Fox News Poll: 54 Percent Prefer Congress Do Nothing on Health Care
Leroy N. Soetoro
Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that Americans
don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
A majority � 57 percent � oppose the health care reform legislation being
considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor the
reforms.
The poll results show the highest level of opposition to the health care
bill to date.
Click here to see the poll
Similarly, while 41 percent of Americans want Congress to pass major
health care reform legislation this year, a 54 percent majority says they
would rather Congress "do nothing on health care for now," up from 48
percent who felt that way in July.
Small wonder, when most people think the reforms will cost them money, and
nearly twice as many think the quality of their health care will be worse
rather than better.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the reforms will cost
them money, up from 58 percent who thought so previously (July 2009).
Fewer than one in four people � 23 percent � currently think the plan will
save them money.
By 52 percent to 28 percent, Americans say the quality of health care
their family receives would be worse under the proposed plan.
Among Democrats, 63 percent favor the health care reform legislation,
while a large 87 percent majority of Republicans and two-thirds of
independents (66 percent) oppose it.
The public is less approving of President Obama's job performance on
health care than on most other issues (with the exception of the deficit).
Thirty-nine percent approve of his handling of health care and 54 percent
disapprove. While this current assessment is in line with polling
conducted earlier this year, it does represent the most negative view up
to now of the president's handling of health care.
Most Democrats (73 percent) approve of Obama's handling of health care,
while most Republicans (86 percent) and a sizable majority of independents
(63 percent) disapprove.
The House passed its version of health care reform in November. The Senate
is currently debating the legislation. Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted
the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for Fox News from
December 8 to December 9. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of
error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Americans put health care reform fairly low on the national to-do list.
When asked about the most important issues for the government to be
working on right now, fixing the economy (27 percent) and creating jobs
(26 percent) are the two top items � far outdistancing all others.
The remaining issues � including health care � are bunched together with
much less support: reforming health care (10 percent), handling Iraq and
Afghanistan (8 percent), reducing the deficit (7 percent) and cutting
taxes (6 percent). Addressing global warming comes at the bottom of the
priority list at 2 percent.
--
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
Rangel's tax evasion.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>
> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that Americans
> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>
> A majority � 57 percent � oppose the health care reform legislation being
> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor the
> reforms.
Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public Option - which is
being stripped out of the current legislation. People also have no problem
with abortion and the current bill will not allow abortions EVEN IF PAID FOR
BY THE PATIENT HERSELF.
Sid9
.
Fox News Poll?
No need to read past those three words.
Everything that follows is Rupert's bullshit!
CB
"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:_4SdnbJWcLSb4LjW...@posted.pcez...
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>
>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>> Americans
>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>
>> considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor the
>> reforms.
>
> Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public Option - which is
> being stripped out of the current legislation. People also have no
> problem with abortion and the current bill will not allow abortions EVEN
> IF PAID FOR BY THE PATIENT HERSELF.
What planet do you live on?
--
CB
Not only will the medical socialists henceforth seize complete dominion over
who will and will not receive care, but the very manner in which such
statism is imposed will serve as a model for the complete eradication of
freedom from every aspect of life in this country.
--Obama Considers Real America 'The Enemy'
By Christopher G. Adamo
August 13, 2009
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cadamo/2009/cga_08131.shtml
CB
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hg3uev$717$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>
>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>> Americans
>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>
>> considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor the
>> reforms.
>>
>> The poll results show the highest level of opposition to the health care
>> bill to date.
>>
>> Click here to see the poll
>>
>> Similarly, while 41 percent of Americans want Congress to pass major
>> health care reform legislation this year, a 54 percent majority says they
>> would rather Congress "do nothing on health care for now," up from 48
>> percent who felt that way in July.
>>
>> Small wonder, when most people think the reforms will cost them money,
>> and
>> nearly twice as many think the quality of their health care will be worse
>> rather than better.
>>
>> Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the reforms will cost
>> them money, up from 58 percent who thought so previously (July 2009).
>>
>> The remaining issues - including health care - are bunched together with
>> much less support: reforming health care (10 percent), handling Iraq and
>> Afghanistan (8 percent), reducing the deficit (7 percent) and cutting
>> taxes (6 percent). Addressing global warming comes at the bottom of the
>> priority list at 2 percent.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
>> Rangel's tax evasion.
> .
> .
> Fox News Poll?
>
> No need to read past those three words.
>
> Everything that follows is Rupert's bullshit!
>
>
>
Foxnews 'is' America's news channel, fair and balanced
Sancho Panza
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>
>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>> Americans
>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>
>> considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor the
>> reforms.
>
> Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public Option -
Name one.
Bill Shatzer
> Name one.
Too easy. I can give you three.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203
http://tinyurl.com/y8j7ply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b258bf0$1$31268$607e...@cv.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:_4SdnbJWcLSb4LjW...@posted.pcez...
>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>>
>>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>>> Americans
>>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>>
>>> A majority - 57 percent - oppose the health care reform legislation
>>> being
>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor
>>> the
>>> reforms.
>>
>> Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public Option -
>
> Name one.
57%:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
up to 76%:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/new-poll-public-option-up-gop-down.html
77%:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html
multiple:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html
Sid9
.
Most thinking Americans agree by a wide margin
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
CBS News/New York Times Poll.
"Would you favor or oppose the government offering some people who are
uninsured the choice of a government-administered health insurance
plan -- also known as a 'public option' -- that would compete with
private health insurance plans?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
12/4-8/09 59 29 12
Republicans 33 55 12
Democrats 80 12 8
Independents 59 28 13
dilecticon
> Too easy. I can give you three.
>
RETRACT YOUR TREASON!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bill Shatzer wrote:
And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An argument might be made that bankers have wracked more damage to this
country than all the terrorists in this century and last.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
dilecticon
Health Care Reform
41% Favor Health Care Plan, 51% Oppose
dilecticon
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b258bf0$1$31268$607e...@cv.net...
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:_4SdnbJWcLSb4LjW...@posted.pcez...
>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>>>
>>>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>>>> Americans
>>>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>>>
>>>> A majority - 57 percent - oppose the health care reform legislation
>>>> being
>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor
>>>> the
>>>> reforms.
>>> Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public Option -
>> Name one.
> 57%:
dilecticon
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>
>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>> Americans
>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>
>> being
>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent �
>> reforms.
>>
>> The poll results show the highest level of opposition to the health
>> care
>> bill to date.
>>
>> Click here to see the poll
>>
>> Similarly, while 41 percent of Americans want Congress to pass major
>> health care reform legislation this year, a 54 percent majority says
>> they
>> would rather Congress "do nothing on health care for now," up from
>> 48
>> percent who felt that way in July.
>>
>> Small wonder, when most people think the reforms will cost them
>> money, and
>> nearly twice as many think the quality of their health care will be
>> worse
>> rather than better.
>>
>> Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the reforms will
>> cost
>> them money, up from 58 percent who thought so previously (July
>> 2009).
>>
>> The remaining issues � including health care � are bunched together
>> much less support: reforming health care (10 percent), handling Iraq
>> and
>> Afghanistan (8 percent), reducing the deficit (7 percent) and
>> cutting
>> taxes (6 percent). Addressing global warming comes at the bottom of
>> the
>> priority list at 2 percent.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact
>> to
>> Rangel's tax evasion.
> .
> .
> Fox News Poll?
>
>
dilecticon
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>
>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that Americans
>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>
>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor the
>> reforms.
>
> Polls show that Americans
hal lillywhite
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>
> > "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >news:_4SdnbJWcLSb4LjW...@posted.pcez...
>
> >> -
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>
> >>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>
> >>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
> >>> Americans
> >>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>
> >>> A majority - 57 percent - oppose the health care reform legislation
> >>> being
> >>> considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor
> >>> the
> >>> reforms.
>
> >> Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public Option -
> > Name one.
>
> Too easy. I can give you three.
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203
Which shows that *if* reform is passed the majority wants a public
option but still shows that 52% strongly disagree with the claim that
the money spent on health care will be less 12 months from now. Only
23% believe health care will become more accessible.
A lot depends on how the questions are asked so it should be no
surprise that there is confusion in poll results. I suspect the
truth is that most do not trust congress to make reforms but if
reforms are made most want a public option.
A blatant Obama supporter using a NY Times and CBS poll but failing to
provide a reference to the actual poll or when it was taken. A
useless reference.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR200...
Published almost two months ago, and with again no solid reference to
the actual poll date. Still that link is hardly encouraging to those
who want "reform."
"But in a sign of the fragile coalition politics that influence the
negotiations in Congress, Obama's approval ratings on health-care
reform are slipping among his fellow Democrats even as they are
solidifying among independents and seniors. Among Democrats, strong
approval of his handling of the issue has dropped 15 percentage points
since mid-September."
"Overall, 45 percent of Americans favor the broad outlines of the
proposals now moving in Congress, while 48 percent are opposed, about
the same division that existed in August, at the height of angry town
hall meetings over health-care reform. Seven in 10 Democrats back the
plan, while almost nine in 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents
divide 52 percent against, 42 percent in favor of the legislation."
Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
Sid9
"dilecticon" <d...@lect.edu> wrote in message
news:hg4bku$chc$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Get a real poll.
Sid9
> Sid9 wrote:
>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>>
>>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>>> Americans
>>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>>
>>> legislation being
>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent �
>>> reforms.
