In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:

On 10/16/2013 11:34 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
"U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, raised a few eyebrows Monday
when she suggested using ³martial law² as a means to pass the clean
continuing resolution that would put an end to the partial government
shutdown."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzvViJyPBvc


Her picture is next to the word "dumbass" in most dictionaries. ^_^

TDD
One of the links led to this. Is martial law here?
What about Boston, after the blastacre?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq9S5L6GJzQ



Martial law, by definition, is when the military takes over
civilian law enforcement functions. So Boston couldn't be martial law
because all of the participants were civilian.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 10/17/2013 9:27 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:54:16 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzvViJyPBvc

I have a close friend from College days who is an ex-Congresscritter.
He expounded at length on this. The ML in question is the in-house
monicker for an internal House procedure and NOT anything to do with
martial law in the context that it was taken. If anybody is interested I
might be able to find the information.


I'd be more interested in hearing from Sheila Jackson Lee again
about how "today we have two Vietnams, North and South, living
side by side in peace", another fine speech she gave in Congress.
And no, it wasn't a slip of the tounge. In context, it was 100%
clear that she was talking about Vietnam, the Vietnam war, etc.
Or how the flag Neil Armstrong planted on Mars is doing.
Yet she is regularly re-elected.
A good example of why so many of us want govt to do less, not more.....


How many illegals does SJL say are coming over
the bridge from Hawaii to California?

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 10/17/2013 8:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
One of the links led to this. Is martial law here?
What about Boston, after the blastacre?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq9S5L6GJzQ



Martial law, by definition, is when the military takes over
civilian law enforcement functions. So Boston couldn't be martial law
because all of the participants were civilian.

I'd sure like to believe that.
TinyURL was created!

The following URL:

http://www.dailypaul.com/282954/boston-m
assacre-illegal-posse-commitatus-violati
ng-warrantless-door-to-door-swat-raid-ma
rtial-law-beta-test

has a length of 139 characters and resulted in the following TinyURL
which has a length of 26 characters:

http://tinyurl.com/l7f7zvy

[Open in new window]

Or, give your recipients confidence with a preview TinyURL:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/l7f7zvy
[Open in new window]


..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 9:36:45 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 10/17/2013 9:27 AM, wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:54:16 AM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzvViJyPBvc



I have a close friend from College days who is an ex-Congresscritter.

In article ,
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:49:58 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

I beg to differ. People have aspired to have more/better
stuff than their neighbors since cuneiform was all the rage.

Envy was an ugly and counterproductive emotion, even then. It's what
leftism is based on.

Ugly, perhaps.

Perhaps?

Counterproductive, I'm not so sure.

Of course it is. You don't believe saving for your own shiny new
chariot, instead of lusting after your neighbor's, isn't a more
productive use of your energy?

I can save up for my new chariot while simultaneously lusting
after the neighbor's.

In real life, I am saving up for a used chariot. It'll be
newer than my current chariot, and have an automatic transmission,
to boot.

Cindy Hamilton
--

On 10/17/2013 09:53 AM, wrote:


I agree. I'm so sick of hearing people whine about how unfair
it is that people with pre-existing conditions and no insurance
can't get coverage or that it's very expensive. It's exactly
as you outline, like buying
fire insurance after the house is already on fire.


I have a friend who quit a job at a big company to buy a small business.
His COBRA payments are killing him, but he can't seem to get insurance
through any other source without jumping through hoops, getting
physicals, etc. He's been rejected outright by at least two companies.
For him, the ACA will undoubtedly be a good thing.

I myself stayed with a big company (same one, actually) longer than I
should have because at the time I was engaged and therefore insurance
etc. was very important to me. I suspect that an unintended side effect
of this will be people being more willing to start small businesses
and/or work for same, because they will now be able to get insurance
much more easily.

