Gould 0738 wrote:

Given the choice, where do you think the brightest and best qualified
medical personell would choose to work? What questions would that raise
about the disparity in healthcare between the two? How long until the
left starts screaming about the unequal healthcare access for the

There is no doubt that somebody would try to make an issue of of the fact that
a Public Health Hospital (once common in this country) didn't deliver the same
level of customized, boutique medical attention available at "Sky's the Limit
Clinic."

Probably as good an excuse as any for the
hard hearted factions on the right to justify
doing *nothing*, (except allowing the private insurance companies they all hold
stock in to remain obscenely profitable and charge predatory rates).

Doing nothing, in this case, is better than creating a bigger
boondoggle, and widening the disparity in health care.



I'd rather a doctor get paid 1.5 mill, than some sports "star".


I'd rather attract some people to the profession who were interested in the
practice of medicine for reasons not associated with being in the top .01% of
American wage earners.

Many doctors want bigger salaries, in order to pay the exponentially
spiraling cost of malpractice insurance. You want to put a lid on
medical costs? Then sign on to tort reform.


In most communities, you can live in a very fine home, vacation a few times a
year, own a boat, a couple of cars, and put away plenty for an early and
comfortable retirement on no more than $300-400 thousand a year. Why a guy
thinks he needs five times that amount is beyond me.NOT THAT HE SHOULDN"T BE
FREE TO EARN IT IF HE CAN- but it shouldn't be considered normal compensation
for
a 9-5 flu and sniffles pediatrician.

I would be curious of the percentage of doctors, who actually MAKE that
kind of exhorbinant salary. I'd be willing to bet that it's not that
much. Most whom I'm acquainted with, earn 6 figures, but no more.

Dave

Doing nothing, in this case, is better than creating a bigger
boondoggle, and widening the disparity in health care.

How do you widen a disparity when the have-nots are already at "zero"? The
statement makes no sense.

Many doctors want bigger salaries, in order to pay the exponentially
spiraling cost of malpractice insurance. You want to put a lid on
medical costs? Then sign on to tort reform.

Gould 0738 wrote:

Doing nothing, in this case, is better than creating a bigger
boondoggle, and widening the disparity in health care.

How do you widen a disparity when the have-nots are already at "zero"?

Who said they have "zero"? You've already acknowleged, (And it was this
revelation which was partially responsible for this splinter thread),
that poor people can go to the "ER" for treatment, and that cost is
passed on to real paying people. That's what prompted you to propose
your "two tiered" approach to healthcare, which would therefore make it
glaringly obvious, and actually seem to be promoting, that we have
seperate classes of healthcare.


The statement makes no sense.

It does if you follow your own logic.

Dave

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:02:06 +0000, NOYB wrote:

According to Websters:
Lie (n): alternate name for that ****in' idiot named thunder.

Question: "Where's the lie?"
Answer: "Responding to my post with a stupid retort"

LOL, didn't work for Clinton either. But it was only half in jest.
Even if the statement was technically true, if the American voter
decides the President was deceitful or deceptive, the President has
a problem. This isn't about perjury, it's about whether the
President was honest with his constituents.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:54:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


*Pretend* I'm open-minded...then answer my question: "Where's
the lie?"

It depends on what the meaning of the word "lie" is.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


Harry, what did President George Bush do to Texas? Did he ruin the forests
by
cutting down both trees? Did he befoul the Rio Grande by dumping more mud
therein? Houston was a mess long before either of the Bush's got into
politics.
Now the mess is worse. Part of that is due to the tax dollars being spent
on the
care and maintenance of illegal immigrants.


John, if the state was a mess and the governor personally walks changes in
the laws through the legislature, making it easier for certain industries to
make MORE smog/sludge/whatever, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

snip remaining paragraphs that failed to show even one "lie" in the
speech

Juries decide truth vs. lies. Looks like if we were on a jury deciding
whether
the Bush Adminsitration's SOTU speech contained any lies we'd be voting
against
one another.

Hung juries equal acquittal. Guess we're looking at 4 more years.

Hung juries equal acquittal. Guess we're looking at 4 more years.

Is that what all this angst is about?
Relax, your guy is in. You just have a little more scrambling to do to hoodwink
the electorate again next year. :-)

GWB will survive all this flack. It might even build his character, which could
stand some improvement, and we'll all benefit as a result.

GWB will survive, and maybe even emerge somewhat stronger, but I'd like to see
Cheney impeached for his role in supplying faulty intelligence to the
POTUS. Impeached, convicted, and removed. Bush may have only a marginal
intellect, but he is manipulated by others who are not only bright, they are
arguably evil as well. The most dangerous person in Washington DC isn't GWB,
it's Dick Cheney. Followed by Ashcroft. But Cheney is the guy to watch,
carefully. He's a heartbeat away from being POTUS. An accident or something
else extremely unfortunate could befall Bush and if that should ever happen,
"we ain't seen nuthin yet!" My fondest, short term, political wish is for the
continuing robust health of George W. Bush......
so see, NOYB? We do have something in common :-)

Agreed. That's the only reason this story has any teeth in the first place.
The Dems are trying to give the *appearance* of impropriety...knowing full
well that there really is nothing of substance to the story.

NOYB, are you old enough to remember when Nixon was on the griddle?

All of RMN's supporters, clear up until the very last day when Nixon finally
resigned, would lock arms and shout defiantly, "There's no proof President
Nixon lied! Show us the proof! It's a Democratic witch hunt! You have no
proof!"

Finally, Nixon resigned his office and all the supporters switched from
"There's no proof" to "Your guys have done worse than this in the past, you're
only singling out Nixon because he's a Republican." Apparently when Nixon
finally resigned, the issue of "proof" was rather evident.

Now we should consider whether every inquiry and investigation requires
absolute proof *before* it begins, or whether inquiry and investigation are
conducted to develop proof. It's ridiculous to say that inquiry and
investigation are inappropriate because there is no irrefutable proof.

The sector of the American public outraged over the public manipulation by the
Bush administration is hopping mad that there is
a substantial amount of evidence that this is probably so..Whether the matter
is ever tried before a body to judge whether a "legally defined" deception took
place, anybody able to remember back six or eight months in time can clearly
remember the speeches and publicly announced events that make up the chain of
events cited by the folks who are blowing the whislte on the manipulators.

Who ever told you guys that being the majority party would be easy? :-)

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:00:33 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 04:29:52 GMT, "Kathryn Simpson"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Uh...how about Afghanistan and Iraq, for starters, eh?

So you think the Iraqi people are better off with Hussein? Come
on, even the liberals aren't spouting that nonsense!

Texas is a pretty big place, bigger than the area devastated by
a dirty
bomb. Under Bush, Texas devolved into an environmental disaster
zone.

I asked you for an example of where in Texas Bush has created
more humanitarian and environmental damage than a dirty bomb
would create.

The entire state of Texas, where Bush softened or did not enforce
environmental standards, especially, but not limited to, Houston. A
dirty bomb tends to "dirty" a limited area. Bush sullied an entire
state, and a big one at that.

Do you have an answer for that or just more
rhetoric?

See the above.


You will find that many of the folks here do nothing more than blow rhetoric.
When logic and reason get them backed into a corner, they start a new thread
with...more rhetoric. Keep up the good words.

Indeed, that is the reich-wing M.O., along with excusing everything
horrific Bush does.

Harry, what did President George Bush do to Texas? Did he ruin the forests by
cutting down both trees? Did he befoul the Rio Grande by dumping more mud
therein? Houston was a mess long before

Technically more like Pasadena, Channelview, Baytown, Texas City,
etc... the pollution-causing industries are located in suburb towns
east of Houston rather than Houston itself...



either of the Bush's got into politics.
Now the mess is worse. Part of that is due to the tax dollars being spent on the
care and maintenance of illegal immigrants.

Have you hugged your drain plug lately?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD