On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:44:49 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I think the GOP is well placed to take the Senate back in 2010 and
make a dent in the house majority.


How so? Which states/seats do you think are borderline? The Dems would have
to lose quite a few, and the Senate is typically pretty stable.

I just think there will be some buyer's remorse, as there usually is
the first mid term after a presidential election.


There's no "free health care" in the current or expected bill, so that's
just your musing or right-wing fear-induced.

This is what most fans think it is supposed to be and the models they
have been spinning (Canada, Japan, Scandinavia) reinforce that.
Actually the expansion of Medicaid from 133% to 150% of the poverty
level (house and senate versions) will make it free for a lot of
people.
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

Seems that most of Obama's loss in the polls is because there's way
too much "same old." He hasn't led the Congress to a health care
"public option" which polling consistently says is favored.
Losing his base and independents that wanted "change."
Surrounded himself with Wall Street cronies.
Hard to see how this health care bill even gets passed as it is.
Forcing Americans to fork over their wages to benefit health insurance
and health care share-holders and execs.
Doesn't make sense. Socialism for the special interests.
Same old.
BTW, I saw a 9% premium increase in my yearly Aetna enrollment.
But when it was done - as the health care debate was at it hottest -
it ended up as a 5% reduction!
Go figure.
Nobody knows how this thing will pan out.

--Vic

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:15:18 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:


Seems that most of Obama's loss in the polls is because there's way too
much "same old."

Maybe, or, "It's the economy, stupid." When the economy is south, the
President generally takes the heat.

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.

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.

In article ,
says...

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.

Why have we been trying to get health care legislation for 60 years?

Other than to control the population what does the health care
legislation do?

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.

On Dec 26, 6:42*pm, 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.


LOL! That reminds me of the saying that "Life is a crap sandwich,
but the more bread you got, the less crap you gotta eat!"

Seems there's a lot of truth to that.

On 26/12/2009 6:00 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

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.

Why have we been trying to get health care legislation for 60 years?

Other than to control the population what does the health care
legislation do?

Gets the government into skiming the health care revenue for general
government corruption.

But like you note, it is easier to control your people if you have them
taxed poor and can't afford alternatives. And with one service
provider, forget alternatives.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I think the GOP is well placed to take the Senate back in 2010 and
make a dent in the house majority.


How so? Which states/seats do you think are borderline? The Dems would
have
to lose quite a few, and the Senate is typically pretty stable.

I just think there will be some buyer's remorse, as there usually is
the first mid term after a presidential election.

That's true, but these are unusual times. We'll see I suppose.



There's no "free health care" in the current or expected bill, so that's
just your musing or right-wing fear-induced.

This is what most fans think it is supposed to be and the models they
have been spinning (Canada, Japan, Scandinavia) reinforce that.
Actually the expansion of Medicaid from 133% to 150% of the poverty
level (house and senate versions) will make it free for a lot of
people.

Fans? No one I've heard of is spinning those systems. If you're talking
France (rated #1) or Germany or perhaps the UK, even then, no one is
spinning those, and they are much closer to ours, including what the bill
appears to do.

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.


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.


There's no way in my view that they can "soften" the wacko view. Wacko is
wacko. Most people don't listen to their lies, although a big number do,
unfortunately. Not sure what cliff you're referring to..

Unfortunately the Arbitron of talk radio and the Neilsons of news TV
dispute that "most people" claim
, at least for people who watch news and listen to talk.The cliff is
the GOP believing 20% is enough.

20% doesn't win elections. They're being shunted to the side of the
mainstream, as they should be for their racism and fear-based propaganda.


Jobs will be an issue. If they continue to turn around, then the Dems
don't
have much to worry about.

I am just not sure what these people are going to do. We have exported
most manufacturing and we have several years worth of built and unsold
houses, condos and commercial buildings.

Yes, but the jobs situation is starting to turn around. If that continues...

Totally agree with the huckster comment. I don't see anyone out there who
truly represents a thinking Republican party voter.

The GOP lost me around 1989-90 but the Democrats never appealed that
much to me either.

I self-identify as a Democrat, but that's mainly because there's no other
rational alternative.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 26/12/2009 6:28 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:54:00 -0600,
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.


If this dies in conference because the house and senate can't agree,
the cow will just crawl off bleeding.

Not really. The government is desperate to increase revenue. And what
a better way than for get all those health care dollars them dumb down
the system for "economics" and not disclose the skimming?

All this nanny state talk and debt-corruption spending by
Ombama-be-my-mama types needs to be funded. Sure seems like an active
unwllingness by congress and the senate to stop it.

It will come down to how people vote in 2010....many a congress/senate
are trying to BS their way out of their corrupt behavior and
misrepresentation.