The whole idea of the ACA kind of bothers me conceptually, as it does
smack of socialism. But in practice, I have hopes that it will work
better than the system we have now and overall be a positive thing. If
nothing else, my experiences working for large corporations have been
fairly negative, and working for small companies much more positive.
Perhaps removing the fear of being unable to get insurance will actually
help people find more suitable employment...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:54:16 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzvViJyPBvc

I have a close friend from College days who is an ex-Congresscritter.
He expounded at length on this. The ML in question is the in-house
monicker for an internal House procedure and NOT anything to do with
martial law in the context that it was taken. If anybody is interested I
might be able to find the information.

Interesting. I had never heard _that_ term used before in congress.
I'm aware of "nuclear option", though.

Your friend is correct.

"Under the martial law procedure, long-standing House rules that
require at least one day between the unveiling of significant
legislation and the House floor vote on that legislation — so that
Members can learn what they are being asked to vote on — are swept
away. Instead, under “martial law,” the Leadership can file
legislation with tens or hundreds of pages of fine print and move
immediately to debate and votes on it, before Members of Congress, the
media, or the public have an opportunity to understand fully what
provisions have been altered or inserted into the legislation behind
closed doors. This is the procedure that the Leadership intends to use
to muscle through important bills in the next two days. - See more
at:"

http://burgess.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=103976#sthash.H6WRf Q4E.dpuf

It still doesn't change my mind about SJL

Thanks.

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:12:43 -0600, bud-- wrote:

I know that "denial of service" attacks occurred. (They also occur at
lots of large web sites.) I would be surprised if 'conservative'
fanatics didn't cause some of them.

Giggle

"bud--" wrote in message
eb.com

If you like your existing Dr you can keep him.

Very likely you can find a plan under the exchanges that
includes your doctor. You have the same problem going
onto Medicare.

Since when? As far as I know, Medicare people can go to any doctor they
want.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

In article , "dadiOH"
wrote:

"bud--" wrote in message
eb.com

If you like your existing Dr you can keep him.

Very likely you can find a plan under the exchanges that
includes your doctor. You have the same problem going
onto Medicare.

Since when? As far as I know, Medicare people can go to any doctor they
want.

You can go to any doctor you want *IF* the doc is accepting new
patients and *IF* they take MCare (not all do, although this is a small
group.. but growing.)
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:59:44 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

"I'll gladly pay you $2 tomorrow for a hamburger
today". That's how the libs negotiate.

LOL. They will twist the facts..

"From April 1917 to November 1919, when Woodrow Wilson borrowed $30
billion to pay for World War I, he was able to do so because of the
promise he made to lenders that the commitment to repay them would be
backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.
At the time, the government’s total debt was about $14 billion; so
Wilson’s painful gambit trebled it."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/17/debt-and-destruction/

Apparently, the principle has doubled from WW I and we still own it.
Only the interest has been paid since them. Ninety five years ago.

The judge explains:

_Does raising the debt ceiling impact average Americans?_

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2749130881001/does-raising-the-debt-ceiling-impact-average-americans/?playlist_id=2114913880001

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:49:55 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 10/17/2013 09:53 AM, wrote:


I agree. I'm so sick of hearing people whine about how unfair
it is that people with pre-existing conditions and no insurance
can't get coverage or that it's very expensive. It's exactly
as you outline, like buying
fire insurance after the house is already on fire.


I have a friend who quit a job at a big company to buy a small business.
His COBRA payments are killing him, but he can't seem to get insurance
through any other source without jumping through hoops, getting
physicals, etc. He's been rejected outright by at least two companies.
For him, the ACA will undoubtedly be a good thing.

I myself stayed with a big company (same one, actually) longer than I
should have because at the time I was engaged and therefore insurance
etc. was very important to me. I suspect that an unintended side effect
of this will be people being more willing to start small businesses
and/or work for same, because they will now be able to get insurance
much more easily.

The whole idea of the ACA kind of bothers me conceptually, as it does
smack of socialism. But in practice, I have hopes that it will work
better than the system we have now and overall be a positive thing. If
nothing else, my experiences working for large corporations have been
fairly negative, and working for small companies much more positive.
Perhaps removing the fear of being unable to get insurance will actually
help people find more suitable employment...

nate
+1 on that Nate. In spades.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m
In article , "dadiOH"
wrote:

"bud--" wrote in message
eb.com

If you like your existing Dr you can keep him.

