On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:09:00 -0500, Upscale wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:53:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Big deal, so I made a mistake between Medicare and Medicaid. The
question remains the same. How many of you assholes would happily go
through bankruptcy for health care? I can confidently say that no one
would.

Lying is a big deal. If you haven't taken care of yourself why should
you steal from me?

I made a mistake between what two services were called and you're
calling me a liar?

You are.

Fine, I'm a liar for not being familiar enough with
the US medical terminology and you're a natural born ****ing asshole.
Glad we got that settled.


And, as far as stealing from you goes, 100% of the services and
amenities you get are funded by the collective taxes of your country,
so in effect you steal from everyone. Does that fit in with your
screwed up logic?

No, you are proposing to take property from me for *your* exclusive benefit.
That is theft. You are a thief, as well as a liar.

On 22 Mar 2010 23:08:41 GMT, Larry wrote:

I'm kind of dumb so I'd appreciate if you explained that one
to me.
You finally got something right...

Well, if that's the best reply you can produce, then I won't have to
worry about losing any arguments to you.

One thing I've always been able to do is laugh at myself, no matter
how heated a discussion gets. You're perfectly free to take yourself
as seriously as you want Larry. Unfortunately for you, it means that
nobody else will.

On Mar 22, 8:00*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:40:54 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Mar 22, 11:53*am, " wrote:

*If you haven't taken care of yourself why should
you steal from me?

That is the stupidest thing you have ever posted... and that is saying
something.

You've just been looking in your mirror again, comrade. *The stupid ones are
those who don't understand, or care about, liberty. *You are a moron. *I
understand uppity, he wants something for nothing.

OOooooooooo clever stuff there Skippy...

Upscale wrote in
:

On 22 Mar 2010 23:08:41 GMT, Larry
wrote:

I'm kind of dumb so I'd appreciate if you explained that
one to me.
You finally got something right...

Well, if that's the best reply you can produce, then I
won't have to worry about losing any arguments to you.

One thing I've always been able to do is laugh at myself,
no matter how heated a discussion gets. You're perfectly
free to take yourself as seriously as you want Larry.
Unfortunately for you, it means that nobody else will.

There's no challenge here. You sir are an idiot. I had you
killfiled for a long time but cleared it out and decided to
give everyone another chance. Same ****, different day.

Let's clears this up. Two simple sentences. See if you can
understand this...

1-This is not about healthcare for all.
2-The is about redistribution of wealth.

Can you understand that? It's pretty simple. All of your hot
air about fundamental rights is BS, nothing more. If you think
supporting deadbeats and illegals is the right thing, then
send them your money.

Larry

I once tried to think like a liberal but was unable to get my
head that far up my ass.

On Mar 22, 9:18*pm, Larry The Rice Burner doth speweth:
..
2-The is about redistribution of wealth.

Ahhh yes, that redistribution dilemma. Now the Libtards are
redistributing it THEIR way and not the REPUGLICAN way!!!

Can you understand that? It's pretty simple.

Of course it is simple. The Right is ****ed they don't get to
redistribute the money THEIR way.

On 3/22/2010 9:18 PM, Larry wrote:
wrote in
:

On 22 Mar 2010 23:08:41 GMT,
wrote:

I'm kind of dumb so I'd appreciate if you explained that
one to me.
You finally got something right...

Well, if that's the best reply you can produce, then I
won't have to worry about losing any arguments to you.

One thing I've always been able to do is laugh at myself,
no matter how heated a discussion gets. You're perfectly
free to take yourself as seriously as you want Larry.
Unfortunately for you, it means that nobody else will.

There's no challenge here. You sir are an idiot. I had you
killfiled for a long time but cleared it out and decided to
give everyone another chance. Same ****, different day.

Let's clears this up. Two simple sentences. See if you can
understand this...

1-This is not about healthcare for all.
2-The is about redistribution of wealth.

Can you understand that? It's pretty simple. All of your hot
air about fundamental rights is BS, nothing more. If you think
supporting deadbeats and illegals is the right thing, then
send them your money.

This is not about supporting deadbeats and illegals, it's about the
government ordering us to buy something that we don't want. Not taxing
us and having it provided, but telling us you _must_ buy this product.

