|
OT
wrote in message
... On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:42:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:44:51 -0400, HK wrote: On 3/19/10 11:45 AM, Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can be made by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big boobs. I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening conditions. If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are available only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that those who can't pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live? Eisboch There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra. I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that provide things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera. I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects or injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I don't consider boob jobs in that category. Eisboch Unless for reconstruction after breast removal surgery. At heart, I'm really opposed to for-profit health insurance. For-profit health insurance companies add nothing of value to the process of staying well or getting well. Doctors, nurses, technicals, hospitals, therapists, drug companies...they help you get well. This is an alarmingly naive statement. It is inherently in the "for-profit" insurance company's best interest to persuade, encourage, and cajole insureds into "staying well." This is why most bona-fide insurance companies will offer some type of health-and-wellness program for their insureds. Many plans include memberships to Curves and typical stay-n-shape type of progams. Too, it is implicitly not in the health insurance company's mission statement to be a health care provider. They provide 'financial' protection against catastropic loss. To be opposed to "for-profit" health insurance in conflating the health care responsibilities (or value) of both is the product of confused thinking or the product of disinformation. Yeah right. As soon as you get sick, they'll look for a way to drop you. Submit a bill and it takes an act of Congress to get them to pay in a timely fashion. Lose your job and can't afford Cobra, too bad. You can't get private insurance if you have any kind of pre-existing condition. The insurance companies are only interested in one thing: profit. That's fine, except that has little to do with public health. They provide financial protection against catastrophic loss unless they can find a way to weasel out of it. Learn to read, and learn to think, ma'am. Apparently it's something you aspire to. Good for you. I'm sorry you're so out of touch that you think the current system isn't exactly as I described. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Larry" wrote in message ... 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. Right. We've never had that happen before. Call CNN! -- Nom=de=Plume Yup, and look at the results here in the state of California when they rammed through a bill at the last moment that nobody read, or understood. Caused PG&E bankruptcy, high wholesale energy prices, and blackouts. So, you lied about not reading or responding to my posts. Ok. I knew that was going to happen. And, you are now equating the entire nation and the Congressional healthcare legislation with "a bill" that went through the Calif. legislature. You are just so brilliant. The wheel is spinning, but the hamster is dead. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"Larry" 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 |
OT
"Larry" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender change operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for. Is this something you're planning? I've heard March Madness is when vasectomy operations increase in frequency. Gender changing and vasectomys are unrelated. I was going to make that point to her/him, but realized I was wasting my time. Eisboch |
OT
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... It's actually going to be even more complicated than that. Every country that I'm aware of with universal coverage has some sort of implicit or explicit rationing of care, i.e., if you don't have a condition that is immediately life threatening, you go on a waiting list which can stretch out for months or even years. Should an individual who can afford to pay be allowed to seek out a doctor or hospital that can provide the care immediately? I argue yes, otherwise the whole plan reeks of socialism. The health care system certainly needs a major overhaul. The existing mess of a system not only affects those individuals who can't afford high premiums for decent insurance, it affects the whole basis of our economic system. Small businesses can no longer afford to offer a decent health plan package for employees. Large businesses are outsourcing as much as they can to stay competitive in a global economy, contributing to the unemployment rate. Contrary to the opinion of some here, the primary purpose of a corporation (large or small) is not to provide a happy, secure shell of existence for employees. The purpose is to manufacture or provide services at a profit. The profit can be applied to growth and/or increased income and benefits for those employed. If there is no profit, benefits have to be cut and jobs eliminated. I recently got a snapshot of how my former company is doing. Second to pay, health insurance premiums (the company paid 75 percent when I owned it) is the largest financial cost to the company. It was when I owned it and it continues now, except the monthly cost per employee has almost