>>>
>>> The poll results show the highest level of opposition to the
>>> health care
>>> bill to date.
>>>
>>> Click here to see the poll
>>>
>>> Similarly, while 41 percent of Americans want Congress to pass
>>> major
>>> health care reform legislation this year, a 54 percent majority
>>> says they
>>> would rather Congress "do nothing on health care for now," up from
>>> 48
>>> percent who felt that way in July.
>>>
>>> Small wonder, when most people think the reforms will cost them
>>> money, and
>>> nearly twice as many think the quality of their health care will
>>> be worse
>>> rather than better.
>>>
>>> Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the reforms will
>>> cost
>>> them money, up from 58 percent who thought so previously (July
>>> 2009).
>>>
>>> The remaining issues � including health care � are bunched
>>> much less support: reforming health care (10 percent), handling
>>> Iraq and
>>> Afghanistan (8 percent), reducing the deficit (7 percent) and
>>> cutting
>>> taxes (6 percent). Addressing global warming comes at the bottom
>>> of the
>>> priority list at 2 percent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the
>>> fact to
>>> Rangel's tax evasion.
>> .
>> .
>> Fox News Poll?
>>
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
>
> Health Care Reform
> 41% Favor Health Care Plan, 51% Oppose
Get a real poll.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:eddafb71-5c87-4304...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 13, 5:09 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>
>> > "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public Option -
>> > Name one.
>>
>> Too easy. I can give you three.
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203
>
><snip>
>Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
Do try to keep up and read for content.
dilecticon
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:eddafb71-5c87-4304...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 13, 5:09 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public Option -
>>>> Name one.
>>> Too easy. I can give you three.
>>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203
>> <snip>
>> Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>
> The claim was
hal lillywhite
Baxter wrote:
> >Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>
> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
majority — 57 percent — oppose the health care reform legislation
being
considered right now. About a third of Americans — 34 percent — favor
the reforms."
> Do try to keep up and read for content.
Look in the mirror when you say that.
Curt
> --
> CB
> Not only will the medical socialists henceforth seize complete dominion over
> who will and will not receive care, but the very manner in which such
> statism is imposed will serve as a model for the complete eradication of
> freedom from every aspect of life in this country.
That phrase needs to be read by one of those "voice of doom" announcer
guys they get to do the Monster Truck Show ads. You know.. "The Ground
Is Already Sha-a-a-a-aking!"
Curt
Curt
> Baxter wrote:
> > >Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>
> > The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
> > Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
> > since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>
> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
> majority — 57 percent — oppose the health care reform legislation
> being
> considered right now. About a third of Americans — 34 percent — favor
> the reforms."
A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation is. It's
huge. And facing, of course, a constant drumbeat of wackadoodle
opposition claims ("Kill Granny", "death panels"). I don't know that
relying on polls for this issue is a good idea.
But here's the real deal -- the current system doesn't work. There's
people out there that can't get insurance. Either they can't afford it
(it's what, $500 a month? There's people that just don't have that),
or they have a pre existing condition, or whatever. So someone's
addressing the issue, finally. I'm all for it.
Curt
W Spilman
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
news:4b25850d$0$4959$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Fact: FOX "News" regularly presents FALSE poll data.
WS
Sancho Panza
"Curt" <obadia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80d9fb01-0d97-420e...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 4:46 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
>> Baxter wrote:
>> > >Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>
>> > The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>> > Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' --
>> > especially
>> > since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>>
>> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>> being
>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor
>> the reforms."
>
> A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation is. It's
> huge.
And that includes the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. Reid won't even tell him
what's in it.
dilecticon
> On Dec 13, 4:20 pm, "CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>> --
>> CB
>> Not only will the medical socialists henceforth seize complete dominion over
>> who will and will not receive care, but the very manner in which such
>> statism is imposed will serve as a model for the complete eradication of
>> freedom from every aspect of life in this country.
>
> That phrase needs to be read by
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
redefine what terror is, treason too, and even acts of war.
All to defend this slimeball Jihadist sleeper cell bastard who killed
his own fellow soldiers.
I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
What finally opened that door, I can not say, but there it is.
Really disgusting.
And he'll wear this shit until he makes a full public retraction and
apology.
You have my word on it.
dilecticon
> On Dec 14, 4:46 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
>> Baxter wrote:
>>>> Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>> being
>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor
>> the reforms."
>
> A majority probably doesn't have a clue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dilecticon
Lie - yours.
ESAD.
hal lillywhite
> A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation is.
And you want them to vote for something they don't understand?
>It's huge.
You got that right! It's also a masterpiece of obfuscation, likely
intentionally so. Our congresscritters should refuse to vote for
anything so contorted.
...
> But here's the real deal -- the current system doesn't work.
Actually it does. Lots don't have insurance but can get care anyway.
Clearly it could be improved but let's not jump from the frying pan
into the fire.
> There's
> people out there that can't get insurance. Either they can't afford it
> (it's what, $500 a month? There's people that just don't have that),
> or they have a pre existing condition, or whatever
And there are a lot more who could get insurance but chose to use
their money for other things. Their choice, they should live with the
consequences.
> So someone's
> addressing the issue, finally. I'm all for it.
But I'm not for the current "reform" in which about the only thing
that is clear is that it will massively increase federal power.
Bill Shatzer
> Baxter wrote:
>>>Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
> majority � 57 percent � oppose the health care reform legislation
> being
> considered right now.
Sure, but that number hides two rather diametrically distinct groups -
those who think "the health care reform legislation being considered
right now" isn't progressive enough and doesn't go far enough and those
think it too progressive and goes too far.
Which doesn't mean that 57 percent oppose all health care reform or that
if given a choice between the "reform legislation being considered right
now" and nothing at all, the numbers favoring approval wouldn't rise
significantly.
peace and justice,
dilecticon
> peace and justice,
Curt
> On Dec 14, 6:34 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation is.
>
> And you want them to vote for something they don't understand?
A majority of those polled, I meant. I suspect the congresscritters
have a fairly good understanding. Seeing as it's kind of the biggest
news story around right now and all.
>
> >It's huge.
>
> You got that right! It's also a masterpiece of obfuscation, likely
> intentionally so. Our congresscritters should refuse to vote for
> anything so contorted.
They've got staff they pay to read that stuff. And it's big, but not
unmanageable. It's in big print, and double spaced, and a lot of it is
going to be boilerplate stuff anyway.
>
> ...
>
> > But here's the real deal -- the current system doesn't work.
>
> Actually it does. Lots don't have insurance but can get care anyway.
> Clearly it could be improved but let's not jump from the frying pan
> into the fire.
Well, "let's not be hasty" hasn't worked so far. Maybe it's time now.
>
> > There's
> > people out there that can't get insurance. Either they can't afford it
> > (it's what, $500 a month? There's people that just don't have that),
> > or they have a pre existing condition, or whatever
>
> And there are a lot more who could get insurance but chose to use
> their money for other things. Their choice, they should live with the
> consequences.
$500/mo? "Choose to use their money for other things"? That's just
plain unsustainable for the vast majority. And the pre-existing
condition thing is unacceptable too.
>
> > So someone's
> > addressing the issue, finally. I'm all for it.
>
> But I'm not for the current "reform" in which about the only thing
> that is clear is that it will massively increase federal power.
"Power" how, though? I mean, I don't see that. People will be able to
buy insurance from a quasi-public plan, sort of, but that's not
"power". Isn't this all the same stuff they said before Medicare?
Curt
dilecticon
> On Dec 14, 10:19 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 6:34 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation is.
>> And you want them to vote for something they don't understand?
>
> A majority of those polled, I meant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sid9
> On Dec 14, 10:19 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 6:34 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation is.
>>
>> And you want them to vote for something they don't understand?
>
> A majority of those polled, I meant. I suspect the congresscritters
> have a fairly good understanding. Seeing as it's kind of the biggest
> news story around right now and all.
>
>>
>> >It's huge.
>>
>> You got that right! It's also a masterpiece of obfuscation, likely
>> intentionally so. Our congresscritters should refuse to vote for
>> anything so contorted.
>
> They've got staff they pay to read that stuff. And it's big, but not
> unmanageable. It's in big print, and double spaced, and a lot of it
> is
> going to be boilerplate stuff anyway.
>
As usual, the Republicans are being deceptive.
The four reams of paper they've been waving around are at least double
spaced, single sided with huge margins.
These are "markup copies"
Senators and staff make notes on these pages for amendments they wish
to propose or corrections in spelling or grammar they detect
So there's nothing new here....just more deception and obfuscation by
Republicans and their insurance company friends
==================
dilecticon
> "Curt" <obadia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f60efc3e-883f-47ec...@g4g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 14, 10:19 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 6:34 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation is.
>>> And you want them to vote for something they don't understand?
>> A majority of those polled, I meant. I suspect the congresscritters
>> have a fairly good understanding. Seeing as it's kind of the biggest
>> news story around right now and all.
>>
>>>> It's huge.
>>> You got that right! It's also a masterpiece of obfuscation, likely
>>> intentionally so. Our congresscritters should refuse to vote for
>>> anything so contorted.
>> They've got staff they pay to read that stuff. And it's big, but not
>> unmanageable. It's in big print, and double spaced, and a lot of it
>> is
>> going to be boilerplate stuff anyway.