Very likely you can find a plan under the exchanges
that includes your doctor. You have the same problem
going onto Medicare.

Since when? As far as I know, Medicare people can go
to any doctor they want.

You can go to any doctor you want *IF* the doc is
accepting new patients

True

and *IF* they take MCare (not all
do, although this is a small group.. but growing.)

False. Whether or not the doc accepts Medicare assignments (the amount
Medicare will pay) has nothing to do with the ability to see that doctor,
only with how much the patient may be out of pocket.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:44:42 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:49:58 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

I beg to differ. People have aspired to have more/better
stuff than their neighbors since cuneiform was all the rage.

Envy was an ugly and counterproductive emotion, even then. It's what
leftism is based on.

Ugly, perhaps.

Perhaps?

Counterproductive, I'm not so sure.

Of course it is. You don't believe saving for your own shiny new
chariot, instead of lusting after your neighbor's, isn't a more
productive use of your energy?

I can save up for my new chariot while simultaneously lusting
after the neighbor's.

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think
that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your
neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

In real life, I am saving up for a used chariot. It'll be
newer than my current chariot, and have an automatic transmission,
to boot.

Goody for you. I'm really not interested in what is behind your
horses. It doesn't affect me at all.

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:59:36 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
om
In article , "dadiOH"
wrote:

"bud--" wrote in message
eb.com

If you like your existing Dr you can keep him.

Very likely you can find a plan under the exchanges
that includes your doctor. You have the same problem
going onto Medicare.

Since when? As far as I know, Medicare people can go
to any doctor they want.

You can go to any doctor you want *IF* the doc is
accepting new patients

True

and *IF* they take MCare (not all
do, although this is a small group.. but growing.)

False. Whether or not the doc accepts Medicare assignments (the amount
Medicare will pay) has nothing to do with the ability to see that doctor,
only with how much the patient may be out of pocket.

Wrong! The doc has a choice, take Medicare as payment in full or NOT
ACCEPT THE PATIENT AT ALL. The patient can certainly pay the whole
bill.

In article , "dadiOH"
wrote:

and *IF* they take MCare (not all
do, although this is a small group.. but growing.)

False. Whether or not the doc accepts Medicare assignments (the amount
Medicare will pay) has nothing to do with the ability to see that doctor,
only with how much the patient may be out of pocket.

You are right. I wasn't clear. I don't think of them as MCare patients
if they aren't going to use MCare.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 10/18/13 6:31 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

It's not just Negro Americans who are dumb enough to fall for it. I've
seen Wiggers,(White Trash) who believe everything is going to be given
to them as long as they support Democrats. I suppose the government
schools turned out a lot of people who want to be subjects rather than
citizens. Of course many of them never completed high school and if they
did, they're like a lot of people I know who are completely ignorant of
what is gong on with their government and don't give an airborne coitus
about anything but the next football game or NASCAR race. o_O

TDD

If only our politicians suited up like NASCAR drivers. We know
who sponsors the drivers. The drivers almost always mention their
sponsors right off the top at the end of a race.

"The Daring Dufas"
wrote in message

It's not just Negro Americans who are dumb enough to fall
for it. I've seen Wiggers,(White Trash) who believe
everything is going to be given to them as long as they
support Democrats. I suppose the government schools
turned out a lot of people who want to be subjects rather
than citizens. Of course many of them never completed
high school and if they did, they're like a lot of people
I know who are completely ignorant of what is gong on
with their government and don't give an airborne coitus
about anything but the next football game or NASCAR race.
o_O
TDD


You forgot mud wrestling.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 10/18/2013 8:15 AM, wrote:
Apparently enough Americans were dumb enough to believe it
when they said that they were going to cut hundreds of billions
in waste and fraud out of the Medicare that they already
run to fund the new similar program they want to start.
Plus, Medicare is already on the path to going bust, even
without taking money out of it.

