OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/3/2012 5:46 PM, Bill wrote:

IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
difficult time deciding who to vote for.

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and free
enterprise, the Republican party.

I know many Republicans, like Bush and McCain are seemingly so damned
liberal they look much like the Marxists Dems, but the party in general
still has plenty of those that support the individual rather than the
collective, and it is getting better by the day.

If you can't see who to vote for, you are not looking, regardless if a
communist or patriot, the choice is clear as a bell.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:43:36 -0400, Jack wrote:

I know many Republicans, like Bush and McCain are seemingly so damned
liberal they look much like the Marxists Dems, but the party in general
still has plenty of those that support the individual rather than the
collective, and it is getting better by the day.

Is there something about woodworking that generates this kind of
thinking? Perhaps the sawdust drifts in through the ears and displaces
brain tissue?

There are reasonable conservatives in this group. Myself, I tend to be
liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I haven't seen any
avowed socialists or communists, although there may be a few. But we
sure seem to attract a plethora of the far right wing.

Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
you're wrong :-).

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

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:56:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
you're wrong :-).

The fact is there are simple solutions to our complicated problems.
The issue is those solutions require actions that are unpopular with a
portion of the voting public. If getting re-elected was not a
concern, politicians could make these simple solutions without fear of
losing the next election. Problem solved.

Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.

Another simple solution; anyone receiving government assistance such
as, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance or any other hand out
that they haven't contributed to would be ineligible to vote due to a
conflict of interest. Problem solved.

I'm sure there are many other simple solutions, but that would be a
good start.

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Jack wrote:
On 6/3/2012 5:46 PM, Bill wrote:

IMO, the two parties are so far apart that I will probably have a
difficult time deciding who to vote for.

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and free
enterprise, the Republican party.

I know many Republicans, like Bush and McCain are seemingly so damned
liberal they look much like the Marxists Dems, but the party in general
still has plenty of those that support the individual rather than the
collective, and it is getting better by the day.

If you can't see who to vote for, you are not looking, regardless if a
communist or patriot, the choice is clear as a bell.


Both parties appear to me to be "SELFISH"!

I'd be more inclined toward what you characterize as "the constitution,
the individual and free enterprise" if it were not for corruption--e.g.
dishonesty/deception in food labeling ("pink slime" is just the tip of
an iceberg).

When I listen to John Boener (R), speaker of the house, he reminds me of
what I don't care for in the republican party. Last summer's "stalemate"
was the worst. Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I
have voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

Lew

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:56:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
you're wrong :-).

The fact is there are simple solutions to our complicated problems.
The issue is those solutions require actions that are unpopular with a
portion of the voting public. If getting re-elected was not a
concern, politicians could make these simple solutions without fear of
losing the next election. Problem solved.

Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.

I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
"describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
basis for "fraud".




Another simple solution; anyone receiving government assistance such
as, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance or any other hand out
that they haven't contributed to would be ineligible to vote due to a
conflict of interest. Problem solved.

It worked something like that before the Civil War, no? And woman
didn't get the right to vote or run for office until the early 20th
century. Do you wish to undo these transitions?

What surprises me, a bit, is that we allow "anyone" to have as many
children (or turn out as many voters) as they wish to--even if they
cannot provide for them. Certain organizations use to preach
procreation, having a political agenda in mind.



I'm sure there are many other simple solutions, but that would be a
good start.

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

It is "clever" that the republican party made this (abortion) a
political issue, securing votes that "shouldn't belong to them"--by
making people choose between their pocketbooks and their religion.
That seems wrong to me. 'Course, you may be able to tell from my
calculations that I'm something of an idealist. And no, I am not
claiming that being an idealist is ideal. Economics suggests we follow
our strengths.


Lew

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:

If you can't see who to vote for, you are not looking, regardless if a
communist or patriot, the choice is clear as a bell.

Both parties appear to me to be "SELFISH"!

If you mean take money from those that do and give it to those that
don't, even if they enslave entire groups of people doing it, yeah,
perhaps.

I'd be more inclined toward what you characterize as "the constitution,
the individual and free enterprise" if it were not for corruption--e.g.
dishonesty/deception in food labeling ("pink slime" is just the tip of
an iceberg).

