On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:53:18 -0800, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:27:41 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:53:18 -0800, jps wrote:


If we were sustaining six deaths every day on the battlefield, it'd
cause us all pain. Why doesn't this?

According to a study released by the Harvard Medical School, 2,266
veterans under the age of 65 died last year as a result of not having
health insurance. Researchers emphasize that "that figure is more than
14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in
Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as
of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001."

The 1.46 million working-age veterans that did not have health
insurance last year all experienced reduced access to care as a
consequence, leading to "six preventable deaths a day."

Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people
-- too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify
for Medicaid or means-tested VA care," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a
professor at Harvard Medical School. [...]

Dr. David Himmelstein, the co-author of the report and associate
professor of medicine at Harvard, commented, "On this Veterans Day we
should not only honor the nearly 500 soldiers who have died this year
in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the more than 2,200 veterans who
were killed by our broken health insurance system. That's six
preventable deaths a day."

The study's authors warn that the health care legislation "would do
virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013" and would "leave at
least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,"
leaving many veterans still without care.

Why not simply adjust the means-testing favorably for veterans (ref.
"Spinal Tap")?

The use of 'vets' is a ploy grip the hearts of folks who know no
better. Why should a couple years in the military, all that is needed
to be called a 'vet', entitle one to anything, unless there is a
service connected health problem.

Another ploy by liberals taking us down the yellow brick road to
socialism.

I get tired of your bull**** "socialism" ****. Goodbye.

More successful destruction of the group by Harry. Oh well, I guess
Harry wins for now... Imagine his glee at the chaos he causes...

What did HK have to do with Loogy's comment? ****, quit talking about
him.
--

John H

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:21:22 -0500, NowNow wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:27:41 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:53:18 -0800, jps wrote:


If we were sustaining six deaths every day on the battlefield, it'd
cause us all pain. Why doesn't this?

According to a study released by the Harvard Medical School, 2,266
veterans under the age of 65 died last year as a result of not having
health insurance. Researchers emphasize that "that figure is more than
14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in
Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as
of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001."

The 1.46 million working-age veterans that did not have health
insurance last year all experienced reduced access to care as a
consequence, leading to "six preventable deaths a day."

Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people
-- too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify
for Medicaid or means-tested VA care," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a
professor at Harvard Medical School. [...]

Dr. David Himmelstein, the co-author of the report and associate
professor of medicine at Harvard, commented, "On this Veterans Day we
should not only honor the nearly 500 soldiers who have died this year
in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the more than 2,200 veterans who
were killed by our broken health insurance system. That's six
preventable deaths a day."

The study's authors warn that the health care legislation "would do
virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013" and would "leave at
least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,"
leaving many veterans still without care.

Why not simply adjust the means-testing favorably for veterans (ref.
"Spinal Tap")?

The use of 'vets' is a ploy grip the hearts of folks who know no
better. Why should a couple years in the military, all that is needed
to be called a 'vet', entitle one to anything, unless there is a
service connected health problem.

Another ploy by liberals taking us down the yellow brick road to
socialism.

I get tired of your bull**** "socialism" ****. Goodbye.

I'm tired of the bull**** socialism **** also. I wish the friggin'
liberals would stop with it.

It hasn't worked anywhere yet.

Neither has Republican Nazi bull****. Here, learn something:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...gressives-and-
democrats-really-socialists/question-603437/



--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:53:18 -0800, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:27:41 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:53:18 -0800, jps wrote:


If we were sustaining six deaths every day on the battlefield, it'd
cause us all pain. Why doesn't this?

According to a study released by the Harvard Medical School, 2,266
veterans under the age of 65 died last year as a result of not
having
health insurance. Researchers emphasize that "that figure is more
than
14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in
Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911
as
of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001."

The 1.46 million working-age veterans that did not have health
insurance last year all experienced reduced access to care as a
consequence, leading to "six preventable deaths a day."

Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working
people
-- too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to
qualify
for Medicaid or means-tested VA care," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler,
a
professor at Harvard Medical School. [...]

Dr. David Himmelstein, the co-author of the report and associate
professor of medicine at Harvard, commented, "On this Veterans Day
we
should not only honor the nearly 500 soldiers who have died this
year
in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the more than 2,200 veterans who
were killed by our broken health insurance system. That's six
preventable deaths a day."

The study's authors warn that the health care legislation "would do
virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013" and would "leave at
least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,"
leaving many veterans still without care.

Why not simply adjust the means-testing favorably for veterans (ref.
"Spinal Tap")?

The use of 'vets' is a ploy grip the hearts of folks who know no
better. Why should a couple years in the military, all that is needed
to be called a 'vet', entitle one to anything, unless there is a
service connected health problem.

Another ploy by liberals taking us down the yellow brick road to
socialism.

I get tired of your bull**** "socialism" ****. Goodbye.

More successful destruction of the group by Harry. Oh well, I guess
Harry wins for now... Imagine his glee at the chaos he causes...