Of course, I can see the next loss for the Republicans
coming already. At the first opportunity to talk about
the upcoming negotiations for a budget and debt increase,
the republicans put vouchers for medicare on the table.
Not that if done right it's a bad idea, but they are never
going to get that in the current environment. The libs
are just going to start in with accusing them of pushing
granny over the cliff and it's been demonstrated the last
time they proposed this, that most people were not in
favor of it. And the Dem spin machine, PR etc,
is way better than the disorganized mess that has been
the republican party for years.


You ever get the feeling that the Reps are willingly
being defeated?

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

In article om,
bud-- wrote:

There is not, as far as I know, an explanation of why the fed system has
trouble. What I have read is far higher volume than expected, short
timeline, and funding should have been higher.
Much of it was related to the requirement that people fill out the
information on qualifying for the subsidies before they were allowed to
look at prices. Not qualifying for subsidies and getting the full boat
cost right off the bat, I can see the concerns. You had a very time and
resource intensive front end.
The short time line was a given in the legislation. There was
also a well established outline of HHS changing the requirements often
right up to kickoff that made testing impossible.
Also, the cost overrun was over 10 times the original figures with
all the change orders, etc. Hard to suggest much underfunding.


** The CA company (CGI) was the only company consulted. Reports say
there was not an open bid and this company was essential appointed to
set things up.

All I have read is CGI does a lot of websites for the feds.
And they did successful ones for the state exchanges.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 10/17/2013 12:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:12:43 -0600, wrote:

An exchange is very complicated to implement,

Why is that?

Apparently you haven't written software. And don't know how much is
involved in an exchange.

I'm not a programmer. Reading about the state exchange in my state
(NV) and learning that the Canadian company that set up the health
care .gov site, it is complicated.

The CA** company (CGI) hired ~ 50 subcontractors. Each wrote a
module(s) to perform certain tasks. You have the initial application,
another site creates the actual account and so on down the line. When
one bug is fixed, then another bug is created. Each web portal has to
get through firewall's for federal agencies (IRS, SSA, etc), things
like that, which then have to be fixed when they fail. The production
rollout was not tested very well in the sandbox. Not ready for prime
time - $600 million bucks over several years.

You hit some of the points of complexity.

There is not, as far as I know, an explanation of why the fed system has
trouble. What I have read is far higher volume than expected, short
timeline, and funding should have been higher.


The NV exchange goes down every night (10PM - 2AM) for "maintenance".

A very new very complicated system is still being upgraded.


** The CA company (CGI) was the only company consulted. Reports say
there was not an open bid and this company was essential appointed to
set things up.

All I have read is CGI does a lot of websites for the feds.


Private companies can get things right; Amazon, Facebook, Twitter,
etc., but not the federal government.

Private companies do not do very complicated systems in very short time
frames. Facebook, for instance, has regularly added features to its
system. Amazon does not have to verify your income securely with the IRS.


Side note:

Peter Doocy, Published October 16, 2013

/begin quote:
... "At any time, and for any lawful Government purpose, the government may monitor ..."

This is surprising?

In article ,
wrote:

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think
that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your
neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after
my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor
helps him pay for his.

There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain,
yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.

You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.


Cindy Hamilton
--

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:20:29 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"The Daring Dufas"
wrote in message

It's not just Negro Americans who are dumb enough to fall
for it. I've seen Wiggers,(White Trash) who believe
everything is going to be given to them as long as they
support Democrats. I suppose the government schools
turned out a lot of people who want to be subjects rather
than citizens. Of course many of them never completed
high school and if they did, they're like a lot of people
I know who are completely ignorant of what is gong on
with their government and don't give an airborne coitus
about anything but the next football game or NASCAR race.
o_O
TDD


You forgot mud wrestling.

Isn't that what the last two weeks was about?

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:37:25 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article , "dadiOH"
wrote:

and *IF* they take MCare (not all
do, although this is a small group.. but growing.)

False. Whether or not the doc accepts Medicare assignments (the amount
Medicare will pay) has nothing to do with the ability to see that doctor,
only with how much the patient may be out of pocket.

