"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...Q0OGExOTdmOGU=

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...Q0OGExOTdmOGU=


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

What will the Republican conservative movement do next? Announce that
70% of them still favor Sarah Palin for president in 2012?

Wait...they already did that!

In a way, I'm glad Bill Buckley is dead. Seeing what has become of his
once highly regarded publication for political thinkers of all stripes
would kill him.

Just for you, Tom:

http://tinyurl.com/msq7om

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.

"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

Eisboch wrote:
"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



So, you're not too bright when it comes to protecting your own health.
Are you saying that what you did is "proper" for everyone else?

I see my doctor every three months or 5,000 miles, whichever comes
first. :)

I don't have any serious chronic physical ailments, but if one develops,
I want it attended to right away. In between visits, I stop in every few
weeks at the firehouse and one of EMTs checks my blood pressure.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"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

So, you're not too bright when it comes to protecting your own health. Are
you saying that what you did is "proper" for everyone else?

I see my doctor every three months or 5,000 miles, whichever comes first.
:)

I don't have any serious chronic physical ailments, but if one develops, I
want it attended to right away. In between visits, I stop in every few
weeks at the firehouse and one of EMTs checks my blood pressure.

You are just simply awesome Harry. Every three months, huh?
Even the doc that finally checked me out said, "Come back in a year or so".

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:
"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
So, you're not too bright when it comes to protecting your own health. Are
you saying that what you did is "proper" for everyone else?

I see my doctor every three months or 5,000 miles, whichever comes first.
:)

I don't have any serious chronic physical ailments, but if one develops, I
want it attended to right away. In between visits, I stop in every few
weeks at the firehouse and one of EMTs checks my blood pressure.

You are just simply awesome Harry. Every three months, huh?
Even the doc that finally checked me out said, "Come back in a year or so".

Eisboch



I'm older than you are, and my health insurance (which I pay for) pays
for 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.