Yeah, we need more laws against "pink slime" salt, sugar, meat, smoking,
table saws... ooops, not table saws...

When I listen to John Boener (R), speaker of the house, he reminds me of
what I don't care for in the republican party. Last summer's "stalemate"
was the worst.

Yeah, I have the same problem. The republicans were elected to stop
spending more than they have, instead, they went along with the
socialist party and raised the debt limit to hurry along the death of
the US.

Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/8/2012 12:34 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

Wow, talk about drinking the kool-aid, you are swimming in it!

--
Jack
If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!
http://jbstein.com

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:39:02 -0400, Bill wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:56:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Most would do well to remember one thing. If you think you've got a
simple solution to a complicated problem, the odds are overwhelming that
you're wrong :-).

The fact is there are simple solutions to our complicated problems.
The issue is those solutions require actions that are unpopular with a
portion of the voting public. If getting re-elected was not a
concern, politicians could make these simple solutions without fear of
losing the next election. Problem solved.

Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.

I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
"describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
basis for "fraud".

You're standing up for the complete **** pols hand us? Why?


Another simple solution; anyone receiving government assistance such
as, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance or any other hand out
that they haven't contributed to would be ineligible to vote due to a
conflict of interest. Problem solved.

It worked something like that before the Civil War, no? And woman
didn't get the right to vote or run for office until the early 20th
century. Do you wish to undo these transitions?

Did he -say- anything about women or slaves not voting? No.


What surprises me, a bit, is that we allow "anyone" to have as many
children (or turn out as many voters) as they wish to--even if they
cannot provide for them. Certain organizations use to preach
procreation, having a political agenda in mind.

When I'm king, parties seeking welfare would undergo voluntary
sterilization (both parties.) My step-niece, once removed, is a
welfare queen and I can't stand to talk to her. Seven kids, 6 fathers,
one of which raped their 4 year old daughter and was doing something
to the 5 y/o boy.



I'm sure there are many other simple solutions, but that would be a
good start.

I'm with Gordon.

--
Silence is more musical than any song.
-- Christina Rossetti

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 06/07/2012 09:34 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

If you are an unborn woman, Dems are definitely not your friend:

http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/delivering-the-male



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/8/2012 7:27 AM, Jack wrote:
On 6/8/2012 12:34 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

Wow, talk about drinking the kool-aid, you are swimming in it!


The California brainwashing experiment is going well. ;~)

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/7/2012 11:34 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

Lew




NOBODY in government is your friend!

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:34:55 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Jack wrote:

You can vote for the socialist party, the collective, formally the
Democrats, or you can vote for the constitution, the individual and
free
enterprise, the Republican party.
----------------------------------------
It's really rather straight forward.

If your taxable income is $250K or more, the Republicans are your
friends.

If your taxable income is less than $250K, the Republicans are not
your friends.

If you are a woman then the Republicans are definitely not your
friends.

Lew


You are a perfect example of why birth control should be retroactive!

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/8/2012 7:08 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

-- Silence is more musical than any song. -- Christina Rossetti


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdD52DAaFRs

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/8/2012 9:44 AM, Leon wrote:


NOBODY in government is your friend!

That would depend on your definition of "is".. I mean, "friend"!

At this point, anyone that is for less government control is my "friend".

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:39:02 -0400, wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:

Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.

I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
"describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
basis for "fraud".

You're standing up for the complete **** pols hand us? Why?

I am most certainly Not. I just pointed out where Shumway's simple
solution breaks down. That only means that the work on the simple
solution is not finished. Better to realize that now, than to find out
in the courts. I am all for "better politics".

People sometimes describe me as having some sort of aversion to
politics. I frequently just say what I think. I am also not saying
that's the best way to be. The world doesn't like the truth so much.

Bill

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Jack wrote:
On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:

Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?

No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
have heard from both parties).

On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

"Jack" wrote:

At this point, anyone that is for less government control is my
"friend".
-----------------------
You accept gov't services, you just don't want to pay for them.

Lew

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:

Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?

No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
have heard from both parties).

On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.

Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
health care thing.

In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.

