| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
2008 Pres
|
|
#123
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article , alt.home.repair,
says... krw wrote: In article , alt.home.repair, says... 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. Sure, and they can buy insurance too. Are you suggesting that the MA plan for forced insurance should be national? I'm not so down on that, but since when is forced health insurance one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution? Oh, that's right, you leftists believe the Constitution says whatever you want it to say today. Since when does it say I in Texas should be paying to build a bridge in Alaska for $250,000,000 that is unlikely ever to be used by more than 20 people? Since when does it say the government can spy on its citizens in secret programs even Congress doesn't know about? ....but you're all for the government paying for your pet? Republicans have been interpreting things into the Constitution with reckless abandon for years. Nonsense. -- Keith |
|
#124
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
|
|
#126
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
"krw" wrote in message
t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "clifto" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: 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. No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer treatment. The government wants us to have whatever the insurance industry tells the government it wants us to have. If you disagree with this, please come back on your 14th birthday, and we can continue. Wrong. -- Keith Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding. |
|
#127
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
"krw" wrote in message
t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "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? Enough. Why do you ask? Because I want to know. When you come up with an actual number, we can continue. I came up with a number, let's continue; How much do you make? How old are you? How much do you weigh? What's your bank account number? What's your SSN? What's your mother's maiden name? -- Keith The price of your health insurance is in NO way similar to the list of information you responded with. No different; none of your business. If you believe the price is highly confidential personal information, No different. OK. Then, look back a few message to the one where you said "going without insurance is foolish". Without presenting numbers, you cannot comment on what other people can afford. If you don't have a group plan available here (Rochester NY), and you have to buy your own insurance, guess what it costs per month for a single person. A lot. More good reason to *NOT* let government have control over any part of health care. Go ahead. Guess. I don't get paid to guess. I get paid to know. -- Keith Nonsense. |
|
#128
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding. Can't talk for the OP, but to my mind, this is a way of placing blame without really thinking about the why. It is way too simplistic and pretty much used as a way to avoid actually making any effort to actually understand the underlying causes. It is used often by merely changing the name of the industry or group that has bought the politicians. |
|
#129
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding. Can't talk for the OP, but to my mind, this is a way of placing blame without really thinking about the why. It is way too simplistic and pretty much used as a way to avoid actually making any effort to actually understand the underlying causes. It is used often by merely changing the name of the industry or group that has bought the politicians. If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of all military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would happen in the ensuing months after he made that statement? |
|
#130
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
CJT wrote:
No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer treatment. Where do you get these fantasies? Rush? "[UK] A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS rationing body." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ncancer116.xml "[UK] TRANSSEXUALS won the right to have sex change operations on the NHS yesterday after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal recognised the condition as a legitimate illness." http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/821 Sorry, I didn't realize you were in the UK. Press on. I'm not. Something like the UK or Canadian system is what "they" want. |
|
#131
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kurt Ullman" wrote in message ... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding. Can't talk for the OP, but to my mind, this is a way of placing blame without really thinking about the why. It is way too simplistic and pretty much used as a way to avoid actually making any effort to actually understand the underlying causes. It is used often by merely changing the name of the industry or group that has bought the politicians. If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of all military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would happen in the ensuing months after he made that statement? He probably wouldn't get it. But the reasons for such would be much more varied than merely X bought and paid for something. Just using that as the catch all for anything politicians do is intellectually lazy at the absolute best and also indicates there is nothing that can be done about it. |
|
#132
