On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:31:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:19:04 -0400, 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.

He didn't. That's a complete distortion. Are you claiming that you were more
in favor of the House version? If so, I agree. It was better. The one that
finally passed had lots of compromise built in. That's call politics. It's
also not the end of the line for reform.


That right wing network PBS reported it on Frontline, naming the
lobbyists. I suppose they could have lied but nobody called them on
it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl... rce=proglist


so what your OWN reference says is that, like ALL legislation, the
powerful interest groups had a voice in it...

gee. tell it to the NRA. i suppose they don't do this, do they?

obama was working within the current system. the logical choiice would
have been to dismantle the insurance companies and go to a single
payer system

but the right wing would NEVER have supported this...they WANTED the
insurance companies to have a voice...

oh...wait...the companies DID...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:31:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:19:04 -0400, 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.

He didn't. That's a complete distortion. Are you claiming that you were
more
in favor of the House version? If so, I agree. It was better. The one
that
finally passed had lots of compromise built in. That's call politics.
It's
also not the end of the line for reform.


That right wing network PBS reported it on Frontline, naming the
lobbyists. I suppose they could have lied but nobody called them on
it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl... rce=proglist


so what your OWN reference says is that, like ALL legislation, the
powerful interest groups had a voice in it...

gee. tell it to the NRA. i suppose they don't do this, do they?

obama was working within the current system. the logical choiice would
have been to dismantle the insurance companies and go to a single
payer system

but the right wing would NEVER have supported this...they WANTED the
insurance companies to have a voice...

oh...wait...the companies DID...


Hillary came up with the framework for what we ended up with when she was
championing healthcare reform during Bill Clinton's presidency.
She wanted to make health insurance mandatory for all and for those that
fell below the line our taxes would pay for it. If you were above the line,
you pay the insurance company or handed the money in as a tax and the gov't
paid the insurance company.
Same smelly funk that we have now. Nothing done to fix the supply side
(corporate $$$$ giants) just bleed a little more out of the demand side
(us).
Either way it was a HUGE friggin payday for the health insurance industry.
Had she swung it, the industry may have bought her the presidency.
Your party is as dirty as the other.

On 18/07/2010 6:01 PM, mmc wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:31:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:19:04 -0400, 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.

He didn't. That's a complete distortion. Are you claiming that you were
more
in favor of the House version? If so, I agree. It was better. The one
that
finally passed had lots of compromise built in. That's call politics.
It's
also not the end of the line for reform.


That right wing network PBS reported it on Frontline, naming the
lobbyists. I suppose they could have lied but nobody called them on
it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl... rce=proglist


so what your OWN reference says is that, like ALL legislation, the
powerful interest groups had a voice in it...

gee. tell it to the NRA. i suppose they don't do this, do they?

obama was working within the current system. the logical choiice would
have been to dismantle the insurance companies and go to a single
payer system

but the right wing would NEVER have supported this...they WANTED the
insurance companies to have a voice...

oh...wait...the companies DID...


Hillary came up with the framework for what we ended up with when she was
championing healthcare reform during Bill Clinton's presidency.
She wanted to make health insurance mandatory for all and for those that
fell below the line our taxes would pay for it. If you were above the line,
you pay the insurance company or handed the money in as a tax and the gov't
paid the insurance company.
Same smelly funk that we have now. Nothing done to fix the supply side
(corporate $$$$ giants) just bleed a little more out of the demand side
(us).
Either way it was a HUGE friggin payday for the health insurance industry.
Had she swung it, the industry may have bought her the presidency.
Your party is as dirty as the other.

Have the same problem in Canada, all the parties are dirty.


--

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

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 18/07/2010 6:01 PM, mmc wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:31:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:19:04 -0400, 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.

He didn't. That's a complete distortion. Are you claiming that you
were
more
in favor of the House version? If so, I agree. It was better. The one
that
finally passed had lots of compromise built in. That's call politics.
It's
also not the end of the line for reform.


That right wing network PBS reported it on Frontline, naming the
lobbyists. I suppose they could have lied but nobody called them on
it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl... rce=proglist


so what your OWN reference says is that, like ALL legislation, the
powerful interest groups had a voice in it...

gee. tell it to the NRA. i suppose they don't do this, do they?

obama was working within the current system. the logical choiice would
have been to dismantle the insurance companies and go to a single
payer system

but the right wing would NEVER have supported this...they WANTED the
insurance companies to have a voice...

oh...wait...the companies DID...


