| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bush fiddles while health care burns
NOYB wrote:
No, we need Association Health Plans. They were passed in the House last year...but they've been sitting in a Senate Subcommittee for 16 months while the Chairman of the subcommittee figures out how to garner enough votes to make it filibuster-proof when it hits the Senate floor. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is throwing the majority of its political clout (rated the #2 most powerful lobbying group) behind their passage. The majority of working Americans who have no health insurance work for sipstick little companies who aren't going to buy into this any more than they buy into anything else to help their employees. They will if you create a large enough incentive (via a tax break) for them to contribute to employees' health insurance I would not object to a tax break with the REQUIREMENT that small businesses provide as a result at least a standardized plan for all employees. No exclusions...everyone has at least decent coverage. You know of course that local unions are major proponents of the concept of associated health plans and in fact sponsor many. Nice to see a smal business association buy into the concept of collective bargaining, if not for their employees. As you stated, unions are already able to band together in association health plans. Small businesses aren't. They should be allowed. It's not that we won't buy into the concept...it's that we are not allowed to because insurance companies lobbied long ago to keep all insurance regulation under the control of each state's insurance commission, rather than under the control of the Federal government (look up the McCarron-Ferguson Act). Congress has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. If I'm buying insurance from a company in Massachusetts, then shouldn't Congress regulate such a transaction. As someone who spent three years as a consultant to a multi-state insurance company and who had to write all sorts of copy differences to accomodate vagaries of state law, I couldn't agree more. But we need a high federal regulatory standard, not the standard some ******** state might like to impose. But association health plans are NOT the answer to the enormous problem we have. Sure they are. It creates competition on the pricing of health care premiums by removing the huge competitive advantage currently held by the insurance companies. It levels the playing field, and allows small businesses to buy a decent plan like the one *you* are covered by. (I don't even have a plan like that available to me *at any price*.) It also prevents insurance companies from ignoring the expensive markets to do business in and cherry-pick the most profitable markets. It will help, that is all. -- Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal! And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to! |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: No, we need Association Health Plans. They were passed in the House last year...but they've been sitting in a Senate Subcommittee for 16 months while the Chairman of the subcommittee figures out how to garner enough votes to make it filibuster-proof when it hits the Senate floor. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is throwing the majority of its political clout (rated the #2 most powerful lobbying group) behind their passage. The majority of working Americans who have no health insurance work for sipstick little companies who aren't going to buy into this any more than they buy into anything else to help their employees. They will if you create a large enough incentive (via a tax break) for them to contribute to employees' health insurance I would not object to a tax break with the REQUIREMENT that small businesses provide as a result at least a standardized plan for all employees. No exclusions...everyone has at least decent coverage. You know of course that local unions are major proponents of the concept of associated health plans and in fact sponsor many. Nice to see a smal business association buy into the concept of collective bargaining, if not for their employees. As you stated, unions are already able to band together in association health plans. Small businesses aren't. They should be allowed. It's not that we won't buy into the concept...it's that we are not allowed to because insurance companies lobbied long ago to keep all insurance regulation under the control of each state's insurance commission, rather than under the control of the Federal government (look up the McCarron-Ferguson Act). Congress has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. If I'm buying insurance from a company in Massachusetts, then shouldn't Congress regulate such a transaction. As someone who spent three years as a consultant to a multi-state insurance company and who had to write all sorts of copy differences to accomodate vagaries of state law, I couldn't agree more. But we need a high federal regulatory standard, not the standard some ******** state might like to impose. Fine. Let's use the standards that apply to the health insurance that's currently given to employees of the Federal Government. |
