"CJT" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:

wrote:

the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them dying in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed soldiers).

2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people (out of 300
million) have health insurance.

cite?



I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support your point,
or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm

Rich256 wrote:

snip

There is more money to be made being a lawyer
sueing doctors than practicing medicine!!

cite? (I doubt that very much.)



--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

iraq war lifetime costs well over a trillion today and rising.

such costs as long term care for wounded veterans, psych care etc.

war costs are more than todays costs and has only one way to go thats
up

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message
...

HeyBub wrote:


wrote:


the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them dying in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed soldiers).


2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people (out of 300
million) have health insurance.

cite?




I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support your point,
or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

wrote in message
...
iraq war lifetime costs well over a trillion today and rising.

such costs as long term care for wounded veterans, psych care etc.

war costs are more than todays costs and has only one way to go thats
up


The things you said, above, are in no way related to CJT's request for
information on the numbers of uninsured. Please stop drinking, and try to
read more slowly for better comprehension.

Thank you.

On Dec 27, 7:51*pm, CJT wrote:
Rich256 wrote:

snip

There is more money to be made being a lawyer

sueing doctors than practicing medicine!!

cite? *(I doubt that very much.)

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. *Our true address is of the form .

It was intended as a "tongue in Cheek" comment but take John Edwards
for example.

CJT wrote:
wrote:

On Dec 26, 8:12?pm, Caesar Romano wrote:

I hate to admit it, but B.O. is the only candidate with a reasonable
health care plan:http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/


plus obama isnt part of the problem I DONT like dynasties, clinton
would be another dynasty like the bushes........

There is NO other dynasty like the #$%^&* Bushes.

I thought we had a good start. I was rooting for JEB Bush in this cycle and,
after eight years, that good looking Hispanic nephew. By then the dynasty
would be pretty well established and it would be only a small step to a
monarchy.

We conservatives have a nostalgia for the way things used to be...

wrote:

the first step to fix things is election reform, limits on campaign
fund raising, and term limits.........


George Will promoted a version of campaign finance reform. It had only three
features:

1. No cash.
2. No foreign contributions.
3. Instant disclosure.

CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

wrote:

the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch
healthcare for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them dying in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred
billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed
soldiers).

Trillion, schmillion. It's for the children.


2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people (out of
300 million) have health insurance.

cite?

All the Democratic candidates complain there are 47 million people in this
country without health insurance. Assuming there are about 300 million folks
(299,398,484*) in the country, 300 - 47 = 253. My math may be a little off -
it's been quite a while since I was in the 2nd grade. Your numbers may vary.


3. Waste in health care or the government is not the issue. In spite
of political claims, we can tolerate an enormous amount of waste and
inefficiency; our economy is that robust. What we can't tolerate is
some functionary telling us: "No you can't have a wart removal -
you're 45 and will die soon. It's not economical."

That's probably why nobody proposes such a system.

Giggle. Nobody but Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. I haven't
looked at Dodd, Richardson, or Biden.

----
*http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

CJT wrote:
I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support your
point, or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

As I recall, of the 45 million uninsured, about 12 million are illegal
aliens, 13 million are eligible for Medicare or Medicaid whose enrollment is
automatic when they apply for health care, 7 million are young people who
choose not to spend the money, about 2 million are between jobs that will
provide insurance, 6 million are eligible for VA treatment, about 1 million
are eligible for some sort of other government insurance (SCHIP, etc.) but
do not apply, and about one million are rich enough to self-insure.

That's 42 million of the 45 uninsured. I think the remaining 3 million are
visitors from Canada.

In article , CJT
wrote:

45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

Statistically, 1/2 of a person's lifetime health care costs occur in the
last 12 months of their life. That health care is subtracted from
younger people who have a life ahead of them. Maybe we should spend
less on the elderly (I'm 69).

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:17:43 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I don't want a health care plan. I want the government to live within its
budget, and within the limits the Constitution places on government.


