|
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? Well, I don't really know but if they were they would be sued immediately. After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Shoot, you stole my 'thunder'. (That's a pun. A ****ty one, but one anyway.) |
Delicious...
On 10/22/09 7:53 PM, Tosk wrote:
Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... bull****. |
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:23:41 -0400, H the K
wrote: On 10/22/09 7:53 PM, Tosk wrote: Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... bull****. Out of whole cloth, or what he reads on the Fox News website -- which is totally legal, you know. |
Delicious...
wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:16:17 -0500, thunder wrote: 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. A quarter of a million dollar cap per suit is not reform. That just means they have to file more suits. That is why you see so many lawyer ads on TV And it is the extra $5000 every time someone shows up at the hospital in unneeded tests to cover their butts against a liability suit. Probably a bigger cost than the suits themselves by a factor of 10 or more. |
Delicious...
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... |
Delicious...
"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! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:47:01 -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... "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! That didn't come from Worldnet Daily!!! It didn't come from Fox News!!! Slate is a decidedly left-wing rag that surely doesn't report the tin hat theories most loved by the wingnuts. |
Delicious...
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com