doubled in less than 10 years. If I owned the company right now, I suspect I'd be facing a very difficult decision ... or the decision would be already have been made for me. Shut the place down. Fortunately, the current owners have deep pockets and are betting on a single, major technology to recover the financing they are pouring into it to keep the doors open. I was also thinking the other day of how ironic some things have become. Back in 1985 I visited the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government was experimenting with concepts of capitalism in some remote sections of the country and my company was invited to visit and explore possible technology exchanges and marketing opportunities. Prior to this time, the general Chinese population were mostly kept in the dark with respect to what the rest of the world was doing and relied upon a socialistic/communistic form of government to provide for them. During my visit I remember thinking it was like a time warp, and I had traveled back about 200 years in time. Fast forward now to 2010. The experiments in capitalism have led to China becoming a leading economic world power. The city I visited (Wuxi) is bustling with business activity. When I was there I witnessed thousands of people riding around on bicycles or scooters with maybe one or two automobiles mixed in driven by government officials. I recently found pictures of the current city of Wuxi. The roads are packed with new cars owned by the local citizens. Very few bicycles left. Meanwhile, the USA is accelerating quickly towards socialism. Maybe this is acceptable to the "enlightened" ones. As an old fart to whom this country afforded great opportunities and rewards, I am saddened. Eisboch |
OT
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. -- If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher) then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer. |
OT
On 3/19/10 9:28 AM, W1TEF wrote:
The irony is that the solution has staring them in the face the whole time - open the anti-trust laws, let the companies compete in an open market across state lines, allow doctors to charge what they feel is appropriate for their services and complete tort reform. It seems to work for worker's compensation - why not for medical practices? Ahh, the GOP talking points regurgitated. Tom still believes free-market competition will control the insurance companies and that tort cases are a huge contributor to our current situation. Silliness. |
OT
|
OT
On 3/20/10 10:47 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care... Scotty I hope your progress towards blowing a gasket on the exercise bike is going well, stumpy. Who are you? Pffft, it's the panty sniffer, slammer... He must have taken the old rotted corpse out of the freezer again for the weekend. He will get drunk and go nuts because he has been shouting at me for months and I fianlly answered.. Next, will end up getting drunk and ranting off like the cowardly little prick he is, chase me around the net, then end up in rehab for another 30 days. Here is our yellow toothed pedophile in all his glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HEb1zfGgvw Watch it with the sound off, it's just as funny. It was bad last time he chased me to a group with loads of elderly and women (a cooking group) and spewed his usual "progressive" intolerance and vulgarities. They pretty much laughed at him, especially when I showed them his videos on the chat channel...snerk. Scotty SnottyScotty actually believes people pay attention to him. Have they seen your photos, snotty? You look like a fat, hair-covered little greaseball. -- If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher) then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer. |
OT
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:20:17 -0400, Larry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote: I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender change operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for. Is this something you're planning? I've heard March Madness is when vasectomy operations increase in frequency. Gender changing and vasectomys are unrelated. Vacuous. Unreal. The person for whom the word 'twit' was developed. Hopefully you taught her something. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v |
OT
On Mar 20, 10:47*am, I am Tosk
wrote: In article , says... Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care... Scotty I hope your progress towards blowing a gasket on the exercise bike is going well, stumpy. Who are you? Pffft, it's the panty sniffer, slammer... He must have taken the old rotted corpse out of the freezer again for the weekend. He will get drunk and go nuts because he has been shouting at me for months and I fianlly answered.. Next, will end up getting drunk and ranting off like the cowardly little prick he is, chase me around the net, then end up in rehab for another 30 days. Here is our yellow toothed pedophile in all his glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HEb1zfGgvw Watch it with the sound off, it's just as funny. It was bad last time he chased me to a group with loads of elderly and women (a cooking group) and spewed his usual "progressive" intolerance and vulgarities. They pretty much laughed at him, especially when I showed them his videos on the chat channel...snerk. Scotty -- Rowdy Mouse Racing, no crybabies! Keep on the Exerbike, asshole...you'll die soon enough.Your news of a "heart condition" couldnt have made me happier. Back to the exerbike, asswipe. It'll be absolutely hilarious, knowing your lying on a Gurney in the hallway, because they wont give you much attention, seeing as how you ripped off the Hospital for 25,000 bucks. You could, however, do us all a favour and paddle up that muddy creek with your six-pack and die....... Hope your long-suffering Wife has your life insurance paid up....she'll need it once your skanky ass expires. Couldn't happen fast enough. Then, she can place your stumpy ass in your " punt ", set in the rest of the kindling, and light it up.... Viking Funeral for a Coward, COCKSUCKER. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA |
OT
On Mar 20, 10:58*am, hk wrote:
On 3/20/10 10:47 AM, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care... Scotty I hope your progress towards blowing a gasket on the exercise bike is going well, stumpy. Who are you? Pffft, it's the panty sniffer, slammer... He must have taken the old rotted corpse out of the freezer again for the weekend. He will get drunk and go nuts because he has been shouting at me for months and I fianlly answered.. Next, will end up getting drunk and ranting off like the cowardly little prick he is, chase me around the net, then end up in rehab for another 30 days. Here is our yellow toothed pedophile in all his glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HEb1zfGgvw Watch it with the sound off, it's just as funny. It was bad last time he chased me to a group with loads of elderly and women (a cooking group) and spewed his usual "progressive" intolerance and vulgarities. They pretty much laughed at him, especially when I showed them his videos on the chat channel...snerk. Scotty SnottyScotty actually believes people pay attention to him. Have they seen your photos, snotty? You look like a fat, hair-covered little greaseball. -- If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher) then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer. Obviously not, but I can remedy that........ Notice how the little troll uses other people in his fights....STILL. He is truly the king " turd blossom " here. |
OT
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "Larry" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender change operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for. Is this something you're planning? I've heard March Madness is when vasectomy operations increase in frequency. Gender changing and vasectomys are unrelated. I was going to make that point to her/him, but realized I was wasting my time. Eisboch You've had one or both already? -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "Larry" 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 And, Obama is pushing it through... how's that? Is he using The Force? You really need to stop listening to Rush/Beck/Rove. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... It's actually going to be even more complicated than that. Every country that I'm aware of with universal coverage has some sort of implicit or explicit rationing of care, i.e., if you don't have a condition that is immediately life threatening, you go on a waiting list which can stretch out for months or even years. Should an individual who can afford to pay be allowed to seek out a doctor or hospital that can provide the care immediately? I argue yes, otherwise the whole plan reeks of socialism. The health care system certainly needs a major overhaul. The existing mess of a system not only affects those individuals who can't afford high premiums for decent insurance, it affects the whole basis of our economic system. Small businesses can no longer afford to offer a decent health plan package for employees. Large businesses are outsourcing as much as they can to stay competitive in a global economy, contributing to the unemployment rate. Yet, the Republicans stand for the status quo. How enlightening. How effective. Contrary to the opinion of some here, the primary purpose of a corporation (large or small) is not to provide a happy, secure shell of existence for employees. The purpose is to manufacture or provide services at a profit. The profit can be applied to growth and/or increased income and benefits for those employed. If there is no profit, benefits have to be cut and jobs eliminated. No argument from me. They just shouldn't be in the business of healthcare, since the pofit motive is diametrically opposed to public health. I recently got a snapshot of how my former company is doing. Second to pay, health insurance premiums (the company paid 75 percent when I owned it) is the largest financial cost to the company. It was when I owned it and it continues now, except the monthly cost per employee has almost doubled in less than 10 years. If I owned the company right now, I suspect I'd be facing a very difficult decision ... or the decision would be already have been made for me. Shut the place down. Fortunately, the current owners have deep pockets and are betting on a single, major technology to recover the financing they are pouring into it to keep the doors open. I was also thinking the other day of how ironic some things have become. Back in 1985 I visited the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government was experimenting with concepts of capitalism in some remote sections of the country and my company was invited to visit and explore possible technology exchanges and marketing opportunities. Prior to this time, the general Chinese population were mostly kept in the dark with respect to what the rest of the world was doing and relied upon a socialistic/communistic form of government to provide for them. During my visit I remember thinking it was