I do not have health insurance. Any candidate that proposes a
government health care plan will automatically NOT get my vote.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:58:22 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:
I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support your
point, or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

As I recall, of the 45 million uninsured, about 12 million are illegal
aliens, 13 million are eligible for Medicare or Medicaid whose enrollment is
automatic when they apply for health care, 7 million are young people who
choose not to spend the money, about 2 million are between jobs that will
provide insurance, 6 million are eligible for VA treatment, about 1 million
are eligible for some sort of other government insurance (SCHIP, etc.) but
do not apply, and about one million are rich enough to self-insure.

That's 42 million of the 45 uninsured. I think the remaining 3 million are
visitors from Canada.


Sounds like a severe case of F.Y.I.G.M.

Come to think of it, that IS a Republican anthem.

rj

RJ wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:58:22 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:
I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support
your point, or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

As I recall, of the 45 million uninsured, about 12 million are
illegal aliens, 13 million are eligible for Medicare or Medicaid
whose enrollment is automatic when they apply for health care, 7
million are young people who choose not to spend the money, about 2
million are between jobs that will provide insurance, 6 million are
eligible for VA treatment, about 1 million are eligible for some
sort of other government insurance (SCHIP, etc.) but do not apply,
and about one million are rich enough to self-insure.

That's 42 million of the 45 uninsured. I think the remaining 3
million are visitors from Canada.


Sounds like a severe case of F.Y.I.G.M.

Come to think of it, that IS a Republican anthem.

Hmmm... it sounds like you've got a terminal case of Y.M.B.T.T.G. (Your
Money Belongs To The Government)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:18:47 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:

David Starr wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:47:08 GMT, CJT wrote:



There is NO other dynasty like the #$%^&* Bushes.


The scumbag Clintons got them beat.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi,
You like ever rising budget deficit and sky rocketing debt then?

Want a tax rate of 75% on your income, then?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

wrote:


On Dec 26, 8:12?pm, Caesar Romano wrote:


I hate to admit it, but B.O. is the only candidate with a reasonable
health care plan:http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/


plus obama isnt part of the problem I DONT like dynasties, clinton
would be another dynasty like the bushes........


There is NO other dynasty like the #$%^&* Bushes.


I thought we had a good start. I was rooting for JEB Bush in this cycle and,
after eight years, that good looking Hispanic nephew. By then the dynasty
would be pretty well established and it would be only a small step to a
monarchy.

We conservatives have a nostalgia for the way things used to be...


Yeah, I know. It especially applies to women, blacks, ...

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

HeyBub wrote:


wrote:


the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch
healthcare for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them dying in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred
billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed
soldiers).


Trillion, schmillion. It's for the children.

Nah, the debt is for the children. The war is for the oil companies.



2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people (out of
300 million) have health insurance.

cite?


All the Democratic candidates complain there are 47 million people in this
country without health insurance. Assuming there are about 300 million folks
(299,398,484*) in the country, 300 - 47 = 253. My math may be a little off -
it's been quite a while since I was in the 2nd grade. Your numbers may vary.


That's 47 million too many.


3. Waste in health care or the government is not the issue. In spite
of political claims, we can tolerate an enormous amount of waste and
inefficiency; our economy is that robust. What we can't tolerate is
some functionary telling us: "No you can't have a wart removal -
you're 45 and will die soon. It's not economical."

That's probably why nobody proposes such a system.


Giggle. Nobody but Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. I haven't
looked at Dodd, Richardson, or Biden.

Sorry, no.


----
*http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html




--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:26:24 GMT, CJT wrote:

All the Democratic candidates complain there are 47 million people
in this country without health insurance. Assuming there are about
300 million folks (299,398,484*) in the country, 300 - 47 = 253. My
math may be a little off - it's been quite a while since I was in
the 2nd grade. Your numbers may vary.


That's 47 million too many.

So you want to force young people to buy insurance? Fine wirth me,
just don't force me to pay for theirs.

I would like to know what insurance has to do with whether or not people
actually receive health care.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"Rich256" wrote in message
...
On Dec 27, 7:17 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
""__ Bøb __"" wrote in
...

Yeah right .. .. .. if you think health care is expen$ive now .. . just
wait 'till it's "FREE"

I don't know who got this notion of universal health care started, but
(my
opinion) you are entitled to the best health care you can afford ..
nothing in the constitution says you get the best for free .. .. ..

