|
Delicious...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:47:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. Medicare is the most expensive program in the government for the number of people served. You sure don't want that as your example, nor is the USPS vs FedEx a good analog unless you ignore the $100M federal subsidy. Perhaps you shouldn't use it then? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... 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...?? What's that? You're clear as mud. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "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? Uh no.. Tosk is the name I have given to my computer. A made up name... like a pen name. Got it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:52:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. You miss the point. As long as there is a big fat tort pie out there to be had and nobody will address incompetent doctors it is a huge problem. Everyone acts like a fat judgement will protect them from a bad doctor. That is lunacy unless you are just planning on getting hurt for the money. I say dump the whole thing. You can only go after real measurable financial damages and the doctor pays, not the insurance company. Let them go bankrupt for a change. Do it in criminal court where the law has some teeth. What about pain and suffering? And, again, what if there's no criminal behavior that can be determined? Then what? I agree that if someone changes insurance, they should get a break on pre-esisting conditions (perhaps bringing some money along from the company they have been paying into) but if this is someone who made the conscious choice NOT to buy insurance, then they get sick and suddenly want it ... fkm. You spun the wheel and took your chances. Sell all of that "stuff" you needed more than insurance. Pre-existing conditions according to whom.. the ins. companies? They consider rape a pre-existing condition. It's not quite so simple as fkm. They show up the emergency room. Should we let them die after we quiz them about their ins. card? It is like someone who chose not to buy collision insurance then wants it after they totaled their car. Not really. Not even the same scale.... Pre-existing condition guarantees will have to come with a mandatory insurance law. As for the other business issues, state lines, anti trust etc, much ado about nothing as far as I see. Just open it up and let them go at each other in a 50 state marketplace. Unfortunately it is the insurance companies who prefer the current 50 separate company model.. Then, you're not looking at the cost factors of those things, esp. compared to the items you mentioned. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:56:13 -0700, "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... 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...?? What's that? You're clear as mud. lol lol |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:13:38 -0400, Tosk
wrote: 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/ She's good at telling jokes. lol |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:57:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "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? Uh no.. Tosk is the name I have given to my computer. A made up name... like a pen name. Got it. lol |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:49:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "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. He disagreed with Rumsfeld and resigned, as he should have. He couldn't help it that Rumsfeld was a dork. He was not 'fired'. Your lack of knowledge is being displayed.....again. lol |
Delicious...
In article ,
says... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:56:13 -0700, "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... 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...?? What's that? You're clear as mud. lol lol I guess I could take Plume fishing, or sit down and eat.. I just can't wade through the numerous out of context and references to intellectually dishonest rhetoric.. Sorry Plumeeeee. Just don't have the time anymore. |
Delicious...
In article ,
says... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:57:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "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? Uh no.. Tosk is the name I have given to my computer. A made up name... like a pen name. Got it. lol Tosk is not a made up name, Tosk is real...;) Just ask Tom LOL... |
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:56:13 -0700, "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... 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...?? What's that? You're clear as mud. lol lol I guess I could take Plume fishing, or sit down and eat.. I just can't wade through the numerous out of context and references to intellectually dishonest rhetoric.. Sorry Plumeeeee. Just don't have the time anymore. Please feel free to either plonk or ignore my posts! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:49:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:10:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... 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. He disagreed with Rumsfeld and resigned, as he should have. He couldn't help it that Rumsfeld was a dork. He was not 'fired'. Your lack of knowledge is being displayed.....again. lol He was, in all respects, fired for telling the truth. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:57:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "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? Uh no.. Tosk is the name I have given to my computer. A made up name... like a pen name. Got it. lol Tosk is not a made up name, Tosk is real...;) Just ask Tom LOL... It's made up or it's an Albanian dialect. You pick. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:26:16 -0400, Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:56:13 -0700, "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... 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...?? What's that? You're clear as mud. lol lol I guess I could take Plume fishing, or sit down and eat.. I just can't wade through the numerous out of context and references to intellectually dishonest rhetoric.. Sorry Plumeeeee. Just don't have the time anymore. Exactly. lol |
Delicious...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. |
Delicious...
"Jim" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov -- Nom=de=Plume Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies on Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to SBA loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other "investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other than a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending. |
Delicious...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... It is like someone who chose not to buy collision insurance then wants it after they totaled their car. Not really. Not even the same scale.... -- Nom=de=Plume Think about it. Is exactly the same. No insurance, you get sick and now you buy the insurance. Not the way insurance works. It is to spread the risk. If you only get the insurance when needed, then you failed in the spreading the risk part. |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:50:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:57:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "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? Uh no.. Tosk is the name I have given to my computer. A made up name... like a pen name. Got it. lol Tosk is not a made up name, Tosk is real...;) Just ask Tom LOL... It's made up or it's an Albanian dialect. You pick. You didn't specify nose or butt. He requires instruction. |
Delicious...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov -- Nom=de=Plume Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies on Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to SBA loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other "investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other than a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending. Except that this would have caused an amazing about of pain for average people. This is the classic Milton Freedman, Chicago School of Economics philosophy that sounds really good but doesn't work, as shown by various examples in recent decades. While the gov't doesn't create wealth by borrowing and spending, it does create jobs, the perfect example being just prior to WW2. The unemployment rate was something like 25%. The FDR got things going and prior to WW2, it was down to 10%. Not perfect, but it was in the right direction. Then the gov't spent an insane amount of money to fund the war. What followed was one of the best growth periods in a long time. The jobless rate is currently very bad, but the rate of losses per month is headed in the right direction. The absolute percentage will likely keep rising over the next year or so, but businesses are starting to hire, and this trend should continue. Thus, the technical recession is over, according to most economists, but that doesn't mean it feels good right now. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... It is like someone who chose not to buy collision insurance then wants it after they totaled their car. Not really. Not even the same scale.... -- Nom=de=Plume Think about it. Is exactly the same. No insurance, you get sick and now you buy the insurance. Not the way insurance works. It is to spread the risk. If you only get the insurance when needed, then you failed in the spreading the risk part. ?? Nothing like it. If everyone is covered, then the risk is spread among, um, everyone. I don't (shouldn't) have to mention the enormous cost of doing nothing differently. It's unsustainable. We really need universal coverage. There are two ways to do it. One is a capitalistic, competitive inducing public option. Anyone should be able to get it... no restrictions. Then, if an ins. company wants to compete, they're going to have to trim their costs and/or increase the benefits to keep customers. The other is heavy regulation, much like Germany. I think the American people deserve the same sort of options that members of Congress enjoy. Why do they get a choice and we don't? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov -- Nom=de=Plume Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies on Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to SBA loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other "investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other than a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending. Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling. Goldman Sachs strikes again... |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:48:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:56:13 -0700, "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... 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...?? What's that? You're clear as mud. lol lol I guess I could take Plume fishing, or sit down and eat.. I just can't wade through the numerous out of context and references to intellectually dishonest rhetoric.. Sorry Plumeeeee. Just don't have the time anymore. Please feel free to either plonk or ignore my posts! Oy, put yourself out of any misery. I plonked The Freak months ago and it was a liberating experience. There are such things as hopeless causes. I can send you my recommended bozo bin. |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:40:32 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... It is like someone who chose not to buy collision insurance then wants it after they totaled their car. Not really. Not even the same scale.... Spreading the risk is also applicable to the pool of insured. The larger the pool the smaller the effect of taking a small percentage of people on as they need attention. |
Delicious...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov I don't know what you expect me to conclude from your presentation of "facts". Spend a few days with that web site. Drill things down and see if you truly and honestly can say we are on the road to recovery based on what you find. Using your web site. I just took a look at how my county benefited. Supposedly there were 3 contracts awarded and 3 jobs created for a total cost of $21,471. Thats amazing. I am not ashamed. You need to wake up and smell the garbage. |
Delicious...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov -- Nom=de=Plume Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies on Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to SBA loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other "investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other than a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending. When the paving is done there is some tar and feathering that needs doing. |
Delicious...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov -- Nom=de=Plume Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies on Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to SBA loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other "investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other than a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending. Except that this would have caused an amazing about of pain for average people. This is the classic Milton Freedman, Chicago School of Economics philosophy that sounds really good but doesn't work, as shown by various examples in recent decades. Didn't Obie graduate from the Chicago school? While the gov't doesn't create wealth by borrowing and spending, it does create jobs, the perfect example being just prior to WW2. The unemployment rate was something like 25%. The FDR got things going and prior to WW2, it was down to 10%. Not perfect, but it was in the right direction. Then the gov't spent an insane amount of money to fund the war. What followed was one of the best growth periods in a long time. The jobless rate is currently very bad, but the rate of losses per month is headed in the right direction. The absolute percentage will likely keep rising over the next year or so, but businesses are starting to hire, and this trend should continue. Thus, the technical recession is over, according to most economists, but that doesn't mean it feels good right now. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. |
Delicious...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov -- Nom=de=Plume Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies on Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to SBA loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other "investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other than a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending. Except that this would have caused an amazing about of pain for average people. This is the classic Milton Freedman, Chicago School of Economics philosophy that sounds really good but doesn't work, as shown by various examples in recent decades. While the gov't doesn't create wealth by borrowing and spending, it does create jobs, the perfect example being just prior to WW2. The unemployment rate was something like 25%. The FDR got things going and prior to WW2, it was down to 10%. Not perfect, but it was in the right direction. Then the gov't spent an insane amount of money to fund the war. What followed was one of the best growth periods in a long time. The jobless rate is currently very bad, but the rate of losses per month is headed in the right direction. The absolute percentage will likely keep rising over the next year or so, but businesses are starting to hire, and this trend should continue. Thus, the technical recession is over, according to most economists, but that doesn't mean it feels good right now. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. You won't burst many bubbles with that manure you are slinging, sweetie. |
Delicious...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... It is like someone who chose not to buy collision insurance then wants it after they totaled their car. Not really. Not even the same scale.... -- Nom=de=Plume Think about it. Is exactly the same. No insurance, you get sick and now you buy the insurance. Not the way insurance works. It is to spread the risk. If you only get the insurance when needed, then you failed in the spreading the risk part. ?? Nothing like it. If everyone is covered, then the risk is spread among, um, everyone. I don't (shouldn't) have to mention the enormous cost of doing nothing differently. It's unsustainable. We really need universal coverage. There are two ways to do it. One is a capitalistic, competitive inducing public option. Anyone should be able to get it... no restrictions. Then, if an ins. company wants to compete, they're going to have to trim their costs and/or increase the benefits to keep customers. The other is heavy regulation, much like Germany. lol lol I think the American people deserve the same sort of options that members of Congress enjoy. Why do they get a choice and we don't? Yea! Finally you make sense. One question. How do you do nothing, differently. |
Delicious...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:59:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov -- Nom=de=Plume Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies on Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to SBA loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other "investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other than a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending. Except that this would have caused an amazing about of pain for average people. This is the classic Milton Freedman, Chicago School of Economics philosophy that sounds really good but doesn't work, as shown by various examples in recent decades. While the gov't doesn't create wealth by borrowing and spending, it does create jobs, the perfect example being just prior to WW2. The unemployment rate was something like 25%. The FDR got things going and prior to WW2, it was down to 10%. Not perfect, but it was in the right direction. Then the gov't spent an insane amount of money to fund the war. What followed was one of the best growth periods in a long time. The jobless rate is currently very bad, but the rate of losses per month is headed in the right direction. The absolute percentage will likely keep rising over the next year or so, but businesses are starting to hire, and this trend should continue. Thus, the technical recession is over, according to most economists, but that doesn't mean it feels good right now. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. lol lol You've got the patter down pat. Tell a good joke too. |
Delicious...
In article , says...
nom=de=plume wrote: "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov I don't know what you expect me to conclude from your presentation of "facts". Spend a few days with that web site. Drill things down and see if you truly and honestly can say we are on the road to recovery based on what you find. Using your web site. I just took a look at how my county benefited. Supposedly there were 3 contracts awarded and 3 jobs created for a total cost of $21,471. Thats amazing. I am not ashamed. You need to wake up and smell the garbage. We have one road being fixed here in my town. A road that services about 3 dozen million + homes in the outskirts of the town. From what I can see, it's the same crew that cleans the leaves most times. I don't know if we hired any extra workers for it. |
Delicious...
"jps" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:48:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:56:13 -0700, "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... 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...?? What's that? You're clear as mud. lol lol I guess I could take Plume fishing, or sit down and eat.. I just can't wade through the numerous out of context and references to intellectually dishonest rhetoric.. Sorry Plumeeeee. Just don't have the time anymore. Please feel free to either plonk or ignore my posts! Oy, put yourself out of any misery. I plonked The Freak months ago and it was a liberating experience. There are such things as hopeless causes. I can send you my recommended bozo bin. I had to flush The Freak and Looney Tunes also. Too bad...I had hoped we could beat some sense into them, but they've been taken over by the dark side. I stay on the Lt Colonels case because he's the one guy who should know better.... unless they sell commissions in the US Army these days. |
Delicious...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:59:23 -0300, "Don White"
wrote: I had to flush The Freak and Looney Tunes also. Too bad...I had hoped we could beat some sense into them, but they've been taken over by the dark side. I stay on the Lt Colonels case because he's the one guy who should know better.... unless they sell commissions in the US Army these days. Hi Don. Are you ready to stop with the immature name-calling and personal insults yet? It would improve the atmosphere, no? |
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:59:23 -0300, "Don White" wrote: I had to flush The Freak and Looney Tunes also. Too bad...I had hoped we could beat some sense into them, but they've been taken over by the dark side. I stay on the Lt Colonels case because he's the one guy who should know better.... unless they sell commissions in the US Army these days. Hi Don. Are you ready to stop with the immature name-calling and personal insults yet? It would improve the atmosphere, no? I'm watching your lead..Lt Colonel. |
Delicious...
"Jim" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "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 Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks. Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof. The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities. You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly. http://www.recovery.gov -- Nom=de=Plume Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies on Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to SBA loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other "investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other than a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending. Except that this would have caused an amazing about of pain for average people. This is the classic Milton Freedman, Chicago School of Economics philosophy that sounds really good but doesn't work, as shown by various examples in recent decades. While the gov't doesn't create wealth by borrowing and spending, it does create jobs, the perfect example being just prior to WW2. The unemployment rate was something like 25%. The FDR got things going and prior to WW2, it was down to 10%. Not perfect, but it was in the right direction. Then the gov't spent an insane amount of money to fund the war. What followed was one of the best growth periods in a long time. The jobless rate is currently very bad, but the rate of losses per month is headed in the right direction. The absolute percentage will likely keep rising over the next year or so, but businesses are starting to hire, and this trend should continue. Thus, the technical recession is over, according to most economists, but that doesn't mean it feels good right now. Sorry if that bursts your bubble. You won't burst many bubbles with that manure you are slinging, sweetie. Burst yours didn't I. -- Nom=de=Plume |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com