Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

In article ,
says...


no solution. typical right winger. always bitching. no solutions


They say never argue with somebody who buys ink by the ton.
Same goes for arguing with a motormouth.
You won't beat this guy down.
Look at Carl Rove. Still won't shut up.
Ever hear about the leg bone being connected to the hip bone?
This is a case of the mouth being connected to the stupid gland.
That gland never dies until its owner leave this troubled earth.
Probably why the ancients took to cutting out tongues.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, wrote:




That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?

how about welfare for wall street?

you right wingers.....i laugh when i read you because it's obvious
your abso-****in-lutely clueless


Those are documented "stock purchases". Apples and Oranges.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

Canuck57 wrote:
On 30/03/2010 12:32 AM, Larry wrote:
jps wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:12:11 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
m...
I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care
insurance" are
two different things.

Eisboch


No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a
national health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately
cannot afford the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and
your family to the degree necessary.

The hang-up I still have is the difference between a mandatory health
insurance program and the right to free or subsidized (tax supported)
health care for life threatening or disabling conditions. Mandatory
health insurance puts another massive layer of bureaucracy, private
or government, into the mix. When it comes to getting care, that has
never been a good thing.

A mandatory health insurance law is in effect here in MA. For those
who can't afford the subsidized insurance (state programs) it is
cheaper to pay the fine (assuming the state even enforces the
collection of them, which I doubt.)

Tough call. I guess my attitude is that those of us that are
fortunate enough to be able to afford decent health insurance also
have a moral obligation to assist those who need medical care (though
a tax or increased insurance premium) for those who cannot afford
insurance. But to subsidize health *insurance* programs is another
matter.

Eisboch

Are you suggesting that those that can afford it pay retail, but those
who need subsidized care get it through some other method?

Not sure I understand.

The guy lays out a detailed plan to provide health care for all, and you
bitch about it. Unless you have a better plan, quit criticizing.

There are better plans.

First point, why not have it's funding go into a seperate pool so
people know the EXACT cost, why general revenue? Here is a hint, it
isn't about health care, it is about government revenue and skiming.

I could go on but it is a waste of time. Obama should have consulted
people who have lived under multiple plans for extended periods of
time for a good plan and anwer but like I said, it isn't about health
care, it is about government revenue.
You're responding to a ghost. I have a lousy spoofer.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

jps wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:32:00 -0500, wrote:


jps wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:12:11 -0400, wrote:


wrote in message
m...

I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care insurance"
are
two different things.

Eisboch



No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national
health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford the
insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the degree
necessary.


The hang-up I still have is the difference between a mandatory health
insurance program and the right to free or subsidized (tax supported) health
care for life threatening or disabling conditions. Mandatory health
insurance puts another massive layer of bureaucracy, private or government,
into the mix. When it comes to getting care, that has never been a good
thing.

A mandatory health insurance law is in effect here in MA. For those who
can't afford the subsidized insurance (state programs) it is cheaper to pay
the fine (assuming the state even enforces the collection of them, which I
doubt.)

Tough call. I guess my attitude is that those of us that are fortunate
enough to be able to afford decent health insurance also have a moral
obligation to assist those who need medical care (though a tax or increased
insurance premium) for those who cannot afford insurance. But to subsidize
health *insurance* programs is another matter.

Eisboch

Are you suggesting that those that can afford it pay retail, but those
who need subsidized care get it through some other method?

Not sure I understand.

The guy lays out a detailed plan to provide health care for all, and you
bitch about it. Unless you have a better plan, quit criticizing.

What about my post was bitching? Do you actually read or just jerk a
spasmotic knee?

It was a question about clarification, you dweeb, not an accusation or
bitch.


