Andrew Barss wrote:
HeyBub wrote:


Excellent retort. In sum, we spend more per capita than other
countries BECAUSE WE CAN. Other countries spend less than we for a
lot of reasons, chief among them is they don't have the wealth to do
so.

But the problem is, that extra spending on health care does not make
us live longer or better lives. Here' a very good video presentation
of some of the facts of the matter, comparing US and foreign
expenditures to e.g., survival rates for various things:

http://brightcove.newscientist.com/s...id=30583310001



Well worth watching. It discusses, among many other things, the fact
that a lot of the cutting-edge expensive tests equipment is owened by
the doctors, who need to recoup their investment asap.

Your points are well taken but they do not negate the choices. Spending more
for a Cadillac won't get you to your destination any faster or any safer.
It's the consumer's choice. Whether the test equipment is owned by your
local doctor or the Chinese is irrelevant as to whether you consent to its
use.

The bottom line is that the patient chooses to spend more because he has the
funds available - either out of his own pocket or through insurance.

If a patient is told an expensive test is available, but, given the
circumstances, the test will only detect a problem in 1% of the time is a
choice for the patient. Telling the patient that the test is unavailable or
that its use is below the 10% threshold is another matter entirely.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Tom Veatch" wrote:

I don't believe congress is talking about forcing you or me to buy
fire insurance on pain of confiscatory fines. (local fire
departments
don't equate to fire insurance, by the way)

More IBS (Intellectual Bull ****).

1) What is being proposed is that everyone must purchase health
insurance.

2) If you can not afford to buy health insurance, tax rebates,
incentives, etc will be provided to help offset the cost of health
insurance.

Yeah, somebody making minimum wage is going to be paying enough taxes that
tax rebates will offset the cost of insurance. Right. Sure they will.

Obama's plan is basically saying "it's more important to have medical
insurance than to have food on the table and a roof over your head and be
warm in the winter". Just one more way to guarantee that the poor stay
poor. People who have never been poor don't quite grasp the concept.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:53:03 -0500, Tom Veatch wrote:

On 14 Sep 2009 17:37:47 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

25% overhead is entirely too much.

Maybe so, but it's a lot less than the overhead in most (if not all)
manufacturing companies.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA


Government projects are typically 30% overhead. It is not known for
efficiency. Recall the $600 hammer? The $4500 microwave? The
government has no reason to be effecient, it does not need to make a
profit, just collect tax money.

Phisherman wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:53:03 -0500, Tom Veatch wrote:

On 14 Sep 2009 17:37:47 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

25% overhead is entirely too much.

Maybe so, but it's a lot less than the overhead in most (if not all)
manufacturing companies.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA


Government projects are typically 30% overhead. It is not known for
efficiency. Recall the $600 hammer? The $4500 microwave? The
government has no reason to be effecient, it does not need to make a
profit, just collect tax money.

Uh, the government doesn't make hammers, it buys them, so what its overhead
has to do with that of a manufacturing company you need to explain.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:59:52 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


"Tom Veatch" wrote:

I don't believe congress is talking about forcing you or me to buy
fire insurance on pain of confiscatory fines. (local fire
departments
don't equate to fire insurance, by the way)

More IBS (Intellectual Bull ****).

1) What is being proposed is that everyone must purchase health
insurance.

That's correct, on pain of confiscatory fines. So where's the
bull****. Or do you assert that the bull**** is in the statement about
fire departments not being the same as fire insurance. I'd have though
that was self evident. Or is the bull**** in taking my comments out of
their context. Ah, yes, maybe that's it.

2) If you can not afford to buy health insurance, tax rebates,
incentives, etc will be provided to help offset the cost of health
insurance.


Riiiiiiiight!
Lew



Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:46:05 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

Who pays for the 20% administrative overhead the insurance companies
absorb today? Health insurance administration in Canada absorbs 6%,
it's 4% in France and an astonishingly efficient 1.5% in Taiwan. What
baffles me is why so many folks are apparently content paying an extra
20% for insurance that goes to executive salaries and marketing
campaigns and so on while being horrified at the thought of the
supposedly greater inefficiency govt. would bring to the process.

That's a good point, and one that the right wingers on this group
consistently ignore.

I also wonder how many of them rejected Social Security and Medicare, or
plan to when they reach that age?

Not to claim that the left is always logical :-).

If we all used reason, voted for the common good instead of self-
interest, and had the needed information, all laws, candidates, and
propositions would be approved or rejected almost unanimously.

But then we wouldn't be human :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

DGDevin wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Need I point out that that solution STILL leaves you paying for Joe
- just via a different path :-).

There's a difference worth noting: you wouldn't only be paying for
Joe's stitches, but also for all the clerical overhead needed for the
government to process the medical and accounting information.

Guess who pays /those/ bills....

Who pays for the 20% administrative overhead the insurance companies
absorb today? Health insurance administration in Canada absorbs 6%,
it's 4% in France and an astonishingly efficient 1.5% in Taiwan. What
baffles me is why so many folks are apparently content paying an
extra 20% for insurance that goes to executive salaries and marketing
campaigns and so on while being horrified at the thought of the
supposedly greater inefficiency govt. would bring to the process. The
insurance companies have been getting away with murder--refusing
customers with pre-existing conditions, finding excuses to drop
customers who paid their premiums for years but now need treatment,
raising their rates far ahead of inflation, not to mention absorbing
a fifth of the money they take in for "administration." We're being
screwed six ways from Sunday *now* by the industry--are we just
supposed to bend over and smile forever, paying more than any other
nation on earth for health care while coming in 13th among wealthy
nations in life expectancy and infant mortality? My usual instinct
is to suspect that govt. can usually makes things worse, but when it
comes to health care we need to do something different, it can't go
on like it is now because we simply can't afford it.

But you said it yourself: "...so many folks are apparently content..." If so
many are content (85% by the last measure), why take a chance on screwing it
up?

The Senate plan will be introduced tomorrow (Wednesday). It will contain a
mandatory insurance provision that will require as much as 17% of a family's
income (roughly equivalent to doubling their rent). This manadatory
provision is necessary in order to pay for the new coverages.

Of course those who can't afford the required insurance premium will have
its value subsidized by the government (they really do think we can't use
numbers).

And who, besides the president, says we can't afford it? I suggest the
difference between 16% health premium and a 30% tax rate in the U.S. is
better than 0% health premium and a 50-70% tax rate as in the UK, France,
Canada, and other countries held up as exemplars.

Life expectancy and infant mortality are flawed metrics for the efficacy of
a health-care delivery system. First, many people in this country die from
things totally removed from the medical universe: traffic accidents,
gang-related shootings, executions, terrorism, suicides. When a drunk drives
into a bridge support at 100 mph, neither the best nor cheapest medical
system in the world will do any good. (Consider also Princess Diana.)

A better metric is life expectancy for five years AFTER diagnosis of an
extreme disease. In virtually ALL cases, the U.S. leads the world. For
example, after a diagnosis of chronic heart failure, the rate of survival
for five years is:

U.S. - 96%
Canada - 86%
U.K. - 55%

Similar numbers obtain for breast, prostate, and indeed, all cancers.

Also, many deaths are attributable to social factors beyond the influence of
the medical system. The survey you quote (in which the U.S. ranks 13th) also
ranks South Africa as, like, third from the bottom! South Africa has the
best medical system in Africa - it was the home of the first heart
transplant, for crying out loud! South Africa also has the highest incidence
of AIDS, about which even the best medical system can do almost nothing.

Infant mortality is another bad hat. When a severely premature infant is
born in the U.S., we move heaven and earth to save its life. Many,
unfortunately, expire after heroic measures add only a day or two to the
infant's life. In France, NO measures are taken for an infant whose birth
weight is less than about 1.5kg. Virtually ALL these deaths are recorded as
"stillborn."

DGDevin wrote:

Jack Stein wrote:

Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go
along. A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about
losing their seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what
many of their constituents have been convinced is rampaging
socialism.

No argument with that, other than "many of their constituents
recognize as rampaging socialism." "Rampaging socialism" is easy to
recognize, no need to convince anyone with half a brain... it is what
it is...

Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to set
up death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die,

Look, the only way to save the amount of money being touted by the
proponents of these bills is going to be to ration care. You can't get
that amount from cutting "waste and fraud" from Medicare -- why can't they
do that now? You can't save money by bringing in 30 Million (47 million?,
27 million? What's the number this week?) more people and still provide
the same services. Tom Dashcle was promoting a panel to design and develop
a list of approved protocols for treatment and who should receive that
treatment in order to make cost-effective decisions. This approach has
been included in the porkulus bill. You can call these what you want, but
the fact that government bureaucrats are going to decide what treatments
should be covered and at what ages on should just give them "a pain
pill" -- that's Obama's exact words, equates to someone determining who is
going to live and who is going to die. Once government takes over health
care, you are no longer a citizen, you are a line item in the budget. Call
it radical right wing hysteria, call it eeevil conservatives thwarting the
black president, the fact is that it is the government regulating what
care, when, and how you will receive it. You are no longer an independent
citizen, you are not dependent upon the government.


and give
away free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language of the bill
notwithstanding)

Umm, no the language is not clear. While it does say illegals aren't
eligible, there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that. When
representatives tried to get enforcement amendments added to that section
of the bill, they were voted down -- several times.



and for that matter that President Obama's birth
certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with what they believe.
Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to screech that they don't want
the govt. getting involved with their Medicare is frankly too dumb to be
taken seriously. It saddens me that the Republican Party has been reduced
to appealing to the fears of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what it has
come to.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Mark & Juanita wrote:

DGDevin wrote:

Jack Stein wrote:

Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go
along. A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about
losing their seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what
many of their constituents have been convinced is rampaging
socialism.

No argument with that, other than "many of their constituents
recognize as rampaging socialism." "Rampaging socialism" is easy to
recognize, no need to convince anyone with half a brain... it is what
it is...

Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to set
up death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die,

Look, the only way to save the amount of money being touted by the
proponents of these bills is going to be to ration care. You can't get
that amount from cutting "waste and fraud" from Medicare -- why can't they
do that now? You can't save money by bringing in 30 Million (47 million?,
27 million? What's the number this week?) more people and still provide
the same services. Tom Dashcle was promoting a panel to design and
develop a list of approved protocols for treatment and who should receive
that
treatment in order to make cost-effective decisions. This approach has
been included in the porkulus bill. You can call these what you want, but
the fact that government bureaucrats are going to decide what treatments
should be covered and at what ages on should just give them "a pain
pill" -- that's Obama's exact words, equates to someone determining who is
going to live and who is going to die. Once government takes over health
care, you are no longer a citizen, you are a line item in the budget.
Call it radical right wing hysteria, call it eeevil conservatives
thwarting the black president, the fact is that it is the government
regulating what
care, when, and how you will receive it. You are no longer an independent
citizen, you are not dependent upon the government.
That should read, you are now dependent upon the government.



and give
away free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language of the bill
notwithstanding)

Umm, no the language is not clear. While it does say illegals aren't
eligible, there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that. When
representatives tried to get enforcement amendments added to that section
of the bill, they were voted down -- several times.



and for that matter that President Obama's birth
certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with what they believe.
Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to screech that they don't
want the govt. getting involved with their Medicare is frankly too dumb
to be
taken seriously. It saddens me that the Republican Party has been
reduced to appealing to the fears of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what
it has come to.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"DGDevin" wrote:

Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to
set up death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die,
and give away free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language
of the bill notwithstanding) and for that matter that President
Obama's birth certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with
what they believe. Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to
screech that they don't want the govt. getting involved with their
Medicare is frankly too dumb to be taken seriously. It saddens me
that the Republican Party has been reduced to appealing to the fears
of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what it has come to.

Bottom line.....................................

It's "Whitey" based demagogy playing the race card.

Just look at who is playing the "Stop Obama" game.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
Bottom line.....................................

It's "Whitey" based demagogy playing the race card.

Just look at who is playing the "Stop Obama" game.


Was it "Whitey" that stopped the Clinton plan because of race too?

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote:

Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to
set up death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die,
and give away free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language
of the bill notwithstanding) and for that matter that President
Obama's birth certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with
what they believe. Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to
screech that they don't want the govt. getting involved with their
Medicare is frankly too dumb to be taken seriously. It saddens me
that the Republican Party has been reduced to appealing to the fears
of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what it has come to.

Bottom line.....................................