You are right. I wasn't clear. I don't think of them as MCare patients
if they aren't going to use MCare.

If that's what he meant, it's a specious argument. The same is true
of all patients. Pay for care and you can get it. No insurance
needed.

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:25:38 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 10/18/2013 8:15 AM, wrote:
Apparently enough Americans were dumb enough to believe it
when they said that they were going to cut hundreds of billions
in waste and fraud out of the Medicare that they already
run to fund the new similar program they want to start.
Plus, Medicare is already on the path to going bust, even
without taking money out of it.

Of course, I can see the next loss for the Republicans
coming already. At the first opportunity to talk about
the upcoming negotiations for a budget and debt increase,
the republicans put vouchers for medicare on the table.
Not that if done right it's a bad idea, but they are never
going to get that in the current environment. The libs
are just going to start in with accusing them of pushing
granny over the cliff and it's been demonstrated the last
time they proposed this, that most people were not in
favor of it. And the Dem spin machine, PR etc,
is way better than the disorganized mess that has been
the republican party for years.


You ever get the feeling that the Reps are willingly
being defeated?

The RiNOs certainly are. Washington is all a party for them.

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:25 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think
that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your
neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after
my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor
helps him pay for his.

Yet you think it's a good thing for others?

There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain,
yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.

....and that's a good thing?

You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.

It's wrong on all levels. It is a deadly sin for a reason.

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:25 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think
that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your
neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after
my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor
helps him pay for his.

Yet you think it's a good thing for others?

What does it matter?

Suppose it's not good. What are we going to do about it?

There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain,
yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.

...and that's a good thing?

Human nature comprises both good and bad. Always has, always will.

You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.

It's wrong on all levels. It is a deadly sin for a reason.

Ah, sin. I don't have much of a concept of sin.
I suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way
Terry Pratchett does: "Treating people as things".

Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.

Cindy Hamilton
--

On 10/18/2013 7:12 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 10/18/13 6:31 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

It's not just Negro Americans who are dumb enough to fall for it. I've
seen Wiggers,(White Trash) who believe everything is going to be given
to them as long as they support Democrats. I suppose the government
schools turned out a lot of people who want to be subjects rather than
citizens. Of course many of them never completed high school and if they
did, they're like a lot of people I know who are completely ignorant of
what is gong on with their government and don't give an airborne coitus
about anything but the next football game or NASCAR race. o_O

TDD

If only our politicians suited up like NASCAR drivers. We know
who sponsors the drivers. The drivers almost always mention their
sponsors right off the top at the end of a race.


Oh heck! I forgot about that one. I remember someone positing that the
congressmen should wear jackets with stickers from everyone who gave
them large sums of money especially PACs and corporations. ^_^

TDD

On 10/18/2013 7:20 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"The Daring Dufas"
wrote in message

It's not just Negro Americans who are dumb enough to fall
for it. I've seen Wiggers,(White Trash) who believe
everything is going to be given to them as long as they
support Democrats. I suppose the government schools
turned out a lot of people who want to be subjects rather
than citizens. Of course many of them never completed
high school and if they did, they're like a lot of people
I know who are completely ignorant of what is gong on
with their government and don't give an airborne coitus
about anything but the next football game or NASCAR race.
o_O
TDD


You forgot mud wrestling.


Mud my butt! Gallons of chocolate pudding so an opponent could really
receive a licking. Bikini clad cuties of course. o_O

TDD

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:06:27 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 10/18/2013 7:12 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 10/18/13 6:31 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

It's not just Negro Americans who are dumb enough to fall for it. I've
seen Wiggers,(White Trash) who believe everything is going to be given
to them as long as they support Democrats. I suppose the government
schools turned out a lot of people who want to be subjects rather than
citizens. Of course many of them never completed high school and if they
did, they're like a lot of people I know who are completely ignorant of
what is gong on with their government and don't give an airborne coitus
about anything but the next football game or NASCAR race. o_O

TDD

If only our politicians suited up like NASCAR drivers. We know
who sponsors the drivers. The drivers almost always mention their
sponsors right off the top at the end of a race.