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: No, we need Association Health Plans. They were passed in the House last year...but they've been sitting in a Senate Subcommittee for 16 months while the Chairman of the subcommittee figures out how to garner enough votes to make it filibuster-proof when it hits the Senate floor. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is throwing the majority of its political clout (rated the #2 most powerful lobbying group) behind their passage. The majority of working Americans who have no health insurance work for sipstick little companies who aren't going to buy into this any more than they buy into anything else to help their employees. They will if you create a large enough incentive (via a tax break) for them to contribute to employees' health insurance I would not object to a tax break with the REQUIREMENT that small businesses provide as a result at least a standardized plan for all employees. No exclusions...everyone has at least decent coverage. You know of course that local unions are major proponents of the concept of associated health plans and in fact sponsor many. Nice to see a smal business association buy into the concept of collective bargaining, if not for their employees. As you stated, unions are already able to band together in association health plans. Small businesses aren't. They should be allowed. It's not that we won't buy into the concept...it's that we are not allowed to because insurance companies lobbied long ago to keep all insurance regulation under the control of each state's insurance commission, rather than under the control of the Federal government (look up the McCarron-Ferguson Act). Congress has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. If I'm buying insurance from a company in Massachusetts, then shouldn't Congress regulate such a transaction. As someone who spent three years as a consultant to a multi-state insurance company and who had to write all sorts of copy differences to accomodate vagaries of state law, I couldn't agree more. But we need a high federal regulatory standard, not the standard some ******** state might like to impose. Fine. Let's use the standards that apply to the health insurance that's currently given to employees of the Federal Government. Works for me. Same system, too. A wide variety of plans from which to choose, with the exployer paying a minimum of 75-80% of the average premium of the five largest plans. (I was a consultant for nearly 10 years to one of the largest FEHBA plans) But..what about those who still are not covered for one reason or another. -- Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal! And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to! |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: No, we need Association Health Plans. They were passed in the House last year...but they've been sitting in a Senate Subcommittee for 16 months while the Chairman of the subcommittee figures out how to garner enough votes to make it filibuster-proof when it hits the Senate floor. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is throwing the majority of its political clout (rated the #2 most powerful lobbying group) behind their passage. The majority of working Americans who have no health insurance work for sipstick little companies who aren't going to buy into this any more than they buy into anything else to help their employees. They will if you create a large enough incentive (via a tax break) for them to contribute to employees' health insurance I would not object to a tax break with the REQUIREMENT that small businesses provide as a result at least a standardized plan for all employees. No exclusions...everyone has at least decent coverage. You know of course that local unions are major proponents of the concept of associated health plans and in fact sponsor many. Nice to see a smal business association buy into the concept of collective bargaining, if not for their employees. As you stated, unions are already able to band together in association health plans. Small businesses aren't. They should be allowed. It's not that we won't buy into the concept...it's that we are not allowed to because insurance companies lobbied long ago to keep all insurance regulation under the control of each state's insurance commission, rather than under the control of the Federal government (look up the McCarron-Ferguson Act). Congress has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. If I'm buying insurance from a company in Massachusetts, then shouldn't Congress regulate such a transaction. As someone who spent three years as a consultant to a multi-state insurance company and who had to write all sorts of copy differences to accomodate vagaries of state law, I couldn't agree more. But we need a high federal regulatory standard, not the standard some ******** state might like to impose. Fine. Let's use the standards that apply to the health insurance that's currently given to employees of the Federal Government. Works for me. Same system, too. A wide variety of plans from which to choose, with the exployer paying a minimum of 75-80% of the average premium of the five largest plans. I pay 85% of a grossly inflated premium for coverage. If those premiums fell, I'd pay 100%. (I was a consultant for nearly 10 years to one of the largest FEHBA plans) But..what about those who still are not covered for one reason or another. *TEMPORARY* Medicaide coverage for the unemployed or those between jobs and actively looking. Long-term or life-time coverage for the truly disabled and unable to work. |
NOYB wrote:
But..what about those who still are not covered for one reason or another. *TEMPORARY* Medicaide coverage for the unemployed or those between jobs and actively looking. Long-term or life-time coverage for the truly disabled and unable to work. It is in society's interest that all its citizens have health care coverage. -- Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal! And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to! |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: No, we need Association Health Plans. They were passed in the House last year...but they've been sitting in a Senate Subcommittee for 16 months while the Chairman of the subcommittee figures out how to garner enough votes to make it filibuster-proof when it hits the Senate floor. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is throwing the majority of its political clout (rated the #2 most powerful lobbying group) behind their passage. The majority of working Americans who have no health insurance work for sipstick little companies who aren't going to buy into this any more than they buy into anything else to help their employees. They will if you create a large enough incentive (via a tax break) for them to contribute to employees' health insurance I would not object to a tax break with the REQUIREMENT that small businesses provide as a result at least a standardized plan for all employees. No exclusions...everyone has at least decent coverage. You know of course that local unions are major proponents of the concept of associated health plans and in fact sponsor many. Nice to see a smal business association buy into the concept of collective bargaining, if not for their employees. As you stated, unions are already able to band together in association health plans. Small businesses aren't. They should be allowed. It's not that we won't buy into the concept...it's that we are not allowed to because insurance companies lobbied long ago to keep all insurance regulation under the control of each state's insurance commission, rather than under the control of the Federal government (look up the McCarron-Ferguson Act). Congress has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. If I'm buying insurance from a company in Massachusetts, then shouldn't Congress regulate such a transaction. As someone who spent three years as a consultant to a multi-state insurance company and who had to write all sorts of copy differences to accomodate vagaries of state law, I couldn't agree more. But we need a high federal regulatory standard, not the standard some ******** state might like to impose. Fine. Let's use the standards that apply to the health insurance that's currently given to employees of the Federal Government. Works for me. Same system, too. A wide variety of plans from which to choose, with the exployer paying a minimum of 75-80% of the average premium of the five largest plans. I pay 85% of a grossly inflated premium for coverage. If those premiums fell, I'd pay 100%. (I was a consultant for nearly 10 years to one of the largest FEHBA plans) But..what about those who still are not covered for one reason or another. *TEMPORARY* Medicaide coverage for the unemployed or those between jobs and actively looking. Long-term or life-time coverage for the truly disabled and unable to work. There is plenty of cheap short term insurance availible....most people would rather buy toys than insurance...it is their choice......and not the guvmint's responsibility. |
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:09:46 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:
Look at Kerry's running mate as one of the reasons for soaring medical costs. Someone has to pay the multi-million dollar costs of litigation. Lawyers make easy targets, but they are a very small part of medical costs. The Congressional Budget Office states that malpractice costs account for less than 2% of health care spending. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...3/prsa0223.htm |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ...
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: No, we need Association Health Plans. They were passed in the House last year...but they've been sitting in a Senate Subcommittee for 16 months while the Chairman of the subcommittee figures out how to garner enough votes to make it filibuster-proof when it hits the Senate floor. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is throwing the majority of its political clout (rated the #2 most powerful lobbying group) behind their passage. The majority of working Americans who have no health insurance work for sipstick little companies who aren't going to buy into this any more than they buy into anything else to help their employees. They will if you create a large enough incentive (via a tax break) for them to contribute to employees' health insurance I would not object to a tax break with the REQUIREMENT that small businesses provide as a result at least a standardized plan for all employees. No exclusions...everyone has at least decent coverage. You know of course that local unions are major proponents of the concept of associated health plans and in fact sponsor many. Nice to see a smal business association buy into the concept of collective bargaining, if not for their employees. As you stated, unions are already able to band together in association health plans. Small businesses aren't. They should be allowed. It's not that we won't buy into the concept...it's that we are not allowed to because insurance companies lobbied long ago to keep all insurance regulation under the control of each state's insurance commission, rather than under the control of the Federal government (look up the McCarron-Ferguson Act). Congress has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. If I'm buying insurance from a company in Massachusetts, then shouldn't Congress regulate such a transaction. As someone who spent three years as a consultant to a multi-state insurance company and who had to write all sorts of copy differences to accomodate vagaries of state law, I couldn't agree more. But we need a high federal regulatory standard, not the standard some ******** state might like to impose. Fine. Let's use the standards that apply to the health insurance that's currently given to employees of the Federal Government. Works for me. Same system, too. A wide variety of plans from which to choose, with the exployer paying a minimum of 75-80% of the average premium of the five largest plans. I pay 85% of a grossly inflated premium for coverage. If those premiums fell, I'd pay 100%. (I was a consultant for nearly 10 years to one of the largest FEHBA plans) But..what about those who still are not covered for one reason or another. *TEMPORARY* Medicaide coverage for the unemployed or those between jobs and actively looking. Long-term or life-time coverage for the truly disabled and unable to work. There is plenty of cheap short term insurance availible....most people would rather buy toys than insurance...it is their choice......and not the guvmint's responsibility. Health care insurance costs have exploded under Bush, period. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:09:46 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: Look at Kerry's running mate as one of the reasons for soaring medical costs. Someone has to pay the multi-million dollar costs of litigation. Lawyers make easy targets, but they are a very small part of medical costs. The Congressional Budget Office states that malpractice costs account for less than 2% of health care spending. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...3/prsa0223.htm That $24 billion comes right out of insurance company pockets. And the trend is a rise in frequency and severity in the malpractice law suits and awards. The insurance companies in turn raise their rates to the physicians who in turn raise their rates. The lawsuits certainly do have an impact on everyone. |
"basskisser" wrote in message om... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: No, we need Association Health Plans. They were passed in the House last year...but they've been sitting in a Senate Subcommittee for 16 months while the Chairman of the subcommittee figures out how to garner enough votes to make it filibuster-proof when it hits the Senate floor. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is throwing the majority of its political clout (rated the #2 most powerful lobbying group) behind their passage. The majority of working Americans who have no health insurance work for sipstick little companies who aren't going to buy into this any more than they buy into anything else to help their employees. They will if you create a large enough incentive (via a tax break) for them to contribute to employees' health insurance I would not object to a tax break with the REQUIREMENT that small businesses provide as a result at least a standardized plan for all employees. No exclusions...everyone has at least decent coverage. You know of course that local unions are major proponents of the concept of associated health plans and in fact sponsor many. Nice to see a smal business association buy into the concept of collective bargaining, if not for their employees. As you stated, unions are already able to band together in association health plans. Small businesses aren't. They should be allowed. It's not that we won't buy into the concept...it's that we are not allowed to because insurance companies lobbied long ago to keep all insurance regulation under the control of each state's insurance commission, rather than under the control of the Federal government (look up the McCarron-Ferguson Act). Congress has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. If I'm buying insurance from a company in Massachusetts, then shouldn't Congress regulate such a transaction. As someone who spent three years as a consultant to a multi-state insurance company and who had to write all sorts of copy differences to accomodate vagaries of state law, I couldn't agree more. But we need a high federal regulatory standard, not the standard some ******** state might like to impose. Fine. Let's use the standards that apply to the health insurance that's currently given to employees of the Federal Government. Works for me. Same system, too. A wide variety of plans from which to choose, with the exployer paying a minimum of 75-80% of the average premium of the five largest plans. I pay 85% of a grossly inflated premium for coverage. If those premiums fell, I'd pay 100%. (I was a consultant for nearly 10 years to one of the largest FEHBA plans) But..what about those who still are not covered for one reason or another. *TEMPORARY* Medicaide coverage for the unemployed or those between jobs and actively looking. Long-term or life-time coverage for the truly disabled and unable to work. There is plenty of cheap short term insurance availible....most people would rather buy toys than insurance...it is their choice......and not the guvmint's responsibility. Health care insurance costs have exploded under Bush, period. Actually they started to soar in 1997 and throughout the remainder of Clinton's second term. They have actually declined for the past year under Bush. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1215/csmimg/p21a.gif |
" jim--" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message om... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: No, we need Association Health Plans. They were passed in the House last year...but they've been sitting in a Senate Subcommittee for 16 months while the Chairman of the subcommittee figures out how to garner enough votes to make it filibuster-proof when it hits the Senate floor. The National Federation of Independent Businesses is throwing the majority of its political clout (rated the #2 most powerful lobbying group) behind their passage. The majority of working Americans who have no health insurance work for sipstick little companies who aren't going to buy into this any more than they buy into anything else to help their employees. They will if you create a large enough incentive (via a tax break) for them to contribute to employees' health insurance I would not object to a tax break with the REQUIREMENT that small businesses provide as a result at least a standardized plan for all employees. No