On 3/20/10 10:49 PM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really
isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the
admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is
unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to
really care what the meat of the plan is.


I feel the same way. I've been watching interviews with some of the
Congress members who are on the fence regarding their vote on Sunday. Most
are still seeking specific definitions of certain details of "the plan".

It has been debated for a year and they still aren't sure what they are
voting for?

In the end it will pass due to an enormous amount of arm twisting and
backroom deals. Heh. One member of Congress was calling this bill "the
most transparent" proposal (to the public) that he had ever witnessed in his
40 years of elected office. But when pressed for specific answers, he still
wasn't sure exactly what some parts of the bill were, what the language
meant or what the ramifications would be.

But, he's leaning towards a "Yes".

Eisboch




America certainly got "Change".

Yeah really... I used to have hope, but that all has "changed".

Scotty


Perhaps if you were not such a lazy loser, you could have hope again.
Get a job and stop sucking off the taxpayer teat.

On 3/20/10 8:57 PM, Larry wrote:
hk wrote:
On 3/19/10 9:11 PM, Larry wrote:
HK wrote:
On 3/19/10 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
m...

If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a
serious
condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the
cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest
drugs.
You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either.

Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take
you"
for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well,
they
don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic
conditions.



I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated
health
care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you
have
described.

Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I
support.
It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one
problem
as I see it:

Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there
will
always be
more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who
can
afford to pay for them.

When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those
who
can afford
non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others
can
not?

The debate will start all over again.

Eisboch




If we cannot extend full Medicare to everyone, then I favor the Swiss
system...a number of insurance companies offering a basic plan. All
Swiss must have a basic plan. If you can't afford it, it is
subsidized. All the basic plans provide the same coverage at the same
price. Each basic plan also offers a number of options for those who
want them and can afford them. Thus, and this is a made up example, if
you need cancer surgery, you get it under the basic plan. If you want
bigger teats, and the "want" is only for cosmetic reasons, you have to
have one of the supplemental plans if you want insurance coverage
for it.

Frankly, I think the "free market system" is dead. These days, it only
works for the wealthiest. It used to work for everyone willing to
work. Those days are gone.



The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really
isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the
admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is
unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to
really care what the meat of the plan is.


It's what may be passable. It is obvious the Republicans do not want
any serious legislation to pass during Obama's terms.

How serious is this legislation if the people voting for it don't fully
understand it and the President admits that it will have to be modified
later? Why not vote on a final plan and implement it?


You mean, do what the GOP wants and delay health care insurance reform
for another 20 years? No thanks.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:30:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

I'm betting your "strong" views include disenfranchizing the poor,
middle
class, and anyone who might have a different perspective, but that's
just
a guess.

--
Nom=de=Plume

You are a pretty poor guesser. But, I can recognize one who's guesses are
immediately classified as truths in their minds.

Eisboch

Despite your protests, your lack of refutation and refusal to state
your stong views lends credit to her assumptions.

Maybe you're not so convinced of your strong views and lack the
courage of conviction.


Without intending to slam Eisboch, that's exactly what I think. What
"strong" views could be antithetical to what has already been on display
here and elsewhere? I can't think of anything.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:32:52 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:26:48 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


What I write is not required reading. The fact that you do and then
comment
in the manner in which you do displays and confirms what's wrong with the
mindset of some liberals better than I could ever do if I wrote a book on
the subject.

I don't respond very well to threats or attempts at intimidation.

Eisboch

Misdirection and drivel. I get better responses when I call you a
snob.

My bet is that your platform is shaky and you're not sure what your
strong views are.


I'll bet you relish your sad life as a newsgroup troll.

Eisboch

This isn't a troll.

You don't have the answers and you're hiding behind bull****.

Got lint?

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:24:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:30:34 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

I'm betting your "strong" views include disenfranchizing the poor,
middle
class, and anyone who might have a different perspective, but that's
just
a guess.

--
Nom=de=Plume

You are a pretty poor guesser. But, I can recognize one who's guesses are
immediately classified as truths in their minds.

Eisboch

Despite your protests, your lack of refutation and refusal to state
your stong views lends credit to her assumptions.

Maybe you're not so convinced of your strong views and lack the
courage of conviction.


Without intending to slam Eisboch, that's exactly what I think. What
"strong" views could be antithetical to what has already been on display
here and elsewhere? I can't think of anything.

He's got bumper sticker ideas that aren't defensible. It's true of
most "conservatives."

The details make them quiver with fear.

On Mar 20, 6:43*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...





You haven't offered a solution but you've used bumper sticker logic to
back up your position.

How bloody sad that your facile mind cannot travel further than that.

I have some very strong views on what the solution is. * You wouldn't like
them however and it would just generate another round of your immature,
naive comments and name calling.

Best to let you take care of yourself and your family your way.

I'll continue to do it my way.

Eisboch

Why that's the most common sense answer I have heard in a while

Scotty, glad you are having such a good time with the shop Dick!

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing, no crybabies!

Scotty, glad you are having such a good time with the shop Dick!

Figures...playing with some guys dick....again.

On Mar 20, 9:37*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message

...



Eisboch wrote:
*wrote in message
...

The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. *It really
isn't a plan at all. *The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the
admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. *This is
unprecedented. *He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to
really care what the meat of the plan is.

I feel the same way. * I've been watching interviews with some of the
Congress members who are on the fence regarding their vote on Sunday.
Most
are still seeking specific definitions of certain details of "the plan".

It has been debated for a year and they still aren't sure what they are
voting for?

In the end it will pass due to an enormous amount of arm twisting and
backroom deals. * Heh. *One member of Congress was calling this bill
"the
most transparent" proposal (to the public) that he had ever witnessed in
his
40 years of elected office. *But when pressed for specific answers, he
still
wasn't sure exactly what some parts of the bill were, what the language
meant or what the ramifications would be.

But, he's leaning towards a "Yes".

Eisboch

America certainly got "Change".

Actually, less than we wanted. I don't think enough has been done to fix the
economy and fix healthcare.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Well, when you have scumbags like Snotty Scotty Ingersoll skipping out
on $25,000 Hospital Bills...the economy will go to hell in a
handbasket.

On Mar 21, 2:31*pm, "*e#c" wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:43*pm, I am Tosk wrote:





In article ,
says...

You haven't offered a solution but you've used bumper sticker logic to
back up your position.

How bloody sad that your facile mind cannot travel further than that.

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

How serious is this legislation if the people voting for it don't fully
understand it and the President admits that it will have to be modified
later? Why not vote on a final plan and implement it?


Come on... legislators "fully" understand legislation? That's near
impossible. What's wrong with improving things later? It's historically
commonplace to do just that. I love it.. a final plan. Name a piece of
law
that was implemented in final form...


Well, most actually. Sure some are amended months, years, or decades
later but how many are passed knowing there are flaws that will have to be
changed before it's implemented?


Most legislation is changed after initially being passed. Name one piece of
major legislation that wasn't changed after passing.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Larry" wrote in message
...
H the K wrote:
On 3/20/10 8:57 PM, Larry wrote:
hk wrote:
On 3/19/10 9:11 PM, Larry wrote:
HK wrote:
On 3/19/10 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
m...

If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a
serious
condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization,
the
cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest
drugs.
You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either.

Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to
take
you"
for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care.
Well,
they
don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic
conditions.



I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated
health
care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you
have
described.

Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something
I
support.
It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one
problem
as I see it:

Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there
will
always be
more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those
who
can
afford to pay for them.

When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that
those
who
can afford
non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while
others
can
not?

The debate will start all over again.

Eisboch




If we cannot extend full Medicare to everyone, then I favor the Swiss
system...a number of insurance companies offering a basic plan. All
Swiss must have a basic plan. If you can't afford it, it is
subsidized. All the basic plans provide the same coverage at the same
price. Each basic plan also offers a number of options for those who
want them and can afford them. Thus, and this is a made up example,
if
you need cancer surgery, you get it under the basic plan. If you want
bigger teats, and the "want" is only for cosmetic reasons, you have
to
have one of the supplemental plans if you want insurance coverage
for it.

Frankly, I think the "free market system" is dead. These days, it
only
works for the wealthiest. It used to work for everyone willing to
work. Those days are gone.



The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really
isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the
admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is
unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to
really care what the meat of the plan is.


It's what may be passable. It is obvious the Republicans do not want
any serious legislation to pass during Obama's terms.

How serious is this legislation if the people voting for it don't fully
understand it and the President admits that it will have to be modified
later? Why not vote on a final plan and implement it?


You mean, do what the GOP wants and delay health care insurance reform
for another 20 years? No thanks.
They are passing a shell of a bill to be repaired and adjusted later. How
long do you think that will take?


Well, they were going to do it as Deem and Pass, but the Nut Cases on the
right claimed that it was illegal or immoral or against nature or some
idiocy, even though they've done it a bunch.

--
Nom=de=Plume