like a time warp, and I had traveled back about 200 years in time. Fast forward now to 2010. The experiments in capitalism have led to China becoming a leading economic world power. The city I visited (Wuxi) is bustling with business activity. When I was there I witnessed thousands of people riding around on bicycles or scooters with maybe one or two automobiles mixed in driven by government officials. I recently found pictures of the current city of Wuxi. The roads are packed with new cars owned by the local citizens. Very few bicycles left. One of the most controlled economies in the world... China. A shining example? Meanwhile, the USA is accelerating quickly towards socialism. Right. This is just looney. You're just terrified of someone. I wonder who that might be.... Maybe this is acceptable to the "enlightened" ones. As an old fart to whom this country afforded great opportunities and rewards, I am saddened. You're also frightened. Grow up. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Larry" 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 And, Obama is pushing it through... how's that? Is he using The Force? You really need to stop listening to Rush/Beck/Rove. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually I was watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I don't even know what channel Fox News is on and, other than newsclips, have never listened to Rush. Eisboch |
OT
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... You're also frightened. Grow up. -- Nom=de=Plume Sure. Right away. Care to send me one of your 'enlightenment' pills? Eisboch |
OT
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:01:37 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender change operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for. Is this something you're planning? I've heard March Madness is when vasectomy operations increase in frequency. Gender changing and vasectomys are unrelated. I was going to make that point to her/him, but realized I was wasting my time. Eisboch Oh, so you're not a slob, you're a snot. |
OT
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:02:39 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message .. . It's actually going to be even more complicated than that. Every country that I'm aware of with universal coverage has some sort of implicit or explicit rationing of care, i.e., if you don't have a condition that is immediately life threatening, you go on a waiting list which can stretch out for months or even years. Should an individual who can afford to pay be allowed to seek out a doctor or hospital that can provide the care immediately? I argue yes, otherwise the whole plan reeks of socialism. The health care system certainly needs a major overhaul. The existing mess of a system not only affects those individuals who can't afford high premiums for decent insurance, it affects the whole basis of our economic system. Small businesses can no longer afford to offer a decent health plan package for employees. Large businesses are outsourcing as much as they can to stay competitive in a global economy, contributing to the unemployment rate. Contrary to the opinion of some here, the primary purpose of a corporation (large or small) is not to provide a happy, secure shell of existence for employees. The purpose is to manufacture or provide services at a profit. The profit can be applied to growth and/or increased income and benefits for those employed. If there is no profit, benefits have to be cut and jobs eliminated. I recently got a snapshot of how my former company is doing. Second to pay, health insurance premiums (the company paid 75 percent when I owned it) is the largest financial cost to the company. It was when I owned it and it continues now, except the monthly cost per employee has almost doubled in less than 10 years. If I owned the company right now, I suspect I'd be facing a very difficult decision ... or the decision would be already have been made for me. Shut the place down. Fortunately, the current owners have deep pockets and are betting on a single, major technology to recover the financing they are pouring into it to keep the doors open. I was also thinking the other day of how ironic some things have become. Back in 1985 I visited the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government was experimenting with concepts of capitalism in some remote sections of the country and my company was invited to visit and explore possible technology exchanges and marketing opportunities. Prior to this time, the general Chinese population were mostly kept in the dark with respect to what the rest of the world was doing and relied upon a socialistic/communistic form of government to provide for them. During my visit I remember thinking it was like a time warp, and I had traveled back about 200 years in time. Fast forward now to 2010. The experiments in capitalism have led to China becoming a leading economic world power. The city I visited (Wuxi) is bustling with business activity. When I was there I witnessed thousands of people riding around on bicycles or scooters with maybe one or two automobiles mixed in driven by government officials. I recently found pictures of the current city of Wuxi. The roads are packed with new cars owned by the local citizens. Very few bicycles left. Meanwhile, the USA is accelerating quickly towards socialism. Maybe this is acceptable to the "enlightened" ones. As an old fart to whom this country afforded great opportunities and rewards, I am saddened. Eisboch I knew this would culminate with a head-in-the-ass comment and you did not disappoint. Socialism? You been watching Glenn Beck? China doesn't give a **** if their citizens are exposed to myriad chemicals that are known carcinogens. Their water is often contaminated with those same chemicals because they don't have to spend money controlling their disposal. They make a fraction of what's required for a living wage in the USA. I suppose that's okay with you in the name of Chinese profit. You'd like to recreate China in the US? You'd have to take us back to the beginning of the industrial revolution when child labor was common and health care was primitive. 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. |