And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
the break even line.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:43:38 -0400, Bill wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:39:02 -0400, wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:

Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.

I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
"describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
basis for "fraud".

You're standing up for the complete **** pols hand us? Why?

I am most certainly Not. I just pointed out where Shumway's simple
solution breaks down. That only means that the work on the simple
solution is not finished. Better to realize that now, than to find out
in the courts. I am all for "better politics".

People sometimes describe me as having some sort of aversion to
politics. I frequently just say what I think. I am also not saying
that's the best way to be. The world doesn't like the truth so much.

Bill

Wrong! Describing ones ideals is not making a promise. It is what
you said it is. But, if a politician makes a promise he can't deliver
because of "absence of complete information" then he has not only
perpetrated a fraud, he has proven himself to be an Idiot. Who, in
D.C. does that remind you of?

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/8/2012 1:52 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/8/2012 7:08 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

-- Silence is more musical than any song. -- Christina Rossetti


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdD52DAaFRs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyj2qL-bQ4E

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/9/2012 12:36 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/8/2012 1:52 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/8/2012 7:08 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

-- Silence is more musical than any song. -- Christina Rossetti


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdD52DAaFRs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyj2qL-bQ4E


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

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:43:38 -0400, Bill wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:39:02 -0400, wrote:

Gordon Shumway wrote:

Here's another simple solution; if an elected official does not do
what he says he will do while campaigning he/she should be fined
and/or imprisoned for fraud. Problem solved.

I agree with you in spirit, however, politicians make "promises" (or
"describe their ideals") in the absense of complete information--and the
voters are basically aware of this, so I don't think you don't have a
basis for "fraud".

You're standing up for the complete **** pols hand us? Why?

I am most certainly Not. I just pointed out where Shumway's simple
solution breaks down. That only means that the work on the simple
solution is not finished. Better to realize that now, than to find out
in the courts. I am all for "better politics".

People sometimes describe me as having some sort of aversion to
politics. I frequently just say what I think. I am also not saying
that's the best way to be. The world doesn't like the truth so much.

Bill

Wrong! Describing ones ideals is not making a promise. It is what
you said it is. But, if a politician makes a promise he can't deliver
because of "absence of complete information" then he has not only
perpetrated a fraud, he has proven himself to be an Idiot.

As I've already mentioned he or she has not perpetrated a fraud.
Evidently, the voter has some responsibility in choosing his or her
candidate too, like a jury weighing evidence. If a politician told you
he or she could do what you knew was impossible, you wouldn't hold them
to it, would you?

ho, in
D.C. does that remind you of?

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:

Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?

No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
have heard from both parties).

On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.

Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
health care thing.

In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.

And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
the break even line.

Let me know when he goes out of business. Seriously. Something may
just need to be adjusted to move the break even line (I would suggest
that alot of things could probably be adjusted with health care). Health
care costs are part of the problem--somewhat explainable by inelastic
demand, meaning if you are hurting enough you'll receive services and
ask questions later...a recipe for a high bill. Hey and that's pretty
much the way hospital billing works, isn't it?

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/9/2012 1:59 AM, Bill wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:

Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?

No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
have heard from both parties).

On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.

Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
health care thing.

In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.

And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
the break even line.

Let me know when he goes out of business. Seriously. Something may
just need to be adjusted to move the break even line (I would suggest
that alot of things could probably be adjusted with health care). Health
care costs are part of the problem--somewhat explainable by inelastic
demand, meaning if you are hurting enough you'll receive services and
ask questions later...a recipe for a high bill. Hey and that's pretty
much the way hospital billing works, isn't it?

There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this country:

INSURANCE,

and INSURANCE.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:10:48 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/9/2012 1:59 AM, Bill wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 06/08/2012 03:00 PM, Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 6/8/2012 12:17 AM, Bill wrote:

Having taken a lot of economics courses in college I have
voted "R" more times than not, but I have had to slacken my devotion.

So you are more devoted to whom, the socialists that believe government
control is the simple answer to everything?

No. But I would have a difficult time seeing people go hungry. John
Boener comes across to me as pretty cool (cold). I might be inclined to
vote for the party that didn't seem like they had to have everything
their way (remember I used the term "selfish" to describe the language I
have heard from both parties).

