"CalifBill" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:44:01 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 07/03/2010 7:17 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:48:33 -0700,
wrote:

got the same problem here.

. But
lets say you lived here all your life and have one. Then the tummy
hurts, call them up and they can see you in 4 weeks. So you wait 10
hours in emergency to find out you have appencitis.

and if you lose your job in the US? you NEVER get to see a doctor.

more proof that his solution is just to kill the middle class

I doubt you are middle class, just someone who doesn't like their new
station in life as a poor working class. If you work? You work?

yep. thinks that all working people are lazy...cant believe we
actually work


Since Obama and the corrupt Congress has spent much more than Bush even
thought of spending, you are never going to have money. And most of the
rest of us are going to be awfully short. His new budget proposes $1.6
Trillion more in debt. At the rate he and Congress are going by the end
of next year, the cost to service the debt at present very low interest
rates the cost will be $800 Billion bucks a year. And interest rates will
definitely be higher. What are you going to do then? There will be no
money for bailouts, no money for healthcare. The government if it is the
banker for healthcare, will just keep the money and meter out a minimum of
heathcare. What has the stimulus accomplished? Other than keeping
overpaid government workers on the payrole.

"Interest rates will definitely be higher." You must be an oracle. Duhh...
they're currently at historic lows, so that's not much of a leap in logic.

Obama spent FAR less than Bush. Interesting how you right nuts forget about
the $10T in tax cuts for the rich and the Iraqi war's $6T.

"No money for healthcare." So, a public option or even better a single-payer
system would have 100s of billions. Nope, can't do that, right?

I'm sorry you're struggling. I'm sure the RNC would like your meager
donation, since you're a reactionary and they have a fear-based strategy.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 07/03/2010 11:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:44:01 -0700,
wrote:

On 07/03/2010 7:17 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:48:33 -0700,
wrote:

got the same problem here.

. But
lets say you lived here all your life and have one. Then the tummy
hurts, call them up and they can see you in 4 weeks. So you wait 10
hours in emergency to find out you have appencitis.

and if you lose your job in the US? you NEVER get to see a doctor.

more proof that his solution is just to kill the middle class

I doubt you are middle class, just someone who doesn't like their new
station in life as a poor working class. If you work? You work?

yep. thinks that all working people are lazy...cant believe we
actually work


Since Obama and the corrupt Congress has spent much more than Bush even
thought of spending, you are never going to have money. And most of the
rest of us are going to be awfully short. His new budget proposes $1.6
Trillion more in debt. At the rate he and Congress are going by the end
of next year, the cost to service the debt at present very low interest
rates the cost will be $800 Billion bucks a year. And interest rates will
definitely be higher. What are you going to do then? There will be no
money for bailouts, no money for healthcare. The government if it is the
banker for healthcare, will just keep the money and meter out a minimum of
heathcare. What has the stimulus accomplished? Other than keeping
overpaid government workers on the payrole.

"Interest rates will definitely be higher." You must be an oracle. Duhh...
they're currently at historic lows, so that's not much of a leap in logic.

They can't go lower than zero.

Obama spent FAR less than Bush. Interesting how you right nuts forget about
the $10T in tax cuts for the rich and the Iraqi war's $6T.

Not as rate/time. For rate over time, Obama is debt-spending more than
4 times faster. By the end of 2010, 2 years, Obama will have debt spent
about the same as Bush did in 8 years.

"No money for healthcare." So, a public option or even better a single-payer
system would have 100s of billions. Nope, can't do that, right?

Eventually, when you can't pay for something you lose it. Just takes time.

I'm sorry you're struggling. I'm sure the RNC would like your meager
donation, since you're a reactionary and they have a fear-based strategy.

Doesn't mater the reason, now is not a good time to be you.

--
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 07/03/2010 11:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:44:01 -0700,
wrote:

On 07/03/2010 7:17 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:48:33 -0700,
wrote:

got the same problem here.

. But
lets say you lived here all your life and have one. Then the tummy
hurts, call them up and they can see you in 4 weeks. So you wait
10
hours in emergency to find out you have appencitis.

and if you lose your job in the US? you NEVER get to see a doctor.

more proof that his solution is just to kill the middle class

I doubt you are middle class, just someone who doesn't like their new
station in life as a poor working class. If you work? You work?

yep. thinks that all working people are lazy...cant believe we
actually work


Since Obama and the corrupt Congress has spent much more than Bush even
thought of spending, you are never going to have money. And most of the
rest of us are going to be awfully short. His new budget proposes $1.6
Trillion more in debt. At the rate he and Congress are going by the end
of next year, the cost to service the debt at present very low interest
rates the cost will be $800 Billion bucks a year. And interest rates
will
definitely be higher. What are you going to do then? There will be no
money for bailouts, no money for healthcare. The government if it is
the
banker for healthcare, will just keep the money and meter out a minimum
of
heathcare. What has the stimulus accomplished? Other than keeping
overpaid government workers on the payrole.

"Interest rates will definitely be higher." You must be an oracle.
Duhh...
they're currently at historic lows, so that's not much of a leap in
logic.