Oh heck! I forgot about that one. I remember someone positing that the
congressmen should wear jackets with stickers from everyone who gave
them large sums of money especially PACs and corporations. ^_^

If you're interested, that information is already available. If
you're not, why would a sticker matter?

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:43:26 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:25 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think
that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your
neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after
my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor
helps him pay for his.

Yet you think it's a good thing for others?

What does it matter?

It matters a *lot*. When people covet what others have instead of
what they will work for it wrecks society.

Suppose it's not good. What are we going to do about it?

We? You think it's just peachy to want to take from others.

There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain,
yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.

...and that's a good thing?

Human nature comprises both good and bad. Always has, always will.

True but irrelevant. You think it's a good idea to cater to the least
common denominator. I'd rather look somewhat above that.

You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.

It's wrong on all levels. It is a deadly sin for a reason.

Ah, sin. I don't have much of a concept of sin.

I can tell. Your lack of morality is quite evident.

I suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way
Terry Pratchett does: "Treating people as things".

Define "it".

Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.

Bull****. You *are* treating people as objects when you're envious of
their possessions. If you treated them as equals you could never be
envious.

On 10/18/2013 2:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:06:27 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 10/18/2013 7:12 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 10/18/13 6:31 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

It's not just Negro Americans who are dumb enough to fall for it. I've
seen Wiggers,(White Trash) who believe everything is going to be given
to them as long as they support Democrats. I suppose the government
schools turned out a lot of people who want to be subjects rather than
citizens. Of course many of them never completed high school and if they
did, they're like a lot of people I know who are completely ignorant of
what is gong on with their government and don't give an airborne coitus
about anything but the next football game or NASCAR race. o_O

TDD

If only our politicians suited up like NASCAR drivers. We know
who sponsors the drivers. The drivers almost always mention their
sponsors right off the top at the end of a race.


Oh heck! I forgot about that one. I remember someone positing that the
congressmen should wear jackets with stickers from everyone who gave
them large sums of money especially PACs and corporations. ^_^

If you're interested, that information is already available. If
you're not, why would a sticker matter?


I want them to flaunt it and put it out there for everyone to see. Oh
yea, there's that senator who's sponsored by GE. ^_^

TDD

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:36:05 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 10/18/2013 2:53 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:06:27 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 10/18/2013 7:12 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 10/18/13 6:31 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

It's not just Negro Americans who are dumb enough to fall for it. I've
seen Wiggers,(White Trash) who believe everything is going to be given
to them as long as they support Democrats. I suppose the government
schools turned out a lot of people who want to be subjects rather than
citizens. Of course many of them never completed high school and if they
did, they're like a lot of people I know who are completely ignorant of
what is gong on with their government and don't give an airborne coitus
about anything but the next football game or NASCAR race. o_O

TDD

If only our politicians suited up like NASCAR drivers. We know
who sponsors the drivers. The drivers almost always mention their
sponsors right off the top at the end of a race.


Oh heck! I forgot about that one. I remember someone positing that the
congressmen should wear jackets with stickers from everyone who gave
them large sums of money especially PACs and corporations. ^_^

If you're interested, that information is already available. If
you're not, why would a sticker matter?


I want them to flaunt it and put it out there for everyone to see. Oh
yea, there's that senator who's sponsored by GE. ^_^

Make all political donations legal and publish them all on the
Internet, instantly. There won't be any incentive to play hide the
weenie. Information is power.

wrote in message ...
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:43:26 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:25 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think
that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your
neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after
my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor
helps him pay for his.

Yet you think it's a good thing for others?

What does it matter?

It matters a *lot*. When people covet what others have instead of
what they will work for it wrecks society.

Suppose it's not good. What are we going to do about it?

We? You think it's just peachy to want to take from others.

There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain,
yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.

...and that's a good thing?

Human nature comprises both good and bad. Always has, always will.

True but irrelevant. You think it's a good idea to cater to the least
common denominator. I'd rather look somewhat above that.

You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.

