"Peter Franks" wrote in message
...
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Here is the Obama Healthplan proposal for Thursday's meeting.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...th20100222.pdf

It's still socialism:

"The House and Senate bills require individuals who have affordable
options but who choose to remain uninsured to make a payment to offset the
cost of care they will inevitably need."

Socialism: benevolence through compulsion.

This program eliminates choice and attacks liberty. It is a disgusting
affront to those that love and treasure freedom.

Actually, it isn't Obama's idea. It was 21 Republican Senators who
introduced it in 1993:

"But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the
Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months
are startlingly alike.
"Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for
purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on
insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick
in the past."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=123670612

It's been an element of nearly every health care reform proposal since 1915,
and the reason is always the same. As a Republican economic advisor put it:

"One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it
called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the
'free-rider effect.' That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or
comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care,
and someone is going to pay for it.

"'We called this responsible national health insurance,' says Pauly. 'There
was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people
shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.'"

Four of the Republican Senators who co-signed that bill are still in the
Senate today. And Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who opposes it vociferously now, was
one of those who voted for the bill.

Everyone in Congress knows that you can't have universal coverage without
mandatory coverage, for reasons that should be obvious. Conservatives have
voted in favor of it in the past. But it's an issue with which they think
they can get some political leverage, so they're opposed to it now.

Once you have a plan that covers everyone, anyone who opts out is, as those
conservatives said, a "free rider."

--

Ed Huntress

On Feb 22, 4:36*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Peter Franks" wrote in message

...

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Here is the Obama Healthplan proposal for Thursday's meeting.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...th20100222.pdf

It's still socialism:

"The House and Senate bills require individuals who have affordable
options but who choose to remain uninsured to make a payment to offset the
cost of care they will inevitably need."

Socialism: benevolence through compulsion.

This program eliminates choice and attacks liberty. *It is a disgusting
affront to those that love and treasure freedom.

Actually, it isn't Obama's idea. It was 21 Republican Senators who
introduced it in 1993:

"But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the
Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months
are startlingly alike.
"Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for
purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on
insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick
in the past."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=123670612

It's been an element of nearly every health care reform proposal since 1915,
and the reason is always the same. As a Republican economic advisor put it:

"One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it
called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the
'free-rider effect.' That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or
comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care,
and someone is going to pay for it.

"'We called this responsible national health insurance,' says Pauly. 'There
was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people
shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.'"

Four of the Republican Senators who co-signed that bill are still in the
Senate today. And Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who opposes it vociferously now, was
one of those who voted for the bill.

Everyone in Congress knows that you can't have universal coverage without
mandatory coverage, for reasons that should be obvious. Conservatives have
voted in favor of it in the past. But it's an issue with which they think
they can get some political leverage, so they're opposed to it now.

Once you have a plan that covers everyone, anyone who opts out is, as those
conservatives said, a "free rider."

--

Ed Huntress

Agreed.

Everyone paying higher premiums have the Repubicans to thank for it.

In a way I hope that the health care efforts go nowhere...and then the
Republicans can explain why the health care system crashed.

TMT

On 2/22/2010 3:21 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:36 pm, "Ed wrote:

It's been an element of nearly every health care reform proposal since 1915,
and the reason is always the same. As a Republican economic advisor put it:

"One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it
called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the
'free-rider effect.' That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or
comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care,
and someone is going to pay for it.

"'We called this responsible national health insurance,' says Pauly. 'There
was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people
shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.'"

Four of the Republican Senators who co-signed that bill are still in the
Senate today. And Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who opposes it vociferously now, was
one of those who voted for the bill.

Everyone in Congress knows that you can't have universal coverage without
mandatory coverage, for reasons that should be obvious. Conservatives have
voted in favor of it in the past. But it's an issue with which they think
they can get some political leverage, so they're opposed to it now.

Once you have a plan that covers everyone, anyone who opts out is, as those
conservatives said, a "free rider."

--

Ed Huntress

Agreed.

Everyone paying higher premiums have the Repubicans to thank for it.

In a way I hope that the health care efforts go nowhere...and then the
Republicans can explain why the health care system crashed.

