.... I'm going to balance my check book.

By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
been paid in perpetuity.

Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...

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

On Mar 17, 1:00*pm, Swingman wrote:
... I'm going to balance my check book.

By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
been paid in perpetuity.

Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...

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

I believe your creditors will spoil your belief next month.
Joe G

GROVER wrote:
On Mar 17, 1:00 pm, Swingman wrote:
... I'm going to balance my check book.

By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have
therefore been paid in perpetuity.

Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...

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

I believe your creditors will spoil your belief next month.
Joe G

And the voters next November.

Swingman wrote:
... I'm going to balance my check book.

By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
been paid in perpetuity.

Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...




INTERNET WARNING:

If you get an email titled "Nude photo of Nancy Pelosi,"
don't open it.... It contains a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi.

On 3/17/10 3:39 PM, Norvin wrote:
INTERNET WARNING:

If you get an email titled "Nude photo of Nancy Pelosi," don't open
it.... It contains a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi.


Literally, LOL. :-)



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Mar 17, 12:00*pm, Swingman wrote:
... I'm going to balance my check book.

By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
been paid in perpetuity.

Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...

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

Crap.

Your subject line made this look racier than it ended up being!

Oh well...

RonB

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
... I'm going to balance my check book.

By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
been paid in perpetuity.

Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...

--
A "deeming resolution" is perhaps a scuzzy, gutless approach to legislation.
So it shouldn't be surprising that the Republicans used it 36 times in 2005
qnd 2006 when they controlled the House, and Democrats used it 49 times in
2007 and 2008. It's interesting that now, when it concerns a very high
profile piece of legislation. it's painted as a new "unconstitutional"
flaunting of the rules. As if any of them had any regard for rules and
fairness in the first place, there's an agenda in Congress, and it ain't
aimed at doing what's best for me and you.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:39:39 -0500, Norvin
wrote:


INTERNET WARNING:

If you get an email titled "Nude photo of Nancy Pelosi,"
don't open it.... It contains a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi.

You owe me a new monitor!

Really LOL!

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"I'm not exactly burned out, but I'm a little bit scorched and there's some smoke damage."

On 3/17/2010 6:09 PM, d.williams wrote:
wrote in message
...
... I'm going to balance my check book.

By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
been paid in perpetuity.

Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...

--
A "deeming resolution" is perhaps a scuzzy, gutless approach to legislation.
So it shouldn't be surprising that the Republicans used it 36 times in 2005
qnd 2006 when they controlled the House, and Democrats used it 49 times in
2007 and 2008. It's interesting that now, when it concerns a very high
profile piece of legislation. it's painted as a new "unconstitutional"
flaunting of the rules. As if any of them had any regard for rules and
fairness in the first place, there's an agenda in Congress, and it ain't
aimed at doing what's best for me and you.

You're preaching to choir ... but that's not a bad thing.

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

A "deeming resolution" is perhaps a scuzzy, gutless approach to legislation.

So is "vote changing" (i.e., legislators can change their vote
afterwards, as long as it doesn't change the outcome of the vote).

And so is the practice of tacking unrelated ammendments (usually
related to pork-barrel spending) to other bills.

It's sausage, no matter how we grind it.

-Zz

On 3/17/2010 7:13 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:

It's sausage, no matter how we grind it.

It ain't sausage, but it looks like it ...

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

d.williams wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
... I'm going to balance my check book.

By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have
therefore been paid in perpetuity.

Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...

--
A "deeming resolution" is perhaps a scuzzy, gutless approach to
legislation. So it shouldn't be surprising that the Republicans used
it 36 times in 2005 qnd 2006 when they controlled the House, and
Democrats used it 49 times in 2007 and 2008. It's interesting that
now, when it concerns a very high profile piece of legislation. it's
painted as a new "unconstitutional" flaunting of the rules. As if any
of them had any regard for rules and fairness in the first place,
there's an agenda in Congress, and it ain't aimed at doing what's
best for me and you.