On related ground, are you proud of the skyrocketing costs of medical
care? Medicare might be a lifesaver.

Except the O defunded it by a half trillion bucks for his affordable
health care thing.

In fact, he defunded SS and medicare by 50% for the last year with his
big break on payroll taxes on the individual - not the employers.

And now, I have several of my health care providers telling me they may
not be able to keep myself and my wife as patients as the cuts to
medicare won't allow them to stay in business as the cuts put them below
the break even line.

Let me know when he goes out of business. Seriously. Something may
just need to be adjusted to move the break even line (I would suggest
that alot of things could probably be adjusted with health care). Health
care costs are part of the problem--somewhat explainable by inelastic
demand, meaning if you are hurting enough you'll receive services and
ask questions later...a recipe for a high bill. Hey and that's pretty
much the way hospital billing works, isn't it?

There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this country:

INSURANCE,

and INSURANCE.

g sigh


Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.

An oral surgeon charged me $915 for a 14 minute procedure. That's
$3,921.43 per hour. Tell me that's right, and that it's fair.


When I'm king, we'll overhaul the gov't (-75%), the legal system, the
medical system, the penal system, the welfare system, and a few other
things, starting from scratch.

--
A sound mind in a sound body is a short but full description
of a happy state in this world.
-- John Locke

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 02:49:54 -0400, Bill wrote:

Wrong! Describing ones ideals is not making a promise. It is what
you said it is. But, if a politician makes a promise he can't deliver
because of "absence of complete information" then he has not only
perpetrated a fraud, he has proven himself to be an Idiot.

As I've already mentioned he or she has not perpetrated a fraud.
Evidently, the voter has some responsibility in choosing his or her
candidate too, like a jury weighing evidence. If a politician told you
he or she could do what you knew was impossible, you wouldn't hold them
to it, would you?

The simple answer to your question is yes.

However, I would never have voted for the liar. Secondly, if the liar
was elected and then proven to be what he is, a liar, then he has
committed a fraud and that should be dealt with in the judicial
system.

Once again I ask, who in D.C. does that remind you of? I'll give you
a hint. He resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:22:06 -0700, Lew Hodgett wrote:

You accept gov't services, you just don't want to pay for them.

Lew, I was going to ask "Jack" about SS, Medicare, etc.. but I've come to
the conclusion that he's just trolling with his outrageous posts so I'm
ignoring him.

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

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On 6/9/2012 10:26 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:10:48 -0500, Swingman wrote:

There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this country:

INSURANCE,

and INSURANCE.

g sigh


g (**** your sighing, C-Less


Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.

It is indeed ... the insurance company will pay the doctors and
hospitals 30% of what you pay if you're not insured, and they will lie
down and take it. BTDT.

My daughter's recent surgery to wit: with insurance coverage, the
original hospital bill was estimated at $12k, Promissory Note signed by
her upfront; but when the hospital found out the outcome might fall
under a "pre-existing condition" clause in the insurance policy, they
took advantage of her desperation and demanded another $25K on the day
before admittance. She was just out of college, losing an eye, and was
desperate. It was either cough it up, or delay the eye saving surgery
for the third time ... I coughed it up.

When it was proven, after six months of unbelievable bull**** in
fighting both the hospital the insurance company, that is was not
"pre-existing" and I that was intent on going to go to court and not
going to back down, I got the $25k back ... and the hospital was
ultimately paid a total of $9600 by the insurance company for the
surgery that they tried to charge her $37k.

(During the post opt fight, I had also negotiated the price of the
surgeon's bill down to $1600 based on what the insurance company was
going to pay him, and the insurance company ended up paying him only
$1400 ... he should have known better, and he admitted it.)

Back in the days when doctors and hospitals were paid by the
individuals, and most folks were NOT covered by health insurance, that
kind of bull**** would not have happened.

I'll say it again: THE HIGH COST OF HEALTHCARE IS DRIVEN BY BIG INSURANCE:

http://covertrationingblog.com/open-...are-all-doomed

"This new era was begun during World War II, when companies began
offering health insurance to their employees in order to attract workers
during the wage controls then in effect. Health insurance proved so
popular that Congress changed the tax laws to make the insurance
premiums paid by employers tax-deductible so as to encourage the
practice, and before very long virtually every company provided health
insurance to their employees as a matter of course.