It's "Whitey" based demagogy playing the race card.

Just look at who is playing the "Stop Obama" game.


Yeah, just like the leftists who complained about Colin Powell's and Condi
Rice's support of the Iraq kerfluffel. Those who criticized were nothing but
a bunch of dirt-bag racists who looked only at color of the proponents and
not at the merits of the plan.

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:

The last time I went to an ER, they told me that they couldn't see me
until I filed out the paperwork. Then they complained that there was to
much blood on the paperwork to read it.

If you think the government has any chance in hell of reducing the paper
work, you are really delusional.

--
Jack
Got Change: Individual rules ===== Collective rules!
http://jbstein.com

I don't like paperwork anymore than most, but get rid of the paper trail and
fraud
will be (even more) rampant IMO.

Bill

DGDevin wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
"Rampaging socialism" is easy to
recognize, no need to convince anyone with half a brain... it is what
it is...

Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to set up
death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die,

Wonder who you think will be making those decisions? My wife recently
got bleach in her eyes, and I rushed her to the emergency room, where
they treated her immediately, before any forms were filled out. (She was
in treatment a full hour before the forms were filled out... Fat chance
that would ever happen in a government bureaucracy. This was late at
night, so the ophthalmologist wasn't in, but they called him and
explained the situation. He saw her the next day. After examining her
he said she needed to see a eye surgeon the specializes in retina
surgery. He recommended one at a local hospital, called her and sent us
directly to she her. After an exam turned out wife managed to burn off
90+ percent of her retina, and luckily, a little was left so it might
regenerate itself, otherwise she would be blind in one eye. Also,
turned out there was an experimental treatment that involved human
tissue transplant that would greatly enhance the chance of success,
however it was new and insurance didn't cover it. She said she has had
success convincing the insurance companies to cover the treatment, but
there was no guarantee. The next day she called and said she talked to
the insurance company and got approval... Today, my wife can see
perfectly. Now, I can assure you this doctor would not have gotten TO
the "government panel" to have this approved. She might have spent
several months trying to get ANY low level asswipe to even ANSWER the
phone, and the denial would be immediate, and probably very
condescending. To get it to the government panel for approval would
assuredly take months and probably a legal suit before anyone would
bother looking at it. By then, the wife would be blind as a bat.

This would be no different if you 80 year old mom needed a hip
replacement or cancer therapy, or any other type of procedure the
government felt was not cost effective or worth the expenditure. You
can live in denial all you want, won't change a thing.

and give away
free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language of the bill
notwithstanding)

What is clear in the bill is that illegal aliens will indeed get free
medical care, just like they do now. A number of attempts to make it
clear in the bill were clearly denied by the dems... Obama knows this,
and was clearly lying about it.

and for that matter that President Obama's birth
certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with what they believe.

I doubt they are concerned much with what you believe either...

Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to screech that they don't want
the govt. getting involved with their Medicare is frankly too dumb to be
taken seriously.

Right, bunch of dumb asses. 80-85% of the country is happy with their
health care as it is, and the geniuses, like you want the government to
run their health care, despite the fact ****ing government can't chew
gum and walk at the same time...

It saddens me that the Republican Party has been reduced
to appealing to the fears of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what it has
come to.

Well, the Republicans don't have too much of a problem with big
government controlling everyones lives either. Besides, pretty ****ing
dumb to want to pass a bill that no one bothered to even read, and those
that tried have no ****ing clue what it actually says, other than
gobbledygook!

The dumb ones are those like you that think this is a
Democrat/Republican issue. It is an American/Amerikan issue. A
Socialist/Capitalist issue. An Individual control/Government control
issue.

--
Jack
Got Change: Individual control ==== Government control!
http://jbstein.com

On Sep 16, 12:05*pm, Jack Stein wrote:

*Now, I can assure you this doctor would not have gotten TO
the "government panel" to have this approved. *She might have spent
several months trying to get ANY low level asswipe to even ANSWER the
phone, and the denial would be immediate, and probably very
condescending. *To get it to the government panel for approval would
assuredly take months and probably a legal suit before anyone would
bother looking at it. *By then, the wife would be blind as a bat.



Can you feel the hate?