exclusions...everyone has at least decent coverage. You know of course that local unions are major proponents of the concept of associated health plans and in fact sponsor many. Nice to see a smal business association buy into the concept of collective bargaining, if not for their employees. As you stated, unions are already able to band together in association health plans. Small businesses aren't. They should be allowed. It's not that we won't buy into the concept...it's that we are not allowed to because insurance companies lobbied long ago to keep all insurance regulation under the control of each state's insurance commission, rather than under the control of the Federal government (look up the McCarron-Ferguson Act). Congress has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. If I'm buying insurance from a company in Massachusetts, then shouldn't Congress regulate such a transaction. As someone who spent three years as a consultant to a multi-state insurance company and who had to write all sorts of copy differences to accomodate vagaries of state law, I couldn't agree more. But we need a high federal regulatory standard, not the standard some ******** state might like to impose. Fine. Let's use the standards that apply to the health insurance that's currently given to employees of the Federal Government. Works for me. Same system, too. A wide variety of plans from which to choose, with the exployer paying a minimum of 75-80% of the average premium of the five largest plans. I pay 85% of a grossly inflated premium for coverage. If those premiums fell, I'd pay 100%. (I was a consultant for nearly 10 years to one of the largest FEHBA plans) But..what about those who still are not covered for one reason or another. *TEMPORARY* Medicaide coverage for the unemployed or those between jobs and actively looking. Long-term or life-time coverage for the truly disabled and unable to work. There is plenty of cheap short term insurance availible....most people would rather buy toys than insurance...it is their choice......and not the guvmint's responsibility. Health care insurance costs have exploded under Bush, period. Actually they started to soar in 1997 and throughout the remainder of Clinton's second term. They have actually declined for the past year under Bush. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1215/csmimg/p21a.gif You expect asslicker to make any sense when he is fully emploteed doing polyp inspections on harry?? |
John Gaquin wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget. At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43. Did Clinton pay it off in three months? I think not. We've seen this several times before. B'ass can't quite grasp the difference between the deficit and the national debt. It's fun, though. And, of course, in your crippled mind, there is no connection between running a deficit and piling up the debt. -- Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal! And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to! |
"JohnH" wrote in message On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget. At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43. Did Clinton pay it off in three months? I think not. We've seen this several times before. B'ass can't quite grasp the difference between the deficit and the national debt. It's fun, though. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:09:46 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: Look at Kerry's running mate as one of the reasons for soaring medical costs. Someone has to pay the multi-million dollar costs of litigation. Lawyers make easy targets, but they are a very small part of medical costs. The Congressional Budget Office states that malpractice costs account for less than 2% of health care spending. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...3/prsa0223.htm $24 billion is a lot of cash the insurance companies have to pay out. And is probably only a mid percentage of the actual costs. The threat of suits cost money also. The $24 billion also has a time value cost as well as the direct cost. How many extra tests are required to cover the medical fields butts in case of suit. Those tests are run every time. As my friends aunt, used to like to ride in the ambulance, every time she had a pain, she had the rest home send her to the hospital. The emergency room always did a full array of tests, no matter that her complaint was a sore arm. These also add to the $24 Billion. Big time addition. Most doctors are not getting filthy rich like Union bosses (gratuitous dig), but are upper middle class money. But after 10 years of school and residency, they should be well paid. All this adds to the cost of medical care. Yes, drugs should not cost anywhere as much as they do here. The drug companies can make a profit in Canada and Mexico and Europe, just not the amount of margin made in the USA. And the fact that most of the research was paid for by the US taxpayer through university funding and the drug companies just take the research the last few feet, should warrant lower prices to the US over other countries. We should be able to recoup some of our research costs. |
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"JohnH" wrote in message On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget. At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43. Did Clinton pay it off in three months? I think not. We've seen this several times before. B'ass can't quite grasp the difference between the deficit and the national debt. It's fun, though. Oh, I know full the the differences. BUT, unlike YOU, I also know there is a direct correlations between the two. |