Deadbeats and illegals are already "supported". What's new is that
everybody who is not a deadbeat or illegal is required by law to go out
and enrich insurance companies.

On 3/22/2010 6:40 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:18 pm, Larry The Rice Burner doth speweth:
.
2-The is about redistribution of wealth.

Ahhh yes, that redistribution dilemma. Now the Libtards are
redistributing it THEIR way and not the REPUGLICAN way!!!

Can you understand that? It's pretty simple.

Of course it is simple. The Right is ****ed they don't get to
redistribute the money THEIR way.

What gets me is that neither the politicians of the Left nor the
politicians of the Right show any inclination of redistributing THEIR
money, just yours and mine.

Matt

"Leon" wrote

I assure you that health care will double in cost with the government
involved. It seems that with more unemployeed, the more the government
comes up with programs to employee those people, productive or not. Its
wellfare.


This will help the economy by creating new jobs. Like the 16,000 IRS agents
to become enforcers.

I'm applying for a job on the Death Panels. I already have a list!

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:23:35 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

get Medicare.

Idiot. Medicare is not for the indigent. In fact it is for the
_wealthiest_ group.

Big deal, so I made a mistake between Medicare and Medicaid. The
question remains the same. How many of you assholes would happily go
through bankruptcy for health care? I can confidently say that no one
would.

Isn't it funny how almost everybody in the US that is against
universal health care is currently protected by some sort of medical
plan? What about all those literally millions and millions of US
citizens that aren't covered by anything? They're your people and they
are part of what makes the US such a great nation. Don't they deserve
some sort of health protection.

Illegal Aliens. They deserve a bus ride to the Mexican border.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:53:50 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Mar 22, 8:00*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:40:54 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Mar 22, 11:53*am, " wrote:

*If you haven't taken care of yourself why should
you steal from me?

That is the stupidest thing you have ever posted... and that is saying
something.

You've just been looking in your mirror again, comrade. *The stupid ones are
those who don't understand, or care about, liberty. *You are a moron. *I
understand uppity, he wants something for nothing.

OOooooooooo clever stuff there Skippy...

No, clever is forcing others to pay YOUR way.

On Mar 22, 11:05*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:53:50 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:





On Mar 22, 8:00*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:40:54 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Mar 22, 11:53*am, " wrote:

*If you haven't taken care of yourself why should
you steal from me?

That is the stupidest thing you have ever posted... and that is saying
something.

You've just been looking in your mirror again, comrade. *The stupid ones are
those who don't understand, or care about, liberty. *You are a moron.. *I
understand uppity, he wants something for nothing.

OOooooooooo clever stuff there Skippy...

No, clever is forcing others to pay YOUR way.

Who writes your material?

On Mar 22, 10:18*pm, Matt wrote:
On 3/22/2010 6:40 PM, Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 22, 9:18 pm, Larry The Rice Burner doth speweth:
.
2-The is about redistribution of wealth.

Ahhh yes, that redistribution dilemma. Now the Libtards are
redistributing it THEIR way and not the REPUGLICAN way!!!

Can you understand that? It's pretty simple.

Of course it is simple. The Right is ****ed they don't get to
redistribute the money THEIR way.

What gets me is that neither the politicians of the Left nor the
politicians of the Right show any inclination of redistributing THEIR
money, just yours and mine.

Matt

That's all anybody ever wanted: a healthcare package like the one
congress gets.

"LDosser" wrote in message
...

Illegal Aliens. They deserve a bus ride to the Mexican border.


It's been tried. They generally beat the bus back.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:34:14 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

I'll bet it was much the same as the health care debate, and the
country has somehow survived.

Yeah, and Germany survived Hitler.
"The country survived" is far too low a goal.

Selfish and sanctimonious outrage. I'm not surprised at all that's how
you happen to view your country.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:00:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
The same thing that makes the rich and powerful more deserving the world
over - throughout time. It's not right, but it's universal. No need to
point that finger at the US.

The point is that it's a might is right outlook, not a deserving
outlook. And, considering we're talking about the US right now, then I
am pointing the finger.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Mar 22, 11:05*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:53:50 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:





On Mar 22, 8:00*pm, "
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:40:54 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Mar 22, 11:53*am, " wrote:

*If you haven't taken care of yourself why should
you steal from me?