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Kurt Ullman" wrote in message ... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding. Can't talk for the OP, but to my mind, this is a way of placing blame without really thinking about the why. It is way too simplistic and pretty much used as a way to avoid actually making any effort to actually understand the underlying causes. It is used often by merely changing the name of the industry or group that has bought the politicians. If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of all military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would happen in the ensuing months after he made that statement? He probably wouldn't get it. But the reasons for such would be much more varied than merely X bought and paid for something. Just using that as the catch all for anything politicians do is intellectually lazy at the absolute best and also indicates there is nothing that can be done about it. Well, this is what I've seen on the local level, which is the training school for the few politicians that climb the ladder and move to bigger things, like congress. "No one is sure what convinced President Clinton to approve such an ambitious escalation in the War on Drugs. But some observers at the time speculated that the critical factor was a conversation with Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat, whose state is home to the helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky Aircraft. In early 2000, Clinton unveiled Plan Colombia - and Sikorksy promptly received an order for eighteen of its Blackhawk helicopters at a cost of $15 million each. "Much has been made of the notion that this was Dodd looking to sell Blackhawks to Colombia," Beers tells me. He pauses before adding, "I am not in a position to tell you it didn't happen."" |
|
#133
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article , alt.home.repair,
says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "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? Enough. Why do you ask? Because I want to know. When you come up with an actual number, we can continue. I came up with a number, let's continue; How much do you make? How old are you? How much do you weigh? What's your bank account number? What's your SSN? What's your mother's maiden name? -- Keith The price of your health insurance is in NO way similar to the list of information you responded with. No different; none of your business. If you believe the price is highly confidential personal information, No different. OK. Then, look back a few message to the one where you said "going without insurance is foolish". Without presenting numbers, you cannot comment on what other people can afford. If you don't have a group plan available here (Rochester NY), and you have to buy your own insurance, guess what it costs per month for a single person. A lot. More good reason to *NOT* let government have control over any part of health care. Go ahead. Guess. I don't get paid to guess. I get paid to know. -- Keith Nonsense. I understand. That's the best argument you've got, nonsense. -- Keith |
|
#134
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article , alt.home.repair,
says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "clifto" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: 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. No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer treatment. The government wants us to have whatever the insurance industry tells the government it wants us to have. If you disagree with this, please come back on your 14th birthday, and we can continue. Wrong. -- Keith Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding. States regulate the insurance industry. They've told the industry what sorts of policies they can offer. It's not hard to figure this stuff out, your tinfoil hat notwithstanding. -- Keith |
|
#135
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
"krw" wrote in message
t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "clifto" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: 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. No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer treatment. The government wants us to have whatever the insurance industry tells the government it wants us to have. If you disagree with this, please come back on your 14th birthday, and we can continue. Wrong. -- Keith Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding. States regulate the insurance industry. They've told the industry what sorts of policies they can offer. It's not hard to figure this stuff out, your tinfoil hat notwithstanding. -- Keith You really should try exposing yourself to more news sources designed for grownups. "No one has played the role of that "winner" more enthusiastically, or more often, than Joe Lieberman. He is everything a Washington insider loves in a politician. He is pompous, pious and available. Routinely one of the very top recipients of campaign donations from the insurance, pharmaceutical and finance sectors, and a man whose wife, Hadassah, is a pharmaceutical-industry lobbyist for Hill and Knowlton, Lieberman has quietly become one of the greatest allies corporate America has in Washington. For example, Lieberman, who as chairman of the DLC in the mid to late Nineties presided over an organization heavily subsidized by companies such as AIG and Aetna (the latter of which also contributes lavishly to his campaigns), sponsored a bill that limited auto insurance suits by permitting the offering of lower rates to consumers who forfeited their right to sue. He has fought for similar anti-lawsuit laws for tobacco, for HMOs, for pharmaceutical companies. Victor Schwartz, general counsel for the American Tort Reform Association, once bragged that "if it were not for Lieberman, there would never have been a Biomaterials Access Act"-a 1998 law that protected companies like Dow Chemical and DuPont (also big DLC contributors) from lawsuits filed for the production of defective medical implants. Yes, that's right: Joe Lieberman fought for the principle of manufacturing faulty fake tits with impunity. In a move that was perfectly characteristic of everything he stands for, Lieberman in 2001 offered a piece of legislation, S. 1764, that purported to provide incentives to companies that develop medicines to treat the victims of bioterror attacks but, more important, extended the patent life of a wide range of drugs for several years, delaying the introduction of more cost-friendly generic drugs. Shilling for the socialist subsidy of drug companies while masquerading as a Churchillian, tough-on-security Democrat in the War on Terror age: That's Joe Lieberman, and the modern Democratic Party, in a nutshell." |