"basskisser" wrote in message Oh, I know full the the differences. BUT, unlike YOU, I also know there is a direct correlations between the two. Help....My eye's are burning!!!!!!!!!!! |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:56:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: John Gaquin wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget. At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43. Did Clinton pay it off in three months? I think not. We've seen this several times before. B'ass can't quite grasp the difference between the deficit and the national debt. It's fun, though. And, of course, in your crippled mind, there is no connection between running a deficit and piling up the debt. *Whose* crippled mind? Do you know where this came from? _______________________________________ On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget. Did bassie really say that there was no *debt*? |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:25:19 -0400, "NOYB" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:56:14 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: John Gaquin wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget. At 09/30/1999, the national debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43. Did Clinton pay it off in three months? I think not. We've seen this several times before. B'ass can't quite grasp the difference between the deficit and the national debt. It's fun, though. And, of course, in your crippled mind, there is no connection between running a deficit and piling up the debt. *Whose* crippled mind? Do you know where this came from? _______________________________________ On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget. Did bassie really say that there was no *debt*? He said what I said he said! I'm still laughing, but he won't clarify how Clinton got the entire national debt paid off in three months. Maybe he used the advance from his book, John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! And Hillary's. :-) |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message And, of course, in your crippled mind, there is no connection between running a deficit and piling up the debt. No, I didn't say that. But B'ass uses the terms interchangeably, and shows no comprehension of the difference. |
" jim--" wrote in message news:NPWdnVW5Is2Wj9_cRVn- And Hillary's. :-) maybe they found a trunkful of cash right under the Rose billing records. |
"basskisser" wrote in message Oh, I know full the the differences. BUT, unlike YOU, I also know there is a direct correlations between the two. Oh. OK. That explains why, when Clinton left office there was no debt. Is that right? |
"JohnH" wrote in message So if there was no deficit, then there was no debt? Of course, since there's a direct correlations between the two. If one is zero, the other has to be zero. That's what correlations means. |
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... " jim--" wrote in message news:NPWdnVW5Is2Wj9_cRVn- And Hillary's. :-) maybe they found a trunkful of cash right under the Rose billing records. Did they find those things yet? Maybe they burned up in the same Armory fire that destroyed Bush's records! |
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"JohnH" wrote in message So if there was no deficit, then there was no debt? Of course, since there's a direct correlations between the two. If one is zero, the other has to be zero. That's what correlations means. Are you REALLY that stupid??? |
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message And, of course, in your crippled mind, there is no connection between running a deficit and piling up the debt. No, I didn't say that. But B'ass uses the terms interchangeably, and shows no comprehension of the difference. Please show where I've "used the terms interchangeably". You can't because I haven't. |
"basskisser" wrote in message Are you REALLY that stupid??? Oh, you bet!!! I just mounted on my wall a framed certificate upon which are printed the words "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." That's *exactly* how stupid I am. LOL |
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message Are you REALLY that stupid??? Oh, you bet!!! I just mounted on my wall a framed certificate upon which are printed the words "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." That's *exactly* how stupid I am. LOL Is it right next to those childish LOL's? And, is it also next to the allegation that you made, that said that I used the "terms interchangably"? Did you happen to find the evidence of that? LOL? |
"basskisser" wrote in message Is it right next to those childish LOL's? And, is it also next to the allegation that you made, that said that I used the "terms interchangably"? Did you happen to find the evidence of that? LOL? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. |
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message Is it right next to those childish LOL's? And, is it also next to the allegation that you made, that said that I used the "terms interchangably"? Did you happen to find the evidence of that? LOL? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Good, we're getting somewhere. Now, please post where I've used dthe "terms interchangably". Maybe, then, I'LL laugh until your ass falls off. |
"basskisser" wrote in message Good, we're getting somewhere. Now, please post where I've used dthe "terms interchangably". Maybe, then, I'LL laugh until your ass falls off. OK..... On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's you]wrote: "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." OK. Start laughing. I'll let you know when my ass falls off. |