OT
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:03:06 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... You're also frightened. Grow up. -- Nom=de=Plume Sure. Right away. Care to send me one of your 'enlightenment' pills? Eisboch You only have to think about it for a little while to realize there's no easy answer. That's obviously not someplace you're willing to travel to, so why tender an argument at all? Great buildup, no beef. Shallow thinking. Let's hear your cures, Mr. Enterprise. |
OT
"jps" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:02:39 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message . .. It's actually going to be even more complicated than that. Every country that I'm aware of with universal coverage has some sort of implicit or explicit rationing of care, i.e., if you don't have a condition that is immediately life threatening, you go on a waiting list which can stretch out for months or even years. Should an individual who can afford to pay be allowed to seek out a doctor or hospital that can provide the care immediately? I argue yes, otherwise the whole plan reeks of socialism. The health care system certainly needs a major overhaul. The existing mess of a system not only affects those individuals who can't afford high premiums for decent insurance, it affects the whole basis of our economic system. Small businesses can no longer afford to offer a decent health plan package for employees. Large businesses are outsourcing as much as they can to stay competitive in a global economy, contributing to the unemployment rate. Contrary to the opinion of some here, the primary purpose of a corporation (large or small) is not to provide a happy, secure shell of existence for employees. The purpose is to manufacture or provide services at a profit. The profit can be applied to growth and/or increased income and benefits for those employed. If there is no profit, benefits have to be cut and jobs eliminated. I recently got a snapshot of how my former company is doing. Second to pay, health insurance premiums (the company paid 75 percent when I owned it) is the largest financial cost to the company. It was when I owned it and it continues now, except the monthly cost per employee has almost doubled in less than 10 years. If I owned the company right now, I suspect I'd be facing a very difficult decision ... or the decision would be already have been made for me. Shut the place down. Fortunately, the current owners have deep pockets and are betting on a single, major technology to recover the financing they are pouring into it to keep the doors open. I was also thinking the other day of how ironic some things have become. Back in 1985 I visited the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government was experimenting with concepts of capitalism in some remote sections of the country and my company was invited to visit and explore possible technology exchanges and marketing opportunities. Prior to this time, the general Chinese population were mostly kept in the dark with respect to what the rest of the world was doing and relied upon a socialistic/communistic form of government to provide for them. During my visit I remember thinking it was like a time warp, and I had traveled back about 200 years in time. Fast forward now to 2010. The experiments in capitalism have led to China becoming a leading economic world power. The city I visited (Wuxi) is bustling with business activity. When I was there I witnessed thousands of people riding around on bicycles or scooters with maybe one or two automobiles mixed in driven by government officials. I recently found pictures of the current city of Wuxi. The roads are packed with new cars owned by the local citizens. Very few bicycles left. Meanwhile, the USA is accelerating quickly towards socialism. Maybe this is acceptable to the "enlightened" ones. As an old fart to whom this country afforded great opportunities and rewards, I am saddened. Eisboch I knew this would culminate with a head-in-the-ass comment and you did not disappoint. Socialism? You been watching Glenn Beck? China doesn't give a **** if their citizens are exposed to myriad chemicals that are known carcinogens. Their water is often contaminated with those same chemicals because they don't have to spend money controlling their disposal. They make a fraction of what's required for a living wage in the USA. I suppose that's okay with you in the name of Chinese profit. You'd like to recreate China in the US? You'd have to take us back to the beginning of the industrial revolution when child labor was common and health care was primitive. 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 |
OT