>>
> ===============
> As usual, the Republicans are being deceptive.
Oh?
> The four reams of paper they've been waving around are at least double
> spaced, single sided with huge margins.
But still over 2,00 pages.
> These are "markup copies"
So?
> Senators and staff make notes on these pages for amendments they wish
> to propose or corrections in spelling or grammar they detect
So what?
> So there's nothing new here....just more deception and obfuscation by
> Republicans and their insurance company friends
Really?
Why don't you page through the 1,990 pages of the House version and tell
me it's not a staggering cluster fuck:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
You lying little fuckwit.
dilecticon
> "dilecticon" <d...@lect.edu> wrote in message
> news:hg4bmo$chc$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>>>
>>>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>>>> Americans
>>>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>>>
>>>> legislation being
>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent �
>>>> reforms.
>>>>
>>>> The poll results show the highest level of opposition to the
>>>> health care
>>>> bill to date.
>>>>
>>>> Click here to see the poll
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, while 41 percent of Americans want Congress to pass
>>>> major
>>>> health care reform legislation this year, a 54 percent majority
>>>> says they
>>>> would rather Congress "do nothing on health care for now," up from
>>>> 48
>>>> percent who felt that way in July.
>>>>
>>>> Small wonder, when most people think the reforms will cost them
>>>> money, and
>>>> nearly twice as many think the quality of their health care will
>>>> be worse
>>>> rather than better.
>>>>
>>>> Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) think the reforms will
>>>> cost
>>>> them money, up from 58 percent who thought so previously (July
>>>> 2009).
>>>>
>>>> much less support: reforming health care (10 percent), handling
>>>> Iraq and
>>>> Afghanistan (8 percent), reducing the deficit (7 percent) and
>>>> cutting
>>>> taxes (6 percent). Addressing global warming comes at the bottom
>>>> of the
>>>> priority list at 2 percent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the
>>>> fact to
>>>> Rangel's tax evasion.
>>> .
>>> .
>>> Fox News Poll?
>>>
>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
>>
>> Health Care Reform
>> 41% Favor Health Care Plan, 51% Oppose
>
> Get a real poll.
>
>
dilecticon
Define what's not _real_ about it, you mewling little fuckwit.
W Spilman
It sucks when facts prove you wrong, don't it loser?
WS
dilecticon
You have facts?
Where????
Sid9
.
The facts:
The engrossed copy...the one that becomes law may boil down to about
500 pages or less.
The house bill HR 3962
Left Margin (where text starts) 2 1/2"
Right Margin 1 7/8"
Double Spaced....54 characters per line maximum
Font size about 14pt
PDF from my broker:
Left Margin (where text starts) 7/8"
Right Margin 5/8"
Double Spaced....over 100 characters per line maximum
Font size about 8pt
Same shit, new nym!
Sid9
FOX lies....anything associated with Rupert is suspect
Clairbear
news:hg4cqc$mqh$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "dilecticon" <d...@lect.edu> wrote in message
> news:hg4bku$chc$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4b258bf0$1$31268$607e...@cv.net...
>>>> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:_4SdnbJWcLSb4LjW...@posted.pcez...
>>>>> -
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ----------------- Free Software - Baxter Codeworks
>>>>> www.baxcode.com
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>
>>>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>>>>>> Americans
>>>>>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A majority - 57 percent - oppose the health care reform
>>>>>> legislation being
>>>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent -
>>>>>> favor the
>>>>>> reforms.
>>>>> Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public Option -
>>>> Name one.
>>> .
>>> .
>>> Most thinking Americans agree by a wide margin
>>>
>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events
>> /healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
>>
>> Health Care Reform
>> 41% Favor Health Care Plan, 51% Oppose
>
> Get a real poll.
>
>
>
Get back on your alzhiemers meds
dilecticon
Nope:
Why don't you page through the 1,990 pages of the House version and tell
me it's not a staggering cluster fuck:
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
You lying little fuckwit.
> The house bill HR 3962
> Left Margin (where text starts) 2 1/2"
> Right Margin 1 7/8"
> Double Spaced....54 characters per line maximum
> Font size about 14pt
So what?
> PDF from my broker:
>
> Left Margin (where text starts) 7/8"
> Right Margin 5/8"
> Double Spaced....over 100 characters per line maximum
> Font size about 8pt
IRRELEVANT!
Broker statements are a HELL of a lot easier to digest than this MESS!
> Same shit, new nym!
Yes, you still stink.
dilecticon
PROVE IT!
Sid9
Is the Pope Catholic?
dilecticon
I suspect not.
Please cite there Fox News has used "false poll data".
This should not be too hard for you.
Why is it?
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hg6n89$qur$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Faux News' idea of "fair and balanced' is to offer two lies to every fact.
dilecticon
Please cite where and when Fox News has used "false poll data".
This should not be too hard for you.
Go for it.
Sancho Panza
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> news:4b258bf0$1$31268$607e...@cv.net...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:_4SdnbJWcLSb4LjW...@posted.pcez...
>>> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>>>
>>>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>>>> Americans
>>>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>>>
>>>> A majority - 57 percent - oppose the health care reform legislation
>>>> being
>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor
>>>> the
>>>> reforms.
>>>
>>
>> Name one.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
>
> up to 76%:
> http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/10/new-poll-public-option-up-gop-down.html
>
> 77%:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html
>
> multiple:
> http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html
>
> 59%
> http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m12d12-New-poll-shows-59-want-a-public-option
The only one of those that is not badly outdated is based on massaged
numbers, as the original source readily concedes: "When that happens, we
take great pains to adjust our data so that I accurately reflects the whole
population. That process is called "weighting." '
The fact of the matter is that the last four of those polls have, thanks to
the so-called "adjustments," overweighted for Democrats.
Sancho Panza
>
> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b258bf0$1$31268$607e...@cv.net...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:_4SdnbJWcLSb4LjW...@posted.pcez...
>>> -
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CE09B803B...@202.177.16.121...
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews
>>>>
>>>> Congress is working nights and weekends to pass legislation that
>>>> Americans
>>>> don't like, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
>>>>
>>>> A majority - 57 percent - oppose the health care reform legislation
>>>> being
>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor
>>>> the
>>>> reforms.
>>>
>>> Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public Option -
>>
>> Name one.
> .
> Most thinking Americans agree by a wide margin
>
>
> CBS News/New York Times Poll.
>
> "Would you favor or oppose the government offering some people who are
> uninsured the choice of a government-administered health insurance plan --
> also known as a 'public option' -- that would compete with private health
> insurance plans?"
>
> Favor Oppose Unsure
> 12/4-8/09 59 29 12
>
> Republicans 33 55 12
> Democrats 80 12 8
> Independents 59 28 13
Check the raw numbers before the results were adjusted to raise the
Democratic proportion.
Sid9
You are the liar........I never used those words....those are YOUR
words:
"false poll data"
Sid9
I'll put it simply you are as deceptive as FOX or Limbo.....so:
Goodbye!
Same shit new nym?
dilecticon
WTF, are you INSANE, or just too stupid to craft a decent lie?
In fact it was W Spillman's useless crap:
message id: DjtVm.21858$te1....@unlimited.newshosting.com)
...that you rushed in to endorse and NOW you own it, deal!
You gutless lying puke.
dilecticon
IOW, you can NOT cite nor prove that Fox used "false poll data".
Good.
Case closed, class dismissed.
Ala
> "dilecticon" <d...@lect.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:hg6qnp$l0e$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > Baxter wrote:
> >> -
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Bob LeChevalier
>Baxter wrote:
>
>> >Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>
>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>
>Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>majority � 57 percent � oppose the health care reform legislation
>being
>considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor
>the reforms."
Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
health care. A goodly chunk of the far left oppose the current bill
as not going far enough, just as much as the far right thinks that it
goes too far. But it is unlikely that the far left would prefer that
Congress do nothing. Do-nothingism seems to be the ideology of the
Party of NO, not for the rest of the country.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
dilecticon
> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>> Baxter wrote:
>>
>>>> Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>> being
>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor
>> the reforms."
>
> Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
> health care.
Irrelevant, 2,000 pages hardly equals "nothing", fool.
> A goodly chunk of the far left oppose the current bill
> as not going far enough, just as much as the far right thinks that it
> goes too far. But it is unlikely that the far left would prefer that
> Congress do nothing. Do-nothingism seems to be the ideology of the
> Party of NO, not for the rest of the country.
Read and learn, klingon cunt:
OPINION: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEWDECEMBER 5, 2009, 10:43 A.M. ET.
No Way, No How, to the Public Option The Connecticut senator, free of
partisan loyalties, has a pivotal role in the health-care debate.
The senator from Connecticut doesn't look sorry. Sitting in his office
on Wednesday, he looks like he's having the time of his life. Ever since
his bruising 2006 re-election, in which he quit the Democratic Party to
run as an independent, Mr. Lieberman has been a man unleashed. He's
caucused with Democrats yet campaigned for John McCain. He's
enthusiastically supporting President Barack Obama's Afghanistan surge
and just as spiritedly criticizing his decision to try 9/11 terrorists
in U.S. courts. He's joined Democrats to reform health care, even as
he's promised to torpedo their government-run insurance option.
Back in October, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid snipped that Mr.