A "deeming resolution" was used THREE times (not 36) during the 109th
Congress (Jan 2005 - Jan 2007) and only ONE of those moved a bill (H.R. 653,
S.1932) to the president's desk. The Democrats claim the rule has been used
18 times since the 101st Congress (beginning Jan 1989). Of these 18, only
FOUR bills in 21 years were moved to the president's desk:

H.J.R 45 - Raising the debt limit in the 111th Congress,
S. 1932 - Deficit Reduction Act in the 109th Congress,
S. 4 - The line item veto act, 104th Congress, and
H.R. 1 - The Family Medical Leave Act, 102nd Congress

All of the rest either failed , were matters entirely within the function of
the particular house (i.e., appointment of Sergeant at Arms), or, more
often, were part of the "Gephardt Rule" (House Rule XXIII) for raising the
debt limit.

Bottom line: The "Slaughter Solution" is unprecedented in its application,
breathtaking in its contemplated use, beyond comprehension in its content,
and, as you said, scuzzy beyond description.

Swingman wrote:
On 3/17/2010 7:13 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:

It's sausage, no matter how we grind it.

It ain't sausage, but it looks like it ...

Ohhhh! Good one!

I'm gonna call Limbaugh tomorrow with that (unless you beat me to it).

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Swingman wrote:
On 3/17/2010 7:13 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:

It's sausage, no matter how we grind it.

It ain't sausage, but it looks like it ...

Ohhhh! Good one!

I'm gonna call Limbaugh tomorrow with that (unless you beat me to it).

I think he's house hunting in Costa Rica.

Dave in Houston

Norvin wrote:

Swingman wrote:
... I'm going to balance my check book.

By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
been paid in perpetuity.

Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...




INTERNET WARNING:

If you get an email titled "Nude photo of Nancy Pelosi,"
don't open it.... It contains a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi.

AAAGH! Brain Bleach! Where's the Brain Bleach? That is a mental image with
which I cannot deal.


--

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

Rob Leatham

d.williams wrote:


"Swingman" wrote in message
...
... I'm going to balance my check book.

By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
been paid in perpetuity.

Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...

--
A "deeming resolution" is perhaps a scuzzy, gutless approach to
legislation.
So it shouldn't be surprising that the Republicans used it 36 times in
2005 qnd 2006 when they controlled the House, and Democrats used it 49
times in 2007 and 2008. It's interesting that now, when it concerns a very
high profile piece of legislation. it's painted as a new
"unconstitutional" flaunting of the rules. As if any of them had any
regard for rules and fairness in the first place, there's an agenda in
Congress, and it ain't aimed at doing what's best for me and you.

In no case in which self-executing rules were used, was the rule ever used
to pass a partisan, controversial pair of bills in which one of them would
be peeled off and sent to the president for signature and the other, main
resolution, sent to the Senate for reconciliation, debate, and passage.
This is absolutely unprecedented and a travesty. Even the most die-hard
supporter of socialized medicine ought to get the fact that Pelosi has
ripped up the Constitution and is making things up as she goes along. To
use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy is
nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.


--

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

Rob Leatham

Mark & Juanita wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
:

To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
for themselves AND let the other guy rot.

There ought to be a better way than democracy ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
:

To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
for themselves AND let the other guy rot.

I don't think people object to that, but man do object to how the government
is going about it. Read the bill and get back to us. It needs some fixing.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
Mark & Juanita wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
:

To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or
death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this
idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.

I don't think people object to that, but man do object to how the
government is going about it. Read the bill and get back to us. It
needs some fixing.

I object to the shenanigans and horse trading at least as much as anyone.
I long for the days that (at least ostensibly) lawmakers could act in the
best interests of the country and ALL the people. But maybe that was in
the good old days, when there were no crooks, no diseases, and no
charlatans.

I'm getting old ...

--
Best regards
Han
Be charitable and fiscally conservative

On 3/20/2010 7:50 AM, Han wrote:
Mark& wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
:

To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
for themselves AND let the other guy rot.

There ought to be a better way than democracy ...

There is, All you have to do is mumble the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE to
yourself ... it's called a republic, set up specifically to keep the
tyranny of the majority in check, but continually besieged since
creation by those wanting to impose a social democracy.

I respect your position, Han, but I will say this. My forefathers came
here in 1780 _specifically_ to escape the tyranny of a European style
government.

Those who want to dismantle this system, which has protected European
style democracies at great cost in the past, are still free to return to
where they feel more comfortable.

This is in NO way personal, strictly an observation on my part.

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

Swingman wrote in
:

On 3/20/2010 7:50 AM, Han wrote:
Mark& wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
:

To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or
death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this
idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.

