On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:19:12 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:





wrote in message

.. .

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.

Govt develops better weapons as a matter of life and death for
itself. *They have no incentive to develop better heart procedures for
92 yr old guys. *They would think that regular bypass technology is ok
and see no reason to spend good money for anything else. *History has
shown this to be true. *When the state tries to duplicate what
capitalism does, it fails.

hey froggie...guess what

ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide
a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to
provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health
care...

Institutions fail. Individuals can succeed in a free society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Sep 3, 11:30*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Sep 3, 11:19*am, wf3h wrote:





On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:

On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:

wrote in message

.. .

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.

Govt develops better weapons as a matter of life and death for
itself. *They have no incentive to develop better heart procedures for
92 yr old guys. *They would think that regular bypass technology is ok
and see no reason to spend good money for anything else. *History has
shown this to be true. *When the state tries to duplicate what
capitalism does, it fails.

hey froggie...guess what

ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide
a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to
provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health
care...

As I said, govts provide good military for their own survival.

which does not guarantee they will have good militaries. the middle
east is a prime example. it's filled with hack armies

*I am
no advocate of libertarianism, it would not work. *We need govt
regulations to dampen economic oscillations that would result in
"economic poles" (monopolies, depressions etc.)

exactly.

*I believe that it is
up to workers to provide their own retirement, SS is just a safety net
to prevent starvation. *Your failure to plan for the future is YOUR
problem.

which is a meaningless statement. i, and a hundred million other
american workers took full advantage of the opportunities of providing
for our own retirement. after the rich decided they wanted to keep the
money rather than provide for pensions, a hundred million workers
enrolled in what the rich provided: 401k programs. the rich then
decided they wanted THAT money, too, and took it.

and now you're here to tell us that it's the fault of the middle
class...the rich, with their $6000 umbrella stands, 62 trillion
dollars in CDO's had nothing to do with it.

gee. who knew a family of 4 making $50,000 was more powerful than a
wall street banker making $150M a year.

I believe that routine health care should NOT be covered by any
insurance so that people will know what thye are really paying.

which is a meaningless statement. no one cares what you believe. what
matters is effectiveness. and our free market approach to health care
doesn't work

*An
HMO for routine care is simply pre-paid routine health care and tax
deductible medical savings accounts should cover that. *To prevent HMO
from skewing the prices of routine health care, maybe "insurance" for
routine health care should be illegal. *EVERYBODY should have
inexpensive catastrophic health insurance.
Govt should provide a safety net system that is inconvenient to use.
It should be inconvenient so that people will not rely on it instead
of pvt.

it's funny in this country there's so much distrust of the middle
class and NO distrust of the rich as you yourself show. you keep
blaming the middle class for trusting the rich all the while insisting
that moral hazard theory proves the middle class is just a bunch of
lazy shiftless good for nothings.

for the last 30 years we deregulated the rich and let them play. now
we're paying for it AND being told it's our fault AND that we have to
pay to keep the rich rich.

great system

On Sep 3, 11:31*am, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:19:12 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:

wrote in message

.. .

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.

Govt develops better weapons as a matter of life and death for
itself. *They have no incentive to develop better heart procedures for
92 yr old guys. *They would think that regular bypass technology is ok
and see no reason to spend good money for anything else. *History has
shown this to be true. *When the state tries to duplicate what
capitalism does, it fails.

hey froggie...guess what

ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide
a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to
provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health
care...

Institutions fail. *Individuals can succeed in a free society.


no one knows what that means. 'succeed' when you have to work to 70
because your 401k is trash?

On Sep 3, 11:30*am, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:17:47 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.-

rather odd in that the USSR had a formidable military machine...

Formidable? *The military machine that was defeated in Afghanistan?


it was so formidable that we developed nuclear weapons to stop a
potential red army invasion in europe.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs. My dad has pvt health ins, VA and medicare with his pvt
care paying most of it. Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.


So I guess the gov't run healthcare systems of the VA and Medicare didn't
pay anything?

Please show us the paperwork from them that says even something remotely
close to "92 yrs old, no reason to do much" or something that denied him
coverage.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

My 92 yr old dad had angioplasty this morn so I went to see him
afterwards. Mom and several sisters described what took place. He
had two arteries 98% clogged. I have for years wished they could
remove the stuff clogging the arteries in addition to using the
stent. My mom and sibs told me that they actually did this. I was
surprised and said I thought this could not be done due to the danger
of the "debris" causing a stroke. Apparently, the device whirls at
very high rpm and cuts it into such tiny pieces it causes no problem.
Doc said this could not be done 5 yrs ago. So, my 92 yr old dad now
has a heart that is prob better than mine. WOW.
Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs. My dad has pvt health ins, VA and medicare with his pvt
care paying most of it. Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

Talking out of your ass again.