Lieberman was "the least of" his health care "problems." That's no
longer true, if it ever was. He has the power to strip a public option
out of the Senate health-care bill, and even demand a more moderate
rewrite. Mr. Lieberman himself puts the odds of a bill getting through
at "greater than 50-50" but bluntly warns: "It won't be what Senator
Reid put in."
"They are going to have to drop some things . . . the obvious being the
public option"�a controversial, government-run insurance program that
Mr. Lieberman adamantly opposes on philosophical and economic grounds.
Unlike some Democrats who have criticized it but remained open to
negotiation, he says he is not bluffing.
"I'm being more stubborn and certain about this . . . I think it's such
a significant step for the country to create another entitlement program
and to have the government going into a business, I feel like I've got
to say no."
When Mr. Lieberman says no public option, he means no public option�not
an "opt-in" or an "opt out" or a "trigger" (a public option only comes
into effect if private insurers fail to spread enough coverage). "We are
at the point now where this has become the classic legislative process
of trying to get a fig leaf that everyone can hide behind. And I don't
want to do that."
Why is he adamant? Mr. Lieberman says that while he is not "a
conspiratorial person," he believes the public option is intended as a
way for the government to take over health care. "I've been working for
health-care reform in different ways since I arrived here," he says. "It
was always about how do we make the system more efficient and less
costly, and how do we expand coverage to people who can't afford it, and
how do we adopt some consumer protections from the insurance companies .
. . So where did this public option come from?" It was barely a blip, he
says, in last year's presidential campaign.
"I started to ask some of my colleagues in the Democratic caucus,
privately, and two of them said "some in our caucus, and some outside in
interest groups, after the president won such a great victory and there
were more Democrats in the Senate and the House, said this is the moment
to go for single payer.'" So, I joke, the senator is, in fact, as big a
"conspiracy theorist" as me. He laughingly rejoins: "But I have evidence!"
Mr. Lieberman notes that the public option serves no other purpose: "It
doesn't help one poor person get insurance who doesn't have it now. It
doesn't compel one insurance company to provide insurance to somebody
who has an illness. And . . . it doesn't do anything to reduce the cost
of insurance."
Mr. Lieberman dismisses Democratic arguments that it is necessary to
keep insurers honest. "Sometimes the private sector does things that are
wrong, and when they do, you regulate�sometimes you litigate," he says.
"But never in the history of America . . . have we tried to keep one
industry honest by having government go into that business to compete
with the industry."
Bob LeChevalier
>Why don't you page through the 1,990 pages of the House version and tell
>me it's not a staggering cluster fuck:
>
>http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
It's not a staggering cluster fuck.
That sounds like a better description of whatever passes for your
brain.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Why don't you page through the 1,990 pages of the House version and tell
>> me it's not a staggering cluster fuck:
>>
>> http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
>
> It's not a staggering cluster fuck.
Read it all?
No, I thought not...
> That sounds like
Drop dead, klingon cunt.
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> The only one of those that is not badly outdated is based on massaged
> numbers, as the original source readily concedes: "When that happens, we
> take great pains to adjust our data so that I accurately reflects the
> whole population. That process is called "weighting." '
> The fact of the matter is that the last four of those polls have, thanks
> to the so-called "adjustments," overweighted for Democrats.
Hint: The population is overweighted for Democrats!
perace and justice,
dilecticon
> Hint: The population is overweighted
RETRACT YOUR TREASON!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bill Shatzer wrote:
And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An argument might be made that bankers have wracked more damage to this
country than all the terrorists in this century and last.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
LDosser
news:us0ei5trt809qabh3...@4ax.com...
> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>>Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> >Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>>
>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>>
>>Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>>being
>>considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor
>>the reforms."
>
> Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
> health care.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>> Why don't you page through the 1,990 pages of the House version and tell
>>> me it's not a staggering cluster fuck:
>>>
>>> http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
>>
>> It's not a staggering cluster fuck.
>
>Read it all?
You suggested that I page through it, not that I read it all.
There is no especial point in my doing so, so I won't waste the time.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>>> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>>> being
>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor
>>> the reforms."
>>
>> Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
>> health care.
>
>Irrelevant, 2,000 pages hardly equals "nothing", fool.
How is that relevant to the claim expressed in the subject line?
>Read and learn, klingon cunt:
>
>http://online.wsj.com
The opinions of Lieberman have nothing to do with whether some poll
shows that "54 Percent Prefer Congress Do Nothing on Health Care".
I have no idea why you thought the article relevant. I am already
quite aware of Lieberman's position from other sources.
Bob LeChevalier
It doesn't evidence any particular percentage "would prefer that
Congress do nothing on health care". Not 57%, not 53%, not 1%.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b26f2b1$0$32579$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
> The only one of those that is not badly outdated is based on massaged
> numbers, as the original source readily concedes: "When that happens, we
> take great pains to adjust our data so that I accurately reflects the
> whole population. That process is called "weighting." '
> The fact of the matter is that the last four of those polls have, thanks
> to the so-called "adjustments," overweighted for Democrats.
is Dec 10th recent enough for you?
----------
The poll finds that only 36% favor the Senate proposal, versus 61% who
oppose it.
By contrast, the poll finds that 53% favor the public option, versus 46% who
oppose it.
------------
Issues raised by:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html
are extremely relevant. Easy to slant your results by the question(s) you
ask.
hal lillywhite
> On Dec 14, 10:19 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 6:34 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation is.
>
> > And you want them to vote for something they don't understand?
>
> A majority of those polled, I meant. I suspect the congresscritters
> have a fairly good understanding.
Then you have a higher opinion of congresscritters than I do. I've
written Wu, Wyden, and Merkley asking them to read before voting.
None responded positively. Asking the senators to oppose the bribe to
buy Landrieu's vote got no response at all from Wyden and a response
from Merkley that didn't even address the issue.
That monstrosity was crafted in one of Reid's closed sessions and then
he wants to jam it down our throats in a hurry.
> Seeing as it's kind of the biggest
> news story around right now and all.
Which does nothing to get congresscritters to understand it.
> > >It's huge.
>
> > You got that right! It's also a masterpiece of obfuscation, likely
> > intentionally so. Our congresscritters should refuse to vote for
> > anything so contorted.
>
> They've got staff they pay to read that stuff. And it's big, but not
> unmanageable. It's in big print, and double spaced, and a lot of it is
> going to be boilerplate stuff anyway.
So, the biggest change in health care in history, something that will
affect us for decades and they delegate reading it? You gotta' be
kidding. We hire them to vote wisely. Any congresscritter who fails
to not only read but take care to understand the thing is derelict in
his duty.
> > ...
>
> > > But here's the real deal -- the current system doesn't work.
>
> > Actually it does. Lots don't have insurance but can get care anyway.
> > Clearly it could be improved but let's not jump from the frying pan
> > into the fire.
>
> Well, "let's not be hasty" hasn't worked so far. Maybe it's time now.
Once you get past the sob stories you find that darn few people are
unable to get care in this country, even illegal aliens.
>
>
> > > There's
> > > people out there that can't get insurance. Either they can't afford it
> > > (it's what, $500 a month? There's people that just don't have that),
> > > or they have a pre existing condition, or whatever
>
> > And there are a lot more who could get insurance but chose to use
> > their money for other things. Their choice, they should live with the
> > consequences.
>
> $500/mo? "Choose to use their money for other things"? That's just
> plain unsustainable for the vast majority.
For most young people it is rather less than that. In fact they could
get a major medical plan and HSA. However the HSA is something the
current proposals would kill.
> And the pre-existing
> condition thing is unacceptable too.
So, Joe is young and apparently healthy and decides not to buy
insurance. He spends his time watching TV and eating french fries,
then has a heart attack at 30. Should he get the same rate as Bill who
started buying insurance before he had a problem?
> > > So someone's
> > > addressing the issue, finally. I'm all for it.
>
> > But I'm not for the current "reform" in which about the only thing
> > that is clear is that it will massively increase federal power.
>
> "Power" how, though? I mean, I don't see that. People will be able to
> buy insurance from a quasi-public plan, sort of, but that's not
> "power". Isn't this all the same stuff they said before Medicare?
The feds will *require* everybody to buy insurance that they specify.
Want a high deductible plan and an HSA? Nope, not approved (though
there is at least a temporary out for people who already have that,
which I do).
That is the power to rule people's lives. I don't trust the feds to
do that.
Sid9
"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:3d485f04-f55e-44c9...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
You may not like it but that's how consensus is arrived at.
Perhaps a dictator who could ram whatever he wanted down your throat
would have better appeal for you.
The real problem lies in campaign financing which has approached the
level of bribery.
The story of TX Rep Jack Tauzin and the pharmaceutical industry is an
excellent example.
However, the USSC ruled that money is equal to free speech.
At this point it looks like it would take a constitutional amendment
to remedy this problem.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> Why don't you page through the 1,990 pages of the House version and tell
>>>> me it's not a staggering cluster fuck:
>>>>
>>>> http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
>>> It's not a staggering cluster fuck.
>> Read it all?
>
> You suggested that I page through it, not that I read it all.
You always do precisely as I demand?
> There is no especial point in my doing so, so
You LOSE again, cunt!
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>> Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>>>> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>>>> being
>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor
>>>> the reforms."
>>> Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
>>> health care.
>> Irrelevant, 2,000 pages hardly equals "nothing", fool.
>
> How is that relevant to the claim expressed in the subject line?
