking a bone is easily done when falling for whatever reason. That means that there is nothing that you can do to guarantee an injury and disease-free lifestyle. You can merely change the odds in your favor. But if shit happens, you still have to pay. And shit will happen to somebody. Are you willing to abandon somebody just because they got unlucky?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do , however , live in a society and profit off of the work of others .
At its most basic , you profit off of someone else enlisting in the army for you .
You profit off of someone else spending 30 years in school to become a doctor .
You profit off of someone else being on call for 48 hours straight in a firehouse .
All of these examples - and there are a million more if you want to hear them - require that you pay for someone else to perform a service that you may or may not need .
But the mere existence of the service vastly improves your quality of life .
In short , you 're paying into a pool of money so that your quality of life gets raised along with everyone else 's.Same with health insurance .
It can only work if everyone pays a certain amount of their income into a general pool at all time .
Otherwise , the amount of gaming that the system allows for is atrocious.Lastly , you mention lifestyle having a big impact on health .
Let me clue you in on something else : an active lifestyle leads to a ton of injuries as well .
Spraining an ankle can happen easily during any activity involving walking .
Breaking a bone is easily done when falling for whatever reason .
That means that there is nothing that you can do to guarantee an injury and disease-free lifestyle .
You can merely change the odds in your favor .
But if shit happens , you still have to pay .
And shit will happen to somebody .
Are you willing to abandon somebody just because they got unlucky ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do, however, live in a society and profit off of the work of others.
At its most basic, you profit off of someone else enlisting in the army for you.
You profit off of someone else spending 30 years in school to become a doctor.
You profit off of someone else being on call for 48 hours straight in a firehouse.
All of these examples - and there are a million more if you want to hear them - require that you pay for someone else to perform a service that you may or may not need.
But the mere existence of the service vastly improves your quality of life.
In short, you're paying into a pool of money so that your quality of life gets raised along with everyone else's.Same with health insurance.
It can only work if everyone pays a certain amount of their income into a general pool at all time.
Otherwise, the amount of gaming that the system allows for is atrocious.Lastly, you mention lifestyle having a big impact on health.
Let me clue you in on something else: an active lifestyle leads to a ton of injuries as well.
Spraining an ankle can happen easily during any activity involving walking.
Breaking a bone is easily done when falling for whatever reason.
That means that there is nothing that you can do to guarantee an injury and disease-free lifestyle.
You can merely change the odds in your favor.
But if shit happens, you still have to pay.
And shit will happen to somebody.
Are you willing to abandon somebody just because they got unlucky?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566424</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They forgot to mention "Death Panels!!!", but other than that this is a good summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They forgot to mention " Death Panels ! ! !
" , but other than that this is a good summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They forgot to mention "Death Panels!!!
", but other than that this is a good summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566774</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Constitution authorizes what the government can do, not what they cant.</p><p>Unless it states that they can do it, they shouldn't be able to without an amendment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Constitution authorizes what the government can do , not what they cant.Unless it states that they can do it , they should n't be able to without an amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Constitution authorizes what the government can do, not what they cant.Unless it states that they can do it, they shouldn't be able to without an amendment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572948</id>
	<title>You sad, delusional people</title>
	<author>jjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1269286440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every country that has universal health care pays less per capita for health care (an average of 40\% less), and gets better health care as measured by aggregate outcomes like life expectancy and infant mortality.  Got that?  We pay less and get more.</p><p>You pay more and get worse health care than every other first world country.  Quit raging about the talking points of the people making money off your backs and start pushing for real UHC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every country that has universal health care pays less per capita for health care ( an average of 40 \ % less ) , and gets better health care as measured by aggregate outcomes like life expectancy and infant mortality .
Got that ?
We pay less and get more.You pay more and get worse health care than every other first world country .
Quit raging about the talking points of the people making money off your backs and start pushing for real UHC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every country that has universal health care pays less per capita for health care (an average of 40\% less), and gets better health care as measured by aggregate outcomes like life expectancy and infant mortality.
Got that?
We pay less and get more.You pay more and get worse health care than every other first world country.
Quit raging about the talking points of the people making money off your backs and start pushing for real UHC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567914</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269271560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."</p><p>Health care falls under the 'promote the general Welfare' portion of the preamble, or are you one of those people who explicitly exclude the preamble of the Constitution from the Constitution itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We the People of the United States , in Order to form a more perfect Union , establish Justice , insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defence , promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America .
" Health care falls under the 'promote the general Welfare ' portion of the preamble , or are you one of those people who explicitly exclude the preamble of the Constitution from the Constitution itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"Health care falls under the 'promote the general Welfare' portion of the preamble, or are you one of those people who explicitly exclude the preamble of the Constitution from the Constitution itself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571016</id>
	<title>trying to do everything, we accomplish nothing</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1269280620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clinton tried to fix everything that was wrong with healthcare in one fell swoop.   That didn't work out too hot.  Would we be in this stew if they had adopted a more conservative approach, one that could be tweaked and revised over 15 years?</p><p>Yes, there are flaws in the plan that will only be uncovered as it goes into effect.  However, the law is not stone, future Congresses will be able to use these reforms as a base which they can improve.</p><p>And perhaps the funding wont work out like the CBO predicts, but it might.  It might work out even better than their predictions.  (That's why they're called predictions.)</p><p>But health care is a tightening noose around this country's economy.  We could ignore it for fear that rising debt and inflation will eventually choke us to death, but it seems like those dangers are much further off in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clinton tried to fix everything that was wrong with healthcare in one fell swoop .
That did n't work out too hot .
Would we be in this stew if they had adopted a more conservative approach , one that could be tweaked and revised over 15 years ? Yes , there are flaws in the plan that will only be uncovered as it goes into effect .
However , the law is not stone , future Congresses will be able to use these reforms as a base which they can improve.And perhaps the funding wont work out like the CBO predicts , but it might .
It might work out even better than their predictions .
( That 's why they 're called predictions .
) But health care is a tightening noose around this country 's economy .
We could ignore it for fear that rising debt and inflation will eventually choke us to death , but it seems like those dangers are much further off in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clinton tried to fix everything that was wrong with healthcare in one fell swoop.
That didn't work out too hot.
Would we be in this stew if they had adopted a more conservative approach, one that could be tweaked and revised over 15 years?Yes, there are flaws in the plan that will only be uncovered as it goes into effect.
However, the law is not stone, future Congresses will be able to use these reforms as a base which they can improve.And perhaps the funding wont work out like the CBO predicts, but it might.
It might work out even better than their predictions.
(That's why they're called predictions.
)But health care is a tightening noose around this country's economy.
We could ignore it for fear that rising debt and inflation will eventually choke us to death, but it seems like those dangers are much further off in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573558</id>
	<title>Here's a clip on YouTube about the bill</title>
	<author>knuckledraegger</author>
	<datestamp>1269288720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look, we are all smart enough to know that there are SOME things about our health care system that need to be addressed.  However, a majority of Americans DO NOT WANT the government involved in our health care.  Poll after poll shows us about 65 percent of Americans don't believe the government needs to be involved in health care.

Do you realize that it will take LESS THAN 300 PEOPLE in Washington to pass a healthcare bill and make it law?  The other 300 MILLION of us have to live with the rules pushed on us by these 300 Nanny politicians.  In other words, regardless of the views of a majority of Americans, these 300 people will decide what is best for YOUR FAMILY.

Here is a 10-minute clip on YouTube about the Healthcare bill (H.R. 3200).  This is a point by point description in "non legal-speak" on the Government Healthcare plan taken from the actual proposed bill.  I usually don't pass things like this around, but in this case I believe we have to know what is being agreed to by these 300 people behind closed doors.  I know it may be tough to watch a 10-minute clip, but this is highly worth your time.  Here's the link:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8</a> [youtube.com]

Unfortunately, our so-called "representatives" REFUSE to listen to us on this issue.  You know the stories about them.  If a plan like this does pass and it has the tragic effect that so many people expect, hopefully the American voter will vote these 300 politicians out of office in the next election.  Most voters have a negative view of the federal government, but still continue voting for "their" incumbent locally.  If YOUR "incumbent" is one of these 300, it is time to use your vote to send these Nanny politicians to the unemployment line.  Hopefully, it isn't too late for the majority of us to make a difference!  Please view the clip and pass it on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , we are all smart enough to know that there are SOME things about our health care system that need to be addressed .
However , a majority of Americans DO NOT WANT the government involved in our health care .
Poll after poll shows us about 65 percent of Americans do n't believe the government needs to be involved in health care .
Do you realize that it will take LESS THAN 300 PEOPLE in Washington to pass a healthcare bill and make it law ?
The other 300 MILLION of us have to live with the rules pushed on us by these 300 Nanny politicians .
In other words , regardless of the views of a majority of Americans , these 300 people will decide what is best for YOUR FAMILY .
Here is a 10-minute clip on YouTube about the Healthcare bill ( H.R .
3200 ) . This is a point by point description in " non legal-speak " on the Government Healthcare plan taken from the actual proposed bill .
I usually do n't pass things like this around , but in this case I believe we have to know what is being agreed to by these 300 people behind closed doors .
I know it may be tough to watch a 10-minute clip , but this is highly worth your time .
Here 's the link : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = HcBaSP31Be8 [ youtube.com ] Unfortunately , our so-called " representatives " REFUSE to listen to us on this issue .
You know the stories about them .
If a plan like this does pass and it has the tragic effect that so many people expect , hopefully the American voter will vote these 300 politicians out of office in the next election .
Most voters have a negative view of the federal government , but still continue voting for " their " incumbent locally .
If YOUR " incumbent " is one of these 300 , it is time to use your vote to send these Nanny politicians to the unemployment line .
Hopefully , it is n't too late for the majority of us to make a difference !
Please view the clip and pass it on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, we are all smart enough to know that there are SOME things about our health care system that need to be addressed.
However, a majority of Americans DO NOT WANT the government involved in our health care.
Poll after poll shows us about 65 percent of Americans don't believe the government needs to be involved in health care.
Do you realize that it will take LESS THAN 300 PEOPLE in Washington to pass a healthcare bill and make it law?
The other 300 MILLION of us have to live with the rules pushed on us by these 300 Nanny politicians.
In other words, regardless of the views of a majority of Americans, these 300 people will decide what is best for YOUR FAMILY.
Here is a 10-minute clip on YouTube about the Healthcare bill (H.R.
3200).  This is a point by point description in "non legal-speak" on the Government Healthcare plan taken from the actual proposed bill.
I usually don't pass things like this around, but in this case I believe we have to know what is being agreed to by these 300 people behind closed doors.
I know it may be tough to watch a 10-minute clip, but this is highly worth your time.
Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8 [youtube.com]

Unfortunately, our so-called "representatives" REFUSE to listen to us on this issue.
You know the stories about them.
If a plan like this does pass and it has the tragic effect that so many people expect, hopefully the American voter will vote these 300 politicians out of office in the next election.
Most voters have a negative view of the federal government, but still continue voting for "their" incumbent locally.
If YOUR "incumbent" is one of these 300, it is time to use your vote to send these Nanny politicians to the unemployment line.
Hopefully, it isn't too late for the majority of us to make a difference!
Please view the clip and pass it on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568748</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1269273720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed but, to play devil's advocate, doesn't that describe almost every country. By that definition, the only non-Socialist country would be one with almost complete anarchy or a tiny government that only handles things like international diplomacy, but doesn't collect taxes or actually run anything. And a term like 'socialist' would be fairly meaningless if it described almost everyone.</p><p>I think the US is still relatively 'un-socialised' compared to most other Western countries (particularly European). The government 'does' less, and has less of a hand in things in the US than it does in most of Europe. The flip side of this though is that the US collects considerably less of its citizens money in taxes -</p><p>This data is a bit old (2005) but check out the green (personal tax) line. The US is towards the top of the list of low-taxing developed countries. I suppose at its core, this is what issues like this are about - do you prefer to pay more in tax but have more stuff provided free to you? Or keep more of your money but have to pay more in day to day life? Advantage of the former is convenience and efficiency, advantage of the latter is that it potentially could be cheaper overall since you have more choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed but , to play devil 's advocate , does n't that describe almost every country .
By that definition , the only non-Socialist country would be one with almost complete anarchy or a tiny government that only handles things like international diplomacy , but does n't collect taxes or actually run anything .
And a term like 'socialist ' would be fairly meaningless if it described almost everyone.I think the US is still relatively 'un-socialised ' compared to most other Western countries ( particularly European ) .
The government 'does ' less , and has less of a hand in things in the US than it does in most of Europe .
The flip side of this though is that the US collects considerably less of its citizens money in taxes -This data is a bit old ( 2005 ) but check out the green ( personal tax ) line .
The US is towards the top of the list of low-taxing developed countries .
I suppose at its core , this is what issues like this are about - do you prefer to pay more in tax but have more stuff provided free to you ?
Or keep more of your money but have to pay more in day to day life ?
Advantage of the former is convenience and efficiency , advantage of the latter is that it potentially could be cheaper overall since you have more choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed but, to play devil's advocate, doesn't that describe almost every country.
By that definition, the only non-Socialist country would be one with almost complete anarchy or a tiny government that only handles things like international diplomacy, but doesn't collect taxes or actually run anything.
And a term like 'socialist' would be fairly meaningless if it described almost everyone.I think the US is still relatively 'un-socialised' compared to most other Western countries (particularly European).
The government 'does' less, and has less of a hand in things in the US than it does in most of Europe.
The flip side of this though is that the US collects considerably less of its citizens money in taxes -This data is a bit old (2005) but check out the green (personal tax) line.
The US is towards the top of the list of low-taxing developed countries.
I suppose at its core, this is what issues like this are about - do you prefer to pay more in tax but have more stuff provided free to you?
Or keep more of your money but have to pay more in day to day life?
Advantage of the former is convenience and efficiency, advantage of the latter is that it potentially could be cheaper overall since you have more choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568618</id>
	<title>Re:I'm fairly sure a brain is not required either</title>
	<author>Zer0xChan</author>
	<datestamp>1269273360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Socialism != communism is not completely true if you take a closer look at the base principles between the two forms of governemnt. The base principle for socialism lies in the theory that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, etc in the community. However socialism is also the stage in Marxist theory on the road towards communism that is still highlighted by the socialist values and ideas where such 'sharing' of property, land, money, etc is controlled by a totalitarian state, the government.