That is the stupidest thing you have ever posted... and that is saying
something.

You've just been looking in your mirror again, comrade. *The stupid ones are
those who don't understand, or care about, liberty. *You are a moron. *I
understand uppity, he wants something for nothing.

OOooooooooo clever stuff there Skippy...

No, clever is forcing others to pay YOUR way.

Who writes your material?

You and uppity are sad excuses for humans. Then again, you are Canuckistanis.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

, so hang on and enjoy the ride.

Nyet, comrade.


Those legislators who have decided to govern against the will of the
people (anywhere from 60 to 80% opposition depending upon the poll) have
sown the wind. They can expect to reap the whirlwind come November.



--

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

Rob Leatham

Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 22, 11:43Â*am, "Leon" wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message

.... snip

All they're trying to do is to route the gross overpayments to the
medical insurers to go to the tax coffers instead. Is that so wrong? /
sarcasm

Given that health insurance company profits are among the lowest in
industry, that isn't going to be much.



--

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

Rob Leatham

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:37:37 -0700, the infamous "Nonny"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
...


What do you think "cash for clunkers" was all about?


Getting the Obama stickers off the road?

g Y'know, the day before the election, there were very few O
stickers on cars around here. Late the day of the election and the
next day, there were hundreds. Now, I see one every week or so again.
Very telling.

Someone ask Lew what the swirlies are doing in his sea change. I can't
do it with a straight face. snort

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

Han wrote:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4ba725b6$0$15782
:

Some of the major sea changes in my life.

VE Day was big, but VJ Day was bigger since it truly marked the end of
WWII.

My graduation from college, a dream my father had but didn't live to
see.

Enactment of the Civil Rights Act.

The passage of Medicare.

The birth of my children.

The end of the Viet Nam conflict

Today marks the latest major sea change in my life. The little guy won
a big one today with the passage of health care.

I'm sure the law of unattended consequences will apply, but the bus
has left the station, so hang on and enjoy the ride.


Lew

Hear, Hear!

Now comes the real work, getting the amendments to do what the people
really want, whetheer they kknow it or not. Oh wait, there are lobbyists
too. Now there is a job for those who favor using guns defensively.

/sarcasm

Ha! You really think the Senate is going to take up the reconciliation
bill and see it through? That was just smoke and mirrors, they've got the
bill they wanted passed, it's going to get signed and passed into law. The
reconciliation bill may get some lip service, but that's all it's going to
get.


--

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

Rob Leatham

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:02:47 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:30:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
If this holds up the "little guy" takes it in the ass. He's required to
buy something he can't afford or be fined an amount that he can't afford.

Not too bright are you clarke? If they're going to have trouble paying
for the universal medical insurance then they sure as hell are going
to have much more trouble paying for medical help when they need it.
Your half assed solution would be for them to declare bankruptcy to
get Medicare.

Exactly how many of you objectors to universal health insurance (alias
greedy, selfish assholes) are willing to say that you'd happily become
indigent to get Medicare?

Hey Uppy. Why am I suddenly a greedy, selfish asshole because I can't
afford healthcare insurance and am ****ed because my gov't just said
it will fine me for not having it? Where the hell do you get off?

I've spent roughly $200 per YEAR for my healthcare over the past
couple of decades. That includes chiropractic visits and the rare
doctor visit and very rare prescription. It doesn't include the
occasional massage or the expensive trips to the dentist every 5 years
or so.

Now the gov't says I'm going to have to pay about $600 a MONTH for a
benefit I won't receive and can't use for the next 5 years? If this
is the case, there's no way the public will stand for it. Bad ****'s
about to happen, methinks.


--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

Nonny wrote:


wrote in message
...


What do you think "cash for clunkers" was all about?


Getting the Obama stickers off the road?


You sir, owe me a new monitor and keyboard! [That windex is around here
somewhere]

Good one!

--

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

Rob Leatham

"Gordon Shumway" wrote:

I got this email tonight and it pretty much says how I feel about
this
"Sea Change" that you think is so wonderful.
snip

Gave you a chance to practice your "Cut_And_Paste" skills, I see.

Lew

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:20:05 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT), jtpr
wrote:

Well put. When did health care become a "right"? This is what drives
me crazy. It seems that suddenly everbody is entitled to everything
as a right. I actually saw somebody being interviewed (on the street)
that firmly belived they had a "right" to housing. Health care (and
housing) are not rights

They're basic human rights **** head, not what's written into your
constitution. They're moral rights that demand that everyone should be
treated equally, not just because someone has more money or power than
others around him.

Oh, you're talking about implied social contracts in society, aren't
you? Those aren't rights, either. They're societal rules. Our society
hasn't yet set those into stone, and they're not much closer with this
healthcare (I mean "forced health insurance") bill. this isn't a
gov't rounding up doctors and nurses under its wing and taking care of
its people. It's a contract between gov't and the insurance companies
where the gov't forces its people to make the insurance companies
rich. Some might get care, too, occasionally. Look into it more deeply
before climbing way up there on your moral high horse, sir. This is no
white knight saving the poor peasant from the mean robbers. In this
case, the knights are running a Mob protection racket and the little
guy is about to get reamed even worse than he has been.


People like you however, just aren't capable of
that kind of empathy. You're just too greedy and self centred to
realize it.

Remind me what country you're from again, Uppy? Perhaps you just
don't understand our ways here. The only greed and self-centeredness
is in the gov't _itself_. Our CONgress voted itself TWO raises during
our current meltdown and recession. What do you call that?

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

Swingman wrote:

On 3/22/2010 10:50 AM, Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:34:10 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:


We already have a program for the indigent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

I know you do. I just made a mistake in calling it Medicare instead of
Medicaid. The point is, that you have to become indigent to receive
it. Lose everything you own just to get medical aid.

One of our very vocal liberal cousins actually filed suit against
Medicaid last year because her MIL's trust fund, set up for her son, was
taken by the state to pay for her nursing home care. The cousin, et vir
was counting on getting the $30K trust themselves, instead Medicaid and
the State of Arkansas took it.

She is incensed that the $30k should go to reimburse the tax payer,
instead of in her pocket, since it was money her MIL left _her_.

Liberals ... just as long as it's not their money!


Absolutely amazing. My wife had a couple of aunts in Kansas, never
married who, in their later years became ill. One of them needed to go into
a nursing home, the other needed cancer treatment. The state program took
care of both of them with the stipulation that their estates be deeded to
the state upon their deaths. The state then sold the house when they had
both passed away. The families were grateful that the program existed and
had no issue with the idea that the estate would be used to reimburse costs
that neither the aunts nor the immediate family could bear.

Which, by the way, gives the lie to the whole rant from the left about
poor people being left to die if they don't have health insurance.

--

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

Rob Leatham

"CW" wrote in message
...

"LDosser" wrote in message
...

Illegal Aliens. They deserve a bus ride to the Mexican border.


It's been tried. They generally beat the bus back.


Razor wire backed by an electric fence - the kind the Gestapo used.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:48:48 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone
scrawled the following:

In article , Leon
wrote:

I assure you that health care will double in cost with the government
involved. It seems that with more unemployeed, the more the government
comes up with programs to employee those people, productive or not. Its
wellfare.

Looking in from the outside, I wonder at the level of vitriol on both
sides when it appears no more than six of 350,000,000 have actually
READ the bill.

You're absolutely right, Dave. But a few of us read small portions of
it when it was only 1,000 pages long. You don't have to watch the
entire train wreck--after you see the first wheel leave the track--to
know that what's going to happen, do you?


And I'm guessing that fewer than three of those are in your Senate,
Congress or White House.

The main protagonist, Speakerette of the House Nancy Pugnosi, ACKs
that she hasn't even read it and doesn't understand it. What more do
you need to know about the people who voted for it and those who
wouldn't? Which side seems like the bad guys to you, Dave?


It seems to me that both "sides" in this should be outraged, not at the
legislation itself, but rather at the manner it has been rammed down
your throats.

Absolutely! The Libtards are reading beauty, goodness, and light
things into it that aren't there and they are completely glossing over
the infringements it enacts into law. Their brains are wired
differently than ours, unfortunately.


As a Canadian I understand the problems of a socialized medical system.
The response from a specialist here today to someone close to me when
asked to book a colonoscopy was "Sure, we can put you on the list, but
don't hold your breath."

Ouch. So, do you see _anything_ related to actual healthcare, or
socialized healthcare, in this bill?

Forced insurance is not care, and it's not compassionate, a word the
libs seem to find comforting in describing themselves and their new
King. Go figure.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:04:52 -0500, the infamous "Leon"
scrawled the following:

I assure you that health care will double in cost with the government
involved. It seems that with more unemployeed, the more the government
comes up with programs to employee those people, productive or not. Its
wellfare.

I don't see how a few (16,000 to 20,000) more IRS agents could cost
very much. I wonder if they're taught CPR in bean counting school...

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:02:47 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:30:02 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
.... snip

Now the gov't says I'm going to have to pay about $600 a MONTH for a
benefit I won't receive and can't use for the next 5 years? If this
is the case, there's no way the public will stand for it. Bad ****'s
about to happen, methinks.


Actually, you are better off paying the fine. Since the legislation also
stipulates that you can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions,
you wait until you get sick, then buy insurance -- you can't be denied.

The fact that this will put insurance companies out of business has not
escaped the notice of the congresscritters -- to them, this is a feature,
not a bug. As soon as the insurance companies are driven out of business,
the government gets to step in with single-payer true socialized medicine
since "no other alternative is available".

@#$%'d communists.


--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

--

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

Rob Leatham

On 03/22/2010 05:48 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:

As a Canadian I understand the problems of a socialized medical system.
The response from a specialist here today to someone close to me when
asked to book a colonoscopy was "Sure, we can put you on the list, but
don't hold your breath."

I'm a Canadian too. So far my own experiences and that of my family has
been pretty good.

My father-in-law had two hip replacements when his mobility was
impacted. My aging and diabetic aunt-in-law had what appears to be
excellent care after a heart attack and several follow-up incidents. My
brother had orthoscopic knee surgery when some cartilage came loose. I
had steel pins pulled out of my knuckles after an accident abroad. My
wife and I spent days in the hospital (many hours in a jacuzzi tub) for
our first child and are using a midwife (also covered) for our second.

To be fair, we had to wait months to see a pediatric
gastrointestinologist. My sister had quite a wait to see a
dermatologist. Both were non-life-threatening issues, though annoying.

Given that financial resources are limited, nothing is ever going to be
perfect. You can lean towards providing coverage for everyone but maybe
not the best (especially in remote communities). Alternately you can
provide really great (but really expensive) coverage for a smaller
number of people. Or maybe there's a third way where we take a long
hard look at the system and try and figure out better ways of doing
it--neither the USA nor Canada does very well in the
health-care-results-per-dollar-spent charts. I suspect there's some
sort of asymptotic curve going on.

Where I think it's going to get interesting all over is as the baby
boomers get older and us genX and genY folks get left holding the bag.

Chris

"LDosser" wrote in message
...
"CW" wrote in message
...

"LDosser" wrote in message
...

Illegal Aliens. They deserve a bus ride to the Mexican border.


It's been tried. They generally beat the bus back.


Razor wire backed by an electric fence - the kind the Gestapo used.

I was thinking claymores.

in 514587 20100322 233418 Upscale wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:23:17 -0400, vonKevin
wrote:

So tell me - Are you saying that no one should be allowed to buy
better than the basic health care coverage, simply because there are
people who can't afford it?

Feeble attempt at putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that there
should be a basic level of medicine available to everybody who needs
it no matter what wage they earn. After that, if someone wants
something more than the basic standard then they're free to go buy it.
AND, that is exactly the system that many countries operate under,
including Canada. Should someone want additional aid not covered under
the existing Canadian standard, then they can and often do head down
to the US to buy it.

I just don't understand why Canadians should need to go to the USA.
Here in Britain we have the NHS but we also have private hospitals and
doctors for those that want to pay for them. Not so in Canada?

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
el...
On 03/22/2010 05:48 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:

As a Canadian I understand the problems of a socialized medical system.
The response from a specialist here today to someone close to me when
asked to book a colonoscopy was "Sure, we can put you on the list, but
don't hold your breath."