|
#136
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
"krw" wrote in message
t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "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? Enough. Why do you ask? Because I want to know. When you come up with an actual number, we can continue. I came up with a number, let's continue; How much do you make? How old are you? How much do you weigh? What's your bank account number? What's your SSN? What's your mother's maiden name? -- Keith The price of your health insurance is in NO way similar to the list of information you responded with. No different; none of your business. If you believe the price is highly confidential personal information, No different. OK. Then, look back a few message to the one where you said "going without insurance is foolish". Without presenting numbers, you cannot comment on what other people can afford. If you don't have a group plan available here (Rochester NY), and you have to buy your own insurance, guess what it costs per month for a single person. A lot. More good reason to *NOT* let government have control over any part of health care. Go ahead. Guess. I don't get paid to guess. I get paid to know. -- Keith Nonsense. I understand. That's the best argument you've got, nonsense. -- Keith So, without having the balls to reveal a number, you know for a fact that the number is one that ANYONE can afford. Have some fun with this: http://www.ins.state.ny.us/ihmoindx.htm |
|
#137
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
CJT wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote: CJT wrote: Since when does it say I in Texas should be paying to build a bridge in Alaska for $250,000,000 that is unlikely ever to be used by more than 20 people? Since 1787, Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power [...] To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;" Establish doesn't necessarily mean build. It could mean designate. That old argument. The Supreme Court shot that one dead in 1876 with Kohl v. United States. -- Doug |
|
#138
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres ("TWO-COW EXPLANATION" )
Stormin Mormon wrote:
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. McDONALD'S You have two cows. You kill them, and make 2 billion hamburgers. I thought this was going to end up as a Hillary comment. OTOH, she's a pig  |
|
#139
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
|
|
#140
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article , wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:43:00 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of all military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would happen in the ensuing months after he made that statement? Military equipment is one of our very few successful exports. We would go broke without it. Not even close. The top four categories of U.S. exports are chemicals, electrical machinery, vehicles, and agricultural products. Military equipment forms a fairly small portion of American export trade. In 2005, the total value of military aerospace exports from the U.S. was a bit over $10 billion -- slightly less than the total value of vegetables and fruits. In the same year, we exported nearly $12B in yarn and fabric, $11.5B in paper, $11B in metal ore and scrap, $15B in petroleum products, nearly $30B in computer and office equipment... http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/...ab/foreign.pdf scroll down to Tables 1289 and 1290. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
|
#141
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
|
|
#142
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of all military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would happen in the ensuing months after he made that statement? They might retaliate, then we'd really be in a pickle. Israel supplies 40% of our small arms ammunition. |
|
#143
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote: No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer treatment. Where do you get these fantasies? Rush? "[UK] A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS rationing body." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ncancer116.xml "[UK] TRANSSEXUALS won the right to have sex change operations on the NHS yesterday after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal recognised the condition as a legitimate illness." http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/821 Sorry, I didn't realize you were in the UK. Press on. I'm not. Something like the UK or Canadian system is what "they" want. No, "they" don't. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
|
#144
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article , alt.home.repair,