Calling people against universal health care fascists if facetious at best</htmltext>
<tokenext>Socialism ! = communism is not completely true if you take a closer look at the base principles between the two forms of governemnt .
The base principle for socialism lies in the theory that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution , etc in the community .
However socialism is also the stage in Marxist theory on the road towards communism that is still highlighted by the socialist values and ideas where such 'sharing ' of property , land , money , etc is controlled by a totalitarian state , the government .
Calling people against universal health care fascists if facetious at best</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Socialism != communism is not completely true if you take a closer look at the base principles between the two forms of governemnt.
The base principle for socialism lies in the theory that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, etc in the community.
However socialism is also the stage in Marxist theory on the road towards communism that is still highlighted by the socialist values and ideas where such 'sharing' of property, land, money, etc is controlled by a totalitarian state, the government.
Calling people against universal health care fascists if facetious at best</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31615198</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1269546420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sheph,</p><p>They did not create another bureaucracy, the IRS will administer the tax/fine.  By nearly all accounts I've seen the cost of litigation is less than 1\% of total spending on health care.  The largest amount I've ever seen attributed to this is about 1.5\%.  Also I believe one of the provisions of the bill is that health insurance companies will be required to spend either 80 or 85 cents of every dollar they receive in premiums on covering their clients, in effect a cap on their profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sheph,They did not create another bureaucracy , the IRS will administer the tax/fine .
By nearly all accounts I 've seen the cost of litigation is less than 1 \ % of total spending on health care .
The largest amount I 've ever seen attributed to this is about 1.5 \ % .
Also I believe one of the provisions of the bill is that health insurance companies will be required to spend either 80 or 85 cents of every dollar they receive in premiums on covering their clients , in effect a cap on their profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sheph,They did not create another bureaucracy, the IRS will administer the tax/fine.
By nearly all accounts I've seen the cost of litigation is less than 1\% of total spending on health care.
The largest amount I've ever seen attributed to this is about 1.5\%.
Also I believe one of the provisions of the bill is that health insurance companies will be required to spend either 80 or 85 cents of every dollar they receive in premiums on covering their clients, in effect a cap on their profits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568642</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1269273480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And then there's the issue that women will now be required to purchase abortion coverage separately because the government is forbidden to pay for that procedure.</p></div><p>One of the significant aspects about the abortion coverage issue is that because it's an executive order rather than in the bill, Obama (or some future president) could reverse it any time they wanted to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then there 's the issue that women will now be required to purchase abortion coverage separately because the government is forbidden to pay for that procedure.One of the significant aspects about the abortion coverage issue is that because it 's an executive order rather than in the bill , Obama ( or some future president ) could reverse it any time they wanted to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then there's the issue that women will now be required to purchase abortion coverage separately because the government is forbidden to pay for that procedure.One of the significant aspects about the abortion coverage issue is that because it's an executive order rather than in the bill, Obama (or some future president) could reverse it any time they wanted to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568690</id>
	<title>America gets fucked again</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1269273600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now it is mandatory to pay for this shit? We have a system for paying for federally provided services, it is called income tax. It is already designed to use a fair and progressive system to spread costs.</p><p>Grow a damn pair of balls and provide no premium insurance and fund it 100\% via the existing tax system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now it is mandatory to pay for this shit ?
We have a system for paying for federally provided services , it is called income tax .
It is already designed to use a fair and progressive system to spread costs.Grow a damn pair of balls and provide no premium insurance and fund it 100 \ % via the existing tax system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now it is mandatory to pay for this shit?
We have a system for paying for federally provided services, it is called income tax.
It is already designed to use a fair and progressive system to spread costs.Grow a damn pair of balls and provide no premium insurance and fund it 100\% via the existing tax system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573352</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where would these people go? One of those commie pinko socialist hellholes that already have a working universal healthcare system, like Canada? Maybe that bastion of libertarian values Somalia is taking applications?</p><p>Please tell your right wing media nutcases to stay put. They won't be happy here and the rest of us sure as hell don't want them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where would these people go ?
One of those commie pinko socialist hellholes that already have a working universal healthcare system , like Canada ?
Maybe that bastion of libertarian values Somalia is taking applications ? Please tell your right wing media nutcases to stay put .
They wo n't be happy here and the rest of us sure as hell do n't want them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where would these people go?
One of those commie pinko socialist hellholes that already have a working universal healthcare system, like Canada?
Maybe that bastion of libertarian values Somalia is taking applications?Please tell your right wing media nutcases to stay put.
They won't be happy here and the rest of us sure as hell don't want them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578384</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>Zancarius</author>
	<datestamp>1269268380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wouldn't call it irony, I'd call it hypocracy. Ever notice that most "right to life" people are also for the death penalty, and most "pro-choice" people are fine with drugs being illegal?</p></div></blockquote><p>Eh, it happens on both sides of the fence. "Pro-choice" supporters (in terms of abortions) tend not to like the idea of criminals being put to death for rather gruesome crimes yet don't even flinch at the thought of aborting a fetus*. Personally? I don't see a problem with murderers and rapists being executed. They generally can't be rehabilitated and usually wind up committing further offenses. Putting them out of our misery would save jailing costs in the end. But that's a whole 'nother argument, and I can even see cases where it might be appropriate to sentence them to life without parole.</p><p>* And yes, I'm aware of the argument of whether the fetus is considered a child or not. I don't intend to raise that bit of the debate. I simply want to make a point that the hypocrisy exists on both sides, and I happen to be biased (and admit it). (I also find your journal fascinating; while I don't agree with your politics, it's enlightening to read an opposing view. Thank you.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call it irony , I 'd call it hypocracy .
Ever notice that most " right to life " people are also for the death penalty , and most " pro-choice " people are fine with drugs being illegal ? Eh , it happens on both sides of the fence .
" Pro-choice " supporters ( in terms of abortions ) tend not to like the idea of criminals being put to death for rather gruesome crimes yet do n't even flinch at the thought of aborting a fetus * .
Personally ? I do n't see a problem with murderers and rapists being executed .
They generally ca n't be rehabilitated and usually wind up committing further offenses .
Putting them out of our misery would save jailing costs in the end .
But that 's a whole 'nother argument , and I can even see cases where it might be appropriate to sentence them to life without parole .
* And yes , I 'm aware of the argument of whether the fetus is considered a child or not .
I do n't intend to raise that bit of the debate .
I simply want to make a point that the hypocrisy exists on both sides , and I happen to be biased ( and admit it ) .
( I also find your journal fascinating ; while I do n't agree with your politics , it 's enlightening to read an opposing view .
Thank you .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call it irony, I'd call it hypocracy.
Ever notice that most "right to life" people are also for the death penalty, and most "pro-choice" people are fine with drugs being illegal?Eh, it happens on both sides of the fence.
"Pro-choice" supporters (in terms of abortions) tend not to like the idea of criminals being put to death for rather gruesome crimes yet don't even flinch at the thought of aborting a fetus*.
Personally? I don't see a problem with murderers and rapists being executed.
They generally can't be rehabilitated and usually wind up committing further offenses.
Putting them out of our misery would save jailing costs in the end.
But that's a whole 'nother argument, and I can even see cases where it might be appropriate to sentence them to life without parole.
* And yes, I'm aware of the argument of whether the fetus is considered a child or not.
I don't intend to raise that bit of the debate.
I simply want to make a point that the hypocrisy exists on both sides, and I happen to be biased (and admit it).
(I also find your journal fascinating; while I don't agree with your politics, it's enlightening to read an opposing view.
Thank you.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570936</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>curri</author>
	<datestamp>1269280320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Requirement that 85\% of insurance money is spent on care.<br>2. Insurance exchanges are regulated; not all policies qualify<br>3. They won't, but everybody will get a *minimal* level of care, much higher than the current one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Requirement that 85 \ % of insurance money is spent on care.2 .
Insurance exchanges are regulated ; not all policies qualify3 .
They wo n't , but everybody will get a * minimal * level of care , much higher than the current one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Requirement that 85\% of insurance money is spent on care.2.
Insurance exchanges are regulated; not all policies qualify3.
They won't, but everybody will get a *minimal* level of care, much higher than the current one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566874</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>digitalnoise615</author>
	<datestamp>1269268920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.</p></div></blockquote><p>Almost everybody thinks reform is needed. Almost nobody thinks that Congress is competent enough to make good reforms.</p></div><p>
Indeed, but if there comes a time when an industry that affects 99\% of a countries population refuses to reform voluntarily, then the government of the people must step in.  After all, this country was formed "...to promote the general welfare" of it's citizenry.
<br> <br>
The one thing that I find highly entertaining, yet sad, is that 95\% of those claiming this bill is Unconstitutional don't realize that A) it's not; and B) there is already established case law that supports the goals of this bill.  I don't agreed with all the provisions - but something HAD to be done, and now it has.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.Almost everybody thinks reform is needed .
Almost nobody thinks that Congress is competent enough to make good reforms .
Indeed , but if there comes a time when an industry that affects 99 \ % of a countries population refuses to reform voluntarily , then the government of the people must step in .
After all , this country was formed " ...to promote the general welfare " of it 's citizenry .
The one thing that I find highly entertaining , yet sad , is that 95 \ % of those claiming this bill is Unconstitutional do n't realize that A ) it 's not ; and B ) there is already established case law that supports the goals of this bill .
I do n't agreed with all the provisions - but something HAD to be done , and now it has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.Almost everybody thinks reform is needed.
Almost nobody thinks that Congress is competent enough to make good reforms.
Indeed, but if there comes a time when an industry that affects 99\% of a countries population refuses to reform voluntarily, then the government of the people must step in.
After all, this country was formed "...to promote the general welfare" of it's citizenry.
The one thing that I find highly entertaining, yet sad, is that 95\% of those claiming this bill is Unconstitutional don't realize that A) it's not; and B) there is already established case law that supports the goals of this bill.
I don't agreed with all the provisions - but something HAD to be done, and now it has.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566480</id>
	<title>The Healthcare Legislation</title>
	<author>guibaby</author>
	<datestamp>1269267900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I think the current legislation is an incredibly misguided approach, I think health care should be universal. So I am not sure. Is it better to have universal health care that is implemented poorly and will cost more than it&rsquo;s worth, or is it better to pass on this, until we can find someone who will do it right.</p><p>Universal Health Care:</p><p>My republican friends are probably screaming. "Oh my god, how can you even think about backing this socialist crap?!" Well, in my opinion, health is at least as important as education to society. We don't seem to have a problem with socialized education. Social programs are certainly not a foreign idea to our American Society and some of them work (arguably) quite well. Others, of course, are hopelessly broken.</p><p>I think everyone should have access to health care, just like everyone has access to education. I don&rsquo;t think anyone should have to decide between getting treatment for a medical condition and eating or having a place to live. I think it&rsquo;s sad and very telling that people, who live in places that do have universal healthcare, live longer healthier lives than Americans.</p><p>The main problem with the current legislation is that the primary concern does not seem to be providing healthcare, but rather protecting the business models of the AMA, the big insurance companies and the big drug companies. We can either have universal health coverage or we can continue to profit off of peoples health problems. We cannot do both.</p><p>The Free Market people are probably going nuts about this. &ldquo;Private Enterprise will do a better job than the government. There will be no incentives for medical innovation. The government makes everything more complex and more expensive. What about my ability to control my medical care?&rdquo; You may be right but I doubt it.<br>Private enterprise can do a better job for fewer people, but the government can do an adequate job for everyone. You see this in the education system. The government does OK with education. If you want more than the standard, you have to pay out of your pocket.<br>The government could create incentives, just like they have for military contractors. Private organizations (colleges, drug companies) could compete for money to experiment. Innovations that come from this would belong to the government. They could be managed for the benefit of everyone. If a company chooses to go it alone, and they have a huge success, the government could choose to reimburse them for their R&amp;D and they would be guaranteed a reasonable profit. This would get rid of the $1000 a month prescriptions and the $25K test because someone owns a patent for a gene.<br>Everything will be different if the government were to run it. There would be growing pains. But think of all the problems it would solve and all the money it would save. That&rsquo;s right I said save. Medicaid and Medicare would go away. The prisoner healthcare problem would be gone. Healthcare for Veterans would be exactly the same as everyone else. These things would no longer be part of anyone&rsquo;s budget problem.<br>You control your medical care? Really? So you must be really, really rich. My medical care is controlled by my insurance company. I am not sure how this is any different than it being controlled by the government.</p><p>How do we pay for it?</p><p>Well part of it would be paid for by cost savings. If you remove the profit margins from healthcare a huge amount of the cost disappears. With a single payer plan, the government is able to take advantage of huge economies of scale. Throw in the money from Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran healthcare, and prisoner healthcare, we get a bit farther toward paying the bill. The rest would have to be made up in either taxes or employer contributions. Between healthcare premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket expenses, I will end up spending more than $12k in healthcare costs. My job is probably putting in another $6k. That is $4500/person in my house. That is obscene and I am sure that ther</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I think the current legislation is an incredibly misguided approach , I think health care should be universal .
So I am not sure .
Is it better to have universal health care that is implemented poorly and will cost more than it    s worth , or is it better to pass on this , until we can find someone who will do it right.Universal Health Care : My republican friends are probably screaming .
" Oh my god , how can you even think about backing this socialist crap ? !
" Well , in my opinion , health is at least as important as education to society .
We do n't seem to have a problem with socialized education .
Social programs are certainly not a foreign idea to our American Society and some of them work ( arguably ) quite well .
Others , of course , are hopelessly broken.I think everyone should have access to health care , just like everyone has access to education .
I don    t think anyone should have to decide between getting treatment for a medical condition and eating or having a place to live .
I think it    s sad and very telling that people , who live in places that do have universal healthcare , live longer healthier lives than Americans.The main problem with the current legislation is that the primary concern does not seem to be providing healthcare , but rather protecting the business models of the AMA , the big insurance companies and the big drug companies .
We can either have universal health coverage or we can continue to profit off of peoples health problems .
We can not do both.The Free Market people are probably going nuts about this .
   Private Enterprise will do a better job than the government .
There will be no incentives for medical innovation .
The government makes everything more complex and more expensive .
What about my ability to control my medical care ?    You may be right but I doubt it.Private enterprise can do a better job for fewer people , but the government can do an adequate job for everyone .
You see this in the education system .
The government does OK with education .
If you want more than the standard , you have to pay out of your pocket.The government could create incentives , just like they have for military contractors .
Private organizations ( colleges , drug companies ) could compete for money to experiment .
Innovations that come from this would belong to the government .
They could be managed for the benefit of everyone .
If a company chooses to go it alone , and they have a huge success , the government could choose to reimburse them for their R&amp;D and they would be guaranteed a reasonable profit .
This would get rid of the $ 1000 a month prescriptions and the $ 25K test because someone owns a patent for a gene.Everything will be different if the government were to run it .
There would be growing pains .
But think of all the problems it would solve and all the money it would save .
That    s right I said save .
Medicaid and Medicare would go away .
The prisoner healthcare problem would be gone .
Healthcare for Veterans would be exactly the same as everyone else .
These things would no longer be part of anyone    s budget problem.You control your medical care ?
Really ? So you must be really , really rich .
My medical care is controlled by my insurance company .
I am not sure how this is any different than it being controlled by the government.How do we pay for it ? Well part of it would be paid for by cost savings .
If you remove the profit margins from healthcare a huge amount of the cost disappears .
With a single payer plan , the government is able to take advantage of huge economies of scale .
Throw in the money from Medicare , Medicaid , Veteran healthcare , and prisoner healthcare , we get a bit farther toward paying the bill .
The rest would have to be made up in either taxes or employer contributions .
Between healthcare premiums , deductibles , co-pays and out of pocket expenses , I will end up spending more than $ 12k in healthcare costs .
My job is probably putting in another $ 6k .
That is $ 4500/person in my house .
That is obscene and I am sure that ther</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I think the current legislation is an incredibly misguided approach, I think health care should be universal.
So I am not sure.
Is it better to have universal health care that is implemented poorly and will cost more than it’s worth, or is it better to pass on this, until we can find someone who will do it right.Universal Health Care:My republican friends are probably screaming.
"Oh my god, how can you even think about backing this socialist crap?!
" Well, in my opinion, health is at least as important as education to society.
We don't seem to have a problem with socialized education.
Social programs are certainly not a foreign idea to our American Society and some of them work (arguably) quite well.
Others, of course, are hopelessly broken.I think everyone should have access to health care, just like everyone has access to education.
I don’t think anyone should have to decide between getting treatment for a medical condition and eating or having a place to live.
I think it’s sad and very telling that people, who live in places that do have universal healthcare, live longer healthier lives than Americans.The main problem with the current legislation is that the primary concern does not seem to be providing healthcare, but rather protecting the business models of the AMA, the big insurance companies and the big drug companies.
We can either have universal health coverage or we can continue to profit off of peoples health problems.
We cannot do both.The Free Market people are probably going nuts about this.
“Private Enterprise will do a better job than the government.
There will be no incentives for medical innovation.
The government makes everything more complex and more expensive.
What about my ability to control my medical care?” You may be right but I doubt it.Private enterprise can do a better job for fewer people, but the government can do an adequate job for everyone.
You see this in the education system.
The government does OK with education.
If you want more than the standard, you have to pay out of your pocket.The government could create incentives, just like they have for military contractors.
Private organizations (colleges, drug companies) could compete for money to experiment.
Innovations that come from this would belong to the government.
They could be managed for the benefit of everyone.
If a company chooses to go it alone, and they have a huge success, the government could choose to reimburse them for their R&amp;D and they would be guaranteed a reasonable profit.
This would get rid of the $1000 a month prescriptions and the $25K test because someone owns a patent for a gene.Everything will be different if the government were to run it.
There would be growing pains.
But think of all the problems it would solve and all the money it would save.
That’s right I said save.
Medicaid and Medicare would go away.
The prisoner healthcare problem would be gone.
Healthcare for Veterans would be exactly the same as everyone else.
These things would no longer be part of anyone’s budget problem.You control your medical care?
Really? So you must be really, really rich.
My medical care is controlled by my insurance company.
I am not sure how this is any different than it being controlled by the government.How do we pay for it?Well part of it would be paid for by cost savings.
If you remove the profit margins from healthcare a huge amount of the cost disappears.
With a single payer plan, the government is able to take advantage of huge economies of scale.
Throw in the money from Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran healthcare, and prisoner healthcare, we get a bit farther toward paying the bill.
The rest would have to be made up in either taxes or employer contributions.
Between healthcare premiums, deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket expenses, I will end up spending more than $12k in healthcare costs.
My job is probably putting in another $6k.
That is $4500/person in my house.
That is obscene and I am sure that ther</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571270</id>
	<title>Any part in the constitution that</title>
	<author>fadir</author>
	<datestamp>1269281340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gives you the right to have roads to walk/drive on or fire fighters to help you when your house is burning? Doubt that. So why are those 2 points more valid and important than a healthy population?</p><p>Gladly it's "shoved up your ass" because you are too cheap to help those that need it by yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gives you the right to have roads to walk/drive on or fire fighters to help you when your house is burning ?
Doubt that .
So why are those 2 points more valid and important than a healthy population ? Gladly it 's " shoved up your ass " because you are too cheap to help those that need it by yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gives you the right to have roads to walk/drive on or fire fighters to help you when your house is burning?
Doubt that.
So why are those 2 points more valid and important than a healthy population?Gladly it's "shoved up your ass" because you are too cheap to help those that need it by yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569950</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1269277140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It certainly does read the ninth and tenth amendments.</p><p>Additionally, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed which categorically includes healthcare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainly does read the ninth and tenth amendments.Additionally , the right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed which categorically includes healthcare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainly does read the ninth and tenth amendments.Additionally, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed which categorically includes healthcare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571308</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>StormReaver</author>
	<datestamp>1269281460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have heard that people like Rush Limbaugh have stated that they would leave the US if this bill was passed.</p></div><p>Oh, God, pretty please?</p><p>Unfortunately, he didn't say he wouldn't come back.  Damn, there's always a catch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have heard that people like Rush Limbaugh have stated that they would leave the US if this bill was passed.Oh , God , pretty please ? Unfortunately , he did n't say he would n't come back .
Damn , there 's always a catch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have heard that people like Rush Limbaugh have stated that they would leave the US if this bill was passed.Oh, God, pretty please?Unfortunately, he didn't say he wouldn't come back.
Damn, there's always a catch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580848</id>
	<title>hyperinflation, hello?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269340980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, 2196 comments and counting and not one mention of hyperinflation... My esteem of you "nerds" has just hit the floor. I hope someone in 10 years someone finds this comment and thinks: "What a dumb bunch we were"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , 2196 comments and counting and not one mention of hyperinflation... My esteem of you " nerds " has just hit the floor .
I hope someone in 10 years someone finds this comment and thinks : " What a dumb bunch we were " : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, 2196 comments and counting and not one mention of hyperinflation... My esteem of you "nerds" has just hit the floor.
I hope someone in 10 years someone finds this comment and thinks: "What a dumb bunch we were" :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571190</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1269281160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who oppose things "cause it's socialist!" really hate to be directed to all those things.</p><p>Have you seen the photo of a "keep the government out of my medicaid" sign floating around?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who oppose things " cause it 's socialist !
" really hate to be directed to all those things.Have you seen the photo of a " keep the government out of my medicaid " sign floating around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who oppose things "cause it's socialist!
" really hate to be directed to all those things.Have you seen the photo of a "keep the government out of my medicaid" sign floating around?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566526</id>
	<title>It is surprising to me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That intelligent people.... will fight so hard for other people's profits at their own expense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That intelligent people.... will fight so hard for other people 's profits at their own expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That intelligent people.... will fight so hard for other people's profits at their own expense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546</id>
	<title>Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedia)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
According to Wikipedia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Insurance</a> [wikipedia.org] is, "a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss".
</p><p>
But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions, I don't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore.  It is like selling "fire insurance" coverage for houses that are already on fire.  That is not really "insurance".
</p><p>
You can call the new health care legislation many things, but it is more in the nature of a new medical welfare program than any form of insurance as we know it, since it does not appear that costs are based on actuarial risks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Wikipedia , Insurance [ wikipedia.org ] is , " a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss " .
But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions , I do n't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore .
It is like selling " fire insurance " coverage for houses that are already on fire .
That is not really " insurance " .
You can call the new health care legislation many things , but it is more in the nature of a new medical welfare program than any form of insurance as we know it , since it does not appear that costs are based on actuarial risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
According to Wikipedia, Insurance [wikipedia.org] is, "a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss".
But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions, I don't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore.
It is like selling "fire insurance" coverage for houses that are already on fire.
That is not really "insurance".
You can call the new health care legislation many things, but it is more in the nature of a new medical welfare program than any form of insurance as we know it, since it does not appear that costs are based on actuarial risks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566440</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It seems that no one that posts on Slashdot understands what a "Right" is. Rights can NOT allow you to impose yourself on others. Go read some history books, guys.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Pretending that health care is a right does nothing but enslave the health care industry. Telling a group of people that everyone has a right to the services they provide is enslavement to the state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    It seems that no one that posts on Slashdot understands what a " Right " is .
Rights can NOT allow you to impose yourself on others .
Go read some history books , guys .
    Pretending that health care is a right does nothing but enslave the health care industry .
Telling a group of people that everyone has a right to the services they provide is enslavement to the state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    It seems that no one that posts on Slashdot understands what a "Right" is.
Rights can NOT allow you to impose yourself on others.
Go read some history books, guys.
    Pretending that health care is a right does nothing but enslave the health care industry.
Telling a group of people that everyone has a right to the services they provide is enslavement to the state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566416</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1269267720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite honestly, we need to get rid of those people like Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Fox networks. They do nothing good and are probably the main cause of current religious and racial influence on the political process in this country - besides also being a source for a lot of Comedy Central writers.</p><p>I would be glad if they left, so they can go live in a country without health care, where the government doesn't socialize or meddle with anything, where you are free to carry and use your guns. You know, places like Somalia, Iraq, Mexico or Sudan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite honestly , we need to get rid of those people like Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Fox networks .
They do nothing good and are probably the main cause of current religious and racial influence on the political process in this country - besides also being a source for a lot of Comedy Central writers.I would be glad if they left , so they can go live in a country without health care , where the government does n't socialize or meddle with anything , where you are free to carry and use your guns .
You know , places like Somalia , Iraq , Mexico or Sudan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite honestly, we need to get rid of those people like Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Fox networks.
They do nothing good and are probably the main cause of current religious and racial influence on the political process in this country - besides also being a source for a lot of Comedy Central writers.I would be glad if they left, so they can go live in a country without health care, where the government doesn't socialize or meddle with anything, where you are free to carry and use your guns.
You know, places like Somalia, Iraq, Mexico or Sudan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514</id>
	<title>I'm fairly sure a brain is not required either ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's why the Republicans, especially the Tea Party nutters, are still allowed to roam free.</p><p>Whoever is against a universal health care is the real fascist here. The Constitution is more than 200 years old, from a time when something like health care was unthinkable and usually the equivalent to a bottle of whiskey and a blunt hammer.<br>Being conservative is a good thing at times. But sometimes you need to accept that times change and that not everyone is running around with a colt on his hip anymore and doing justice by simply shooting the opponent.</p><p>I know that you Americans have trouble to see that social != communism (or whatever you think communism is).</p><p>"God's own country" - my ass! Did any of the die-hard christians over there ever read the bible (and understood it)? Then no one would even think a split second about universal health care anymore and simply do it because that's the core of all the stuff in that ancient book. I'm no christian at all but that's pretty much the only good thing in this book: taking care for each other, without looking at the bank account every time.</p><p>Damn you cheap bastards! One day it'll bite your butt to be so selfish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's why the Republicans , especially the Tea Party nutters , are still allowed to roam free.Whoever is against a universal health care is the real fascist here .
The Constitution is more than 200 years old , from a time when something like health care was unthinkable and usually the equivalent to a bottle of whiskey and a blunt hammer.Being conservative is a good thing at times .
But sometimes you need to accept that times change and that not everyone is running around with a colt on his hip anymore and doing justice by simply shooting the opponent.I know that you Americans have trouble to see that social ! = communism ( or whatever you think communism is ) .
" God 's own country " - my ass !
Did any of the die-hard christians over there ever read the bible ( and understood it ) ?
Then no one would even think a split second about universal health care anymore and simply do it because that 's the core of all the stuff in that ancient book .
I 'm no christian at all but that 's pretty much the only good thing in this book : taking care for each other , without looking at the bank account every time.Damn you cheap bastards !
One day it 'll bite your butt to be so selfish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's why the Republicans, especially the Tea Party nutters, are still allowed to roam free.Whoever is against a universal health care is the real fascist here.
The Constitution is more than 200 years old, from a time when something like health care was unthinkable and usually the equivalent to a bottle of whiskey and a blunt hammer.Being conservative is a good thing at times.
But sometimes you need to accept that times change and that not everyone is running around with a colt on his hip anymore and doing justice by simply shooting the opponent.I know that you Americans have trouble to see that social != communism (or whatever you think communism is).
"God's own country" - my ass!
Did any of the die-hard christians over there ever read the bible (and understood it)?
Then no one would even think a split second about universal health care anymore and simply do it because that's the core of all the stuff in that ancient book.
I'm no christian at all but that's pretty much the only good thing in this book: taking care for each other, without looking at the bank account every time.Damn you cheap bastards!
One day it'll bite your butt to be so selfish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567544</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymatt</author>
	<datestamp>1269270600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll have to start consuming more healthcare for the rabid dog problem we're having. "An ounce of prevention..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll have to start consuming more healthcare for the rabid dog problem we 're having .
" An ounce of prevention... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll have to start consuming more healthcare for the rabid dog problem we're having.
"An ounce of prevention..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566636</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269268320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(sigh).  FIXED AGAIN:</p><p>Never mind.  I don't feel like typing a whole script.  But let me share MY viewpoint of the situation:  -  The Senate Bill passed the Senate 60-to-whatever.  In the Senate 60 votes have been required since time immemorial.  Even Senator Obama said that during his time in the Senate, and he REFUSED to change the rule during his time there.</p><p>Next the Democrats questioned if they even need to vote.  Pelosi said she could just "deem" it passed without a rollcall vote!   Then she changed her mind but even the fact she Considered it makes me question her honesty or legality.   -----   Now the bill has passed the House, which means the Senate has to vote a SECOND time on the revised bill, per the Constitution and 200-yr-old tradition.  The Democrats say 51 is enough, but the Republicans naturally question if the bill could pass, PER THE RULES which require 60.</p><p>The Republicans are merely trying to follow the laws of the House and Senate, while the Democrats seem intent upon "deeming" the laws unnecessary (like they deem the Constitution as non-existent) and ignoring all parliamentary procedure, including not taking votes (Slaughter rule).  It reminds me of this scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecn0BgX-hg&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecn0BgX-hg&amp;feature=related</a> [youtube.com] -  Ignore the vote, ignore the law, just shove it through.</p><p>Anyway that's my view from the sidelines.</p><p>Bottom Line: I expect this Pelosicare government Welfare-style program to be as corrupt as the non-legal corrupt process that produced it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( sigh ) .
FIXED AGAIN : Never mind .
I do n't feel like typing a whole script .
But let me share MY viewpoint of the situation : - The Senate Bill passed the Senate 60-to-whatever .
In the Senate 60 votes have been required since time immemorial .
Even Senator Obama said that during his time in the Senate , and he REFUSED to change the rule during his time there.Next the Democrats questioned if they even need to vote .
Pelosi said she could just " deem " it passed without a rollcall vote !
Then she changed her mind but even the fact she Considered it makes me question her honesty or legality .
----- Now the bill has passed the House , which means the Senate has to vote a SECOND time on the revised bill , per the Constitution and 200-yr-old tradition .
The Democrats say 51 is enough , but the Republicans naturally question if the bill could pass , PER THE RULES which require 60.The Republicans are merely trying to follow the laws of the House and Senate , while the Democrats seem intent upon " deeming " the laws unnecessary ( like they deem the Constitution as non-existent ) and ignoring all parliamentary procedure , including not taking votes ( Slaughter rule ) .
It reminds me of this scene : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = -ecn0BgX-hg&amp;feature = related [ youtube.com ] - Ignore the vote , ignore the law , just shove it through.Anyway that 's my view from the sidelines.Bottom Line : I expect this Pelosicare government Welfare-style program to be as corrupt as the non-legal corrupt process that produced it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(sigh).
FIXED AGAIN:Never mind.
I don't feel like typing a whole script.
But let me share MY viewpoint of the situation:  -  The Senate Bill passed the Senate 60-to-whatever.
In the Senate 60 votes have been required since time immemorial.
Even Senator Obama said that during his time in the Senate, and he REFUSED to change the rule during his time there.Next the Democrats questioned if they even need to vote.
Pelosi said she could just "deem" it passed without a rollcall vote!
Then she changed her mind but even the fact she Considered it makes me question her honesty or legality.
-----   Now the bill has passed the House, which means the Senate has to vote a SECOND time on the revised bill, per the Constitution and 200-yr-old tradition.
The Democrats say 51 is enough, but the Republicans naturally question if the bill could pass, PER THE RULES which require 60.The Republicans are merely trying to follow the laws of the House and Senate, while the Democrats seem intent upon "deeming" the laws unnecessary (like they deem the Constitution as non-existent) and ignoring all parliamentary procedure, including not taking votes (Slaughter rule).
It reminds me of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecn0BgX-hg&amp;feature=related [youtube.com] -  Ignore the vote, ignore the law, just shove it through.Anyway that's my view from the sidelines.Bottom Line: I expect this Pelosicare government Welfare-style program to be as corrupt as the non-legal corrupt process that produced it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579786</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269282060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As somebody who already can't afford health insurance, I find the fact that I may soon be subject to a fine for still being too poor to pay for health insurance galling.</p><p>You can choose not to drive. I can't choose not to be a person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As somebody who already ca n't afford health insurance , I find the fact that I may soon be subject to a fine for still being too poor to pay for health insurance galling.You can choose not to drive .
I ca n't choose not to be a person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As somebody who already can't afford health insurance, I find the fact that I may soon be subject to a fine for still being too poor to pay for health insurance galling.You can choose not to drive.
I can't choose not to be a person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570224</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1269277920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The problem with the Republicans on this issue is that they have been complete obstructionists.  They may well have had excellent proposals, but they didn't even try to implement them in the six years in which they controlled the Senate, House, and White House.  They didn't do anything towards it in the six years they controlled Congress while Clinton was President, or the two years in which Bush was President, the House was Democrat, and the Senate was split.  They offered no support to the current bill, under any circumstances.  They took themselves completely out of the process; while the blame isn't entirely theirs this Congress, they had plenty of opportunities earlier, and Obama was at least willing to talk to them.
</p><p>
I'm not real happy with the bill that got passed, but it's not a disaster.  It's the first step towards decent reform, and in my opinion is actually a step forward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the Republicans on this issue is that they have been complete obstructionists .
They may well have had excellent proposals , but they did n't even try to implement them in the six years in which they controlled the Senate , House , and White House .
They did n't do anything towards it in the six years they controlled Congress while Clinton was President , or the two years in which Bush was President , the House was Democrat , and the Senate was split .
They offered no support to the current bill , under any circumstances .
They took themselves completely out of the process ; while the blame is n't entirely theirs this Congress , they had plenty of opportunities earlier , and Obama was at least willing to talk to them .
I 'm not real happy with the bill that got passed , but it 's not a disaster .
It 's the first step towards decent reform , and in my opinion is actually a step forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The problem with the Republicans on this issue is that they have been complete obstructionists.
They may well have had excellent proposals, but they didn't even try to implement them in the six years in which they controlled the Senate, House, and White House.
They didn't do anything towards it in the six years they controlled Congress while Clinton was President, or the two years in which Bush was President, the House was Democrat, and the Senate was split.
They offered no support to the current bill, under any circumstances.
They took themselves completely out of the process; while the blame isn't entirely theirs this Congress, they had plenty of opportunities earlier, and Obama was at least willing to talk to them.
I'm not real happy with the bill that got passed, but it's not a disaster.
It's the first step towards decent reform, and in my opinion is actually a step forward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568390</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1269272820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From what I have been reading, these have been the biggest issues with US health care, does the bill do anything about this?</p></div></blockquote><p>The bill does essentially nothing to fix those issues.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Making sure 'everyone has something' seems to be a drop in the bucket to me; or am I missing something?</p></div></blockquote><p>Nope, you've hit the nail squarely on the head.  This bill does nothing to control health care costs or to improve access to medical care.  It's actually a massive expansion of welfare combined with minor regulations on the insurance industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I have been reading , these have been the biggest issues with US health care , does the bill do anything about this ? The bill does essentially nothing to fix those issues .
  Making sure 'everyone has something ' seems to be a drop in the bucket to me ; or am I missing something ? Nope , you 've hit the nail squarely on the head .
This bill does nothing to control health care costs or to improve access to medical care .
It 's actually a massive expansion of welfare combined with minor regulations on the insurance industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I have been reading, these have been the biggest issues with US health care, does the bill do anything about this?The bill does essentially nothing to fix those issues.
  Making sure 'everyone has something' seems to be a drop in the bucket to me; or am I missing something?Nope, you've hit the nail squarely on the head.
This bill does nothing to control health care costs or to improve access to medical care.
It's actually a massive expansion of welfare combined with minor regulations on the insurance industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569262</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269275040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."</p><p>Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the "general welfare" of American citizens?</p></div><p>"Promote" does not mean "provide". It means to encourage rather than require. This is an important distinction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We the People of the United States , in Order to form a more perfect Union , establish Justice , insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defence , promote the general Welfare... " Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the " general welfare " of American citizens ?
" Promote " does not mean " provide " .
It means to encourage rather than require .
This is an important distinction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the "general welfare" of American citizens?
"Promote" does not mean "provide".
It means to encourage rather than require.
This is an important distinction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577596</id>
	<title>In welfare state, health care degrades</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269263040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and people eventually start dying because they cannot actually get care they are "entitled" to, on time or at all.</p><p>Innovation needs free movement of capital. Welfare states reduce both the capital with taxes and freedom with regulation. As a result, they fail at innovation. Do you think the USSR *wanted* to lose the hi-tech race? Yet it did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and people eventually start dying because they can not actually get care they are " entitled " to , on time or at all.Innovation needs free movement of capital .
Welfare states reduce both the capital with taxes and freedom with regulation .
As a result , they fail at innovation .
Do you think the USSR * wanted * to lose the hi-tech race ?
Yet it did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and people eventually start dying because they cannot actually get care they are "entitled" to, on time or at all.Innovation needs free movement of capital.
Welfare states reduce both the capital with taxes and freedom with regulation.
As a result, they fail at innovation.
Do you think the USSR *wanted* to lose the hi-tech race?
Yet it did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567984</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1269271740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too true! Kudos to whomever came up with this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too true !
Kudos to whomever came up with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too true!
Kudos to whomever came up with this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568928</id>
	<title>it is unconstitutional</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1269274140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the federal government can not force anyone or everyone to buy anything, not a TV, a particular brand of automobile or heath insurance, i hope this falls on its face before it gets implemented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the federal government can not force anyone or everyone to buy anything , not a TV , a particular brand of automobile or heath insurance , i hope this falls on its face before it gets implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the federal government can not force anyone or everyone to buy anything, not a TV, a particular brand of automobile or heath insurance, i hope this falls on its face before it gets implemented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569928</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1269277080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But where are they going to go? Liberals and socialists can go to most of the rest of the civilized world and live comfortably. Hell, just hop across the border to Canada. Where can the neo-cons and facists go? Mexico? Would Mexico take them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But where are they going to go ?
Liberals and socialists can go to most of the rest of the civilized world and live comfortably .
Hell , just hop across the border to Canada .
Where can the neo-cons and facists go ?
Mexico ? Would Mexico take them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But where are they going to go?
Liberals and socialists can go to most of the rest of the civilized world and live comfortably.
Hell, just hop across the border to Canada.
Where can the neo-cons and facists go?
Mexico? Would Mexico take them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566358</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>kenh</author>
	<datestamp>1269267600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>contrary to what Fox will tell you, it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.</p></div></blockquote><p>You believe that? Really? Put the doom and gloom aside, this bill will expand the definition of "covered children" to include adults up to 26 years old and will add all those millions of folks with pre-existing conditions to existing policies - both of those changes will drive up premiums.</p><p>Increased taxes, fines, and surcharges will also touch most Americans in their wallet.</p><p>It is also estimated to drive doctors out of the health care industry, not attract more doctors to field - that will impact many Americans as well.</p><p>You don't have to listen/trust Fox News, but you really should tune away from MSNBC from time to time...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>contrary to what Fox will tell you , it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.You believe that ?
Really ? Put the doom and gloom aside , this bill will expand the definition of " covered children " to include adults up to 26 years old and will add all those millions of folks with pre-existing conditions to existing policies - both of those changes will drive up premiums.Increased taxes , fines , and surcharges will also touch most Americans in their wallet.It is also estimated to drive doctors out of the health care industry , not attract more doctors to field - that will impact many Americans as well.You do n't have to listen/trust Fox News , but you really should tune away from MSNBC from time to time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>contrary to what Fox will tell you, it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.You believe that?
Really? Put the doom and gloom aside, this bill will expand the definition of "covered children" to include adults up to 26 years old and will add all those millions of folks with pre-existing conditions to existing policies - both of those changes will drive up premiums.Increased taxes, fines, and surcharges will also touch most Americans in their wallet.It is also estimated to drive doctors out of the health care industry, not attract more doctors to field - that will impact many Americans as well.You don't have to listen/trust Fox News, but you really should tune away from MSNBC from time to time...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567002</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually this would be more accurate:<br> <br>
Democrats/Republicans:  "We need health care reform."<br>
Republicans:  "I have some ideas."<br>
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down."<br>
American People:  "We have some questions."<br>
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down."<br>
American People:  "Now you lost Mass. (one of the most liberal voting state in the nation).  So stop this non-sense."<br>
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down."<br>
Republicans:  "We need to start over, this bill is just a POS."<br>
American People:  "Yeah, start over and get this right."<br>
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down."<br>
US Constitution:  "I think you need more votes to pass a bill."<br>
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down."<br>
American People:  "Kill the bill, kill the bill, kill the bill."<br>
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down.  Oh and by the way we won a great victory for the American people today..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually this would be more accurate : Democrats/Republicans : " We need health care reform .
" Republicans : " I have some ideas .
" Democrats : " Fuck you , sit down .
" American People : " We have some questions .
" Democrats : " Fuck you , sit down .
" American People : " Now you lost Mass .
( one of the most liberal voting state in the nation ) .
So stop this non-sense .
" Democrats : " Fuck you , sit down .
" Republicans : " We need to start over , this bill is just a POS .
" American People : " Yeah , start over and get this right .
" Democrats : " Fuck you , sit down .
" US Constitution : " I think you need more votes to pass a bill .
" Democrats : " Fuck you , sit down .
" American People : " Kill the bill , kill the bill , kill the bill .
" Democrats : " Fuck you , sit down .
Oh and by the way we won a great victory for the American people today... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually this would be more accurate: 
Democrats/Republicans:  "We need health care reform.
"
Republicans:  "I have some ideas.
"
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down.
"
American People:  "We have some questions.
"
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down.
"
American People:  "Now you lost Mass.
(one of the most liberal voting state in the nation).
So stop this non-sense.
"
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down.
"
Republicans:  "We need to start over, this bill is just a POS.
"
American People:  "Yeah, start over and get this right.
"
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down.
"
US Constitution:  "I think you need more votes to pass a bill.
"
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down.
"
American People:  "Kill the bill, kill the bill, kill the bill.
"
Democrats:  "Fuck you, sit down.
Oh and by the way we won a great victory for the American people today..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570584</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269279000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... You can't have a welfare system with cheaters.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Of course some will slip by and get away with it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>And you got modded +4, Insightful? Hrmm...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... You ca n't have a welfare system with cheaters .
... Of course some will slip by and get away with it ...And you got modded + 4 , Insightful ?
Hrmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... You can't have a welfare system with cheaters.
... Of course some will slip by and get away with it ...And you got modded +4, Insightful?
