In article ,
om says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.

BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve



Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?

Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.



I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...

On 12/27/09 11:43 AM, thunder wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:28:45 -0500, BAR wrote:


What does this have to do with Obama? Obama appointed Naplitano to be
the head of DHS. Obviously Obama didn't want a competent person at the
helm of the DHS or Obama is an idiot too in that he can't see
incompetence when it is staring him in the face.

Let's see, valedictorian of her college class, J.D. from University of
Virginia, US Attorney for the District of Arizona, Attorney General of
Arizona, Governor of Arizona ... yup, must be an idiot.


You do know that BAR has the c.v. to make a judgment:

Near high school dropout
joined marines
no college
works computer help desk
plays golf with herring

On 12/27/09 11:28 AM, BAR wrote:

I just finished watching David Gregory on Meet the Press interview Janet
Napalitano about the terrorist incident on the NWA flight from Amsterdam
to Detroit. I think that David Gregory tapes up his seams before each
show just to hold himself together and not call some of the people he
interviews the idiots they are. Nepalitano sounded more like Gibbs, a
press secretary than a cabinet secretary. I could tell he was just about
to burst at the aforementioned seams and call her an idiot and ask here
how she got her job.

What does this have to do with Obama? Obama appointed Naplitano to be
the head of DHS. Obviously Obama didn't want a competent person at the
helm of the DHS or Obama is an idiot too in that he can't see
incompetence when it is staring him in the face.



BTW, I saw the same interview, and was impressed by Napolitano's
calmness and caution in jumping to conclusions. Were we still mired in
the previous administration, we'd be seeing Cheney on TV, along with the
other superchickenhawks of the Bush years, jumping up and down,
screaming, and urging an immediate attack on some country we haven't yet
invaded.

It's nice to have a competent, intelligent president in the White House, eh?

BTW, I believe you misspelled Napolitano's name three times in your
post. Your purpose might have been better served had you enlisted in
college instead of the marines, eh?

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600, thunder
wrote:

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health insurance
to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning, competitively and
socially. However, health care has the potential of reviving this entire
economy. Health care jobs are well paying and *local*. IMO, they could
provide a replacement for the manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars. In the public debate, we've been looking at health care as a
drain on the economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's
basic economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world
values life, at least in theory.

You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.


That is certainly not the way the current bills look. They are simply
handouts to the same people the Democrats have been demonizing. They
are putting new demands on insurance companies but they are doing
nothing to reduce costs. I bet the 2010-2011 "open season" will bring
us scary premiums.
That is why I say the democrats in congress will be vulnerable. The
tax increases and premium hikes will be on us but the benefits will
still be a couple years away.

Just like when they did the credit card users protection bill and then
gave the companies 18 months to jack up rates before it takes place when
they easily could have made it effective right then and there... It's a
wink and a nudge...

On 12/27/09 12:06 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600,
wrote:

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health insurance
to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning, competitively and
socially. However, health care has the potential of reviving this entire
economy. Health care jobs are well paying and *local*. IMO, they could
provide a replacement for the manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars. In the public debate, we've been looking at health care as a
drain on the economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's
basic economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world
values life, at least in theory.

You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.


That is certainly not the way the current bills look. They are simply
handouts to the same people the Democrats have been demonizing. They
are putting new demands on insurance companies but they are doing
nothing to reduce costs. I bet the 2010-2011 "open season" will bring
us scary premiums.
That is why I say the democrats in congress will be vulnerable. The
tax increases and premium hikes will be on us but the benefits will
still be a couple years away.

Just like when they did the credit card users protection bill and then
gave the companies 18 months to jack up rates before it takes place when
they easily could have made it effective right then and there... It's a
wink and a nudge...


A wink and a nudge? Isn't that how you got out of paying your local
hospital the $25,000 bill you ran up because you don't believe in health
insurance?

On Dec 27, 9:15*am, Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:02*am, I am Tosk
wrote:



In article d02777de-b898-427e-a0a1-
, says....

On Dec 25, 7:14*pm, John H wrote:
...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it s not. "

Another - "Because Dartmouth s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

John, couldn't you, at least during the holidays stop your stupid and
inane everything Obama is bad bull****?

Pfffftttt, are you gonna' stop the "everything is Rush and Hannity"
bull****?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know what, Scotty? Go right to **** ahead. Do just like John, make
yourself look like an unhinged, narrow minded fool.

Oh man! right when things are getting good, I'm running out of
popcorn!

Y'all mind holding off till I can make some mac n cheese?

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:31:46 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600, thunder
wrote:

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health
insurance to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning,
competitively and socially. However, health care has the potential
of reviving this entire economy. Health care jobs are well paying
and *local*. IMO, they could provide a replacement for the
manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our medical technology sector,
already top of the world, could provide export dollars. In the
public debate, we've been looking at health care as a drain on the
economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's basic
economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world values
life, at least in theory.

You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being
exposed, it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez
style take over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

There has not been a free market for years. It has been a front to look
like a free market with cooperation amoung insurance carriers to set
prices and have had no control of who they can deny service to even if
they pay their premiums. A public option would prevent this and keep
them honest.

Been there, had this happen.

Remove government regulation of the medical insurance industry. The free
market will return.

Why should health insurance be treated any differently than your life,
home, auto and property insurance? Your previous history of claims and
behavior determines your ability to obtain insurance and the rates you
pay.

Besides you do not have a right to health insurance or health care.

I have medicare now.

I had health insurance that I paid for through my employer in the past. A
claim was denied that should have been covered. My employer tossed up
their hands as to say tough **** but I was locked in to paying premiums
until the first of the year. I quit the employment. They lost in the long
run, trust me.

