wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:16:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In any case, Grassley and his kind have no credibility wrt to healthcare
insurance reform.

You never saw me say he did.

You posted a link that used him as a commentator on the issue. He has no
credibility.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:37:49 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:08:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

BS. The insurance companies have no business deciding anything related to
healthcare. They charge a lot and do nothing.

Then why did Harry Reid let them write the Senate bill? It is a fact
that it was written by a couple of lobbyists who were from UHC.

ROFLMAO!! proof? none. none at all. in fact, the industry opposed SOME
features, which were supported by the AMA.

you guys are really excellent mouthpieces for rush, aren't you?


As long as insurance companies pump billions into politician's
pockets, they are not going anywhere.

and if the GOP had balls they would have opposed the healthcare
industries' attempts to bankroll them

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:08:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:50:51 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38294522...ew_york_times/

insurance companies are starting to ration care by choosing which
doctors they'll let you see.

so much for free enterprise.

This is not "free enterprise".It is regulated enterprise.
When the health care law limited what the plan would charge, they
couldn't afford to pay the good doctors.
You are still free to pay more but now your government mandated
insurance will not cover it.
I think I warned you.

BS. The insurance companies have no business deciding anything related to
healthcare. They charge a lot and do nothing.

Then why did Harry Reid let them write the Senate bill? It is a fact
that it was written by a couple of lobbyists who were from UHC.

As long as insurance companies pump billions into politician's
pockets, they are not going anywhere.

Good articles on "Sponsored Bills" re California, but applies Federally
also. There are more articles if you search. A series.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-sto...061?source=pkg

On 17/07/2010 11:37 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:08:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:50:51 -0400, wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38294522...ew_york_times/

insurance companies are starting to ration care by choosing which
doctors they'll let you see.

so much for free enterprise.

This is not "free enterprise".It is regulated enterprise.
When the health care law limited what the plan would charge, they
couldn't afford to pay the good doctors.
You are still free to pay more but now your government mandated
insurance will not cover it.
I think I warned you.

BS. The insurance companies have no business deciding anything related to
healthcare. They charge a lot and do nothing.

Then why did Harry Reid let them write the Senate bill? It is a fact
that it was written by a couple of lobbyists who were from UHC.

As long as insurance companies pump billions into politician's
pockets, they are not going anywhere.

I would not bank on that. Looking at the congression spending and
revenue projection for 2011 and beyond, huge tax increase are in store
to offset the even more spending on top of the debt spending going on now.

In fact, it looks like total taxation, excluding health care has to double.

Government is no longer happy with 0.1% kickbacks when they can get the
whole health care revenue stream. GM, GMAC, Fannie, Freedie will make
sure the politicians get the greece in lobbiests, government lobbiests
that is. But government wants that huge hunk of change to skim it for
30-50%. Plus to use it to "justify" the whopping tax increases.

That is what they did in Canada and UK when the fat lady sung the whole
song.
--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:17:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


That is what they did in Canada and UK when the fat lady sung the whole
song.

guess he's unaware that the canadian economy is in better shape than
the US, and the UK has just announced major spending cuts.

ooh well...the right never was very smart

On 18/07/2010 9:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:17:48 -0600,
wrote:


That is what they did in Canada and UK when the fat lady sung the whole
song.

guess he's unaware that the canadian economy is in better shape than
the US, and the UK has just announced major spending cuts.

ooh well...the right never was very smart

It is only temporary. They say that but in reality Canada is always a
little behind. What really helps us is that we are resources/food
based. Want beer and wheat, or oil and NG to warm the butts in
winter... Even export hydro eletrcity. We do not have much
discretionary manufacturing like boats.

For example, China is growing, they buy a lot of coal from Tech Cominco.
Keeps the rails, banks, incomes, cities and tax base running even
though US buyers are fewer.

At some point Canada usually does lapse and follow the US, but in part,
our government has been more conservative only overspending $60 billion
or so depending on who you believe. Small by US comparison even if you
factor in population.

Example, Federally Canada has $240 billion or so revenue. But is
overspending say $60 billion. Or about 25%.

US democrats are overspending closer to 85% by the same measurements.
Yep, Obama could double your income tax and he probably still could nt
make a balanced budget. Spend crazy madnes in DC.

--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:03:06 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Yep, Obama could double your income tax and he probably still could not
make a balanced budget. Spend crazy madnes in DC.

Sadly that is true. The deficit is 1.4 trillion and we only collect
1.25 trillion in income taxes now. The idea that the top 1% of the tax
payers could make up this short fall is ludicrous

I've never heard anybody say that. Except you did right there.
Why say silly stuff?

Jim - What's going on here?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:03:06 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

Yep, Obama could double your income tax and he probably still could not
make a balanced budget. Spend crazy madnes in DC.

Sadly that is true. The deficit is 1.4 trillion and we only collect
1.25 trillion in income taxes now. The idea that the top 1% of the tax
payers could make up this short fall is ludicrous

You guys really need to calm down about the deficit. In the short term, it
is required to ensure a stable economy. It's fixable in the long term. The
rest is just fear-based bs.