You'd change your tune if YOU couldn't afford health care you needed to
survive a catastrophic illness.



The last I heard there is a nine month delay to get a angioplasty in
Canada. In the US they try to perform one within 30 minutes of
arrival at the hospital.

As the government funds get lower the wait increases. I will bet
Hillary and Bill wouldn't have to wait.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C1A9659582 60


At least the border is close:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11


The workable solution would be something to cover catastrophic care.
Not coverage for a sore throat.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I recall that in the early 1970s, when I was in college, I had an ID card
from my dad, for "major medical" coverage. Aetna or some other company. I
paid cash for the little stuff, which was rare, and this coverage was
supposed to kick in for big problems. I tried to find that sort of coverage
a couple of months ago. Guess what? It's now non-existent in NY State. I
intend to find out why.

That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.

--
Keith

In article ,
alt.home.repair, says...

wrote in message
...
the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch healthcare
for everyone..

Has anyone ever noticed that the ONLY thing the US Constitution allows the
federal government to spend money is the common defence? Your healthcare is
your problem. Get your priorities straight and put your health before the
new car, the fancy meals, the big house, the HDTV, the beer and cigarettes
and all the other crap you put before your health and you'll be just fine.

Oh, how unAmerican!

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message
...

HeyBub wrote:


wrote:


the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them dying in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed soldiers).


2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people (out of 300
million) have health insurance.

cite?




I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support your point,
or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

I agree. Going without insurance is foolish.

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
Stormin Mormon wrote:

I don't want a health care plan. I want the government to live within its
budget, and within the limits the Constitution places on government.

Then you need to vote for a Democrat.

Wrong!

--
Keith

Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:26:24 GMT, CJT wrote:

All the Democratic candidates complain there are 47 million people
in this country without health insurance. Assuming there are about
300 million folks (299,398,484*) in the country, 300 - 47 = 253. My
math may be a little off - it's been quite a while since I was in
the 2nd grade. Your numbers may vary.


That's 47 million too many.

So you want to force young people to buy insurance? Fine with me,
just don't force me to pay for theirs.

I would like to know what insurance has to do with whether or not
people actually receive health care.

Not much, but the populist-type candidates have to create a crisis by
claiming lack of insurance is the problem.

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support your
point, or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm



45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.


As I recall, of the 45 million uninsured, about 12 million are illegal
aliens, 13 million are eligible for Medicare or Medicaid whose enrollment is
automatic when they apply for health care, 7 million are young people who
choose not to spend the money, about 2 million are between jobs that will
provide insurance, 6 million are eligible for VA treatment, about 1 million
are eligible for some sort of other government insurance (SCHIP, etc.) but
do not apply, and about one million are rich enough to self-insure.

That's 42 million of the 45 uninsured. I think the remaining 3 million are
visitors from Canada.


[Giggle] So no problem, then. And pigs can fly, to boot.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Phisherman wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:17:43 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


I don't want a health care plan. I want the government to live within its
budget, and within the limits the Constitution places on government.



I do not have health insurance. Any candidate that proposes a
government health care plan will automatically NOT get my vote.

Do you hope to be left to die in the street if catastrophic illness hits?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

David Starr wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:18:47 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:


David Starr wrote:


On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:47:08 GMT, CJT wrote:




There is NO other dynasty like the #$%^&* Bushes.


The scumbag Clintons got them beat.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hi,
You like ever rising budget deficit and sky rocketing debt then?


Want a tax rate of 75% on your income, then?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That's not the option, so an irrelevant strawman.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:24:51 -0800, Oren wrote:

0On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:12:21 -0600, Caesar Romano
wrote:

I hate to admit it, but B.O. is the only candidate with a reasonable
health care plan:

How do I keep a candidate out of my wallet?

*
THE "TWO-COW EXPLANATION" OF WHAT MAKES...

A CHRISTIAN:
You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

A SOCIALIST:
You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your
neighbor.

A REPUBLICAN:
You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

A DEMOCRAT:
You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being
successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you
to
sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then
take
the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel
righteous.