CW wrote:

The last time I went to an ER, they told me that they couldn't see me until
I filed out the paperwork. Then they complained that there was to much blood
on the paperwork to read it.

If you think the government has any chance in hell of reducing the paper
work, you are really delusional.

--
Jack
Got Change: Individual rules ===== Collective rules!
http://jbstein.com

On Sep 16, 9:08*am, Jack Stein wrote:
CW wrote:
The last time I went to an ER, they told me that they couldn't see me until
I filed out the paperwork. Then they complained that there was to much blood
on the paperwork to read it.

If you think the government has any chance in hell of reducing the paper
work, you are really delusional.

I think you are letting your ideology blind you to reality. Every
other government-run health care system in advanced countries has a
lot less paperwork than the US private health care system, hence the
much lower administrative costs.

Luigi

On Sep 16, 12:24*pm, Luigi Zanasi wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:08*am, Jack Stein wrote:

CW wrote:
The last time I went to an ER, they told me that they couldn't see me until
I filed out the paperwork. Then they complained that there was to much blood
on the paperwork to read it.

If you think the government has any chance in hell of reducing the paper
work, you are really delusional.

I think you are letting your ideology blind you to reality. Every
other government-run health care system in advanced countries has a
lot less paperwork than the US private health care system, hence the
much lower administrative costs.

Luigi

Angela works in the health care system. A lot of our friends do. Here,
in Canada, and 5 miles away in Port Huron Michigan.
A friend of mine, now passed away, worked in ER in a Detroit hospital.
(He had a tattoo of Snoopy running along side a stretcher with his paw
in a bullet hole.) Another friend used to work in Detroit in
administration and now works here.
All in all, both systems seem to work adequately. The reason some
people are on a long waiting list is due to a shortage of facilities,
doctors, trained personnel... we had a new MRI sitting here, idle for
6 months because we didn't have trained staff.
All systems are trying to cope with a growing, ageing population.
There are success- and horror stories on both sides of the
border...with some big exceptions... people going bankrupt trying to
stay alive. THAT doesn't happen here... and NO rejection due to
previous illnesses.
That ****ing corporate greed will be the death of all us....

"Jack Stein" wrote:

Wonder who you think will be making those decisions?

snip the balance

Floyd R. Turbot, American, would be proud of your little tirade.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 16, 12:05 pm, Jack Stein wrote:

Now, I can assure you this doctor would not have gotten TO
the "government panel" to have this approved. She might have spent
several months trying to get ANY low level asswipe to even ANSWER the
phone, and the denial would be immediate, and probably very
condescending. To get it to the government panel for approval would
assuredly take months and probably a legal suit before anyone would
bother looking at it. By then, the wife would be blind as a bat.



Can you feel the hate?

From whom?

--
"Even if your wife is happy but you're unhappy, you're still happier
than you'd be if you were happy and your wife was unhappy." - Red Green
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

80-85% of the country is happy with their
health care as it is, ...


Considering that all the polls show the elctorate to be pretty evenly
divided on Obama's plan, I have great difficulty believing your numbers.


The dumb ones are those like you that think this is a
Democrat/Republican issue. It is an American/Amerikan issue. A
Socialist/Capitalist issue. An Individual control/Government control
issue.


I've been reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson. When he was helping
set up the state of Virginia, he proposed that all free men who did not
own land, or who owned less than 50 acres, be given enough government
land to make up the 50 acres. Omigod, SOCIALISM way back then!

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

DGDevin wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go
along. A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about
losing their seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what
many of their constituents have been convinced is rampaging
socialism.

No argument with that, other than "many of their constituents
recognize as rampaging socialism." "Rampaging socialism" is easy to
recognize, no need to convince anyone with half a brain... it is what
it is...

Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to
set up death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die,
and give away free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language
of the bill notwithstanding) and for that matter that President
Obama's birth certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with
what they believe. Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to
screech that they don't want the govt. getting involved with their
Medicare is frankly too dumb to be taken seriously. It saddens me
that the Republican Party has been reduced to appealing to the fears
of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what it has come to.

Death panels?
Paid-for abortions?
Treating illegal aliens?
Rationing?
Waiting lists?