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:17:57 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:02:39 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... It's actually going to be even more complicated than that. Every country that I'm aware of with universal coverage has some sort of implicit or explicit rationing of care, i.e., if you don't have a condition that is immediately life threatening, you go on a waiting list which can stretch out for months or even years. Should an individual who can afford to pay be allowed to seek out a doctor or hospital that can provide the care immediately? I argue yes, otherwise the whole plan reeks of socialism. The health care system certainly needs a major overhaul. The existing mess of a system not only affects those individuals who can't afford high premiums for decent insurance, it affects the whole basis of our economic system. Small businesses can no longer afford to offer a decent health plan package for employees. Large businesses are outsourcing as much as they can to stay competitive in a global economy, contributing to the unemployment rate. Contrary to the opinion of some here, the primary purpose of a corporation (large or small) is not to provide a happy, secure shell of existence for employees. The purpose is to manufacture or provide services at a profit. The profit can be applied to growth and/or increased income and benefits for those employed. If there is no profit, benefits have to be cut and jobs eliminated. I recently got a snapshot of how my former company is doing. Second to pay, health insurance premiums (the company paid 75 percent when I owned it) is the largest financial cost to the company. It was when I owned it and it continues now, except the monthly cost per employee has almost doubled in less than 10 years. If I owned the company right now, I suspect I'd be facing a very difficult decision ... or the decision would be already have been made for me. Shut the place down. Fortunately, the current owners have deep pockets and are betting on a single, major technology to recover the financing they are pouring into it to keep the doors open. I was also thinking the other day of how ironic some things have become. Back in 1985 I visited the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government was experimenting with concepts of capitalism in some remote sections of the country and my company was invited to visit and explore possible technology exchanges and marketing opportunities. Prior to this time, the general Chinese population were mostly kept in the dark with respect to what the rest of the world was doing and relied upon a socialistic/communistic form of government to provide for them. During my visit I remember thinking it was like a time warp, and I had traveled back about 200 years in time. Fast forward now to 2010. The experiments in capitalism have led to China becoming a leading economic world power. The city I visited (Wuxi) is bustling with business activity. When I was there I witnessed thousands of people riding around on bicycles or scooters with maybe one or two automobiles mixed in driven by government officials. I recently found pictures of the current city of Wuxi. The roads are packed with new cars owned by the local citizens. Very few bicycles left. Meanwhile, the USA is accelerating quickly towards socialism. Maybe this is acceptable to the "enlightened" ones. As an old fart to whom this country afforded great opportunities and rewards, I am saddened. Eisboch I knew this would culminate with a head-in-the-ass comment and you did not disappoint. Socialism? You been watching Glenn Beck? China doesn't give a **** if their citizens are exposed to myriad chemicals that are known carcinogens. Their water is often contaminated with those same chemicals because they don't have to spend money controlling their disposal. They make a fraction of what's required for a living wage in the USA. I suppose that's okay with you in the name of Chinese profit. You'd like to recreate China in the US? You'd have to take us back to the beginning of the industrial revolution when child labor was common and health care was primitive. 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 Then cease with the innane bluster, Richard. We don't need to read your accounting of the world if you cannot muster equal energy towards a solution. You either cannot or will not produce intelligence on "what needs to be done," using my predictable reaction as an excuse for your laziness or empty bravado. Maybe you should stick to penning bumper stickers, like your shallow friend Jim. |
OT
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:51:55 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Larry" 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 And, Obama is pushing it through... how's that? Is he using The Force? You really need to stop listening to Rush/Beck/Rove. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually I was watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I don't even know what channel Fox News is on and, other than newsclips, have never listened to Rush. Eisboch You may be listening to Beck or Rush but you do an excellent job of channeling their thoughts. Great minds, you know... |
OT
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:31:16 -0700, jps wrote:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:51:55 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Larry" 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 And, Obama is pushing it through... how's that? Is he using The Force? You really need to stop listening to Rush/Beck/Rove. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually I was watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I don't even know what channel Fox News is on and, other than newsclips, have never listened to Rush. Eisboch You may be listening to Beck or Rush but you do an excellent job of channeling their thoughts. Great minds, you know... Whoops, meant to say you may "not" be listening. ****ed up a perfectly good comeback. |