They can't go lower than zero.

And your point (if you have one)? Interest rates are not at zero, at least
not for consumers. They will go up. They're at historic lows. And, I forgot,
you have no point.


Obama spent FAR less than Bush. Interesting how you right nuts forget
about
the $10T in tax cuts for the rich and the Iraqi war's $6T.

Not as rate/time. For rate over time, Obama is debt-spending more than 4
times faster. By the end of 2010, 2 years, Obama will have debt spent
about the same as Bush did in 8 years.

What??? Bush bankrupted the economy and you're blaming Obama????


"No money for healthcare." So, a public option or even better a
single-payer
system would have 100s of billions. Nope, can't do that, right?

Eventually, when you can't pay for something you lose it. Just takes
time.

The Oracle speaketh again!


I'm sorry you're struggling. I'm sure the RNC would like your meager
donation, since you're a reactionary and they have a fear-based strategy.

Doesn't mater the reason, now is not a good time to be you.

Really? I'm doing just fine. Obviously you aren't. I'm sorry for you.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On 3/8/2010 1:41 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



I'm sorry you're struggling. I'm sure the RNC would like your meager
donation, since you're a reactionary and they have a fear-based strategy.

Doesn't mater the reason, now is not a good time to be you.

Really? I'm doing just fine. Obviously you aren't. I'm sorry for you.

Q: What’s the difference between a shame and a pity?
A: If a busload of lawyers goes over a cliff, and there are no
survivors, that’s known as a pity. If there were any empty seats, that’s
a shame.

On 3/9/10 6:48 AM, HK wrote:
On 3/8/2010 1:41 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



I'm sorry you're struggling. I'm sure the RNC would like your meager
donation, since you're a reactionary and they have a fear-based
strategy.

Doesn't mater the reason, now is not a good time to be you.

Really? I'm doing just fine. Obviously you aren't. I'm sorry for you.

Q: What’s the difference between a shame and a pity?
A: If a busload of lawyers goes over a cliff, and there are no
survivors, that’s known as a pity. If there were any empty seats, that’s
a shame.


Spoofer active again. Too bad.

On 3/8/10 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:41:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What??? Bush bankrupted the economy and you're blaming Obama????

The thing that really is going to bankrupt the country is the
entitlements.
That was an 80 year process where nobody was willing to say no and
nobody was willing to actually pay for it. They just passed the cost
on to the next generation. Minor stuff like the 4 or 5 wars were
trivial since they have an end. There is no end to the entitlements
and they will gobble up an ever increasing part of the GDP until we
fix the problem or until the country actually does bankrupt itself.
This medical insurance boondoggle is just more grease for the slippery
slope. To start with, does anyone really think congress will actually
make the Medicare cuts part of the "savings" are based on?
Do you think the insurance companies won't restructure the "Cadillac
plans" enough by 2018 (the current "cut in" data) that they avoid that
tax?
Do you think they will actually raise any of the taxes necessary to
fund this?

If so, you have been living in a cave for the last 40 years.

All the spending is immediate and the funding is years down the road.


There is also no restraint on what insurance companies will charge,
only the mandate that they have to cover more people. They would do
that tomorrow ... if we were willing to pay for it. This bill makes
sure we will. You will see this October when the new policies come
out. The election in November. Any questions about how that will come
out?


What is needed is a complete trashing and restructuring of our health
care payment methodology.

The Swiss have a good model. Basic and decent health care insurance is
mandatory. You have to buy it. If you don't have the ability to pay for
it, you get whatever subsidy is needed to cover its cost. The insurance
is provided by private sector insurance companies. The basic plan is the
same and at the same cost no matter which insurance company you select.
The insurers compete by offering a wide variety of supplemental plans at
market price. There are plenty of insurers competing for the Swiss
health care insurance dollar.

That's just one way to do it. There are others.

What is in the works here now is far from ideal, but it will get
coverage to tens of millions more Americans than have it now. The GOP
counter plan is nothing more than silly.

I don't see where it is in the interest of this country to pour billions
upon billions of dollars of profit into the coffers of health insurance
companies.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:41:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What??? Bush bankrupted the economy and you're blaming Obama????

The thing that really is going to bankrupt the country is the
entitlements.
That was an 80 year process where nobody was willing to say no and
nobody was willing to actually pay for it. They just passed the cost
on to the next generation. Minor stuff like the 4 or 5 wars were
trivial since they have an end. There is no end to the entitlements
and they will gobble up an ever increasing part of the GDP until we
fix the problem or until the country actually does bankrupt itself.
This medical insurance boondoggle is just more grease for the slippery
slope. To start with, does anyone really think congress will actually
make the Medicare cuts part of the "savings" are based on?

I think you're right in the long run... entitlements need to be dealt with
appropriately. That doesn't mean ending them, ala GWB moving them to the
stock market.

The "cuts" are mostly for waste and fraud, and I think some of them, perhaps
even a significant portion of them will be acted upon. One can take the
extremely pessimistic view that they won't be of course.

Do you think the insurance companies won't restructure the "Cadillac
plans" enough by 2018 (the current "cut in" data) that they avoid that
tax?

I'm not a big fan of the current bill in it's entirety, but portions of it
are good and it can be fixed, much like other programs are fixed after the
initial legislation passes.

Do you think they will actually raise any of the taxes necessary to
fund this?

On the rich, I hope so. They can afford it.

If so, you have been living in a cave for the last 40 years.

No... mostly nice houses.

All the spending is immediate and the funding is years down the road.

Well, that's an exaggeration. Much of the funding of many programs is
collected as taxes yearly. It's "down the road," but not necessarily years
down the road.


There is also no restraint on what insurance companies will charge,
only the mandate that they have to cover more people. They would do
that tomorrow ... if we were willing to pay for it. This bill makes
sure we will. You will see this October when the new policies come
out. The election in November. Any questions about how that will come
out?


Yes, we need to regulate them. This is one item that needs to get fixed via
legislation. However, if a public option was included, we wouldn't need as
much regulation. It's wildly popular with the public, but for some reason
the Dems in the Senate are afraid of doing what's popular (and right).

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:35:43 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 07/03/2010 11:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...


"Interest rates will definitely be higher." You must be an oracle. Duhh...
they're currently at historic lows, so that's not much of a leap in logic.

They can't go lower than zero.

Obama spent FAR less than Bush. Interesting how you right nuts forget about
the $10T in tax cuts for the rich and the Iraqi war's $6T.

Not as rate/time. For rate over time, Obama is debt-spending more than
4 times faster. By the end of 2010, 2 years, Obama will have debt spent
about the same as Bush did in 8 years.

to keep the US economy afloat. bush poured a TRILLION into iraq

what did that get us? any more jobs? more security? anything at all
for a TRILLION dollars?


"No money for healthcare." So, a public option or even better a single-payer
system would have 100s of billions. Nope, can't do that, right?

Eventually, when you can't pay for something you lose it. Just takes time.

which was already happening in healthcare, with double digit increases
over the last 10 years

On 08/03/2010 3:45 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:35:43 -0700,
wrote:

On 07/03/2010 11:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...


"Interest rates will definitely be higher." You must be an oracle. Duhh...
they're currently at historic lows, so that's not much of a leap in logic.

They can't go lower than zero.

Obama spent FAR less than Bush. Interesting how you right nuts forget about
the $10T in tax cuts for the rich and the Iraqi war's $6T.

Not as rate/time. For rate over time, Obama is debt-spending more than
4 times faster. By the end of 2010, 2 years, Obama will have debt spent
about the same as Bush did in 8 years.

to keep the US economy afloat. bush poured a TRILLION into iraq

what did that get us? any more jobs? more security? anything at all
for a TRILLION dollars?

And what do you think about Obama flushing $2 trillion in the first
year? And now another $1.6 trillion this year?

Don't forget democrates voted for Iraq too. And TARP.

"No money for healthcare." So, a public option or even better a single-payer
system would have 100s of billions. Nope, can't do that, right?

Eventually, when you can't pay for something you lose it. Just takes time.

which was already happening in healthcare, with double digit increases
over the last 10 years

Yep. Might be again. Work out home prices since about 1970 using the
government published inflation tables. Then see if you can find a
property remotely at that price where you live.

People need health care, they don't need most other business the same
way, So health care will track real inflation, not the bogus governemnt
numbers.

But there is the point, do you want corrupt corporates to rip you off?
Or corrupt big fat government to rip you off? You choose!

--
--------------
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:24:13 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 08/03/2010 3:45 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:35:43 -0700,
wrote:



to keep the US economy afloat. bush poured a TRILLION into iraq

what did that get us? any more jobs? more security? anything at all
for a TRILLION dollars?

And what do you think about Obama flushing $2 trillion in the first
year? And now another $1.6 trillion this year?

that prevented 25% unemployment and created 1.5M jobs?

good deal!

oh...and you DO realize that, even after ALL the spending is done over
the next 10 years, the debt burden, adjusted for inflation, will be
about the same as it was in 1990.

oh. you're a right winger and don't do math...you just want MORE
UNEMPLOYMENT!!


Don't forget democrates voted for Iraq too. And TARP.

sure we voted for iraq. because bush was a convincing liar. just like
he was when he put the tax cuts in for the rich.



"No money for healthcare." So, a public option or even better a single-payer
system would have 100s of billions. Nope, can't do that, right?

Eventually, when you can't pay for something you lose it. Just takes time.

which was already happening in healthcare, with double digit increases
over the last 10 years

Yep. Might be again. Work out home prices since about 1970 using the
government published inflation tables. Then see if you can find a
property remotely at that price where you live.

People need health care, they don't need most other business the same
way, So health care will track real inflation, not the bogus governemnt
numbers.

except in other countries, the rate of increase in healthcare costs
is lower than it is here

but we're perfect, right?


But there is the point, do you want corrupt corporates to rip you off?
Or corrupt big fat government to rip you off? You choose!

govt i can do something about

corporations? not so much