On 7/18/10 12:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:26:36 -0400, wrote:

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...


The point was that you like to blame the GOP for everything bad that
happens to you but they were the only ones who had NO voice in this
medical legislation you are now criticizing.


That's not true. Health care reform was watered down repeatedly in order
to attract some Republican votes. But no matter what the Dems did, the
Repubs would not go for it because real reform would not be good for
their insurance company owners and, of course, the stated GOP leader
goal of doing whatever it could to "destroy" the Obama presidency.

On 18/07/2010 11:07 AM, Harry  wrote:
On 7/18/10 12:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:26:36 -0400, wrote:

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...


The point was that you like to blame the GOP for everything bad that
happens to you but they were the only ones who had NO voice in this
medical legislation you are now criticizing.


That's not true. Health care reform was watered down repeatedly in order
to attract some Republican votes. But no matter what the Dems did, the
Repubs would not go for it because real reform would not be good for
their insurance company owners and, of course, the stated GOP leader
goal of doing whatever it could to "destroy" the Obama presidency.

Dems watered it down, GOP was against it to the wire. Dems forced it.
Any watering or problems, the be 100% on the democriters heads. Don't
weasel on it.

--

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

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 18/07/2010 11:07 AM, Harry  wrote:
On 7/18/10 12:53 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:26:36 -0400, wrote:

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...


The point was that you like to blame the GOP for everything bad that
happens to you but they were the only ones who had NO voice in this
medical legislation you are now criticizing.


That's not true. Health care reform was watered down repeatedly in order
to attract some Republican votes. But no matter what the Dems did, the
Repubs would not go for it because real reform would not be good for
their insurance company owners and, of course, the stated GOP leader
goal of doing whatever it could to "destroy" the Obama presidency.

Dems watered it down, GOP was against it to the wire. Dems forced it. Any
watering or problems, the be 100% on the democriters heads. Don't weasel
on it.

You're an idiot and a liar.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:23:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:07:05 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

The point was that you like to blame the GOP for everything bad that
happens to you but they were the only ones who had NO voice in this
medical legislation you are now criticizing.


That's not true. Health care reform was watered down repeatedly in order
to attract some Republican votes. But no matter what the Dems did, the
Repubs would not go for it because real reform would not be good for
their insurance company owners and, of course, the stated GOP leader
goal of doing whatever it could to "destroy" the Obama presidency.

That may have been true of the house bill but the Senate bill was
simply written and voted on in an up/down party line vote. The Senate
GOP leaders made it very clear they were not part of the process in
any way. Unfortunately the bill itself was simply a gift to all of the
special interests that the Democrats were demonizing in public.

uh let'ssee...the GOP healtchare reform?

none. they catered to the insurance companies by doing NOTHING...

They
used the rationalization that any bill called "health care" was better
than nothing. We are starting to see that may not be right and we are
just starting to see the ramifications of the language that nobody
read. By 2014, when the biggest parts of the bill come on line, I
expect to see massive public outrage.

blah blah blah...when has the right wing crystal ball been right?

when free market fundies deregulated wall street? how'd THAT work out?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:20:43 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:23:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:07:05 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

used the rationalization that any bill called "health care" was better
than nothing. We are starting to see that may not be right and we are
just starting to see the ramifications of the language that nobody
read. By 2014, when the biggest parts of the bill come on line, I
expect to see massive public outrage.

blah blah blah...when has the right wing crystal ball been right?

About as often as the CBO guestimates.
Medicare cost 10 times what the CBO projected in the first 10 years.
It has been bankrupt for about 4-5, simply borrowing money to pay it's
bills.

And, your solution is what exactly? I don't think getting rid of medicare is
going to be very popular.

On 7/19/10 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:09:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:20:43 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:23:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:07:05 -0400, Harry
wrote:

used the rationalization that any bill called "health care" was better
than nothing. We are starting to see that may not be right and we are
just starting to see the ramifications of the language that nobody
read. By 2014, when the biggest parts of the bill come on line, I
expect to see massive public outrage.

blah blah blah...when has the right wing crystal ball been right?

About as often as the CBO guestimates.
Medicare cost 10 times what the CBO projected in the first 10 years.
It has been bankrupt for about 4-5, simply borrowing money to pay it's
bills.

And, your solution is what exactly? I don't think getting rid of medicare is
going to be very popular.


Nothing painful is popular, that is why we are borrowing 40 cents of
every dollar the federal government spends.
Unfortunately I don't have a good answer but there is going to be a
bad answer, forced on us by reality, within the next few years.
At a certain point, we may have a hard time finding people who will
loan the US money for an interest rate we can afford to pay.
Then we will have our "Greece" moment and a lot of the things we think
we are "entitled to" will go away. The open question will be whether
we will have the same street riots the Greeks had. It won't be exactly
the same since we are better armed.



Easy solution: draconian tax increases on individuals with more than
$250,000 a year in income, on that income over $250,000, no ceilings on
payroll taxes, stricter tax rules on corporations, especially on
overseas investments, et cetera. Oh...and cutting military expenditures
in half.