I didn't write the subject line, you blithering ninny!
>> Read and learn, klingon cunt:
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com
>
> The opinions of Lieberman have nothing to do with
You are stupid as the day is long, cunt.
dilecticon
> "LDosser" <L...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> "Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>> news:us0ei5trt809qabh3...@4ax.com...
>>> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>> Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>>>> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>>>> majority - 57 percent - oppose the health care reform legislation
>>>> being
>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor
>>>> the reforms."
>>> Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
>>> health care.
>> Right. That's only about 53%.
>
> It doesn't evidence any particular
STFU CUNT!
dilecticon
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b26f2b1$0$32579$607e...@cv.net...
>>
>> The only one of those that is not badly outdated is based on massaged
>> numbers, as the original source readily concedes: "When that happens, we
>> take great pains to adjust our data so that I accurately reflects the
>> whole population. That process is called "weighting." '
>> The fact of the matter is that the last four of those polls have, thanks
>> to the so-called "adjustments," overweighted for Democrats.
> is Dec 10th recent enough for you?
> ----------
> The poll finds that only 36% favor the Senate proposal, versus 61% who
> oppose it.
>
> By contrast, the poll finds that 53% favor the public option, versus 46% who
> oppose it.
>
> http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/poll-public-option-way-more-popular-than-senate-health-bill/
>
> ------------
>
> Issues raised by:
>
> http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Do you EVER cite anything that isn't psychotic left wing spin?!?!?
The man's a libitard baseball statistician geek.
Who are you? My name is Nate Silver and I live in Chicago. For
additional background, please see here or here. The other contributor to
this website, Sean Quinn, lives in Washington, DC.
No, I'm not Chuck Todd
by Nate Silver @ 9:48 AM
Share This ContentThere are certain pleasures in writing anonymously.
Particularly in the political world, where there is a whole mythology
associated with anonymity -- think Deep Throat or Primary Colors or
Atrios. But I'm fortunate enough to have been granted the opportunity to
develop some relationships with larger outlets (you should see these
coming to fruition very soon). And it just ain't very professional to
keep referring to yourself as a chili pepper.
My real name is Nate Silver and my principal occupation has been as a
writer, analyst and partner at a sports media company called Baseball
Prospectus. What we do over there and what I'm doing over here are
really quite similar. Both baseball and politics are data-driven
industries. But a lot of the time, that data might be used badly. In
baseball, that may mean looking at a statistic like batting average when
things like on-base percentage and slugging percentage are far more
correlated with winning ballgames. In politics, that might mean
cherry-picking a certain polling result or weaving together a narrative
that isn't supported by the demographic evidence.
So if you catch me overusing baseball metaphors in my political writing
or political metaphors in my baseball writing -- this is my excuse.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/140469
So who will win in November? Silver says Obama (full disclosure: he's a
supporter).
dilecticon
The statist whore endorses his power-madness.
> Perhaps a dictator who could ram whatever he wanted down your throat
> would have better appeal for you.
More likely YOU, stids.
> The real problem lies in campaign financing which has approached the
> level of bribery.
It is A problem.
> The story of TX Rep Jack Tauzin and the pharmaceutical industry is an
> excellent example.
How about Clinton, Loral, China?
> However, the USSC ruled that money is equal to free speech.
A lie.
> At this point it looks like it would take a constitutional amendment
> to remedy this problem.
WTF does a traitor like YOU care about the Constitution?
You felcher scum.
hal lillywhite
You may not like it but that's how consensus is arrived at.
>
> Perhaps a dictator who could ram whatever he wanted down your throat
> would have better appeal for you.
Try reading for understanding. I've consistently advocated return to
limited government so *nobody*, left or right, can have too much
control over our lives. I continue to do so in this thread where I
object to the proposed reforms because they increase government
control.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Dec 14, 12:15�pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 10:19�am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 14, 6:34�am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation is.
>>
>> > And you want them to vote for something they don't understand?
>>
>> A majority of those polled, I meant. I suspect the congresscritters
>> have a fairly good understanding.
>
>Then you have a higher opinion of congresscritters than I do. I've
>written Wu, Wyden, and Merkley asking them to read before voting.
>None responded positively.
Why should they?
The odds are that any answer you get is written by a staffer, and may
be just boilerplate off the computer. Congresscritters don't have
time to waste reading what is sent to them, especially if they are
going to read some or all of the bill.
>Asking the senators to oppose the bribe to
>buy Landrieu's vote got no response at all from Wyden and a response
>from Merkley that didn't even address the issue.
In other words, your comments simply weren't important enough to
bother responding to. That doesn't mean that they don't understand.
>That monstrosity was crafted in one of Reid's closed sessions and then
>he wants to jam it down our throats in a hurry.
"Hurry" would be like the bailout bill that was written and passed by
both houses in less than two weeks. The health care bills were
started many months ago.
>> Seeing as it's kind of the biggest
>> news story around right now and all.
>
>Which does nothing to get congresscritters to understand it.
It was congresscritters in those closed sessions.
>> > >It's huge.
>>
>> > You got that right! �It's also a masterpiece of obfuscation, likely
>> > intentionally so. �Our congresscritters should refuse to vote for
>> > anything so contorted.
>>
>> They've got staff they pay to read that stuff. And it's big, but not
>> unmanageable. It's in big print, and double spaced, and a lot of it is
>> going to be boilerplate stuff anyway.
>
>So, the biggest change in health care in history, something that will
>affect us for decades and they delegate reading it?
Of course. That is why they pay big bucks for the staffer talent,
some of whom specialize in reading the fine print. A congresscritter
has to be expert in many things, and likely ISN'T expert at reading
legalese and determining its flaws, unless he is a trained lawyer (and
maybe not even then).
>You gotta' be kidding. We hire them to vote wisely.
Which does not necessarily entail reading all the bills. That's why
people hire lawyers.
You would apparently think that a CEO that didn't read every contract
signed by his company was derelict. A CEO who did so would be
useless.
>Any congresscritter who fails
>to not only read but take care to understand the thing is derelict in
>his duty.
One can understand without reading, provided that the staffers are
skillful, and communicate essentials quickly and effectively.
>> > > But here's the real deal -- the current system doesn't work.
>>
>> > Actually it does. �Lots don't have insurance but can get care anyway.
>> > Clearly it could be improved but let's not jump from the frying pan
>> > into the fire.
>>
>> Well, "let's not be hasty" hasn't worked so far. Maybe it's time now.
>
>Once you get past the sob stories you find that darn few people are
>unable to get care in this country, even illegal aliens.
They may not get effective care, and they may not get it quickly
enough.
My son, without insurance, took two months, five emergency room visits
(one by ambulance), and two hospital stays to get his illness
diagnosed, none of which he can pay for. If he had had insurance,
they likely would have found the problem the first time he went to the
hospital (because they wouldn't have released him until they did).
Meanwhile, he lost his job, and we've had to support him; he can't
take other than occasional work because his stamina isn't up to
working full time (and such jobs aren't easy to find, and of course
come with no benefits).
And in the long run, if he doesn't pay the bills (which is almost
certain), then all of the rest of us will. The hospitals aren't going
to lose money, or they will go out of business - so it will show up in
raised charges and padded bills for everyone else.
Meanwhile, an illegal alien (or my son) who goes to the emergency room
at $500-1000 a visit because they can't afford a $75 office visit, is
hardly being treated efficiently.
>> And the pre-existing
>> condition thing is unacceptable too.
>
>So, Joe is young and apparently healthy and decides not to buy
>insurance. He spends his time watching TV and eating french fries,
>then has a heart attack at 30. Should he get the same rate as Bill who
>started buying insurance before he had a problem?
The point of insurance is to spread the risk around. There is no
saying that it won't be Bill that gets the heart attack at 30, while
Joe is healthy and lives to 110, seeing a doctor every ten years
before he turns 90.
Not that this is relevant to the pre-existing conditions question.
With pre-existing condition exclusion, my son would never again be
able to get any sort of insurance, not because "he spends his time
watching TV and eating french fries", but because he had the bad luck
to turn up with a chronic disease whose cause is unknown and has a
tendency to first show up in young adults.
>> > > So someone's
>> > > addressing the issue, finally. I'm all for it.
>>
>> > But I'm not for the current "reform" in which about the only thing
>> > that is clear is that it will massively increase federal power.
>>
>> "Power" how, though? I mean, I don't see that. People will be able to
>> buy insurance from a quasi-public plan, sort of, but that's not
>> "power". Isn't this all the same stuff they said before Medicare?
>
>The feds will *require* everybody to buy insurance that they specify.
So? The state requires everyone to buy auto insurance (if they want
to have a car).
>Want a high deductible plan and an HSA? Nope, not approved (though
>there is at least a temporary out for people who already have that,
>which I do).
It has to meet the minimum coverage requirements. Beyond that it is
up to them. You can still have the equivalent of an HSA - it just
won't be automatic and tax-free; they call it a savings account, and
it has a lot less rules than an HSA.
>That is the power to rule people's lives. I don't trust the feds to
>do that.
I trust the feds more than I trust big business. I get a vote on who
makes the decisions in the government.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>> Baxter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>>>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>>>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>>>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>>>>> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>>>>> being
>>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor
>>>>> the reforms."
>>>> Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
>>>> health care.
>>> Irrelevant, 2,000 pages hardly equals "nothing", fool.
>>
>> How is that relevant to the claim expressed in the subject line?
>
>I didn't write the subject line, you blithering ninny!
Then your comment apparently has nothing to do with what I wrote,
loser.
Bill Shatzer
That's a rather silly reason for opposing them.
What if government control results in an overall societal good?
Certainly you don't object to government controls on the manner of
operating motor vehicles. Controlling folks who prefer to disregard stop
signs and speed limits, or to drive impaired would seem all to the good.
Similarly, I doubt you'd wish to return to the pre-SEC days of stock
trading. And a bit of government control over derivatives might well
have prevented or mitigated the recent financial melt down.
Government control is not evil per se and certainly is no particular
reason to oppose reforms just on general principle.
If you've -specific- objections to the "controls" being suggested, those
might or might not be valid. But just a blanket condemnation 'cause it
"increase(s) government control" is Ludditism at its worst.
peace and justice,
dilecticon
> peace and justice,
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Baxter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>>>>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>>>>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>>>>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>>>>>> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor
>>>>>> the reforms."
>>>>> Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
>>>>> health care.
>>>> Irrelevant, 2,000 pages hardly equals "nothing", fool.
>>> How is that relevant to the claim expressed in the subject line?
>> I didn't write the subject line, you blithering ninny!
>
> Then your comment apparently has nothing to do with what I wrote,
> loser.
Are you claiming that YOU wrote the subject line, klingon?
And yes, the bloat in the health care bill is part of why so many
Americans want Congress to DO NOTHING on health care, you dumb fuck.
Sid9
.
Perhaps you would like to have knee britches and wigs brought back.
We live in a complicated world and we need government to make the
rules of the road constraining those who would prey on our fellow
citizens.
I presume you claim to be a Libertarian....
However, you are much more an anarchist
Ala
> Sid9 wrote:
> > "hal lillywhite" <hlill...@juno.com> wrote in message
Ain't You Sorry
soundclip
by Mance Lipscomb
recording of 19
from Texas Songster, Vol. 4 (Arhoolie 1033), copyright notice
Ain't you sorry to your heart?
Best o'friend, you know, they got to part
Ain't you sorry, sorry that you did me wrong?
Now, me and my girl had a fallin' out
Bet you don't know what was about
She's sorry, sorry that you did me wrong
Now, go on girl, you needn't flirt
I know you done tore you underskirt1
Ain't you sorry, sorry to your heart?
Well, I'm going up North, 'tain't goin' to stay
Got a girl, chances gonna pay my way
Ain't you sorry, sorry to your heart?
Ain't you sorry, sorry to your heart?
But the best o'friend, you know, got to part
Ain't you sorry, sorry you did me wrong?
hal lillywhite
> "hal lillywhite" <hlill...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5a51b6eb-de77-4571...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 15, 8:38 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
> > You may not like it but that's how consensus is arrived at.
>
> >> Perhaps a dictator who could ram whatever he wanted down your
> >> throat
> >> would have better appeal for you.
>
> > Try reading for understanding. I've consistently advocated return
> > to
> > limited government so *nobody*, left or right, can have too much
> > control over our lives. I continue to do so in this thread where I
> > object to the proposed reforms because they increase government
> > control.
>
> .
> .
> Perhaps you would like to have knee britches and wigs brought back.
Thanks for a good laugh! You are quite silly.
> We live in a complicated world and we need government to make the
> rules of the road constraining those who would prey on our fellow
> citizens.
>
> I presume you claim to be a Libertarian....
Nope.
hal lillywhite
> hal lillywhite wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 8:38 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
> > You may not like it but that's how consensus is arrived at.
>
> >>Perhaps a dictator who could ram whatever he wanted down your throat
> >>would have better appeal for you.
> > Try reading for understanding. I've consistently advocated return to
> > limited government so *nobody*, left or right, can have too much
> > control over our lives. I continue to do so in this thread where I
> > object to the proposed reforms because they increase government
> > control.
>
> That's a rather silly reason for opposing them.
Nope. I believe in individual responsibility, I don't want Big
Brother running my life.
> What if government control results in an overall societal good?
That is a bigger question than I think you realize. "Overall"
includes a lot more than just the results of health care (and I do not
believe the current proposals will improve that). It also includes
the loss of liberty entailed and the fact that government is getting
bigger and bigger and ignoring the constitution so it will continue to
grow.
> Certainly you don't object to government controls on the manner of
> operating motor vehicles.
Depends on which controls. Those that prevent people from harming
others are often necessary.
> Controlling folks who prefer to disregard stop
> signs and speed limits, or to drive impaired would seem all to the good.
>
> Similarly, I doubt you'd wish to return to the pre-SEC days of stock
> trading.
Interstate commerce is a valid place for regulation.
>And a bit of government control over derivatives might well
> have prevented or mitigated the recent financial melt down.
And a bit less regulation of banks would have helped as well,
specifically less pressure to make loans to people in minority
neighborhoods who otherwise did not qualify.
> Government control is not evil per se and certainly is no particular
> reason to oppose reforms just on general principle.
I oppose any regulation that lacks a specific and well-proven need to
exist, and I think pretty much all should have sunset clauses.
> If you've -specific- objections to the "controls" being suggested, those
> might or might not be valid. But just a blanket condemnation 'cause it
> "increase(s) government control" is Ludditism at its worst.
I oppose the increased taxation and the regulations that say we must
all buy insurance for things we don't need. For example it includes
an attempt to phase out the major medical/HSA option. I think
expansion of that should be a large part of any reform, it would help
hold down costs.
Curt
>
> And a bit less regulation of banks would have helped as well,
> specifically less pressure to make loans to people in minority
> neighborhoods who otherwise did not qualify.
People that bought a modest two-bedroom house in the hood did not
bring this crash upon us. That was the Faux Chateaux in Beaverton and
points west.
Curt
hal lillywhite
Hah! They all contributed.
Curt
> On Dec 14, 12:15 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 10:19 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 6:34 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation is.
>
> > > And you want them to vote for something they don't understand?
>
> > A majority of those polled, I meant. I suspect the congresscritters
> > have a fairly good understanding.
>
> Then you have a higher opinion of congresscritters than I do. I've
> written Wu, Wyden, and Merkley asking them to read before voting.
> None responded positively. Asking the senators to oppose the bribe to
> buy Landrieu's vote got no response at all from Wyden and a response
> from Merkley that didn't even address the issue.
>
> That monstrosity was crafted in one of Reid's closed sessions and then
> he wants to jam it down our throats in a hurry.
>
> > Seeing as it's kind of the biggest
> > news story around right now and all.
>
> Which does nothing to get congresscritters to understand it.
The congresscritters I've known have been very, very aware of what's
in the news. Come on -- you're at a town meeting and somebody asks you
a question you don't know the answer to? How embarrassing would that
be?
(And no, I'm not talking about when the teabaggers yell "Why are you a
communist that hates babies!?" at you..)
>
> > > >It's huge.
>
> > > You got that right! It's also a masterpiece of obfuscation, likely
> > > intentionally so. Our congresscritters should refuse to vote for
> > > anything so contorted.
>
> > They've got staff they pay to read that stuff. And it's big, but not
> > unmanageable. It's in big print, and double spaced, and a lot of it is
> > going to be boilerplate stuff anyway.
>
> So, the biggest change in health care in history, something that will
> affect us for decades and they delegate reading it? You gotta' be
> kidding. We hire them to vote wisely. Any congresscritter who fails
> to not only read but take care to understand the thing is derelict in
> his duty.
Which is why I said earlier I'm sure they have a fairly good
understanding of what's in it.
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > But here's the real deal -- the current system doesn't work.
>
> > > Actually it does. Lots don't have insurance but can get care anyway.
> > > Clearly it could be improved but let's not jump from the frying pan
> > > into the fire.
>
> > Well, "let's not be hasty" hasn't worked so far. Maybe it's time now.
>
> Once you get past the sob stories you find that darn few people are
> unable to get care in this country, even illegal aliens.
Yeah, but those who don't have insurance then lose their house.
Great.
Don't think I'm impressed very much by "sob stories", btw.
>
>
>
> > > > There's
> > > > people out there that can't get insurance. Either they can't afford it
> > > > (it's what, $500 a month? There's people that just don't have that),
> > > > or they have a pre existing condition, or whatever
>
> > > And there are a lot more who could get insurance but chose to use
> > > their money for other things. Their choice, they should live with the
> > > consequences.
>
> > $500/mo? "Choose to use their money for other things"? That's just
> > plain unsustainable for the vast majority.
>
> For most young people it is rather less than that. In fact they could
> get a major medical plan and HSA. However the HSA is something the
> current proposals would kill.
Most people aren't young. (I had not heard that HSAs were going to be
killed. Wonder what the logic is, there?)
>
> > And the pre-existing
> > condition thing is unacceptable too.
>
> So, Joe is young and apparently healthy and decides not to buy
> insurance. He spends his time watching TV and eating french fries,
> then has a heart attack at 30. Should he get the same rate as Bill who
> started buying insurance before he had a problem?
Joe should have had insurance already.
>
> > > > So someone's
> > > > addressing the issue, finally. I'm all for it.
>
> > > But I'm not for the current "reform" in which about the only thing
> > > that is clear is that it will massively increase federal power.
>
> > "Power" how, though? I mean, I don't see that. People will be able to
> > buy insurance from a quasi-public plan, sort of, but that's not
> > "power". Isn't this all the same stuff they said before Medicare?
>
> The feds will *require* everybody to buy insurance that they specify.
> Want a high deductible plan and an HSA? Nope, not approved (though
> there is at least a temporary out for people who already have that,
> which I do).
>
> That is the power to rule people's lives. I don't trust the feds to
> do that.
Why would you think those plans wouldn't qualify? I mean, they exist
already, right? I haven't heard anything about they're going to be
"unacceptable". Although, you might have to show a certain income or
assets level to get one (to keep you from not being able to pay your
deductible, and passing your costs on to the taxpayers). That'd be
reasonable.
That's not the "power to rule people's lives" any more than a law
requiring car insurance is. Who gets this awesome "power"?
Curt
dilecticon
> On Dec 15, 6:02 pm, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> And a bit less regulation of banks would have helped as well,
>> specifically less pressure to make loans to people in minority
>> neighborhoods who otherwise did not qualify.
>
> People that bought a modest
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<76d314e9-e734-433d...@w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
"Well, actually, to me it just looks like he was afraid to go. His
cowardice combined with his bugfuck craziness.. and you get a Fort
Hood/Columbine/Killeen/whatever incident. It's funny. Usually
frightened Republicans find a different way out. Maybe he didn't have
the right roomie in college."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now isn't it interesting that Curt:
1.) Finds any of these slaughters "funny"...
2.) Made the leap of any known evidence that Hasan was a Republican...
3.) Tried to indict Republicans as a whole with Muzzie Jihad menatality...
4.) Excused the "Allah Akbar" chant as not representing Jihad or terror...
And in several other posts in the thread he made explicit attempts to
redefine what terror is, treason too, and even acts of war.
All to defend this slimeball Jihadist sleeper cell bastard who killed
his own fellow soldiers.
I can't even conceive of how filled with irrational partisan spite and
pure self-loathing a person would have to be to try and draw that kind
of specious self-serving indictment out of an obvious act of Muzzie terror.
Note that not one post that I've read here has _ever_ tried to indict
DeomCraps for Hasan's treachery, not one.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the last few months Curt
has become a wildly unhinged, lying, scumsucking turd of a person.
What finally opened that door, I can not say, but there it is.
Really disgusting.
And he'll wear this shit until he makes a full public retraction and
apology.
You have my word on it.
dilecticon
Bill Shatzer
> On Dec 15, 1:12 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>>hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>On Dec 15, 8:38 am, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>>> You may not like it but that's how consensus is arrived at.
>>>>Perhaps a dictator who could ram whatever he wanted down your throat
>>>>would have better appeal for you.
>>>Try reading for understanding. I've consistently advocated return to
>>>limited government so *nobody*, left or right, can have too much
>>>control over our lives. I continue to do so in this thread where I
>>>object to the proposed reforms because they increase government
>>>control.
>>That's a rather silly reason for opposing them.
> Nope. I believe in individual responsibility, I don't want Big
> Brother running my life.
But, we assume, you have no problem with the USDA inspecting your meat
before you consume it or the consumer protection agency setting
standards for your child's crib before you buy it?
Or you'd prefer to just take your chances with e-coli and strangled babies?
peace and justice,
LDosser
> "LDosser" <L...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>news:us0ei5trt809qabh3...@4ax.com...
>>> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>>>>
>>>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the
>>>>> Public
>>>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' --
>>>>> especially
>>>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>>>>
>>>>Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>>>>majority - 57 percent - oppose the health care reform legislation
>>>>being
>>>>considered right now. About a third of Americans - 34 percent - favor
>>>>the reforms."
>>>
>>> Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
>>> health care.
>>Right. That's only about 53%.
>
> It doesn't evidence any particular percentage "would prefer that
> Congress do nothing on health care". Not 57%, not 53%, not 1%.
53%+-
dilecticon
RETRACT YOUR TREASON!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bill Shatzer wrote:
And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> peace and justice,
>
Bob LeChevalier
>> That's a rather silly reason for opposing them.
>
>Nope. I believe in individual responsibility,
Insurance is inherently antithetical to individual responsibility.
If you buy insurance, you are buying shared responsibility in the
event of whatever you are insuring against.
>I don't want Big Brother running my life.
Then go find a deserted island.
>> Similarly, I doubt you'd wish to return to the pre-SEC days of stock
>> trading.
>
>Interstate commerce is a valid place for regulation.
Virtually all commerce these days is interstate.
>I oppose the increased taxation and the regulations that say we must
>all buy insurance for things we don't need.
The point of insurance, as noted above, is to share responsibility.
Bob LeChevalier
>> > > > There's
>> > > > people out there that can't get insurance. Either they can't afford it
>> > > > (it's what, $500 a month? There's people that just don't have that),
>> > > > or they have a pre existing condition, or whatever
>>
>> > > And there are a lot more who could get insurance but chose to use
>> > > their money for other things. �Their choice, they should live with the
>> > > consequences.
>>
>> > $500/mo? "Choose to use their money for other things"? That's just
>> > plain unsustainable for the vast majority.
>>
>> For most young people it is rather less than that. �In fact they could
>> get a major medical plan and HSA. �However the HSA is something the
>> current proposals would kill.
>
>Most people aren't young. (I had not heard that HSAs were going to be
>killed. Wonder what the logic is, there?)
They aren't. The other guy doesn't understand the bills, apparently.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm
isn't the current form, but has the essentials.
look under tax changes.
From the Senate leadership bill as of 18 Nov
<The aggregate value of the health insurance plan includes
< reimbursements under a flexible spending account for medical expenses
< (health FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), employer
< contributions to a health savings account (HSA), and coverage for
< dental, vision, and other supplementary health insurance coverage.
< (Effective January 1, 2013)
<Exclude the costs for over-the-counter drugs not prescribed by a
< doctor from being reimbursed through an HRA or health FSA and from
< being reimbursed on a tax-free basis through an HSA or Archer Medical
< Savings Account. (Effective January 1, 2011)
<Increase the tax on distributions from a health savings account or an
< Archer MSA that are not used for qualified medical expenses to 20%
< (from 10% for HSAs and from 15% for Archer MSAs) of the disbursed
< amount. (Effective January 1, 2011)
<Limit the amount of contributions to a flexible spending account for
< medical expenses to $2,500 per year. (Effective January 1, 2011)
A lot of provisions related the HSAs that supposedly are killed,
aren't there?
The House leadership bill, as passed:
<Permit only prescribed drugs to be reimbursable through a health
< savings account, Archer medical savings account, health reimbursement
< arrangement, or flexible spending arrangement for medical expenses.
< (Effective January 1, 2011)
<Increase the tax on distributions from a health savings account that
< are not used for qualified medical expenses to 20% (from 10%) of the
< disbursed amount. (Effective January 1, 2011)
<Limit the amount of contributions to a flexible spending arrangement
< for medical expenses to $2,500 per year. (Effective January 1, 2013)
Again nothing about eliminating them.
>> The feds will *require* everybody to buy insurance that they specify.
>> Want a high deductible plan and an HSA? �Nope, not approved (though
>> there is at least a temporary out for people who already have that,
>> which I do).
>>
>> That is the power to rule people's lives. �I don't trust the feds to
>> do that.
>
>Why would you think those plans wouldn't qualify? I mean, they exist
>already, right?
Insurance plans have to meet minimum standards. The Nov 18 Senate
bill has the Bronze plan below as the minimum standard
<Create four benefit categories of plans plus a separate catastrophic
< plan to be offered through the Exchange, and in the individual and
< small group markets:
<Bronze plan represents minimum creditable coverage and provides the
< essential health benefits, cover 60% of the benefit costs of the
< plan, with an out-of-pocket limit equal to the Health Savings Account
< (HSA) current law limit ($5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for
< families in 2010);
<Silver plan provides the essential health benefits, covers 70% of the
< benefit costs of the plan, with the HSA out-of-pocket limits;
<Gold plan provides the essential health benefits, covers 80% of the
< benefit costs of the plan, with the HSA out-of-pocket limits;
<Platinum plan provides the essential health benefits, covers 90% of
< the benefit costs of the plan, with the HSA out-of-pocket limits;
<Catastrophic plan available to those up to age 30 or to those who are
< exempt from the mandate to purchase coverage and provides
< catastrophic coverage only with the coverage level set at the HSA
< current law levels except that prevention benefits and coverage for
< three primary care visits would be exempt from the deductible. This
< plan is only available in the individual market.
<Reduce the out-of-pocket limits for those with incomes up to 400% FPL
< to the following levels:
<100-200% FPL: one-third of the HSA limits ($1,983/individual and
< $3,967/family);
<200-300% FPL: one-half of the HSA limits ($2,975/individual and
< $5,950/family);
<300-400% FPL: two-thirds of the HSA limits ($3,987/individual and
< $7,973/family).
<These out-of-pocket reductions are applied within the actuarial limits
< of the plan and will not increase the actuarial value of the plan.
The summary of the house bill is less specific, but also has four plan
levels. The lowest level is
<Basic plan includes essential benefits package and covers 70% of the
< benefit costs of the plan;
It actually sounds like the Senate plan RELIES on people getting HSAs,
rather than eliminating them (since the limits set are defined in
terms of the maximum HSA amount). And $6000 individual out of pocket
expenses is rather a high level, as is an insurance plan that
actuarily equates to a 40% deductible until that maximum expense is
reached.
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Baxter wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>>>>>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>>>>>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>>>>>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>>>>>>> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor
>>>>>>> the reforms."
>>>>>> Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
>>>>>> health care.
>>>>> Irrelevant, 2,000 pages hardly equals "nothing", fool.
>>>> How is that relevant to the claim expressed in the subject line?
>>> I didn't write the subject line, you blithering ninny!
>>
>> Then your comment apparently has nothing to do with what I wrote,
>> loser.
>
>Are you claiming that YOU wrote the subject line, klingon?
No. I am claiming that I responded to it, dildo. Unlike you.
>And yes, the bloat in the health care bill is part of why so many
>Americans want Congress to DO NOTHING on health care, you dumb fuck.
You've yet to provide evidence as to what "so many Americans want".
Bob LeChevalier
Evidence continues to be lacking.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"hal lillywhite" <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:e4020aa6-4b15-4d72...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>And a bit less regulation of banks would have helped as well,
>specifically less pressure to make loans to people in minority
>neighborhoods who otherwise did not qualify.
----------
It was a stunning revelation: Illegal immigrants hold 5 million bad
mortgages in the United States. Conservative commentators pounced on the
statistic last October. Many of them were already blaming immigrants for the
subprime mortgage mess. Now they had numerical proof, and from no less an
authority than the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Just one problem: It wasn�t true.
Although HUD immediately debunked the bogus factoid, it nevertheless spread
rapidly on popular blogs, syndicated radio shows and major cable networks.
http://kathmanduk2.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/minority-meltdown-minorities-blamed-for-subprime-mortgage-crisis/
�I can state very definitively,� Sandra Braunstein, director of the Federal
Reserve�s consumer and community affairs division, said during a House
Financial Institutions subcommittee hearing Wednesday, �that from the
research we have done, the Community Reinvestment Act is not one of the
causes of the current crisis.�
http://washingtonindependent.com/34376/battling-the-cra-myth
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the
freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6,
contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and
Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the
private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was
behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/13/mcclatchy-bluntly-shoots_n_134190.html
See also:
http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/10/on-the-fanniefreddiecra-myth/
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200909250007
Sueki Tartridge
> "hal lillywhite" <hlill...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 12:15 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 10:19 am, hal lillywhite <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 14, 6:34 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > A majority probably doesn't have a clue what the legislation
> >> > > is.
>
> >> > And you want them to vote for something they don't understand?
>
> >> A majority of those polled, I meant. I suspect the congresscritters
> >> have a fairly good understanding.
>
> > Then you have a higher opinion of congresscritters than I do. I've
> > written Wu, Wyden, and Merkley asking them to read before voting.
> > None responded positively. Asking the senators to oppose the bribe
> > to
> > buy Landrieu's vote got no response at all from Wyden and a response
> > from Merkley that didn't even address the issue.
>
> > That monstrosity was crafted in one of Reid's closed sessions and
> > then
> > he wants to jam it down our throats in a hurry.
>
> >> Seeing as it's kind of the biggest
> >> news story around right now and all.
>
> > Which does nothing to get congresscritters to understand it.
>
>
> >> > You got that right! It's also a masterpiece of obfuscation,
> >> > likely
> >> > intentionally so. Our congresscritters should refuse to vote for
> >> > anything so contorted.
>
> >> They've got staff they pay to read that stuff. And it's big, but
> >> not
> >> unmanageable. It's in big print, and double spaced, and a lot of it
> >> is
> >> going to be boilerplate stuff anyway.
>
> > So, the biggest change in health care in history, something that
> > will
> > affect us for decades and they delegate reading it? You gotta' be
> > kidding. We hire them to vote wisely. Any congresscritter who fails
> > to not only read but take care to understand the thing is derelict
> > in
> > his duty.
>
>
> >> > > But here's the real deal -- the current system doesn't work.
>
> >> > Actually it does. Lots don't have insurance but can get care
> >> > anyway.
> >> > Clearly it could be improved but let's not jump from the frying
> >> > pan
> >> > into the fire.
>
> >> Well, "let's not be hasty" hasn't worked so far. Maybe it's time
> >> now.
>
> > Once you get past the sob stories you find that darn few people are
> > unable to get care in this country, even illegal aliens.
>
> >> > > people out there that can't get insurance. Either they can't
> >> > > afford it
> >> > > (it's what, $500 a month? There's people that just don't have
> >> > > that),
> >> > > or they have a pre existing condition, or whatever
>
> >> > And there are a lot more who could get insurance but chose to use
> >> > their money for other things. Their choice, they should live
> >> > with the
> >> > consequences.
>
> >> $500/mo? "Choose to use their money for other things"? That's just
> >> plain unsustainable for the vast majority.
>
> > For most young people it is rather less than that. In fact they
> > could
> > get a major medical plan and HSA. However the HSA is something the
> > current proposals would kill.
>
> >> condition thing is unacceptable too.
>
> > So, Joe is young and apparently healthy and decides not to buy
> > insurance. He spends his time watching TV and eating french fries,
> > then has a heart attack at 30. Should he get the same rate as Bill
> > who
> > started buying insurance before he had a problem?
>
> >> > > addressing the issue, finally. I'm all for it.
>
> >> > But I'm not for the current "reform" in which about the only
> >> > thing
> >> > that is clear is that it will massively increase federal power.
>
> >> "Power" how, though? I mean, I don't see that. People will be able
> >> to
> >> buy insurance from a quasi-public plan, sort of, but that's not
> >> "power". Isn't this all the same stuff they said before Medicare?
>
> > specify.
> > Want a high deductible plan and an HSA? Nope, not approved (though
> > there is at least a temporary out for people who already have that,
> > which I do).
>
> > That is the power to rule people's lives. I don't trust the feds to
> > do that.
>
>
> Perhaps a dictator who could ram whatever he wanted down your throat
> would have better appeal for you.
>
signing on to Cap&Tax even though the taxpayes want nothing to do with
it?? Or forcing banks to take bailout money wheher they want it or not
then denying them the right to pay it back? Or fining and jailing
people that don't buy gubmint mandated insurance??
> The real problem lies in campaign financing which has approached the
> level of bribery.
>
No shit Sherlock!!! How much did it cost George Soros to put his
pet marxist in the Whitehouse?
> The story of TX Rep Jack Tauzin and the pharmaceutical industry is an
> excellent example.
>
> However, the USSC ruled that money is equal to free speech.
>
"Free speech"?? Well by GAWD the dimrats need to put a stop to
that !!!!
> At this point it looks like it would take a constitutional amendment
> to remedy this problem.- Hide quoted text -
>
Or a change in the number of far left fringe kook marxists in
congress and give marxist #1 his walking papers.
> - Show quoted text -
Sueki Tartridge
> "hal lillywhite" <hlill...@juno.com> wrote in message
Here's the bottom line sid. You and every other braindead useful idiot
Obobot think big government is the answer to EVERY problem. You kooks
think the American people are too stupid to solve problems for
themselves and you think the Constitution is just a useless piece of
paper that gets in your way. Can you tell us ONE thing big government
does well?? (besides growing itself and increasing taxes)
mr_antone
<hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Can you tell us ONE thing big government
>does well?? (besides growing itself and increasing taxes)
Here's some things big government did.
* Won WWII.
* Put man on the moon.
Here's some things big government is doing now.
* Air traffic control.
* Weather predictions. (Those GOP socialist farmers love it)
* US Coast Guard.
You're not too bright, droopy.
--
A Libertarian society is an oxymoron.
mr_antone
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>>> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Baxter wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hardly evidence of ringing public endorsement of current proposals.
>>>>>>>>> The claim was "polls show that Americans overwhelmingly want the Public
>>>>>>>>> Option" - NOT that the 'public endorses current proposals' -- especially
>>>>>>>>> since current proposals don't contain a Public Option.
>>>>>>>> Look at the thread title, and the post that started the thread. "A
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> considered right now. About a third of Americans � 34 percent � favor
>>>>>>>> the reforms."
>>>>>>> Which does not mean that 57% would prefer that Congress do nothing on
>>>>>>> health care.
>>>>>> Irrelevant, 2,000 pages hardly equals "nothing", fool.
>>>>> How is that relevant to the claim expressed in the subject line?
>>>> I didn't write the subject line, you blithering ninny!
>>> Then your comment apparently has nothing to do with what I wrote,
>>> loser.
>> Are you claiming that YOU wrote the subject line, klingon?
>
> No. I am claiming that I responded to it, dildo. Unlike you.
My reply is quite relevant to why most prefer Congress let this alone, fool.
It's an unwieldy and largely incomprehensible bill to the general
public, deal.
>> And yes, the bloat in the health care bill is part of why so many
>> Americans want Congress to DO NOTHING on health care, you dumb fuck.
>
> You've yet to provide evidence as to what "so many Americans want".
Wow.
There's no lower limit on your deceit is there?
The very same subject line you were bitching about:
"Fox News Poll: 54 Percent Prefer Congress Do Nothing on Health Care"
Why do you come out here and HUMILIATE yourself like this, klingon?
dilecticon
Your pathetic denials and lies however are aplenty.