I agree they are not in any of the pending bills. But here's the dirtly
little secret:

They are not NOT in there! There is no language prohibiting them. If the
people so quick to accuse health-care reform opponents of exaggeration and
scare-mongering were serious, they'd add:

"No provision of this Act shall be used in any way to promote, advise, or
provide for ..."

The fact that such additions are resisted speaks volumes.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

80-85% of the country is happy with their
health care as it is, ...


Considering that all the polls show the elctorate to be pretty evenly
divided on Obama's plan, I have great difficulty believing your
numbers.

You are correct about "evenly divided." Rasmussen reported yesterday a split
of 55-42 in opposition to an overhaul:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform

Still, there have been some recent ratings in the 80% range for
satisfaction:

"Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively.
Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or
injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are
satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
" (ABC News)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/livin...1020_poll.html

"More than eight in 10 Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
survey released Thursday said they're satisfied with the quality of health
care they receive." (CNN Opinion Research)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/...oll/index.html

"73%" [Scores by industry, American Consumer Satisfaction Index]
http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?opt...8&Item id=156

"HeyBub" writes:

Death panels?
Paid-for abortions?
Treating illegal aliens?
Rationing?
Waiting lists?

I agree they are not in any of the pending bills. But here's the dirtly
little secret:

They are not NOT in there! There is no language prohibiting them. If the

heysoose christos, this has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard
yet from looney HeyBub. Why should there be any language prohibiting
them? This isn't constitutional, it can be ammended or struck (either way) at
any time in the future.

idiot.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

The dumb ones are those like you that think this is a
Democrat/Republican issue. It is an American/Amerikan issue. A
Socialist/Capitalist issue. An Individual control/Government control
issue.

I've been reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson. When he was helping
set up the state of Virginia, he proposed that all free men who did not
own land, or who owned less than 50 acres, be given enough government
land to make up the 50 acres. Omigod, SOCIALISM way back then!

What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?

--
Jack
Got Change: Private Property ==== Government Property!
http://jbstein.com

Larry Blanchard wrote:

The dumb ones are those like you that think this is a
Democrat/Republican issue. It is an American/Amerikan issue. A
Socialist/Capitalist issue. An Individual control/Government control
issue.

I've been reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson. When he was helping
set up the state of Virginia, he proposed that all free men who did not
own land, or who owned less than 50 acres, be given enough government
land to make up the 50 acres. Omigod, SOCIALISM way back then!

What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?

--
Jack
Got Change: Private Property ====== Government Property!
http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" wrote:

What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?

More to the point, what does universal health care have to do with
SOCIALISM?

Lew

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
"Rampaging socialism" is easy to
recognize, no need to convince anyone with half a brain... it is what
it is...

Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to set up
death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die,

Wonder who you think will be making those decisions? My wife recently
got bleach in her eyes, and I rushed her to the emergency room, where
they treated her immediately, before any forms were filled out. (She was
in treatment a full hour before the forms were filled out... Fat chance
that would ever happen in a government bureaucracy. This was late at
night, so the ophthalmologist wasn't in, but they called him and
explained the situation. He saw her the next day. After examining her
he said she needed to see a eye surgeon the specializes in retina
surgery. He recommended one at a local hospital, called her and sent us
directly to she her. After an exam turned out wife managed to burn off
90+ percent of her retina, and luckily, a little was left so it might
regenerate itself, otherwise she would be blind in one eye. Also,
turned out there was an experimental treatment that involved human
tissue transplant that would greatly enhance the chance of success,
however it was new and insurance didn't cover it. She said she has had
success convincing the insurance companies to cover the treatment, but
there was no guarantee. The next day she called and said she talked to
the insurance company and got approval... Today, my wife can see
perfectly. Now, I can assure you this doctor would not have gotten TO
the "government panel" to have this approved. She might have spent
several months trying to get ANY low level asswipe to even ANSWER the
phone, and the denial would be immediate, and probably very
condescending. To get it to the government panel for approval would
assuredly take months and probably a legal suit before anyone would
bother looking at it. By then, the wife would be blind as a bat.