It's wrong on all levels. It is a deadly sin for a reason.

Ah, sin. I don't have much of a concept of sin.

I can tell. Your lack of morality is quite evident.

I suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way
Terry Pratchett does: "Treating people as things".

Define "it".

Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.

Bull****. You *are* treating people as objects when you're envious of
their possessions. If you treated them as equals you could never be
envious.

I see that are few people commenting on these subject so let me put my two cent in!

Example in 2004 I have retire just for me and my wife I was paying BC&BS type J coverage $1900.00 per month, the very same coverage group insured was paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you reading this will tell me that is fair: I don't think so". What happens with people like me we want change even on the end perhaps become losers? That is why some people don't care who they are taking it from "They want the Change"!

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:32:28 -0700, "Tony944" wrote:


wrote in message ...
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:43:26 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:25 GMT, (Cindy Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think
that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your
neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after
my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor
helps him pay for his.

Yet you think it's a good thing for others?

What does it matter?

It matters a *lot*. When people covet what others have instead of
what they will work for it wrecks society.

Suppose it's not good. What are we going to do about it?

We? You think it's just peachy to want to take from others.

There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain,
yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.

...and that's a good thing?

Human nature comprises both good and bad. Always has, always will.

True but irrelevant. You think it's a good idea to cater to the least
common denominator. I'd rather look somewhat above that.

You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.

It's wrong on all levels. It is a deadly sin for a reason.

Ah, sin. I don't have much of a concept of sin.

I can tell. Your lack of morality is quite evident.

I suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way
Terry Pratchett does: "Treating people as things".

Define "it".

Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.

Bull****. You *are* treating people as objects when you're envious of
their possessions. If you treated them as equals you could never be
envious.

I see that are few people commenting on these subject so let me put my two cent in!

Example in 2004 I have retire just for me and my wife I was paying BC&BS type J coverage $1900.00 per month, the very same coverage group insured was paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you reading this will tell me that is fair: I don't think so". What happens with people like me we want change even on the end perhaps become losers? That is why some people don't care who they are taking it from "They want the Change"!

Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand, unless, of
course, you want them to pay $1900/month, too, just because you have
to. I'd say that's a morally bankrupt position to hold, though.
Pretty dumb, too, but it would be yours.

If your complaint is that life isn't fair, well no, it isn't. If you
think this particular issue should be fixed, you're right. Talk to
your Congressman. He's the one who caused this idiocy and can fix it
(along with a few others). If you think that forcing your neighbor to
pay for your insurance is going to fix anything, you must be a lefty.

On 10/18/2013 7:32 PM, Tony944 wrote:

*Example in 2004 I have retire just for me and my wife I was paying
BC&BS type J coverage $1900.00 per month, the very same coverage group
insured was paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you reading this
will tell me that is fair: I don’t think so”. What happens with people
like me we want change even on the end perhaps become losers? That is
why some people don’t care who they are taking it from “They want the
Change”!*


You can still find group coverage and even form your own group.
Was your price fair? Actuarialy, yes. Groups spread the cost when you
have members of different ages.

On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:32:28 PM UTC-4, Tony944 wrote:
wrote in
message ...

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:43:26 GMT, (Cindy
Hamilton)
wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:25 GMT, (Cindy
Hamilton)
wrote:

In article
,

wrote:

Is it required that you
lust after others' possessions?* You think
that's
healthy?* Does it help you save faster?* Does it help
your
neighbor pay for his?* The gain
is?

Not required.* Probably not
healthy.* In fact, I don't lust after
my neighbor's
chariot.* It neither helps me save faster, nor
helps him
pay for his.

Yet you think it's a good thing for
others?*

What does it matter?

It
matters a *lot*.* When people covet what others have instead of

what they will work for it wrecks society.*

Suppose
it's not good.* What are we going to do about it?


We?* You think it's just peachy to want to take from others.


There's no gain.* A lot of what people do produces no
gain,
yet it's human nature to do these things.* We're
not robots.

...and that's a good
thing?

Human nature comprises both good and bad.*
Always has, always will.