The tax-deductibility of employer-provided health insurance was the
game-changer. Healthcare costs suddenly were no longer borne entirely by
individuals, or by individual businesses who paid the insurance
premiums. Instead, they were distributed among the American taxpayers,
whose taxes had to make up for the insurance deductions taken by
businesses. So-called “private” health insurance became publicly subsidized.

The public funding of healthcare advanced by a giant step with the
institution of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, which amounted to direct
public funding of healthcare for a large proportion of the population.
So, by 1970, most of American healthcare was paid for by the taxpayer
either directly, or indirectly through subsidized private insurance. We
had largely collectivized the financing of our healthcare."

I happened to have been raised at the tail end of that time period and
can guarantee that it is indeed a ****ing FACT.

AAMOF, I can still walk into my dentist and optometrists' office and get
a better deal by paying cash than using insurance, and I do it four
times a year.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

"Gordon Shumway" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 02:49:54 -0400, Bill wrote:

Wrong! Describing ones ideals is not making a promise. It is what
you said it is. But, if a politician makes a promise he can't deliver
because of "absence of complete information" then he has not only
perpetrated a fraud, he has proven himself to be an Idiot.

As I've already mentioned he or she has not perpetrated a fraud.
Evidently, the voter has some responsibility in choosing his or her
candidate too, like a jury weighing evidence. If a politician told you
he or she could do what you knew was impossible, you wouldn't hold them
to it, would you?

The simple answer to your question is yes.

However, I would never have voted for the liar. Secondly, if the liar
was elected and then proven to be what he is, a liar, then he has
committed a fraud and that should be dealt with in the judicial
system.

Once again I ask, who in D.C. does that remind you of? I'll give you
a hint. He resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
================================================== ===================================
Some years ago, a state (don't remember which one) passed a law saying that
politicians could not lie. It, of course, made it to the supreme court who
said that politicians have a constitutional right to lie.

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Swingman wrote in
:

On 6/9/2012 10:26 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:10:48 -0500, Swingman wrote:

There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this
country:

INSURANCE,

and INSURANCE.

g sigh


g (**** your sighing, C-Less


Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.

It is indeed ... the insurance company will pay the doctors and
hospitals 30% of what you pay if you're not insured, and they will lie
down and take it. BTDT.

My daughter's recent surgery to wit: with insurance coverage, the
original hospital bill was estimated at $12k, Promissory Note signed
by her upfront; but when the hospital found out the outcome might fall
under a "pre-existing condition" clause in the insurance policy, they
took advantage of her desperation and demanded another $25K on the day
before admittance. She was just out of college, losing an eye, and was
desperate. It was either cough it up, or delay the eye saving surgery
for the third time ... I coughed it up.

When it was proven, after six months of unbelievable bull**** in
fighting both the hospital the insurance company, that is was not
"pre-existing" and I that was intent on going to go to court and not
going to back down, I got the $25k back ... and the hospital was
ultimately paid a total of $9600 by the insurance company for the
surgery that they tried to charge her $37k.

(During the post opt fight, I had also negotiated the price of the
surgeon's bill down to $1600 based on what the insurance company was
going to pay him, and the insurance company ended up paying him only
$1400 ... he should have known better, and he admitted it.)

Back in the days when doctors and hospitals were paid by the
individuals, and most folks were NOT covered by health insurance, that
kind of bull**** would not have happened.

I'll say it again: THE HIGH COST OF HEALTHCARE IS DRIVEN BY BIG
INSURANCE:

http://covertrationingblog.com/open-...good-citizens-
guide-to-right-thinking-and-right-actions/chapter-1-run-for-the-hills-a
s-we-are-all-doomed

"This new era was begun during World War II, when companies began
offering health insurance to their employees in order to attract
workers during the wage controls then in effect. Health insurance
proved so popular that Congress changed the tax laws to make the
insurance premiums paid by employers tax-deductible so as to encourage
the practice, and before very long virtually every company provided
health insurance to their employees as a matter of course.