OT
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Larry" 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 And, Obama is pushing it through... how's that? Is he using The Force? You really need to stop listening to Rush/Beck/Rove. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually I was watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I don't even know what channel Fox News is on and, other than newsclips, have never listened to Rush. Eisboch You should! It's enlightening to hear the propaganda and hate firsthand. -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... You're also frightened. Grow up. -- Nom=de=Plume Sure. Right away. Care to send me one of your 'enlightenment' pills? Eisboch I think you can get them from your doctor... -- Nom=de=Plume |
OT
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "jps" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:02:39 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... It's actually going to be even more complicated than that. Every country that I'm aware of with universal coverage has some sort of implicit or explicit rationing of care, i.e., if you don't have a condition that is immediately life threatening, you go on a waiting list which can stretch out for months or even years. Should an individual who can afford to pay be allowed to seek out a doctor or hospital that can provide the care immediately? I argue yes, otherwise the whole plan reeks of socialism. The health care system certainly needs a major overhaul. The existing mess of a system not only affects those individuals who can't afford high premiums for decent insurance, it affects the whole basis of our economic system. Small businesses can no longer afford to offer a decent health plan package for employees. Large businesses are outsourcing as much as they can to stay competitive in a global economy, contributing to the unemployment rate. Contrary to the opinion of some here, the primary purpose of a corporation (large or small) is not to provide a happy, secure shell of existence for employees. The purpose is to manufacture or provide services at a profit. The profit can be applied to growth and/or increased income and benefits for those employed. If there is no profit, benefits have to be cut and jobs eliminated. I recently got a snapshot of how my former company is doing. Second to pay, health insurance premiums (the company paid 75 percent when I owned it) is the largest financial cost to the company. It was when I owned it and it continues now, except the monthly cost per employee has almost doubled in less than 10 years. If I owned the company right now, I suspect I'd be facing a very difficult decision ... or the decision would be already have been made for me. Shut the place down. Fortunately, the current owners have deep pockets and are betting on a single, major technology to recover the financing they are pouring into it to keep the doors open. I was also thinking the other day of how ironic some things have become. Back in 1985 I visited the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government was experimenting with concepts of capitalism in some remote sections of the country and my company was invited to visit and explore possible technology exchanges and marketing opportunities. Prior to this time, the general Chinese population were mostly kept in the dark with respect to what the rest of the world was doing and relied upon a socialistic/communistic form of government to provide for them. During my visit I remember thinking it was like a time warp, and I had traveled back about 200 years in time. Fast forward now to 2010. The experiments in capitalism have led to China becoming a leading economic world power. The city I visited (Wuxi) is bustling with business activity. When I was there I witnessed thousands of people riding around on bicycles or scooters with maybe one or two automobiles mixed in driven by government officials. I recently found pictures of the current city of Wuxi. The roads are packed with new cars owned by the local citizens. Very few bicycles left. Meanwhile, the USA is accelerating quickly towards socialism. Maybe this is acceptable to the "enlightened" ones. As an old fart to whom this country afforded great opportunities and rewards, I am saddened. Eisboch I knew this would culminate with a head-in-the-ass comment and you did not disappoint. Socialism? You been watching Glenn Beck? China doesn't give a **** if their citizens are exposed to myriad chemicals that are known carcinogens. Their water is often contaminated with those same chemicals because they don't have to spend money controlling their disposal. They make a fraction of what's required for a living wage in the USA. I suppose that's okay with you in the name of Chinese profit. You'd like to recreate China in the US? You'd have to take us back to the beginning of the industrial revolution when child labor was common and health care was primitive. 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 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 |
OT
Eisboch wrote:
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. I'm sure you mean the GOP plan, which sounds real good. That Dem bull of insuring an extra +30 million, eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions and the other crap is eerily similar to how it's done in Cuba. You're right about the U.S turning commie. Fidel is laughing at us. Jim - We in Florida take the "Cuban Threat" seriously. |