Hillary came up with the framework for what we ended up with when she was
championing healthcare reform during Bill Clinton's presidency.
She wanted to make health insurance mandatory for all and for those that
fell below the line our taxes would pay for it. If you were above the
line,
you pay the insurance company or handed the money in as a tax and the
gov't
paid the insurance company.
Same smelly funk that we have now. Nothing done to fix the supply side
(corporate $$$$ giants) just bleed a little more out of the demand side
(us).
Either way it was a HUGE friggin payday for the health insurance
industry.
Had she swung it, the industry may have bought her the presidency.
Your party is as dirty as the other.

Have the same problem in Canada, all the parties are dirty.


--

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

Oh go wash your face.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:36:13 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


Have the same problem in Canada, all the parties are dirty.

OMFG!! he's discovered politics is dirty!!

On 18/07/2010 9:06 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:36:13 -0600,
wrote:


Have the same problem in Canada, all the parties are dirty.

OMFG!! he's discovered politics is dirty!!

In Canada and US, you bet. Crooked, might as well let Chavez run DC or
Ottawa. It is why I am bullish on certain countries in South America
and China.

Our corrupt governments really pooched the economy good.

--

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

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:04:55 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/07/2010 9:06 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:36:13 -0600,
wrote:


Have the same problem in Canada, all the parties are dirty.

OMFG!! he's discovered politics is dirty!!

In Canada and US, you bet. Crooked, might as well let Chavez run DC or
Ottawa. It is why I am bullish on certain countries in South America
and China.

china is a socialst state with no middle class protections at all and
no pay increases until they started riotiing

your kind of place

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:01:57 -0400, "mmc" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:31:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:19:04 -0400, wrote:


but the right wing would NEVER have supported this...they WANTED the
insurance companies to have a voice...

oh...wait...the companies DID...


Hillary came up with the framework for what we ended up with when she was
championing healthcare reform during Bill Clinton's presidency.
She wanted to make health insurance mandatory for all and for those that
fell below the line our taxes would pay for it

in a sense we already do. who do you think pays for emergency care
for people who can't afford it?

.. If you were above the line,
you pay the insurance company or handed the money in as a tax and the gov't
paid the insurance company.
Same smelly funk that we have now. Nothing done to fix the supply side
(corporate $$$$ giants) just bleed a little more out of the demand side
(us).
Either way it was a HUGE friggin payday for the health insurance industry.
Had she swung it, the industry may have bought her the presidency.
Your party is as dirty as the other.

at least money is going to the middle class in benefits. not to the
rich in CDO's

On 18/07/2010 9:06 PM, bpuharic wrote:

Hillary came up with the framework for what we ended up with when she was
championing healthcare reform during Bill Clinton's presidency.
She wanted to make health insurance mandatory for all and for those that
fell below the line our taxes would pay for it

in a sense we already do. who do you think pays for emergency care
for people who can't afford it?

Heard here are hospitals that take patients that cannot pay, but can't
say I used one. I paid my own insurance when in the US.

. If you were above the line,
you pay the insurance company or handed the money in as a tax and the gov't
paid the insurance company.
Same smelly funk that we have now. Nothing done to fix the supply side
(corporate $$$$ giants) just bleed a little more out of the demand side
(us).
Either way it was a HUGE friggin payday for the health insurance industry.
Had she swung it, the industry may have bought her the presidency.
Your party is as dirty as the other.

at least money is going to the middle class in benefits. not to the
rich in CDO's

Huh? CDO? You mean CEO? Governemtn GA is 25%!!! Makes a CEO at $50
million look cheap.

--

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

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:07:56 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 18/07/2010 9:06 PM, bpuharic wrote:

at least money is going to the middle class in benefits. not to the
rich in CDO's

Huh? CDO? You mean CEO? Governemtn GA is 25%!!! Makes a CEO at $50
million look cheap.

no. collaterialized debt obligations....the fairy tales the rich
invented to sell more bull**** to trash the economy and steal from the
middle class