True but irrelevant.* You think
it's a good idea to cater to the least
common denominator.* I'd
rather look somewhat above that.

You seem to wish to
restrict people's freedom to covet.

It's wrong on
all levels.* It is a deadly sin for a reason.

Ah,
sin.* I don't have much of a concept of sin.

I can
tell.* Your lack of morality is quite evident.

I
suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way
Terry Pratchett
does:* "Treating people as things".

Define "it".


Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.


Bull****.* You *are* treating people as objects when you're envious
of
their possessions.* If you treated them as equals you could
never be
envious.

*



I see that are few people commenting
on these subject so let me put my two cent in!

Example in 2004 I have retire just for
me and my wife I was paying BC&BS type J coverage $1900.00 per month, the
very same coverage group insured was paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you
reading this will tell me that is fair: I don’t think so”. What happens with
people like me we want change even on the end perhaps become losers? *That is why some people don’t care who
they are taking it from “They want the
Change”!

I see, so you don't care if it works or not, if it's fair or not, if
it's going to make things worse overall or better.
etc. You just want Change. Do I need to explain how that has
been a path to very bad things happening in the past?

As for your problem of having to pay 2x+ for coverage
compared to what it cost when you were part of a group,
I sympathize. It's not an unusual situation. But there
are a lot of issues involved there, a lot of ways it could
have been fixed with free market solutions, a lot of problems
that still exist because nothing has really been done to
lower actual healthcare costs, which are what ultimately
drive the cost of treatment.

In article ,
"Tony944" wrote:


Example in 2004 I have retire just for me and my wife I was paying BC&BS type
J coverage $1900.00 per month, the very same coverage group insured was
paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you reading this will tell me that is
fair: I don't think so". What happens with people like me we want change even
on the end perhaps become losers? That is why some people don't care who
they are taking it from "They want the Change"!

What do you mean "covered group"?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/18/2013 7:32 PM, Tony944 wrote:

*Example in 2004 I have retire just for me and my wife I was paying
BC&BS type J coverage $1900.00 per month, the very same coverage group
insured was paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you reading this
will tell me that is fair: I don¹t think so². What happens with people
like me we want change even on the end perhaps become losers? That is
why some people don¹t care who they are taking it from ³They want the
Change²!*


You can still find group coverage and even form your own group.
Was your price fair? Actuarialy, yes. Groups spread the cost when you
have members of different ages.

Ands we don't know what the covered group was. If retirees were getting
something from an employer, for instance, it is also possible tht the
$1900 cost was the same, but the employer was picking up the difference.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 10/19/2013 9:04 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/18/2013 7:32 PM, Tony944 wrote:

*Example in 2004 I have retire just for me and my wife I was paying
BC&BS type J coverage $1900.00 per month, the very same coverage group
insured was paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you reading this
will tell me that is fair: I don¹t think so². What happens with people
like me we want change even on the end perhaps become losers? That is
why some people don¹t care who they are taking it from ³They want the
Change²!*


You can still find group coverage and even form your own group.
Was your price fair? Actuarialy, yes. Groups spread the cost when you
have members of different ages.

Ands we don't know what the covered group was. If retirees were getting
something from an employer, for instance, it is also possible tht the
$1900 cost was the same, but the employer was picking up the difference.

True dat! My case appears somewhat identical to Tony's. As a retiree,
I was able to keep my BC&BS Preferred provider coverage and did so.
Took a huge hit when I turned 65 and went on Medicare and BC&BS became
my "Supplemental" What happened was BC&BS under terms of the policy in
effect for my group assumes that Part A & B are in effect. My wife, not
yet of age for Medicare is still covered completely AND, I forgot, the
subsidy paid by my employer ends when I hit 65. So even though the
premium for my coverage dropped when I hit 65 and BC&BS became my
supplemental, I was now paying full price across the board. However, I
paid no more nor any less than the employer/employee were paying for
like coverage.

And, yeah, premiums are steep. Spending about $1,600 month for my
coverage plus the ~$100.mo for Medicare B