A COMMUNIST:
You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with
milk.

A FASCIST:
You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk.
You
join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to
sell
both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which
was a
gift from your government.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE:
You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks
the
other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the
milk of
four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of
an
ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.

A GERMAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat
once
a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows but you don't know where they are. You break for
lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You
count
them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn
you
have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A MEXICAN CORPORATION:
You think you have two cows, but you don't know what a cow looks like.
You
take a nap.

A SWISS CORPORATION:
You have 5000 cows, none of which belongs to you. You charge for
storing
them for others.

A BRAZILIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You enter into a partnership with an American
corporation. Soon you have 1000 cows and the American corporation
declares
bankruptcy.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You worship them.
Oren
--

wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:26:24 GMT, CJT wrote:


All the Democratic candidates complain there are 47 million people in this
country without health insurance. Assuming there are about 300 million folks
(299,398,484*) in the country, 300 - 47 = 253. My math may be a little off -
it's been quite a while since I was in the 2nd grade. Your numbers may vary.


That's 47 million too many.


So you want to force young people to buy insurance? Fine wirth me,
just don't force me to pay for theirs.

Young people can have severe health problems, too.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:46:04 -0600, CJT wrote:

Oren wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:17:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


""__ Bøb __"" wrote in message
...

Yeah right .. .. .. if you think health care is expen$ive now .. . just
wait 'till it's "FREE"

I don't know who got this notion of universal health care started, but (my
opinion) you are entitled to the best health care you can afford ..
nothing in the constitution says you get the best for free .. .. ..


You'd change your tune if YOU couldn't afford health care you needed to
survive a catastrophic illness.


Unless; I was an incarcerated felon.

Federal Law and Court rulings; entitle federal prisoners to medical
care at no cost. They line up for Sick Call.

Same as any state system.
Oren
--

So the solution is simple -- advise everybody with a terminal disease
to knock over the nearest 7-11.

I won't hire you as a lawyer; given , you have simple solutions.

A first time offender (white collar/crime?) goes to jail for six month
sentence. first offense - age 62+ AND then his heart bypass $$$$.

That is where money is wrongly spent.
Oren
--

CJT wrote:

Do you hope to be left to die in the street if catastrophic illness
hits?

Won't happen. As some great worthy said (paraphrasing):

The law, in its majestic equality, prohibits both rich and poor alike from
begging alms on the public way, living under bridges, or sleeping in the
gutter.

HeyBub wrote:
Caesar Romano wrote:
I hate to admit it, but B.O. is the only candidate with a reasonable
health care plan:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Well, he reports the same silliness: 47 million Americans don't have health
insurance. Lack of heath INSURANCE is not the same as lack of health CARE.

Of these, 10-12 million are illegal aliens, 2-5 million are seniors who have
not yet signed up for Medicare, about 20 million are young people who have
chosen NOT to spend their money on insurance, 2-4 million are between jobs
that include insurance. So, then, 34 to 41 of the 49 million are not part of
the chronically uninsured.

As to ca Of the 8-13 million not covered, they can still get health care
at emergency rooms, pubic clinics, VA, and other sources.

Obama and many others would chance screwing up a health insurance system
that WORKS for 300 million people just so a very small number can get more
attention.




Hell, my wife can't even get a bone density scan because insurance won't
pay for it and we have deductibles to pay from her accident that
insurance won't pay. She is being denied treatment because we owe
$10,000 and haven't yet paid it all off yet, work and are citizens. I
guess the answer is to only get hurt or get sick if you have the means
to pay for it? "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ? Not for
all. And we have worked our butts off our entire lives.
Of course there are people who are without insurance by choice. Of
course an inordinate amount of tax money is spent on the health of
illegals aliens, the shiftless and criminals. What about those of us who
have served our country well, worked all of our lives. Maintained a
legal lifestyle and have always tried to do the right thing for
ourselves and our country? I can go to the VA but the nearest clinic is
75 miles from me.
I'm not sure if gov't run health care (look at the debacle that IS the
VA) is the answer but something needs to be done. Maybe the ceo's of
these companies need to learn to live on a few billion $ less.
"LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sounds like a
constitutional guarantee to me.

