JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

But no surprise there.
Omelet = (eggs + broken)
Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know.
The answer might save me some time.
In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :)

Yes - I read the whole thing.

The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not
in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons.

I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class
and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue
either.

They are all listening to Barry telling them that the republicans have
no ideas. Like one pundit said today, the White House is the champion of
misinformation in the health care issue, that's why so many folks don't
trust them... The republicans put out a bill last week, HR3400 which
addresses health care from a sensible point of view, and at no
additional cost to taxpayers, but of course like all of the other bills,
the dems don't only dismiss it, but they deny it was even proposed..
It's straight up lying, that's why nobody trust the Pres and his
hoods...


Yeah, the GOP healthcare proposal was like the GOP budget proposal: no
meat, no potatoes.

It wouldn't have done you any good, but, then, the state is paying for
your healthcare, right?





--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

But no surprise there.
Omelet = (eggs + broken)
Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know.
The answer might save me some time.
In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :)

Yes - I read the whole thing.

The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not
in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons.

I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class
and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue
either.

They are all listening to Barry telling them that the republicans have
no ideas. Like one pundit said today, the White House is the champion of
misinformation in the health care issue, that's why so many folks don't
trust them... The republicans put out a bill last week, HR3400 which
addresses health care from a sensible point of view, and at no
additional cost to taxpayers, but of course like all of the other bills,
the dems don't only dismiss it, but they deny it was even proposed..
It's straight up lying, that's why nobody trust the Pres and his
hoods...


Oooh, the Small Business Health Reform Act?? It only addresses a very
few issues and problems, first of all. And hey, you dismissed Obama's
speech to school kids as propaganda and indoctrination before you ever
knew what was in it!

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
Whew... I don't think I could do that, even if the alternative is watching
the clothes dryer. Hats off to you!

I was a computer systems analyst, so it was no problem.
It's much more fun seeing real people make spoken arguments than
extracting them from silent data flows and technical mumbo-jumbo.
sorry for the big snip

Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know.
The answer might save me some time.

Hey, I read it! Nice thoughts. I have a light day sleeper here, so I can't
really watch TV even if I wanted to.. also, my head might explode. I can
only take so much political speak in one year.

Many people bitch/moan about high taxes, but we pay so many hidden taxes,
I'd rather just get it all done at once.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:55:08 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

This health care thing.
Looks like the pols on both side are agreed that every U.S. citizen
should have affordable access to health care.
Even if they believe that folks should just die if they can't pay,
they won't say it.
So I've been hearing the Reps say they prefer gov subsidies to make it
happen - folks who currently can't afford to buy private health
insurance could then afford it. Might even be mandated.
The Dems mostly want the same thing, but with a public option.
That's not well-defined as far as I can see. If they said folks could
basically buy into Medicare, it could be easily understood.
You'd still have the subsidies to pay for it, and still have to
address the issues that have Medicare in the red.
But it's getting where - maybe already there - all agree that
subsidies for lower incomes are necessary no matter which course is
taken.
Don't see anybody getting down to brass tacks and just saying taxes
will go up.
Obama got himself in a hole with his "Nobody making less than $250k
will see higher taxes."
That doesn't make sense. Won't pay the bills.
I've said before here that many families are already "taxed" 15-30%
for health insurance.
Obama would have been smarter to say if your income tax goes up to fix
health care, your health care costs will go way down if you're in the
lower income brackets.
It's not rocket science.
But I really don't think he was thinking clearly about the magnitude
of the health care problem when he was running for prez.
Now he's got himself locked in. Just like the elder Bush did with
"Read my lips."
Language and the words you choose are important.
Of course the Reps have made the same mistake by touting subsidies to
pay health insurance companies to counter the Dems call for a "public
option."
They said it, and they won't be able to retreat. But it has to be
paid for whether you're paying it toward Medicare or private health
insurance companies.
Anyway, just something to think about.
I think the health insurance/care situation will get better because
they are fighting it out.
I watched about 6 hours of Senate finance hearings yesterday, and
man, it's a complicated subject.
Using bumper sticker bull**** to define it is plain juvenile.

--Vic

When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers,
teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain
something of any complexity to the public.

The Republicans say that they want health care reform but don't want
any of what that requires.

Several of the most influential Dems are in the HC industry's pocket
so they have to play their cards right.

Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea
I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain. I
hope some simple explanations can be mined so the apparently shallow
public can get with it.

jps

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:57:51 -0700, jps wrote:

When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers,
teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain
something of any complexity to the public.

They don't even try, which is why I turn to C-Span . Lame asses.
But when you watch commercial TV, take some comfort that behind every
face you see is a fat salary and excellent health care.
And an empty head.


Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea
I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain.

Damn, already!? I just mentioned it!
But it makes sense only if it doesn't drive Medicare further in the
red.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:57:51 -0700, jps wrote:

When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers,
teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain
something of any complexity to the public.

They don't even try, which is why I turn to C-Span . Lame asses.
But when you watch commercial TV, take some comfort that behind every
face you see is a fat salary and excellent health care.
And an empty head.


Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea
I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain.

Damn, already!? I just mentioned it!
But it makes sense only if it doesn't drive Medicare further in the
red.

--Vic


I believe it's projected to go into the red in 2019. The first report
whereby it would draw more than 45% of its money from the general fund
happened in 2006 (legislated reporting mandate). The big problem is the
looming baby-boomer bulge. I think we need some death panels sooner vs.
later. lol

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:31:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:57:51 -0700, jps wrote:

When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers,
teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain
something of any complexity to the public.

They don't even try, which is why I turn to C-Span . Lame asses.
But when you watch commercial TV, take some comfort that behind every
face you see is a fat salary and excellent health care.
And an empty head.


Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea
I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain.

Damn, already!? I just mentioned it!
But it makes sense only if it doesn't drive Medicare further in the
red.

--Vic


I believe it's projected to go into the red in 2019. The first report
whereby it would draw more than 45% of its money from the general fund
happened in 2006 (legislated reporting mandate). The big problem is the
looming baby-boomer bulge. I think we need some death panels sooner vs.
later. lol


Let's just off some of the elderly GOP.

They've already predicted we'd do it so what's the harm?

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:11:02 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:57:51 -0700, jps wrote:

When the media wants to highlight the conflict of birthers, deathers,
teabagger and speechers, how the hell are you supposed to explain
something of any complexity to the public.

They don't even try, which is why I turn to C-Span . Lame asses.
But when you watch commercial TV, take some comfort that behind every
face you see is a fat salary and excellent health care.
And an empty head.


Your idea of being able to buy into Medicare early is the best idea
I've heard floated. It's gaining traction in the public domain.

Damn, already!? I just mentioned it!

Collective consciousness.

You get credit for being on the vanguard of a good idea.