On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:43:36 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


NO the major differences are to many to list. The wiki just hit a
couple dozen. The point I was making is it was an entirely DIFFERENT
bill that the senate substituted the same day the house bill was read
into the senate.
Pilosi did nothing but fall on her sword when the senate bill was sent
to the house.


Oh, I get it now. Commas. You're talking about commas, in
different places. The nicks and cuts on the skinned cat.
Whatever floats your boat.

You have not been reading much if you have not seen my ideas.
To start with, what was so wrong with the old system where hospitals
amortized the indigent bills into their operating cost? It is cheaper
than letting the government and the insurance companies do it. My main
complaint was that they were using specialized ER people to deal with
minor problems and my solution was a triage, outside he ER to separate
the non-emergency cases from the true emergencies. Then they could
shuttle them off to a cheaper walk in clinic on site. After a while
people would know to just go there first. That could be staffed with
vets who have medical skills we already paid for and the AMA will not
let them use.


Let me get this straight. Use "vets" to deliver health care.
Must be how they do they it everywhere else where less expensive
and better health care is delivered.
You are nuts.


Rather than call names, a la krotch, explain why vets shouldn't be used.

Or, tell us how ISIS is 'just a bunch of thugs'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!