The tax-deductibility of employer-provided health insurance was the
game-changer. Healthcare costs suddenly were no longer borne entirely
by individuals, or by individual businesses who paid the insurance
premiums. Instead, they were distributed among the American taxpayers,
whose taxes had to make up for the insurance deductions taken by
businesses. So-called “private” health insurance became publicly
subsidized.

The public funding of healthcare advanced by a giant step with the
institution of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, which amounted to direct
public funding of healthcare for a large proportion of the population.
So, by 1970, most of American healthcare was paid for by the taxpayer
either directly, or indirectly through subsidized private insurance.
We had largely collectivized the financing of our healthcare."

I happened to have been raised at the tail end of that time period and
can guarantee that it is indeed a ****ing FACT.

AAMOF, I can still walk into my dentist and optometrists' office and
get a better deal by paying cash than using insurance, and I do it
four times a year.

Amen.
To add to the rant - the administrative staffs at doctors, hospitals and
insurance companies need to be paid for. The staff makes themselves
irreplaceable by refusing the first insurance request, asking for more
documentation, making errors in procedures etc, etc. Another case in
point: I just got $200 off by walking into Lenscrafters with a very old
pair of glasses, and a new eyeglass prescription (DO exam was discounted
from $85 to $42 because I'm retired). Final price of frame + lenses
$300. Now why do they have to advertise the $200 off? Why can't they
just charge discounted prices for everyone and then say no additional
discounts? Would save the staff AND the client a lot of time not having
to go through that rigamarole.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

"Han" wrote in message ...

Swingman wrote in
:

On 6/9/2012 10:26 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:10:48 -0500, Swingman wrote:

There are two things currently wrong with healthcare in this
country:

INSURANCE,

and INSURANCE.

g sigh


g (**** your sighing, C-Less


Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.

It is indeed ... the insurance company will pay the doctors and
hospitals 30% of what you pay if you're not insured, and they will lie
down and take it. BTDT.

My daughter's recent surgery to wit: with insurance coverage, the
original hospital bill was estimated at $12k, Promissory Note signed
by her upfront; but when the hospital found out the outcome might fall
under a "pre-existing condition" clause in the insurance policy, they
took advantage of her desperation and demanded another $25K on the day
before admittance. She was just out of college, losing an eye, and was
desperate. It was either cough it up, or delay the eye saving surgery
for the third time ... I coughed it up.

When it was proven, after six months of unbelievable bull**** in
fighting both the hospital the insurance company, that is was not
"pre-existing" and I that was intent on going to go to court and not
going to back down, I got the $25k back ... and the hospital was
ultimately paid a total of $9600 by the insurance company for the
surgery that they tried to charge her $37k.

(During the post opt fight, I had also negotiated the price of the
surgeon's bill down to $1600 based on what the insurance company was
going to pay him, and the insurance company ended up paying him only
$1400 ... he should have known better, and he admitted it.)

Back in the days when doctors and hospitals were paid by the
individuals, and most folks were NOT covered by health insurance, that
kind of bull**** would not have happened.

I'll say it again: THE HIGH COST OF HEALTHCARE IS DRIVEN BY BIG
INSURANCE:

http://covertrationingblog.com/open-...good-citizens-
guide-to-right-thinking-and-right-actions/chapter-1-run-for-the-hills-a
s-we-are-all-doomed

"This new era was begun during World War II, when companies began
offering health insurance to their employees in order to attract
workers during the wage controls then in effect. Health insurance
proved so popular that Congress changed the tax laws to make the
insurance premiums paid by employers tax-deductible so as to encourage
the practice, and before very long virtually every company provided
health insurance to their employees as a matter of course.

The tax-deductibility of employer-provided health insurance was the
game-changer. Healthcare costs suddenly were no longer borne entirely
by individuals, or by individual businesses who paid the insurance
premiums. Instead, they were distributed among the American taxpayers,
whose taxes had to make up for the insurance deductions taken by
businesses. So-called €œprivate€� health insurance became publicly
subsidized.

The public funding of healthcare advanced by a giant step with the
institution of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, which amounted to direct
public funding of healthcare for a large proportion of the population.
So, by 1970, most of American healthcare was paid for by the taxpayer
either directly, or indirectly through subsidized private insurance.
We had largely collectivized the financing of our healthcare."

I happened to have been raised at the tail end of that time period and
can guarantee that it is indeed a ****ing FACT.

AAMOF, I can still walk into my dentist and optometrists' office and
get a better deal by paying cash than using insurance, and I do it
four times a year.

Amen.
To add to the rant - the administrative staffs at doctors, hospitals and
insurance companies need to be paid for. The staff makes themselves
irreplaceable by refusing the first insurance request, asking for more
documentation, making errors in procedures etc, etc. Another case in
point: I just got $200 off by walking into Lenscrafters with a very old
pair of glasses, and a new eyeglass prescription (DO exam was discounted
from $85 to $42 because I'm retired). Final price of frame + lenses
$300. Now why do they have to advertise the $200 off? Why can't they
just charge discounted prices for everyone and then say no additional
discounts? Would save the staff AND the client a lot of time not having
to go through that rigamarole.
================================================== =========================
Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so you can
run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

"Larry Jaques" wrote:

Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit
(not
even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.

An oral surgeon charged me $915 for a 14 minute procedure. That's
$3,921.43 per hour. Tell me that's right, and that it's fair.
---------------------------------

Single payer?

Lew

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

CW wrote:

Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so you
can run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.

FWIW, As far as "list price", that technique seems as popular as
anywhere in the power tools category!

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:16:20 -0700, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Single payer?

Shhhhh! Lew, you know that's entirely too logical for this group :-).

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

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Single payer?
------------------------------

"Larry Blanchard"

Shhhhh! Lew, you know that's entirely too logical for this group
:-).
--------------------------------
Especially since EVERYBODY is covered, even including those so called
"free loading" minorities.

Lew






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

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Larry Jaques wrote:


Without insurance, one walks into the doctor's office and pays full
boat. A friend is being billed $22k+ for a 4 hour hospital visit (not
even overnight!) to have her appendix removed. That works out to
nearly six grand an hour. Tell me -that's- insurance's fault.


Not always Larry. I had to have oral surgery. Had no insurance. Called
and explained this to the Oral Surgeon's office. Was cut off
mid-explanation. As soon as I said I had no insurance, I was told they
would consult with the Surgeon, and get back to me. I had a figure in mind
that I wanted them to agree to which was roughly 50% of the price - but was
willing to pay more. When they called back, they quoted me a price below my
low ball price. Like thing happened with some lab work. You do have to
ask. It actually works the other way - the insured rate is set to cover the
losses for uninsured, or skips. It's usually the higher rate.


An oral surgeon charged me $915 for a 14 minute procedure. That's
$3,921.43 per hour. Tell me that's right, and that it's fair.

Nope - can't tell you that. Can tell you that it might well have cost more
if you had insurance. Of course, you might not have paid the most of it
yourself, but that's a different aspect of this matter.



When I'm king, we'll overhaul the gov't (-75%), the legal system, the
medical system, the penal system, the welfare system, and a few other
things, starting from scratch.

When I'm king the first thing I'm going to do is ban the damned bra!

Vote for me for king!

--

-Mike-

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:57:24 -0700, "CW" wrote:



Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so you can
run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.

A few weeks ago we took a trip down to Savannah. Stopped in a store
and they touted 50% off of everything. I saw an item for $40, but it
would be half that with the sale discount. Seemed like a scam. Next
day, another store had the same item for $15 regular price.

OT/Dinner and Airfare w/The Prez
 

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 13:57:24 -0700, "CW" wrote:



Standard way of doing business these days. Mark the price way up so
you can run sales and make the public think they are getting a deal.

A few weeks ago we took a trip down to Savannah. Stopped in a store
and they touted 50% off of everything. I saw an item for $40, but it
would be half that with the sale discount. Seemed like a scam. Next
day, another store had the same item for $15 regular price.

Ok - but who in this world today is not used to the "List Price" vs "Your
Price" syndrome thing today? For god's sake - it's everywhere around you.
Are we really spending a lot of time talking about this? Just look
everywhere around you.

--

-Mike-