Rich256 wrote:
On Dec 27, 7:17 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
""__ Bøb __"" wrote in ...

Yeah right .. .. .. if you think health care is expen$ive now .. . just
wait 'till it's "FREE"
I don't know who got this notion of universal health care started, but (my
opinion) you are entitled to the best health care you can afford ..
nothing in the constitution says you get the best for free .. .. ..
You'd change your tune if YOU couldn't afford health care you needed to
survive a catastrophic illness.



The last I heard there is a nine month delay to get a angioplasty in
Canada. In the US they try to perform one within 30 minutes of
arrival at the hospital.

As the government funds get lower the wait increases. I will bet
Hillary and Bill wouldn't have to wait.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C1A9659582 60


At least the border is close:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11


The workable solution would be something to cover catastrophic care.
Not coverage for a sore throat.


There ya go. We had a health plan that covered ALL expenses but it got
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too expensive because people would go to the Doc
for a pimple. Smokers and obese people also caused the rates to rise
because they had more severe symptoms when they got a cold or the flu. I
say that if you are obese because of laziness or smoke due to stupidity
you should be on your own. Don't be an anchor around the necks of the
rest of us.

SteveB wrote:
Is Alfred E Newman, or Pat Paulson running this year?

Steve




Ron Paul is.

wrote:
the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them dying in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone




It depends on what YOU call pork. A new road by my house may be pork to
you but a new road by your house probably won't be pork to you, visa versa.

The only *"GUARANTEE" *is that the government will not interfere with or
obstruct your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness .. .. ..nobody can
guarantee achievement of those, only the opportunity to attain them I
am sorry that you are caught up in some bad circumstances, I'm sure you
didn't ask for that situation, nor do you probably deserve them.

"LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sounds like a
constitutional guarantee to me.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:30:33 GMT, graced this newsgroup
with:



There ya go. We had a health plan that covered ALL expenses but it got
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too expensive because people would go to the Doc
for a pimple. Smokers and obese people also caused the rates to rise
because they had more severe symptoms when they got a cold or the flu. I
say that if you are obese because of laziness or smoke due to stupidity
you should be on your own. Don't be an anchor around the necks of the
rest of us.


Excellent idea! And while we're at it, let's deny coverage to
motorcyclists, skateboarders, anyone who's into extreme sports,
people who trip over something in their messy house oh, and
African Americans and Latinos because we *know* they don't pay enough
taxes to make any REAL contribution to the tax base.

You see, the problem with exclusion is that, eventually, someone will
find a perfectly valid reason (in their own mind), to exclude *you*.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:35:43 -0500, "__ Bøb __"
graced this newsgroup with:

The only *"GUARANTEE" *is that the government will not interfere with or
obstruct your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness .. .. ..nobody can
guarantee achievement of those, only the opportunity to attain them I
am sorry that you are caught up in some bad circumstances, I'm sure you
didn't ask for that situation, nor do you probably deserve them.

"LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sounds like a
constitutional guarantee to me.

LIFE, not HEATH.

"krw" wrote in message
t...


I recall that in the early 1970s, when I was in college, I had an ID card
from my dad, for "major medical" coverage. Aetna or some other company. I
paid cash for the little stuff, which was rare, and this coverage was
supposed to kick in for big problems. I tried to find that sort of
coverage
a couple of months ago. Guess what? It's now non-existent in NY State. I
intend to find out why.

That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.

--
Keith


++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Sure. That's logical. zzzzzz.........

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message
...

HeyBub wrote:


wrote:


the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them dying in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred
billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed
soldiers).


2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people (out of
300
million) have health insurance.

cite?




I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support your
point,
or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

I agree. Going without insurance is foolish.

--
Keith


How much do you pay for health insurance, and in which state do you live?
I'm asking about the total price, not just the part you pay, if your
employer shares the cost.

In article msudj.10222$Ux2.1709@attbi_s22, wrote:

"LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sounds like a
constitutional guarantee to me.

Doesn't sound like it to me. That phrase is not in the Constitution anywhere.