On Aug 21, 9:07*am, Guzzistimo wrote:


Can't refute his ideas, huh? Like the rest of the liberals, attack
something else.
--

his health policy consists of buying his products.

sorry, sport, that's not a policy, it's an advertisement. i know to
you right wingers, god only makes people get sick if they deserve it

but even right wingers get sick

On Aug 21, 10:34Â*am, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:07:19 -0400, Guzzistimo wrote:
Can't refute his ideas, huh? Like the rest of the liberals, attack
something else.


• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must
cover. Â* Translation, give me your money, we ain't covering squat.

he doesn't realize that ALOT of folks working for insurance companies
have the job of denying claims

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay
insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Canard,
malpractice settlements add less that 1% to the cost of health care. Â*

absolutely. texas did exactly this. and insurance premiums went UP.
the reason malpractice insurance companies lose money is 'cuz they
invest their revenue and they've taken a hit. so, like all the rich
folks, they want us to pay for their losses.

On Aug 21, 11:32*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message

t...

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:53:29 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:

I can hardly wait. Here's a bit of analysis and advice worth
considering:

http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052970204884404574362971349563340.html#m od=article-outset-box

Except, I don't believe we can allow this health care system to continue
much longer. *It's approaching 20%GDP now, and in 2050 is expected to
reach 33% GDP. *If Obama fails this time around, it's unlikely that he
will make another attempt. *This problem has been building for several
decades, I think, this is our best shot at it.

You are probably right. I simply have a problem with folks who go for a
government solution without considering measures that do not involve
unimaginable public debt and increased taxes forever.

as opposed to unimaginable private debt and increased health insurance
premiums forever

how's that working out?

The Swiss have an
effective program that doesn't involve public funds at all, except to
regulate. A number of other options are not being considered because the
power-hungry Congress and Dims generally have their minds set in concrete..
Opposition is met with derision, rather than seeking common ground.

gee. the GOP had power for the last 8 years.

why didn't they clean the mess up? answer? 'cuz they own the insurance
companies.

On Aug 20, 10:05*pm, JustWait wrote:


Well, it was paid for, as much as the Government pays for anything..
What threw it off was the 4 dollar gas and forced low score/no score
home loans... Several "folks" tried to head off both issues, but were
filibustered at every turn...

--


actually....no.

the largest mortgage company in the US was countrywide. it was under
no obligation at all to lend to anyone. but it did. it got greedy.

so, try again.

On Aug 20, 10:03*pm, JustWait wrote:


Yeah, when I asked yesterday to see violent opposition to Health Care
where folks are driving speakers off the stage and down the street like
the protests against republicans and the minutemen in the last few
years.. I got back a couple links from my bud Loogie, one of them going
back to the Nixon Administration... Guess Grandma really didn't bring a
nazi sign or brandish a weapon or force any speakers to leave the
building without having a say.. It just blows me away how ****ed off the
left is about folks speaking their minds, but never said anything about
the violent protests I noted before. The other thing that gets me is
their opposition is so vapid, they can't even accept that someone else
can honestly have a different point of view... The consider anybody who
has a different point of view, to be a lesser human intelligence..
Reminds me a lot of the KKK clowns I met in 'Bama... You were either
with them, or inferior...


what's funny is watching the right bitch about solutions to problems.
this is like watching an arsonist complain that too much water's being
used to fight the fire he started

the GOP had power for the last 8 years. they COULD have solved the
problem but their only solution to date is complaining that obama
hasn't cleaned up the mess they made.

On Aug 21, 9:08*am, Guzzistimo wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:24:58 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 21, 6:37*am, Guzzistimo wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:30:08 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 20, 11:45*pm, "SteveB" wrote:

Well, if this thing is approved, let's just keep count of how many five way
bypasses and aortic valve replacements there are. *Nothing like reality to
keep things straight. *My heart surgery was near $200k. *I doubt that would
have been covered under Obama.

and if you lost your job and had no health insurance

would it have been covered then?

Try reading.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57434217007286....

Then come back and argue against his points.

You'd rather whine.
--

try getting health insurance without a job. then come back and whine
that the rich are being treated unfairly.