TMT


In a way I'd like to see the republicans take over a majority in
congress just to see what they would do about health care reform.
Remember, the republicans only lost power a short time ago, but when
they had the chance they did not one thing to address the health care
problems. So if they got power again would they do the same thing again?
Or would they come up with some sham of a plan that does nothing but
curtail tort cases? It would almost be worth it to see them having to
deal with health care for once. Almost. But since giving them power
again would allow them to make a mess of things again like they just did
when they were the majority party, I'd never want them to get their
hands on the levers of government again. The last time they nearly
destroyed us. What they would do next time is to frightening to contemplate.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 2/22/2010 3:21 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:36 pm, "Ed wrote:

It's been an element of nearly every health care reform proposal since
1915,
and the reason is always the same. As a Republican economic advisor put
it:

"One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because
it
called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the
'free-rider effect.' That's the fact that if a person is in an accident
or
comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical
care,
and someone is going to pay for it.

"'We called this responsible national health insurance,' says Pauly.
'There
was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people
shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.'"

Four of the Republican Senators who co-signed that bill are still in the
Senate today. And Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who opposes it vociferously now,
was
one of those who voted for the bill.

Everyone in Congress knows that you can't have universal coverage
without
mandatory coverage, for reasons that should be obvious. Conservatives
have
voted in favor of it in the past. But it's an issue with which they
think
they can get some political leverage, so they're opposed to it now.

Once you have a plan that covers everyone, anyone who opts out is, as
those
conservatives said, a "free rider."

--

Ed Huntress

Agreed.

Everyone paying higher premiums have the Repubicans to thank for it.

In a way I hope that the health care efforts go nowhere...and then the
Republicans can explain why the health care system crashed.

TMT


In a way I'd like to see the republicans take over a majority in congress
just to see what they would do about health care reform. Remember, the
republicans only lost power a short time ago, but when they had the chance
they did not one thing to address the health care problems. So if they got
power again would they do the same thing again? Or would they come up with
some sham of a plan that does nothing but curtail tort cases? It would
almost be worth it to see them having to deal with health care for once.
Almost. But since giving them power again would allow them to make a mess
of things again like they just did when they were the majority party, I'd
never want them to get their hands on the levers of government again. The
last time they nearly destroyed us. What they would do next time is to
frightening to contemplate.

Hawke

You actually think the left won't be eviscerated in the upcoming elections?
Good for you! Most of America doesn't want the democrats' HC bill and
doesn't trust them. I hope the dems DO jam it through, there won't be a
single democrat seat safe unless they voted against it. They will be a
third party for the next fifty years, behind the Loosertarians.

On Feb 22, 5:38*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 2/22/2010 3:21 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Feb 22, 4:36 pm, "Ed *wrote:
It's been an element of nearly every health care reform proposal since 1915,
and the reason is always the same. As a Republican economic advisor put it:

"One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it
called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the
'free-rider effect.' That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or
comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care,
and someone is going to pay for it.

"'We called this responsible national health insurance,' says Pauly. 'There
was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people
shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.'"

Four of the Republican Senators who co-signed that bill are still in the
Senate today. And Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who opposes it vociferously now, was
one of those who voted for the bill.

Everyone in Congress knows that you can't have universal coverage without
mandatory coverage, for reasons that should be obvious. Conservatives have
voted in favor of it in the past. But it's an issue with which they think
they can get some political leverage, so they're opposed to it now.

Once you have a plan that covers everyone, anyone who opts out is, as those
conservatives said, a "free rider."

--

Ed Huntress

Agreed.

Everyone paying higher premiums have the Repubicans to thank for it.

In a way I hope that the health care efforts go nowhere...and then the
Republicans can explain why the health care system crashed.

TMT

In a way I'd like to see the republicans take over a majority in
congress just to see what they would do about health care reform.
Remember, the republicans only lost power a short time ago, but when
they had the chance they did not one thing to address the health care
problems. So if they got power again would they do the same thing again?
Or would they come up with some sham of a plan that does nothing but
curtail tort cases? It would almost be worth it to see them having to
deal with health care for once. Almost. But since giving them power
again would allow them to make a mess of things again like they just did
when they were the majority party, I'd never want them to get their
hands on the levers of government again. The last time they nearly
destroyed us. What they would do next time is to frightening to contemplate.

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correct...they had EIGHT years to do something...and did NOTHING.

The Party of (NO)THING.

TMT

On Feb 22, 7:34*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message

...





On 2/22/2010 3:21 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:36 pm, "Ed *wrote:

It's been an element of nearly every health care reform proposal since
1915,
and the reason is always the same. As a Republican economic advisor put
it:

"One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because
it
called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the
'free-rider effect.' That's the fact that if a person is in an accident
or
comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical
care,
and someone is going to pay for it.

