Snerk of the week
 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:24:47 -0400, J i m wrote:

H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:28:49 -0400, JustWait wrote:


You have sucked up party line like a good follower.. I predict a huge
turn around again like 84... 3/4 of Americans are pretty upset at the
dems in congress right now...
Not only the Democrats in Congress, Congress as a whole. As for
1984, Reagan had a landslide victory, but it didn't translate to
Congress. Republicans actually lost two seats in the Senate.

Americans won't sit back while democracy is dismantled. Freedom of
speech is being assulted as we speak... They are keeping illegal lists
of the opposition and addressing them directly (very illegal and
unconstitutional), kind of a "we know who you are" thing. Attacking
private citizens from the Oval Office (illegal and cowardly) beating
up black detractors on sidewalks, hiring union thugs to keep control
at meetings, even The New Black Panther Party has been given free
reign to patrol voting stations with weapons, opposition news agencies
being called out from the Oval office, the list is almost endless
already.. And you all were worried about us tapping out of country
terrorists and a red herring "library card" law that in fact was never
used... . Americans won't take it for long, thank God.



Moron.

Go pound sand. You are the moron. Your unions are falling apart. Your
guy's "jam it down their throats" policy is finally meeting resistance
from Americans who are waking up to the administration's bullying
tactics. Wake up and realize that you are the one with oddball mindset.
It's been fun toying with you but this crap is getting old.
Bye! Plonk!

Finally!

Snerk of the week
 

JLH OPAof7 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:24:47 -0400, J i m wrote:

H the K wrote:


Moron.
Go pound sand. You are the moron. Your unions are falling apart. Your
guy's "jam it down their throats" policy is finally meeting resistance
from Americans who are waking up to the administration's bullying
tactics. Wake up and realize that you are the one with oddball mindset.
It's been fun toying with you but this crap is getting old.
Bye! Plonk!

Finally!

Anything for you, buddy. :-)

Snerk of the week
 

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:

It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option
was the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the
plan. And, in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are
discussing the failures of centralized health care management and the
need to move to patient centered health care.


Nothing would please me more than to see morons like you lose their
jobs, their health care insurance, their homes, and then be faced with a
significant chronic illness for which they cannot afford treatment.

Way to go Harry, avoid the issue and attack the messenger.

It's really sad in this country that the only contribution the GOP makes
is in the area fear-mongering, but they are good at it.

The GOP is all about lifting all boats. We want everyone to have the
opportunity to become rich. Conversely, you progressives, liberals,
Democrats want everyone to become equally poor.

I'm sure we will have some form of health care insurance reform moving
through Congress this fall. No one expected it to do everything
necessary at once.

It isn't looking good for your side of the argument. You can't even get
your message straight. One minute the public option is a requirement,
the next minute it isn't a requirement and then it is a requirement.
Obama just can't get his message out to his people or his people just
don't listen to him. Either way it doesn't matter because it doesn't
look good for you and your firends.

Snerk of the week
 

H the K wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is
competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health-
insurance-
oxymoron
http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269

The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a
capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article
illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have
options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that
states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal
public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a
pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else.
It's inhumane.

I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from
competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much
Federal anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry.
There's Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that
provides the schedules used in determining reimbursement for
out-of-network charges, used by most of the major players. Then
there is the acquisitions, subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting
in a few major players. It ain't a competitive market.



in fact, the only real competition is in the federally managed FEHBA
program, where hundreds of insurance companies compete for the health
care dollars of federal workers, who can pick the health care plans they
want.

What insurance company wants to get on the wrong side of the government?

Not true in the private sector. If you get health insurance through your
employer, you have no or very little choice. Your employer makes the
decision.

The employers are limited by the number of employees they bring to the
insurance companies.


There is no marketplace for health insurance consumers.

The government at the federal and state levels has closed the markets to
true competition.

Snerk of the week
 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-)

More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language
in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong
news reports?

Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the
House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull****
on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being
mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the
amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have
made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that
finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed
unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder
what has changed?

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory-
death-counseling-exposed.aspx

Snerk of the week
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-)

More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language
in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong
news reports?

Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the
House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull****
on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being
mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the
amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have
made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that
finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed
unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder
what has changed?

They read the bill...


http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory-
death-counseling-exposed.aspx



--
Wafa free since 2009

Snerk of the week
 

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-)
More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language
in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong
news reports?
Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the
House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull****
on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being
mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the
amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have
made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that
finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed
unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder
what has changed?

They read the bill...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory-
death-counseling-exposed.aspx





Isn't it interesting how conservative dirtbags like JustWait, Herring,
and a few others latch onto a bit of political flotsam and perseverate
on it no matter what, even when it has been shown to be absolute bull****?

Snerk of the week
 

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:24:57 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-)

More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language
in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong
news reports?

Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the
House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull****
on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being
mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the
amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have
made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that
finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed
unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder
what has changed?

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory-
death-counseling-exposed.aspx

Hey - you were the one using the phrase, 'Isakson's "death panel" made
it in'.
--
John H

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant
that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
-- Thomas Sowell

Snerk of the week
 

H K wrote:
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-)
More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language
in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong
news reports?
Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in
the House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling
bull**** on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as
being mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting,
that the amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill,
*would* have made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the
amendment that finally passed, the amendment very similar to the
House bill, was passed unanimously, meaning all the Republicans
supported it. Gee, I wonder what has changed?

They read the bill...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory-

death-counseling-exposed.aspx


Isn't it interesting how conservative dirtbags like JustWait, Herring,
and a few others latch onto a bit of political flotsam and perseverate
on it no matter what, even when it has been shown to be absolute bull****?


We, the "conservative dirtbags", are winning this battle. It matters not
where the language came from it only matters that it is the Democrats
bill. The fact that the Democrats have shut the Republicans out of
writing the bill isn't in the Democrats favor either.

The Democrats wanted all the glory of providing "universal health care"
and they are getting all of that glory and ignominy of the adverse
nuggets that can be mined.