My father just had a similar procedure done for clots in his legs and
medicare covered the cost.

jps wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

My 92 yr old dad had angioplasty this morn so I went to see him
afterwards. Mom and several sisters described what took place. He
had two arteries 98% clogged. I have for years wished they could
remove the stuff clogging the arteries in addition to using the
stent. My mom and sibs told me that they actually did this. I was
surprised and said I thought this could not be done due to the danger
of the "debris" causing a stroke. Apparently, the device whirls at
very high rpm and cuts it into such tiny pieces it causes no problem.
Doc said this could not be done 5 yrs ago. So, my 92 yr old dad now
has a heart that is prob better than mine. WOW.
Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs. My dad has pvt health ins, VA and medicare with his pvt
care paying most of it. Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

Talking out of your ass again.

My father just had a similar procedure done for clots in his legs and
medicare covered the cost.


Hehehe.

Froggy and most of the other righties here are almost always talking out
of their asses.

In health care insurance reform...the Republicans don't give a ****
about it, one way or the other. What they do care about is this: if the
Dems manage to get any sort of reasonable health care insurance reform
passed, it will mean death for the GOP for many elections to come.

Why? Because if there is decent reform and any sort of publc option, it
will have great appeal to unemployed and underemployed Americans and
even to employers if there is a way for them to get their workers
covered and slow the rising premiums they have to pay for health insurance.

The Republicans are on record as opposing these reforms. In reality,
they want no reform.

You can just see the ads now..."If you elect Republicans they *will*
repeal health care reform, the very health care reform that got health
insurance for your family."

Simple.

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:48:08 -0400, H the K
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

My 92 yr old dad had angioplasty this morn so I went to see him
afterwards. Mom and several sisters described what took place. He
had two arteries 98% clogged. I have for years wished they could
remove the stuff clogging the arteries in addition to using the
stent. My mom and sibs told me that they actually did this. I was
surprised and said I thought this could not be done due to the danger
of the "debris" causing a stroke. Apparently, the device whirls at
very high rpm and cuts it into such tiny pieces it causes no problem.
Doc said this could not be done 5 yrs ago. So, my 92 yr old dad now
has a heart that is prob better than mine. WOW.
Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs. My dad has pvt health ins, VA and medicare with his pvt
care paying most of it. Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

Talking out of your ass again.

My father just had a similar procedure done for clots in his legs and
medicare covered the cost.


Hehehe.

Froggy and most of the other righties here are almost always talking out
of their asses.

In health care insurance reform...the Republicans don't give a ****
about it, one way or the other. What they do care about is this: if the
Dems manage to get any sort of reasonable health care insurance reform
passed, it will mean death for the GOP for many elections to come.

Why? Because if there is decent reform and any sort of publc option, it
will have great appeal to unemployed and underemployed Americans and
even to employers if there is a way for them to get their workers
covered and slow the rising premiums they have to pay for health insurance.

The Republicans are on record as opposing these reforms. In reality,
they want no reform.

You can just see the ads now..."If you elect Republicans they *will*
repeal health care reform, the very health care reform that got health
insurance for your family."

Simple.

You're assuming voters can read and think.
Most voting levers are pulled with jerking knees.
A better option is to give the Reps what they really want.
Kill Medicare and all other forms of Fed assistance.
VA, Medicaid, etc, etc.
Cut Fed taxes to the bone and let the states fend for themselves.
That's what they're always whining about.
Let them old folks on Medicare lose their houses paying their medical
bills, and have the insurance company death panels pull the plug on
them.
That'll shut 'em up, and put the last nail in the coffin of the Rep
party.
Wouldn't bother me a bit. Nobody lives forever.
Be a real good show too. Have to stock up on popcorn.
Won't happen though.
Neither the Dems or Reps have the guts to stand by their so-called
principles.
Without a "public option" there will be no progress with health care
reform until things really go to hell in a handbasket.
In the meantime the only winners will be the insurance companies and
health care companies.
Obama has a big speech next week.
If he doesn't demand a public option he loses.
Be interesting to see if his guts match the Dem numbers in Congress.
That's my opinion.
I don't see much guts in the Dem party.
They should be kicking ass and telling the Reps to go get ****ed,
including the town hall whiners sucking Medicare tit and wanting all
that milk just for themselves.
Elections count. Supposed to anyway.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:48:08 -0400, H the K
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