There ought to be a better way than democracy ...

There is, All you have to do is mumble the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE to
yourself ... it's called a republic, set up specifically to keep the
tyranny of the majority in check, but continually besieged since
creation by those wanting to impose a social democracy.

I respect your position, Han, but I will say this. My forefathers came
here in 1780 _specifically_ to escape the tyranny of a European style
government.

Those who want to dismantle this system, which has protected European
style democracies at great cost in the past, are still free to return
to where they feel more comfortable.

This is in NO way personal, strictly an observation on my part.

I think you and I agree completely on the governance issues, Karl! I am
all in favor of the ideals of the republic. I am against the tyranny of
the unwashed majority (my emphasis, by no means racial, but indicating a
lessening of respect to those who don't think).

In fact, here in Fair Lawn NJ, our Radburn community http://radburn.org
just was awarded by an appellate court decision that is too difficult to
get into here now, but which basically affirms that a non-profit
corporation which is governed by a benevolent sort of old-boys network is
perfectly legal, even when it sets rules and policies and sells land in
moves that a majority of /voting/ residents is against. And that is fine
with me, because the governing body of this National Historic Landmark
has always had the best interests of everyone here at heart.

What we might not agree on is whether national affordable compulsory
health insurance and some more regulation of the health industry are good
things. I have always been lucky with pretty good and affordable health
insurance coverage because of my employment over the years. But I have
also seen a colleague who was forced into COBRA and the expense that
entails. It is not fair that my doctor has to take my insurance payment
(of 30% of his "billing") and the next guy has to pay the full amount (if
he doesn't feel like bargaining).

Etc, etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Even the most die-hard
supporter of socialized medicine ought to get the fact that Pelosi has
ripped up the Constitution and is making things up as she goes along.

Exactly what part of the Constitution is being ripped up? Article I, Section 5
says, in part "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,"

I agree, this is an ugly process. But legislation often is. Remember the old
saw about legislation and sausage. But it doesn't rip up the Constitution.

-- Doug

On 3/20/2010 9:35 AM, Han wrote:

What we might not agree on is whether national affordable compulsory
health insurance and some more regulation of the health industry are good
things.

I most definitely agree with the goals, but not necessarily the means to
obtain them, particularly with the current situation.

IMO, this particular legislation is less interested in reforming health
care than it is in providing mechanisms that are no more than thinly
disguised wedges intended to crack the underlying system of government.

I have always been lucky with pretty good and affordable health
insurance coverage because of my employment over the years. But I have
also seen a colleague who was forced into COBRA and the expense that
entails.

Try being self-employed for the past 40 years, then ask me if I give a
rat's ass about COBRA.

It is not fair that my doctor has to take my insurance payment
(of 30% of his "billing") and the next guy has to pay the full amount (if
he doesn't feel like bargaining).

I can't argue with that, particularly since one of my daughters has a
severe "pre-existing condition".

However, in my estimation "insurance" is the problem. I lived in this
country before the advent of "health insurance" being a necessary
component of health care.

I'm not saying that it was an ideal situation, but the current mix of
"insurance" and "personal responsibility", (and the responsibility that
the latter entails), is now skewed heavily to the former ... it is
painfully obvious to any intelligent observation that it is this state
of affairs that is at the root of our current "health care" crisis.

In short ... partisan politics, with lawyer politicians bought and paid
for by special interests, will NEVER result in a solution that is in
keeping with the principles of the founding of this country.

We have lost our way ...

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

"Swingman" wrote

Try being self-employed for the past 40 years, then ask me if I give a
rat's ass about COBRA.

Oh, an independent's look at things. Let's start at the beginning. I do
have very good health insurance coverage through my employer. But why?
There is no real reason that any employer should, or must, provide health
care insurance to an employee.

My employer does not provide me with a home, a car, my utilities, and has
never bought me a pair of shoes. Why then, after 30 or 90 days, does he
have to provide me with medical coverage? There are many ways of getting
group rates and if there were no such groups, we'd all be in the same pool
for the same rate anyway.

On 3/20/2010 11:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Swingman" wrote

Try being self-employed for the past 40 years, then ask me if I give a
rat's ass about COBRA.

Oh, an independent's look at things. Let's start at the beginning. I do
have very good health insurance coverage through my employer. But why?
There is no real reason that any employer should, or must, provide
health care insurance to an employee.