On 7/19/10 12:51 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:14:03 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Nothing painful is popular, that is why we are borrowing 40 cents of
every dollar the federal government spends.
Unfortunately I don't have a good answer but there is going to be a
bad answer, forced on us by reality, within the next few years.
At a certain point, we may have a hard time finding people who will
loan the US money for an interest rate we can afford to pay.
Then we will have our "Greece" moment and a lot of the things we think
we are "entitled to" will go away. The open question will be whether
we will have the same street riots the Greeks had. It won't be exactly
the same since we are better armed.



Easy solution: draconian tax increases on individuals with more than
$250,000 a year in income, on that income over $250,000, no ceilings on
payroll taxes, stricter tax rules on corporations, especially on
overseas investments, et cetera. Oh...and cutting military expenditures
in half.

It is certainly a move in the right direction but it is not enough to
solve the problem.
The interest on the debt is almost as big as the pentagon budget and
it will pass it in the next year or two. SS/Medicare dwarf both of
those in the out years. (2016 and beyond)
They are both upside down already. I am not sure how much our kids are
willing to pay in payroll taxes when they figure out grandma is making
more money than they do. As a group, the seniors have more disposable
income than the people under 35.
That may not remain true when boomers who are still carrying huge debt
loads try to retire but I blame them (sorry Bob).
They should have listened to their depression era parents and lived
within their means.
I have always told people, if you can't afford to feed yourself, how
can you afford to feed yourself and a banker. That is what borrowing
is. Why do people always assume they will have more money later?


I'm afraid the only solution for this country will involve an entire
upheaval of society, towards a northern European socialist model that
helps rebuild a larger and stronger middle class that has options for
housing, good health care, good schools, and decent opportunities for
the future of its children. To get there will involve relieving the
wealthy of a good chunk of its holdings, regulations that favor
investment only in the United States, a demilitarization, and real Wall
Street, banking, insurance reform.

On 7/19/10 2:56 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:11:27 -0400, Harry
wrote:

$250,000 a year in income, on that income over $250,000, no ceilings on
payroll taxes, stricter tax rules on corporations, especially on
overseas investments, et cetera. Oh...and cutting military expenditures
in half.

It is certainly a move in the right direction but it is not enough to
solve the problem.
The interest on the debt is almost as big as the pentagon budget and
it will pass it in the next year or two. SS/Medicare dwarf both of
those in the out years. (2016 and beyond)
They are both upside down already. I am not sure how much our kids are
willing to pay in payroll taxes when they figure out grandma is making
more money than they do. As a group, the seniors have more disposable
income than the people under 35.
That may not remain true when boomers who are still carrying huge debt
loads try to retire but I blame them (sorry Bob).
They should have listened to their depression era parents and lived
within their means.
I have always told people, if you can't afford to feed yourself, how
can you afford to feed yourself and a banker. That is what borrowing
is. Why do people always assume they will have more money later?


I'm afraid the only solution for this country will involve an entire
upheaval of society, towards a northern European socialist model that
helps rebuild a larger and stronger middle class that has options for
housing, good health care, good schools, and decent opportunities for
the future of its children. To get there will involve relieving the
wealthy of a good chunk of its holdings, regulations that favor
investment only in the United States, a demilitarization, and real Wall
Street, banking, insurance reform.


Who would police the world and stop evil dictators? ;-)

I think the real problem is we are not Sweden.


Well, we are dumber than the swedes, fins, and norwegians.

Do we actually stop evil dictators, or simply back up dictators?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:09:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:20:43 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:23:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:07:05 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

used the rationalization that any bill called "health care" was better
than nothing. We are starting to see that may not be right and we are
just starting to see the ramifications of the language that nobody
read. By 2014, when the biggest parts of the bill come on line, I
expect to see massive public outrage.

blah blah blah...when has the right wing crystal ball been right?

About as often as the CBO guestimates.
Medicare cost 10 times what the CBO projected in the first 10 years.
It has been bankrupt for about 4-5, simply borrowing money to pay it's
bills.

And, your solution is what exactly? I don't think getting rid of medicare
is
going to be very popular.


Nothing painful is popular, that is why we are borrowing 40 cents of
every dollar the federal government spends.
Unfortunately I don't have a good answer but there is going to be a
bad answer, forced on us by reality, within the next few years.
At a certain point, we may have a hard time finding people who will
loan the US money for an interest rate we can afford to pay.
Then we will have our "Greece" moment and a lot of the things we think
we are "entitled to" will go away. The open question will be whether
we will have the same street riots the Greeks had. It won't be exactly
the same since we are better armed.


Couple this with American jobs being filled by HB-1 visa holder, documented
and undocumented workers and outsourcing and we will have reached the end of
the Empire of the United States of America.
I wonder the the left wing Chinese will treat wetback gringos as nicely as
we've treated our illegals? I'm thinking not.
And who will China sell all their crap to? Maybe they'll have to keep their
poisoned pet food, contaminated people food and lead laden toys at home?
Who wiil they spy on? Will they send $7M per day to Israel for bombs and
bullets?
We are in for a lot of changes. We should get ready by doing something about
the pilots that are driving this big plane into the ground. Maybe start with
term limits? Maybe follow that with identifying corruption within our
government and punishing the corrupt?

Ah, **** it - there's a game on/I need to go to the hairdresser/etc etc etc.
and my party tells me as long as I send em 25 bucks and vote their way,
everything will be just_ friggin_ peachy.