Hrmm...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568526</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1269273180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm seriously considering emigrating because of this thing. Not because I'm opposed to a government-mandated health care 100\%, but because I'm opposed to the way this bill goes about it. That and the fact that it's going to bankrupt our country much faster than would otherwise be the case (10 years instead of 60 years).</p><p>There are ways to achieve health care for a large population; forcing everyone to buy private insurance and preventing private insurance companies from denying coverage that's too expensive is not the way to go about it. I'd much rather have a system where the government provides a basic level of service (in a Federal system like the US, this should be at the state level, not the national) with secondary insurance or private funds to cover really expensive treatments than the bastardized plan the Congress just rammed down our throats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm seriously considering emigrating because of this thing .
Not because I 'm opposed to a government-mandated health care 100 \ % , but because I 'm opposed to the way this bill goes about it .
That and the fact that it 's going to bankrupt our country much faster than would otherwise be the case ( 10 years instead of 60 years ) .There are ways to achieve health care for a large population ; forcing everyone to buy private insurance and preventing private insurance companies from denying coverage that 's too expensive is not the way to go about it .
I 'd much rather have a system where the government provides a basic level of service ( in a Federal system like the US , this should be at the state level , not the national ) with secondary insurance or private funds to cover really expensive treatments than the bastardized plan the Congress just rammed down our throats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm seriously considering emigrating because of this thing.
Not because I'm opposed to a government-mandated health care 100\%, but because I'm opposed to the way this bill goes about it.
That and the fact that it's going to bankrupt our country much faster than would otherwise be the case (10 years instead of 60 years).There are ways to achieve health care for a large population; forcing everyone to buy private insurance and preventing private insurance companies from denying coverage that's too expensive is not the way to go about it.
I'd much rather have a system where the government provides a basic level of service (in a Federal system like the US, this should be at the state level, not the national) with secondary insurance or private funds to cover really expensive treatments than the bastardized plan the Congress just rammed down our throats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573014</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1269286740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"dying because of inadequate healthcare? "</p><p>What about people who are just plain unhealthy because of "choice". You know, the SUPERSIZE me crowd? Can we require them to have their stomach stapled? Require them to get physical exercise?</p><p>Until we can ALSO mandate lifestyle changes, why should anyone let alone all of society be required to cover people's quintuple bypass because they chose to eat at Mc Donalds for three meals a day?</p><p>Am I allowed to comment on the fat people buying crap food in the grocery stores and tell them to go to over-eaters anonymous?</p><p>We going to have Health Police write people up for reckless eating? WHY NOT???</p><p>How about responsibility? How about legislate some of that first? Oh right, poor people can't be responsible for themselves we have to take care of them for them, since they are incapable of it themselves. Welcome to the Nanny State!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" dying because of inadequate healthcare ?
" What about people who are just plain unhealthy because of " choice " .
You know , the SUPERSIZE me crowd ?
Can we require them to have their stomach stapled ?
Require them to get physical exercise ? Until we can ALSO mandate lifestyle changes , why should anyone let alone all of society be required to cover people 's quintuple bypass because they chose to eat at Mc Donalds for three meals a day ? Am I allowed to comment on the fat people buying crap food in the grocery stores and tell them to go to over-eaters anonymous ? We going to have Health Police write people up for reckless eating ?
WHY NOT ? ?
? How about responsibility ?
How about legislate some of that first ?
Oh right , poor people ca n't be responsible for themselves we have to take care of them for them , since they are incapable of it themselves .
Welcome to the Nanny State !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"dying because of inadequate healthcare?
"What about people who are just plain unhealthy because of "choice".
You know, the SUPERSIZE me crowd?
Can we require them to have their stomach stapled?
Require them to get physical exercise?Until we can ALSO mandate lifestyle changes, why should anyone let alone all of society be required to cover people's quintuple bypass because they chose to eat at Mc Donalds for three meals a day?Am I allowed to comment on the fat people buying crap food in the grocery stores and tell them to go to over-eaters anonymous?We going to have Health Police write people up for reckless eating?
WHY NOT??
?How about responsibility?
How about legislate some of that first?
Oh right, poor people can't be responsible for themselves we have to take care of them for them, since they are incapable of it themselves.
Welcome to the Nanny State!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31599754</id>
	<title>Re:My poor dog</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1269453480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[puts on canine professional hat with 40 years wear-and-tear]</p><p>Actually, you are wrong; let me explain what has been happening with veterinary costs, and please remember that I am a long-time pro dealing directly with this field, so I'm not pulling this out of my ass:</p><p>Until about 10 years ago, veterinary care was purely pay-as-you-go, and highly competitive, which kept both costs and prices down. Consequently, almost everyone could afford both basic *and* catastrophic care for their pets.</p><p>About 10 years ago, pet insurance came into the picture, and just as with human insurance, it wanted to be absolutely certain that every dollar it had to pay out was justified. So bills began getting itemized, and individualized charges appeared that had previously been lumped as "overhead" and absorbed by the clinic.</p><p>Despite that only about 1\% (yes, ONE percent) of pets are insured, vets were quick to see the much-higher profits available to them from this new billing system (not coincidentally, vet colleges began teaching "clinic economics" as a primary course and as the emphasis behind the entire profession).</p><p>So now instead of a simple bill reading</p><p>wound repair, $60</p><p>as it would have been before pet insurance, your bill reads more like:</p><p>office call, $40<br>15 minutes of triage @ $200/hour, $50<br>15 minutes of anaesthesia @ $200/hour, $50<br>30 minutes of surgical time @ $400/hour, $200<br>2 hours in recovery room @ $50/hour, $100<br>sutures, 2 packs @ $20 each, $40<br>needle pack, 2 packs @20 each, $40<br>antibiotics, 30 pills @ $2 each, $60<br>demerol, 2cc @ $15/cc, $30<br>autoclave pack, $20<br>sharps disposal, $5</p><p>and on and on and all of a sudden that $60 wound repair is a $600 bill that exactly emulates the charge structure from a human hospital bill, as submitted to the human insurance company. This despite that the veterinarian did the exact same work as before the new billing system.</p><p>This is why that most common of all veterinary surgical procedures, the uncomplicated spay, has gone from $60 to over $600 in less than 10 years (and recently I've heard prices as high as $1200 in metro areas).</p><p>[And if you know what these things actually cost, you realise that the same sort of inflation is being used as when a hospital charges you $300 for a box of kleenix: "sharps disposal" is just throwing a used needle into the plastic disposal container. These containers hold 1000 needles and sell for $3.95 at Costco.]</p><p>There was a good study recently that drew a strong correlation between how many layers of insurance came between you and your doctor, and the direct growth of costs to the patient. Turns out there was a big spike when health insurance came into play, and a much bigger spike with the birth of HMOs (which were brought into being by Senator Kennedy's legislation, and look where that got us to today).</p><p>I'm also old enough to remember when you could still do pay-as-you-go for human medicine, and how a hospital stay was, even adjusted for inflation, a matter of no more than $300/day (my actual cost for 2 days of hospitalization in 1972 was $200). Insurance and HMOs changed that, more than any other factors.</p><p>And here we just went and made the entire health system into one giant HMO, with no choices remaining outside that system. Mark my words, the ultimate cost to patients WILL go up yet again, even if it's disguised as taxes.</p><p>Now, are you still sure you wouldn't rather go back to the era of pay-as-you-go, and have coughed up only $60 to fix your dog's leg??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ puts on canine professional hat with 40 years wear-and-tear ] Actually , you are wrong ; let me explain what has been happening with veterinary costs , and please remember that I am a long-time pro dealing directly with this field , so I 'm not pulling this out of my ass : Until about 10 years ago , veterinary care was purely pay-as-you-go , and highly competitive , which kept both costs and prices down .
Consequently , almost everyone could afford both basic * and * catastrophic care for their pets.About 10 years ago , pet insurance came into the picture , and just as with human insurance , it wanted to be absolutely certain that every dollar it had to pay out was justified .
So bills began getting itemized , and individualized charges appeared that had previously been lumped as " overhead " and absorbed by the clinic.Despite that only about 1 \ % ( yes , ONE percent ) of pets are insured , vets were quick to see the much-higher profits available to them from this new billing system ( not coincidentally , vet colleges began teaching " clinic economics " as a primary course and as the emphasis behind the entire profession ) .So now instead of a simple bill readingwound repair , $ 60as it would have been before pet insurance , your bill reads more like : office call , $ 4015 minutes of triage @ $ 200/hour , $ 5015 minutes of anaesthesia @ $ 200/hour , $ 5030 minutes of surgical time @ $ 400/hour , $ 2002 hours in recovery room @ $ 50/hour , $ 100sutures , 2 packs @ $ 20 each , $ 40needle pack , 2 packs @ 20 each , $ 40antibiotics , 30 pills @ $ 2 each , $ 60demerol , 2cc @ $ 15/cc , $ 30autoclave pack , $ 20sharps disposal , $ 5and on and on and all of a sudden that $ 60 wound repair is a $ 600 bill that exactly emulates the charge structure from a human hospital bill , as submitted to the human insurance company .
This despite that the veterinarian did the exact same work as before the new billing system.This is why that most common of all veterinary surgical procedures , the uncomplicated spay , has gone from $ 60 to over $ 600 in less than 10 years ( and recently I 've heard prices as high as $ 1200 in metro areas ) .
[ And if you know what these things actually cost , you realise that the same sort of inflation is being used as when a hospital charges you $ 300 for a box of kleenix : " sharps disposal " is just throwing a used needle into the plastic disposal container .
These containers hold 1000 needles and sell for $ 3.95 at Costco .
] There was a good study recently that drew a strong correlation between how many layers of insurance came between you and your doctor , and the direct growth of costs to the patient .
Turns out there was a big spike when health insurance came into play , and a much bigger spike with the birth of HMOs ( which were brought into being by Senator Kennedy 's legislation , and look where that got us to today ) .I 'm also old enough to remember when you could still do pay-as-you-go for human medicine , and how a hospital stay was , even adjusted for inflation , a matter of no more than $ 300/day ( my actual cost for 2 days of hospitalization in 1972 was $ 200 ) .
Insurance and HMOs changed that , more than any other factors.And here we just went and made the entire health system into one giant HMO , with no choices remaining outside that system .
Mark my words , the ultimate cost to patients WILL go up yet again , even if it 's disguised as taxes.Now , are you still sure you would n't rather go back to the era of pay-as-you-go , and have coughed up only $ 60 to fix your dog 's leg ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[puts on canine professional hat with 40 years wear-and-tear]Actually, you are wrong; let me explain what has been happening with veterinary costs, and please remember that I am a long-time pro dealing directly with this field, so I'm not pulling this out of my ass:Until about 10 years ago, veterinary care was purely pay-as-you-go, and highly competitive, which kept both costs and prices down.
Consequently, almost everyone could afford both basic *and* catastrophic care for their pets.About 10 years ago, pet insurance came into the picture, and just as with human insurance, it wanted to be absolutely certain that every dollar it had to pay out was justified.
So bills began getting itemized, and individualized charges appeared that had previously been lumped as "overhead" and absorbed by the clinic.Despite that only about 1\% (yes, ONE percent) of pets are insured, vets were quick to see the much-higher profits available to them from this new billing system (not coincidentally, vet colleges began teaching "clinic economics" as a primary course and as the emphasis behind the entire profession).So now instead of a simple bill readingwound repair, $60as it would have been before pet insurance, your bill reads more like:office call, $4015 minutes of triage @ $200/hour, $5015 minutes of anaesthesia @ $200/hour, $5030 minutes of surgical time @ $400/hour, $2002 hours in recovery room @ $50/hour, $100sutures, 2 packs @ $20 each, $40needle pack, 2 packs @20 each, $40antibiotics, 30 pills @ $2 each, $60demerol, 2cc @ $15/cc, $30autoclave pack, $20sharps disposal, $5and on and on and all of a sudden that $60 wound repair is a $600 bill that exactly emulates the charge structure from a human hospital bill, as submitted to the human insurance company.
This despite that the veterinarian did the exact same work as before the new billing system.This is why that most common of all veterinary surgical procedures, the uncomplicated spay, has gone from $60 to over $600 in less than 10 years (and recently I've heard prices as high as $1200 in metro areas).
[And if you know what these things actually cost, you realise that the same sort of inflation is being used as when a hospital charges you $300 for a box of kleenix: "sharps disposal" is just throwing a used needle into the plastic disposal container.
These containers hold 1000 needles and sell for $3.95 at Costco.
]There was a good study recently that drew a strong correlation between how many layers of insurance came between you and your doctor, and the direct growth of costs to the patient.
Turns out there was a big spike when health insurance came into play, and a much bigger spike with the birth of HMOs (which were brought into being by Senator Kennedy's legislation, and look where that got us to today).I'm also old enough to remember when you could still do pay-as-you-go for human medicine, and how a hospital stay was, even adjusted for inflation, a matter of no more than $300/day (my actual cost for 2 days of hospitalization in 1972 was $200).
Insurance and HMOs changed that, more than any other factors.And here we just went and made the entire health system into one giant HMO, with no choices remaining outside that system.
Mark my words, the ultimate cost to patients WILL go up yet again, even if it's disguised as taxes.Now, are you still sure you wouldn't rather go back to the era of pay-as-you-go, and have coughed up only $60 to fix your dog's leg?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577992</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Overall though, lots more people who were unable to get coverage will now be able to get it. "</i></p><p>a. most people without coverage currently are the one's who have a medical condition that is expensive to treat. Which is why they don't have coverage--the insurance companies saw them has huge liabilities to their profit. So really one <i>could</i> conclude that there will be a flood of new patients with serious conditions, which will strain hospitals and drugs supplies. Since hospitals are already cutting costs, they will get squeezed unless they get help or raise care costs. Now we know why HC stocks were up today...</p><p>b. it's great that the poor will get coverage, BUT it's fact that the poor has the worse health <i>currently</i> (cause they don't have access to preventive medicine, nor can afford a healthy lifestyle--I doubt the poor go to Whole Foods) in the population. It will require a lot of treatment to get them to a better health condition. And again more flooding and strain of the hospital/care system, which the insurance companies don't touch much.</p><p>c. This "law" can backfire if people start living more unhealthy since they now have the perception of unlimited care. Eat what you want--you're covered. If Obama drops the ball ("it's law, I did it, I'm the man!, time to forget it, next subject to tackle!"), we will see this happen as greed and profit will find a way to exploit this law.</p><p>d. This "law" can backfire if the majority of those 30million still don't want year-round care/fees and forced to pay penalties.</p><p>I'm glad they finally got this bill 'through', so they can work on the more important issues (jobs), and if yaw'll like change, you can always <b>rewrite</b> this law in the future if things don't work out (it's just we waste 1.5yrs of tax payer money to get to this point). It's social law, <b>not natural law</b>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Overall though , lots more people who were unable to get coverage will now be able to get it .
" a. most people without coverage currently are the one 's who have a medical condition that is expensive to treat .
Which is why they do n't have coverage--the insurance companies saw them has huge liabilities to their profit .
So really one could conclude that there will be a flood of new patients with serious conditions , which will strain hospitals and drugs supplies .
Since hospitals are already cutting costs , they will get squeezed unless they get help or raise care costs .
Now we know why HC stocks were up today...b. it 's great that the poor will get coverage , BUT it 's fact that the poor has the worse health currently ( cause they do n't have access to preventive medicine , nor can afford a healthy lifestyle--I doubt the poor go to Whole Foods ) in the population .
It will require a lot of treatment to get them to a better health condition .
And again more flooding and strain of the hospital/care system , which the insurance companies do n't touch much.c .
This " law " can backfire if people start living more unhealthy since they now have the perception of unlimited care .
Eat what you want--you 're covered .
If Obama drops the ball ( " it 's law , I did it , I 'm the man ! , time to forget it , next subject to tackle !
" ) , we will see this happen as greed and profit will find a way to exploit this law.d .
This " law " can backfire if the majority of those 30million still do n't want year-round care/fees and forced to pay penalties.I 'm glad they finally got this bill 'through ' , so they can work on the more important issues ( jobs ) , and if yaw 'll like change , you can always rewrite this law in the future if things do n't work out ( it 's just we waste 1.5yrs of tax payer money to get to this point ) .
It 's social law , not natural law... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Overall though, lots more people who were unable to get coverage will now be able to get it.
"a. most people without coverage currently are the one's who have a medical condition that is expensive to treat.
Which is why they don't have coverage--the insurance companies saw them has huge liabilities to their profit.
So really one could conclude that there will be a flood of new patients with serious conditions, which will strain hospitals and drugs supplies.
Since hospitals are already cutting costs, they will get squeezed unless they get help or raise care costs.
Now we know why HC stocks were up today...b. it's great that the poor will get coverage, BUT it's fact that the poor has the worse health currently (cause they don't have access to preventive medicine, nor can afford a healthy lifestyle--I doubt the poor go to Whole Foods) in the population.
It will require a lot of treatment to get them to a better health condition.
And again more flooding and strain of the hospital/care system, which the insurance companies don't touch much.c.
This "law" can backfire if people start living more unhealthy since they now have the perception of unlimited care.
Eat what you want--you're covered.
If Obama drops the ball ("it's law, I did it, I'm the man!, time to forget it, next subject to tackle!
"), we will see this happen as greed and profit will find a way to exploit this law.d.
This "law" can backfire if the majority of those 30million still don't want year-round care/fees and forced to pay penalties.I'm glad they finally got this bill 'through', so they can work on the more important issues (jobs), and if yaw'll like change, you can always rewrite this law in the future if things don't work out (it's just we waste 1.5yrs of tax payer money to get to this point).
It's social law, not natural law....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570674</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269279360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fines are around $700, if I read that correctly.</p><p>That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.  I pay $600 for my international travel health insurance, per year (this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US, and while I travel elsewhere.)</p></div><p>I'd love to know where you're getting your insurance.   Like most (insured) Americans I get my insurance through my job, and I'm responsible for ~$220/month as a single male.  My company allows me to add my girlfriend as a domestic partner which I've done, but I'm required to pay all premiums myself.  The cost?  ~$550/MONTH.  This is at a company of ~1000 people and is a good and comprehensive plan that includes dental, although like your plan the more expensive dental procedures are not covered.</p><p>She's had some health issues recently which is why I got her added to my plan at the imho excessive cost.  Prior to that I was paying for a basic independent plan for ~$150/month, which is still almost double what you claim to pay (and excluded dental care).  Because of the poor coverage I ended up shelling out ~$3k out of pocket on top of that $200/month.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fines are around $ 700 , if I read that correctly.That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost .
I pay $ 600 for my international travel health insurance , per year ( this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US , and while I travel elsewhere .
) I 'd love to know where you 're getting your insurance .
Like most ( insured ) Americans I get my insurance through my job , and I 'm responsible for ~ $ 220/month as a single male .
My company allows me to add my girlfriend as a domestic partner which I 've done , but I 'm required to pay all premiums myself .
The cost ?
~ $ 550/MONTH. This is at a company of ~ 1000 people and is a good and comprehensive plan that includes dental , although like your plan the more expensive dental procedures are not covered.She 's had some health issues recently which is why I got her added to my plan at the imho excessive cost .
Prior to that I was paying for a basic independent plan for ~ $ 150/month , which is still almost double what you claim to pay ( and excluded dental care ) .
Because of the poor coverage I ended up shelling out ~ $ 3k out of pocket on top of that $ 200/month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fines are around $700, if I read that correctly.That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.
I pay $600 for my international travel health insurance, per year (this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US, and while I travel elsewhere.
)I'd love to know where you're getting your insurance.
Like most (insured) Americans I get my insurance through my job, and I'm responsible for ~$220/month as a single male.
My company allows me to add my girlfriend as a domestic partner which I've done, but I'm required to pay all premiums myself.
The cost?
~$550/MONTH.  This is at a company of ~1000 people and is a good and comprehensive plan that includes dental, although like your plan the more expensive dental procedures are not covered.She's had some health issues recently which is why I got her added to my plan at the imho excessive cost.
Prior to that I was paying for a basic independent plan for ~$150/month, which is still almost double what you claim to pay (and excluded dental care).
Because of the poor coverage I ended up shelling out ~$3k out of pocket on top of that $200/month.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565464</id>
	<title>Jobs killing bill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269263940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The jobs killing bill just passed. As if the other penalties for reaching 50 employees weren't bad enough, now there is a $37,500/year fine for hiring employee #50. And look out if you hire employee #200 -- the fine jumps to $1 million per year. Healthcare got so messed up in the first place by tying it employment -- this only makes it worse.<p>There are other perverse incentives.  The $750 fine per employee (for firms with between 50 and 199 employees) constitutes a regressive payroll tax, discouraging the hiring of lower-wage entry-level employees in favor of higher-wage higher-productive employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The jobs killing bill just passed .
As if the other penalties for reaching 50 employees were n't bad enough , now there is a $ 37,500/year fine for hiring employee # 50 .
And look out if you hire employee # 200 -- the fine jumps to $ 1 million per year .
Healthcare got so messed up in the first place by tying it employment -- this only makes it worse.There are other perverse incentives .
The $ 750 fine per employee ( for firms with between 50 and 199 employees ) constitutes a regressive payroll tax , discouraging the hiring of lower-wage entry-level employees in favor of higher-wage higher-productive employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The jobs killing bill just passed.
As if the other penalties for reaching 50 employees weren't bad enough, now there is a $37,500/year fine for hiring employee #50.
And look out if you hire employee #200 -- the fine jumps to $1 million per year.
Healthcare got so messed up in the first place by tying it employment -- this only makes it worse.There are other perverse incentives.
The $750 fine per employee (for firms with between 50 and 199 employees) constitutes a regressive payroll tax, discouraging the hiring of lower-wage entry-level employees in favor of higher-wage higher-productive employees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566168</id>
	<title>Re:Beware, lawmakers: November is coming.</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1269267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US voters do not remember things that happened more than a few months ago. Why do you think they did all this between December and April?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US voters do not remember things that happened more than a few months ago .
Why do you think they did all this between December and April ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US voters do not remember things that happened more than a few months ago.
Why do you think they did all this between December and April?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571538</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>radurusu</author>
	<datestamp>1269282060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thomas Jefferson is no longer a founding father, according to the recent decision of the Texas Board of Education.  Coincidence?  I think not!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas Jefferson is no longer a founding father , according to the recent decision of the Texas Board of Education .
Coincidence ? I think not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thomas Jefferson is no longer a founding father, according to the recent decision of the Texas Board of Education.
Coincidence?  I think not!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571970</id>
	<title>We're The Government And We're Here To Take</title>
	<author>manlygeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269283200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The United States of America as it was constituted in 1787, and as properly amended thereafter, will no longer exist once the Health Care Bill and its companion "fix-it" bill is signed into law.  We now live under an Imperial Government, with an Imperial Retribution System (IRS) that will take whatever the Imperial Congress and Emperor Obama deem desirable.  That's change I can revolt against!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The United States of America as it was constituted in 1787 , and as properly amended thereafter , will no longer exist once the Health Care Bill and its companion " fix-it " bill is signed into law .
We now live under an Imperial Government , with an Imperial Retribution System ( IRS ) that will take whatever the Imperial Congress and Emperor Obama deem desirable .
That 's change I can revolt against !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The United States of America as it was constituted in 1787, and as properly amended thereafter, will no longer exist once the Health Care Bill and its companion "fix-it" bill is signed into law.
We now live under an Imperial Government, with an Imperial Retribution System (IRS) that will take whatever the Imperial Congress and Emperor Obama deem desirable.
That's change I can revolt against!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573748</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269289380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down. This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense. Cancers are caught sooner, infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood. What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices. No one chooses to get prostate cancer, no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.</p></div><p>Numerous studies have shown that prevention costs are high too, sometimes greater than treatment. Example for the sake of argument: Out of 1000 people, 25 will get ill with a very expensive disease.  In some cases, 1000*(cost of preventative care) &gt; 25*(cost of treatment care).  You MAY argue that some of the 25 would not get sick --- but it's still MORE expensive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something funny : if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down .
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense .
Cancers are caught sooner , infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood .
What selfish libertarians like yourself do n't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices .
No one chooses to get prostate cancer , no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.Numerous studies have shown that prevention costs are high too , sometimes greater than treatment .
Example for the sake of argument : Out of 1000 people , 25 will get ill with a very expensive disease .
In some cases , 1000 * ( cost of preventative care ) &gt; 25 * ( cost of treatment care ) .
You MAY argue that some of the 25 would not get sick --- but it 's still MORE expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.
Cancers are caught sooner, infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood.
What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices.
No one chooses to get prostate cancer, no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.Numerous studies have shown that prevention costs are high too, sometimes greater than treatment.
Example for the sake of argument: Out of 1000 people, 25 will get ill with a very expensive disease.
In some cases, 1000*(cost of preventative care) &gt; 25*(cost of treatment care).
You MAY argue that some of the 25 would not get sick --- but it's still MORE expensive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31616240</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1269549960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that were actually the case, we'd have single payer, and the Attorney General would be laying waste to insurance executives, using RICO to indict the lot of them for fraud (selling insurance and then doing everything in their power to deny claims).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that were actually the case , we 'd have single payer , and the Attorney General would be laying waste to insurance executives , using RICO to indict the lot of them for fraud ( selling insurance and then doing everything in their power to deny claims ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that were actually the case, we'd have single payer, and the Attorney General would be laying waste to insurance executives, using RICO to indict the lot of them for fraud (selling insurance and then doing everything in their power to deny claims).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565956</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill will NOT save lives.  If it does anything to lives at all, it will end them prematurely just as all socialized medicine programs do.  And make no doubt about it, this is socialized medicine in the fascist style - looks like a private corporation, but is completely run by the government.  The insurance companies already operate at smaller margins than most other classes of business.  The "public option" that so many on the left were clamoring for would have bankrupted each and every one of them (which was the point).</p><p>If this bill stands, we'll have probably half as many doctors in the US in 2014 as we do now.  There's simply no incentive to spend a quarter of a million dollars and a dozen years of your life on an education that will never pay for itself.</p><p>Finally, when the mandates start kicking in, I lose my insurance immediately, because it will no longer be legal.  I'll be forced to either cough up 2.5\% of my gross income as a fine, or pay north of 10\% of my income for a comprehensive insurance policy that covers more than I'll ever want or need.</p><p>There is no good outcome for the United States here.  We're fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill will NOT save lives .
If it does anything to lives at all , it will end them prematurely just as all socialized medicine programs do .
And make no doubt about it , this is socialized medicine in the fascist style - looks like a private corporation , but is completely run by the government .
The insurance companies already operate at smaller margins than most other classes of business .
The " public option " that so many on the left were clamoring for would have bankrupted each and every one of them ( which was the point ) .If this bill stands , we 'll have probably half as many doctors in the US in 2014 as we do now .
There 's simply no incentive to spend a quarter of a million dollars and a dozen years of your life on an education that will never pay for itself.Finally , when the mandates start kicking in , I lose my insurance immediately , because it will no longer be legal .
I 'll be forced to either cough up 2.5 \ % of my gross income as a fine , or pay north of 10 \ % of my income for a comprehensive insurance policy that covers more than I 'll ever want or need.There is no good outcome for the United States here .
We 're fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill will NOT save lives.
If it does anything to lives at all, it will end them prematurely just as all socialized medicine programs do.
And make no doubt about it, this is socialized medicine in the fascist style - looks like a private corporation, but is completely run by the government.
The insurance companies already operate at smaller margins than most other classes of business.
The "public option" that so many on the left were clamoring for would have bankrupted each and every one of them (which was the point).If this bill stands, we'll have probably half as many doctors in the US in 2014 as we do now.
There's simply no incentive to spend a quarter of a million dollars and a dozen years of your life on an education that will never pay for itself.Finally, when the mandates start kicking in, I lose my insurance immediately, because it will no longer be legal.
I'll be forced to either cough up 2.5\% of my gross income as a fine, or pay north of 10\% of my income for a comprehensive insurance policy that covers more than I'll ever want or need.There is no good outcome for the United States here.
We're fucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575762</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269253920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This country has been going downhill ever since Columbus showed up.  Back in the good old days, there was NO government, no taxes, so social programs, no press, no businesses, no police, no politicians, no schools, and not much in the way of clothing (if you get my drift).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This country has been going downhill ever since Columbus showed up .
Back in the good old days , there was NO government , no taxes , so social programs , no press , no businesses , no police , no politicians , no schools , and not much in the way of clothing ( if you get my drift ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This country has been going downhill ever since Columbus showed up.
Back in the good old days, there was NO government, no taxes, so social programs, no press, no businesses, no police, no politicians, no schools, and not much in the way of clothing (if you get my drift).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565424</id>
	<title>health insurance is like auto insurance now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269263700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you are always going to pay for it. about time that we stopped the system of some people getting "insurance" only when they get sick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you are always going to pay for it .
about time that we stopped the system of some people getting " insurance " only when they get sick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are always going to pay for it.
about time that we stopped the system of some people getting "insurance" only when they get sick</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570586</id>
	<title>Re:You're right, but that's how it works.</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1269279000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Properly functioning insurance is welfare and in a good way.  We all pay a cost and none of us assumes the risk.</p><p>You missed the mark on the "Christian society" comment as well.  The party of the "christians" has opposed these reforms.  Western countries with better health systems are consistently less christian than the US.  Christians are caring in name only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Properly functioning insurance is welfare and in a good way .
We all pay a cost and none of us assumes the risk.You missed the mark on the " Christian society " comment as well .
The party of the " christians " has opposed these reforms .
Western countries with better health systems are consistently less christian than the US .
Christians are caring in name only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Properly functioning insurance is welfare and in a good way.
We all pay a cost and none of us assumes the risk.You missed the mark on the "Christian society" comment as well.
The party of the "christians" has opposed these reforms.
Western countries with better health systems are consistently less christian than the US.
Christians are caring in name only.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579542</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>grepya</author>
	<datestamp>1269279660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>It is also estimated to drive doctors out of the health care industry, not attract more doctors to field - that will impact many Americans as well.</p></div></blockquote> </div><p> So  the bill will drive the doctors away from the health care industry ? To what ? The film industry ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is also estimated to drive doctors out of the health care industry , not attract more doctors to field - that will impact many Americans as well .
So the bill will drive the doctors away from the health care industry ?
To what ?
The film industry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is also estimated to drive doctors out of the health care industry, not attract more doctors to field - that will impact many Americans as well.
So  the bill will drive the doctors away from the health care industry ?
To what ?
The film industry ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574098</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1269290700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right, it is just a drop in the bucket.  But it is an empty bucket to start with.  The problem is that the US can not fill the bucket immediately.  We've got an old and large and crusty system that should have been dumped many decades ago.  We can't just plop in a UK system NHS system, because there would be a massive economic upheaval doing this - ie, throwing away an entire health insurance industry and replacing it with a new one.  Other countries generally put their systems in place back when there wasn't much of an existing system to replace.<br><br>The biggest snag in the US is that we have two competing political viewpoints that are nearly equally balanced.  Both viewpoints have at their central core a desire to be in opposition to the other side.  On rare occasions they will agree that problems exist, but will never agree on the solutions to the problems.  The solutions proposed tend to be the same for all problems.  One side tends to favor huge government programs which can fix everything, which will be paid for by taxing only people richer than yourself.  The other side tends to favor a zero government approach to everything with the idea that the free market can fix all problems, and any amount of taxes at any level is a crime against nature.  The solution of course lies somewhere in the middle.<br><br>So the current health care plan is essentially a debate between the liberal Democrats and the moderate Democrats, and zero Republicans at all.  If there's anything that Republicans can do well, it is to stick together as a block and appear united despite their differences.  If there's anything the Democrats are really good at, it is bickering amongst themselves.  So yes, there were Democrats who wanted to scrap everything we have in place and start over from scratch, but the moderates would prefer incremental improvements, and the Republicans are just happy to obstruct everything without having to come up with their own solutions.<br><br>So to your questions:  nothing will stop the premiums from going up.  Many people believe that the basic laws of supply and demand prevent this (ie, if one company raises rates, customers can switch to a cheaper company, which works according to theory even though it rarely works in practice).  Other people however believe that once everyone is required to get insurance that the available pool is larger and the prices will drop; ie health plans are currently cheaper if you buy as part of a large pool to balance the risks (such as employer or union paid health plans), and it is higher cost if you're buying individually.  What will actually happen is a question.  And of course, you can always get better health care if you're wealthy - this is true in all countries today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , it is just a drop in the bucket .
But it is an empty bucket to start with .
The problem is that the US can not fill the bucket immediately .
We 've got an old and large and crusty system that should have been dumped many decades ago .
We ca n't just plop in a UK system NHS system , because there would be a massive economic upheaval doing this - ie , throwing away an entire health insurance industry and replacing it with a new one .
Other countries generally put their systems in place back when there was n't much of an existing system to replace.The biggest snag in the US is that we have two competing political viewpoints that are nearly equally balanced .
Both viewpoints have at their central core a desire to be in opposition to the other side .
On rare occasions they will agree that problems exist , but will never agree on the solutions to the problems .
The solutions proposed tend to be the same for all problems .
One side tends to favor huge government programs which can fix everything , which will be paid for by taxing only people richer than yourself .
The other side tends to favor a zero government approach to everything with the idea that the free market can fix all problems , and any amount of taxes at any level is a crime against nature .
The solution of course lies somewhere in the middle.So the current health care plan is essentially a debate between the liberal Democrats and the moderate Democrats , and zero Republicans at all .
If there 's anything that Republicans can do well , it is to stick together as a block and appear united despite their differences .
If there 's anything the Democrats are really good at , it is bickering amongst themselves .
So yes , there were Democrats who wanted to scrap everything we have in place and start over from scratch , but the moderates would prefer incremental improvements , and the Republicans are just happy to obstruct everything without having to come up with their own solutions.So to your questions : nothing will stop the premiums from going up .
Many people believe that the basic laws of supply and demand prevent this ( ie , if one company raises rates , customers can switch to a cheaper company , which works according to theory even though it rarely works in practice ) .
Other people however believe that once everyone is required to get insurance that the available pool is larger and the prices will drop ; ie health plans are currently cheaper if you buy as part of a large pool to balance the risks ( such as employer or union paid health plans ) , and it is higher cost if you 're buying individually .
What will actually happen is a question .
And of course , you can always get better health care if you 're wealthy - this is true in all countries today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, it is just a drop in the bucket.
But it is an empty bucket to start with.
The problem is that the US can not fill the bucket immediately.
We've got an old and large and crusty system that should have been dumped many decades ago.
We can't just plop in a UK system NHS system, because there would be a massive economic upheaval doing this - ie, throwing away an entire health insurance industry and replacing it with a new one.
Other countries generally put their systems in place back when there wasn't much of an existing system to replace.The biggest snag in the US is that we have two competing political viewpoints that are nearly equally balanced.
Both viewpoints have at their central core a desire to be in opposition to the other side.
On rare occasions they will agree that problems exist, but will never agree on the solutions to the problems.
The solutions proposed tend to be the same for all problems.
One side tends to favor huge government programs which can fix everything, which will be paid for by taxing only people richer than yourself.
The other side tends to favor a zero government approach to everything with the idea that the free market can fix all problems, and any amount of taxes at any level is a crime against nature.
The solution of course lies somewhere in the middle.So the current health care plan is essentially a debate between the liberal Democrats and the moderate Democrats, and zero Republicans at all.
If there's anything that Republicans can do well, it is to stick together as a block and appear united despite their differences.
If there's anything the Democrats are really good at, it is bickering amongst themselves.
So yes, there were Democrats who wanted to scrap everything we have in place and start over from scratch, but the moderates would prefer incremental improvements, and the Republicans are just happy to obstruct everything without having to come up with their own solutions.So to your questions:  nothing will stop the premiums from going up.
Many people believe that the basic laws of supply and demand prevent this (ie, if one company raises rates, customers can switch to a cheaper company, which works according to theory even though it rarely works in practice).
Other people however believe that once everyone is required to get insurance that the available pool is larger and the prices will drop; ie health plans are currently cheaper if you buy as part of a large pool to balance the risks (such as employer or union paid health plans), and it is higher cost if you're buying individually.
What will actually happen is a question.
And of course, you can always get better health care if you're wealthy - this is true in all countries today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572600</id>
	<title>Re:Those were dark times, Harry, dark times.</title>
	<author>jjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1269285060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should be so lucky as to have Canadian health care.  We spend around 60\% of what is spent in the U.S., proportionally (either per capita or as a portion of GDP), and have better outcomes by almost any measure:  life expectancy, infant mortality...</p><p>Personally, I feel lucky to have it because I'm an independent businessman.  I'd never have been able to take the risks I took up here, down in the U.S., because I'd never have been able to afford insurance.  Ask yourself how much entrepeneurialism your (now previous) fucked up situation squashed.</p><p>It's continually shocking to me how delusional Americans are about health care:  You think you've got the best system in the world, when it's actually the worst in the first world; you think you get better service when you get worse (ask my brother, living in Ohio and with an executive health plan); and you think you pay less when you pay far, far more.  It's like fucking bizarro-world down there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be so lucky as to have Canadian health care .
We spend around 60 \ % of what is spent in the U.S. , proportionally ( either per capita or as a portion of GDP ) , and have better outcomes by almost any measure : life expectancy , infant mortality...Personally , I feel lucky to have it because I 'm an independent businessman .
I 'd never have been able to take the risks I took up here , down in the U.S. , because I 'd never have been able to afford insurance .
Ask yourself how much entrepeneurialism your ( now previous ) fucked up situation squashed.It 's continually shocking to me how delusional Americans are about health care : You think you 've got the best system in the world , when it 's actually the worst in the first world ; you think you get better service when you get worse ( ask my brother , living in Ohio and with an executive health plan ) ; and you think you pay less when you pay far , far more .
It 's like fucking bizarro-world down there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be so lucky as to have Canadian health care.
We spend around 60\% of what is spent in the U.S., proportionally (either per capita or as a portion of GDP), and have better outcomes by almost any measure:  life expectancy, infant mortality...Personally, I feel lucky to have it because I'm an independent businessman.
I'd never have been able to take the risks I took up here, down in the U.S., because I'd never have been able to afford insurance.
Ask yourself how much entrepeneurialism your (now previous) fucked up situation squashed.It's continually shocking to me how delusional Americans are about health care:  You think you've got the best system in the world, when it's actually the worst in the first world; you think you get better service when you get worse (ask my brother, living in Ohio and with an executive health plan); and you think you pay less when you pay far, far more.
It's like fucking bizarro-world down there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565718</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, this could actually work: bankrupt the health insurance industry; declare that, since the commercial sector can't do the job, the government will; set up a government-run health insurance company; and pay the money from the fines to that freshly created health insurance company to cover those who "won't" pay the new health insurance company directly.</p><p>All of a sudden, hey presto - you have a system that's very similar to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare\_(Australia)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Australia's Medicare</a> [wikipedia.org], or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Health\_Service" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">the UK's National Health Service</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>All you have to do is make damn sure that you <i>don't bail out the insurance companies when they go bankrupt</i>. Good luck in your journey towards joining the rest of the civilised world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , this could actually work : bankrupt the health insurance industry ; declare that , since the commercial sector ca n't do the job , the government will ; set up a government-run health insurance company ; and pay the money from the fines to that freshly created health insurance company to cover those who " wo n't " pay the new health insurance company directly.All of a sudden , hey presto - you have a system that 's very similar to Australia 's Medicare [ wikipedia.org ] , or the UK 's National Health Service [ wikipedia.org ] .All you have to do is make damn sure that you do n't bail out the insurance companies when they go bankrupt .
Good luck in your journey towards joining the rest of the civilised world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, this could actually work: bankrupt the health insurance industry; declare that, since the commercial sector can't do the job, the government will; set up a government-run health insurance company; and pay the money from the fines to that freshly created health insurance company to cover those who "won't" pay the new health insurance company directly.All of a sudden, hey presto - you have a system that's very similar to Australia's Medicare [wikipedia.org], or the UK's National Health Service [wikipedia.org].All you have to do is make damn sure that you don't bail out the insurance companies when they go bankrupt.
Good luck in your journey towards joining the rest of the civilised world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573210</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>right after you get all of the above in the Constitution, you're welcome to start bitching. Otherwise, it's just empty rhetorical fluff that stops rational discussion</p></div><p>So your argument is that the Constitutional limits can be ignored because the Constitutional limits have already been ignored?</p><p>I'd hope that my summation is off base. Can you tell me where I'm misinterpreting your argument?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>right after you get all of the above in the Constitution , you 're welcome to start bitching .
Otherwise , it 's just empty rhetorical fluff that stops rational discussionSo your argument is that the Constitutional limits can be ignored because the Constitutional limits have already been ignored ? I 'd hope that my summation is off base .
Can you tell me where I 'm misinterpreting your argument ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>right after you get all of the above in the Constitution, you're welcome to start bitching.
Otherwise, it's just empty rhetorical fluff that stops rational discussionSo your argument is that the Constitutional limits can be ignored because the Constitutional limits have already been ignored?I'd hope that my summation is off base.
Can you tell me where I'm misinterpreting your argument?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574304</id>
	<title>Waiting for instructions...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269291540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... on how to game the new system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... on how to game the new system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... on how to game the new system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566190</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I guess that means the "right to choose" crowd supported the elimination of free choice when it comes to health care coverage for millions?</p><p>No wonder the insurance compaies were on-board with this Health Care Reform...</p><p>Tell me again how the anti-HCR crowd is in the pocket of "big insurance" when it was the pro-HCR crowd that just added 30 Million plus new customers to their client lists...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess that means the " right to choose " crowd supported the elimination of free choice when it comes to health care coverage for millions ? No wonder the insurance compaies were on-board with this Health Care Reform...Tell me again how the anti-HCR crowd is in the pocket of " big insurance " when it was the pro-HCR crowd that just added 30 Million plus new customers to their client lists.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess that means the "right to choose" crowd supported the elimination of free choice when it comes to health care coverage for millions?No wonder the insurance compaies were on-board with this Health Care Reform...Tell me again how the anti-HCR crowd is in the pocket of "big insurance" when it was the pro-HCR crowd that just added 30 Million plus new customers to their client lists...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571962</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fascist Liberals. Name calling is easy. Libertarians value liberty, and you call it selfish. LIBERTY is selfish, but it serves all of society equally.</p><p>Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither - Ben Franklin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fascist Liberals .
Name calling is easy .
Libertarians value liberty , and you call it selfish .
LIBERTY is selfish , but it serves all of society equally.Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither - Ben Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fascist Liberals.
Name calling is easy.
Libertarians value liberty, and you call it selfish.
LIBERTY is selfish, but it serves all of society equally.Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither - Ben Franklin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571372</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>tophermeyer</author>
	<datestamp>1269281580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country.</b>
</p><p>
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on "the common good": roads, schools, military, police, firebrigades...
</p><p>
Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for
</p></div><p>Way back in the day, the US started as kind of a blank slate of personal freedon/responsibility.  Over time we have as a society determined that things like road construction, schools, military, police, firefighting are things that are best done by a shared service provider that we all agree to pay into.  </p><p>Healthcare is one thing that many people think is something that should be shared and administered by Government.  There are also many people that disagree (myself included).  Regardless of whether the product is something that should be consolidated, I personally feel that my wishes have not been represented during this process (alongside many others) and that the manner in which the bill has been drafted and passed is shady and irresponsible.  I'll call attention to the much-abused talking points of "back room deals" or the time Nancy Pelosi said that she would not rest until the bill was passed, regardless of the protests of the people.  </p><p>
I disagree that the US is socialist, I disagree that this bill would make it socialist.  And on a completely unrelated but topical note I feel that this bill will not resolve the problems that people want it to resolve.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country .
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on " the common good " : roads , schools , military , police , firebrigades.. . Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for Way back in the day , the US started as kind of a blank slate of personal freedon/responsibility .
Over time we have as a society determined that things like road construction , schools , military , police , firefighting are things that are best done by a shared service provider that we all agree to pay into .
Healthcare is one thing that many people think is something that should be shared and administered by Government .
There are also many people that disagree ( myself included ) .
Regardless of whether the product is something that should be consolidated , I personally feel that my wishes have not been represented during this process ( alongside many others ) and that the manner in which the bill has been drafted and passed is shady and irresponsible .
I 'll call attention to the much-abused talking points of " back room deals " or the time Nancy Pelosi said that she would not rest until the bill was passed , regardless of the protests of the people .
I disagree that the US is socialist , I disagree that this bill would make it socialist .
And on a completely unrelated but topical note I feel that this bill will not resolve the problems that people want it to resolve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country.
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on "the common good": roads, schools, military, police, firebrigades...

Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for
Way back in the day, the US started as kind of a blank slate of personal freedon/responsibility.
Over time we have as a society determined that things like road construction, schools, military, police, firefighting are things that are best done by a shared service provider that we all agree to pay into.
Healthcare is one thing that many people think is something that should be shared and administered by Government.
There are also many people that disagree (myself included).
Regardless of whether the product is something that should be consolidated, I personally feel that my wishes have not been represented during this process (alongside many others) and that the manner in which the bill has been drafted and passed is shady and irresponsible.
I'll call attention to the much-abused talking points of "back room deals" or the time Nancy Pelosi said that she would not rest until the bill was passed, regardless of the protests of the people.
I disagree that the US is socialist, I disagree that this bill would make it socialist.
And on a completely unrelated but topical note I feel that this bill will not resolve the problems that people want it to resolve.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</id>
	<title>Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>fluffernutter</author>
	<datestamp>1269266940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm confused about this bill... Some honest questions:<br> <br>
1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in?  In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply?  This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.<br>
2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?<br>
3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?<br> <br>
From what I have been reading, these have been the biggest issues with US health care, does the bill do anything about this?  Making sure 'everyone has something' seems to be a drop in the bucket to me; or am I missing something?<br> <br>

Please don't label me a troll for these questions.. I think they are important questions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused about this bill... Some honest questions : 1 ) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in ?
In other words , will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply ?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market .
2 ) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for ?
3 ) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy ?
From what I have been reading , these have been the biggest issues with US health care , does the bill do anything about this ?
Making sure 'everyone has something ' seems to be a drop in the bucket to me ; or am I missing something ?
Please do n't label me a troll for these questions.. I think they are important questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused about this bill... Some honest questions: 
1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in?
In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply?
This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.
2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?
3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?
From what I have been reading, these have been the biggest issues with US health care, does the bill do anything about this?
Making sure 'everyone has something' seems to be a drop in the bucket to me; or am I missing something?
Please don't label me a troll for these questions.. I think they are important questions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568214</id>
	<title>Re:I'm fairly sure a brain is not required either</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1269272340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Damn you cheap bastards! One day it'll bite your butt to be so selfish.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's because the more "faithful" (read: fanatically pious) among the religious Right felt that money is better spent on saving people they do not understand, and as such have serious problems interacting with, than on helping their neighbors, whom Jesus called to love as they love themselves.</p><p>It's also because they allied themselves with conservatives and libertarians, who found that Christian demographics are easily manipulated-- just tell them that the other side wants to kill babies or outlaw Christianity, even if they are outright lies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn you cheap bastards !
One day it 'll bite your butt to be so selfish.It 's because the more " faithful " ( read : fanatically pious ) among the religious Right felt that money is better spent on saving people they do not understand , and as such have serious problems interacting with , than on helping their neighbors , whom Jesus called to love as they love themselves.It 's also because they allied themselves with conservatives and libertarians , who found that Christian demographics are easily manipulated-- just tell them that the other side wants to kill babies or outlaw Christianity , even if they are outright lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn you cheap bastards!
One day it'll bite your butt to be so selfish.It's because the more "faithful" (read: fanatically pious) among the religious Right felt that money is better spent on saving people they do not understand, and as such have serious problems interacting with, than on helping their neighbors, whom Jesus called to love as they love themselves.It's also because they allied themselves with conservatives and libertarians, who found that Christian demographics are easily manipulated-- just tell them that the other side wants to kill babies or outlaw Christianity, even if they are outright lies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567480</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>sheph</author>
	<datestamp>1269270480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I don't think that's really true; I think you are oversimplifying a bit (disclaimer:  I consider myself a conservative rather than a republican).  I'm open to all ideas as long as they are good ones.  However, requiring everyone to purchase healthcare, creating another governmental bureaucracy to tax those that don&rsquo;t conform, and doing nothing reduce litigation (which is a big part of what drives the cost) is not what I would call good sound policy.  I won't argue that changes need to be made.  No more pre-existing condition exclusions, cap on malpractice, cap on what insurance companies are allowed to profit are all things they could have done to change things for the better.  Unfortunately, the only thing out of those addressed is the pre-existing condition clause, and without changning the other things that are broken that is going to cause costs to skyrocket with taxpayers footing the bill.  Anyone with half a brain should  be opposed to this bill regardless of party affiliation, not because it's Obama's but because it's just flat out bad for anyone that isn't a doctor or a lawyer.</p><p>Bush could have suggested such a policy change, and I&rsquo;d feel exactly the same way.  Now as far as news organizations are concerned I&rsquo;m sure Chris &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve got a thrill running up my leg&rdquo; Matthews is going to give you an objective viewpoint regarding any policy suggested by this administration.  Now Fox may be somewhat biased, but at least you get both sides of the argument in most cases.  Most of the other &ldquo;news&rdquo; organizations are so far left I&rsquo;m puzzled at how anyone could actually call it news.  It&rsquo;s more like a self congratulatory circle jerk.  In addition to Fox, I also read quite a bit on the internet even on some sites that are hard left like moveon.org, democratic underground, etc.  Just so that I can get some perspective of where both sides are coming from.</p><p>While acknowledging that some points were overblown for effect, I think some of what you call FUD was legitimate questions about things that were said.  Obama at one point made statements that sounded like he was advocating some form of cost/benefit anaysis for the elderly.  There is no doubt that this is going to rasie taxes as well.   If not directly, then indirectly.  If we are going to provide healthcare for every person in the US the money has to come from somewhere it's not just going to materialize.  I think calling those types of concerns FUD is somewhat dubious.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that 's really true ; I think you are oversimplifying a bit ( disclaimer : I consider myself a conservative rather than a republican ) .
I 'm open to all ideas as long as they are good ones .
However , requiring everyone to purchase healthcare , creating another governmental bureaucracy to tax those that don    t conform , and doing nothing reduce litigation ( which is a big part of what drives the cost ) is not what I would call good sound policy .
I wo n't argue that changes need to be made .
No more pre-existing condition exclusions , cap on malpractice , cap on what insurance companies are allowed to profit are all things they could have done to change things for the better .
Unfortunately , the only thing out of those addressed is the pre-existing condition clause , and without changning the other things that are broken that is going to cause costs to skyrocket with taxpayers footing the bill .
Anyone with half a brain should be opposed to this bill regardless of party affiliation , not because it 's Obama 's but because it 's just flat out bad for anyone that is n't a doctor or a lawyer.Bush could have suggested such a policy change , and I    d feel exactly the same way .
Now as far as news organizations are concerned I    m sure Chris    I    ve got a thrill running up my leg    Matthews is going to give you an objective viewpoint regarding any policy suggested by this administration .
Now Fox may be somewhat biased , but at least you get both sides of the argument in most cases .
Most of the other    news    organizations are so far left I    m puzzled at how anyone could actually call it news .
It    s more like a self congratulatory circle jerk .
In addition to Fox , I also read quite a bit on the internet even on some sites that are hard left like moveon.org , democratic underground , etc .
Just so that I can get some perspective of where both sides are coming from.While acknowledging that some points were overblown for effect , I think some of what you call FUD was legitimate questions about things that were said .
Obama at one point made statements that sounded like he was advocating some form of cost/benefit anaysis for the elderly .
There is no doubt that this is going to rasie taxes as well .
If not directly , then indirectly .
If we are going to provide healthcare for every person in the US the money has to come from somewhere it 's not just going to materialize .
I think calling those types of concerns FUD is somewhat dubious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I don't think that's really true; I think you are oversimplifying a bit (disclaimer:  I consider myself a conservative rather than a republican).
I'm open to all ideas as long as they are good ones.
However, requiring everyone to purchase healthcare, creating another governmental bureaucracy to tax those that don’t conform, and doing nothing reduce litigation (which is a big part of what drives the cost) is not what I would call good sound policy.
I won't argue that changes need to be made.
No more pre-existing condition exclusions, cap on malpractice, cap on what insurance companies are allowed to profit are all things they could have done to change things for the better.
Unfortunately, the only thing out of those addressed is the pre-existing condition clause, and without changning the other things that are broken that is going to cause costs to skyrocket with taxpayers footing the bill.
Anyone with half a brain should  be opposed to this bill regardless of party affiliation, not because it's Obama's but because it's just flat out bad for anyone that isn't a doctor or a lawyer.Bush could have suggested such a policy change, and I’d feel exactly the same way.
Now as far as news organizations are concerned I’m sure Chris “I’ve got a thrill running up my leg” Matthews is going to give you an objective viewpoint regarding any policy suggested by this administration.
Now Fox may be somewhat biased, but at least you get both sides of the argument in most cases.
Most of the other “news” organizations are so far left I’m puzzled at how anyone could actually call it news.
It’s more like a self congratulatory circle jerk.
In addition to Fox, I also read quite a bit on the internet even on some sites that are hard left like moveon.org, democratic underground, etc.
Just so that I can get some perspective of where both sides are coming from.While acknowledging that some points were overblown for effect, I think some of what you call FUD was legitimate questions about things that were said.
Obama at one point made statements that sounded like he was advocating some form of cost/benefit anaysis for the elderly.
There is no doubt that this is going to rasie taxes as well.
If not directly, then indirectly.
If we are going to provide healthcare for every person in the US the money has to come from somewhere it's not just going to materialize.
I think calling those types of concerns FUD is somewhat dubious.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574116</id>
	<title>Re:Ironic</title>
	<author>EventHorizon\_pc</author>
	<datestamp>1269290820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similarly, it was the "right to choose" people that removed the choices for others over what they do with their bodies.</p><p>Now what's stopping people from waiting until they get sick, then changing to an expensive insurance plan, then going back to the cheap one once they've drained the system enough to get better?  Seems like the politicians have set up another domino like they did when they "encouraged" banks to give sub-prime mortgages/loans.  There was a reason they were called "risky."</p><p>Yes, changes need to be made, but why does it need to be sweeping reform and not incremental reform done with case studies in specific areas?  We need sustainable change, not sweeping emotionally-charged change that results in government-propped-up systems.</p><p>[rant]<br>Why should we force people to be charitable through laws?  Natoma Canfield qualified for the hospital's charity after all.  We should encourage people to be charitable, but not force them.</p><p>This verge's on "taxation without representation," doesn't it?  Is it too much to ask that our representatives represent us?  <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-americans-dont-like-health-care-bill/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-americans-dont-like-health-care-bill/</a> [cnn.com]</p><p>Why do we feed this entitlement mentality?  The 12.7 trillion dollar deficit is nothing compared to the responsibility deficit in this country.  We need to revive the work ethic this country was founded upon.  We do not have the right to be happy, we have the right to pursue happiness.<br>[/rant]</p><p>Alright, time to stop wasting time at work...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similarly , it was the " right to choose " people that removed the choices for others over what they do with their bodies.Now what 's stopping people from waiting until they get sick , then changing to an expensive insurance plan , then going back to the cheap one once they 've drained the system enough to get better ?
Seems like the politicians have set up another domino like they did when they " encouraged " banks to give sub-prime mortgages/loans .
There was a reason they were called " risky .
" Yes , changes need to be made , but why does it need to be sweeping reform and not incremental reform done with case studies in specific areas ?
We need sustainable change , not sweeping emotionally-charged change that results in government-propped-up systems .
[ rant ] Why should we force people to be charitable through laws ?
Natoma Canfield qualified for the hospital 's charity after all .
We should encourage people to be charitable , but not force them.This verge 's on " taxation without representation , " does n't it ?
Is it too much to ask that our representatives represent us ?
http : //politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-americans-dont-like-health-care-bill/ [ cnn.com ] Why do we feed this entitlement mentality ?
The 12.7 trillion dollar deficit is nothing compared to the responsibility deficit in this country .
We need to revive the work ethic this country was founded upon .
We do not have the right to be happy , we have the right to pursue happiness .
[ /rant ] Alright , time to stop wasting time at work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similarly, it was the "right to choose" people that removed the choices for others over what they do with their bodies.Now what's stopping people from waiting until they get sick, then changing to an expensive insurance plan, then going back to the cheap one once they've drained the system enough to get better?
Seems like the politicians have set up another domino like they did when they "encouraged" banks to give sub-prime mortgages/loans.
There was a reason they were called "risky.
"Yes, changes need to be made, but why does it need to be sweeping reform and not incremental reform done with case studies in specific areas?
We need sustainable change, not sweeping emotionally-charged change that results in government-propped-up systems.
[rant]Why should we force people to be charitable through laws?
Natoma Canfield qualified for the hospital's charity after all.
We should encourage people to be charitable, but not force them.This verge's on "taxation without representation," doesn't it?
Is it too much to ask that our representatives represent us?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-americans-dont-like-health-care-bill/ [cnn.com]Why do we feed this entitlement mentality?
The 12.7 trillion dollar deficit is nothing compared to the responsibility deficit in this country.
We need to revive the work ethic this country was founded upon.
We do not have the right to be happy, we have the right to pursue happiness.
[/rant]Alright, time to stop wasting time at work...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565700</id>
	<title>yay insurance</title>
	<author>Bobtree</author>
	<datestamp>1269265200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now they should try a health care bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they should try a health care bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they should try a health care bill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566948</id>
	<title>Health Insurance bill not Health Care bill</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1269269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFAICT, all the provisions in this bill relate to Health Insurance not Health Care.  How it this magically going to reduce the 15+\% GDP spent on health care?  (Well, OK, it does expand MedicAid and cut MediCare which I guess counts as Health Care.)</p><p>The best I can see this bill doing for Health <em>Care</em> costs is making the currently uninsured seek preventative care rather than putting it off until it results in an expensive emergency room visit.  But even that theory doesn't work if they all buy the cheapest insurance which will likely have a $25,000 deductible, which means they will still put off preventative care.</p><p>So I ask again, what does this bill do to reduce Health Care costs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAICT , all the provisions in this bill relate to Health Insurance not Health Care .
How it this magically going to reduce the 15 + \ % GDP spent on health care ?
( Well , OK , it does expand MedicAid and cut MediCare which I guess counts as Health Care .
) The best I can see this bill doing for Health Care costs is making the currently uninsured seek preventative care rather than putting it off until it results in an expensive emergency room visit .
But even that theory does n't work if they all buy the cheapest insurance which will likely have a $ 25,000 deductible , which means they will still put off preventative care.So I ask again , what does this bill do to reduce Health Care costs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAICT, all the provisions in this bill relate to Health Insurance not Health Care.
How it this magically going to reduce the 15+\% GDP spent on health care?
(Well, OK, it does expand MedicAid and cut MediCare which I guess counts as Health Care.
)The best I can see this bill doing for Health Care costs is making the currently uninsured seek preventative care rather than putting it off until it results in an expensive emergency room visit.
But even that theory doesn't work if they all buy the cheapest insurance which will likely have a $25,000 deductible, which means they will still put off preventative care.So I ask again, what does this bill do to reduce Health Care costs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570326</id>
	<title>Re:I checked, insurance is more expensive</title>
	<author>FredFredrickson</author>
	<datestamp>1269278220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, that looks more like it. This is why I don't have insurance. $100/ month extra is a stretch for me. Why would I ever have $10,000 I could spare as a deductable?? Anybody paying $600/year is clearly not getting insurance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that looks more like it .
This is why I do n't have insurance .
$ 100/ month extra is a stretch for me .
Why would I ever have $ 10,000 I could spare as a deductable ? ?
Anybody paying $ 600/year is clearly not getting insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that looks more like it.
This is why I don't have insurance.
$100/ month extra is a stretch for me.
Why would I ever have $10,000 I could spare as a deductable??
Anybody paying $600/year is clearly not getting insurance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568298</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269272580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down. This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.</p></div></blockquote><p>Economics 101: Price controls create shortages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down .
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.Economics 101 : Price controls create shortages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.Economics 101: Price controls create shortages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1269264720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down. This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense. Cancers are caught sooner, infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood. What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices. No one chooses to get prostate cancer, no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something funny : if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down .
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense .
Cancers are caught sooner , infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood .
What selfish libertarians like yourself do n't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices .
No one chooses to get prostate cancer , no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something funny: if everyone jointly pays for healthcare and everybody gets treated health costs go down.
This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.
Cancers are caught sooner, infections are treated before the victim starts coughing up blood.
What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices.
No one chooses to get prostate cancer, no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572702</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269285360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is wrong. The bill still passed with 0 republicans voting for it; not one republican voted for the bill.</p><p>The debate was never the democrats trying to get the republicans to vote for the bill, it was the progressives trying to get democrats to vote for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is wrong .
The bill still passed with 0 republicans voting for it ; not one republican voted for the bill.The debate was never the democrats trying to get the republicans to vote for the bill , it was the progressives trying to get democrats to vote for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is wrong.
The bill still passed with 0 republicans voting for it; not one republican voted for the bill.The debate was never the democrats trying to get the republicans to vote for the bill, it was the progressives trying to get democrats to vote for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568230</id>
	<title>more incentives for health care IT</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1269272400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The stuff in the Stimulus bill was just a tide-over.  Now its required.  This could mean some interesting projects for slashdotters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The stuff in the Stimulus bill was just a tide-over .
Now its required .
This could mean some interesting projects for slashdotters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stuff in the Stimulus bill was just a tide-over.
Now its required.
This could mean some interesting projects for slashdotters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573854</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269289800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution. Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.</p></div><p>It's in the preamble: "promote the general welfare". Perhaps you were looking for more, but it disproves your "Nowhere" assertion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution .
Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.It 's in the preamble : " promote the general welfare " .
Perhaps you were looking for more , but it disproves your " Nowhere " assertion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That intelligent people such as slashdotters have no knowledge of the United States Constitution.
Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the citizens healthcare.It's in the preamble: "promote the general welfare".
Perhaps you were looking for more, but it disproves your "Nowhere" assertion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566578</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>CnlPepper</author>
	<datestamp>1269268140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lol, talk about a black and white world! Have you ever heard of Europe? In particular the UK, a democratic and economically powerful nation. Socialised health care works very well here, despite the utter bullcrap the Republicans were spouting. Death panels ffs!?!! What rot!. Trust me when I say the people of the UK were collectively furious to a level I've not seen in a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lol , talk about a black and white world !
Have you ever heard of Europe ?
In particular the UK , a democratic and economically powerful nation .
Socialised health care works very well here , despite the utter bullcrap the Republicans were spouting .
Death panels ffs ! ? ! !
What rot ! .
Trust me when I say the people of the UK were collectively furious to a level I 've not seen in a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lol, talk about a black and white world!
Have you ever heard of Europe?
In particular the UK, a democratic and economically powerful nation.
Socialised health care works very well here, despite the utter bullcrap the Republicans were spouting.
Death panels ffs!?!!
What rot!.
Trust me when I say the people of the UK were collectively furious to a level I've not seen in a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574262</id>
	<title>It's not the same as mandatory car insurance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269291420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quit making the inane comparison to mandatory car insurance.  In every state that I've ever lived, drivers are required to carry liability insurance, so that they can pay for the injuries and property damage caused by failing to correctly maneuver a large chunk of metal at high speeds.  They are not required to protect themselves from their own losses.</p><p>I will gladly pay for mandatory health insurance if it's to protect me against claims that someone was sicked or injured by my presence.  Of course, the premiums would have to be under $1/year, since I don't have that effect on people.</p><p>Since we are not talking about personal liability insurance, the comparison is garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit making the inane comparison to mandatory car insurance .
In every state that I 've ever lived , drivers are required to carry liability insurance , so that they can pay for the injuries and property damage caused by failing to correctly maneuver a large chunk of metal at high speeds .
They are not required to protect themselves from their own losses.I will gladly pay for mandatory health insurance if it 's to protect me against claims that someone was sicked or injured by my presence .
Of course , the premiums would have to be under $ 1/year , since I do n't have that effect on people.Since we are not talking about personal liability insurance , the comparison is garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit making the inane comparison to mandatory car insurance.
In every state that I've ever lived, drivers are required to carry liability insurance, so that they can pay for the injuries and property damage caused by failing to correctly maneuver a large chunk of metal at high speeds.
They are not required to protect themselves from their own losses.I will gladly pay for mandatory health insurance if it's to protect me against claims that someone was sicked or injured by my presence.
Of course, the premiums would have to be under $1/year, since I don't have that effect on people.Since we are not talking about personal liability insurance, the comparison is garbage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31599416</id>
	<title>Re:Hurry up and wait</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1269452220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>0 new doctors.</i></p><p>Nothing is going to get you any significant (read: enough to reduce the cost of health care) number of new doctors except for socializing med school, and even then it'd require the government to assign children to become doctors "or else".</p><p>Otherwise, why would thousands of doctors go through med school and amass a huge stack of debt just to be paid less?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>0 new doctors.Nothing is going to get you any significant ( read : enough to reduce the cost of health care ) number of new doctors except for socializing med school , and even then it 'd require the government to assign children to become doctors " or else " .Otherwise , why would thousands of doctors go through med school and amass a huge stack of debt just to be paid less ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0 new doctors.Nothing is going to get you any significant (read: enough to reduce the cost of health care) number of new doctors except for socializing med school, and even then it'd require the government to assign children to become doctors "or else".Otherwise, why would thousands of doctors go through med school and amass a huge stack of debt just to be paid less?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31590660</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269345060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Fox News had that right... insurance plans are revised every year, and only plans that don't change are grandfathered in, so you'll lose it as soon as the new plan comes out. Now you're going to get screwed by both the insurance companies and the gov't. Fun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Fox News had that right... insurance plans are revised every year , and only plans that do n't change are grandfathered in , so you 'll lose it as soon as the new plan comes out .
Now you 're going to get screwed by both the insurance companies and the gov't .
Fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Fox News had that right... insurance plans are revised every year, and only plans that don't change are grandfathered in, so you'll lose it as soon as the new plan comes out.
Now you're going to get screwed by both the insurance companies and the gov't.
Fun!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574132</id>
	<title>Patriot, but tired of others making money choices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269290880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>general Welfare<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/= heath care.  If it did why didn't the Founding Fathers give it back then.  If only to the "natural" aristocracy? General Welfare, does that guarantee me a job???? Then doesn't "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility" me REAL justice, not this criminals rights out weigh the rights of the victim? and doesn't that mean the police are hear to ensure the domestic Tranquility? Hmmm, wonder why so many crimes happen, oh yes No Police around.</p><p>When do we start taking care of our selves?  If we expect the Government to do it, who pays? The rich? And when we make the rich middle class, then the Middle class?, and when they are the poor, the Poor?  Folks the money has to come from someone.  This is an example of redistribution of wealth.  Ask the Congress critters if they will be paying the cadilac tax on their plan, I bet they will not. They will have us pay for them.  As for the companies, if the pay more than $2k/year per employee, the it will be cheaper to drop insurance and let the government pay it. Net savings is GOOD for the company, but BAD for taxpayers.<br>Are there problems with the current system, ABSOLUTELY!!!. Is this the answer, to total revamp and let the government control YOUR health options? I my humble opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>general Welfare / = heath care .
If it did why did n't the Founding Fathers give it back then .
If only to the " natural " aristocracy ?
General Welfare , does that guarantee me a job ? ? ? ?
Then does n't " establish Justice , insure domestic Tranquility " me REAL justice , not this criminals rights out weigh the rights of the victim ?
and does n't that mean the police are hear to ensure the domestic Tranquility ?
Hmmm , wonder why so many crimes happen , oh yes No Police around.When do we start taking care of our selves ?
If we expect the Government to do it , who pays ?
The rich ?
And when we make the rich middle class , then the Middle class ? , and when they are the poor , the Poor ?
Folks the money has to come from someone .
This is an example of redistribution of wealth .
Ask the Congress critters if they will be paying the cadilac tax on their plan , I bet they will not .
They will have us pay for them .
As for the companies , if the pay more than $ 2k/year per employee , the it will be cheaper to drop insurance and let the government pay it .
Net savings is GOOD for the company , but BAD for taxpayers.Are there problems with the current system , ABSOLUTELY ! ! ! .
Is this the answer , to total revamp and let the government control YOUR health options ?
I my humble opinion , ABSOLUTELY NOT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>general Welfare /= heath care.
If it did why didn't the Founding Fathers give it back then.
If only to the "natural" aristocracy?
General Welfare, does that guarantee me a job????
Then doesn't "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility" me REAL justice, not this criminals rights out weigh the rights of the victim?
and doesn't that mean the police are hear to ensure the domestic Tranquility?
Hmmm, wonder why so many crimes happen, oh yes No Police around.When do we start taking care of our selves?
If we expect the Government to do it, who pays?
The rich?
And when we make the rich middle class, then the Middle class?, and when they are the poor, the Poor?
Folks the money has to come from someone.
This is an example of redistribution of wealth.
Ask the Congress critters if they will be paying the cadilac tax on their plan, I bet they will not.
They will have us pay for them.
As for the companies, if the pay more than $2k/year per employee, the it will be cheaper to drop insurance and let the government pay it.
Net savings is GOOD for the company, but BAD for taxpayers.Are there problems with the current system, ABSOLUTELY!!!.
Is this the answer, to total revamp and let the government control YOUR health options?
I my humble opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575288</id>
	<title>This is an absolute disaster</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1269251820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HMO, Medicare, Medicaid, and countless mandates on insurance companies have already done considerable damage to the health care system.  This will ultimately destroy it.  The price of health care has been rising ever since the government started intervening back in the 70's.  If you look at any other free market item(well mostly free, nothing's totally free market in Socialist America), the price has come down in spite of inflation.  You can look at computers, electronics, etc....Of course a defender of Socialism would say health care is more complicated than computers(which I probably disagree with), to which I would rebut with Lasik Surgery and Plastic Surgery....neither of which are covered by insurance.