The free market is a farce in the insurance market. They all work in
concert.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 22:59:34 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:32:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:k07dj55knu2m5m920vva9hsjjagfg59qij@4ax. com...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US.
The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe
the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.

In the US 43% of the low end pay no income tax and the high end up
paying around 15%. I don't see that changing anytime soon since the
congress is well bribed by the rich.

Nope... http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Nope what? If you are really rich you manage to keep most of your
income off of line 37 of your 1040 so that chart is bogus.
I am just citing Warren Buffett and he is probably more honest on his
taxes than your dentist, who is also in that top 1% column.

The numbers you quoted don't match, and if it's off the 1040, then it's
speculation. Where did Buffett say this?




The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

"Afford" is a relative term. They don't want to pay anything unless
they are sick and they think a couple hundred a month is too much for
something they don't plan on using.

I don't believe that most people who are uninsured prefer to stay that
way.
Can you cite the source for this?

Do you know a 20 something person who thinks health insurance is more
important than a nice car?

If you explain it to someone that age in a careful and complete way, then
yes she'll get it.


Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.

Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's a
privilege that needs to be earned.


What are you talking about, driving or health care. The Constitution
is silent on both of them.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of
government.




The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just
checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

You can't underestimate the contribution Gingrich made for Clinton's
surplus. Ways and Means is a House function and that is where the
money comes from. They also control spending.

Gingrich did very little that he wasn't forced to do. Clinton called his
bluff as I recall.

Gingrich ran on a policy of fiscal responsibility and that was a big
part of the "contract"
They may have bickered on TV but Clinton and Gingrich were actually a
very effective team. Neither would have succeeded without the other.

BS. Read up... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America


Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.

Perot got the public ready to accept the fiscal responsibility
represented by the largest tax increase in history. That is how
Clinton managed a surplus. He also pointed out the problem we have
now, the amount of short term debt the government is carrying. If your
debt is mostly in short term paper you have no idea what the interest
rate will be when you have to roll it over ... or even if anyone will
buy it. If China suddenly decided to just go somewhere else with their
money and not renew their US paper we couldn't pay them what was due.
That is a lot more of a problem for us than global warming, terrorism
and the health care crisis combined. China calling in their cash would
be about as bad as that planet killing comet we are overdue for.

Oh come on... Perot never got much public support, and he quit and then
changed his mind.

It wasn't that Perot was a serious candidate, it was the questions he
made everyone else answer.

No one answered anything. He was mostly ignored.

You notice that after that, the rules were changed to ensure another
outsider could never get a seat at the table.
If you are not anointed by the Remocrat/Depublican oligarchy, you
can't enter the debates

Ah, so it's back to conspiracy theories? Or, the more likely answer is that
there hasn't been any viable third-party candidates.

Ok, so what's your solution?

Send about 5 million people to Navy Corpsman school and set them up in
storefront clinics doing triage for doctors, actually taking care of
about 20% of the patients.
You don't need 8 years of college to patch up wounds, give shots and
hand out a bottle of pills.

That's going to solve our economic woes? Hardly. And, yes our economy and
the heathcare crisis are interlinked.

It would be training for a job that can't be exported and it would
bend the health care cost curve. What else do you want?

The high school dropout who was making $60,000 on the line putting the
left front wheel on a Chevy is going to be in trouble, no matter what
we do.
Getting him a GED still won't get him UAW money.
That is the 60 year old "union bubble" that globalism popped.


Stop blaming the union for management's ill deeds. One immediate problem
with it is that it'll never happen. You're going to force people into the
school? Sure.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On 12/27/09 12:59 PM, RLM wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:31:46 -0500, BAR wrote:

In ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600,
wrote:

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health
insurance to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning,
competitively and socially. However, health care has the potential
of reviving this entire economy. Health care jobs are well paying
and *local*. IMO, they could provide a replacement for the
manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our medical technology sector,
already top of the world, could provide export dollars. In the
public debate, we've been looking at health care as a drain on the
economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's basic
economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world values
life, at least in theory.

You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being
exposed, it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez
style take over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

There has not been a free market for years. It has been a front to look
like a free market with cooperation amoung insurance carriers to set
prices and have had no control of who they can deny service to even if
they pay their premiums. A public option would prevent this and keep
them honest.

Been there, had this happen.

Remove government regulation of the medical insurance industry. The free
market will return.

Why should health insurance be treated any differently than your life,
home, auto and property insurance? Your previous history of claims and
behavior determines your ability to obtain insurance and the rates you
pay.

Besides you do not have a right to health insurance or health care.

I have medicare now.

I had health insurance that I paid for through my employer in the past. A
claim was denied that should have been covered. My employer tossed up
their hands as to say tough **** but I was locked in to paying premiums
until the first of the year. I quit the employment. They lost in the long
run, trust me.

The free market is a farce in the insurance market. They all work in
concert.


I love the simple-minded elegance of "get the government out and
everything will be ok." Yeah, right. Bend over. Farther.

On 12/27/09 12:55 PM, Tim wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:15 am, wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:02 am, I am
wrote:



In articled02777de-b898-427e-a0a1-
, says...

On Dec 25, 7:14 pm, John wrote:
...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it s not. "

Another - "Because Dartmouth s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

John, couldn't you, at least during the holidays stop your stupid and
inane everything Obama is bad bull****?

Pfffftttt, are you gonna' stop the "everything is Rush and Hannity"
bull****?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know what, Scotty? Go right to **** ahead. Do just like John, make
yourself look like an unhinged, narrow minded fool.

Oh man! right when things are getting good, I'm running out of
popcorn!

Y'all mind holding off till I can make some mac n cheese?



It's the best comic act in rec.boats...loogy and justhate attacking each
other and eventually everyone else. Add in a Krueger and you have dumb,
dumber, and dumbest.