On Jul 8, 7:45*am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj....

Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!


i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...
Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!


i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?
Yeah, but they posted your point of view. Try that with the New York
Lies! snerk

wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...
Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!


i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?


National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible right-wing
publication. These days, it's just another right-wing rag, edited for
those few viewers of Faux News who can read. Buckley wouldn't have
allowed two-thirds of the contributors to the current NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...
Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!


i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?


National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible right-wing
publication. These days, it's just another right-wing rag, edited for
those few viewers of Faux News who can read. Buckley wouldn't have allowed
two-thirds of the contributors to the current NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

My buddy is heading back to the British Virgin Islands today.
He's been up here since mid February......to take advantage of Canada's
medical system.
Yeah..it can be slow, but here's an example of someone who trusts the
doctors up here much more than anything down south.
note: The US would have been way too expensive....... at least compared to
the $0.00 bill he would receive here for his heart tests, visits to a GP and
then a specialist etc, etc.

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...
Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!

i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible right-wing
publication. These days, it's just another right-wing rag, edited for
those few viewers of Faux News who can read. Buckley wouldn't have allowed
two-thirds of the contributors to the current NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

My buddy is heading back to the British Virgin Islands today.
He's been up here since mid February......to take advantage of Canada's
medical system.
Yeah..it can be slow, but here's an example of someone who trusts the
doctors up here much more than anything down south.
note: The US would have been way too expensive....... at least compared to
the $0.00 bill he would receive here for his heart tests, visits to a GP and
then a specialist etc, etc.




Down here, what health care you get depends upon your insurance company.

HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the
high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...

Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health
coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!

i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible
right-wing publication. These days, it's just another right-wing rag,
edited for those few viewers of Faux News who can read. Buckley
wouldn't have allowed two-thirds of the contributors to the current
NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

My buddy is heading back to the British Virgin Islands today.
He's been up here since mid February......to take advantage of
Canada's medical system.
Yeah..it can be slow, but here's an example of someone who trusts the
doctors up here much more than anything down south.
note: The US would have been way too expensive....... at least
compared to the $0.00 bill he would receive here for his heart tests,
visits to a GP and then a specialist etc, etc.



Down here, what health care you get depends upon your insurance company.

If you have "Bob's Health Insurance Co.", maybe. The rest are very much
the same. I know - I review the options every year when I renew (or
change) my company's policy.

D K wrote:
HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead
with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the
high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...

Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health
coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!

i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible
right-wing publication. These days, it's just another right-wing
rag, edited for those few viewers of Faux News who can read. Buckley
wouldn't have allowed two-thirds of the contributors to the current
NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

My buddy is heading back to the British Virgin Islands today.
He's been up here since mid February......to take advantage of
Canada's medical system.
Yeah..it can be slow, but here's an example of someone who trusts the
doctors up here much more than anything down south.
note: The US would have been way too expensive....... at least
compared to the $0.00 bill he would receive here for his heart tests,
visits to a GP and then a specialist etc, etc.



Down here, what health care you get depends upon your insurance company.

If you have "Bob's Health Insurance Co.", maybe. The rest are very much
the same. I know - I review the options every year when I renew (or
change) my company's policy.

Same here. Seems every two or three years, the big companies think
you're comfortable with them, so our rates go up a LOT. So we shop, and
usually change. It's usually between the two big ones.

NotNow wrote:
D K wrote:
HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal
coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision
more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new
federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead
with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose
the high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...

Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health
coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!

i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible
right-wing publication. These days, it's just another right-wing
rag, edited for those few viewers of Faux News who can read.
Buckley wouldn't have allowed two-thirds of the contributors to the
current NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

My buddy is heading back to the British Virgin Islands today.
He's been up here since mid February......to take advantage of
Canada's medical system.
Yeah..it can be slow, but here's an example of someone who trusts
the doctors up here much more than anything down south.
note: The US would have been way too expensive....... at least
compared to the $0.00 bill he would receive here for his heart
tests, visits to a GP and then a specialist etc, etc.



Down here, what health care you get depends upon your insurance company.

If you have "Bob's Health Insurance Co.", maybe. The rest are very
much the same. I know - I review the options every year when I renew
(or change) my company's policy.

Same here. Seems every two or three years, the big companies think
you're comfortable with them, so our rates go up a LOT. So we shop, and
usually change. It's usually between the two big ones.

Don't you love how they offer you the same rate but make huge changes
(increases) in the co-pays and deductibles? It still beats anything the
government could throw at us.

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:45 am, HK wrote:
Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:

"Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They
desperately want to pass a bill they can label “universal coverage,”
but they have no coherent plan for making health-care provision more
efficient and less costly. Thus, expanding coverage with new federal
subsidies for a large segment of the population in the current cost
environment is prohibitively expensive. Presented with these facts,
the lead Democratic Senators could have chosen to write a more
sensible reform plan focused first on building a functioning
marketplace in which cost-conscious consumers would drive out
unnecessary costs. But, instead, they have decided to plow ahead with
their “universal coverage” plan, only now they want to impose the high
cost of it on struggling workers. Their only hope is that the bill
will pass before the public discovers what they are up to. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...IzNDYwZTQ1YTZj...
Wow...the National Review is not in favor of universal health coverage.
What a frippin' surprise!

i had to laugh at the national review when, a few days ago, they
posted a report of a women in ontario who went to a buffalo NY
hospital (paid for by the canadian govt) when no local hospital had
room for her.

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

National Review when Bill Buckley edited it was a responsible right-wing
publication. These days, it's just another right-wing rag, edited for
those few viewers of Faux News who can read. Buckley wouldn't have allowed
two-thirds of the contributors to the current NR into his office.

But the knuckle-draggers here? They love it.

My buddy is heading back to the British Virgin Islands today.
He's been up here since mid February......to take advantage of Canada's
medical system.
Yeah..it can be slow, but here's an example of someone who trusts the
doctors up here much more than anything down south.
note: The US would have been way too expensive....... at least compared to
the $0.00 bill he would receive here for his heart tests, visits to a GP and
then a specialist etc, etc.



Did he, at least, walk the dog and help fetch lazy-ass his beer? What
made him leave? The pink RAV4 chickmobile?

"wf3h" wrote in message
...

i wrote a note to the 'national review online' (which they actually
posted on their blog) pointing out i've got a buddy who's a cop near
pittsburgh, and the only physical exam he's had in 30 years was one i
gave him when i was in nursing school. 'national review' was
shocked...SHOCKED to find out there are WORKING people in the US
without health coverage. after all, the US system takes care of
everyone...right?

--------------------------------------------------

I've had health insurance (that I have paid for through employment) since
1977 when I left the Navy.
The first time I had a physical was two years ago and that was only because
Blue Cross insisted I get one or lose my coverage. They thought I was dead
because my file only had two pages in it.


Eisboch