My employer does not provide me with a home, a car, my utilities, and
has never bought me a pair of shoes. Why then, after 30 or 90 days, does
he have to provide me with medical coverage? There are many ways of
getting group rates and if there were no such groups, we'd all be in the
same pool for the same rate anyway.

Oh, let's really start "at the beginning":

Health insurance, starting barely 50 years ago, has been provided to
those employed by government and corporations as an additional form of
"compensation" for employment.

Health insurance has since been subverted from the category of
"compensation", to one of "entitlement", and is fast approaching the
status of a "right".

Tell me we haven't "lost our way" with regard to the founding principles
of this country when compensation for doing a job has insidiously become
a "right".

You preaching to the choir?

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

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
d.williams wrote:

In no case in which self-executing rules were used, was the rule ever
used
to pass a partisan, controversial pair of bills in which one of them would
be peeled off and sent to the president for signature and the other, main
resolution, sent to the Senate for reconciliation, debate, and passage.
This is absolutely unprecedented and a travesty. Even the most die-hard
supporter of socialized medicine ought to get the fact that Pelosi has
ripped up the Constitution and is making things up as she goes along. To
use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy is
nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

Considering the current administration, this surprises you?

Swingman wrote in
:

On 3/20/2010 11:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Swingman" wrote

Try being self-employed for the past 40 years, then ask me if I give
a rat's ass about COBRA.

Oh, an independent's look at things. Let's start at the beginning. I
do have very good health insurance coverage through my employer. But
why? There is no real reason that any employer should, or must,
provide health care insurance to an employee.

My employer does not provide me with a home, a car, my utilities, and
has never bought me a pair of shoes. Why then, after 30 or 90 days,
does he have to provide me with medical coverage? There are many ways
of getting group rates and if there were no such groups, we'd all be
in the same pool for the same rate anyway.

Oh, let's really start "at the beginning":

Health insurance, starting barely 50 years ago, has been provided to
those employed by government and corporations as an additional form of
"compensation" for employment.

Health insurance has since been subverted from the category of
"compensation", to one of "entitlement", and is fast approaching the
status of a "right".

Tell me we haven't "lost our way" with regard to the founding
principles of this country when compensation for doing a job has
insidiously become a "right".

You preaching to the choir?

I'll skip the previous post, Karl. I agree with you and Ed.

My previous employers (officially Harvard and Cornell) touted their
fringe benefits as one of their attractions, and the health insurance was
the top of those. It has been good to me and my family (generally).
That made me lucky. It is not fair to you and yours that you could not
be a "member" of that same group. IMNSHO, that is segregation of the
worst kind.

I think that is why I really would like a system whe

a) preexisting conditions would not be counted against you. On the
other hand, I am a bit ambivalent whether self-inflicted risk factors
such as smoking should be a punishable offense. (Yes I am a reformed
former smoker).

b) everyone should have /compulsory/ access to a package of basic, or
catastrophic insurance. That should (IMNSHO) be fairly extensive, and
include birth control, pregnancy and birth etc, etc, but /perhaps/ not
dialysis and transplants. Payment of the premium should (again, IMNSHO)
be on some sort of scale commensurate with ability to pay.

c) added insurance for other risks should be available at reasonable
prices in a way (perhaps) that it would be more expensive as the insured
ages.

d) Genetic testing should be available to each individual, but insurance
companies are to be absolutely prohibited from using the information for
pricing purposes. However, they should be encouraged to cover things
such as (example) mastectomies for women at exceptinoal risk for
developing breast cancer. This is currently a testable risk, although
it is scary that it is based on statistics - these things cannot be
predicted for an individual with absolute certainty, just with some
statistical semblance of accuracy.

I absolutely disagree with the way Congress and lobbyists on all sides
are approaching the problem of affordable healthcare. Politically,
there is no leadership, just horse trading and posturing. But presumably
this is the American way. I wish there was a better way.

The train is soon leaving the station and I fervently hope that Congress
can hook up cars to that train with something that in the long run will
benefit the people in the US, whom they claim to represent.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"CW" wrote in
:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
d.williams wrote:

In no case in which self-executing rules were used, was the rule
ever
used
to pass a partisan, controversial pair of bills in which one of them
would be peeled off and sent to the president for signature and the
other, main resolution, sent to the Senate for reconciliation,
debate, and passage. This is absolutely unprecedented and a travesty.
Even the most die-hard supporter of socialized medicine ought to get
the fact that Pelosi has ripped up the Constitution and is making
things up as she goes along. To use this kind of trick to attempt to
take over 1/6 of the US economy is nothing short of stalinist and
dictatorial.