"'We called this responsible national health insurance,' says Pauly.
'There
was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people
shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.'"

Four of the Republican Senators who co-signed that bill are still in the
Senate today. And Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who opposes it vociferously now,
was
one of those who voted for the bill.

Everyone in Congress knows that you can't have universal coverage
without
mandatory coverage, for reasons that should be obvious. Conservatives
have
voted in favor of it in the past. But it's an issue with which they
think
they can get some political leverage, so they're opposed to it now.

Once you have a plan that covers everyone, anyone who opts out is, as
those
conservatives said, a "free rider."

--

Ed Huntress

Agreed.

Everyone paying higher premiums have the Repubicans to thank for it.

In a way I hope that the health care efforts go nowhere...and then the
Republicans can explain why the health care system crashed.

TMT

In a way I'd like to see the republicans take over a majority in congress
just to see what they would do about health care reform. Remember, the
republicans only lost power a short time ago, but when they had the chance
they did not one thing to address the health care problems. So if they got
power again would they do the same thing again? Or would they come up with
some sham of a plan that does nothing but curtail tort cases? It would
almost be worth it to see them having to deal with health care for once..
Almost. But since giving them power again would allow them to make a mess
of things again like they just did when they were the majority party, I'd
never want them to get their hands on the levers of government again. The
last time they nearly destroyed us. What they would do next time is to
frightening to contemplate.

Hawke

You actually think the left won't be eviscerated in the upcoming elections?
Good for you! *Most of America doesn't want the democrats' HC bill and
doesn't trust them. *I hope the dems DO jam it through, there won't be a
single democrat seat safe unless they voted against it. *They will be a
third party for the next fifty years, behind the Loosertarians.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean like the right was in 2006 and 2008?

Laugh..laugh...laugh...


TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Feb 22, 7:34 pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message

...





On 2/22/2010 3:21 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:36 pm, "Ed wrote:

It's been an element of nearly every health care reform proposal since
1915,
and the reason is always the same. As a Republican economic advisor
put
it:

"One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is
because
it
called for individual responsibility to address what economists call
the
'free-rider effect.' That's the fact that if a person is in an
accident
or
comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical
care,
and someone is going to pay for it.

"'We called this responsible national health insurance,' says Pauly.
'There
was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people
shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.'"

Four of the Republican Senators who co-signed that bill are still in
the
Senate today. And Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who opposes it vociferously now,
was
one of those who voted for the bill.

Everyone in Congress knows that you can't have universal coverage
without
mandatory coverage, for reasons that should be obvious. Conservatives
have
voted in favor of it in the past. But it's an issue with which they
think
they can get some political leverage, so they're opposed to it now.

Once you have a plan that covers everyone, anyone who opts out is, as
those
conservatives said, a "free rider."

--

Ed Huntress

Agreed.

Everyone paying higher premiums have the Repubicans to thank for it.

In a way I hope that the health care efforts go nowhere...and then the
Republicans can explain why the health care system crashed.

TMT

In a way I'd like to see the republicans take over a majority in
congress
just to see what they would do about health care reform. Remember, the
republicans only lost power a short time ago, but when they had the
chance
they did not one thing to address the health care problems. So if they
got
power again would they do the same thing again? Or would they come up
with
some sham of a plan that does nothing but curtail tort cases? It would
almost be worth it to see them having to deal with health care for once.
Almost. But since giving them power again would allow them to make a
mess
of things again like they just did when they were the majority party,
I'd
never want them to get their hands on the levers of government again.
The
last time they nearly destroyed us. What they would do next time is to
frightening to contemplate.

Hawke

You actually think the left won't be eviscerated in the upcoming
elections?
Good for you! Most of America doesn't want the democrats' HC bill and
doesn't trust them. I hope the dems DO jam it through, there won't be a
single democrat seat safe unless they voted against it. They will be a
third party for the next fifty years, behind the Loosertarians.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean like the right was in 2006 and 2008?

Laugh..laugh...laugh...


TMT

Yep, run those fiscally irresponsible ****heads out too.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 2/22/2010 3:21 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

-snip-


hands on the levers of government again. The last time they nearly
destroyed us. What they would do next time is to frightening to
contemplate.

Hawke



i think the jury is still out as to whether or not they destroyed us.

b.w.