says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "clifto" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: 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. No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer treatment. The government wants us to have whatever the insurance industry tells the government it wants us to have. If you disagree with this, please come back on your 14th birthday, and we can continue. Wrong. -- Keith Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding. States regulate the insurance industry. They've told the industry what sorts of policies they can offer. It's not hard to figure this stuff out, your tinfoil hat notwithstanding. -- Keith You really should try exposing yourself to more news sources designed for grownups. You mean NBC News? guffaw "No one has played the role of that "winner" more enthusiastically, or more often, than Joe Lieberman. He is everything a Washington insider loves in a politician. He is pompous, pious and available. Routinely one of the very top recipients of campaign donations from the insurance, pharmaceutical and finance sectors, and a man whose wife, Hadassah, is a pharmaceutical-industry lobbyist for Hill and Knowlton, Lieberman has quietly become one of the greatest allies corporate America has in Washington. Notice that the Democrats rode him out of the party, except he's too nice to get the hint. For example, Lieberman, who as chairman of the DLC in the mid to late Nineties presided over an organization heavily subsidized by companies such as AIG and Aetna (the latter of which also contributes lavishly to his campaigns), sponsored a bill that limited auto insurance suits by permitting the offering of lower rates to consumers who forfeited their right to sue. He has fought for similar anti-lawsuit laws for tobacco, for HMOs, for pharmaceutical companies. Victor Schwartz, general counsel for the American Tort Reform Association, once bragged that "if it were not for Lieberman, there would never have been a Biomaterials Access Act"-a 1998 law that protected companies like Dow Chemical and DuPont (also big DLC contributors) from lawsuits filed for the production of defective medical implants. Yes, that's right: Joe Lieberman fought for the principle of manufacturing faulty fake tits with impunity. Ancient history. The Democrats had some people with balls then. Now the only one they have is Hillary. In a move that was perfectly characteristic of everything he stands for, Lieberman in 2001 offered a piece of legislation, S. 1764, that purported to provide incentives to companies that develop medicines to treat the victims of bioterror attacks but, more important, extended the patent life of a wide range of drugs for several years, delaying the introduction of more cost-friendly generic drugs. Shilling for the socialist subsidy of drug companies while masquerading as a Churchillian, tough-on-security Democrat in the War on Terror age: That's Joe Lieberman, and the modern Democratic Party, in a nutshell." You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that too? -- Keith |
|
#146
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article , alt.home.repair,
says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "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? Enough. Why do you ask? Because I want to know. When you come up with an actual number, we can continue. I came up with a number, let's continue; How much do you make? How old are you? How much do you weigh? What's your bank account number? What's your SSN? What's your mother's maiden name? -- Keith The price of your health insurance is in NO way similar to the list of information you responded with. No different; none of your business. If you believe the price is highly confidential personal information, No different. OK. Then, look back a few message to the one where you said "going without insurance is foolish". Without presenting numbers, you cannot comment on what other people can afford. If you don't have a group plan available here (Rochester NY), and you have to buy your own insurance, guess what it costs per month for a single person. A lot. More good reason to *NOT* let government have control over any part of health care. Go ahead. Guess. I don't get paid to guess. I get paid to know. -- Keith Nonsense. I understand. That's the best argument you've got, nonsense. -- Keith So, without having the balls to reveal a number, you know for a fact that the number is one that ANYONE can afford. 8. There, happy? Have some fun with this: http://www.ins.state.ny.us/ihmoindx.htm NYS is a socialist rat hole, one that has actively chased insurers out (not just health). I lived in NYS for 20 years. Never again. &Deity. help you if they pass "universal health care". -- Keith |
|
#147
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article ,
alt.home.repair, says... On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:09:34 -0500, krw wrote: In article , alt.home.repair, says... On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:12:30 -0500, krw wrote: I don't get paid to guess. I get paid to know. So, how long have you been unemployed? When did you stop beating mommy? You forget, I'm not the one whining about "insurance", like the rest of the losers here. You seem pretty whiny to me. Nope, I'm quite happy with the health care in the US. The whining is entirely from the leftist losers. -- Keith |
|
#148
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article ,