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Good, we're getting somewhere. Now, please post where I've used dthe "terms interchangably". Maybe, then, I'LL laugh until your ass falls off. OK..... On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's you]wrote: "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." OK. Start laughing. I'll let you know when my ass falls off. Cripes........I didn't think asslicker could show himself to be any dumber than he already has..... |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Good, we're getting somewhere. Now, please post where I've used dthe "terms interchangably". Maybe, then, I'LL laugh until your ass falls off. OK..... On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's you]wrote: "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." OK. Start laughing. I'll let you know when my ass falls off. Cripes........I didn't think asslicker could show himself to be any dumber than he already has..... 'Tis a daily occurrence. |
P.Fritz wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Good, we're getting somewhere. Now, please post where I've used dthe "terms interchangably". Maybe, then, I'LL laugh until your ass falls off. OK..... On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's you]wrote: "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." OK. Start laughing. I'll let you know when my ass falls off. Cripes........I didn't think asslicker could show himself to be any dumber than he already has..... You're holding yourself up as an example of intelligence? You're one of the denser RepubliBORGs who post here. -- Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal! And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to! |
Harry,
It is truly a sad day for basskisser, he makes "one of the denser RepubliBORGs who post here" look like Einstein.. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... P.Fritz wrote: "John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Good, we're getting somewhere. Now, please post where I've used dthe "terms interchangably". Maybe, then, I'LL laugh until your ass falls off. OK..... On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's you]wrote: "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." OK. Start laughing. I'll let you know when my ass falls off. Cripes........I didn't think asslicker could show himself to be any dumber than he already has..... You're holding yourself up as an example of intelligence? You're one of the denser RepubliBORGs who post here. -- Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal! And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to! |
"P.Fritz" wrote in message ...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Good, we're getting somewhere. Now, please post where I've used dthe "terms interchangably". Maybe, then, I'LL laugh until your ass falls off. OK..... On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's you]wrote: "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." OK. Start laughing. I'll let you know when my ass falls off. Cripes........I didn't think asslicker could show himself to be any dumber than he already has..... Uh, YOU are the dumb one....I never said such a thing. And then some idiot comes along, claims I did, without one shred of intelligent evidence, and you eat it up like candy. |
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message Good, we're getting somewhere. Now, please post where I've used dthe "terms interchangably". Maybe, then, I'LL laugh until your ass falls off. OK..... On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's you]wrote: "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." OK. Start laughing. I'll let you know when my ass falls off. In your ignorant mind, THAT is "using the two terms interchangebly???!!! |
|
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On 15 Sep 2004 12:31:12 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: ~~ snippity do da ~~ Uh, YOU are the dumb one....I never said such a thing. And then some idiot comes along, claims I did, without one shred of intelligent evidence, and you eat it up like candy. Which reminds me. I asked you a question a while back about improper influence and I don't believe you ever answered the question. Which was: If you had the means to influence entry of your son into a relatively safe haven job like the National Guard during a period of conflict, like Vietnam to use a reference point, would you do it? No, I was and 50% of my male first cousins are in the military now. I would hope that my children, male or female, would be patriotic enough that they would serve in the military if called upon or by choice. I'd really like to know. There you have it. |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On 15 Sep 2004 12:31:12 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: "P.Fritz" wrote in message ... "John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Good, we're getting somewhere. Now, please post where I've used dthe "terms interchangably". Maybe, then, I'LL laugh until your ass falls off. OK..... On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's you]wrote: "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." OK. Start laughing. I'll let you know when my ass falls off. Cripes........I didn't think asslicker could show himself to be any dumber than he already has..... Uh, YOU are the dumb one....I never said such a thing. And then some idiot comes along, claims I did, without one shred of intelligent evidence, and you eat it up like candy. b'asskisser, what makes you think the 'asslicker' in the above post refers to you? Are you and Harry, who seems to have an asshole obsession, carrying on in the background, or what? You most certainly did say, "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." Go back to your posts of 9/9/2004, at about 9:52 AM. I already retrieved and reposted........asslicker is too stupid to realize how stupid he is. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com