What did HK have to do with Loogy's comment? ****, quit talking about
him.
--

John H

~~ Snerk ~~
You guys should have your own reality show.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:35:02 -0500, NowNow wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:21:22 -0500, NowNow wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:27:41 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:53:18 -0800, jps wrote:


If we were sustaining six deaths every day on the battlefield, it'd
cause us all pain. Why doesn't this?

According to a study released by the Harvard Medical School, 2,266
veterans under the age of 65 died last year as a result of not having
health insurance. Researchers emphasize that "that figure is more than
14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in
Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as
of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001."

The 1.46 million working-age veterans that did not have health
insurance last year all experienced reduced access to care as a
consequence, leading to "six preventable deaths a day."

Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people
-- too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify
for Medicaid or means-tested VA care," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a
professor at Harvard Medical School. [...]

Dr. David Himmelstein, the co-author of the report and associate
professor of medicine at Harvard, commented, "On this Veterans Day we
should not only honor the nearly 500 soldiers who have died this year
in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the more than 2,200 veterans who
were killed by our broken health insurance system. That's six
preventable deaths a day."

The study's authors warn that the health care legislation "would do
virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013" and would "leave at
least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,"
leaving many veterans still without care.

Why not simply adjust the means-testing favorably for veterans (ref.
"Spinal Tap")?

The use of 'vets' is a ploy grip the hearts of folks who know no
better. Why should a couple years in the military, all that is needed
to be called a 'vet', entitle one to anything, unless there is a
service connected health problem.

Another ploy by liberals taking us down the yellow brick road to
socialism.

I get tired of your bull**** "socialism" ****. Goodbye.

I'm tired of the bull**** socialism **** also. I wish the friggin'
liberals would stop with it.

It hasn't worked anywhere yet.

Neither has Republican Nazi bull****. Here, learn something:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...gressives-and-
democrats-really-socialists/question-603437/

Nah. Besides, I thought you said 'Goodbye'. Does 'goodbye' mean 'I'll
respond to your next post'?

I don't think Republican Nazi bull**** would work anywhere. Actually,
I've never heard of that form of government, so I'll assume your
reference is 'bull****', i.e., not worth opening.

End of Conversation
--

John H

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:27:41 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:53:18 -0800, jps wrote:


If we were sustaining six deaths every day on the battlefield, it'd
cause us all pain. Why doesn't this?

According to a study released by the Harvard Medical School, 2,266
veterans under the age of 65 died last year as a result of not having
health insurance. Researchers emphasize that "that figure is more than
14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in
Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as
of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001."

The 1.46 million working-age veterans that did not have health
insurance last year all experienced reduced access to care as a
consequence, leading to "six preventable deaths a day."

Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people
-- too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify
for Medicaid or means-tested VA care," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a
professor at Harvard Medical School. [...]

Dr. David Himmelstein, the co-author of the report and associate
professor of medicine at Harvard, commented, "On this Veterans Day we
should not only honor the nearly 500 soldiers who have died this year
in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the more than 2,200 veterans who
were killed by our broken health insurance system. That's six
preventable deaths a day."

The study's authors warn that the health care legislation "would do
virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013" and would "leave at
least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,"
leaving many veterans still without care.

Why not simply adjust the means-testing favorably for veterans (ref.
"Spinal Tap")?

The use of 'vets' is a ploy grip the hearts of folks who know no
better. Why should a couple years in the military, all that is needed
to be called a 'vet', entitle one to anything, unless there is a
service connected health problem.

Another ploy by liberals taking us down the yellow brick road to
socialism.

I get tired of your bull**** "socialism" ****. Goodbye.

More successful destruction of the group by Harry. Oh well, I guess
Harry wins for now... Imagine his glee at the chaos he causes...

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:33:20 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:29:50 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Why should a couple years in the military, all that is needed
to be called a 'vet', entitle one to anything, unless there is a
service connected health problem.


My point exactly.
The VA will treat service connected problems but why should a person
expect anything else from the government if they were drafted and
spent 2 years busing tables at the Ft Dix O club?

And a good point it is.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:55:35 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:36:21 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:19:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:27:41 -0600, wrote:

genuine drivel redacted by some dead poet

The study's authors warn that the health care legislation "would do
virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013" and would "leave at
least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,"
leaving many veterans still without care.

Why not simply adjust the means-testing favorably for veterans (ref.
"Spinal Tap")?

...in response to a specious argument, btw.

And I do not remember being promised lifetime medical when I joined the
Air
Force. They cover service connected injuries, but did not promise
medical
for those not retiring from the service And they do take care of those
with
service connected problems. My brother is an Agent Orange vet, and gets
his
care via the VA. Good care also.

I think vets deserve better. I'm sure you disagree.


I think it depends on what you did in the military. I bounced around
in the North Atlantic, kept the godless communists out of the
Chesapeake bay and I don't think the VA owes me anything.

My father had a European theater medal with 2 battle stars, CIB, a
couple other campaign medals, 2 purple hearts and he was a POW. He
deserved the care he got.

And yet, unless you were injured somewhere along the line, it matters
not what you faced.