alt.home.repair, says... On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:10:49 -0500, krw wrote: In article , alt.home.repair, says... On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:55:22 -0800, Oren wrote: I'm a contractor. I get no benefits from my "employer". Get a new boss... Oren Nobody ever got any free benefits from an employer. Exactly. It is simply part of your salary. That is why "contractors" get (or should get) a lot higher hourly wage. Yep, the employer doesn't pay a lot of the costs and has the benefit fine tuning workload. For that benefit they trade money. I don't get any paid vacation, sick time, holidays, or health insurance and have to move where the temporary work is, on my dime. To offset those costs I get paid significantly more than "employees". Both sides are happy with the bargain (or it wouldn't have been made). Gotta love capitalism. I have been an employee and I have been a contractor. I prefer contractor ... but I also understand I have to provide for myself out of that windfall. That may be more personal responsibility than a lot of Americans are willing to shoulder. The good news is all of that "providing" is tax deductible. A sharp pencil and a good understanding of the Schedule C had me paying a whole lot lower taxes than I ever did as an employee. I did get audited once, The IRS ended up writing me a $1600 check. I was too conservative in my deductions and that triggered the audit. Just be sure you keep good records I've been on both sides now too. I worked for &megacorp. for more than thirty years before an offer came by that I couldn't refuse. I hadn't considered contracting but the job sounded interesting. The money was too hard to turn down, even though I lived away from home for three months (then moved them after the house sold). A few things have surprised me, all positive. As far as records go, I've kept everything, though I have been remiss in keeping it all organized. ...too much overtime. ;-) -- Keith |
|
#149
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
krw wrote:
You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that too? Sure. Doesn't everybody? "WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can get behind. |
|
#150
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
krw wrote:
That is why insurance companies have a different corporation names in different states. Of course they do. They have different corporations depending on who you are (your risk) too. There is little choice, given the "maze a twisty passages, all different", that the states have weaved. (Allstate is "Allstate Floridian" here and I suspect they are also Royal Palm) Your point? The point is that an insurance company cannot spread their risk over a larger base if they have to operate in only one state. Because of this limitation, hurricane insurance is cheaper in Missouri than in Florida and flood insurance is cheaper in New Mexico than Ohio. |
|
#151
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
krw wrote:
I've been on both sides now too. I worked for &megacorp. for more than thirty years before an offer came by that I couldn't refuse. I hadn't considered contracting but the job sounded interesting. The money was too hard to turn down, even though I lived away from home for three months (then moved them after the house sold). A few things have surprised me, all positive. As far as records go, I've kept everything, though I have been remiss in keeping it all organized. ...too much overtime. ;-) Heh! Me too. Thirty years ago I found out, by accident, what my boss made. I figured that if I was going to work for a fool, it might as well be me. |
|
#152
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
"HeyBub" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of all military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would happen in the ensuing months after he made that statement? They might retaliate, then we'd really be in a pickle. Israel supplies 40% of our small arms ammunition. That's not because we can't supply it if we chose to do so. Israel probably insisted on selling us ammo if we wanted them to buy our stuff. |
|
#153
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
"krw" wrote in message
t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "krw" wrote in message t... In article , alt.home.repair, says... "clifto" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: 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. No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer treatment. The government wants us to have whatever the insurance industry tells the government it wants us to have. If you disagree with this, please come back on your 14th birthday, and we can continue. Wrong. -- Keith Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding. States regulate the insurance industry. They've told the industry what sorts of policies they can offer. It's not hard to figure this stuff out, your tinfoil hat notwithstanding. -- Keith You really should try exposing yourself to more news sources designed for grownups. You mean NBC News? guffaw "No one has played the role of that "winner" more enthusiastically, or more often, than Joe Lieberman. He is everything a Washington insider loves in a politician. He is pompous, pious and available. Routinely one of the very top recipients of campaign donations from the insurance, pharmaceutical and finance sectors, and a man whose wife, Hadassah, is a pharmaceutical-industry lobbyist for Hill and Knowlton, Lieberman has quietly become one of the greatest allies corporate America has in Washington. Notice that the Democrats rode him out of the party, except he's too nice to get the hint. For example, Lieberman, who as chairman of the DLC in the mid to late Nineties presided over an organization heavily subsidized by companies such as AIG and Aetna (the latter of which also contributes lavishly to his campaigns), sponsored a bill that limited auto insurance suits by permitting the offering of lower rates to consumers who forfeited their right to sue. He has fought for similar anti-lawsuit laws for tobacco, for HMOs, for pharmaceutical companies. Victor Schwartz, general counsel for the American Tort Reform Association, once bragged that "if it were not for Lieberman, there would never have been a Biomaterials Access Act"-a 1998 law that protected companies like Dow Chemical and DuPont (also big DLC contributors) from lawsuits filed for the production of defective medical implants. Yes, that's right: Joe Lieberman fought for the principle of manufacturing faulty fake tits with impunity. Ancient history. The Democrats had some people