Considering the current administration, this surprises you?

The problem is that as knowledge increases, so do the costs, especially
if you want to remain at the cutting edge of healthcare possibilities.
The system in the US has made it just frigginf expensive to do the
research needed, and of course big pharma is out for profits. Doctors
too work hard (most of the ones I know do) and do want to get
compensated, as do the nurses, lab techs and housekeepers. And I don't
blame any but the most greedy ones of any of those groups.

The trick you refer to is as I seem to recall one that is long on the
books, and just now again dusted off to use to the majority's advantage.
Blame the founding fathers for not being more explicit.

I am much more concerned about misinformation being distributed. And I
am especially ticked off with the hypocrisy regarding abortion. I would
fervently hope that no one ever feels the need to have one, but if the
need arises (for whatever reason) it should be available, safe and
probably covered by insurance. I would rather have happy, wanted
children than beaten and abused children. You make your own decisions
and I will respect yours, whatever you decide. Same about end of life
care - your decision. Please write your living will NOW!


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/20/2010 4:07 PM, Han wrote:

I absolutely disagree with the way Congress and lobbyists on all sides
are approaching the problem of affordable healthcare. Politically,
there is no leadership, just horse trading and posturing. But presumably
this is the American way. I wish there was a better way.

Ayup ... will probably be that way until an educated citizenry realizes
the perils of allowing lawyers in the legislative branch.

Problem is with the words "educated" and "citizenry" as a phrase ...
it's a bit late for that.

The train is soon leaving the station and I fervently hope that Congress
can hook up cars to that train with something that in the long run will
benefit the people in the US, whom they claim to represent.

You can't make a gumbo with ashes and bitter root, cher.

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

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:16:26 +0000, Han wrote:

The trick you refer to is as I seem to recall one that is long on the
books, and just now again dusted off to use to the majority's advantage.
Blame the founding fathers for not being more explicit.

Yep. From what I've read, both parties have used that trick, and both
scream foul when the other party uses it.

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

"Han" wrote in message
...


(Yes I am a reformed
former smoker).

You are a former smoker that is now reformed. You do smoke then.

On 20 Mar 2010 12:50:18 GMT, Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
:

To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
for themselves AND let the other guy rot.

There ought to be a better way than democracy ...


It is sad to think this bill will force those who are uninsured to
become insured, whether they have a job or not. The IRS will police
the work of checking to make sure everyone buys medical coverage else
be fined like a criminal. This is not freedom, at all. This bill
is wrong.

CW wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
d.williams wrote:

In no case in which self-executing rules were used, was the rule ever
used
to pass a partisan, controversial pair of bills in which one of them
would be peeled off and sent to the president for signature and the
other, main resolution, sent to the Senate for reconciliation, debate,
and passage.
This is absolutely unprecedented and a travesty. Even the most die-hard
supporter of socialized medicine ought to get the fact that Pelosi has
ripped up the Constitution and is making things up as she goes along. To
use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy is
nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

Considering the current administration, this surprises you?

No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the election
but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.

--

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

Rob Leatham

Douglas Johnson wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Even the most die-hard
supporter of socialized medicine ought to get the fact that Pelosi has
ripped up the Constitution and is making things up as she goes along.

Exactly what part of the Constitution is being ripped up? Article I,
Section 5
says, in part "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,"

I agree, this is an ugly process. But legislation often is. Remember the
old
saw about legislation and sausage. But it doesn't rip up the
Constitution.

-- Doug

You kind of missed the part that states that for a bill to become law, it
must be passed, "in identical form" by both houses of the legislature. That
would *not* be the case with the Demon Pass approach. i.e., the rule would
state that by passing the reconciliation measure, the nationalization of
health care would be "deemed" to have passed without the House actually
voting on it. The whole approach was to give cover to those voting for it
to say they had not voted for the bill, but for the reconciliation measure.
My fervent hope is that most American voters are smart enough to see through
that BS, but then given the results of the previous two elections, that may
be optimistic.