<br>
<br>

Insurance is government controlled pre-Obamacare bill.  When the government tells the insurance companies what they have to cover for policies, that is government control.  Things like maternity costs, diabetes, or eye exams should not be covered by insurance.  That would be like having your automobile policy cover oil changes.  The purchaser of an insurance policy should decide what he would like to insure.  Insurance is for spreading the risk for an unforeseen tragedy.  At least a portion of what the government forces insurance companies to cover does not meet that criteria.

<br>
<br>
It is quite unethical for the health care industry to make you sign to agree to pay the amount, but not tell you what the amount due is going in.  You find out AFTER treatment.  Well in a free market, you can find out the price before hand and shop around.

<br>
<br>
The Democrats wrote a 2800 page bill.  I can save 2799 pieces of paper AND solve the health care crisis.
<br>
1.  Repeal the HMO, phase out Medicare and Medicaid.
<br>
2.  Remove all government regulations on insurance and let the consumer decide what is insured.
<br>3.  Remove all government subsidies on cadillac insurance plans.
<br>4.  Allow private companies to build hospitals, and compete for patients business.  At the same time, stop subsidizing public hospitals.
<br>5.  Stop subsidizing education and driving up the cost for Doctors forcing them to charge these outrageous rates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HMO , Medicare , Medicaid , and countless mandates on insurance companies have already done considerable damage to the health care system .
This will ultimately destroy it .
The price of health care has been rising ever since the government started intervening back in the 70 's .
If you look at any other free market item ( well mostly free , nothing 's totally free market in Socialist America ) , the price has come down in spite of inflation .
You can look at computers , electronics , etc....Of course a defender of Socialism would say health care is more complicated than computers ( which I probably disagree with ) , to which I would rebut with Lasik Surgery and Plastic Surgery....neither of which are covered by insurance .
Insurance is government controlled pre-Obamacare bill .
When the government tells the insurance companies what they have to cover for policies , that is government control .
Things like maternity costs , diabetes , or eye exams should not be covered by insurance .
That would be like having your automobile policy cover oil changes .
The purchaser of an insurance policy should decide what he would like to insure .
Insurance is for spreading the risk for an unforeseen tragedy .
At least a portion of what the government forces insurance companies to cover does not meet that criteria .
It is quite unethical for the health care industry to make you sign to agree to pay the amount , but not tell you what the amount due is going in .
You find out AFTER treatment .
Well in a free market , you can find out the price before hand and shop around .
The Democrats wrote a 2800 page bill .
I can save 2799 pieces of paper AND solve the health care crisis .
1. Repeal the HMO , phase out Medicare and Medicaid .
2. Remove all government regulations on insurance and let the consumer decide what is insured .
3. Remove all government subsidies on cadillac insurance plans .
4. Allow private companies to build hospitals , and compete for patients business .
At the same time , stop subsidizing public hospitals .
5. Stop subsidizing education and driving up the cost for Doctors forcing them to charge these outrageous rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HMO, Medicare, Medicaid, and countless mandates on insurance companies have already done considerable damage to the health care system.
This will ultimately destroy it.
The price of health care has been rising ever since the government started intervening back in the 70's.
If you look at any other free market item(well mostly free, nothing's totally free market in Socialist America), the price has come down in spite of inflation.
You can look at computers, electronics, etc....Of course a defender of Socialism would say health care is more complicated than computers(which I probably disagree with), to which I would rebut with Lasik Surgery and Plastic Surgery....neither of which are covered by insurance.
Insurance is government controlled pre-Obamacare bill.
When the government tells the insurance companies what they have to cover for policies, that is government control.
Things like maternity costs, diabetes, or eye exams should not be covered by insurance.
That would be like having your automobile policy cover oil changes.
The purchaser of an insurance policy should decide what he would like to insure.
Insurance is for spreading the risk for an unforeseen tragedy.
At least a portion of what the government forces insurance companies to cover does not meet that criteria.
It is quite unethical for the health care industry to make you sign to agree to pay the amount, but not tell you what the amount due is going in.
You find out AFTER treatment.
Well in a free market, you can find out the price before hand and shop around.
The Democrats wrote a 2800 page bill.
I can save 2799 pieces of paper AND solve the health care crisis.
1.  Repeal the HMO, phase out Medicare and Medicaid.
2.  Remove all government regulations on insurance and let the consumer decide what is insured.
3.  Remove all government subsidies on cadillac insurance plans.
4.  Allow private companies to build hospitals, and compete for patients business.
At the same time, stop subsidizing public hospitals.
5.  Stop subsidizing education and driving up the cost for Doctors forcing them to charge these outrageous rates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566468</id>
	<title>Here is a nice rundown of the big points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Found this. Decent quick summary of what's in the final bill going to the presidents desk:  <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544\_162-20000846-503544.html" title="cbsnews.com">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544\_162-20000846-503544.html</a> [cbsnews.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Found this .
Decent quick summary of what 's in the final bill going to the presidents desk : http : //www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544 \ _162-20000846-503544.html [ cbsnews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Found this.
Decent quick summary of what's in the final bill going to the presidents desk:  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544\_162-20000846-503544.html [cbsnews.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566718</id>
	<title>We will</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1269268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You see, that's what people think health insurance is: just a way to get others to pay for their problems. Socialism and its "single payer" system will arrive eventually, it will just take a while. First, all the people who have insurance now will stop buying it. Insurance costs $6400/year while the fee for not having it is $700. Furthermore, many states have already passed <a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/" title="tenthamendmentcenter.com">nullification laws</a> [tenthamendmentcenter.com] prohibiting the federal government from charging you the above fee, so if you live in, say, Idaho, you will not have to pay a thing. Then, when you get cancer, you can simply go to any insurance company and buy coverage at that point; the company will be forbidden to turn you down for this preexisting condition. Then employers will eventually start doing the same thing. The fee for employers not providing insurance is higher, $3200, but it is still higher than the coverage premiums. So the boss will tell you to just buy insurance when you need it and take an extra $2000/year raise (or not).</p><p>The insurance companies will start losing lots of money, since only the sick will be subscribed, and will raise your premiums. If price controls are instituted (and they will be), the insurance companies will start going bankrupt. Then we can have another huge bailout bill for the "too big to fail" ones, which will then end up being mostly owned and financed by the government. They will stay that way because there is no way to turn a profit when you stop being "insurance" and become "entitlement". Then we'll get another health reform bill, where the government will step in, raise everyone's taxes and just pay for health care itself, like most of the other countries do.</p><p>Of course, you'll have to contend with <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard201.html" title="lewrockwell.com">various problems</a> [lewrockwell.com] that will bring, like long <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/how-canadians-feel-about-their-health-care-wait-times-and-spending/" title="nytimes.com">waiting times</a> [nytimes.com], care <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">rationing</a> [bbc.co.uk], and <a href="http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/63/43.php" title="workforce.com">"for your own good"</a> [workforce.com] legislation. But at least, everyone will finally be equal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You see , that 's what people think health insurance is : just a way to get others to pay for their problems .
Socialism and its " single payer " system will arrive eventually , it will just take a while .
First , all the people who have insurance now will stop buying it .
Insurance costs $ 6400/year while the fee for not having it is $ 700 .
Furthermore , many states have already passed nullification laws [ tenthamendmentcenter.com ] prohibiting the federal government from charging you the above fee , so if you live in , say , Idaho , you will not have to pay a thing .
Then , when you get cancer , you can simply go to any insurance company and buy coverage at that point ; the company will be forbidden to turn you down for this preexisting condition .
Then employers will eventually start doing the same thing .
The fee for employers not providing insurance is higher , $ 3200 , but it is still higher than the coverage premiums .
So the boss will tell you to just buy insurance when you need it and take an extra $ 2000/year raise ( or not ) .The insurance companies will start losing lots of money , since only the sick will be subscribed , and will raise your premiums .
If price controls are instituted ( and they will be ) , the insurance companies will start going bankrupt .
Then we can have another huge bailout bill for the " too big to fail " ones , which will then end up being mostly owned and financed by the government .
They will stay that way because there is no way to turn a profit when you stop being " insurance " and become " entitlement " .
Then we 'll get another health reform bill , where the government will step in , raise everyone 's taxes and just pay for health care itself , like most of the other countries do.Of course , you 'll have to contend with various problems [ lewrockwell.com ] that will bring , like long waiting times [ nytimes.com ] , care rationing [ bbc.co.uk ] , and " for your own good " [ workforce.com ] legislation .
But at least , everyone will finally be equal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see, that's what people think health insurance is: just a way to get others to pay for their problems.
Socialism and its "single payer" system will arrive eventually, it will just take a while.
First, all the people who have insurance now will stop buying it.
Insurance costs $6400/year while the fee for not having it is $700.
Furthermore, many states have already passed nullification laws [tenthamendmentcenter.com] prohibiting the federal government from charging you the above fee, so if you live in, say, Idaho, you will not have to pay a thing.
Then, when you get cancer, you can simply go to any insurance company and buy coverage at that point; the company will be forbidden to turn you down for this preexisting condition.
Then employers will eventually start doing the same thing.
The fee for employers not providing insurance is higher, $3200, but it is still higher than the coverage premiums.
So the boss will tell you to just buy insurance when you need it and take an extra $2000/year raise (or not).The insurance companies will start losing lots of money, since only the sick will be subscribed, and will raise your premiums.
If price controls are instituted (and they will be), the insurance companies will start going bankrupt.
Then we can have another huge bailout bill for the "too big to fail" ones, which will then end up being mostly owned and financed by the government.
They will stay that way because there is no way to turn a profit when you stop being "insurance" and become "entitlement".
Then we'll get another health reform bill, where the government will step in, raise everyone's taxes and just pay for health care itself, like most of the other countries do.Of course, you'll have to contend with various problems [lewrockwell.com] that will bring, like long waiting times [nytimes.com], care rationing [bbc.co.uk], and "for your own good" [workforce.com] legislation.
But at least, everyone will finally be equal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565688</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1269265140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far I think every public figure who's made noise about leaving for any reason in the last few years has utterly failed to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far I think every public figure who 's made noise about leaving for any reason in the last few years has utterly failed to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far I think every public figure who's made noise about leaving for any reason in the last few years has utterly failed to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570422</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1269278520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare</p></div><p>Healthcare is arguably a part of all three.</p><p>Domestic tranquility is only possible if the populace is healthy and stays that way. Epidemics can cause riots. Well, the populace can be fat and lazy for there to be domestic tranquility too, which may be where things are headed.</p><p>A working health care system is required to provide for the common defense. The obvious biological weapons aside, a malfunctioning health care system would be disatrous for morale and recruitment in times of war. Defense can also be construed to be against anything that causes death, which easily includes sickness and any maladies as a result of old age.</p><p>I don't think I need to elaborate about how health care relates to promoting of the general welfare.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>insure domestic Tranquility , provide for the common defence , promote the general WelfareHealthcare is arguably a part of all three.Domestic tranquility is only possible if the populace is healthy and stays that way .
Epidemics can cause riots .
Well , the populace can be fat and lazy for there to be domestic tranquility too , which may be where things are headed.A working health care system is required to provide for the common defense .
The obvious biological weapons aside , a malfunctioning health care system would be disatrous for morale and recruitment in times of war .
Defense can also be construed to be against anything that causes death , which easily includes sickness and any maladies as a result of old age.I do n't think I need to elaborate about how health care relates to promoting of the general welfare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general WelfareHealthcare is arguably a part of all three.Domestic tranquility is only possible if the populace is healthy and stays that way.
Epidemics can cause riots.
Well, the populace can be fat and lazy for there to be domestic tranquility too, which may be where things are headed.A working health care system is required to provide for the common defense.
The obvious biological weapons aside, a malfunctioning health care system would be disatrous for morale and recruitment in times of war.
Defense can also be construed to be against anything that causes death, which easily includes sickness and any maladies as a result of old age.I don't think I need to elaborate about how health care relates to promoting of the general welfare.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569960</id>
	<title>propaganda</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1269277140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think back to the architect of the Social Security Act, who's name I can't recall and I don't have time to google, stated from it's inception that it was not durable long-term solution, yet almost 75 years later we still haven't done anything to prevent it's insolvency.</p></div></blockquote><p>Because there <b>is</b> no threat of insolvency.  Zilch, none, nada, zip, ninguno....</p><p>See this <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/05/13/reich" title="salon.com">article</a> [salon.com] for a nice debunking of the <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj3n2/cj3n2-11.pdf" title="cato.org">propaganda</a> [cato.org] you've been suckered into.  These meme that there's a Social Security "crisis" or that "it wont be around for me" is a bunch of Cato propaganda called the Leninist Strategy.</p><p>Because really, how is a system that's funded directly out of paychecks ever going to go "insolvent"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think back to the architect of the Social Security Act , who 's name I ca n't recall and I do n't have time to google , stated from it 's inception that it was not durable long-term solution , yet almost 75 years later we still have n't done anything to prevent it 's insolvency.Because there is no threat of insolvency .
Zilch , none , nada , zip , ninguno....See this article [ salon.com ] for a nice debunking of the propaganda [ cato.org ] you 've been suckered into .
These meme that there 's a Social Security " crisis " or that " it wont be around for me " is a bunch of Cato propaganda called the Leninist Strategy.Because really , how is a system that 's funded directly out of paychecks ever going to go " insolvent " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think back to the architect of the Social Security Act, who's name I can't recall and I don't have time to google, stated from it's inception that it was not durable long-term solution, yet almost 75 years later we still haven't done anything to prevent it's insolvency.Because there is no threat of insolvency.
Zilch, none, nada, zip, ninguno....See this article [salon.com] for a nice debunking of the propaganda [cato.org] you've been suckered into.
These meme that there's a Social Security "crisis" or that "it wont be around for me" is a bunch of Cato propaganda called the Leninist Strategy.Because really, how is a system that's funded directly out of paychecks ever going to go "insolvent"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568172</id>
	<title>My poor dog</title>
	<author>eparker05</author>
	<datestamp>1269272220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My dad accidentally hit my dog with his truck three days ago. We brought him to the vet with a massive wound in his leg. The vet put him under anesthesia and repaired some muscular damage. He closed the wound with 9 staples. We were given antibiotics and powerful painkillers.</p><p>The tally? $600</p><p>It is an unsavory analogy, but veterinary medicine is what healthcare would be like if it were truly private. The reason we are where we are today is because government regulation, excessive tort, defensive medicine, and 'healthcare theft' have all conspired to make our healthcare cost unreasonable.</p><p>This silver lining to this all: we will get real healthcare reform when the conservatives repeal this in 2014.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My dad accidentally hit my dog with his truck three days ago .
We brought him to the vet with a massive wound in his leg .
The vet put him under anesthesia and repaired some muscular damage .
He closed the wound with 9 staples .
We were given antibiotics and powerful painkillers.The tally ?
$ 600It is an unsavory analogy , but veterinary medicine is what healthcare would be like if it were truly private .
The reason we are where we are today is because government regulation , excessive tort , defensive medicine , and 'healthcare theft ' have all conspired to make our healthcare cost unreasonable.This silver lining to this all : we will get real healthcare reform when the conservatives repeal this in 2014 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My dad accidentally hit my dog with his truck three days ago.
We brought him to the vet with a massive wound in his leg.
The vet put him under anesthesia and repaired some muscular damage.
He closed the wound with 9 staples.
We were given antibiotics and powerful painkillers.The tally?
$600It is an unsavory analogy, but veterinary medicine is what healthcare would be like if it were truly private.
The reason we are where we are today is because government regulation, excessive tort, defensive medicine, and 'healthcare theft' have all conspired to make our healthcare cost unreasonable.This silver lining to this all: we will get real healthcare reform when the conservatives repeal this in 2014.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569074</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhh I believe the Constitution SPECIFICALLY provides powers to form a military hence an airforce...read up before you post dumb $hit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh I believe the Constitution SPECIFICALLY provides powers to form a military hence an airforce...read up before you post dumb $ hit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh I believe the Constitution SPECIFICALLY provides powers to form a military hence an airforce...read up before you post dumb $hit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567646</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269270900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What nation could they go to with less health care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What nation could they go to with less health care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What nation could they go to with less health care?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577414</id>
	<title>Just like Fox tells you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269261960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it will affect EVERYONE, because it will reshape the market for insurance. Insurance policies that people are happy with are a local optimum for insurance companies under current conditions, such as pricing of drugs, medical devices, etc. Now that these conditions are going to change (e.g., there is a tax on medical devices, which will be passed on to the consumers), insurance companies are going to change their policies to match. No, you will not be able to buy the same policy that made you happy, because it likely won't be offered in a few years.</p><p>It is reasonable to assume that given the taxes on medical equipment and deals with drug companies today's "happy" customers will get LESS access to costly equipment (so far the US is second only to Japan) and LESS access to new drugs (again, second only to Japan, and by far ahead of Europe and Canada).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it will affect EVERYONE , because it will reshape the market for insurance .
Insurance policies that people are happy with are a local optimum for insurance companies under current conditions , such as pricing of drugs , medical devices , etc .
Now that these conditions are going to change ( e.g. , there is a tax on medical devices , which will be passed on to the consumers ) , insurance companies are going to change their policies to match .
No , you will not be able to buy the same policy that made you happy , because it likely wo n't be offered in a few years.It is reasonable to assume that given the taxes on medical equipment and deals with drug companies today 's " happy " customers will get LESS access to costly equipment ( so far the US is second only to Japan ) and LESS access to new drugs ( again , second only to Japan , and by far ahead of Europe and Canada ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it will affect EVERYONE, because it will reshape the market for insurance.
Insurance policies that people are happy with are a local optimum for insurance companies under current conditions, such as pricing of drugs, medical devices, etc.
Now that these conditions are going to change (e.g., there is a tax on medical devices, which will be passed on to the consumers), insurance companies are going to change their policies to match.
No, you will not be able to buy the same policy that made you happy, because it likely won't be offered in a few years.It is reasonable to assume that given the taxes on medical equipment and deals with drug companies today's "happy" customers will get LESS access to costly equipment (so far the US is second only to Japan) and LESS access to new drugs (again, second only to Japan, and by far ahead of Europe and Canada).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571018</id>
	<title>Where do you buy your insurance ?</title>
	<author>curri</author>
	<datestamp>1269280620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously ! I'm paying (when you add my employer's contribution) about 14k for a family of 4</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously !
I 'm paying ( when you add my employer 's contribution ) about 14k for a family of 4</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously !
I'm paying (when you add my employer's contribution) about 14k for a family of 4</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573066</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269286860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where did you C&amp;P this from? It's at least the second instance of the exact same language in this thread and it's still wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where did you C&amp;P this from ?
It 's at least the second instance of the exact same language in this thread and it 's still wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where did you C&amp;P this from?
It's at least the second instance of the exact same language in this thread and it's still wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31595408</id>
	<title>It will increase illegal immigration</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1269430800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Residence cards, visas, etc. only increase illegal immigration. These documents can be obtained one way or another, after that they keep people from returning to their home countries, as they have invested into these residence cards.</p><p>If there were no visas, no residence cards, no passports, people would come and go home after a while. They would not stick to a certain country, because they had bought a residence card there.</p><p>Such residence ID cards are good for officials who would be able to sell them one way or another, but they have nothing to do with reducing illegal immigration.</p><p>Market forces would be able to regulate migration global-wise much better than corrupted officials at different countries.</p><p>In Kenya, Niger, China, Ireland, etc. there are nice places near rivers, in the woods, where it would be nice to build a house and live. Let those, who want emigrate from these countries, emigrate and those who want to come and live there, come and live there.</p><p>Crime? There should be built more modern automated prisons where criminals could be re-educated and reformed. These are the criminals of the Earth and are common global responsibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Residence cards , visas , etc .
only increase illegal immigration .
These documents can be obtained one way or another , after that they keep people from returning to their home countries , as they have invested into these residence cards.If there were no visas , no residence cards , no passports , people would come and go home after a while .
They would not stick to a certain country , because they had bought a residence card there.Such residence ID cards are good for officials who would be able to sell them one way or another , but they have nothing to do with reducing illegal immigration.Market forces would be able to regulate migration global-wise much better than corrupted officials at different countries.In Kenya , Niger , China , Ireland , etc .
there are nice places near rivers , in the woods , where it would be nice to build a house and live .
Let those , who want emigrate from these countries , emigrate and those who want to come and live there , come and live there.Crime ?
There should be built more modern automated prisons where criminals could be re-educated and reformed .
These are the criminals of the Earth and are common global responsibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Residence cards, visas, etc.
only increase illegal immigration.
These documents can be obtained one way or another, after that they keep people from returning to their home countries, as they have invested into these residence cards.If there were no visas, no residence cards, no passports, people would come and go home after a while.
They would not stick to a certain country, because they had bought a residence card there.Such residence ID cards are good for officials who would be able to sell them one way or another, but they have nothing to do with reducing illegal immigration.Market forces would be able to regulate migration global-wise much better than corrupted officials at different countries.In Kenya, Niger, China, Ireland, etc.
there are nice places near rivers, in the woods, where it would be nice to build a house and live.
Let those, who want emigrate from these countries, emigrate and those who want to come and live there, come and live there.Crime?
There should be built more modern automated prisons where criminals could be re-educated and reformed.
These are the criminals of the Earth and are common global responsibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569248</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269275040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fines are around $700, if I read that correctly.</p><p>That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.  I pay $600 for my international travel health insurance, per year (this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US, and while I travel elsewhere.)</p></div><p>I think it really depends on who you are.  My insurance costs about $1000 year (no deductable, 20\% copay, $5k annual out of pocket max, no coverage cap) but people with fancier policies who also popped out a lot of kids can have to pay like 6x that much.  Conversely people with no kids and a lame plan (say $800 deductable, 30\% copay, no out of pocket max, $10k anual max) pay very little.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fines are around $ 700 , if I read that correctly.That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost .
I pay $ 600 for my international travel health insurance , per year ( this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US , and while I travel elsewhere .
) I think it really depends on who you are .
My insurance costs about $ 1000 year ( no deductable , 20 \ % copay , $ 5k annual out of pocket max , no coverage cap ) but people with fancier policies who also popped out a lot of kids can have to pay like 6x that much .
Conversely people with no kids and a lame plan ( say $ 800 deductable , 30 \ % copay , no out of pocket max , $ 10k anual max ) pay very little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fines are around $700, if I read that correctly.That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.
I pay $600 for my international travel health insurance, per year (this covers me almost completely-- excluding more expensive dental work-- while I live and work in the US, and while I travel elsewhere.
)I think it really depends on who you are.
My insurance costs about $1000 year (no deductable, 20\% copay, $5k annual out of pocket max, no coverage cap) but people with fancier policies who also popped out a lot of kids can have to pay like 6x that much.
Conversely people with no kids and a lame plan (say $800 deductable, 30\% copay, no out of pocket max, $10k anual max) pay very little.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567734</id>
	<title>Congratz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269271080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one would like to congratulate our transatlantian cousins for joining the civilized world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one would like to congratulate our transatlantian cousins for joining the civilized world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one would like to congratulate our transatlantian cousins for joining the civilized world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567588</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Toze</author>
	<datestamp>1269270720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50\%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6\%)"</p></div><p>Not to quibble, but "mildly unpopular" isn't a synonym for "half the population opposes it." That's "very unpopular," and the synonym is "Republican majority next election." Not that I think it'll change anything- Democrat majority didn't, after all- but tsk.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democrats : " This bill is mildly unpopular ( 40-50 \ % ) , doing nothing ( your proposal ) is extraordinarily unpopular ( 4-6 \ % ) " Not to quibble , but " mildly unpopular " is n't a synonym for " half the population opposes it .
" That 's " very unpopular , " and the synonym is " Republican majority next election .
" Not that I think it 'll change anything- Democrat majority did n't , after all- but tsk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50\%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6\%)"Not to quibble, but "mildly unpopular" isn't a synonym for "half the population opposes it.
" That's "very unpopular," and the synonym is "Republican majority next election.
" Not that I think it'll change anything- Democrat majority didn't, after all- but tsk.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567844</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1269271380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seriously doubt Rush Limbaugh ever said he would leave the US if the bill was pass. But feel free to prove me wrong, got a quote or a radio clip somewhere?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seriously doubt Rush Limbaugh ever said he would leave the US if the bill was pass .
But feel free to prove me wrong , got a quote or a radio clip somewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seriously doubt Rush Limbaugh ever said he would leave the US if the bill was pass.
But feel free to prove me wrong, got a quote or a radio clip somewhere?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570240</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rush Limbaugh is shock jock.  He is just Howard Stern geared toward a different audience.  I hardly think a "TV entertainment program" (or radio in this case) is a good benchmark for what is actually going on in the REAL world.

I think shows like Rush Limbaugh etc (repub or demo) are like pro-wrestling.  Some people just get fooled into thinking they are real.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rush Limbaugh is shock jock .
He is just Howard Stern geared toward a different audience .
I hardly think a " TV entertainment program " ( or radio in this case ) is a good benchmark for what is actually going on in the REAL world .
I think shows like Rush Limbaugh etc ( repub or demo ) are like pro-wrestling .
Some people just get fooled into thinking they are real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rush Limbaugh is shock jock.
He is just Howard Stern geared toward a different audience.
I hardly think a "TV entertainment program" (or radio in this case) is a good benchmark for what is actually going on in the REAL world.
I think shows like Rush Limbaugh etc (repub or demo) are like pro-wrestling.
Some people just get fooled into thinking they are real.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569360</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>digus</author>
	<datestamp>1269275340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I'm a big Rush fan either, but... Rush said he would go to another country, \_only\_ for medical treatment, then return after being cared for (paying out of his own pocket, for all medical costs, to receive a presumably higher grade of medical care than what he predicts we will soon be facing). Just for the record though: He never said anything about moving or immigrating...

A poll along those lines may be interesting: Who's willing to leave the country for better treatment (if things do actually get much worse)...?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm a big Rush fan either , but... Rush said he would go to another country , \ _only \ _ for medical treatment , then return after being cared for ( paying out of his own pocket , for all medical costs , to receive a presumably higher grade of medical care than what he predicts we will soon be facing ) .
Just for the record though : He never said anything about moving or immigrating.. . A poll along those lines may be interesting : Who 's willing to leave the country for better treatment ( if things do actually get much worse ) ... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm a big Rush fan either, but... Rush said he would go to another country, \_only\_ for medical treatment, then return after being cared for (paying out of his own pocket, for all medical costs, to receive a presumably higher grade of medical care than what he predicts we will soon be facing).
Just for the record though: He never said anything about moving or immigrating...

A poll along those lines may be interesting: Who's willing to leave the country for better treatment (if things do actually get much worse)...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572140</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>besttoro</author>
	<datestamp>1269283620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's talk to you when you turn 35, shall we?

My husband 1. doesn't drink (maybe a couple of beers per month?) 2. doesn't smoke 3. eats a great, healthy diet bordering on vegetarian &amp; 4. exercises one hour a day, but he tends to get high cholesterol. It's called genetics -- look it up.