with balls then. Now the only one they have is Hillary. In a move that was perfectly characteristic of everything he stands for, Lieberman in 2001 offered a piece of legislation, S. 1764, that purported to provide incentives to companies that develop medicines to treat the victims of bioterror attacks but, more important, extended the patent life of a wide range of drugs for several years, delaying the introduction of more cost-friendly generic drugs. Shilling for the socialist subsidy of drug companies while masquerading as a Churchillian, tough-on-security Democrat in the War on Terror age: That's Joe Lieberman, and the modern Democratic Party, in a nutshell." You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that too? -- Keith This isn't a question of party affiliation. It's an example of how *ALL* politicians are indebted in some way to corporate sponsors. There are NO exceptions. None. |
|
#154
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
"krw" wrote in message
t... So, without having the balls to reveal a number, you know for a fact that the number is one that ANYONE can afford. 8. There, happy? Have some fun with this: http://www.ins.state.ny.us/ihmoindx.htm NYS is a socialist rat hole, one that has actively chased insurers out (not just health). I lived in NYS for 20 years. Never again. &Deity. help you if they pass "universal health care". -- Keith Interesting numbers, aren't they? And, in many instances, the prices are higher in counties with lower per capita income. The explanation would probably make for great entertainment. So, back to your original statement: "Going without insurance is foolish." There are people about whom you can say nothing negative, but who can't afford $2000 a month for insurance, or even part of that cost. Are they foolish, or stuck? |
|
#155
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
The point is that an insurance company cannot spread their risk over a larger base if they have to operate in only one state. Because of this limitation, hurricane insurance is cheaper in Missouri than in Florida and flood insurance is cheaper in New Mexico than Ohio. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with relative risk... -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
|
#156
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: There are people about whom you can say nothing negative, but who can't afford $2000 a month for insurance, or even part of that cost. Are they foolish, or stuck? Some of both. But few are talking about actually doing something about stuck that doesn't include screwing around with the not-stuck. Again, a pox on both houses since the more strident conservatives are stuck on free market while the strident liberals can't see any possible solutions that don't require taking over the entire system. |
|
#157
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: There are people about whom you can say nothing negative, but who can't afford $2000 a month for insurance, or even part of that cost. Are they foolish, or stuck? Some of both. But few are talking about actually doing something about stuck that doesn't include screwing around with the not-stuck. Again, a pox on both houses since the more strident conservatives are stuck on free market while the strident liberals can't see any possible solutions that don't require taking over the entire system. At least you didn't say "**** those people if they can't find a way to make more money". |
|
#158
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote: No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer treatment. Where do you get these fantasies? Rush? "[UK] A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS rationing body." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ncancer116.xml "[UK] TRANSSEXUALS won the right to have sex change operations on the NHS yesterday after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal recognised the condition as a legitimate illness." http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/821 Sorry, I didn't realize you were in the UK. Press on. I'm not. Something like the UK or Canadian system is what "they" want. I don't think they want quite that good a system. For example, I believe one can still pick his own doctor in UK; Hillarycare had a $10,000 fine for trying to go to a doctor other than the one you were assigned. -- Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year. |
|
#159
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Why do you say the idea is wrong? The insurance industry has already purchased the necessary politicians to do its bidding. Can't talk for the OP, but to my mind, this is a way of placing blame without really thinking about the why. It is way too simplistic and pretty much used as a way to avoid actually making any effort to actually understand the underlying causes. It is used often by merely changing the name of the industry or group that has bought the politicians. If a president said he wanted legislation that banned the sale of all military equipment to other countries, what do you suppose would happen in the ensuing months after he made that statement? Democrat or Republican? -- Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year. |
|
#160
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
|
2008 Pres
wrote:
clifto wrote: wrote: 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. A road by someone's house usually isn't pork. A Woodstock Museum is pork. Not to me. I was there. Then get the private sector to fund it. -- Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| source a press/vice screw for large-ish bookbinding pres? | UK diy | |||
| OT The Pres. did it again | Metalworking | |||
| Pres Day Sale 50% off Biz tool | Woodworking | |||
![krw[_2_] is offline](https://www.diybanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