Against which of his points are you arguing?

Or, are you just whining again. Holy ****, don't you get tired of
listening to yourself?
--


says the man who whines in an echo chamber

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:32:37 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:


You are probably right. I simply have a problem with folks who go for a
government solution without considering measures that do not involve
unimaginable public debt and increased taxes forever. The Swiss have an
effective program that doesn't involve public funds at all, except to
regulate. A number of other options are not being considered because the
power-hungry Congress and Dims generally have their minds set in
concrete. Opposition is met with derision, rather than seeking common
ground.

I wasn't familiar with the Swiss system, so I did a little reading on
it. I like that it is not employer based. Our model of tying health
care to a job, IMO, is a mistake. It's anti-competitive in the world
market. Their care is not cheap, however, at 11.5% GDP, it's second only
to us. By the by, it is also subsidized by the government, according to
income levels. Another thing, I'm not sure would fly over here, it's
government price controlled.

Nothing for nothing, but Obama's plan seems similar to me. Everyone
would be required to have health insurance, with subsidies for lower
incomes. Because, price controls won't fly over here, he wants to have a
government option, or co-op, to provide competition in the market. I
don't think this is unreasonable. Without price controls, something has
to provide competition, or with health insurance being required, nothing
will keep prices down.

Another thing of note, the Swiss have considerably more doctors and
nurses per capita. Perhaps, we should get into subsidizing medical
students heavily. More doctors and nurses, might keep costs down
somewhat.

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:32:37 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:


You are probably right. I simply have a problem with folks who go for a
government solution without considering measures that do not involve
unimaginable public debt and increased taxes forever. The Swiss have an
effective program that doesn't involve public funds at all, except to
regulate. A number of other options are not being considered because the
power-hungry Congress and Dims generally have their minds set in
concrete. Opposition is met with derision, rather than seeking common
ground.

I wasn't familiar with the Swiss system, so I did a little reading on
it. I like that it is not employer based. Our model of tying health
care to a job, IMO, is a mistake. It's anti-competitive in the world
market. Their care is not cheap, however, at 11.5% GDP, it's second only
to us. By the by, it is also subsidized by the government, according to
income levels. Another thing, I'm not sure would fly over here, it's
government price controlled.

Nothing for nothing, but Obama's plan seems similar to me. Everyone
would be required to have health insurance, with subsidies for lower
incomes. Because, price controls won't fly over here, he wants to have a
government option, or co-op, to provide competition in the market. I
don't think this is unreasonable. Without price controls, something has
to provide competition, or with health insurance being required, nothing
will keep prices down.

Another thing of note, the Swiss have considerably more doctors and
nurses per capita. Perhaps, we should get into subsidizing medical
students heavily. More doctors and nurses, might keep costs down
somewhat.

Good points. Requiring people who can afford health insurance to pay for it
but don't now have it will eliminate a majority of the 45 to 50 million who
are now uninsured.

In article ,
says...

SteveB wrote:

I think so, and want to be a poster child. If health care were in the state
they want it to be during the last ten years, I would have been dead nine.
One of those who are too old to be worth the trouble and expense.

Steve

Sorry to tell you, but no matter what Sara Palin told you, that death
panel thing isn't true.

Can't tell when you are being manipulated?

That's right man, it's not a "death panel" dude, like Obama said, it's
an "end of life panel"... Big difference snerk. We are making progress
though, at least they now admit the group of a couple dozen unrelated
and disconnected govt assessors is indeed a "panel"...

--
Wafa free since 2009

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:53:29 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:

I can hardly wait. Here's a bit of analysis and advice worth
considering:

http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052970204884404574362971349563340.html#m od=article-outset-box

Except, I don't believe we can allow this health care system to continue
much longer. It's approaching 20%GDP now, and in 2050 is expected to
reach 33% GDP. If Obama fails this time around, it's unlikely that he
will make another attempt. This problem has been building for several
decades, I think, this is our best shot at it.

Well of course you do.. Right now, we have to do it now before anybody
reads the damn thing...

--
Wafa free since 2009