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.