This would be no different if you 80 year old mom needed a hip
replacement or cancer therapy, or any other type of procedure the
government felt was not cost effective or worth the expenditure. You
can live in denial all you want, won't change a thing.

and give away
free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language of the bill
notwithstanding)

What is clear in the bill is that illegal aliens will indeed get free
medical care, just like they do now. A number of attempts to make it
clear in the bill were clearly denied by the dems... Obama knows this,
and was clearly lying about it.

and for that matter that President Obama's birth
certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with what they believe.

I doubt they are concerned much with what you believe either...

Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to screech that they don't want
the govt. getting involved with their Medicare is frankly too dumb to be
taken seriously.

Right, bunch of dumb asses. 80-85% of the country is happy with their
health care as it is, and the geniuses, like you want the government to
run their health care, despite the fact ****ing government can't chew
gum and walk at the same time...

It saddens me that the Republican Party has been reduced
to appealing to the fears of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what it has
come to.

Well, the Republicans don't have too much of a problem with big
government controlling everyones lives either. Besides, pretty ****ing
dumb to want to pass a bill that no one bothered to even read, and those
that tried have no ****ing clue what it actually says, other than
gobbledygook!

The dumb ones are those like you that think this is a
Democrat/Republican issue. It is an American/Amerikan issue. A
Socialist/Capitalist issue. An Individual control/Government control
issue.

--
Jack
Got Change: Individual control ==== Government control!
http://jbstein.com


Jack, sorry to hear about your wife. She is very lucky to have a
responsive emergency room. They are not all alike.

It is very sad folks are turning this into a party or race thing. The
more Obama pushes health care, the more people dislike it. Go Obama!

Jack Stein wrote:

This would be no different if you 80 year old mom needed a hip
replacement or cancer therapy, or any other type of procedure the
government felt was not cost effective or worth the expenditure. You
can live in denial all you want, won't change a thing.

Flat not true. My mom had two hip replacements, one at 80 and one at 82.
Medicare ("the government") approved and paid for both of them without the
slightest problem.

I'm glad your wife is doing well. Those things are scary.

-- Doug

"Phisherman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:
.. The
more Obama pushes health care, the more people dislike it. Go Obama!

I'll second that.

Robatoy wrote:

That ****ing corporate greed will be the death of all us....

Bingo, ditto, bingo, ditt...****'n A!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Jack Stein" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:

The last time I went to an ER, they told me that they couldn't see me
until I filed out the paperwork. Then they complained that there was to
much blood on the paperwork to read it.

If you think the government has any chance in hell of reducing the paper
work, you are really delusional.


Nope, it won't. To get good and timely health care, you will still have to
have private insurance. The government run health care will end up being
just another tax which will, in effect, increase your health care
cost...substantially. Has anybody thought of how many employers will cease
to offer health insurance claiming that there is no need as the government
will take care of it. This will increase cost to the individual as they will
now have to pay the full price of their insurance.

"Government run health care is like a man giving himslf a transfusion from
one arm to the other, but government spills half of it in the middle."

Paul Harvy



"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's
money."

Margaret Thatcher

Robatoy wrote:

That ****ing corporate greed will be the death of all us....

Greed is good.

One great worthy (I think the Ramban) said long ago: "If not for greed, no
man would marry, build a house, or father a child."

Another great worthy (Gordon Gekko) said: "The point is, ladies and
gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right,
greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the
evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money,
for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you
mark my words, will not only save [us], but that other malfunctioning
corporation called the USA."

Scott Lurndal wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

Death panels?
Paid-for abortions?
Treating illegal aliens?
Rationing?
Waiting lists?

I agree they are not in any of the pending bills. But here's the
dirtly little secret:

They are not NOT in there! There is no language prohibiting them. If
the

heysoose christos, this has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard
yet from looney HeyBub. Why should there be any language
prohibiting
them? This isn't constitutional, it can be ammended or struck
(either way) at any time in the future.


Because all the bills set up agencies to administer the programs. Without
the prohibitory language, the regulatory agencies are free to establish
whatever criteria, requirements, permissions, or prohibitions the
bureaucrats choose.

While you are correct that the bills - or eventual law - can be amended or
changed, the fact that these conditions are not there at the outset is
indicative of nefarious intent.

On Sep 16, 10:17*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
That ****ing corporate greed will be the death of all us....

Greed is good.

One great worthy (I think the Ramban) said long ago: "If not for greed, no
man would marry, build a house, or father a child."

Another great worthy (Gordon Gekko) said: "The point is, ladies and
gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right,
greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the
evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money,
for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you
mark my words, will not only save [us], but that other malfunctioning
corporation called the USA."

To accumulate wealth by ambition and drive is one thing.
To accumulate wealth by extortion, such as Insurance Companies, Oil
Companies, Banks, IRS borders on the criminal.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

80-85% of the country is happy with their
health care as it is, ...


Considering that all the polls show the elctorate to be pretty evenly
divided on Obama's plan, I have great difficulty believing your numbers.


ummm, you might want to check *your* numbers. Latest Rasmussen poll has
opposition at 55% compared to 42% support for Obamacare. Other polls show
similar results, even after heavily weighting democrat to republican in the
sample bases. Worse for your argument, 44% strongly oppose the plan while
only 23% strongly support it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform



The dumb ones are those like you that think this is a
Democrat/Republican issue. It is an American/Amerikan issue. A
Socialist/Capitalist issue. An Individual control/Government control
issue.


I've been reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson. When he was helping
set up the state of Virginia, he proposed that all free men who did not
own land, or who owned less than 50 acres, be given enough government
land to make up the 50 acres. Omigod, SOCIALISM way back then!


OK, how does transferring land that the government was holding to private
individuals equate to socialism? Seems like that is shrinking government
and government control of property and transferring it to private hands,
the exact opposite of socialism. The government did not take that land from
someone else to give it to another.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Jack Stein" wrote:

What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?

More to the point, what does universal health care have to do with
SOCIALISM?

Lew

Are you sure you really want to ask the question of how the government
taking over 1/7 of the US economy equates to socialism -- the control of
enterprise by the government? Or ask how having one citizen pay for
another's health insurance is socialism? You really don't see how that is
socialist?


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Phisherman wrote:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein
wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
"Rampaging socialism" is easy to
recognize, no need to convince anyone with half a brain... it is what
.... snip


Jack, sorry to hear about your wife. She is very lucky to have a
responsive emergency room. They are not all alike.

It is very sad folks are turning this into a party or race thing.

You are exactly right. The protests in D.C. Saturday were truly
bi-partisan, people who went were Republican, Democrat, and Independent --
they all gathered because of the concern that this massive expansion of
government power over individual lives will cause.


For those of you who only get the three-letter news stations and/or the
NYT -- approximately 800k to 1.2M people showed up in D.C. on Saturday to
show their opposition to the health care bills in Congress. Apparently the
three-letter news organizations were too busy with other stuff to cover
this to any great extent.


The
more Obama pushes health care, the more people dislike it. Go Obama!

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"DGDevin" wrote:

Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to
set up death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die,
and give away free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language
of the bill notwithstanding) and for that matter that President
Obama's birth certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with
what they believe. Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to
screech that they don't want the govt. getting involved with their
Medicare is frankly too dumb to be taken seriously. It saddens me
that the Republican Party has been reduced to appealing to the fears
of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what it has come to.

Bottom line.....................................

It's "Whitey" based demagogy playing the race card.

Just look at who is playing the "Stop Obama" game.

Lew

Yeah, there was that racist conservative in St Louis that the SEIU
enforcers gave what-for during one of those racist demonstrations. They
really showed Ken Gladney that they don't take racism lightly.

Oh, wait -- Ken Gladney is black.

But then there is that racist nut in Phoenix who showed up with an AK
rifle over his shoulder (totally legal in the state, but everyone knows
that was intended to be racially intimidating).

Oh, wait, that guy was black also.


That race card ain't working any more, it's been played too many times.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Robatoy wrote:
Greed is good.

One great worthy (I think the Ramban) said long ago: "If not for
greed, no man would marry, build a house, or father a child."

Another great worthy (Gordon Gekko) said: "The point is, ladies and
gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is
right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the
essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms;
greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward
surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save
[us], but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

To accumulate wealth by ambition and drive is one thing.
To accumulate wealth by extortion, such as Insurance Companies, Oil
Companies, Banks, IRS borders on the criminal.

Absolutely! But it's not the greed that is bad - it is the method of
pursuing it or the results to which it's put that causes the harm.