But then, he probably pays much more tax than you do, since he's working when you're commenting on Slashdot. Does he mind? No. He minds entitlement to so-called "freedom" much more, because it's not working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's talk to you when you turn 35 , shall we ?
My husband 1. does n't drink ( maybe a couple of beers per month ?
) 2. does n't smoke 3. eats a great , healthy diet bordering on vegetarian &amp; 4. exercises one hour a day , but he tends to get high cholesterol .
It 's called genetics -- look it up .
But then , he probably pays much more tax than you do , since he 's working when you 're commenting on Slashdot .
Does he mind ?
No. He minds entitlement to so-called " freedom " much more , because it 's not working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's talk to you when you turn 35, shall we?
My husband 1. doesn't drink (maybe a couple of beers per month?
) 2. doesn't smoke 3. eats a great, healthy diet bordering on vegetarian &amp; 4. exercises one hour a day, but he tends to get high cholesterol.
It's called genetics -- look it up.
But then, he probably pays much more tax than you do, since he's working when you're commenting on Slashdot.
Does he mind?
No. He minds entitlement to so-called "freedom" much more, because it's not working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580158</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>IsaacKarjala</author>
	<datestamp>1269287820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>driving on public property is legally recognized as a privilege, not a right.  driving on your own private property is legally recognized as a right.  You need a license and insurance in most states to drive on public property.  You need neither to drive on your own private property.  Legally, living is recognized as a right, not a privilege.</htmltext>
<tokenext>driving on public property is legally recognized as a privilege , not a right .
driving on your own private property is legally recognized as a right .
You need a license and insurance in most states to drive on public property .
You need neither to drive on your own private property .
Legally , living is recognized as a right , not a privilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>driving on public property is legally recognized as a privilege, not a right.
driving on your own private property is legally recognized as a right.
You need a license and insurance in most states to drive on public property.
You need neither to drive on your own private property.
Legally, living is recognized as a right, not a privilege.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565792</id>
	<title>Re:Hurry up and wait</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269265620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bill worked out behind closed doors with a historically massive price just made its way through congress, and you're celebrating because your team scored one?  "likely won't change much of anything in their lives"?  Really?  So that trillion dollars is just going to be paid by other folks, right?</p><p>I don't care which party does it.  Every time "significant legislation" makes its way through congress that increases the size of government, it's always a nightmare and a step backward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bill worked out behind closed doors with a historically massive price just made its way through congress , and you 're celebrating because your team scored one ?
" likely wo n't change much of anything in their lives " ?
Really ? So that trillion dollars is just going to be paid by other folks , right ? I do n't care which party does it .
Every time " significant legislation " makes its way through congress that increases the size of government , it 's always a nightmare and a step backward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bill worked out behind closed doors with a historically massive price just made its way through congress, and you're celebrating because your team scored one?
"likely won't change much of anything in their lives"?
Really?  So that trillion dollars is just going to be paid by other folks, right?I don't care which party does it.
Every time "significant legislation" makes its way through congress that increases the size of government, it's always a nightmare and a step backward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571486</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1269281880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The really sad thing is that basically any country Rush Limbaugh will consider defecting to will have "socialized health care." It's pretty bizarre. Don't forget that Sarah Palin, who is against the health care reform bill, went to Canada as a child to take advantage of their health care system whenever she got sick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The really sad thing is that basically any country Rush Limbaugh will consider defecting to will have " socialized health care .
" It 's pretty bizarre .
Do n't forget that Sarah Palin , who is against the health care reform bill , went to Canada as a child to take advantage of their health care system whenever she got sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really sad thing is that basically any country Rush Limbaugh will consider defecting to will have "socialized health care.
" It's pretty bizarre.
Don't forget that Sarah Palin, who is against the health care reform bill, went to Canada as a child to take advantage of their health care system whenever she got sick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579762</id>
	<title>Yyyyyeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269281820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>53 million uninsured, and part of our solution is to fine people who are uninsured.</p><p>Sure, because those 53 million people are just maverick risktakers and not people ALREADY TOO FUCKING POOR TO AFFORD HEALTH CARE, FUCKNUTS!</p><p>What the fuck are these people thinking?</p><p>"Let's make a fine for not being able to afford something! That's fucking brilliant!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>53 million uninsured , and part of our solution is to fine people who are uninsured.Sure , because those 53 million people are just maverick risktakers and not people ALREADY TOO FUCKING POOR TO AFFORD HEALTH CARE , FUCKNUTS ! What the fuck are these people thinking ?
" Let 's make a fine for not being able to afford something !
That 's fucking brilliant !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>53 million uninsured, and part of our solution is to fine people who are uninsured.Sure, because those 53 million people are just maverick risktakers and not people ALREADY TOO FUCKING POOR TO AFFORD HEALTH CARE, FUCKNUTS!What the fuck are these people thinking?
"Let's make a fine for not being able to afford something!
That's fucking brilliant!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567546</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Nemyst</author>
	<datestamp>1269270660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even the common citizen can't seem to agree on WHAT reform to do, so don't expect politicians with an agenda to be able to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the common citizen ca n't seem to agree on WHAT reform to do , so do n't expect politicians with an agenda to be able to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the common citizen can't seem to agree on WHAT reform to do, so don't expect politicians with an agenda to be able to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567594</id>
	<title>How can China compete against us now?</title>
	<author>AmazinglySmooth</author>
	<datestamp>1269270780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest item missing in all of the debates is the competitiveness of the USA vs. China vs. Europe.  Smart people are leaving the USA for China everyday because China has more opportunities.  More opportunities equates to trying to take care of yourself.  By increasing the tax burden, we've given people more reason to leave to pursue a better life with more personal freedom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest item missing in all of the debates is the competitiveness of the USA vs. China vs. Europe. Smart people are leaving the USA for China everyday because China has more opportunities .
More opportunities equates to trying to take care of yourself .
By increasing the tax burden , we 've given people more reason to leave to pursue a better life with more personal freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest item missing in all of the debates is the competitiveness of the USA vs. China vs. Europe.  Smart people are leaving the USA for China everyday because China has more opportunities.
More opportunities equates to trying to take care of yourself.
By increasing the tax burden, we've given people more reason to leave to pursue a better life with more personal freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572642</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>big whiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1269285180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>they'll most likely pull an alec baldwin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 'll most likely pull an alec baldwin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they'll most likely pull an alec baldwin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569122</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm really skeptical that this is the case. When I had insurance through my work before transferring to my wife's plan I was paying approximately $400 a month on health care for the both of us. (I don't know, off the top of my head, how much my wife's plan costs us today.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really skeptical that this is the case .
When I had insurance through my work before transferring to my wife 's plan I was paying approximately $ 400 a month on health care for the both of us .
( I do n't know , off the top of my head , how much my wife 's plan costs us today .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really skeptical that this is the case.
When I had insurance through my work before transferring to my wife's plan I was paying approximately $400 a month on health care for the both of us.
(I don't know, off the top of my head, how much my wife's plan costs us today.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575592</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269253200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.</p></div><p>Only by virtue of the fact that nearly no one is happy with their insurance - you either pay too much, or get to little.  Or both.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.Only by virtue of the fact that nearly no one is happy with their insurance - you either pay too much , or get to little .
Or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it will not affect anyone who is currently happy with their insurance.Only by virtue of the fact that nearly no one is happy with their insurance - you either pay too much, or get to little.
Or both.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506</id>
	<title>Hurry up and wait</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1269264180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now we will wait and see if the apocalypse that conservatives told us this would bring arrives.  Reasonable people realized some time ago that this bill most likely won't change much of anything in their lives.  If the Democratic Party had a publicity group that was worth a shit, they would take advantage of that when the midterm elections come in November (at which point this bill will be law for several months and have done pretty well nothing that the fearmongerers had told us).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we will wait and see if the apocalypse that conservatives told us this would bring arrives .
Reasonable people realized some time ago that this bill most likely wo n't change much of anything in their lives .
If the Democratic Party had a publicity group that was worth a shit , they would take advantage of that when the midterm elections come in November ( at which point this bill will be law for several months and have done pretty well nothing that the fearmongerers had told us ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we will wait and see if the apocalypse that conservatives told us this would bring arrives.
Reasonable people realized some time ago that this bill most likely won't change much of anything in their lives.
If the Democratic Party had a publicity group that was worth a shit, they would take advantage of that when the midterm elections come in November (at which point this bill will be law for several months and have done pretty well nothing that the fearmongerers had told us).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566186</id>
	<title>You're right, but that's how it works.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Health care systems are a mixture of insurance and welfare. Pure insurance denies coverage in cases, where the adverse outcome is almost certain. No sane insurer will give flooding insurance to a house standing in a flooding area. Indeed, why should he be forced to? People who have caused multiple car accidents also get very high rates.</p><p>We treat health care differently, because we think that it is unfair to deny it to people. That is why in most First World countries everyone pays MORE than he would pay in the free market and the uninsurable sick ones get a kind of welfare transfer.</p><p>That is the price of having a more caring, dare I say Christian society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Health care systems are a mixture of insurance and welfare .
Pure insurance denies coverage in cases , where the adverse outcome is almost certain .
No sane insurer will give flooding insurance to a house standing in a flooding area .
Indeed , why should he be forced to ?
People who have caused multiple car accidents also get very high rates.We treat health care differently , because we think that it is unfair to deny it to people .
That is why in most First World countries everyone pays MORE than he would pay in the free market and the uninsurable sick ones get a kind of welfare transfer.That is the price of having a more caring , dare I say Christian society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Health care systems are a mixture of insurance and welfare.
Pure insurance denies coverage in cases, where the adverse outcome is almost certain.
No sane insurer will give flooding insurance to a house standing in a flooding area.
Indeed, why should he be forced to?
People who have caused multiple car accidents also get very high rates.We treat health care differently, because we think that it is unfair to deny it to people.
That is why in most First World countries everyone pays MORE than he would pay in the free market and the uninsurable sick ones get a kind of welfare transfer.That is the price of having a more caring, dare I say Christian society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566652</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the US.  Are they going to purchase the insurance too?  What happens when they can't pay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the US .
Are they going to purchase the insurance too ?
What happens when they ca n't pay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the US.
Are they going to purchase the insurance too?
What happens when they can't pay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577274</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1269260940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the "general welfare" of American citizens?</p></div></blockquote><p>It might.  But since this law doesn't actually do that, that's a pretty much irrelevant argument.
</p><p>Note, for the record, that this law doesn't guarantee healthcare to all American citizens to any greater extent than it was already guaranteed.  It does not even guarantee that all Americans have health insurance (it is expected to make sure that 32 million more people are insured or on Medicaid than were before.  But 32 million isn't the total number of people without health insurance, much less without healthcare.
</p><p>Nor does this law guarantee that health insurance will be more affordable.  The subsidies will kick in so that you don't have to pay more than 10\% of your gross income for your health insurance (note that I pay less than that now, and am within the income range that the subsidies should apply (400\% of poverty level - considerably more than half the country meets that criterion).  Note that if you make more than 133\% of the poverty limit, and less than 145\% of the poverty limit, this bill will require you to spend 10\% of your income (14.5\% of the poverty level), but the guy at 133\% won't have to spend anything.  Net effect - you're better off making less.
</p><p>Nor does it do anything to reduce medical costs (doctors, insurance companies, etc. will be free to increase their rates as they always have).
</p><p>Nor does it guarantee you access to a doctor.
</p><p>Actually, all it really seems to do is reduce Medicare spending (a subject of interest to me because my Mom-in-Law used Medicare), and create a couple new ways to game the system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the " general welfare " of American citizens ? It might .
But since this law does n't actually do that , that 's a pretty much irrelevant argument .
Note , for the record , that this law does n't guarantee healthcare to all American citizens to any greater extent than it was already guaranteed .
It does not even guarantee that all Americans have health insurance ( it is expected to make sure that 32 million more people are insured or on Medicaid than were before .
But 32 million is n't the total number of people without health insurance , much less without healthcare .
Nor does this law guarantee that health insurance will be more affordable .
The subsidies will kick in so that you do n't have to pay more than 10 \ % of your gross income for your health insurance ( note that I pay less than that now , and am within the income range that the subsidies should apply ( 400 \ % of poverty level - considerably more than half the country meets that criterion ) .
Note that if you make more than 133 \ % of the poverty limit , and less than 145 \ % of the poverty limit , this bill will require you to spend 10 \ % of your income ( 14.5 \ % of the poverty level ) , but the guy at 133 \ % wo n't have to spend anything .
Net effect - you 're better off making less .
Nor does it do anything to reduce medical costs ( doctors , insurance companies , etc .
will be free to increase their rates as they always have ) .
Nor does it guarantee you access to a doctor .
Actually , all it really seems to do is reduce Medicare spending ( a subject of interest to me because my Mom-in-Law used Medicare ) , and create a couple new ways to game the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does not guaranteed healthcare promote the "general welfare" of American citizens?It might.
But since this law doesn't actually do that, that's a pretty much irrelevant argument.
Note, for the record, that this law doesn't guarantee healthcare to all American citizens to any greater extent than it was already guaranteed.
It does not even guarantee that all Americans have health insurance (it is expected to make sure that 32 million more people are insured or on Medicaid than were before.
But 32 million isn't the total number of people without health insurance, much less without healthcare.
Nor does this law guarantee that health insurance will be more affordable.
The subsidies will kick in so that you don't have to pay more than 10\% of your gross income for your health insurance (note that I pay less than that now, and am within the income range that the subsidies should apply (400\% of poverty level - considerably more than half the country meets that criterion).
Note that if you make more than 133\% of the poverty limit, and less than 145\% of the poverty limit, this bill will require you to spend 10\% of your income (14.5\% of the poverty level), but the guy at 133\% won't have to spend anything.
Net effect - you're better off making less.
Nor does it do anything to reduce medical costs (doctors, insurance companies, etc.
will be free to increase their rates as they always have).
Nor does it guarantee you access to a doctor.
Actually, all it really seems to do is reduce Medicare spending (a subject of interest to me because my Mom-in-Law used Medicare), and create a couple new ways to game the system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566892</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>approachingZero </author>
	<datestamp>1269268920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is process to extend constitutional 'rights' and that is via a constitutional amendment. This bill is nothing less than an end-run around the constitution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is process to extend constitutional 'rights ' and that is via a constitutional amendment .
This bill is nothing less than an end-run around the constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is process to extend constitutional 'rights' and that is via a constitutional amendment.
This bill is nothing less than an end-run around the constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567474</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269270480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't noticed anyone claiming it did? Are you suggesting that because the constitution doesn't guarantee it, it shouldn't be allowed? I don't understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't noticed anyone claiming it did ?
Are you suggesting that because the constitution does n't guarantee it , it should n't be allowed ?
I do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't noticed anyone claiming it did?
Are you suggesting that because the constitution doesn't guarantee it, it shouldn't be allowed?
I don't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571042</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269280740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.</p><p>At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.</p><p>After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal&rsquo;s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it&rsquo;s valuables thanks to the local police department.</p><p>I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can&rsquo;t do anything right</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy .
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility .
After that , I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed , built , and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration .
I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory , I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local , state , and federal departments of transportation , possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency , using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank .
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration , enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA , I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads , to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal    s inspection , and which has not been plundered of all it    s valuables thanks to the local police department.I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can    t do anything right</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department.I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576188</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269255720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fines are around $700, if I read that correctly.</p><p>That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.</p></div><p>As a single data point, I pay $380/month for a family of three with no copays and a $5K individual / $10K family deductible.  That's just the employee's share.  I have no idea what my employer's share is.  I doubt it's much.</p><p>I priced out several other options.  For my family, an HMO plan from Kaiser Permanente would be about $1200 per month.  The PPO plan through my employer would be about $1350 per month.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fines are around $ 700 , if I read that correctly.That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.As a single data point , I pay $ 380/month for a family of three with no copays and a $ 5K individual / $ 10K family deductible .
That 's just the employee 's share .
I have no idea what my employer 's share is .
I doubt it 's much.I priced out several other options .
For my family , an HMO plan from Kaiser Permanente would be about $ 1200 per month .
The PPO plan through my employer would be about $ 1350 per month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fines are around $700, if I read that correctly.That sounds like more than health insurance would normally cost.As a single data point, I pay $380/month for a family of three with no copays and a $5K individual / $10K family deductible.
That's just the employee's share.
I have no idea what my employer's share is.
I doubt it's much.I priced out several other options.
For my family, an HMO plan from Kaiser Permanente would be about $1200 per month.
The PPO plan through my employer would be about $1350 per month.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566260</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1269267300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nowhere does it call for warrantless wiretapping - in fact, there's an amendment that specifically forbids it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nowhere does it call for warrantless wiretapping - in fact , there 's an amendment that specifically forbids it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nowhere does it call for warrantless wiretapping - in fact, there's an amendment that specifically forbids it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569762</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269276600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that the legislation is being written in such a way that to overturn the law (when it is passed), it will be so expensive to "undo" the changes that have happened that they won't want to reverse course.</p><p>In the meantime, there are thousands of medical school instructors who are calling it quits and other physicians who are leaving the profession with decades of experience.  This impact is already being felt in med schools right now, where those who are training to be the next generation of doctors are getting inferior quality instruction due to the loss of these brilliant people who are already out the door.  By the time this mess is cleaned up, we will be having interns treating us with knowledge passed onto them by other interns.</p><p>The damage has already been done, and some of it is unfortunately irreparable.  At best a Republican take over in Congress will shore up the damage and try to start the mop-up job that is needed from a legislative and executive branch who has been spending like a drunken sailor on liberty.  But in doing so they will get the blame for having to cut the mountain of social welfare programs that have pushed us into this mess and pissing off the constituents that benefit from all of those programs.</p><p>If anything, it would be interesting to simply have the Republicans sit it out entirely this next election cycle and see what the Democrats would do when the bills from all of this spending come due.  It is too bad we can't do that experiment and then see what our country would end up being like with this sort of whacked out spending.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the legislation is being written in such a way that to overturn the law ( when it is passed ) , it will be so expensive to " undo " the changes that have happened that they wo n't want to reverse course.In the meantime , there are thousands of medical school instructors who are calling it quits and other physicians who are leaving the profession with decades of experience .
This impact is already being felt in med schools right now , where those who are training to be the next generation of doctors are getting inferior quality instruction due to the loss of these brilliant people who are already out the door .
By the time this mess is cleaned up , we will be having interns treating us with knowledge passed onto them by other interns.The damage has already been done , and some of it is unfortunately irreparable .
At best a Republican take over in Congress will shore up the damage and try to start the mop-up job that is needed from a legislative and executive branch who has been spending like a drunken sailor on liberty .
But in doing so they will get the blame for having to cut the mountain of social welfare programs that have pushed us into this mess and pissing off the constituents that benefit from all of those programs.If anything , it would be interesting to simply have the Republicans sit it out entirely this next election cycle and see what the Democrats would do when the bills from all of this spending come due .
It is too bad we ca n't do that experiment and then see what our country would end up being like with this sort of whacked out spending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the legislation is being written in such a way that to overturn the law (when it is passed), it will be so expensive to "undo" the changes that have happened that they won't want to reverse course.In the meantime, there are thousands of medical school instructors who are calling it quits and other physicians who are leaving the profession with decades of experience.
This impact is already being felt in med schools right now, where those who are training to be the next generation of doctors are getting inferior quality instruction due to the loss of these brilliant people who are already out the door.
By the time this mess is cleaned up, we will be having interns treating us with knowledge passed onto them by other interns.The damage has already been done, and some of it is unfortunately irreparable.
At best a Republican take over in Congress will shore up the damage and try to start the mop-up job that is needed from a legislative and executive branch who has been spending like a drunken sailor on liberty.
But in doing so they will get the blame for having to cut the mountain of social welfare programs that have pushed us into this mess and pissing off the constituents that benefit from all of those programs.If anything, it would be interesting to simply have the Republicans sit it out entirely this next election cycle and see what the Democrats would do when the bills from all of this spending come due.
It is too bad we can't do that experiment and then see what our country would end up being like with this sort of whacked out spending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569208</id>
	<title>Contingent - I don't think it means...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1269274920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...what you think it means.</p><p><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/contingent" title="merriam-webster.com">http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/contingent</a> [merriam-webster.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>  contingent<br>2 entries found.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. 1contingent (adjective)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. 2contingent (noun)</p><p>Main Entry: 1contingent<br>Pronunciation: \kn-tin-jnt\<br>Function: adjective<br>Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin contingent-, contingens, present participle of contingere to have contact with, befall, from com- + tangere to touch -- more at tangent<br>Date: 14th century</p><p>1 : likely but not certain to happen : possible<br>2 : not logically necessary; especially : empirical<br>3<br>a : happening by chance or unforeseen causes<br>b : subject to chance or unseen effects : unpredictable<br>c : intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen<br>4 : dependent on or conditioned by something else <br>5 : not necessitated : determined by free choice<br>synonyms see accidental</p><p>-- contingently adverb</p> </div><p>You know... there is likely, but not certain chance that you can "catch" any bacterial or viral disease.<br>Or sustain any form of physical injury possible.<br>Or even acquire an illness due to the changes in your lifestyle beyond your control - such as due to aging.</p><p>None of those have anything to do with "pre-existing" conditions, but you sure as hell can make SURE that in case it happens - your ass will get the necessary treatment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...what you think it means.http : //www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/contingent [ merriam-webster.com ] contingent2 entries found .
      1 .
1contingent ( adjective )       2 .
2contingent ( noun ) Main Entry : 1contingentPronunciation : \ kn-tin-jnt \ Function : adjectiveEtymology : Middle English , from Middle French , from Latin contingent- , contingens , present participle of contingere to have contact with , befall , from com- + tangere to touch -- more at tangentDate : 14th century1 : likely but not certain to happen : possible2 : not logically necessary ; especially : empirical3a : happening by chance or unforeseen causesb : subject to chance or unseen effects : unpredictablec : intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen4 : dependent on or conditioned by something else 5 : not necessitated : determined by free choicesynonyms see accidental-- contingently adverb You know... there is likely , but not certain chance that you can " catch " any bacterial or viral disease.Or sustain any form of physical injury possible.Or even acquire an illness due to the changes in your lifestyle beyond your control - such as due to aging.None of those have anything to do with " pre-existing " conditions , but you sure as hell can make SURE that in case it happens - your ass will get the necessary treatment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...what you think it means.http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/contingent [merriam-webster.com]   contingent2 entries found.
      1.
1contingent (adjective)
      2.
2contingent (noun)Main Entry: 1contingentPronunciation: \kn-tin-jnt\Function: adjectiveEtymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin contingent-, contingens, present participle of contingere to have contact with, befall, from com- + tangere to touch -- more at tangentDate: 14th century1 : likely but not certain to happen : possible2 : not logically necessary; especially : empirical3a : happening by chance or unforeseen causesb : subject to chance or unseen effects : unpredictablec : intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen4 : dependent on or conditioned by something else 5 : not necessitated : determined by free choicesynonyms see accidental-- contingently adverb You know... there is likely, but not certain chance that you can "catch" any bacterial or viral disease.Or sustain any form of physical injury possible.Or even acquire an illness due to the changes in your lifestyle beyond your control - such as due to aging.None of those have anything to do with "pre-existing" conditions, but you sure as hell can make SURE that in case it happens - your ass will get the necessary treatment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569004</id>
	<title>If you're not a Christian, don't talk like one</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1269274320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I'm no christian at all but that's pretty much the only good thing in this book: taking care for each other, without looking at the bank account every time.</p></div></blockquote><p>It really bugs me when non-Christians take it on themselves to paraphrase the Bible.  If you're not a believer, the LEAST you could do is find an actual passage to back yourself up, rather than just popping off what you yourself admit is, at best, an uninformed opinion.</p><p>Here's a <a href="http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/1399.htm" title="biblebb.com">wonderful essay</a> [biblebb.com] by C.H. Spurgeon on what it means to be "my brother's keeper".  The Bible teaches that there is a balance between individual responsibility ("If a man does not work, do not let him eat.") and individual compassion ("love your neighbor as yourself").  It does not teach that the government ought to be the primary carekeeper for those in need.  The Bible's view of care is far, far more personal than that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no christian at all but that 's pretty much the only good thing in this book : taking care for each other , without looking at the bank account every time.It really bugs me when non-Christians take it on themselves to paraphrase the Bible .
If you 're not a believer , the LEAST you could do is find an actual passage to back yourself up , rather than just popping off what you yourself admit is , at best , an uninformed opinion.Here 's a wonderful essay [ biblebb.com ] by C.H .
Spurgeon on what it means to be " my brother 's keeper " .
The Bible teaches that there is a balance between individual responsibility ( " If a man does not work , do not let him eat .
" ) and individual compassion ( " love your neighbor as yourself " ) .
It does not teach that the government ought to be the primary carekeeper for those in need .
The Bible 's view of care is far , far more personal than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm no christian at all but that's pretty much the only good thing in this book: taking care for each other, without looking at the bank account every time.It really bugs me when non-Christians take it on themselves to paraphrase the Bible.
If you're not a believer, the LEAST you could do is find an actual passage to back yourself up, rather than just popping off what you yourself admit is, at best, an uninformed opinion.Here's a wonderful essay [biblebb.com] by C.H.
Spurgeon on what it means to be "my brother's keeper".
The Bible teaches that there is a balance between individual responsibility ("If a man does not work, do not let him eat.
") and individual compassion ("love your neighbor as yourself").
It does not teach that the government ought to be the primary carekeeper for those in need.
The Bible's view of care is far, far more personal than that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.</p><p>This bill in particular has basically been a power play between the two big parties if I understand correctly.</p><p>It didn't really pan out brilliantly for either side - the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway, whilst the Democrats didn't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get Republican support.</p><p>The lead up to why this silly thing got pushed through can basically be summarised as follows (stolen from Digg - it's a great summation):</p><p>Democrats: "We need health care reform"<br>Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we'll do it better"<br>Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses"</p><p>12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States</p><p>Democrats: "We need health care reform"<br>Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Americans are tired of partisan politics!"<br>Democrats: "OK, let's compromise"<br>Republicans: "OK, get rid of half your ideas"<br>Democrats: "Done"<br>Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"<br>Democrats: "Done"<br>Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"<br>Democrats: "Done"<br>Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"<br>Democrats: "Done"<br>Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"<br>Democrats: "Done. Time to end debate"<br>Republicans: "Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting"<br>Democrats: "OK, we'll vote--sorry guys, debate is ended. It's time to vote on the bill"<br>Republicans: "Too liberal, we vote no"<br>Democrats: "OK, it passed anyway--sorry guys."</p><p>One month later</p><p>Republicans: "Wait--wait, OK, we have less of a minority now so we can filibuster forever."<br>Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"<br>Republicans: "But we have enough to filibuster"<br>Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"<br>Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You haven't listened to our ideas! You've shut us out of this whole process!"<br>Democrats: "Sorry, show us your proposal"<br>Republicans: "Smaller government"<br>Democrats: "That's not very specific"<br>Republicans: "OK, here's our detailed proposal--It's our common-sense ideas we spent 12 years not enacting"<br>Democrats: "OK, we'll add a bunch more of your ideas"<br>Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You included all these back-room deals"<br>Democrats: "OK, we'll get rid of the back-room deals"<br>Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're using obscure procedural tricks to eliminate the back-room deals!"<br>Democrats: "No, we're using reconciliation, which both parties have used dozens of times for much larger bills"<br>Republicans: "Liberal fascists! You're pressuring Congressmen to vote for your bill! Scandal!"<br>Democrats: "It's called 'whipping', it's been done since 1789"<br>Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Can't you see the American people don't want this?"<br>Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50\%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6\%)"<br>Republicans: "We need to start over! We need to start over!"<br>Democrats: "We should really consider voting--"<br>Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Start over! Clean slate! Common-sense! America!"<br>Democrats: "OK, suit yourselves, here it comes"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.This bill in particular has basically been a power play between the two big parties if I understand correctly.It did n't really pan out brilliantly for either side - the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway , whilst the Democrats did n't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get Republican support.The lead up to why this silly thing got pushed through can basically be summarised as follows ( stolen from Digg - it 's a great summation ) : Democrats : " We need health care reform " Republicans : " Liberal fascists !
Give us a majority and we 'll do it better " Democrats : " Done , you have majority of both houses " 12 years later , health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United StatesDemocrats : " We need health care reform " Republicans : " Liberal fascists !
Americans are tired of partisan politics !
" Democrats : " OK , let 's compromise " Republicans : " OK , get rid of half your ideas " Democrats : " Done " Republicans : " Too liberal , get rid of half your ideas " Democrats : " Done " Republicans : " Too liberal , get rid of half your ideas " Democrats : " Done " Republicans : " Too liberal , get rid of half your ideas " Democrats : " Done " Republicans : " Too liberal , get rid of half your ideas " Democrats : " Done .
Time to end debate " Republicans : " Too liberal , we need more debate , we will filibuster to prevent you from voting " Democrats : " OK , we 'll vote--sorry guys , debate is ended .
It 's time to vote on the bill " Republicans : " Too liberal , we vote no " Democrats : " OK , it passed anyway--sorry guys .
" One month laterRepublicans : " Wait--wait , OK , we have less of a minority now so we can filibuster forever .
" Democrats : " Sorry , the bill already passed , we need it to pass the House now " Republicans : " But we have enough to filibuster " Democrats : " Sorry , the bill already passed , we need it to pass the House now " Republicans : " Liberal fascists !
You have n't listened to our ideas !
You 've shut us out of this whole process !
" Democrats : " Sorry , show us your proposal " Republicans : " Smaller government " Democrats : " That 's not very specific " Republicans : " OK , here 's our detailed proposal--It 's our common-sense ideas we spent 12 years not enacting " Democrats : " OK , we 'll add a bunch more of your ideas " Republicans : " Liberal fascists !
You included all these back-room deals " Democrats : " OK , we 'll get rid of the back-room deals " Republicans : " Liberal fascists !
You 're using obscure procedural tricks to eliminate the back-room deals !
" Democrats : " No , we 're using reconciliation , which both parties have used dozens of times for much larger bills " Republicans : " Liberal fascists !
You 're pressuring Congressmen to vote for your bill !
Scandal ! " Democrats : " It 's called 'whipping ' , it 's been done since 1789 " Republicans : " Liberal fascists !
Ca n't you see the American people do n't want this ?
" Democrats : " This bill is mildly unpopular ( 40-50 \ % ) , doing nothing ( your proposal ) is extraordinarily unpopular ( 4-6 \ % ) " Republicans : " We need to start over !
We need to start over !
" Democrats : " We should really consider voting-- " Republicans : " Liberal fascists !
Start over !
Clean slate !
Common-sense ! America !
" Democrats : " OK , suit yourselves , here it comes "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.This bill in particular has basically been a power play between the two big parties if I understand correctly.It didn't really pan out brilliantly for either side - the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway, whilst the Democrats didn't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get Republican support.The lead up to why this silly thing got pushed through can basically be summarised as follows (stolen from Digg - it's a great summation):Democrats: "We need health care reform"Republicans: "Liberal fascists!
Give us a majority and we'll do it better"Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses"12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United StatesDemocrats: "We need health care reform"Republicans: "Liberal fascists!
Americans are tired of partisan politics!
"Democrats: "OK, let's compromise"Republicans: "OK, get rid of half your ideas"Democrats: "Done"Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"Democrats: "Done"Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"Democrats: "Done"Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"Democrats: "Done"Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"Democrats: "Done.
Time to end debate"Republicans: "Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting"Democrats: "OK, we'll vote--sorry guys, debate is ended.
It's time to vote on the bill"Republicans: "Too liberal, we vote no"Democrats: "OK, it passed anyway--sorry guys.
"One month laterRepublicans: "Wait--wait, OK, we have less of a minority now so we can filibuster forever.
"Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"Republicans: "But we have enough to filibuster"Democrats: "Sorry, the bill already passed, we need it to pass the House now"Republicans: "Liberal fascists!
You haven't listened to our ideas!
You've shut us out of this whole process!
"Democrats: "Sorry, show us your proposal"Republicans: "Smaller government"Democrats: "That's not very specific"Republicans: "OK, here's our detailed proposal--It's our common-sense ideas we spent 12 years not enacting"Democrats: "OK, we'll add a bunch more of your ideas"Republicans: "Liberal fascists!
You included all these back-room deals"Democrats: "OK, we'll get rid of the back-room deals"Republicans: "Liberal fascists!
You're using obscure procedural tricks to eliminate the back-room deals!
"Democrats: "No, we're using reconciliation, which both parties have used dozens of times for much larger bills"Republicans: "Liberal fascists!
You're pressuring Congressmen to vote for your bill!
Scandal!"Democrats: "It's called 'whipping', it's been done since 1789"Republicans: "Liberal fascists!
Can't you see the American people don't want this?
"Democrats: "This bill is mildly unpopular (40-50\%), doing nothing (your proposal) is extraordinarily unpopular (4-6\%)"Republicans: "We need to start over!
We need to start over!
"Democrats: "We should really consider voting--"Republicans: "Liberal fascists!
Start over!
Clean slate!
Common-sense! America!
"Democrats: "OK, suit yourselves, here it comes"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567374</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1269270180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have heard that people like Rush Limbaugh have stated that they would leave the US if this bill was passed.</p>  </div><p>As long as he doesn't try to move here.<br>
<br>
Sincerely;<br>
Canada</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have heard that people like Rush Limbaugh have stated that they would leave the US if this bill was passed .
As long as he does n't try to move here .
Sincerely ; Canada</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have heard that people like Rush Limbaugh have stated that they would leave the US if this bill was passed.
As long as he doesn't try to move here.
Sincerely;
Canada
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568448</id>
	<title>It would only bankrupt those insurance companies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269273000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that do not know how to game the system; the big insurance companies that can game it will do quite well.  Compare that to the Credit Bureau industry that disolved in the 80's (except for 3 players) due to government 'good intentioned' regulation, and ended up with billions in bad loans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that do not know how to game the system ; the big insurance companies that can game it will do quite well .
Compare that to the Credit Bureau industry that disolved in the 80 's ( except for 3 players ) due to government 'good intentioned ' regulation , and ended up with billions in bad loans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that do not know how to game the system; the big insurance companies that can game it will do quite well.
Compare that to the Credit Bureau industry that disolved in the 80's (except for 3 players) due to government 'good intentioned' regulation, and ended up with billions in bad loans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566294</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>justleavealonemmmkay</author>
	<datestamp>1269267360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say "Congress shall NOT guarantee the citizens healthcare"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say " Congress shall NOT guarantee the citizens healthcare "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say "Congress shall NOT guarantee the citizens healthcare"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566490</id>
	<title>Welcome to 1984</title>
	<author>2gravey</author>
	<datestamp>1269267900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"America overwhelmingly voted for Socialism when they elected President Obama" - Al Sharpton<br> <br>

