On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:26:14 -0500, wrote:

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.

Well, I look at it this way.

The stripers are up around Ramp 3 on Lake Murray and the large mouth
are holding at the entrances to the creek beds up along the Saluda -
it's a nice day like a early April New England Spring when the
fishing gets good.

To hell with health care - the fish are calling.

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

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.

You keep saying "this is where/what we need to blah blah blah, but you
have no ****ing idea how your pipe dreams could be accomplished or who
could fullfill them. You are just another silly left wing whacko.



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.


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.

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

I actually saw Perot once at EDS in Rockville Md, and he fired me for
having hair on my face. Too bad I didn't work for him.


The problem is, guys who used to be making $60,000 and up, building
cars and houses are now back working... but for half that at some
menial job.

Ok, so what's your solution?

If he had a solution he would be President. Anything beats the " throw
it at the wall and see if it sticks action guy we presently have in
charge. Sorry President Barry. I love the crabs you sent me, but my
conscience dictates that I tell the truth. (gag)

--

It's flattering to see so many of you turds spoofing me.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:24:57 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:

On the other hand, the lake is calling and I'm going fishing. :)

Save the debate for another day. :)

Never fished for striped bass in fresh water. Good luck, and enjoy.

Rob wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
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****?


He can't help it. He and Rob are truly losers. Rob is obnoxious, so I've
decided to just ignore his posts.. call it a New Year resolution.


Rob had nothing to do with this post. Kill file and run is so typical
of those who can't debate.

Peace
I think Mr. Plume has a woodie for you.

On 26/12/2009 6:30 PM, Harry wrote:
On 12/26/09 7:54 PM, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:


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.

For different reasons, like you, I'm not overly happy with the proposed
health care bill, but we've been trying, without success, to get health
care legislation for 60 years. Regardless, of this bill's quality, that
sacred cow has been slaughtered. Now, fine tuning, in the future, will
be considerably easier to accomplish.

I view what will emerge in January as a start, as you do. I also believe
the Obama admin learned a few lessons, the most important being that it
doesn't matter whether you listen to the republicans. Best policy, just
ignore the Republicans whenever possible, and end up with better
legislation.

You would be more correct to say Obama ignores the general popular opinion.

I know lib-dims like to forget the majority were flat out against
bailouts. What did Obama do, bailout with debt dollars on the taxpayer.
79% said not to GM/Chrysler bailouts and bailout he did.

Obama will keep talking a lot, talk some more and in 2010 people will
decide enough talk jive turkey. But like a prdictable lib-dim Obama
will have excuses. Mind you, Obama is good at shooting his mouth off.

On 26/12/2009 6:26 PM, wrote:
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.

Looking at a few insurance companies financials, do hey look toxic. I
wouldn't doubt the premiums need to go up.

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.

Hyperinflation: Root cause, currency mismanagement by goverment.
Namely congress in creating too much money and government debt willy
nilly. Currency dilution and devaluation are major precursers to
hyperinflation.

Currency is like stock, create twice as much with failing fundimentals
and the stock devlaues.

Yes, congress should be worried. Very few tried to stop it and many
face 2010. Voters should send them packing.

On 12/27/09 9:39 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 26/12/2009 6:26 PM, wrote:
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.

Looking at a few insurance companies financials, do hey look toxic. I
wouldn't doubt the premiums need to go up.

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.

Hyperinflation: Root cause, currency mismanagement by goverment. Namely
congress in creating too much money and government debt willy nilly.
Currency dilution and devaluation are major precursers to hyperinflation.

Currency is like stock, create twice as much with failing fundimentals
and the stock devlaues.

Yes, congress should be worried. Very few tried to stop it and many face
2010. Voters should send them packing.



And bring back the Great Bush Recession? :)

In article bb50ece8-a81f-43d7-ae80-94e95dcd1172
@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 26, 8:34*am, John H wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:21:51 -0500, Jim wrote:
Harry wrote:
On 12/26/09 12:20 AM, Steve B wrote:
*wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:23:51 -0800, "Steve B"
*wrote:

"John *wrote in message
om...
...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

If they were serious about saving money, wouldn't they just all get
on a
conference call instead of flying their jets to Denmark to schmooze
around?

Barry has some expensive tastes, and so does Michelle.

Steve

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.

Nothing except the burgeoning public debt.

Did someone justify Obama's spending using Bush as a rationale?

How silly.
--

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ever hear of the word "precedent"? It's used legally binding all of
the time.

Ever hear the word "change"...???

On 12/27/09 9:43 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In articlebb50ece8-a81f-43d7-ae80-94e95dcd1172
@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 26, 8:34 am, John wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:21:51 -0500, wrote:
Harry wrote:
On 12/26/09 12:20 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:23:51 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

"John wrote in message
...
...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

If they were serious about saving money, wouldn't they just all get
on a
conference call instead of flying their jets to Denmark to schmooze
around?

Barry has some expensive tastes, and so does Michelle.

Steve

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.

Nothing except the burgeoning public debt.

Did someone justify Obama's spending using Bush as a rationale?

How silly.
--

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ever hear of the word "precedent"? It's used legally binding all of
the time.

Ever hear the word "change"...???

Ever think that your stiffing your local hospital out of $25,000 is the
sort of activity that raises everyone's health care costs?

On 12/27/09 8:10 AM, Jim wrote:
Rob wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
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****?

He can't help it. He and Rob are truly losers. Rob is obnoxious, so I've
decided to just ignore his posts.. call it a New Year resolution.

Rob had nothing to do with this post. Kill file and run is so typical
of those who can't debate.

Peace
I think Mr. Plume has a woodie for you.


I think Mrs. Flajim hasn't seen a woodie in decades, at least not from
Mr. Flajim.