I'm a Canadian too. So far my own experiences and that of my family has
been pretty good.

My father-in-law had two hip replacements when his mobility was
impacted. My aging and diabetic aunt-in-law had what appears to be
excellent care after a heart attack and several follow-up incidents. My
brother had orthoscopic knee surgery when some cartilage came loose. I
had steel pins pulled out of my knuckles after an accident abroad. My
wife and I spent days in the hospital (many hours in a jacuzzi tub) for
our first child and are using a midwife (also covered) for our second.

To be fair, we had to wait months to see a pediatric
gastrointestinologist. My sister had quite a wait to see a
dermatologist. Both were non-life-threatening issues, though annoying.

Given that financial resources are limited, nothing is ever going to be
perfect. You can lean towards providing coverage for everyone but maybe
not the best (especially in remote communities). Alternately you can
provide really great (but really expensive) coverage for a smaller
number of people. Or maybe there's a third way where we take a long
hard look at the system and try and figure out better ways of doing
it--neither the USA nor Canada does very well in the
health-care-results-per-dollar-spent charts. I suspect there's some
sort of asymptotic curve going on.

Where I think it's going to get interesting all over is as the baby
boomers get older and us genX and genY folks get left holding the bag.

Chris


There's an app for that: Children and their Children and. while not paid
off, Repeat ...

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Ha! You really think the Senate is going to take up the
reconciliation
bill and see it through? That was just smoke and mirrors, they've got
the bill they wanted passed, it's going to get signed and passed into
law. The reconciliation bill may get some lip service, but that's all
it's going to get.

I think there is too much contention about several provisions, so the
Senate will want to make peace with the House.

Me, I'm FOR a public option (option, not compulsion), and FOR using
insurance to guarantee a woman's right to use abortion. I'm not in favor
of abortion other than as a last resort. I'm also in favor of teaching
birth control to kids.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

And if the government can make us buy insurance, what's next? *Bail out
the auto industry by compelling everyone to buy an American car, whether
they can afford one or not and regardless of whether they actually want
or need a car?

What do you think "cash for clunkers" was all about?


I know a number of people who bought FOREIGN cars during this program
and benefited. If it was specifically for the American automobile
industry, then it was worded incorrectly and there were unintended
consequences. There will be thousands of unintended consequences
because of this health care bill. First and foremost is the debt we
are going to incur in a time of recession when money is tight all
over. Sounds like a great time to start such a program.

Oh, and how does something that will create almost a trillion dollars
in debt SAVE us 100-200 billion? Huh? It isn't going to save squat
but what it WILL do is raise the cost of all the products and services
in this country and will push us further down the global economic
scale.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 10:18 pm, Matt wrote:
On 3/22/2010 6:40 PM, Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 22, 9:18 pm, Larry The Rice Burner doth speweth:
.
2-The is about redistribution of wealth.

Ahhh yes, that redistribution dilemma. Now the Libtards are
redistributing it THEIR way and not the REPUGLICAN way!!!

Can you understand that? It's pretty simple.

Of course it is simple. The Right is ****ed they don't get to
redistribute the money THEIR way.

What gets me is that neither the politicians of the Left nor the
politicians of the Right show any inclination of redistributing THEIR
money, just yours and mine.

Matt

That's all anybody ever wanted: a healthcare package like the one
congress gets.

Then why are they exempted from following the rules of that Bill?
For that matter why aren't they required to participate in Social Security,
either (if they were, we'd see REAL change in it!)
Tom

"LDosser" wrote in message
...
"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:23:35 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

get Medicare.

Idiot. Medicare is not for the indigent. In fact it is for the
_wealthiest_ group.

Big deal, so I made a mistake between Medicare and Medicaid. The
question remains the same. How many of you assholes would happily go
through bankruptcy for health care? I can confidently say that no one
would.

Isn't it funny how almost everybody in the US that is against
universal health care is currently protected by some sort of medical
plan? What about all those literally millions and millions of US
citizens that aren't covered by anything? They're your people and they
are part of what makes the US such a great nation. Don't they deserve
some sort of health protection.

