More and more Americans don't want a "public option" or Obamacare
AZDuffman
Support for Obamacare and the public so-called "option" has fallen to
38% is the latest poll. Will the Senate be smart and vote "no" or
will they commit political suicide?
I've been showing you all here that Americans don't want any part of
this, but even I admit 38% is a new low.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
AZDuffman
> Maybe Repugs can pick up some seats in the South.
>
> Bret Cahill
we will pick up in the south, north, east, and west.
GOPers don't have blind hate for one region of the country like you do
for the south.
We just think they are crazy and misguided in the northeast and
paciffic coast, but you can't stan the fact the south exists - for
some reason you are still fightning The War of Northern Aggression,
which ended almost 150 years ago.
Bret Cahill
> we will pick up in the south, north, east, and west.
Rasmussen doesn't poll outside the South.
Bret Cahill
AZDuffman
Rasmussen polls likely voters and was most accurate in 2008. You need
to get an information source outside MSNBC.
Sean
45% of voters.
That's VOTERS - not US Citizens - Congress & the president represent ALL
citizens, registered, or unregisted, of voting age down to new born babies
Overall, 46% [ of VOTERS polled ] favor the creation of a
government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could
choose instead of a private health insurance plan.
and ,, do tell me what exactly is THE health care plan they were asking
about since JUNE?
House Plan was only finalised and voted on on 5th November - how many
"voters" actually KNOW what is in it? -- ZERO to 1 % ??
The Senate has a different PLAN ... anyone know what that will end up
being? -- zero to 1% perhaps too?
What a complete jerk off this pollin gis .. asking people qustions about
stuff they would know barely zip about -- 2000 pagesm, the Congress probaby
does really know what Plan may end up passing.
ONLY 65% of Rergistered voters actually voted.
National Turnout Trends
72%
Percentage of voting-age citizens who were registered to vote in 2004,
compared with the 70 percent of citizens registered in 2000.
126 million
The number of people who voted in the November 2004 election - a record high
for a presidential year.
89%
Percentage of registered voters who reported casting ballots in 2004, up
from 86 percent in 2000.
------------------------
"AZDuffman" <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:59be7957-77ea-4cde...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
Bret Cahill
> > > we will pick up in the south, north, east, and west.
>
> > Rasmussen doesn't poll outside the South.
> Rasmussen polls likely voters
In the South.
He is never close to the other dozen or so national pollsters.
They drop that nonsense all together the the meta polls.
Bret Cahill
AZDuffman
> > > > > Maybe Repugs can pick up some seats in the South.
> > > > we will pick up in the south, north, east, and west.
>
> > > Rasmussen doesn't poll outside the South.
> > Rasmussen polls likely voters
>
> In the South.
No, everywhere.
Why do you have a hate for the south, anyways?
ornamentalmind
legislation. I for one know it is doomed to failure. About the only
health care system that works as evidenced in many countries is one
that is based on single payer or similar systems. Of course, those
with a political agenda are prone to ignore non-provincial realities…
chazwin
If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care.
It is no different from providing your own security system, or
security guards if you live in a gated community.
AZDuffman
Actually that is incorrect. Ours works and with no single payer.
Canada has a single payer and long waits for treatment.
What would be best is Health Savings Accounts and casthropic-only
coverage. Then people would shop for the best prices on non-emergency
care, which is most everything. As people became better consumers,
both low cost clinics and "concierege practices" would crop up to meet
the need.
Alas we have a POTUS who thinks he knows better than I do what kind of
plan I should have. At least he will lose in 2012 no matter who runs
against him.
AZDuffman
No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health
insurance or go to jail. Want it or not, and a catasthropic-only plan
will not keep you out of prison. It is just a hidden tax so Obama can
give free health care to illegal immigrants and other groups he favors.
Freestyle
Prison?! You fuckers are beyond stupid.
There would only be a tax penalty for those who choose not to have
coverage.
Illegals?
When was the last time you walked into a doctors office and got so
much as an asprin without presenting your ID, insurance card and
filling out 3,000 forms?
How are Illegals going to get free health care?
You think illegals are just going to wander in and get free
liposuction moron?
Have a nice hot cup of wake the fuck up you insipid, retarded shithead.
AZDuffman
> On Nov 23, 3:20 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2:38 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care.
> > > It is no different from providing your own security system, or
> > > security guards if you live in a gated community.
>
> > No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health
> > insurance or go to jail. Want it or not, and a catasthropic-only plan
> > will not keep you out of prison. It is just a hidden tax so Obama can
> > give free health care to illegal immigrants and other groups he favors.
>
> Prison?! You fuckers are beyond stupid.
>
> There would only be a tax penalty for those who choose not to have
> coverage.
And what if you don't/can't pay that? Top prison you will go.
> Illegals?
> When was the last time you walked into a doctors office and got so
> much as an asprin without presenting your ID, insurance card and
> filling out 3,000 forms?
there is nothing in the bill requiring ID to get medical care. Heck,
the democrat party is in favor or giving drivers licenses to illegals
and also to not require ID for a loan (the PATRIOT Act you all hate
requires it) so it is no stretch to see illegals getting coverage.
Liberals sue everytime we deny food stamps or other assistance to
illegals. Their history is all the proof we need.
> How are Illegals going to get free health care?
> You think illegals are just going to wander in and get free
> liposuction moron?
They are going to sue, or groups will sue, saying it is
unconstitutional to deny them, just as they do anytime a law denys
illegals any other public assistance. History proves it.
> Have a nice hot cup of wake the fuck up you insipid, retarded shithead.
Nice name calling and foul language like any other liberal who cannot
logically make their point.
Rod Speed
> chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care.
>> It is no different from providing your own security system,
>> or security guards if you live in a gated community.
> No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health insurance or go to jail.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of what a pathological liar you have always been.
> Want it or not, and a catasthropic-only plan will not keep you out of prison.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of what a pathological liar you have always been.
> It is just a hidden tax so Obama can give free health care to illegal immigrants and other groups he favors.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of what a pathological liar you have always been.
Michael Coburn
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Fred Weiss
> There would only be a tax penalty for those who choose not to have
> coverage.
Only?
There is first of all a question about the constitutionality of such a
requirement.
But I don't think most Americans realize what that will mean. They
discovered in Massachusetts.
"Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts:
Be warned: Even people with good insurance will risk fines if
mandatory insurance becomes the national law."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574459101022338232.html
Fred Weiss
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 23, 2:10 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Actually, many on ‘both sides of the isle’ are against current
>> legislation. I for one know it is doomed to failure. About the only
>> health care system that works as evidenced in many countries is one
>> that is based on single payer or similar systems. Of course, those with
>> a political agenda are prone to ignore non-provincial realities…
>
> Actually that is incorrect. Ours works and with no single payer. Canada
> has a single payer and long waits for treatment.
Yet the Canadians support it overwhelmingly in spite of the
inconvenience. They are a bit more realistic about not wanting provide
"convenience" to the rich at the expense of the middle class.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 23, 2:38 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care. It is no
>> different from providing your own security system, or security guards
>> if you live in a gated community.
>
> No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health
> insurance or go to jail.
LIE! (but then that is what Republicans do best)
> Want it or not, and a catasthropic-only plan
> will not keep you out of prison. It is just a hidden tax so Obama can
> give free health care to illegal immigrants and other groups he favors.
LIE!
Its in the genes.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 23, 3:38 pm, Freestyle <brist...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 3:20 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 23, 2:38 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care. It is
>> > > no different from providing your own security system, or security
>> > > guards if you live in a gated community.
>>
>> > No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health
>> > insurance or go to jail. Want it or not, and a catasthropic-only
>> > plan will not keep you out of prison. It is just a hidden tax so
>> > Obama can give free health care to illegal immigrants and other
>> > groups he favors.
>>
>> Prison?! You fuckers are beyond stupid.
>>
>> There would only be a tax penalty for those who choose not to have
>> coverage.
>
> And what if you don't/can't pay that? Top prison you will go.
You are a lying sack of shit.
>> Illegals?
>> When was the last time you walked into a doctors office and got so much
>> as an asprin without presenting your ID, insurance card and filling out
>> 3,000 forms?
>
> there is nothing in the bill requiring ID to get medical care. Heck, the
> democrat party is in favor or giving drivers licenses to illegals and
> also to not require ID for a loan (the PATRIOT Act you all hate requires
> it) so it is no stretch to see illegals getting coverage. Liberals sue
> everytime we deny food stamps or other assistance to illegals. Their
> history is all the proof we need.
You are a lying sack of shit.
>> How are Illegals going to get free health care? You think illegals are
>> just going to wander in and get free liposuction moron?
>
> They are going to sue, or groups will sue, saying it is unconstitutional
> to deny them, just as they do anytime a law denys illegals any other
> public assistance. History proves it.
Show us the cites, you lying sack of Republican pig shit.
>> Have a nice hot cup of wake the fuck up you insipid, retarded shithead.
>
> Nice name calling and foul language like any other liberal who cannot
> logically make their point.
You are a lying sack of shit. That is a reality as opposed to a "name".
ornamentalmind
Canada has a single payer and long waits for treatment….” – AZD
Since I do now know who all is included in your “Ours..”, it is
difficult to comment. Personally, if Canada still accepted refugees
from the US, I would seriously consider moving there. Of course, the
lack of free speech is an issue.
AZDuffman
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:20:57 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 2:38 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care. It is no
> >> different from providing your own security system, or security guards
> >> if you live in a gated community.
>
> > No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health
> > insurance or go to jail.
>
> LIE! (but then that is what Republicans do best)
Nope--it's in the bill, up to 5 years in prison is you don't buy
insurance.
> > Want it or not, and a catasthropic-only plan
> > will not keep you out of prison. It is just a hidden tax so Obama can
> > give free health care to illegal immigrants and other groups he favors.
>
> LIE!
Not at all, the courts have repetadly given benefits to illegals, it
will happen again and that may well be Obama's plan.
AZDuffman
ATTENTION ADVERTISERS--YOU TOO CAN CAPTURE THIS DEMOGRAPHIC!
> >> How are Illegals going to get free health care? You think illegals are
> >> just going to wander in and get free liposuction moron?
>
> > They are going to sue, or groups will sue, saying it is unconstitutional
> > to deny them, just as they do anytime a law denys illegals any other
> > public assistance. History proves it.
>
> Show us the cites, you lying sack of Republican pig shit.
Prop 187 in California was the biggest one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187_(1994)
> You are a lying sack of shit. That is a reality as opposed to a "name".
Again, when liberals run out of things to say or come up against
someone who thinks for themselves, this is the kind of response you
ALWAYS get.
Freestyle
> On Nov 23, 3:38 pm, Freestyle <brist...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 3:20 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 2:38 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care.
> > > > It is no different from providing your own security system, or
> > > > security guards if you live in a gated community.
>
> > > No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health
> > > insurance or go to jail. Want it or not, and a catasthropic-only plan
> > > will not keep you out of prison. It is just a hidden tax so Obama can
> > > give free health care to illegal immigrants and other groups he favors.
>
> > Prison?! You fuckers are beyond stupid.
>
> > There would only be a tax penalty for those who choose not to have
> > coverage.
>
> And what if you don't/can't pay that? Top prison you will go.
>
If you choose to pay the penalty, you can go without insurance.
If you simply can't pay it will be subsidized.
You are a jackass.
> > Illegals?
> > When was the last time you walked into a doctors office and got so
> > much as an asprin without presenting your ID, insurance card and
> > filling out 3,000 forms?
>
> there is nothing in the bill requiring ID to get medical care. Heck,
> the democrat party is in favor or giving drivers licenses to illegals
> and also to not require ID for a loan (the PATRIOT Act you all hate
> requires it) so it is no stretch to see illegals getting coverage.
> Liberals sue everytime we deny food stamps or other assistance to
> illegals. Their history is all the proof we need.
>
Illegals have no rights under our the law.
You are a jackass.
> > How are Illegals going to get free health care?
> > You think illegals are just going to wander in and get free
> > liposuction moron?
>
> They are going to sue, or groups will sue, saying it is
> unconstitutional to deny them, just as they do anytime a law denys
> illegals any other public assistance. History proves it.
>
History proves that you are a witless jackass.
> > Have a nice hot cup of wake the fuck up you insipid, retarded shithead.
>
> Nice name calling and foul language like any other liberal who cannot
> logically make their point.
I tell it like it is. You are a jackass.
ArmyOfDorkness
"AZDuffman" <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:115d3bc9-d23a-4e48...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 23, 5:08 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:20:57 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
>> > On Nov 23, 2:38 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care. It is no
>> >> different from providing your own security system, or security guards
>> >> if you live in a gated community.
>>
>> > No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health
>> > insurance or go to jail.
>>
>> LIE! (but then that is what Republicans do best)
>
> Nope--it's in the bill, up to 5 years in prison is you don't buy
> insurance.
You're full of crap.
AZDuffman
Mostly name calling, a sure sign a liberal is losing an argument.
> If you choose to pay the penalty, you can go without insurance.
> If you simply can't pay it will be subsidized.
>
> You are a jackass.
> Illegals have no rights under our the law.
>
> You are a jackass.
> History proves that you are a witless jackass.
>
AZDuffman
> "AZDuffman" <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Here is a link proving it. This link says only one year in prison, I
have heard up to 5 on other news sources:
Gotta love liberals--somehow the PATRIOT Act is taking away their
freedom, though they can never prove why. Yet here is an example of
governement telling you to buy a product/service or go to jail and
they are fine with it.
I can imaging them in Revoloutionary Times: "Forget the liberty, I'll
take government health care!"
Michael Coburn
The problem with this lying crap from the rightrded is that the
Massachusetts system has no Public Option. It is also missing that
ingredient where insurance premiums for the poor are subsidized by a tax
on the rich. This last part is what makes the middle class premiums
higher in Massachusetts.
But false analogy and lying is a mainstay for the rightarded. Always has
been and always will be.
Michael Coburn
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-public-split-on-health-
care-heavily-in-favor-of-public-option.php -----------------
A key number is on support for the public option. The poll found that 53%
are in favor and 43% against. When those who were initially against it or
were undecided were then asked about a more limited option that would
only be available to people who currently don't have insurance -- that
is, a description of the public option that was passed in the House bill
-- 40% of them then approved. This caused the total approval for a
limited public option to rise up to 72%-28%.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you are Rasmussen you ask "would you rather have a Public Option
or lose your current insurance?"
AHH yes .... Fair and balanced.
Michael Coburn
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-public-split-on-health-
care-heavily-in-favor-of-public-option.php -----------------
A key number is on support for the public option. The poll found that 53%
are in favor and 43% against. When those who were initially against it or
were undecided were then asked about a more limited option that would
only be available to people who currently don't have insurance -- that
is, a description of the public option that was passed in the House bill
-- 40% of them then approved. This caused the total approval for a
limited public option to rise up to 72%-28%.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you are Rasmussen you ask "would you rather have a Public Option
or lose your current insurance?"
AHH yes .... Fair and balanced.
--
Michael Coburn
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:25:16 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 12:11 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> > > Maybe Repugs can pick up some seats in the South.
>>> > we will pick up in the south, north, east, and west.
>>>
>>> Rasmussen doesn't poll outside the South.
>>
>> Rasmussen polls likely voters and was most accurate in 2008. You need
>> to get an information source outside MSNBC.
>
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-public-split-on-health-
care-heavily-in-favor-of-public-option.php -----------------
A key number is on support for the public option. The poll found that 53%
are in favor and 43% against. When those who were initially against it or
were undecided were then asked about a more limited option that would
only be available to people who currently don't have insurance -- that
is, a description of the public option that was passed in the House bill
-- 40% of them then approved. This caused the total approval for a
limited public option to rise up to 72%-28%.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you are Rasmussen you ask "would you rather have a Public Option
or lose your current insurance?"
AHH yes .... Fair and balanced.
Michael Coburn
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-public-split-on-health-
care-heavily-in-favor-of-public-option.php -----------------
A key number is on support for the public option. The poll found that 53%
are in favor and 43% against. When those who were initially against it or
were undecided were then asked about a more limited option that would
only be available to people who currently don't have insurance -- that
is, a description of the public option that was passed in the House bill
-- 40% of them then approved. This caused the total approval for a
limited public option to rise up to 72%-28%.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you are Rasmussen you ask "would you rather have a Public Option
or lose your current insurance?"
AHH yes .... Fair and balanced.
Michael Coburn
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-public-split-on-health-
care-heavily-in-favor-of-public-option.php -----------------
A key number is on support for the public option. The poll found that 53%
are in favor and 43% against. When those who were initially against it or
were undecided were then asked about a more limited option that would
only be available to people who currently don't have insurance -- that
is, a description of the public option that was passed in the House bill
-- 40% of them then approved. This caused the total approval for a
limited public option to rise up to 72%-28%.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you are Rasmussen you ask "would you rather have a Public Option
or lose your current insurance?"
AHH yes .... Fair and balanced.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 23, 5:08 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:20:57 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
>> > On Nov 23, 2:38 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care. It is
>> >> no different from providing your own security system, or security
>> >> guards if you live in a gated community.
>>
>> > No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health
>> > insurance or go to jail.
>>
>> LIE! (but then that is what Republicans do best)
>
> Nope--it's in the bill, up to 5 years in prison is you don't buy
> insurance.
Give us the section and paragraph you lying sack of shit. That's why it
is on line. So lying sacks of Republican pig shit like YOU can point
right to it.
>> > Want it or not, and a catasthropic-only plan
>> > will not keep you out of prison. It is just a hidden tax so Obama
>> > can give free health care to illegal immigrants and other groups he
>> > favors.
>>
>> LIE!
>
> Not at all, the courts have repetadly given benefits to illegals, it
> will happen again and that may well be Obama's plan.
And it may be his secret plan to sterilize lying morons like you. What
EEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIILLLEEEEEE lurks in that non-white heart????
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOgggggggerrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmannnnnnnn!!!!!
News flash you lying sack of shit: Obama nor the congressional Democrats
control the courts.
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
>
>
>Support for Obamacare and the public so-called "option" has fallen to
>38% is the latest poll. Will the Senate be smart and vote "no" or
>will they commit political suicide?
>
>I've been showing you all here that Americans don't want any part of
>this, but even I admit 38% is a new low.
Liar. A vast majority of Americans support the public option. Only
lying toadies of the insurance industry claim otherwise.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 23, 6:43 pm, "ArmyOfDorkness" <DorkAsKni...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "AZDuffman" <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:115d3bc9-d23a-4e48-
b9ef-565...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Nov 23, 5:08 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:20:57 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 23, 2:38 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care. It
>> >> >> is no different from providing your own security system, or
>> >> >> security guards if you live in a gated community.
>>
>> >> > No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health
>> >> > insurance or go to jail.
>>
>> >> LIE! (but then that is what Republicans do best)
>>
>> > Nope--it's in the bill, up to 5 years in prison is you don't buy
>> > insurance.
>>
>> You're full of crap.
>
> Here is a link proving it. This link says only one year in prison, I
> have heard up to 5 on other news sources:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ydzc6zs
>
>
> Gotta love liberals--somehow the PATRIOT Act is taking away their
> freedom, though they can never prove why. Yet here is an example of
> governement telling you to buy a product/service or go to jail and they
> are fine with it.
>
>
> I can imaging them in Revoloutionary Times: "Forget the liberty, I'll
> take government health care!"
Your only problem, lying filth is that not paying a fine is a
misdemeanor. Like many other failures regarding improper reporting and
refusal to pay fines. There is _NOTHING_ in the health care bill that
prescribes any penalty at all other then the fine. And the amount $1900
could only be assessed against the wealthiest Americans to which it is
mere pocket change. Only moronic nincompoops like you would choose to
got to jail instead of paying a $400 yearly fine. And most would simply
buy the subsidized insurance and come out ahead on medical expenses year
after year. What a bunch Of lying pigs you people are.
Michael Coburn
Who cares what the idiots in California do, think, or say? A state that
changes its constitution with a state 51% majority on a state referendum
and requires a 60% vote in the legislature to pass a budget is not what I
would call among the sane.
>> You are a lying sack of shit. That is a reality as opposed to a
>> "name".
>
> Again, when liberals run out of things to say or come up against someone
> who thinks for themselves, this is the kind of response you ALWAYS get.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-public-split-on-health-
care-heavily-in-favor-of-public-option.php -----------------
A key number is on support for the public option. The poll found that 53%
are in favor and 43% against. When those who were initially against it or
were undecided were then asked about a more limited option that would
only be available to people who currently don't have insurance -- that
is, a description of the public option that was passed in the House bill
-- 40% of them then approved. This caused the total approval for a
limited public option to rise up to 72%-28%.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you are Rasmussen you ask "would you rather have a Public Option
or lose your current insurance?"
AHH yes .... Fair and balanced.
--
John Galt
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:26:34 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
>>
>>
>> Support for Obamacare and the public so-called "option" has fallen to
>> 38% is the latest poll. Will the Senate be smart and vote "no" or
>> will they commit political suicide?
>>
>> I've been showing you all here that Americans don't want any part of
>> this, but even I admit 38% is a new low.
>
> Liar. A vast majority of Americans support the public option.
38% is not a "majority", el idioto.
JG
Michael Coburn
I tried to go to Canada. They wouldn't take me at my age. I was more
than welcome 20 years ago and was even solicited to come to work there.
If you are still active as a Computer Science professional you can waltz
right on in.
As to Americans and the "Public Option":
Michael Coburn
Calling YOU a lying sack of shit isn't "name calling". It is like
placing a label on a hazardous substance.
Michael Coburn
Oops the "still" got fongered into a "don't". Oh well, I fix it....
Me, again!
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
> AZDuffman wrote
>> chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>> If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care.
>>> It is no different from providing your own security system,
>>> or security guards if you live in a gated community.
>
>> No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health insurance or go to jail.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of what a pathological liar you have always been.
>
>> Want it or not, and a catasthropic-only plan will not keep you out of prison.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of what a pathological liar you have always been.
>
>> It is just a hidden tax so Obama can give free health care to illegal immigrants and other groups he favors.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of what a pathological liar you have always been.
>
Here are some more...
Samples of actual sentences (actual quotes) that Rod Speed uses to
displayh his intellectual brilliance, spelling and grammatical prowess,
and other elements of his politeness/compassion/patience.....
---------
No one ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
He's just another pig ignorant fool. No surprise that you 'think' that
the sun shines out of his arse.
Like hell it does.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a
fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>
Fred Weiss
> Yet the Canadians support it overwhelmingly in spite of the
> inconvenience.
And with the kniowledge that if they need faster and more advanced
care they can always come to the US.
Furthermore, they have the luxury - as do all the countries with
socialized medicine - of being parasites on American medical
innovation.
If we embrace the mediocrity and stagnation which they consider
acceptable - and which is inherent in socialism - all of that will
end.
As a result millions of people will needlessly suffer and/or die
because the cures and treatments which could have been will not be
available. That may very well be you. However you will likely just
accept it as a given that there is no treatment and/or cure (or
preventive) for your disease and you will continue to praise the
"free" medical care you receive.just as they do now in countries with
socialized medicine.
We take for granted the medical advances of the last 100 years just as
we do our prosperity but we have little or no grasp of what makes it
possible.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
> > inconvenience.
>
> And with the kniowledge that if they need faster and more advanced
> care they can always come to the US.
>
> Furthermore, they have the luxury - as do all the countries with
> socialized medicine - of being parasites on American medical
> innovation.
90% of American innovation comes from 6 heavily Democratic cities
representing less than 10% of the U. S. population.
The parasites are Repugliars.
Bret Cahill
Harold Burton
<439b90d4-ee12-4745...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> 90% of American innovation comes from 6 heavily Democratic cities
> representing less than 10% of the U. S. population.
Once again, Cite?
Snicker.
John Galt
Why ask? He just makes shit up.
JG
Rod Speed
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Me, again! desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.
No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
minerva
Asking the general public in a poll if they want a public option, they
will say yes, not knowing the implications. it is like choice. do you
want choice? people will say they want a public option, but what is it?
and if some states can opt out and others will opt in, what does that
mean to people who live in a state that does not have it? they are
still going to pay the taxes.
Look, the main argument for this bill is to give people who do not have
insurance, insurance. So, pass a bill that takes care of those people
and let the rest of us alone. Right now, people who need health care
can go to local clinics. Remember them? I had forgotten that they
exist but had occasion to use for immunizations and vaccinations many
years ago. That is who you call if you want swine flu vaccine. Many
people think that health care is only in a private office, but the state
and local agencies provide health clinics for residents. They get
immunizations, pregnancy assistance, exams, tests, medications and what
not. So, if these agencies need money, fund these at higher levels.
That is probably where we will all end up anyway, one size fits all
medicine if this bill passes.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 23, 5:07 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Yet the Canadians support it overwhelmingly in spite of the
>> inconvenience.
Yet the Canadians support _their_ health care system overwhelmingly in
spite of your stupid analysis.
> And with the kniowledge that if they need faster and more advanced care
> they can always come to the US.
As I have said many times, you illiterate moron: The ISA maintains the
most convenient health care system on this planet for all the rich
regardless of nationality. Of course, middle class Americans can't
actually afford the system as is evidenced by the number of medical
bankruptcies and the number of people that are still working past 60
simply because they can't afford the medical insurance rates.
> Furthermore, they have the luxury - as do all the countries with
> socialized medicine - of being parasites on American medical innovation.
That is also true, idiot. It is because of the patent system which
should be replaced by a world wide university grant system funded by
_ALL_ nations based on GDP. It is abject stupidity in the form of
freepers that cause the ridiculous rise in the cost of health care.
> If we embrace the mediocrity and stagnation which they consider
> acceptable - and which is inherent in socialism - all of that will end.
In spite of the colored words, the relief from medical price escalation
has to stop. If that means a slow down in innovation then so be it.
> As a result millions of people will needlessly suffer and/or die because
> the cures and treatments which could have been will not be available.
Oh horse shit. When does it stop, idiot. When we spend 90% of the GDP
on medical care will that be enough? You, and others like you, don't
really give a rat's ass about saving lives. You greedy lying sacks of
shit care only about widening the wealth gap.
> That may very well be you. However you will likely just accept it as a
> given that there is no treatment and/or cure (or preventive) for your
> disease and you will continue to praise the "free" medical care you
> receive.
I paid for my medical care FAR in advance, you lying sack of Republican
pig shit. I served my country militarily and that was part of the deal.
I could have claimed a cyst on a Republican butt and avoided it, but I
didn't.
> just as they do now in countries with socialized medicine.
I already have "socialized" medicine through the VA and it serves me
quite well, no thanks to you. And nobody _forced_ me to do it. It is
also perfectly acceptable as "insurance" with regard to the mandates. I
wonder what it would cost to extend the VA system to take care of ALL
individuals 55 and older. The moron Republicans would probably want to
include legislation about abortion.
> We take for granted the medical advances of the last 100 years just as
> we do our prosperity but we have little or no grasp of what makes it
> possible.
And you want us to believe that innovation comes into being because of
the pursuit of money? It does not, lying pig. It comes from a desire
for respect from ones peers and the society at large. It comes from the
pursuit of FAME and sometimes simply from the pursuit of knowledge for
its own sake.
hal
wrote:
>hal wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:26:34 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
>>>
>>>
>>> Support for Obamacare and the public so-called "option" has fallen to
>>> 38% is the latest poll. Will the Senate be smart and vote "no" or
>>> will they commit political suicide?
>>>
>>> I've been showing you all here that Americans don't want any part of
>>> this, but even I admit 38% is a new low.
>>
>> Liar. A vast majority of Americans support the public option.
>
>38% is not a "majority", el idioto.
38% is a lie, moron.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
Michael Coburn
That "still" got 'fongered' into a "don't". Me fix.
Michael Coburn
That last sentence illustrates _your_ ignorance of what the "Public
Option" actually _IS_. As a matter of fact, it illustrates the ignorance
of almost all of the people that are not supportive of the option. The
_*FACT*_ is that it has no tax funding at all and will not cost the
federal taxpayers of ANY state whether they opt out or in.
> Look, the main argument for this bill is to give people who do not have
> insurance, insurance. So, pass a bill that takes care of those people
> and let the rest of us alone. Right now, people who need health care
> can go to local clinics.
Nope. Is that a lie or just more ignorance? Local clinics do not have
ER services and it is Emergency services that are "free" to the indigent.
> Remember them? I had forgotten that they
> exist but had occasion to use for immunizations and vaccinations many
> years ago. That is who you call if you want swine flu vaccine. Many
> people think that health care is only in a private office, but the state
> and local agencies provide health clinics for residents. They get
> immunizations, pregnancy assistance, exams, tests, medications and what
> not. So, if these agencies need money, fund these at higher levels.
> That is probably where we will all end up anyway, one size fits all
> medicine if this bill passes.
And then we have the elitist mentality that insists that health care is
like cars and restaurants. This one Republican bitch was whining about
how she thought it would take too long to get an appointment with her
doctor if the poor were granted some relief in health insurance
premiums. And that is EXACTLY the Republican attitude. I got mine and
F**k you.
Rod Speed
Fat lot of good they are when you need a heart bypass or
stent, or end up with diabetes or need a hip replacement.
> Many people think that health care is only in a private office, but the state and local agencies provide health
> clinics for residents.
Fat lot of good they are when you need a heart bypass or
stent, or end up with diabetes or need a hip replacement.
> They get immunizations, pregnancy assistance, exams, tests, medications and what not.
Fat lot of good they are when you need a heart bypass or
stent, or end up with diabetes or need a hip replacement.
> So, if these agencies need money, fund these at higher levels. That is probably where we will all end up anyway,
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
Most of us will end up needing what hospitals provide at some time.
> one size fits all medicine if this bill passes.
Just another pig ignorant lie. It will have no effect what so ever on medicare.
Fred Weiss
> ... middle class Americans can't
> actually afford the system as is evidenced by the number of medical
> bankruptcies and the number of people that are still working past 60
> simply because they can't afford the medical insurance rates.
The vast majority of Americans are happy with their medical care/
insurance.
It could of course be considerably improved with real progressive free
market reform.
It will certainly not be improved by the various reactionary, tired,
totally discredited socialist schemes being concocted.
I concede that in the very short term, some small segment of the
population will benefit from socialized medicine. That's the usual
outcome of looting. But the price - as with all socialist schemes -
will be to drag down the quality of care for the rest of us. We will
sacrifice the most advanced medical system in the world for the
mediocrity and stagnation of egalitarianism. The new watchwords will
be "cost controls" and "rationing". The price will be the death of
medicine.
Hopefully, we will be able to stop the goose-stepping juggernaut
trying to ram it down our throats.
Fred Weiss
1Z
> Furthermore, they have the luxury - as do all the countries with
> socialized medicine - of being parasites on American medical
> innovation.
>
> If we embrace the mediocrity and stagnation which they consider
> acceptable - and which is inherent in socialism - all of that will
> end.
Fact-free BS. Private pharam research co-exists with public healthcare
in may countries, for instance.
1Z
> > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> 90% of American innovation comes from 6 heavily Democratic cities
> >> representing less than 10% of the U. S. population.
>
> > Once again, Cite?
>
> > Snicker.
>
> Why ask? He just makes shit up.
How about a cite for "Public healthcare means innovation grinds to a
halt".
John Galt
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:52:16 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> hal wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:26:34 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>>> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Support for Obamacare and the public so-called "option" has fallen to
>>>> 38% is the latest poll. Will the Senate be smart and vote "no" or
>>>> will they commit political suicide?
>>>>
>>>> I've been showing you all here that Americans don't want any part of
>>>> this, but even I admit 38% is a new low.
>>> Liar. A vast majority of Americans support the public option.
>> 38% is not a "majority", el idioto.
>
> 38% is a lie, moron.
It's the most recent poll. You can't refute the most recent poll with
older ones. (At least not credibly.) :-)
But, be of good cheer. The 38% won't hold long. I expect this to be in
the low 30's by the end of the holiday recess, after the people get
their fangs into their congresscritters' legs again.
JG
John Galt
The cite was in the original article in this thread, which seems to have
been snipped.
However, like you (I assume), I don't see why the two would have to be
connected.
JG
Fred Weiss
> How about a cite for "Public healthcare means innovation grinds to a
> halt".
Would you oppose it if it did lead to innovation grinding to a halt?
Fred Weiss
hal
wrote:
>hal wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:52:16 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> hal wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:26:34 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>>>> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Support for Obamacare and the public so-called "option" has fallen to
>>>>> 38% is the latest poll. Will the Senate be smart and vote "no" or
>>>>> will they commit political suicide?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been showing you all here that Americans don't want any part of
>>>>> this, but even I admit 38% is a new low.
>>>> Liar. A vast majority of Americans support the public option.
>>> 38% is not a "majority", el idioto.
>>
>> 38% is a lie, moron.
>
>It's the most recent poll. You can't refute the most recent poll with
>older ones. (At least not credibly.) :-)
>
>But, be of good cheer. The 38% won't hold long. I expect this to be in
>the low 30's by the end of the holiday recess, after the people get
>their fangs into their congresscritters' legs again.
You people keep posting bogus push polls created by the very people
who stand to lose profits from the necessary government regulation of
health care and you losers think it proves something. It doesn't. It
only makes you look more and more pathetic.
hal
wrote:
>And then we have the elitist mentality that insists that health care is
>like cars and restaurants. This one Republican bitch was whining about
>how she thought it would take too long to get an appointment with her
>doctor if the poor were granted some relief in health insurance
>premiums. And that is EXACTLY the Republican attitude. I got mine and
>F**k you.
That's always been the conservative mantra. Take whatever you can and
screw everybody else. The more other people suffer from the
conservative's success the better.
John Galt
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:17:30 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> hal wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:52:16 -0500, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hal wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:26:34 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>>>>> <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Support for Obamacare and the public so-called "option" has fallen to
>>>>>> 38% is the latest poll. Will the Senate be smart and vote "no" or
>>>>>> will they commit political suicide?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been showing you all here that Americans don't want any part of
>>>>>> this, but even I admit 38% is a new low.
>>>>> Liar. A vast majority of Americans support the public option.
>>>> 38% is not a "majority", el idioto.
>>> 38% is a lie, moron.
>> It's the most recent poll. You can't refute the most recent poll with
>> older ones. (At least not credibly.) :-)
>>
>> But, be of good cheer. The 38% won't hold long. I expect this to be in
>> the low 30's by the end of the holiday recess, after the people get
>> their fangs into their congresscritters' legs again.
>
> You people keep posting bogus push polls
It's a Rasmussen poll. You quoted the very same poll from two months ago
to "refute" the point. :-)
>created by the very people
> who stand to lose profits from the necessary government regulation of
> health care and you losers think it proves something.
How did the health insurers create the Rasumussen poll?
It doesn't. It
> only makes you look more and more pathetic.
Somebody in this exchange definitely looks pathetic, no question.
JG
John Stafford
<3fe8f95c-ca91-471e...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
With respect, you are redirecting the thread to a non-argument.
Health care must reconstruct itself in novel ways, one of which is
called Regenerative Medicine which promotes health through avoiding the
non-infectious diseases such as diabetes, heart issues, and so-forth.
It's called 'taking care of yourself, dummy!'.
But on the innovation/invention side, drugs and treatment, innovation
will not stop but instead the wealth from them will probably go to fewer
international wealth-builders. The rich will become richer, and the poor
will not be burdened.
AZDuffman
We eagerly await your proof of this, if it can be proven at all.
AZDuffman
That's an easy one--just comnpare the innovation of Canada and the EU
with that in the USA. Who makes the most new drugs and most new
medical equipment?
AZDuffman
Actually it is the liberals who want to "take" in the form of taxing
those who do earn to fund free health care for themselves.
AZDuffman
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:41:58 -0800, ornamentalmind wrote:
> > “Actually that is incorrect. Ours works and with no single payer.
> > Canada has a single payer and long waits for treatment….” – AZD
>
> > Since I do now know who all is included in your “Ours..”, it is
> > difficult to comment. Personally, if Canada still accepted refugees from
> > the US, I would seriously consider moving there. Of course, the lack of
> > free speech is an issue.
>
> I tried to go to Canada. They wouldn't take me at my age. I was more
> than welcome 20 years ago and was even solicited to come to work there.
> If you are still active as a Computer Science professional you can waltz
> right on in.
Let me guess, you were going to move there because Bush won in
2000/2004?
Maybe it wasn't your age but maybe your "gimme this gimme that"
attitude.
AZDuffman
> As I have said many times, you illiterate moron: The ISA maintains the
> most convenient health care system on this planet for all the rich
> regardless of nationality. Of course, middle class Americans can't
> actually afford the system as is evidenced by the number of medical
> bankruptcies and the number of people that are still working past 60
> simply because they can't afford the medical insurance rates.
OH MY GOD-People are expected to work "past 60?" Retirement has
always been age 65-70. As to medical bankruptcies, much of that will
come form inability to work. Which AFLAC and similar insurance will
cover. Most people who want coverage have some type of coverage.
> > Furthermore, they have the luxury - as do all the countries with
> > socialized medicine - of being parasites on American medical innovation.
>
> That is also true, idiot. It is because of the patent system which
> should be replaced by a world wide university grant system funded by
> _ALL_ nations based on GDP. It is abject stupidity in the form of
> freepers that cause the ridiculous rise in the cost of health care.
So your answer is "more socialism and more government control!"
Heaven forbid someone makes money off their invention. You really
have no understanding of human nature. I'd suggest you go to youtube
and search "Greed is Good" from "Wall Street." Listen to what Gekko
says instead of throwing potato chips at the screen and calling him an
"evil republican."
Just because you have failed in life is no reason to prevent others
from succeeding.
> In spite of the colored words, the relief from medical price escalation
> has to stop. If that means a slow down in innovation then so be it.
Yeah, screw new vaccines, better procedures that reduce hospital time
and costs. Al that stuff is useless.
> Oh horse shit. When does it stop, idiot. When we spend 90% of the GDP
> on medical care will that be enough? You, and others like you, don't
> really give a rat's ass about saving lives. You greedy lying sacks of
> shit care only about widening the wealth gap.
No, we care about free markets and know they are what reduces costs
and improves service. YOU only care about screwing anyone who earns
more than you, which I estimate at 80% of the population.
> I paid for my medical care FAR in advance, you lying sack of Republican
> pig shit. I served my country militarily and that was part of the deal.
> I could have claimed a cyst on a Republican butt and avoided it, but I
> didn't.
>
> > just as they do now in countries with socialized medicine.
>
> I already have "socialized" medicine through the VA and it serves me
> quite well, no thanks to you. And nobody _forced_ me to do it. It is
> also perfectly acceptable as "insurance" with regard to the mandates. I
> wonder what it would cost to extend the VA system to take care of ALL
> individuals 55 and older. The moron Republicans would probably want to
> include legislation about abortion.
The VA system is fine for indigant veterans who deserve care, but I've
been thru a VA or two and they are the last place I'd want care. The
conditions almost had me in tears. Most anybody can find better care
if they try.
> And you want us to believe that innovation comes into being because of
> the pursuit of money? It does not, lying pig. It comes from a desire
> for respect from ones peers and the society at large. It comes from the
> pursuit of FAME and sometimes simply from the pursuit of knowledge for
> its own sake.
Yes, Henry Ford built his company so Mr. Benz would respect him, money
had nothing to do with it.
Bill Gates just wanted respect, he didn't found Microsoft to look
better than Steve Jobs.
Read "The Wealth of Nations." Innovation comes from a desire for more
money and less work. You really should learn some basic economics and
human behavior so you don't look so silly.
BTW: Obama's dissaproval gap is now a high of 15 points with an
approval fallen to 45%. Kind of shows people don't like his policies.
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 8:54=A0am, hal wrote:
>> On 24 Nov 2009 04:52:45 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >And then we have the elitist mentality that insists that health care is
>> >like cars and restaurants. =A0This one Republican bitch was whining abou=
>t
>> >how she thought it would take too long to get an appointment with her
>> >doctor if the poor were granted some relief in health insurance
>> >premiums. =A0And that is EXACTLY the Republican attitude. =A0I got mine =
>and
>> >F**k you.
>>
>> That's always been the conservative mantra. =A0Take whatever you can and
>> screw everybody else. =A0The more other people suffer from the
>> conservative's success the better. =A0
>
>Actually it is the liberals who want to "take" in the form of taxing
>those who do earn to fund free health care for themselves.
only those who earn A LOT.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> middle class Americans can't actually afford the system as
>> is evidenced by the number of medical bankruptcies and the
>> number of people that are still working past 60 simply
>> because they can't afford the medical insurance rates.
> The vast majority of Americans are happy with their medical care/insurance.
Another bare faced lie. They certainly aint happy with the
fact that they can be bankrupted by a serious medical
problem or the premiums their insurance slugs them.
> It could of course be considerably improved with real progressive free market reform.
Another bare faced lie.
> It will certainly not be improved by the various reactionary,
> tired, totally discredited socialist schemes being concocted.
Another bare faced lie.
> I concede that in the very short term, some small segment
> of the population will benefit from socialized medicine.
In fact a very large segment of the population did benefit over
the long haul from the existing socialized medicine, medicare.
> That's the usual outcome of looting.
Another bare faced lie.
> But the price - as with all socialist schemes - will be
> to drag down the quality of care for the rest of us.
Another bare faced lie. Medicare didnt do that.
> We will sacrifice the most advanced medical system in the
> world for the mediocrity and stagnation of egalitarianism.
Another bare faced lie. Medicare didnt do that.
> The new watchwords will be "cost controls" and "rationing".
Another bare faced lie. Medicare didnt do that.
> The price will be the death of medicine.
That hasnt happened ANYWHERE, you silly little pathological liar.
> Hopefully, we will be able to stop the goose-stepping
> juggernaut trying to ram it down our throats.
Not a chance, you watch.
Rod Speed
> 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> How about a cite for "Public healthcare means innovation grinds to a halt".
> Would you oppose it if it did lead to innovation grinding to a halt?
You might as well ask whether you oppose little green men from mars. Neither will happen.
Rod Speed
> Health care must reconstruct itself in novel ways, one of which is
> called Regenerative Medicine which promotes health through avoiding
> the non-infectious diseases such as diabetes, heart issues, and so-forth.
Not even possible.
> It's called 'taking care of yourself, dummy!'.
Its actually called mindless silly stuff.
> But on the innovation/invention side, drugs and treatment, innovation will not stop
Corse it wont.
> but instead the wealth from them will probably go to fewer international wealth-builders.
Nope. A hell of a lot of the most important stuff will continue to be done by govt funded research.
> The rich will become richer, and the poor will not be burdened.
Mindless slogans cut no mustard.
Sure,Not
wrote:
> Michael Coburn wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:26:25 +0000, Michael Coburn wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:12:09 +0000, Michael Coburn wrote:
>
> >>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:04:24 -0800, AZDuffman wrote:
>
> >>>>On Nov 23, 3:38 pm, Freestyle <brist...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Nov 23, 3:20 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Nov 23, 2:38 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>If it is an 'option' then they can buy their own health care. It
> >>>>>>>is no different from providing your own security system, or
> >>>>>>>security guards if you live in a gated community.
>
> >>>>>>No, Obamacare is different in that you are required to buy health
> >>>>>>insurance or go to jail. Want it or not, and a catasthropic-only
> >>>>>>plan will not keep you out of prison. It is just a hidden tax so
>
> - Show quoted text -
One of my favorite lines from a movie:
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American
public".
AZDuffman
> >Actually it is the liberals who want to "take" in the form of taxing
> >those who do earn to fund free health care for themselves.
>
> only those who earn A LOT.- Hide quoted text -
>
What is the difference? You are still making someone else pull the
cart while you ride in it.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Sure killed innovation in communications when ATT was the Monolithic
Giant government protected and all powerful GOD of the telephone....
Look what communications has become with freedom and capitalism.
Government regulation kills innovation.
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am doing nothing of the sort. But I am seeing to it that a few
elite who profit enormously at the expense of society are expected to
give some of it back.
Harold Burton
<b9189305-16fc-4e2d...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
AZDuffman <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
Whenever I see one his posts with that lie I request he prove it. He's
batting 100% for not responding. That says a lot, eh?
snicker.
Michael Coburn
Here is a REAL CLEAR PICTURE for you Galt:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
It illustrates that Rasmussen is an out-liar.
>
>>> JG
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/
AR2009101902451.html
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform.
>>>>>
>>>>> JG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only
>>>>>> lying toadies of the insurance industry claim otherwise.
>>
--
AZDuffman
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:27:42 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>
> >On Nov 24, 11:40=A0am, hal wrote:
>
> >> >Actually it is the liberals who want to "take" in the form of taxing
> >> >those who do earn to fund free health care for themselves.
>
> >> only those who earn A LOT.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >What is the difference? You are still making someone else pull the
> >cart while you ride in it.
>
> I am doing nothing of the sort. But I am seeing to it that a few
> elite who profit enormously at the expense of society are expected to
> give some of it back.
The wealthy give plenty back while the poor are net takers from
society. This is why conservatives prefer to create more wealthy
people, it helps society. Liberals would rather make more people poor.
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 5:11=A0pm, hal wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:27:42 -0800 (PST), AZDuffman
>>
>> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 24, 11:40=3DA0am, hal wrote:
>>
>> >> >Actually it is the liberals who want to "take" in the form of taxing
>> >> >those who do earn to fund free health care for themselves.
>>
>> >> only those who earn A LOT.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >What is the difference? =A0You are still making someone else pull the
>> >cart while you ride in it.
>>
>> I am doing nothing of the sort. =A0But I am seeing to it that a few
>> elite who profit enormously at the expense of society are expected to
>> give some of it back.
>
>The wealthy give plenty back while the poor are net takers from
>society. This is why conservatives prefer to create more wealthy
>people, it helps society. Liberals would rather make more people poor.
You're a liar. Or really, really, stupid. Liberals don't want to
make people poor, you moron. Liberals just want to make really rich
people a little less rich so that poor people can have the basic
necessities. Your kind will gladly watch them starve and snottily
declare that they simply should have made themselves rich.
Les Cargill
This is the worst possible example to choose. Under monopoly,
just about every innovation we now see outside of patents/IP
held by Qualcomm or 3COM was actually developed.
There's been little or no actual "invention" since. The
fundamentals date from the 1930s. And if you're in the
actual field of communications, you'd know that each year,
another cohort of vendors disappears, and the vig
to play the game goes up.
--
Les Cargill
AZDuffman
> >The wealthy give plenty back while the poor are net takers from
> >society. This is why conservatives prefer to create more wealthy
> >people, it helps society. Liberals would rather make more people poor.
>
> You're a liar. Or really, really, stupid. Liberals don't want to
> make people poor, you moron. Liberals just want to make really rich
> people a little less rich so that poor people can have the basic
> necessities. Your kind will gladly watch them starve and snottily
> declare that they simply should have made themselves rich. - Hide quoted text -
Sure they do--the more poor people liberals make the more votes they
get. If they wanted to help the poor they would not keep taking money
the rich have for investment, they would let the rich employ the
poor. The rich pay over 50% in taxes in many cases yet the liberals
cry "NOT ENOUGH" because they want someone else to pay their way.
Any able-bodied person starving in a land of plenty like the USA is
just plain lazy and waiting for a handout. Heck, I walk by lots of
them waiting for handouts in their little cups on the way to work
daily. Some have been in the same spot for 6+ months. Looking for a
job is beyond their logic I suppose.
Rod Speed
>>>> How about a cite for "Public healthcare means innovation grinds to a halt".
>>> Would you oppose it if it did lead to innovation grinding to a halt?
>> You might as well ask whether you oppose little green men from mars.
>> Neither will happen.
> Sure killed innovation in communications when ATT was the Monolithic
> Giant government protected and all powerful GOD of the telephone....
It was never govt protected, fuckwit.
> Look what communications has become with freedom and capitalism.
Look at what govt involvement produced with NASA etc, fuckwit.
> Government regulation kills innovation.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
The pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated and innovation hasnt been killed, fuckwit.
Michael Coburn
Just keep on lying. That's the ticket.
Les Cargill
I am picking on you because of the way you worded this. The present
system is pretty *in*efficient. Where the liberals are right is that
if labor fetched more money, there'd be greater overall velocity
of money, and government wouldn't have to worry about deflation. I'm
pretty sure that one effect of the safety net is that people
find it a little easier to *be* heartless b*stards - after all,
the safety net will take care of it. It's a vaguely-formed
thing, but the more I see of "the war on poverty", the more
it seems to *cause* poverty. Subsidies are like that.
But still, people produce more per man hour every year. And it's
not hard to see why some of them feel penalized for this. We
do have to do something to keep people bought in to the system.
Sad fact is, what we have now isn't very free market - it's all
about the kind of rent-seeking government contractors and
lobbyists do.
Very few people actually expect to depend on a handout, and
those people are ( I am making up a word ) "economic sociopaths" -
they don't understand how they can possibly do anything anybody else
finds of value. Or they don't know where money comes from, how it
is that a business works, or... much of anything else related
to the subject. Consider that for a moment - people who've lived
their lives that way. It's astounding - they've just never seen it
in action.
The rest are more or less like farmers - people who
couldn't afford to do it without the subsidy.
There's no point in flinging mud at Obama - GW Bush's "compassionate
conservatism" was pretty much the same thing. Throw in "prosperity
gospel" on a local retail level and it spells higher levels of
personal indebtedness, lower savings and overleverege on real estate.
--
Les Cargill
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 6:25=A0pm, hal wrote:
>
>> >The wealthy give plenty back while the poor are net takers from
>> >society. =A0This is why conservatives prefer to create more wealthy
>> >people, it helps society. =A0Liberals would rather make more people poor=
>.
>>
>> You're a liar. =A0Or really, really, stupid. =A0Liberals don't want to
>> make people poor, you moron. =A0Liberals just want to make really rich
>> people a little less rich so that poor people can have the basic
>> necessities. =A0Your kind will gladly watch them starve and snottily
>> declare that they simply should have made themselves rich. =A0- Hide quot=
>ed text -
>
>Sure they do--the more poor people liberals make the more votes they
>get. If they wanted to help the poor they would not keep taking money
>the rich have for investment, they would let the rich employ the
>poor. The rich pay over 50% in taxes in many cases yet the liberals
>cry "NOT ENOUGH" because they want someone else to pay their way.
>
>Any able-bodied person starving in a land of plenty like the USA is
>just plain lazy and waiting for a handout. Heck, I walk by lots of
>them waiting for handouts in their little cups on the way to work
>daily. Some have been in the same spot for 6+ months. Looking for a
>job is beyond their logic I suppose.
>
You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. I hope a downturn of luck
makes you find yourself living in the filth in the street.
Harold Burton
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> Fred Weiss wrote
> >>> 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>>> How about a cite for "Public healthcare means innovation grinds to a
> >>>> halt".
>
> >>> Would you oppose it if it did lead to innovation grinding to a halt?
>
> >> You might as well ask whether you oppose little green men from mars.
> >> Neither will happen.
>
> > Sure killed innovation in communications when ATT was the Monolithic
> > Giant government protected and all powerful GOD of the telephone....
>
> It was never govt protected, fuckwit.
sure was, fuckwit.
Snicker.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Liberalism strives for mediocrity....
Me, again!
I, Rod Speed, am a gutless fuckwit psychopath with pathetic psychotic
delusions about being a human, desperately cowering behind
my ass, desperately attempted to bullshit and lie my way out of
my predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
No surprise that I got the bums rush, right out the door, onto my lard
arse.
No surprise that I'm so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Fred Weiss wrote
>>>> 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> How about a cite for "Public healthcare means innovation grinds to
>>>>> a halt".
>>>> Would you oppose it if it did lead to innovation grinding to a halt?
>>> You might as well ask whether you oppose little green men from mars.
>>> Neither will happen.
>>
>> Sure killed innovation in communications when ATT was the Monolithic
>> Giant government protected and all powerful GOD of the telephone....
>>
>>
>> Look what communications has become with freedom and capitalism.
>>
>>
>> Government regulation kills innovation.
>>
>>
>
> This is the worst possible example to choose. Under monopoly,
> just about every innovation we now see outside of patents/IP
> held by Qualcomm or 3COM was actually developed.
>
Yep government invented airplanes too.... Government creeated the
transistor too. Then government made the transistor into IC's
Didn't government run the first rails across the Nation?
> There's been little or no actual "invention" since. The
> fundamentals date from the 1930s. And if you're in the
> actual field of communications, you'd know that each year,
> another cohort of vendors disappears, and the vig
> to play the game goes up.
>
Yep that's how Bill Gates got to be the richest man in America..... he
was the Big guy and he just ran over IBM.
> --
> Les Cargill
You can't sell your Socialism to me.
Rod Speed
own lines, or anything else at all either, with pathetic psychotic
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Me, again! desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.
No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 23, 11:16 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> ... middle class Americans can't
>> actually afford the system as is evidenced by the number of medical
>> bankruptcies and the number of people that are still working past 60
>> simply because they can't afford the medical insurance rates.
>
> The vast majority of Americans are happy with their medical care/
> insurance.
Yes... They are. Yet there are many that are not covered and the House
bill will cover them at the expense of the rich, thereby taking a load
off the middle class making them even more "happy with their insurance".
> It could of course be considerably improved with real progressive free
> market reform.
That is a religious conviction that is thoroughly refuted by the
realities in other nations.
> It will certainly not be improved by the various reactionary, tired,
> totally discredited socialist schemes being concocted.
That is, of course, a lie. As I said, lying pig: A large amount of the
expense for care of the uninsured will have been moved from the middle
class to the rich by virtue of the House plan. That is an improvement
according to most rational people.
> I concede that in the very short term, some small segment of the
> population will benefit from socialized medicine. That's the usual
> outcome of looting. But the price - as with all socialist schemes - will
> be to drag down the quality of care for the rest of us.
"Looting" seems to be a fav of the liars. But I have to admit it. You
pricks who think your lives are worth so much more then those of the poor
and the middle class may suffer some inconvenience. Poor babies.
> We will
> sacrifice the most advanced medical system in the world for the
> mediocrity and stagnation of egalitarianism. The new watchwords will be
> "cost controls" and "rationing". The price will be the death of
> medicine.
More lying filth.
> Hopefully, we will be able to stop the goose-stepping juggernaut trying
> to ram it down our throats.
And now we present --- THE BOOGERMAN!!!
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 23, 8:51 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:41:58 -0800, ornamentalmind wrote:
>> > “Actually that is incorrect. Ours works and with no single payer.
>> > Canada has a single payer and long waits for treatment….” – AZD
>>
>> > Since I do now know who all is included in your “Ours..”, it is
>> > difficult to comment. Personally, if Canada still accepted refugees
>> > from the US, I would seriously consider moving there. Of course, the
>> > lack of free speech is an issue.
>>
>> I tried to go to Canada. They wouldn't take me at my age. I was more
>> than welcome 20 years ago and was even solicited to come to work there.
>> If you are still active as a Computer Science professional you can
>> waltz right on in.
>
> Let me guess, you were going to move there because Bush won in
> 2000/2004?
>
> Maybe it wasn't your age but maybe your "gimme this gimme that"
> attitude.
Actually, the Bush win _was_ part of the consideration.
AZDuffman
> >Any able-bodied person starving in a land of plenty like the USA is
> >just plain lazy and waiting for a handout. Heck, I walk by lots of
> >them waiting for handouts in their little cups on the way to work
> >daily. Some have been in the same spot for 6+ months. Looking for a
> >job is beyond their logic I suppose.
>
> You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. I hope a downturn of luck
> makes you find yourself living in the filth in the street. - Hide quoted text -
The point is, if I were living in the streets I'd eb spending every
waking moment trying to better my situation. Instead of asking for a
handout like most bums do, I'd ask a restaurant owner if I could sweep
up for a meal. I'd be at the local day-labor site each and every
morning looking for work. And I'd keep trying to improve. I'd do all
that instead of sitting on the same sidewalk day in and day out
waiting for people to give me money.
Heck, where I walk one bum has asked for money daily for eight or more
monhs now. I have to wonder when he will stop asking. The only
people I give cash to on the street is a Salvation Army pot.
John Galt
> On Nov 24, 8:14 pm, hal wrote:
>
>>> Any able-bodied person starving in a land of plenty like the USA is
>>> just plain lazy and waiting for a handout. Heck, I walk by lots of
>>> them waiting for handouts in their little cups on the way to work
>>> daily. Some have been in the same spot for 6+ months. Looking for a
>>> job is beyond their logic I suppose.
>> You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. I hope a downturn of luck
>> makes you find yourself living in the filth in the street. - Hide quoted text -
>
> The point is, if I were living in the streets I'd eb spending every
> waking moment trying to better my situation.
And you would succeed, because YOU would not be preventing YOU from
doing so.
JG
1Z
> The wealthy give plenty back while the poor are net takers from
> society.
The gain to society from the wealthy is mostly involuntary
in the form of taxation...
>This is why conservatives prefer to create more wealthy
> people,
...while negating the effect by taxing them less.
1Z
> On Nov 24, 6:25 pm, hal wrote:
>
> > >The wealthy give plenty back while the poor are net takers from
> > >society. This is why conservatives prefer to create more wealthy
> > >people, it helps society. Liberals would rather make more people poor.
>
> > You're a liar. Or really, really, stupid. Liberals don't want to
> > make people poor, you moron. Liberals just want to make really rich
> > people a little less rich so that poor people can have the basic
> > necessities. Your kind will gladly watch them starve and snottily
> > declare that they simply should have made themselves rich. - Hide quoted text -
>
> Sure they do--the more poor people liberals make the more votes they
> get.
The more tax-cuts the conservatives offer to the better off, the more
votes they get...
>If they wanted to help the poor they would not keep taking money
> the rich have for investment,
...or spending on luxury items
> they would let the rich employ the
> poor. The rich pay over 50% in taxes in many cases yet the liberals
> cry "NOT ENOUGH" because they want someone else to pay their way.
>
> Any able-bodied
and minded?
>person starving in a land of plenty like the USA is
> just plain lazy and waiting for a handout.
Yeah, cos there is no such thing as systematic unemployment.
1Z
dog.com> wrote:
> Yep government invented airplanes too.... Government creeated the
> transistor too. Then government made the transistor into IC's
Government funded almost all space exploration, most of
all the technologies behind the internet, is funding almost all fusion
research,
AZDuffman
Government does do well at pure research and military programs are
also worthwhile. Show me a technological breakthru and I'll show you
a military (including space) program. Pure research makes little
profit if any and that is why private industry avoids it. with a few
exceptions like the once-mighty ATT/Bell Labs.
Where the government gets into trouble is applied research. Industry
is better at taking the internet and making it usefuland profitable.
Before it became mainstream in 1994 or so the internet was not 1% as
useful as today.
AZDuffman
> On 24 Nov, 23:10, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The wealthy give plenty back while the poor are net takers from
> > society.
>
> The gain to society from the wealthy is mostly involuntary
> in the form of taxation...
uh lets see:
How many jobs do the wealthy create?
How many voluntary donations do they make to various causes?
How many foundations have they set up?
If the wealthy were a drag on society then places like Somalia and
Haiti would be the best places to live as they have so few of them.
Like I always remind people: no poor person ever hired me for a job
but several wealthy people have, so the more wealthy the better.