Yes, this process has been used before. However, not for such a
significant measure and in the past had some bipartisan support.

To be perfectly honest with yourself, what would you have thought if the
Bush administration and Republican congress had tried the same approach to
privatizing Social Security?


--

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

Rob Leatham

Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
:

To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
for themselves AND let the other guy rot.


... granting for the moment, the 30 Million people uninsured number (it's
not correct as it includes illegals and those who, by choice, are
uninsured), how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of the US
population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy, destroying a system
with which most people are satisfied, and setting us on a road to inferior,
rationed, health care as the program spending spirals out of control? Why
does it take a 3000 page bill to insure 30 million people? This bill is not
about health care, it is about complete, absolute control over peoples'
lives. This is a bill that has "effectiveness panels" -- i.e., it's going
to have people like those at the department of motor vehicles deciding what
treatments are effective and affordable, and when you should "just take the
pain pill". There are things in this bill that have nothing to do with
health care -- at one time it was going to regulate food vending machines
(don't know if that is still there or not).



There ought to be a better way than democracy ...


We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic. However,
that statement above is still truly frightening. i.e., you are willing to
surrender your personal freedoms to someone who claims to know better than
you what is in your best interests. You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there, don't
try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.


--

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

Rob Leatham

On 3/20/2010 10:51 PM, Phisherman wrote:
On 20 Mar 2010 12:50:18 GMT, wrote:

Mark& wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
:

To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
for themselves AND let the other guy rot.

There ought to be a better way than democracy ...


It is sad to think this bill will force those who are uninsured to
become insured, whether they have a job or not. The IRS will police
the work of checking to make sure everyone buys medical coverage else
be fined like a criminal. This is not freedom, at all. This bill
is wrong.

One wonders what the Supreme Court is going to say about a law that
requires people to purchase a product as a condition of existence in the US.

As for their "tax credits", what makes the blithering idiots think that
people who are too poor to pay for insurance pay enough in taxes for the
credits to make a difference.

On Mar 21, 12:52*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped the usual]

. *You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there, don't
try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.


How about a country with a Patriot Act?

"CW" wrote in
m:


"Han" wrote in message
...


(Yes I am a reformed
former smoker).

You are a former smoker that is now reformed. You do smoke then.


I see your smiley. I am Dutch, not Dutch Reformed. (Maybe you get it,
maybe not).

I smoked some 13 years, but stopped the second and last time in 1976.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
:

To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or
death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this
idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.


... granting for the moment, the 30 Million people uninsured number
(it's
not correct as it includes illegals and those who, by choice, are
uninsured), how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of
the US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy, destroying
a system with which most people are satisfied, and setting us on a
road to inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending
spirals out of control? Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure
30 million people? This bill is not about health care, it is about
complete, absolute control over peoples' lives. This is a bill that
has "effectiveness panels" -- i.e., it's going to have people like
those at the department of motor vehicles deciding what treatments are
effective and affordable, and when you should "just take the pain
pill". There are things in this bill that have nothing to do with
health care -- at one time it was going to regulate food vending
machines (don't know if that is still there or not).



There ought to be a better way than democracy ...


We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic.
However,
that statement above is still truly frightening. i.e., you are
willing to surrender your personal freedoms to someone who claims to
know better than you what is in your best interests. You are free to
feel that way, but if you do, go find a country that is governed that
way and live there, don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of
us.

I don't think you will ever get it, Mark & Juanita. You are now paying
for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a living wage
job, and have them pay for their own health care.

Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance. But since
someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine them if
they don't get some coverage. That is choice. And yes, I do believe
that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax of sorts. I
would like individual responsibility, but "they" should not have to pay
triply inflated proces just because they don't work for Harvard
University or GM.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Robatoy wrote in
:

On Mar 21, 12:52*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped the usual]

. *You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.


How about a country with a Patriot Act?

I feel fine living in this country with a sort of democratic representative
republic. (See other posts of mine referencing Radburn). What I object to
is the rabid reelection fever and crazed Pavlovian reactions to lobbyists.

And that all has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, Robatoy. I despise
some of the provisions there. Remember, in Holland you now have to carry
ID all the time since the EU reguulation of that aspect became effective,
and in the US you better have ID with you too. What about Kanuckistan,
Robatoy?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid