|
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:
After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. |
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:50:35 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. No, it means that a 'for profit' corporation couldn't compete with a government subsidized, taxpayer supported public option. By taxing individuals enough, the government can cut the 'cost' of the public option to a fraction of the 'for profit' corporation's costs. Denying that would be intentionally burying one's head in the sand. |
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:50:35 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. No, it means that a 'for profit' corporation couldn't compete with a government subsidized, taxpayer supported public option. By taxing individuals enough, the government can cut the 'cost' of the public option to a fraction of the 'for profit' corporation's costs. Denying that would be intentionally burying one's head in the sand. Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground. I guess NASA shouldn't allow private companies to get involved in future missions. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Jim" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:42:16 -0500, thunder wrote: You are willing to give up your right to sue for peanuts? Medical malpractice costs are 1-2% of health care costs. Some incompetent doctor makes you a paraplegic and you are willing to accept $250,000 for your pain and suffering? Not me. If this was really criminal incompetence prosecute it in criminal court. That money you get is coming from everyone else, not the doctor. If you want to be insured against mistakes, make that a separate policy others can opt out of, not part of "medical insurance". They we all won't be paying for a few bad doctors. What if it's not criminal? What if it's criminal, but can't be prosecuted for various techincal reasons? $250K is nothing. OIC... buy more unaffordable insurance is the answer! NOT -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:36:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:50:35 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. No, it means that a 'for profit' corporation couldn't compete with a government subsidized, taxpayer supported public option. By taxing individuals enough, the government can cut the 'cost' of the public option to a fraction of the 'for profit' corporation's costs. Denying that would be intentionally burying one's head in the sand. Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground. I guess NASA shouldn't allow private companies to get involved in future missions. lol |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:37:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Jim" wrote in message .. . nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. lol |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit" organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay double for something that doesn't. Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer. lol |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:39:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:42:16 -0500, thunder wrote: You are willing to give up your right to sue for peanuts? Medical malpractice costs are 1-2% of health care costs. Some incompetent doctor makes you a paraplegic and you are willing to accept $250,000 for your pain and suffering? Not me. If this was really criminal incompetence prosecute it in criminal court. That money you get is coming from everyone else, not the doctor. If you want to be insured against mistakes, make that a separate policy others can opt out of, not part of "medical insurance". They we all won't be paying for a few bad doctors. What if it's not criminal? What if it's criminal, but can't be prosecuted for various techincal reasons? $250K is nothing. OIC... buy more unaffordable insurance is the answer! NOT lol |
Delicious...
nom=de=plume wrote:
Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground. Obama just needs to pump lots of money into those systems and everything will be fine. |
Delicious...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a box of rocks. |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit" organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay double for something that doesn't. Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer. Funny thing is that he isn't paying anything. You actually have to pay taxes to be considered a taxpayer. |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:37:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Jim" wrote in message .. . nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. They're very good at parroting hillbilly-intellect. I don't think there's anyone in rec.boats that exceeds The Freak in the ratio of unfounded facts/post. He's so far ahead of the crowd it's embarassing for anyone trying to keep up. |
Delicious...
"jps" wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit" organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay double for something that doesn't. Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer. Funny thing is that he isn't paying anything. You actually have to pay taxes to be considered a taxpayer. John seems to have devolved into typing lol a bunch of times rather than actually have a discussion. I guess he's run out of things to say. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Jim" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground. Obama just needs to pump lots of money into those systems and everything will be fine. I believe that's Congress' responsibility. It's not like it's an unknown or unsolvable problem. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Jim" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a box of rocks. Then, why do you keep trying? What's dumber than a box of rocks? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:40 -0400, Jim wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote: Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground. Obama just needs to pump lots of money into those systems and everything will be fine. Isn't it strange how the VA has improved so dramatically from when Bush was president. Then, the VA medical system was an example of how inefficient Bush was. |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:43:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Jim" wrote in message . .. nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a box of rocks. Then, why do you keep trying? What's dumber than a box of rocks? Two boxes of rocks would be twice as dumb, no? lol lol |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:42:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit" organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay double for something that doesn't. Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer. Funny thing is that he isn't paying anything. You actually have to pay taxes to be considered a taxpayer. John seems to have devolved into typing lol a bunch of times rather than actually have a discussion. I guess he's run out of things to say. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. lol lol You get what you deserve. |
Delicious...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a box of rocks. Then, why do you keep trying? What's dumber than a box of rocks? Dearie. I am not arguing with you. I don't know where you ever got that notion. |
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:40 -0400, Jim wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground. Obama just needs to pump lots of money into those systems and everything will be fine. Isn't it strange how the VA has improved so dramatically from when Bush was president. Then, the VA medical system was an example of how inefficient Bush was. ?? Vets actually have a guy in charge of the VA who cares about them. Did you miss that news? Eric Shinseki - He was fired by Bush for being honest. http://www.va.gov/ -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:43:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jim" wrote in message .. . nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a box of rocks. Then, why do you keep trying? What's dumber than a box of rocks? Two boxes of rocks would be twice as dumb, no? lol lol I think you just got insulted Jim. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Jim" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a box of rocks. Then, why do you keep trying? What's dumber than a box of rocks? Dearie. I am not arguing with you. I don't know where you ever got that notion. I'm glad you admit that you can't. We all need to know our limitations. I'm glad I could help you find yours! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:10:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:40 -0400, Jim wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground. Obama just needs to pump lots of money into those systems and everything will be fine. Isn't it strange how the VA has improved so dramatically from when Bush was president. Then, the VA medical system was an example of how inefficient Bush was. ?? Vets actually have a guy in charge of the VA who cares about them. Did you miss that news? Eric Shinseki - He was fired by Bush for being honest. http://www.va.gov/ Shinseki resigned. He realized he was beating his head against a brick wall (named Rumsfeld). lol lol |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:11:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Jim" wrote in message .. . nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a box of rocks. Then, why do you keep trying? What's dumber than a box of rocks? Dearie. I am not arguing with you. I don't know where you ever got that notion. I'm glad you admit that you can't. We all need to know our limitations. I'm glad I could help you find yours! lol lol |
Delicious...
On 10/23/09 12:34 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... In inet, says... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit" organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay double for something that doesn't. Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer. UPS and FEDEX don't work. Bummer. |
Delicious...
In article ,
says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit" organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay double for something that doesn't. Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer. Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When it was Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering class. Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery... |
Delicious...
In article ,
says... "John H." wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:40 -0400, Jim wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground. Obama just needs to pump lots of money into those systems and everything will be fine. Isn't it strange how the VA has improved so dramatically from when Bush was president. Then, the VA medical system was an example of how inefficient Bush was. ?? Vets actually have a guy in charge of the VA who cares about them. Did you miss that news? ROTFLMAO... But at the same time won't support the boys in the field.. LOL. Of course he did have more time to spend with "co-operative" propagandists last week in the White House, more time than he has spent with the commanders in the field... This is just funny... Eric Shinseki - He was fired by Bush for being honest. http://www.va.gov/ |
Delicious...
In article ,
says... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a box of rocks. Then, why do you keep trying? What's dumber than a box of rocks? A pen name? |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:42:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit" organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay double for something that doesn't. Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer. Funny thing is that he isn't paying anything. You actually have to pay taxes to be considered a taxpayer. John seems to have devolved into typing lol a bunch of times rather than actually have a discussion. I guess he's run out of things to say. He's checking Worldnut Daily and Fox for fresh info while moving his index finger between upper and lower lips. Snotty is scouring the MN news for any fraudulent Franken activity and Jim is picking his nose or something else. |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit" organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay double for something that doesn't. Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer. They "work" just fine, we just can't afford to spend that much money for the other 300,000,000 people in the country. Medicare is only here because the old people vote and they don't really care about how our kids will deal with the crushing debt. Feel not to use your Medicare then... They certainly work, they certainly curtail costs, they certainly have some problems, they certainly have nothing to do with preventing other people from getting affordable, quality coverage. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit" organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay double for something that doesn't. Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer. Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When it was Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering class. Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery... You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example, before you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in charge of the VA. There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a problem and will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:10:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:40 -0400, Jim wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground. Obama just needs to pump lots of money into those systems and everything will be fine. Isn't it strange how the VA has improved so dramatically from when Bush was president. Then, the VA medical system was an example of how inefficient Bush was. ?? Vets actually have a guy in charge of the VA who cares about them. Did you miss that news? Eric Shinseki - He was fired by Bush for being honest. http://www.va.gov/ Shinseki resigned. He realized he was beating his head against a brick wall (named Rumsfeld). lol lol He was fired. He disagreed with Rumsfeld and was forced out. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "John H." wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:40 -0400, Jim wrote: nom=de=plume wrote: Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground. Obama just needs to pump lots of money into those systems and everything will be fine. Isn't it strange how the VA has improved so dramatically from when Bush was president. Then, the VA medical system was an example of how inefficient Bush was. ?? Vets actually have a guy in charge of the VA who cares about them. Did you miss that news? ROTFLMAO... But at the same time won't support the boys in the field.. LOL. Of course he did have more time to spend with "co-operative" propagandists last week in the White House, more time than he has spent with the commanders in the field... This is just funny... Eric Shinseki - He was fired by Bush for being honest. http://www.va.gov/ ?? He's not a war hero and a patriot? Revisionism doesn't cut it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:36:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and have driven the ins. companies into the ground The insurance companies managed to make sure Medicare people still need to buy a "gap" policy so they are doing fine. And, that's yet another item that needs to be addressed. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments. What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a box of rocks. Then, why do you keep trying? What's dumber than a box of rocks? A pen name? Like Tosk? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:39:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: That money you get is coming from everyone else, not the doctor. If you want to be insured against mistakes, make that a separate policy others can opt out of, not part of "medical insurance". They we all won't be paying for a few bad doctors. What if it's not criminal? What if it's criminal, but can't be prosecuted for various techincal reasons? $250K is nothing. OIC... buy more unaffordable insurance is the answer! NOT You are going to pay one way or the other as long as mal-practice is just another insurance item. There is no incentive to stop bad doctors, they just let them continue screwing up and passing the cost on to the public. People like you who think a quarter of a million is not just compensation are just increasing the size of the problem. The reality is there is no way to compensate someone for mal-practice. Lawyers invented this cash payout model, just because they get a third to half of the money. Sweet deal. Don't stop bad doctors, cash in on them. Sorry, but tort reform and caps on compensation for loss are small items in the scheme of healthcare reform. How about no pre-existing conditions? How about removing the anti-trust exemptions? How about ensuring competition in the ins. field? Those are the big items. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
In article ,
says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote: After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a Liberal. Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit" organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay double for something that doesn't. Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer. Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When it was Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering class. Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery... You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example, before you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in charge of the VA. There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a problem and will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point? Can you say, double standard...?? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com