OT
*e#c wrote:
Keep on the Exerbike, asshole...you'll die soon enough.Your news of a "heart condition" couldnt have made me happier. Back to the exerbike, asswipe. It'll be absolutely hilarious, knowing your lying on a Gurney in the hallway, because they wont give you much attention, seeing as how you ripped off the Hospital for 25,000 bucks. You could, however, do us all a favour and paddle up that muddy creek with your six-pack and die....... Hope your long-suffering Wife has your life insurance paid up....she'll need it once your skanky ass expires. Couldn't happen fast enough. Then, she can place your stumpy ass in your " punt ", set in the rest of the kindling, and light it up.... Viking Funeral for a Coward, COCKSUCKER. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA There you go. I was worried about you, since you been tame lately. Looks like you're back on your feet. Jim - You pull a nasty, I pull a nastier. The Florida way. |
OT
jps wrote:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:17:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 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 Then cease with the innane bluster, Richard. We don't need to read your accounting of the world if you cannot muster equal energy towards a solution. You either cannot or will not produce intelligence on "what needs to be done," using my predictable reaction as an excuse for your laziness or empty bravado. Maybe you should stick to penning bumper stickers, like your shallow friend Jim. Wow. jps the sniper calls me shallow. Richard and you should hash this out civilly. Enough name-calling already, cocksucker. Jim - Substance is unrecognizable to the shallow. |
OT
"jps" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:17:57 -0400, "Eisboch" 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 Then cease with the innane bluster, Richard. We don't need to read your accounting of the world if you cannot muster equal energy towards a solution. You either cannot or will not produce intelligence on "what needs to be done," using my predictable reaction as an excuse for your laziness or empty bravado. Maybe you should stick to penning bumper stickers, like your shallow friend Jim. 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 |
OT
"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 |
OT
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Actually I was watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I don't even know what channel Fox News is on and, other than newsclips, have never listened to Rush. Eisboch You should! It's enlightening to hear the propaganda and hate firsthand. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually, there's enough propaganda and hate right here in rec.boats. Eisboch |
OT
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:15:52 -0500, Jim wrote:
jps wrote: On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:17:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 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 Then cease with the innane bluster, Richard. We don't need to read your accounting of the world if you cannot muster equal energy towards a solution. You either cannot or will not produce intelligence on "what needs to be done," using my predictable reaction as an excuse for your laziness or empty bravado. Maybe you should stick to penning bumper stickers, like your shallow friend Jim. Wow. jps the sniper calls me shallow. Richard and you should hash this out civilly. Enough name-calling already, cocksucker. Jim - Substance is unrecognizable to the shallow. Jim, the solution to this problem is simple: http://www.apachego.com/freeman/index.htm -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v |
OT
|
OT
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:35:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... Actually I was watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC. I don't even know what channel Fox News is on and, other than newsclips, have never listened to Rush. Eisboch You should! It's enlightening to hear the propaganda and hate firsthand. -- Nom=de=Plume Actually, there's enough propaganda and hate right here in rec.boats. Eisboch We need less hate and propaganda and more attention to BOOBS. -- John H For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v |
OT
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". |
OT
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? |
OT
I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care... Scotty I hope your progress towards blowing a gasket on the exercise bike is going well, stumpy. Who are you? Pffft, it's the panty sniffer, slammer... He must have taken the old rotted corpse out of the freezer again for the weekend. He will get drunk and go nuts because he has been shouting at me for months and I fianlly answered.. Next, will end up getting drunk and ranting off like the cowardly little prick he is, chase me around the net, then end up in rehab for another 30 days. Here is our yellow toothed pedophile in all his glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HEb1zfGgvw Watch it with the sound off, it's just as funny. It was bad last time he chased me to a group with loads of elderly and women (a cooking group) and spewed his usual "progressive" intolerance and vulgarities. They pretty much laughed at him, especially when I showed them his videos on the chat channel...snerk. Scotty Damn. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com