"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/2010 8:35 AM, mmc wrote:
wrote in message
...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/..._care_overhaul

Since the DC crooks turned it into another big friggin payoff for the
insurance companies, good riddance. If it stands there will be a big
need
for more prisons to house those that can't afford or just wont play this
stupid game.
The idea is good, but they need to fix the broken end- the providers,
not
the American tax payers who our corrupt government made victim of this
system.

Bingo. That is what they should do, fix the issues as they are,
continious improvement if you will. But no government profit in it.
Democrats started this whole ruse as so government would get the revenue
and be able to skim it while rationaing health care to lower their costs.

But Obama likes to talk a lot and spend a lot on nothing. Wonder when
the senate and congress are going to get sick of the talk and want some
results.


You're not only a liar, but a dumb liar. Pathetic.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Just for clarification, when I said "DC crooks" I meant both parties.
The Repubs love the mega business give aways and when Hillary was pushing
healthcare during Bill's administration, her plan consisted of mandatory
health insurance for all, which was also just a big bonanza for the
insurance scum. Same crap as today.
I've worked hard to be able to afford overpriced health insurance and as I
figure it, 40-45% of my earnings go to one tax or another. Our corrupt
politicians need to focus on the cause or root of this problem and not the
end result. The end result shows you there is a problem, from there you back
track and find the cause. In medical vernacular, DC is "treating symptons".
Like trying to treat diarrhea by buying more toilet paper.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:31:03 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Their lobbyist, the insurance companies and hospital conglomerates
sure seemed to control this process. They have no interest in having
low tech clinics competing with their million dollar operations for
entry level medicine. If someone cuts their hand and needs some wound
care you don't really need a trauma center. You don't really even need
a doctor most of the time.
A lot of things could be handled by pharmacists without ever seeing a
doctor.


The AMA supported the House bill. Look it up. The ins. companies would
oppose anything that would cut into their profits. Most docs supported the
public option.

That is because the lobbyists wrote the bill, both of them


Both of them??? The AMA doesn't even represent all docs. I believe it's
something like 30%.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/2010 8:35 AM, mmc wrote:
wrote in message
...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/..._care_overhaul

Since the DC crooks turned it into another big friggin payoff for the
insurance companies, good riddance. If it stands there will be a big
need
for more prisons to house those that can't afford or just wont play
this
stupid game.
The idea is good, but they need to fix the broken end- the providers,
not
the American tax payers who our corrupt government made victim of this
system.

Bingo. That is what they should do, fix the issues as they are,
continious improvement if you will. But no government profit in it.
Democrats started this whole ruse as so government would get the
revenue and be able to skim it while rationaing health care to lower
their costs.

But Obama likes to talk a lot and spend a lot on nothing. Wonder when
the senate and congress are going to get sick of the talk and want some
results.


You're not only a liar, but a dumb liar. Pathetic.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Just for clarification, when I said "DC crooks" I meant both parties.
The Repubs love the mega business give aways and when Hillary was pushing
healthcare during Bill's administration, her plan consisted of mandatory
health insurance for all, which was also just a big bonanza for the
insurance scum. Same crap as today.
I've worked hard to be able to afford overpriced health insurance and as
I figure it, 40-45% of my earnings go to one tax or another. Our corrupt
politicians need to focus on the cause or root of this problem and not
the end result. The end result shows you there is a problem, from there
you back track and find the cause. In medical vernacular, DC is "treating
symptons".
Like trying to treat diarrhea by buying more toilet paper.



I have no doubt that's what you meant. My comment was directed at Canuck's
ranting. I apologize if it seemed otherwise.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Understood, I've had the guy KF'd for a while for the same reason. If he
wants to bitch about our politics he should send a tax check down.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:47:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

oppose anything that would cut into their profits. Most docs supported
the
public option.

That is because the lobbyists wrote the bill, both of them


Both of them??? The AMA doesn't even represent all docs. I believe it's
something like 30%.

That doesn't keep them from lobbying congress with a loud voice,
acting like they represent doctors.
BTW the fact that the AMA doesn't represent 70% of real doctors
weakens your argument that they support the bill.



You claimed that they were somehow instrumental in blocking the legislation.
That was false. They support it. That's a fact. It's also a fact that
something like 70% of docs (not just AMA docs) support it. So, my argument
wasn't weakened one iota.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:02:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:47:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

oppose anything that would cut into their profits. Most docs supported
the
public option.

That is because the lobbyists wrote the bill, both of them


Both of them??? The AMA doesn't even represent all docs. I believe it's
something like 30%.

That doesn't keep them from lobbying congress with a loud voice,
acting like they represent doctors.
BTW the fact that the AMA doesn't represent 70% of real doctors
weakens your argument that they support the bill.



You claimed that they were somehow instrumental in blocking the
legislation.
That was false. They support it. That's a fact. It's also a fact that
something like 70% of docs (not just AMA docs) support it. So, my argument
wasn't weakened one iota.

Of course they like it as long as it is just a conduit into the public
treasury. I didn't say the medical establishment opposed the bill, I
said they made sure the bill would not cut costs.


?? The medical establishment was for the public option, for reducing costs
to the patients.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:27:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Of course they like it as long as it is just a conduit into the public
treasury. I didn't say the medical establishment opposed the bill, I
said they made sure the bill would not cut costs.


?? The medical establishment was for the public option, for reducing costs
to the patients.

Of course they like it. It would be a conduit into the public
treasury.


?? It would create viable competition. I have no idea where you're getting
the notion that this would involve the treasury.

--
Nom=de=Plume