I have a really moronic spoofer. Thanks for the kind comments, anyway.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:35:16 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:



First point, why not have it's funding go into a seperate pool so people
know the EXACT cost, why general revenue? Here is a hint, it isn't
about health care, it is about government revenue and skiming.

he keeps saying this. but he offers no proof

medicare is govt spending. skimming? none.

but, apparently if it's on talk radio, he'll believe it


I could go on but it is a waste of time. Obama should have consulted
people who have lived under multiple plans for extended periods of time

he did. he consulted the american people. and we've had it with our
inefficient, expensive healthcare

if socialize medicine is so bad

why is canada's life expectancy higher than the US?

betcha he doesn't answer!

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

Larry wrote:
jps wrote:
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:32:00 -0500, wrote:


jps wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:12:11 -0400, wrote:


wrote in message
m...

I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care
insurance"
are
two different things.

Eisboch



No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national
health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot
afford the
insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the
degree
necessary.


The hang-up I still have is the difference between a mandatory health
insurance program and the right to free or subsidized (tax
supported) health
care for life threatening or disabling conditions. Mandatory health
insurance puts another massive layer of bureaucracy, private or
government,
into the mix. When it comes to getting care, that has never been a
good
thing.

A mandatory health insurance law is in effect here in MA. For
those who
can't afford the subsidized insurance (state programs) it is
cheaper to pay
the fine (assuming the state even enforces the collection of them,
which I
doubt.)

Tough call. I guess my attitude is that those of us that are
fortunate
enough to be able to afford decent health insurance also have a moral
obligation to assist those who need medical care (though a tax or
increased
insurance premium) for those who cannot afford insurance. But to
subsidize
health *insurance* programs is another matter.

Eisboch

Are you suggesting that those that can afford it pay retail, but those
who need subsidized care get it through some other method?

Not sure I understand.

The guy lays out a detailed plan to provide health care for all, and you
bitch about it. Unless you have a better plan, quit criticizing.

What about my post was bitching? Do you actually read or just jerk a
spasmotic knee?

It was a question about clarification, you dweeb, not an accusation or
bitch.


I have a really moronic spoofer. Thanks for the kind comments, anyway.

Good description. Seems the enemies of Krause got saddled with
spoofers. Wonder why that is.

Jim - Knows lib dirty tricks when he sees 'em.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

Jim wrote:
Larry wrote:
jps wrote:

It was a question about clarification, you dweeb, not an accusation or
bitch.


I have a really moronic spoofer. Thanks for the kind comments, anyway.

Good description. Seems the enemies of Krause got saddled with
spoofers. Wonder why that is.

Jim - Knows lib dirty tricks when he sees 'em.

Thanks for your concern Tommy. You can go out to the barn and choke on
one of your steeenkin ceegars now.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:50:52 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, Larry wrote:



That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?

how about welfare for wall street?

you right wingers.....i laugh when i read you because it's obvious
your abso-****in-lutely clueless


I am against that also. Why does Obama give Wall Street all they want?

because george bush and other rich, white frat boys, rigged the system
so we have no choice. it's either bail out the rich or let the banking
system go down in flames...like in 29.

that's why the banks are fighting so hard against regulation. and why
people like richard shelby, GOP of alabama...are carrying their water
for them. protect the rich



The banking system would not have failed. Some brokerage houses would have.
Big F'n deal! Someone else would have taken over the pieces. Citigroup
made $3billion profit in the first quarter, record profits, during a
recession. Mostly because they get all the money they want from the Fed for
0.25% and buy T bills paying 3.5%. Buying the T-bills hides the Governments
debt, and gives the Fed more money to loan at 0.25%. Helps only Citigroup
and the other "banks" doing the same thing. Plus hiding government wasteful
spending. The money is flowing to those rich folks. And it is costing you
and I money. Lots of money. The devaluing of the dollar by government
excess spending is a tax on all of us. Even those of us making less than
$250k. Even the guy on welfare. Happy with the Democrat controlled
Congress who gave us TARP? TARP with no controls. Was not George Bush who
gave us TARP. Was Congress. Bush screwed up and signed the bill, but the
Executive branch can only spend money Congress allocates. Go take a Civics
class, and learn about our form of govenment.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"hk" wrote in message
...
On 3/30/10 8:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 29/03/2010 10:17 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
hk wrote:
On 3/29/10 8:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/29/10 8:28 AM, Eisboch wrote:

wrote in message
m...

What could be more pathetic than an asshole like Scotty here
whining
about
health care insurance when he doesn't have any and as a result
racked
up
a
$25,000 bill at a local hospital that he will never pay off.


I have no idea if Scotty has insurance or not or what his
arrangement
is
with the hospital.
That's his business and I am not interested in that specific
discussion.

However, doesn't the approved health care reform mean that you, as
a
person
of means, will help pay for the care required by those who have no
insurance
for whatever reasons? I happen to agree with it.

I thought this is what you have been advocating also. Why the
criticism?

Eisboch



My criticism of Scotty is based upon the *fact* of his
irresponsibility,
his unwillingness to obtain health care insurance, his criticism of
attempts to initiate programs to extend health care insurance to the
uninsured, *and* his unwillingness to accept "free" reasonable help
that
was offered to him in a time of need.

I have no objection to my tax dollars going to help subsidize the
cost
of
health insurance for those who legitimately cannot afford it. In
fact,
I
would have gone a lot farther than the legislation signed into law
last
week goes.



So, in other words, your tax dollars to help pay for necessary health
care
is ok with you as long as the person meets your criteria of a
deserving
recipient. Hmmmm. I might be even more left leaning than you in this
regard.

I think " necessary health care" and "subsidized health care
insurance"
are
two different things.

Eisboch



No "other words" are needed. I believe health insurance or a national
health plan should be mandatory, and if you legitimately cannot afford
the insurance, it should be subsidized for you and your family to the
degree necessary.



That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?


Breeding more deadbeats? Like rats I suppose.

That is more or less how america works these days. Take the one some 8
months ago or so who was fertilized had quints or something, up to 14
kids and on *welfare*.

Welfare and low life have more babies per capita than do middle class
working families.


I think it would be a great idea for you to head over to a working class
neighborhood bar and spew your nonsense. I'd enjoy reading about your
demise in whatever is your local newspaper.

You are ambulatory, right?




Actually the working class people in the bar would agree with Canuck.

Bliues deny coverage to ill newborn baby
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:50:52 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:26 -0400, Larry wrote:



That works so well for welfare. Breeding more deadbeats and getting
others to pay for it ****es me off. Now you want to add a whole new
level? Welfare checks *and* free health care?

how about welfare for wall street?

you right wingers.....i laugh when i read you because it's obvious
your abso-****in-lutely clueless


I am against that also. Why does Obama give Wall Street all they want?

because george bush and other rich, white frat boys, rigged the system
so we have no choice. it's either bail out the rich or let the banking
system go down in flames...like in 29.

that's why the banks are fighting so hard against regulation. and why
people like richard shelby, GOP of alabama...are carrying their water
for them. protect the rich



The banking system would not have failed. Some brokerage houses would
have. Big F'n deal! Someone else would have taken over the pieces.
Citigroup made $3billion profit in the first quarter, record profits,
during a recession. Mostly because they get all the money they want from
the Fed for 0.25% and buy T bills paying 3.5%. Buying the T-bills hides
the Governments debt, and gives the Fed more money to loan at 0.25%.
Helps only Citigroup and the other "banks" doing the same thing. Plus
hiding government wasteful spending. The money is flowing to those rich
folks. And it is costing you and I money. Lots of money. The devaluing
of the dollar by government excess spending is a tax on all of us. Even
those of us making less than $250k. Even the guy on welfare. Happy with
the Democrat controlled Congress who gave us TARP? TARP with no controls.
Was not George Bush who gave us TARP. Was Congress. Bush screwed up and
signed the bill, but the Executive branch can only spend money Congress
allocates. Go take a Civics class, and learn about our form of govenment.

According to you... that has about as much credibility as listening for a
truthful statement from Karl Rove.

--
Nom=de=Plume