My 92 yr old dad had angioplasty this morn so I went to see him
afterwards. Mom and several sisters described what took place. He
had two arteries 98% clogged. I have for years wished they could
remove the stuff clogging the arteries in addition to using the
stent. My mom and sibs told me that they actually did this. I was
surprised and said I thought this could not be done due to the danger
of the "debris" causing a stroke. Apparently, the device whirls at
very high rpm and cuts it into such tiny pieces it causes no problem.
Doc said this could not be done 5 yrs ago. So, my 92 yr old dad now
has a heart that is prob better than mine. WOW.
Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs. My dad has pvt health ins, VA and medicare with his pvt
care paying most of it. Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.
Talking out of your ass again.

My father just had a similar procedure done for clots in his legs and
medicare covered the cost.

Hehehe.

Froggy and most of the other righties here are almost always talking out
of their asses.

In health care insurance reform...the Republicans don't give a ****
about it, one way or the other. What they do care about is this: if the
Dems manage to get any sort of reasonable health care insurance reform
passed, it will mean death for the GOP for many elections to come.

Why? Because if there is decent reform and any sort of publc option, it
will have great appeal to unemployed and underemployed Americans and
even to employers if there is a way for them to get their workers
covered and slow the rising premiums they have to pay for health insurance.

The Republicans are on record as opposing these reforms. In reality,
they want no reform.

You can just see the ads now..."If you elect Republicans they *will*
repeal health care reform, the very health care reform that got health
insurance for your family."

Simple.

You're assuming voters can read and think.
Most voting levers are pulled with jerking knees.
A better option is to give the Reps what they really want.
Kill Medicare and all other forms of Fed assistance.
VA, Medicaid, etc, etc.
Cut Fed taxes to the bone and let the states fend for themselves.
That's what they're always whining about.
Let them old folks on Medicare lose their houses paying their medical
bills, and have the insurance company death panels pull the plug on
them.
That'll shut 'em up, and put the last nail in the coffin of the Rep
party.
Wouldn't bother me a bit. Nobody lives forever.
Be a real good show too. Have to stock up on popcorn.
Won't happen though.
Neither the Dems or Reps have the guts to stand by their so-called
principles.
Without a "public option" there will be no progress with health care
reform until things really go to hell in a handbasket.
In the meantime the only winners will be the insurance companies and
health care companies.
Obama has a big speech next week.
If he doesn't demand a public option he loses.
Be interesting to see if his guts match the Dem numbers in Congress.
That's my opinion.
I don't see much guts in the Dem party.
They should be kicking ass and telling the Reps to go get ****ed,
including the town hall whiners sucking Medicare tit and wanting all
that milk just for themselves.
Elections count. Supposed to anyway.

--Vic





Thanks, but I am not interested in destroying what is left that is good
in this country.

I agree about the lack of guts in the Dem party. I think Dems should be
going for the throats of GOP officials whose only interest is to stymie
Obama and the Dems.

Republicans...they ****ed you royally for the last eight years, and they
haven't stopped yet...

I would single out for special attention the GOP lawmakers who put down
the public option yet use naval hospitals for their own health care.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:28:41 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

My 92 yr old dad had angioplasty this morn so I went to see him
afterwards. Mom and several sisters described what took place. He
had two arteries 98% clogged. I have for years wished they could
remove the stuff clogging the arteries in addition to using the
stent. My mom and sibs told me that they actually did this. I was
surprised and said I thought this could not be done due to the danger
of the "debris" causing a stroke. Apparently, the device whirls at
very high rpm and cuts it into such tiny pieces it causes no problem.
Doc said this could not be done 5 yrs ago. So, my 92 yr old dad now
has a heart that is prob better than mine. WOW.
Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs. My dad has pvt health ins, VA and medicare with his pvt
care paying most of it. Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

Talking out of your ass again.

My father just had a similar procedure done for clots in his legs and
medicare covered the cost.

Well, before I plonk you I should remind everyone you are well known for
making up stories to suit your agenda.. Shall we go back over the
American, er, um... German screwdrivers you use for your huge contracts
in the basement of your 3000 square foot house, under the watchful eye
of your 200+ IQ (pound?) wife... Pffftttt...

--
Wafa free since 2009