Illegal Aliens. They deserve a bus ride to the Mexican border.

Amen... twice before in our history, that's what they got. It's time for a
re-do!

On Mar 23, 1:04*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Gordon Shumway" wrote:
I got this email tonight and it pretty much says how I feel about
this
"Sea Change" that you think is so wonderful.

snip

Gave you a chance to practice your "Cut_And_Paste" skills, I see.

Lew


Whoa, Lew. Pretty low blow. There was a lot of truth in that
letter. I, too, am sick and tired of of working my arse off and too
many people who don't give a hoot taking my money from me. Sure, they
are in the form of taxes that everybody (who works!) pays and I am not
upset in the least in helping a guy who is down and out. But I expect
that guy to eventually get off his butt and start contributing to the
society we both live in. Now I am SURE you can come up with extreme
cases where that will never be possible. I am not talking about the
fringes, where I fear too many people now look to find their
examples. I am talking about the mass of people who are in the middle
of the bell curve who ARE physically AND mentally able to work.

I remember talking to a (*gasp!*) black man at my last job. We were
quite close as while we worked at the same place. We would take long
walks at lunch time and I would grill him about many things. He is
about 12-15 years older than I am and he was in his early 20's when
all of the civil rights demonstrations were going on. He told me what
it was like living in public housing. He said that his father
(imagine that: his father and mother stayed together and both raised a
family together)..his father had to swallow his pride and he moved his
family into public housing whenever Marty was a young boy. He said
that the idea behind public housing was to help families who were down
and out get a firm grip on life again and they were expected to MOVE
OUT. Another thing that was expected was that these peopel would take
care of the house they were given and made sure to keep it and the
surrounding property neat and clean. And they DID. I think he said
they lived there for three or four years and they DID move out. His
father got steady work and while they were never what you could ever
call rich, they got out of public housing into an apartment and,
eventually, into a small house on Pittsburgh's North Side.

He indicated that all public assistant programs were based upon the
theory that the people who receive the assistance will receive it
TEMPORARILY but an unintended consequence was that people started to
think they were ENTITLED to this assistance and used it as a crutch
and now several generations deep, these families are still sucking
from the system and giving absolutely nothing back to it.

There were a lot more things we talked about and he opened my eyes a
lot to a time before I was born and a time when I was just a little
kid who knew nothing about the adult world. If my money were used to
fund people who could not afford to pay for one reason or another,
okay. I have no problem with that, as long as that person is
appreciative and it helps them become a contributing member of OUR
society.

The bottom line is that for every example of somebody who is getting
screwed and losing everything because of medical problems, we can
probably find FIFTY or more examples of people who are abusing the
public assistance programs that are already in place. Clean out the
garbage that is abusing the system that we have already established
and you will find more than enough money to fund this health care bill
AND to reduce taxes for every American.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:32:02 GMT, Bob Martin
wrote:

I just don't understand why Canadians should need to go to the USA.
Here in Britain we have the NHS but we also have private hospitals and
doctors for those that want to pay for them. Not so in Canada?

Not so in Canada. There is no legal private health care in the
Canadian system. That's not to say that no one wants it, because some
companies view Canada as a really profitable business frontier should
they be able to get their hooks into the Canadian health care scene,
but as yet, it hasn't happened.

Mostly, Canadians travel to the US to get health care faster rather
than wait for it to be given to them here. And like a few such as
Danny Williams, the ninth Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, go to
the US for health care because they believe that when you pay out of
pocket for something, you're going to get better service than when
it's government funded. It's an old argument and has not been proven
categorically one way or another, but that hasn't stopped some from
believing it. By most standards, US and Canadian medical educations
are comparable. However, if someone wants to spend their money abroad,
then that's their business.

On 3/23/2010 1:54 AM, LDosser wrote:
"CW" wrote in message
...

"LDosser" wrote in message
...

Illegal Aliens. They deserve a bus ride to the Mexican border.


It's been tried. They generally beat the bus back.


Razor wire backed by an electric fence - the kind the Gestapo used.

And yet somehow Chuck Yeager and thousands of other downed airmen
managed to walk out of occupied Europe. Their "razor wire backed by an
electric fence" wasn't even effective in keeping people inside a prison.