What happens, like in the case of Agent Orange and a hundred other
chemicals vets were exposed to, symptoms don't show up for years and
aren't directly attributable to the exposure, the trauma, the ugliness
that is war.

Are those vets any less entitled?

They get taken care of. Agent Orange effects showed up later so they
covered those exposed.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:28:43 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:55:35 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:36:21 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:19:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:27:41 -0600, wrote:

genuine drivel redacted by some dead poet

The study's authors warn that the health care legislation "would do
virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013" and would "leave at
least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,"
leaving many veterans still without care.

Why not simply adjust the means-testing favorably for veterans (ref.
"Spinal Tap")?

...in response to a specious argument, btw.

And I do not remember being promised lifetime medical when I joined the
Air
Force. They cover service connected injuries, but did not promise
medical
for those not retiring from the service And they do take care of those
with
service connected problems. My brother is an Agent Orange vet, and gets
his
care via the VA. Good care also.

I think vets deserve better. I'm sure you disagree.


I think it depends on what you did in the military. I bounced around
in the North Atlantic, kept the godless communists out of the
Chesapeake bay and I don't think the VA owes me anything.

My father had a European theater medal with 2 battle stars, CIB, a
couple other campaign medals, 2 purple hearts and he was a POW. He
deserved the care he got.

And yet, unless you were injured somewhere along the line, it matters
not what you faced.

What happens, like in the case of Agent Orange and a hundred other
chemicals vets were exposed to, symptoms don't show up for years and
aren't directly attributable to the exposure, the trauma, the ugliness
that is war.

Are those vets any less entitled?

They get taken care of. Agent Orange effects showed up later so they
covered those exposed.

After a long fight over recognizing the effects. It took decades from
what I recall.

Excellent coverage, eh?

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:28:43 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:55:35 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:36:21 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:19:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:sdfkf55phedo8f92i0ep84ukfgu575mc3q@4ax. com...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:27:41 -0600, wrote:

genuine drivel redacted by some dead poet

The study's authors warn that the health care legislation "would do
virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013" and would "leave at
least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,"
leaving many veterans still without care.

Why not simply adjust the means-testing favorably for veterans (ref.
"Spinal Tap")?

...in response to a specious argument, btw.

And I do not remember being promised lifetime medical when I joined
the
Air
Force. They cover service connected injuries, but did not promise
medical
for those not retiring from the service And they do take care of
those
with
service connected problems. My brother is an Agent Orange vet, and
gets
his
care via the VA. Good care also.

I think vets deserve better. I'm sure you disagree.


I think it depends on what you did in the military. I bounced around
in the North Atlantic, kept the godless communists out of the
Chesapeake bay and I don't think the VA owes me anything.

My father had a European theater medal with 2 battle stars, CIB, a
couple other campaign medals, 2 purple hearts and he was a POW. He
deserved the care he got.

And yet, unless you were injured somewhere along the line, it matters
not what you faced.

What happens, like in the case of Agent Orange and a hundred other
chemicals vets were exposed to, symptoms don't show up for years and
aren't directly attributable to the exposure, the trauma, the ugliness
that is war.

Are those vets any less entitled?

They get taken care of. Agent Orange effects showed up later so they
covered those exposed.

After a long fight over recognizing the effects. It took decades from
what I recall.

Excellent coverage, eh?


Yes, it took decades. Now we have Coburn blocking legislation (supported by
just about everyone) that would give vets better benefits. They certainly
"get taken care of," but not in the proper way.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:28:43 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:55:35 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:36:21 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:19:51 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:sdfkf55phedo8f92i0ep84ukfgu575mc3q@4ax. com...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:27:41 -0600, wrote:

genuine drivel redacted by some dead poet

The study's authors warn that the health care legislation "would do
virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013" and would "leave at
least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in,"
leaving many veterans still without care.

Why not simply adjust the means-testing favorably for veterans (ref.
"Spinal Tap")?

...in response to a specious argument, btw.

And I do not remember being promised lifetime medical when I joined
the
Air
Force. They cover service connected injuries, but did not promise
medical
for those not retiring from the service And they do take care of
those
with
service connected problems. My brother is an Agent Orange vet, and
gets
his
care via the VA. Good care also.

I think vets deserve better. I'm sure you disagree.


I think it depends on what you did in the military. I bounced around
in the North Atlantic, kept the godless communists out of the
Chesapeake bay and I don't think the VA owes me anything.

My father had a European theater medal with 2 battle stars, CIB, a
couple other campaign medals, 2 purple hearts and he was a POW. He
deserved the care he got.

And yet, unless you were injured somewhere along the line, it matters
not what you faced.

What happens, like in the case of Agent Orange and a hundred other
chemicals vets were exposed to, symptoms don't show up for years and
aren't directly attributable to the exposure, the trauma, the ugliness
that is war.

Are those vets any less entitled?

They get taken care of. Agent Orange effects showed up later so they
covered those exposed.

After a long fight over recognizing the effects. It took decades from
what I recall.

Excellent coverage, eh?

Yup, my brother gets excellent coverage. And his wife is covered also
because of his coverage. But she did spend a couple years in the Army.