On 8/14/2012 1:50 PM, jps wrote:

Everyone understands the Republican's love of wealth and most
understand trickle down hasn't and won't work. Supply side economics
is bull****.

David Stockman had a good editorial on that subject yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html

On Aug 14, 7:26*pm, X ` Man

It's too bad we've wasted so much of our national
wealth on military adventurism.


It's too bad we've wasted so much of our national wealth [period]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:19:35 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


3. Ryan modified his plan to include the ability to "opt" out of
the
whole deal, if that's a person's preference. Their medical care
would
go back to the old Medicare system and method.

So, why is this so bad to even discuss? That's what I don't get.

Haha. You've got to be kidding.
Nobody would "opt out" of Medicare.
It's just bull****. Were you born yesterday?
-----------------------------------------------------------

I think you misunderstood or I didn't make it clear.
As proposed, the option would exist to opt out of the *voucher* system
and revert back to Medicare as it exists now.

Please tell me what upside the prospective medicare recipient would
realize by opting in.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:17:27 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 8/14/12 6:12 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...


There's a reason for Medicare as it is.
INSURANCE COMPANIES WON'T INSURE OLD PEOPLE!

--------------------------------------------------------

Health care reform will require legislation that requires private
insurers to cover the elderly without prejudice.
The government's role won't be to dole out the payments anymore. It
will be to oversee the industry
and establish approved procedures and costs that hospitals and doctors
can order and charge for.






In Switzerland, health insurers are required to offer the same decent
coverage plan to everyone at a fixed price and if they do they are
allowed to offer supplemental programs. The premiums for the decent
coverage are subsidized if the individual cannot afford. Enrollment in
mandatory. That's about the only way to continue with private insurers.
If it were up to me, I'd get rid of private insurers...they serve no
useful purpose.

I'm not sure Switzerland is an appropriate system to cite. Their
economy isn't real, in addition to the funny money stuff that goes on
there, I'm not sure they're not still opening long forgotten safe
deposit boxes of Jews gold fillings to prop up their economy. The
poor are largely subsidized by the state in Switzerland because they
cannot abide people being destitute.

Nice system if you can afford it.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:58:19 -0700, thumper wrote:

On 8/14/2012 1:50 PM, jps wrote:

Everyone understands the Republican's love of wealth and most
understand trickle down hasn't and won't work. Supply side economics
is bull****.

David Stockman had a good editorial on that subject yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html

It's incredible that Republicans continue to try to beat that dead
horse years after supply side has been debunked as bull**** and
completely ineffective. It was a gimmick that R's loved because it
gave congress an excuse to treat them like saviors of the economy.

After three or four tries and no successes, they're still trying to
hawk that crap. They don't acutally care if it works, they have no
regard for the long term health of the country, they care about next
quarter or next year or their life or their kid's entitled life.

Proponents of this bull**** should be tarred, feathered and run out of
town. Snake oil salesmen, the lot.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:17:27 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 8/14/12 6:12 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...


There's a reason for Medicare as it is.
INSURANCE COMPANIES WON'T INSURE OLD PEOPLE!

--------------------------------------------------------

Health care reform will require legislation that requires private
insurers to cover the elderly without prejudice.
The government's role won't be to dole out the payments anymore. It
will be to oversee the industry
and establish approved procedures and costs that hospitals and doctors
can order and charge for.






In Switzerland, health insurers are required to offer the same decent
coverage plan to everyone at a fixed price and if they do they are
allowed to offer supplemental programs. The premiums for the decent
coverage are subsidized if the individual cannot afford. Enrollment in
mandatory. That's about the only way to continue with private insurers.
If it were up to me, I'd get rid of private insurers...they serve no
useful purpose.

I'm not sure Switzerland is an appropriate system to cite. Their
economy isn't real, in addition to the funny money stuff that goes on
there, I'm not sure they're not still opening long forgotten safe
deposit boxes of Jews gold fillings to prop up their economy. The
poor are largely subsidized by the state in Switzerland because they
cannot abide people being destitute.

Nice system if you can afford it.

We, the citizens of the USA, can't afford our system. It is about to
collapse from the weight of entitlements.