Do they not assign 1984 to be read in school anymore? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with people?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" America overwhelmingly voted for Socialism when they elected President Obama " - Al Sharpton Do they not assign 1984 to be read in school anymore ?
Seriously , what the hell is wrong with people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"America overwhelmingly voted for Socialism when they elected President Obama" - Al Sharpton 

Do they not assign 1984 to be read in school anymore?
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565556</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day, or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves."</p><p>Because it's a liberal progressive mentality bordering on socialistic/marxist ideals.</p><p>We are all 100\% equal, therefore you contribute for the others in society.</p><p>Why should you work to better yourself when the other guy will be brought to the same level with you?</p><p>There is no incentive to make oneself better</p><p>It's a complete reliance on the government. Something the Democrats, more the progressives, have been wetdreaming about for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day , or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it 's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves .
" Because it 's a liberal progressive mentality bordering on socialistic/marxist ideals.We are all 100 \ % equal , therefore you contribute for the others in society.Why should you work to better yourself when the other guy will be brought to the same level with you ? There is no incentive to make oneself betterIt 's a complete reliance on the government .
Something the Democrats , more the progressives , have been wetdreaming about for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day, or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves.
"Because it's a liberal progressive mentality bordering on socialistic/marxist ideals.We are all 100\% equal, therefore you contribute for the others in society.Why should you work to better yourself when the other guy will be brought to the same level with you?There is no incentive to make oneself betterIt's a complete reliance on the government.
Something the Democrats, more the progressives, have been wetdreaming about for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566382</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But everywhere else in the Western World has an even more "communist" health care system than the one in the bill. Perhaps the Dickensian style free market of China might suit Limbaugh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But everywhere else in the Western World has an even more " communist " health care system than the one in the bill .
Perhaps the Dickensian style free market of China might suit Limbaugh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But everywhere else in the Western World has an even more "communist" health care system than the one in the bill.
Perhaps the Dickensian style free market of China might suit Limbaugh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570384</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1269278460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, it's comments like that that get you <a href="http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story\_id=15710558" title="economist.com">written out of history</a> [economist.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , it 's comments like that that get you written out of history [ economist.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, it's comments like that that get you written out of history [economist.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571556</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1269282060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government can always up the fines if they think it's not enough. But the government is lowering the cost of health care by giving tax breaks to small businesses to provide health care to their employees, and creating state-run exchanges where insurance companies bid on providing standardized-packages that are cheap. The poor will get subsidies. Don't forget that high-deductible, disaster-only plans are still very cheap for young folk. At some point, you're better off paying the extra few hundred dollars to get health insurance rather than paying the fine to get nothing but emergency care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government can always up the fines if they think it 's not enough .
But the government is lowering the cost of health care by giving tax breaks to small businesses to provide health care to their employees , and creating state-run exchanges where insurance companies bid on providing standardized-packages that are cheap .
The poor will get subsidies .
Do n't forget that high-deductible , disaster-only plans are still very cheap for young folk .
At some point , you 're better off paying the extra few hundred dollars to get health insurance rather than paying the fine to get nothing but emergency care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government can always up the fines if they think it's not enough.
But the government is lowering the cost of health care by giving tax breaks to small businesses to provide health care to their employees, and creating state-run exchanges where insurance companies bid on providing standardized-packages that are cheap.
The poor will get subsidies.
Don't forget that high-deductible, disaster-only plans are still very cheap for young folk.
At some point, you're better off paying the extra few hundred dollars to get health insurance rather than paying the fine to get nothing but emergency care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572040</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  I believe it has been stated in some of Jefferson's letters that the "general welfare" clause only means that the government can only lay taxes to pay for the enumerated powers laid by the Constitution.  And notice that it says promote, not provide.</p><p>Does it make sense that if the general welfare clause is interpreted in the way you did, it creates a government with unlimited power?  Congress could put cameras on every street corner like the UK and it'd be "Constitutional" because they believe it's for the good of the people.</p><p>Source: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm  (Section: Limited vs. Universal Powers)</p><p>"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power,  and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
I believe it has been stated in some of Jefferson 's letters that the " general welfare " clause only means that the government can only lay taxes to pay for the enumerated powers laid by the Constitution .
And notice that it says promote , not provide.Does it make sense that if the general welfare clause is interpreted in the way you did , it creates a government with unlimited power ?
Congress could put cameras on every street corner like the UK and it 'd be " Constitutional " because they believe it 's for the good of the people.Source : http : //etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm ( Section : Limited vs. Universal Powers ) " To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States , that is to say , " to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare .
" For the laying of taxes is the power , and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised .
They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please ; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union .
" --Thomas Jefferson : Opinion on National Bank , 1791 .
ME 3 : 147</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
I believe it has been stated in some of Jefferson's letters that the "general welfare" clause only means that the government can only lay taxes to pay for the enumerated powers laid by the Constitution.
And notice that it says promote, not provide.Does it make sense that if the general welfare clause is interpreted in the way you did, it creates a government with unlimited power?
Congress could put cameras on every street corner like the UK and it'd be "Constitutional" because they believe it's for the good of the people.Source: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm  (Section: Limited vs. Universal Powers)"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.
" For the laying of taxes is the power,  and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised.
They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.
" --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791.
ME 3:147</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565940</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact you see it differently is sad indeed. How long have you lived with your mental retardation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact you see it differently is sad indeed .
How long have you lived with your mental retardation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact you see it differently is sad indeed.
How long have you lived with your mental retardation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574380</id>
	<title>Re:Those were dark times, Harry, dark times.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269248580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but unlike Canadian health care, the US Insurance co. pay out to R&amp;D for new cheaper meds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but unlike Canadian health care , the US Insurance co. pay out to R&amp;D for new cheaper meds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but unlike Canadian health care, the US Insurance co. pay out to R&amp;D for new cheaper meds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565886</id>
	<title>The Bill and the Economy</title>
	<author>DiniZuli</author>
	<datestamp>1269266040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The text of the bill:<br>
<a href="http://www.opencongress.org/senate\_health\_care\_bill" title="opencongress.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.opencongress.org/senate\_health\_care\_bill</a> [opencongress.org] <br> <br>

The economy of the bill:<br>
<a href="http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=508" title="cbo.gov" rel="nofollow">http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=508</a> [cbo.gov] <br> <br>

Congrats from Europe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The text of the bill : http : //www.opencongress.org/senate \ _health \ _care \ _bill [ opencongress.org ] The economy of the bill : http : //cboblog.cbo.gov/ ? p = 508 [ cbo.gov ] Congrats from Europe : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The text of the bill:
http://www.opencongress.org/senate\_health\_care\_bill [opencongress.org]  

The economy of the bill:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=508 [cbo.gov]  

Congrats from Europe :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565514</id>
	<title>Re:Hoorah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You're on your way to a non-broken health care system!</i></p><p>Obviously you're unfamiliar with the contents of the bill.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're on your way to a non-broken health care system ! Obviously you 're unfamiliar with the contents of the bill.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're on your way to a non-broken health care system!Obviously you're unfamiliar with the contents of the bill.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31591482</id>
	<title>All Hail King Obama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269348300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All Hail King Obama</p><p>Most Democrats did not want this specific bill</p><p>Most Repulicans did not want this specific bill</p><p>Do laws for reform to protect citizens need to be enforced to protect citizens from bureaucrats and big business?  Of course</p><p>The politicans did not represent the people here folks they represented King Obama's agenda.</p><p>The Government has Failed us!!!  They wanted history and power and control.  THey care nothing more about you than your vote to keep the sheeple following them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All Hail King ObamaMost Democrats did not want this specific billMost Repulicans did not want this specific billDo laws for reform to protect citizens need to be enforced to protect citizens from bureaucrats and big business ?
Of courseThe politicans did not represent the people here folks they represented King Obama 's agenda.The Government has Failed us ! ! !
They wanted history and power and control .
THey care nothing more about you than your vote to keep the sheeple following them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Hail King ObamaMost Democrats did not want this specific billMost Repulicans did not want this specific billDo laws for reform to protect citizens need to be enforced to protect citizens from bureaucrats and big business?
Of courseThe politicans did not represent the people here folks they represented King Obama's agenda.The Government has Failed us!!!
They wanted history and power and control.
THey care nothing more about you than your vote to keep the sheeple following them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568962</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269274260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is perhaps the best example ever, for the rule:</p><p><strong>Never argue with an idiot. First he&rsquo;ll drag you down to his level. And then he&rsquo;ll beat you with experience.</strong><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is perhaps the best example ever , for the rule : Never argue with an idiot .
First he    ll drag you down to his level .
And then he    ll beat you with experience .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is perhaps the best example ever, for the rule:Never argue with an idiot.
First he’ll drag you down to his level.
And then he’ll beat you with experience.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570178</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1269277740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a cap on profits - saying that x\% of the money they receive must go to medical procedures and treatments.  They will actually won't want to limit treatments, as they would have to charge lower premiums to cover the lower costs - and then get lower profits.  <br>
&nbsp; <br>I don't know if it does a thing at all for #3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a cap on profits - saying that x \ % of the money they receive must go to medical procedures and treatments .
They will actually wo n't want to limit treatments , as they would have to charge lower premiums to cover the lower costs - and then get lower profits .
  I do n't know if it does a thing at all for # 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a cap on profits - saying that x\% of the money they receive must go to medical procedures and treatments.
They will actually won't want to limit treatments, as they would have to charge lower premiums to cover the lower costs - and then get lower profits.
  I don't know if it does a thing at all for #3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568396</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1269272820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can only hope. I've never heard Republican's saying it, but I've spoken to many liberal democrats who hope that'll be the end result.</p><p>Single-payer is really the only way to do it anyway. It's diluting the risk pool, so the cost is minimum for everyone. Government has proven it can be very efficient at this (Medicare has a margin of 99 cents out for the dollar in)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can only hope .
I 've never heard Republican 's saying it , but I 've spoken to many liberal democrats who hope that 'll be the end result.Single-payer is really the only way to do it anyway .
It 's diluting the risk pool , so the cost is minimum for everyone .
Government has proven it can be very efficient at this ( Medicare has a margin of 99 cents out for the dollar in )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can only hope.
I've never heard Republican's saying it, but I've spoken to many liberal democrats who hope that'll be the end result.Single-payer is really the only way to do it anyway.
It's diluting the risk pool, so the cost is minimum for everyone.
Government has proven it can be very efficient at this (Medicare has a margin of 99 cents out for the dollar in)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567434</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1269270360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excuse me, that should be 'You can't have a welfare system <b>without</b> cheaters'. I regret the error.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me , that should be 'You ca n't have a welfare system without cheaters' .
I regret the error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me, that should be 'You can't have a welfare system without cheaters'.
I regret the error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31588236</id>
	<title>Nothing is free!!!</title>
	<author>cribster</author>
	<datestamp>1269376800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This country is going broke because of entitlements.    This nightmare passed by a fraud and a tyrant will need thousands of government employees to run it, all paid by taxpayers.

The waste, fraud and abuse will escalate through the roof.

The bigger government gets the more taxes we pay and the less liberties we have.   This is a MASSIVE expansion of government.   We had a revolution over this type of dictating.

I'm blessed to have seen America in it's heyday, this is the beginning of the end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This country is going broke because of entitlements .
This nightmare passed by a fraud and a tyrant will need thousands of government employees to run it , all paid by taxpayers .
The waste , fraud and abuse will escalate through the roof .
The bigger government gets the more taxes we pay and the less liberties we have .
This is a MASSIVE expansion of government .
We had a revolution over this type of dictating .
I 'm blessed to have seen America in it 's heyday , this is the beginning of the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This country is going broke because of entitlements.
This nightmare passed by a fraud and a tyrant will need thousands of government employees to run it, all paid by taxpayers.
The waste, fraud and abuse will escalate through the roof.
The bigger government gets the more taxes we pay and the less liberties we have.
This is a MASSIVE expansion of government.
We had a revolution over this type of dictating.
I'm blessed to have seen America in it's heyday, this is the beginning of the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565702</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1269265200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is worse? People taking advantage of the welfare state, or people dying because of inadequate healthcare? You can't have a welfare system with cheaters. They can be prosecuted under fraud legislation. Of course some will slip by and get away with it, but this way is dramatically the lesser of two evils.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is worse ?
People taking advantage of the welfare state , or people dying because of inadequate healthcare ?
You ca n't have a welfare system with cheaters .
They can be prosecuted under fraud legislation .
Of course some will slip by and get away with it , but this way is dramatically the lesser of two evils .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is worse?
People taking advantage of the welfare state, or people dying because of inadequate healthcare?
You can't have a welfare system with cheaters.
They can be prosecuted under fraud legislation.
Of course some will slip by and get away with it, but this way is dramatically the lesser of two evils.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576250</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269256020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No silly, Rush never said any such thing.  But enjoy your time, in less than 8 months the Republicans will have control of the House and will be real close in the Senate.  And every single bill will have a line to negate this bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No silly , Rush never said any such thing .
But enjoy your time , in less than 8 months the Republicans will have control of the House and will be real close in the Senate .
And every single bill will have a line to negate this bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No silly, Rush never said any such thing.
But enjoy your time, in less than 8 months the Republicans will have control of the House and will be real close in the Senate.
And every single bill will have a line to negate this bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567728</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269271080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices. No one chooses to get prostate cancer, no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.</p><p>This is where you and all of modern western allopathic medicine is wrong.  Health is almost 100\% purely based on lifestyle choices.  The key to good human health is to eat proper food.  I.e. raw unprocessed simple foods.  The entire health care debate is moot.  The single biggest thing the fed could do to improve human health is to repeal farm subsidies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What selfish libertarians like yourself do n't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices .
No one chooses to get prostate cancer , no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.This is where you and all of modern western allopathic medicine is wrong .
Health is almost 100 \ % purely based on lifestyle choices .
The key to good human health is to eat proper food .
I.e. raw unprocessed simple foods .
The entire health care debate is moot .
The single biggest thing the fed could do to improve human health is to repeal farm subsidies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices.
No one chooses to get prostate cancer, no one chooses to get bitten by a rabid dog.This is where you and all of modern western allopathic medicine is wrong.
Health is almost 100\% purely based on lifestyle choices.
The key to good human health is to eat proper food.
I.e. raw unprocessed simple foods.
The entire health care debate is moot.
The single biggest thing the fed could do to improve human health is to repeal farm subsidies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565844</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1269265920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.</p></div></blockquote><p>Almost everybody thinks reform is needed. Almost nobody thinks that Congress is competent enough to make good reforms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.Almost everybody thinks reform is needed .
Almost nobody thinks that Congress is competent enough to make good reforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the U.S. population point of view - there are very few people that seem to be against reform.Almost everybody thinks reform is needed.
Almost nobody thinks that Congress is competent enough to make good reforms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574540</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1269249120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?</p></div><p>They never had the same level of care and never will. The rich can go anywhere in the world for care an do indeed do that for numerous reason. That and if they wanted, could almost certainly buy organs illegally where as the poor person will never have that option</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy ? They never had the same level of care and never will .
The rich can go anywhere in the world for care an do indeed do that for numerous reason .
That and if they wanted , could almost certainly buy organs illegally where as the poor person will never have that option</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?They never had the same level of care and never will.
The rich can go anywhere in the world for care an do indeed do that for numerous reason.
That and if they wanted, could almost certainly buy organs illegally where as the poor person will never have that option
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565894</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then you have 'news' channels that do everything in their power to attack the president (which according to their own rule was very unpatriotic just one president ago), so again, because it's obama's idea.</p></div><p>Other than Fox, all major news outlets are/have been/will always be HEAVILY liberal.  So if you're seeing the news channels bash the president its because you're either only watching Fox or because what he's doing is REALLY REALLY disagreeable to "mainline" liberals.  Which should really tell you something:  what the Dems are doing to this country right now are extremely radical things.  Things that a LOT of people (maybe the majority....maybe not) simply do not agree with.  However, the Dems don't care..........they're going to do it anyway.  The recent replacement of Kennedy's long held seat by a Republican SHOULD have a been a wakeup call to the Democratic party that what they were doing was disagreeable to the people.  You know, those people they're supposed to represent?  Nah, they don't care.  They have a radical agenda, and are going to cram it down the throats of average Americans at any and all costs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you have 'news ' channels that do everything in their power to attack the president ( which according to their own rule was very unpatriotic just one president ago ) , so again , because it 's obama 's idea.Other than Fox , all major news outlets are/have been/will always be HEAVILY liberal .
So if you 're seeing the news channels bash the president its because you 're either only watching Fox or because what he 's doing is REALLY REALLY disagreeable to " mainline " liberals .
Which should really tell you something : what the Dems are doing to this country right now are extremely radical things .
Things that a LOT of people ( maybe the majority....maybe not ) simply do not agree with .
However , the Dems do n't care..........they 're going to do it anyway .
The recent replacement of Kennedy 's long held seat by a Republican SHOULD have a been a wakeup call to the Democratic party that what they were doing was disagreeable to the people .
You know , those people they 're supposed to represent ?
Nah , they do n't care .
They have a radical agenda , and are going to cram it down the throats of average Americans at any and all costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you have 'news' channels that do everything in their power to attack the president (which according to their own rule was very unpatriotic just one president ago), so again, because it's obama's idea.Other than Fox, all major news outlets are/have been/will always be HEAVILY liberal.
So if you're seeing the news channels bash the president its because you're either only watching Fox or because what he's doing is REALLY REALLY disagreeable to "mainline" liberals.
Which should really tell you something:  what the Dems are doing to this country right now are extremely radical things.
Things that a LOT of people (maybe the majority....maybe not) simply do not agree with.
However, the Dems don't care..........they're going to do it anyway.
The recent replacement of Kennedy's long held seat by a Republican SHOULD have a been a wakeup call to the Democratic party that what they were doing was disagreeable to the people.
You know, those people they're supposed to represent?
Nah, they don't care.
They have a radical agenda, and are going to cram it down the throats of average Americans at any and all costs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570750</id>
	<title>Re:Can't deny for pre-existing, but at what cost?</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1269279600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>insurers can charge whatever prices they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>insurers can charge whatever prices they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>insurers can charge whatever prices they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31591388</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269347880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes they get more customers, but this time also the ones they normally refuse (on which theycan not make profit).<br>If they all have to accept everyone, and have to be commercially then a price market can bring costs really down.</p><p>Things you might see next, are advertisment who have lets say 200 dollar risk, they pay only out if you have more medical damage then a certain price.<br>Thats actualy good if people can find their own risk factor (within controlled limits) so they will buy less medication as they have to pay the first 200 dollar from their own. It might stop people from using endless depresiva uppers or downers ( the medial intake of these goods is to much in america).</p><p>Next what you gonne get, manufactors of medicines will have to compete to create cheaper medicines since the 'money colectors' have to look how they spend their bucks. There is a lot of money wasted on to expensive medications while there are cheaper alternatives with the same ingredients, its like walking on Nikes, or Adidas.</p><p>Also interesting some alternative medications seam to work and will get funded by the money colectors, since this time they are more interested in results and not in how they got to the result. In the netherlands acupuncture is covered by most medical 'deals'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. we cannt explain it, but more people go back happy to work after it. so it got recognized although not explained.</p><p>Another effect less people sick = more people get to work<br>Another effect less risk of unhealty ghetto's TBC spreading things like that, as no anyone can get medical attention, which is better for controlling virulent diseases</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes they get more customers , but this time also the ones they normally refuse ( on which theycan not make profit ) .If they all have to accept everyone , and have to be commercially then a price market can bring costs really down.Things you might see next , are advertisment who have lets say 200 dollar risk , they pay only out if you have more medical damage then a certain price.Thats actualy good if people can find their own risk factor ( within controlled limits ) so they will buy less medication as they have to pay the first 200 dollar from their own .
It might stop people from using endless depresiva uppers or downers ( the medial intake of these goods is to much in america ) .Next what you gonne get , manufactors of medicines will have to compete to create cheaper medicines since the 'money colectors ' have to look how they spend their bucks .
There is a lot of money wasted on to expensive medications while there are cheaper alternatives with the same ingredients , its like walking on Nikes , or Adidas.Also interesting some alternative medications seam to work and will get funded by the money colectors , since this time they are more interested in results and not in how they got to the result .
In the netherlands acupuncture is covered by most medical 'deals ' .. we cannt explain it , but more people go back happy to work after it .
so it got recognized although not explained.Another effect less people sick = more people get to workAnother effect less risk of unhealty ghetto 's TBC spreading things like that , as no anyone can get medical attention , which is better for controlling virulent diseases</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes they get more customers, but this time also the ones they normally refuse (on which theycan not make profit).If they all have to accept everyone, and have to be commercially then a price market can bring costs really down.Things you might see next, are advertisment who have lets say 200 dollar risk, they pay only out if you have more medical damage then a certain price.Thats actualy good if people can find their own risk factor (within controlled limits) so they will buy less medication as they have to pay the first 200 dollar from their own.
It might stop people from using endless depresiva uppers or downers ( the medial intake of these goods is to much in america).Next what you gonne get, manufactors of medicines will have to compete to create cheaper medicines since the 'money colectors' have to look how they spend their bucks.
There is a lot of money wasted on to expensive medications while there are cheaper alternatives with the same ingredients, its like walking on Nikes, or Adidas.Also interesting some alternative medications seam to work and will get funded by the money colectors, since this time they are more interested in results and not in how they got to the result.
In the netherlands acupuncture is covered by most medical 'deals' .. we cannt explain it, but more people go back happy to work after it.
so it got recognized although not explained.Another effect less people sick = more people get to workAnother effect less risk of unhealty ghetto's TBC spreading things like that, as no anyone can get medical attention, which is better for controlling virulent diseases</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570880</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269280080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oh no! One of our founders was a socialist marxist pinko commie fascist! Run for your lives, I mean, money!"</p><p>Wow, I didn't know that Jefferson said those things.  Hmmm... I think we should remove him from our schoolbooks to protect our children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh no !
One of our founders was a socialist marxist pinko commie fascist !
Run for your lives , I mean , money !
" Wow , I did n't know that Jefferson said those things .
Hmmm... I think we should remove him from our schoolbooks to protect our children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh no!
One of our founders was a socialist marxist pinko commie fascist!
Run for your lives, I mean, money!
"Wow, I didn't know that Jefferson said those things.
Hmmm... I think we should remove him from our schoolbooks to protect our children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567104</id>
	<title>Re:Non-American: questions</title>
	<author>chowdahhead</author>
	<datestamp>1269269580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You will probably see coverage become limited--tighter medication formularies, more restricted access to specialists, and possibly higher deductibles.  Remember, companies like Cigna and Aetna are publically traded on the NYSE, they are in the business of making money and are responsible to their shareholders to maximize profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You will probably see coverage become limited--tighter medication formularies , more restricted access to specialists , and possibly higher deductibles .
Remember , companies like Cigna and Aetna are publically traded on the NYSE , they are in the business of making money and are responsible to their shareholders to maximize profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will probably see coverage become limited--tighter medication formularies, more restricted access to specialists, and possibly higher deductibles.
Remember, companies like Cigna and Aetna are publically traded on the NYSE, they are in the business of making money and are responsible to their shareholders to maximize profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568818</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269273900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rush is a pre-existing condition. Send him to France.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rush is a pre-existing condition .
Send him to France .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rush is a pre-existing condition.
Send him to France.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442</id>
	<title>Pro / cons</title>
	<author>MistrX</author>
	<datestamp>1269263820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not being a USA citizen, I can't think of any reason why this bill is controversial.<br>What exactly are the pro's and cons?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not being a USA citizen , I ca n't think of any reason why this bill is controversial.What exactly are the pro 's and cons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not being a USA citizen, I can't think of any reason why this bill is controversial.What exactly are the pro's and cons?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578060</id>
	<title>Biggest Fraud of All Time.</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1269266040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This bill is treasonous.</p><p>These people have no intention of providing health care for anyone with this bill.   Even if we wanted to, there is no way we can provide care for everyone, we already have a shortage of nurses and doctors.  Does anyone here realize how long it takes to produce a doctor?  You have to go through like 15 years of schooling.</p><p>This amounts to a HUGE money grab by pharma and insurance companies.  The stocks are through the roof with these companies.</p><p>Who controls these companies?  Well of course, the investment bankers and Wall Street does.</p><p>WOW, surprise surprise.</p><p>When will the looting end with this government?</p><p>Everyone just sat by and watched as Bankers robbed 2 generations of GDP growth and now to add insult tot injury they stole another 3 generations of GDP growth.</p><p>This is treasonous.  This in your face corruption, in the open and public<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Eventually the giant is going to awake and it is going to end very badly for everyone concerned.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This bill is treasonous.These people have no intention of providing health care for anyone with this bill .
Even if we wanted to , there is no way we can provide care for everyone , we already have a shortage of nurses and doctors .
Does anyone here realize how long it takes to produce a doctor ?
You have to go through like 15 years of schooling.This amounts to a HUGE money grab by pharma and insurance companies .
The stocks are through the roof with these companies.Who controls these companies ?
Well of course , the investment bankers and Wall Street does.WOW , surprise surprise.When will the looting end with this government ? Everyone just sat by and watched as Bankers robbed 2 generations of GDP growth and now to add insult tot injury they stole another 3 generations of GDP growth.This is treasonous .
This in your face corruption , in the open and public ...Eventually the giant is going to awake and it is going to end very badly for everyone concerned.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bill is treasonous.These people have no intention of providing health care for anyone with this bill.
Even if we wanted to, there is no way we can provide care for everyone, we already have a shortage of nurses and doctors.
Does anyone here realize how long it takes to produce a doctor?
You have to go through like 15 years of schooling.This amounts to a HUGE money grab by pharma and insurance companies.
The stocks are through the roof with these companies.Who controls these companies?
Well of course, the investment bankers and Wall Street does.WOW, surprise surprise.When will the looting end with this government?Everyone just sat by and watched as Bankers robbed 2 generations of GDP growth and now to add insult tot injury they stole another 3 generations of GDP growth.This is treasonous.
This in your face corruption, in the open and public ...Eventually the giant is going to awake and it is going to end very badly for everyone concerned.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568084</id>
	<title>Re:Brilliant Plan</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1269272040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the annual fine is around $700, that's less than twenty percent of my current annual costs.  If both my wife and I didn't have chronic conditions, it would be awfully tempting just to pay the fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the annual fine is around $ 700 , that 's less than twenty percent of my current annual costs .
If both my wife and I did n't have chronic conditions , it would be awfully tempting just to pay the fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the annual fine is around $700, that's less than twenty percent of my current annual costs.
If both my wife and I didn't have chronic conditions, it would be awfully tempting just to pay the fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568158</id>
	<title>Can't deny for pre-existing, but at what cost?</title>
	<author>Gribflex</author>
	<datestamp>1269272220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen a lot of people talking about the clause that says that insurance companies cannot deny you insurance for pre-existing conditions.</p><p>One thing that's never clear to me is whether they are allowed to charge you a premium for pre-existing conditions. I assume yes: can anyone enlighten me?</p><p>For example, lets say two people apply for health insurance. One is a smoker that has had cancer that is in remission, and the other has had a clean bill of health their whole life.<br>In theory, under the previous rules, the insurance companies were able to either turn away the one with cancer, or charge him outrageous premiums to cover their risk.</p><p>Now, the insurance companies cannot turn him away. But, they can still charge higher premiums, right?<br>It would make no sense to me if each of these guys was paying the same price, but this seems that most comments about the issue are suggesting that they would be the same price.</p><p>For reference, I've been comparing it to car insurance.<br>If I have a perfect drivers record (clean bill of health) I should be able to buy cheap insurance.<br>If I have gotten a few tickets, or into a no-fault accident (pre-existing condition), I should be able to buy insurance, but would expect to pay a little more.<br>If I have a sports car and live in a bad neighborhood (chronic condition), I should be able to buy insurance, but would expect to pay a lot more.<br>If I got drunk and crashed into a pizza hut (pre-existing condition that could be controlled: smoking, obesity due to lifestyle, heavy drug user), I should be able to buy insurance, but either with heavily reduced coverage or dramatically higher premiums.</p><p>Is this how it works with medical insurance under the new rules?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen a lot of people talking about the clause that says that insurance companies can not deny you insurance for pre-existing conditions.One thing that 's never clear to me is whether they are allowed to charge you a premium for pre-existing conditions .
I assume yes : can anyone enlighten me ? For example , lets say two people apply for health insurance .
One is a smoker that has had cancer that is in remission , and the other has had a clean bill of health their whole life.In theory , under the previous rules , the insurance companies were able to either turn away the one with cancer , or charge him outrageous premiums to cover their risk.Now , the insurance companies can not turn him away .
But , they can still charge higher premiums , right ? It would make no sense to me if each of these guys was paying the same price , but this seems that most comments about the issue are suggesting that they would be the same price.For reference , I 've been comparing it to car insurance.If I have a perfect drivers record ( clean bill of health ) I should be able to buy cheap insurance.If I have gotten a few tickets , or into a no-fault accident ( pre-existing condition ) , I should be able to buy insurance , but would expect to pay a little more.If I have a sports car and live in a bad neighborhood ( chronic condition ) , I should be able to buy insurance , but would expect to pay a lot more.If I got drunk and crashed into a pizza hut ( pre-existing condition that could be controlled : smoking , obesity due to lifestyle , heavy drug user ) , I should be able to buy insurance , but either with heavily reduced coverage or dramatically higher premiums.Is this how it works with medical insurance under the new rules ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen a lot of people talking about the clause that says that insurance companies cannot deny you insurance for pre-existing conditions.One thing that's never clear to me is whether they are allowed to charge you a premium for pre-existing conditions.
I assume yes: can anyone enlighten me?For example, lets say two people apply for health insurance.
One is a smoker that has had cancer that is in remission, and the other has had a clean bill of health their whole life.In theory, under the previous rules, the insurance companies were able to either turn away the one with cancer, or charge him outrageous premiums to cover their risk.Now, the insurance companies cannot turn him away.
But, they can still charge higher premiums, right?It would make no sense to me if each of these guys was paying the same price, but this seems that most comments about the issue are suggesting that they would be the same price.For reference, I've been comparing it to car insurance.If I have a perfect drivers record (clean bill of health) I should be able to buy cheap insurance.If I have gotten a few tickets, or into a no-fault accident (pre-existing condition), I should be able to buy insurance, but would expect to pay a little more.If I have a sports car and live in a bad neighborhood (chronic condition), I should be able to buy insurance, but would expect to pay a lot more.If I got drunk and crashed into a pizza hut (pre-existing condition that could be controlled: smoking, obesity due to lifestyle, heavy drug user), I should be able to buy insurance, but either with heavily reduced coverage or dramatically higher premiums.Is this how it works with medical insurance under the new rules?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573528</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>dwpro</author>
	<datestamp>1269288600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's something funny:</p><p>"The first is that 70\% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior" <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html" title="wsj.com">link</a> [wsj.com]</p><p>so your quote <i>"What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices."</i> is completely wrong.  now <b>that</b> is funny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something funny : " The first is that 70 \ % of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior " link [ wsj.com ] so your quote " What selfish libertarians like yourself do n't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices .
" is completely wrong .
now that is funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something funny:"The first is that 70\% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior" link [wsj.com]so your quote "What selfish libertarians like yourself don't realise is that a persons health is mostly unrelated to their choices.
" is completely wrong.
now that is funny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576740</id>
	<title>Re:Here is a nice rundown of the big points</title>
	<author>approachingZero </author>
	<datestamp>1269258120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you read your link?

'Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. ' Really? This is going to reduce the deficit. You are really so simple as to believe that?

The simple truth is this is going to be more expensive than any other federal social program ever created. And maybe you hadn't heard this, but as of today the US of A has a unfunded Medicare liability is $74 trillion.

So you just take a moment and ask yourself how this administration is going to meet the obligations made 50 years ago, let alone the obligations it rammed threw yesterday.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read your link ?
'Would reduce the deficit by $ 143 billion over the first ten years .
' Really ?
This is going to reduce the deficit .
You are really so simple as to believe that ?
The simple truth is this is going to be more expensive than any other federal social program ever created .
And maybe you had n't heard this , but as of today the US of A has a unfunded Medicare liability is $ 74 trillion .
So you just take a moment and ask yourself how this administration is going to meet the obligations made 50 years ago , let alone the obligations it rammed threw yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read your link?
'Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years.
' Really?
This is going to reduce the deficit.
You are really so simple as to believe that?
The simple truth is this is going to be more expensive than any other federal social program ever created.
And maybe you hadn't heard this, but as of today the US of A has a unfunded Medicare liability is $74 trillion.
So you just take a moment and ask yourself how this administration is going to meet the obligations made 50 years ago, let alone the obligations it rammed threw yesterday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570028</id>
	<title>Insane rates</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a health insurance which covers everything.  If whatever operation/perscription I have costs over 50euros, everything - including the 50 euros - is paid back to me.</p><p>This costs less than 300 eur/year.</p><p>-Finn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a health insurance which covers everything .
If whatever operation/perscription I have costs over 50euros , everything - including the 50 euros - is paid back to me.This costs less than 300 eur/year.-Finn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a health insurance which covers everything.
If whatever operation/perscription I have costs over 50euros, everything - including the 50 euros - is paid back to me.This costs less than 300 eur/year.-Finn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566112</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269266880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;"the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway, whilst the Democrats didn't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get [Bluedog Democratic] support."<br>.</p><p>Fixed.  The Democrats didn't need Republican support (as was demonstrated by the vote).  The problem was a lot of Democrats are actually conservatives, and they were against the "One Payer" goal set by Obama.  They were also against funding the killing of human fetuses.</p><p>The bill was watered down to make those conservative Democrats happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; " the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway , whilst the Democrats did n't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get [ Bluedog Democratic ] support. " .Fixed .
The Democrats did n't need Republican support ( as was demonstrated by the vote ) .
The problem was a lot of Democrats are actually conservatives , and they were against the " One Payer " goal set by Obama .
They were also against funding the killing of human fetuses.The bill was watered down to make those conservative Democrats happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;"the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway, whilst the Democrats didn't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get [Bluedog Democratic] support.".Fixed.
The Democrats didn't need Republican support (as was demonstrated by the vote).
The problem was a lot of Democrats are actually conservatives, and they were against the "One Payer" goal set by Obama.
They were also against funding the killing of human fetuses.The bill was watered down to make those conservative Democrats happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567332</id>
	<title>Two words: High Deductible</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1269270120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.</p></div><p>Mhahahahaha *cough* *ahem* hahahahah *cough* *cough* haha *cough* *wheeze*.  (I guess I should get that cough looked at, but with my deductible I'd be paying out of pocket to see the doc so I'll wait another week to see if it clears up on its own.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.Mhahahahaha * cough * * ahem * hahahahah * cough * * cough * haha * cough * * wheeze * .
( I guess I should get that cough looked at , but with my deductible I 'd be paying out of pocket to see the doc so I 'll wait another week to see if it clears up on its own .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is because no one puts off going to the doctor because of expense.Mhahahahaha *cough* *ahem* hahahahah *cough* *cough* haha *cough* *wheeze*.
(I guess I should get that cough looked at, but with my deductible I'd be paying out of pocket to see the doc so I'll wait another week to see if it clears up on its own.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566160</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1269267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure how you equate slashdotters and intelligent people.  I'm sure some slashdotters have brains, but they are few and far between.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how you equate slashdotters and intelligent people .
I 'm sure some slashdotters have brains , but they are few and far between .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how you equate slashdotters and intelligent people.
I'm sure some slashdotters have brains, but they are few and far between.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566886</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as I remember, the stats say that if you are supposed to have a cancer, you'd better have it in the USA. All this works ASSUMING people don't change their behaviour. The insurance companies actually like you to have prevention as it LOWERS their outlays. However, if you have the care free - you could care less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I remember , the stats say that if you are supposed to have a cancer , you 'd better have it in the USA .
All this works ASSUMING people do n't change their behaviour .
The insurance companies actually like you to have prevention as it LOWERS their outlays .
However , if you have the care free - you could care less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I remember, the stats say that if you are supposed to have a cancer, you'd better have it in the USA.
All this works ASSUMING people don't change their behaviour.
The insurance companies actually like you to have prevention as it LOWERS their outlays.
However, if you have the care free - you could care less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571152</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269281040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's my lifestyle choices:</p><p>I stayed in school<br>Didn't join a teenage gang<br>Never smoked<br>Rarely drink alcohol<br>Wear my seatbelt<br>Eat a balanced diet that includes lots of fruits and vegetables<br>Exercise at the local rec center 3x a week</p><p>However, now that I'm in middle age, I'm not as healthy as I used to be when I was in my teens and 20's.  I know that if I had made bad choices I'd be much worse off than I am now, but the point is we're all going to wear out and die someday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my lifestyle choices : I stayed in schoolDid n't join a teenage gangNever smokedRarely drink alcoholWear my seatbeltEat a balanced diet that includes lots of fruits and vegetablesExercise at the local rec center 3x a weekHowever , now that I 'm in middle age , I 'm not as healthy as I used to be when I was in my teens and 20 's .
I know that if I had made bad choices I 'd be much worse off than I am now , but the point is we 're all going to wear out and die someday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my lifestyle choices:I stayed in schoolDidn't join a teenage gangNever smokedRarely drink alcoholWear my seatbeltEat a balanced diet that includes lots of fruits and vegetablesExercise at the local rec center 3x a weekHowever, now that I'm in middle age, I'm not as healthy as I used to be when I was in my teens and 20's.
I know that if I had made bad choices I'd be much worse off than I am now, but the point is we're all going to wear out and die someday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31583454</id>
	<title>Re:Those were dark times, Harry, dark times.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269358320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that why your Prime Minister came to the US for his recent surgery?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that why your Prime Minister came to the US for his recent surgery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that why your Prime Minister came to the US for his recent surgery?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565648</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>bev\_tech\_rob</author>
	<datestamp>1269264960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good God...where are my mod points when I need them?  Great summation!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good God...where are my mod points when I need them ?
Great summation !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good God...where are my mod points when I need them?
Great summation!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568726</id>
	<title>Re:I'm fairly sure a brain is not required either</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1269273660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did any of the die-hard christians over there ever read the bible (and understood it)? Then no one would even think a split second about universal health care anymore and simply do it because that's the core of all the stuff in that ancient book.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm a "die-hard Christian", and I'm in a right bind when I'm trying to vote.  It's as though the parties purposely decided to divide up things that I might actually vote for, so it's always a lesser of two evils.  God made the world and, from my perspective, made us stewards.  So we have a responsibility to care for the environment.  The Bible has a lot to say about the rich and the poor, employers and workers; and it's not in the favor of the rich.  I think unions have often gone too far in the wrong direction, but they, along with laws which protect workers are absolutely necessary.  I'm in favor of many of the health care proposals Obama put forward, including the public option, no exclusion of pre-existing conditions, and required coverage.
</p><p>On the other hand, I think overall that big government is not the way to solve things; it causes more problems than it fixes.  I can see the dampening effect of socialism on efficiency and creativity where I live here in England, and although I can see the benefits of government-run health-care, overall I'm still not in favor of it.  My belief that we should care for the weakest and most helpless in our society makes me want to protect workers and help the poor, but makes me also strongly opposed to the idea of the very weakest, those without a voice, being killed for the convenience of others (abortion).
</p><p>And of course there are some things, like copyright extensions, DRM, and so on where neither of the major parties vote my way.
</p><p>At any rate, there are Christians who take try to take their faith into their voting, but it's not really that simple to do.  And the the "God bless America" people annoy me too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did any of the die-hard christians over there ever read the bible ( and understood it ) ?
Then no one would even think a split second about universal health care anymore and simply do it because that 's the core of all the stuff in that ancient book.I 'm a " die-hard Christian " , and I 'm in a right bind when I 'm trying to vote .
It 's as though the parties purposely decided to divide up things that I might actually vote for , so it 's always a lesser of two evils .
God made the world and , from my perspective , made us stewards .
So we have a responsibility to care for the environment .
The Bible has a lot to say about the rich and the poor , employers and workers ; and it 's not in the favor of the rich .
I think unions have often gone too far in the wrong direction , but they , along with laws which protect workers are absolutely necessary .
I 'm in favor of many of the health care proposals Obama put forward , including the public option , no exclusion of pre-existing conditions , and required coverage .
On the other hand , I think overall that big government is not the way to solve things ; it causes more problems than it fixes .
I can see the dampening effect of socialism on efficiency and creativity where I live here in England , and although I can see the benefits of government-run health-care , overall I 'm still not in favor of it .
My belief that we should care for the weakest and most helpless in our society makes me want to protect workers and help the poor , but makes me also strongly opposed to the idea of the very weakest , those without a voice , being killed for the convenience of others ( abortion ) .
And of course there are some things , like copyright extensions , DRM , and so on where neither of the major parties vote my way .
At any rate , there are Christians who take try to take their faith into their voting , but it 's not really that simple to do .
And the the " God bless America " people annoy me too .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did any of the die-hard christians over there ever read the bible (and understood it)?
Then no one would even think a split second about universal health care anymore and simply do it because that's the core of all the stuff in that ancient book.I'm a "die-hard Christian", and I'm in a right bind when I'm trying to vote.
It's as though the parties purposely decided to divide up things that I might actually vote for, so it's always a lesser of two evils.
God made the world and, from my perspective, made us stewards.
So we have a responsibility to care for the environment.
The Bible has a lot to say about the rich and the poor, employers and workers; and it's not in the favor of the rich.
I think unions have often gone too far in the wrong direction, but they, along with laws which protect workers are absolutely necessary.
I'm in favor of many of the health care proposals Obama put forward, including the public option, no exclusion of pre-existing conditions, and required coverage.
On the other hand, I think overall that big government is not the way to solve things; it causes more problems than it fixes.
I can see the dampening effect of socialism on efficiency and creativity where I live here in England, and although I can see the benefits of government-run health-care, overall I'm still not in favor of it.
My belief that we should care for the weakest and most helpless in our society makes me want to protect workers and help the poor, but makes me also strongly opposed to the idea of the very weakest, those without a voice, being killed for the convenience of others (abortion).
And of course there are some things, like copyright extensions, DRM, and so on where neither of the major parties vote my way.
At any rate, there are Christians who take try to take their faith into their voting, but it's not really that simple to do.
And the the "God bless America" people annoy me too.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566104</id>
	<title>Re:Pro / cons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there was ever the need for an "unload all mod points on this post" button in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., this is it.

Now comes the part were the Republicans claim America will be destroyed by this bill and they'll spend the next decade blaming everything from terrorism to unemployment to anal warts to make people think it did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there was ever the need for an " unload all mod points on this post " button in /. , this is it .
Now comes the part were the Republicans claim America will be destroyed by this bill and they 'll spend the next decade blaming everything from terrorism to unemployment to anal warts to make people think it did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there was ever the need for an "unload all mod points on this post" button in /., this is it.
Now comes the part were the Republicans claim America will be destroyed by this bill and they'll spend the next decade blaming everything from terrorism to unemployment to anal warts to make people think it did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573264</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269287460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How you got modded insightful for taking the PREAMBLE out of context is beyond me.  You should look up the meaning of the block of text you are quoting before trying to understand it.  However, if that was your FIRST TIME READING IT, then its understandable.  I just hope the replies you got helped you really understand what you were reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How you got modded insightful for taking the PREAMBLE out of context is beyond me .
You should look up the meaning of the block of text you are quoting before trying to understand it .
However , if that was your FIRST TIME READING IT , then its understandable .
I just hope the replies you got helped you really understand what you were reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How you got modded insightful for taking the PREAMBLE out of context is beyond me.
You should look up the meaning of the block of text you are quoting before trying to understand it.
However, if that was your FIRST TIME READING IT, then its understandable.
I just hope the replies you got helped you really understand what you were reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572330</id>
	<title>Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269284280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can drive legally without car insurance.  1) I can "drive" a bike to on public streets without car insurance.  I can drive some farm equipment on public streets without car insurance.  &amp; 2) I can drive a car all day long on MY PROPERTY without having car insurance (or a driver's license or vehicle registration).</p><p>Depending on the State, car insurance requirements are different but are primarily designed to protect, not the driver, but other people.  Because a car and do a lot of damage to people and property, the insurance is required so if you, the driver, are at fault in an accident the other people can be "made whole".</p><p>Health insurance and car insurance are apples and oranges, the only thing related is the word "insurance".  Of course, I wouldn't expect someone who can't fathom that simple difference to grasp the fundamental Constitutional as well as moral problem with this giant power grab they Federal Government.  That kind of person is just the kind of useful idiot the Democrats rely upon to get elected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can drive legally without car insurance .
1 ) I can " drive " a bike to on public streets without car insurance .
I can drive some farm equipment on public streets without car insurance .
&amp; 2 ) I can drive a car all day long on MY PROPERTY without having car insurance ( or a driver 's license or vehicle registration ) .Depending on the State , car insurance requirements are different but are primarily designed to protect , not the driver , but other people .
Because a car and do a lot of damage to people and property , the insurance is required so if you , the driver , are at fault in an accident the other people can be " made whole " .Health insurance and car insurance are apples and oranges , the only thing related is the word " insurance " .
Of course , I would n't expect someone who ca n't fathom that simple difference to grasp the fundamental Constitutional as well as moral problem with this giant power grab they Federal Government .
That kind of person is just the kind of useful idiot the Democrats rely upon to get elected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can drive legally without car insurance.
1) I can "drive" a bike to on public streets without car insurance.
I can drive some farm equipment on public streets without car insurance.
&amp; 2) I can drive a car all day long on MY PROPERTY without having car insurance (or a driver's license or vehicle registration).Depending on the State, car insurance requirements are different but are primarily designed to protect, not the driver, but other people.
Because a car and do a lot of damage to people and property, the insurance is required so if you, the driver, are at fault in an accident the other people can be "made whole".Health insurance and car insurance are apples and oranges, the only thing related is the word "insurance".
Of course, I wouldn't expect someone who can't fathom that simple difference to grasp the fundamental Constitutional as well as moral problem with this giant power grab they Federal Government.
That kind of person is just the kind of useful idiot the Democrats rely upon to get elected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568132</id>
	<title>If only.</title>
	<author>Grendel Drago</author>
	<datestamp>1269272160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about as likely as those whiners who threatened to "Go Galt" actually doing it, which is to say, of course it was an empty threat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about as likely as those whiners who threatened to " Go Galt " actually doing it , which is to say , of course it was an empty threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about as likely as those whiners who threatened to "Go Galt" actually doing it, which is to say, of course it was an empty threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566596</id>
	<title>Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1269268200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>selfish libertarians</p></div><p>You, sir, are too kind.  Compliments such as this truly lighten a dark day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>selfish libertariansYou , sir , are too kind .
Compliments such as this truly lighten a dark day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>selfish libertariansYou, sir, are too kind.
Compliments such as this truly lighten a dark day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580174</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended consequences?</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1269374400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is it unconstitutional?

<p>Unpopular? Among right-wing fascists, perhaps.

</p><p>And if you it was easy to just overturning it just like that, do you really think it would have become law in the first place? No, you can bet on your constitution dildo that Obama knows what he's doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it unconstitutional ?
Unpopular ? Among right-wing fascists , perhaps .
And if you it was easy to just overturning it just like that , do you really think it would have become law in the first place ?
No , you can bet on your constitution dildo that Obama knows what he 's doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it unconstitutional?
Unpopular? Among right-wing fascists, perhaps.
And if you it was easy to just overturning it just like that, do you really think it would have become law in the first place?
No, you can bet on your constitution dildo that Obama knows what he's doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566736</id>
	<title>This was a tough one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but I'm glad it finally passed. Unfortunately, Obama sacrificed his entire presidency to get this through - the tea party crowd is going to go on an insane campaigning binge and take away the Democratic majority in Congress. As of November, nothing will get done for the next 2 years; the Republicans will see to that.</p><p>Anyone who disagrees with these new rules has clearly never been in a situation where they're self-employed, or unemployed, or have a pre-existing illness, and therefore can't get affordable health insurance. Or, they are/have been, and are just so anti-government that they don't understand that this helps people. I actually see this a lot among peers...they're well-educated, grew up in wealthy households, and have never been unemployed a day in their life. They also work for companies that have reasonably decent health insurance. Insurance companies do a really good job of hiding actual costs...you actually have to dig into those statements they send you to find out how much the provider billed and was paid. If you didn't do this, you would have no idea how much that $1000 MRI cost you -- you might think it only cost the $20 copayment.</p><p>This law isn't for people who have good insurance through stable companies. It's for the people that work crappy jobs with no insurance benefits, are self-employed, or work for a tightwad small business owner who refuses to buy adequate health insurance.For those who think that's a minority of the population -- just wait until all those nice safe white-collar jobs get outsourced as well. Everyone complaining about this will be in the same boat that today's uninsured are.</p><p>That said, it has flaws. It's expensive, it only reins in the insurance companies instead of replacing them, and it doesn't address the actual cost of care. The expensive part can be taken care of by taxes -- although everyone in this country seems to have a problem with that unless they're getting direct beneifts. Cost of care is going to be the hard one - there are so many inefficient niches in the medical world that are all trying to protect their turf (malpractice lawyers, medical billing people, larger-than-needed office staffs at healthcare providers.)</p><p>if it were me, I would have proposed extending Medicare coverage to everyone, raising the Medicare tax appropriately, and leaving the insurance companies to fight over the 20\% of cost that doesn't get covered by Medicare. But it's not me, so this is what we have to work with. At least it's better than nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I 'm glad it finally passed .
Unfortunately , Obama sacrificed his entire presidency to get this through - the tea party crowd is going to go on an insane campaigning binge and take away the Democratic majority in Congress .
As of November , nothing will get done for the next 2 years ; the Republicans will see to that.Anyone who disagrees with these new rules has clearly never been in a situation where they 're self-employed , or unemployed , or have a pre-existing illness , and therefore ca n't get affordable health insurance .
Or , they are/have been , and are just so anti-government that they do n't understand that this helps people .
I actually see this a lot among peers...they 're well-educated , grew up in wealthy households , and have never been unemployed a day in their life .
They also work for companies that have reasonably decent health insurance .
Insurance companies do a really good job of hiding actual costs...you actually have to dig into those statements they send you to find out how much the provider billed and was paid .
If you did n't do this , you would have no idea how much that $ 1000 MRI cost you -- you might think it only cost the $ 20 copayment.This law is n't for people who have good insurance through stable companies .
It 's for the people that work crappy jobs with no insurance benefits , are self-employed , or work for a tightwad small business owner who refuses to buy adequate health insurance.For those who think that 's a minority of the population -- just wait until all those nice safe white-collar jobs get outsourced as well .
Everyone complaining about this will be in the same boat that today 's uninsured are.That said , it has flaws .
It 's expensive , it only reins in the insurance companies instead of replacing them , and it does n't address the actual cost of care .
The expensive part can be taken care of by taxes -- although everyone in this country seems to have a problem with that unless they 're getting direct beneifts .
Cost of care is going to be the hard one - there are so many inefficient niches in the medical world that are all trying to protect their turf ( malpractice lawyers , medical billing people , larger-than-needed office staffs at healthcare providers .
) if it were me , I would have proposed extending Medicare coverage to everyone , raising the Medicare tax appropriately , and leaving the insurance companies to fight over the 20 \ % of cost that does n't get covered by Medicare .
But it 's not me , so this is what we have to work with .
At least it 's better than nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I'm glad it finally passed.
Unfortunately, Obama sacrificed his entire presidency to get this through - the tea party crowd is going to go on an insane campaigning binge and take away the Democratic majority in Congress.
As of November, nothing will get done for the next 2 years; the Republicans will see to that.Anyone who disagrees with these new rules has clearly never been in a situation where they're self-employed, or unemployed, or have a pre-existing illness, and therefore can't get affordable health insurance.
Or, they are/have been, and are just so anti-government that they don't understand that this helps people.
I actually see this a lot among peers...they're well-educated, grew up in wealthy households, and have never been unemployed a day in their life.
They also work for companies that have reasonably decent health insurance.
Insurance companies do a really good job of hiding actual costs...you actually have to dig into those statements they send you to find out how much the provider billed and was paid.
If you didn't do this, you would have no idea how much that $1000 MRI cost you -- you might think it only cost the $20 copayment.This law isn't for people who have good insurance through stable companies.
It's for the people that work crappy jobs with no insurance benefits, are self-employed, or work for a tightwad small business owner who refuses to buy adequate health insurance.For those who think that's a minority of the population -- just wait until all those nice safe white-collar jobs get outsourced as well.
Everyone complaining about this will be in the same boat that today's uninsured are.That said, it has flaws.
It's expensive, it only reins in the insurance companies instead of replacing them, and it doesn't address the actual cost of care.
The expensive part can be taken care of by taxes -- although everyone in this country seems to have a problem with that unless they're getting direct beneifts.
Cost of care is going to be the hard one - there are so many inefficient niches in the medical world that are all trying to protect their turf (malpractice lawyers, medical billing people, larger-than-needed office staffs at healthcare providers.
)if it were me, I would have proposed extending Medicare coverage to everyone, raising the Medicare tax appropriately, and leaving the insurance companies to fight over the 20\% of cost that doesn't get covered by Medicare.
But it's not me, so this is what we have to work with.
At least it's better than nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1269267900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or the CIA. Or the air force. Or the public education system. Or funding nuclear power plants. Or the FDA, FCC, CDC, OSHA, EPA, FBI, NSA, and believe me, I could go on.</p><p>The founding fathers believed only landowning white men should have rights. The world is quite a different place. We have germ theory, evolutionary theory, cars, planes, electricity, running water, and a toilet that is more than a hole in the ground. And women and non-whites and non-landowners can vote.</p><p>The real genius of the Constitution is that they gave us the power to change it. So, right after you get all of the above in the Constitution, you're welcome to start bitching. Otherwise, it's just empty rhetorical fluff that stops rational discussion.</p><p>One thing many of the founding fathers had was an affinity for a "natural" aristocracy, in other words, smart people; and a hatred of the aristocracy of birthright, in other words, wealthy people. In fact, some of them believed in awarding good education through competition and paying for it with public funds, passed laws ending entails and primogeniture, and here's a couple quotes that will really blow your mind:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.</p><p>Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.</p></div><p>Oh no! One of our founders was a socialist marxist pinko commie fascist! Run for your lives, I mean, money!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the CIA .
Or the air force .
Or the public education system .
Or funding nuclear power plants .
Or the FDA , FCC , CDC , OSHA , EPA , FBI , NSA , and believe me , I could go on.The founding fathers believed only landowning white men should have rights .
The world is quite a different place .
We have germ theory , evolutionary theory , cars , planes , electricity , running water , and a toilet that is more than a hole in the ground .
And women and non-whites and non-landowners can vote.The real genius of the Constitution is that they gave us the power to change it .
So , right after you get all of the above in the Constitution , you 're welcome to start bitching .
Otherwise , it 's just empty rhetorical fluff that stops rational discussion.One thing many of the founding fathers had was an affinity for a " natural " aristocracy , in other words , smart people ; and a hatred of the aristocracy of birthright , in other words , wealthy people .
In fact , some of them believed in awarding good education through competition and paying for it with public funds , passed laws ending entails and primogeniture , and here 's a couple quotes that will really blow your mind : " Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual .
" -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison , 1784.Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point , and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise .
" -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison , 1785.Oh no !
One of our founders was a socialist marxist pinko commie fascist !
Run for your lives , I mean , money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the CIA.
Or the air force.
Or the public education system.
Or funding nuclear power plants.
Or the FDA, FCC, CDC, OSHA, EPA, FBI, NSA, and believe me, I could go on.The founding fathers believed only landowning white men should have rights.
The world is quite a different place.
We have germ theory, evolutionary theory, cars, planes, electricity, running water, and a toilet that is more than a hole in the ground.
And women and non-whites and non-landowners can vote.The real genius of the Constitution is that they gave us the power to change it.
So, right after you get all of the above in the Constitution, you're welcome to start bitching.
Otherwise, it's just empty rhetorical fluff that stops rational discussion.One thing many of the founding fathers had was an affinity for a "natural" aristocracy, in other words, smart people; and a hatred of the aristocracy of birthright, in other words, wealthy people.
In fact, some of them believed in awarding good education through competition and paying for it with public funds, passed laws ending entails and primogeniture, and here's a couple quotes that will really blow your mind:"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.
" -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
" -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.Oh no!
One of our founders was a socialist marxist pinko commie fascist!
Run for your lives, I mean, money!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570466</id>
	<title>Re:It is surprising to me</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1269278640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our nation is already bankrupt, this bill now solidifies it. If the "system" implodes, all of the above will be washed to sea anyways. I suppose it was just a matter of time. Nations rise, nations fall. It's the history of the world all over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our nation is already bankrupt , this bill now solidifies it .
If the " system " implodes , all of the above will be washed to sea anyways .
I suppose it was just a matter of time .
Nations rise , nations fall .
It 's the history of the world all over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our nation is already bankrupt, this bill now solidifies it.
If the "system" implodes, all of the above will be washed to sea anyways.
I suppose it was just a matter of time.
Nations rise, nations fall.
It's the history of the world all over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572496</id>
	<title>Re:Hurry up and wait</title>
	<author>tophermeyer</author>
	<datestamp>1269284760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So that trillion dollars is just going to be paid by other folks, right?</p></div><p>That's just how we roll here.  That's how we spent ourselves out of what I like to call the Second Great Depression.  That's how we got into a financial nightmare in the first place, just so we could show the world how awesome we are by fixing it.  That's also how we financed two ridiculously successful wars.  Hell, we did such a good job winning those wars that we just decided to stick around over there and keep winning them.</p><p>Seriously now, how in the world will this not significantly affect anything?  My insurance company is no longer able to refuse to cover high risk patients or people who already have huge costs, so now they will turn around and raise my premiums to balance their actuarial tables.  And now I can no longer walk away from the whole expensive mess without paying a fine.  </p><p>To the GP:  Reasonable people realized long ago that their interests were not being represented in this debate.  Reasonable people will remember this come mid-terms, and hopefully will place their votes not along party lines, but for candidates that actually give a damn about what their constituents say they want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that trillion dollars is just going to be paid by other folks , right ? That 's just how we roll here .
That 's how we spent ourselves out of what I like to call the Second Great Depression .
That 's how we got into a financial nightmare in the first place , just so we could show the world how awesome we are by fixing it .
That 's also how we financed two ridiculously successful wars .
Hell , we did such a good job winning those wars that we just decided to stick around over there and keep winning them.Seriously now , how in the world will this not significantly affect anything ?
My insurance company is no longer able to refuse to cover high risk patients or people who already have huge costs , so now they will turn around and raise my premiums to balance their actuarial tables .
And now I can no longer walk away from the whole expensive mess without paying a fine .
To the GP : Reasonable people realized long ago that their interests were not being represented in this debate .
Reasonable people will remember this come mid-terms , and hopefully will place their votes not along party lines , but for candidates that actually give a damn about what their constituents say they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that trillion dollars is just going to be paid by other folks, right?That's just how we roll here.
That's how we spent ourselves out of what I like to call the Second Great Depression.
That's how we got into a financial nightmare in the first place, just so we could show the world how awesome we are by fixing it.
That's also how we financed two ridiculously successful wars.
Hell, we did such a good job winning those wars that we just decided to stick around over there and keep winning them.Seriously now, how in the world will this not significantly affect anything?
My insurance company is no longer able to refuse to cover high risk patients or people who already have huge costs, so now they will turn around and raise my premiums to balance their actuarial tables.
And now I can no longer walk away from the whole expensive mess without paying a fine.
To the GP:  Reasonable people realized long ago that their interests were not being represented in this debate.
Reasonable people will remember this come mid-terms, and hopefully will place their votes not along party lines, but for candidates that actually give a damn about what their constituents say they want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565792</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31583570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_233</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_257</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_255</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31590660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31591388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_199</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31593548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_279</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_263</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_193</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_273</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_284</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_231</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_242</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_218</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_187</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_204</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_250</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_228</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_260</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_212</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_198</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_190</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_222</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31599754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_287</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_192</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_249</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31616240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_207</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_281</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31608498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_259</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_217</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_291</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_184</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_201</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_225</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_236</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_211</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_246</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_189</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_252</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_276</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_262</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31614692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_270</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_289</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_235</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_209</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_241</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_219</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_265</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_186</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_195</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_251</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_227</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_275</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_238</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_286</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_248</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31583454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_206</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_280</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_256</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_214</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_183</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_200</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_278</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_224</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_194</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_230</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_237</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_283</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31583698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_245</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_203</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_269</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_267</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_213</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_197</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31615198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31614792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_277</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_288</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_221</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31589388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_232</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_208</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31599416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_254</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_240</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_264</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31615344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_216</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_185</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_226</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_272</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_196</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_285</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_243</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31593364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_253</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31598936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_188</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_205</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_229</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_215</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_261</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_191</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_223</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_271</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_234</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_282</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_258</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_244</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_290</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_202</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_268</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31582106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_266</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_210</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_274</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_220</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_239</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0929202_247</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31583454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566514
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569004
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31598936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568618
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569074
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31614692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31593548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567944
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31590660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31615344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31591388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31599754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31614792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31578384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565844
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567546
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569778
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566874
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566760
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570224
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31616240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565652
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565940
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569368
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31575906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567480
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31615198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565894
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31574872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565812
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31582106
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567116
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566578
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566214
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566166
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568748
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572498
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572274
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568896
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571372
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571190
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31577596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31583698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566820
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568752
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572140
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571174
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569602
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566596
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571962
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31599416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31589388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0929202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570122
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580194
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31583570
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31579606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31593364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31566382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31580664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31570402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31576946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31571308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31573392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31569588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31568818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31567758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31565746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31572642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0929202.31608498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
