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.

"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.

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

"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

"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

"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

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

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

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

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