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.
--

John H

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

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.

You're right, John. The entire argument of the article is a strawman.
The criteria of eligibility can be changed to broaden the scope of
veteran participation (not that it should be necessarily). The need
for health care reform based on veteran ineligibility is ancillary.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

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.

--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

On 11/11/09 1:53 PM, I am Tosk wrote:

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



You certainly are obsessed about me, s.f.b. Seems like at least every
other post from you mentions me in some way.

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

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...

Not really. That was just Loogie waving the white flag. Harry don't want
him. And it's a struggle for us to tolerate him.

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...
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.

I am tired of hear that people have died because they are not recieving
health care. In every city in this country, a person in need of health
care can recieve health equal to anyone else. If they don't receive the
attention they needed they have not sought out the treatment.

Since this country was founded, Indigents automatically became the ward of
the government and were provided for. Over the years the concept of how
to provide this care has changed, but today ANYONE can go to a hospital
and recieve the best care available whether they pay for it or not. I
have never seen a patients hospital chart that said "indigent provide
reduced care".



Nope. You don't know much about the situation. They show up in ERs with
really serious conditions that didn't have to be serious if they had
regular, early care. They die. That's the problem.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

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...

Not really. That was just Loogie waving the white flag. Harry don't want
him. And it's a struggle for us to tolerate him.

Good bye.....

--
WAFA the newsgroup liar free!

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 11/11/09 1:53 PM, I am Tosk wrote:

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



You certainly are obsessed about me, s.f.b. Seems like at least every
other post from you mentions me in some way.

--

If I was The Freak, I'd move over to that other site of his and stay there.
Six months should teach us a lesson.

"NowNow" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

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...

Not really. That was just Loogie waving the white flag. Harry don't want
him. And it's a struggle for us to tolerate him.

Good bye.....

--

Nice friends you have there Kevin.
Right from the Lt Colonel down to the dumbest swabbie in Florida.

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.
--

John H