Senator Lieberman is an American hero
Steve
Lieberman's Stand: No Public Option
Sen. Joe Lieberman talks to the press after a Democratic policy
luncheon on Oct. 27.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone,
utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for
Democratic leaders: "I'm going to be stubborn on this."
Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes
a "public option," or government-run health-insurance plan, as the
current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman
says he won't vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public
option is included.
Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible.
Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as
the current bill provides? "The answer is no," he says in an interview
from his Senate office. "I feel very strongly about this." How about a
trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a
provision saying it won't be used unless private insurance plans
aren't spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.
So any version of a public option will compel Mr. Lieberman to vote
against bringing a bill to a final vote? "Correct," he says.
This is, of course, more than just one senator objecting to one part
of health legislation. This is the former Democratic vice presidential
nominee, now an independent, Joe Lieberman, still counted on to be the
60th vote Democrats will need to force a final vote on health
legislation. In opposing a public option, he is opposing the element
that some Democratic liberals have come to consider the cornerstone of
health legislation.
Maybe the Lieberman stance is posturing, or a maneuver to force a
watering down of the public option into something he and like-minded
Democratic conservatives can swallow. In any case, as Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid tries to solve the Rubik's Cube that is health
legislation, Mr. Lieberman just might represent the hardest piece to
flip into place.
In spite of that, Mr. Lieberman insists he wants a bill. He voted with
Democrats over the weekend on a procedural motion to let debate begin
on a version that definitely includes a public option, albeit one
states could choose not to join. "I want to get to the health-care
debate, and I want to be part of creating, working on and passing
health-care reform," he says. "I've been working on it for years, so
that's my goal. But I'm not going to vote for anything and everything
called health-care reform."
He says he wants the government to help uninsured Americans get
coverage, as the bill envisions, and likes the provisions designed to
bring down overall health costs. And he favors the consumer
protections it would impose on private insurers, including one that
bans insurance companies from denying coverage to those with
pre-existing health conditions.
But none of that trumps his opposition to a public option, Mr.
Lieberman says. And he insists his objection isn't based on the
oft-expressed conservative fear that a public option would lead to a
government takeover of health care. He says he doubts this or any
subsequent Congress would allow that.
Rather, his objection is based on fiscal risk: "Once the government
creates an insurance company or plan, the government or the taxpayers
are liable for any deficit that government plan runs, really without
limit," he says. "To me, with our debt heading over $21 trillion
within the next 10 years�we've got to start saying no to some things
like this."
Mr. Lieberman also notes that the public option simply wasn't a big
feature of past health-overhaul plans or the campaign debate of 2008.
So he says he finds it odd that it now has become a central demand --
which it has, he suspects, because some Democrats wanted a full-bore,
single-payer, government-run health plan, and were offered a public
option as a consolation.
Journal Community
* Vote: Should the Senate pass the overhaul?
Critics, of course, think Mr. Lieberman is merely protecting insurance
companies from his home state of Connecticut. He, of course, insists
otherwise, arguing that regulation and litigation are the traditional
and more appropriate ways to keep the private market honest. The real
risk he sees, he insists, is government debt.
Yet he still thinks that, somehow, health legislation will get done,
probably not by Christmas but early next year. "At the end of the
day," he says, "I feel strongly health-care reform will pass the
Senate and the Congress."
How? Mr. Lieberman says he has made his position absolutely clear to
Mr. Reid. And Mr. Reid, all agree, is a wily tactician. So does he
think Mr. Lieberman, and the two or three conservative Democrats who
share his inclination, will give in at the end? Or is there some
artful compromise that can be seen as including and not including a
public option at the same time?
Here's another possibility: Maybe Mr. Reid plans to push as far as he
can with a bill that includes a public option, to show his party he
has done all humanly possible, before yanking out the public option at
the last moment, just before the whole effort goes off a cliff. We've
proven that a bill is possible, he might say then, but also that a
public option isn't.
Bert Hyman
<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> Lieberman's Stand: No Public Option
But he has no problems with any of the rest of it?
Some hero.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Steve
>In news:jiamg5psjeti7i3qt...@4ax.com Steve
><steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>> Lieberman's Stand: No Public Option
>
>But he has no problems with any of the rest of it?
>
>Some hero.
For the most part, neither do I. I'll have to wait and see about the
"no preconditions thing though." They can't really prevent insurance
companies from doing that because people will just wait until they
need insurance to buy it...
I think in the end, it'll be paired down to something reasonable.
Bert Hyman
<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> For the most part, neither do I. I'll have to wait and see about the
> "no preconditions thing though." They can't really prevent insurance
> companies from doing that because people will just wait until they
> need insurance to buy it...
That's why the "plan" includes fines and ultimately prison for people
who refuse to buy insurance.
buzz
So you send them to prison where they get excellent free health-care.
Makes sense I guess in the simple-minded dummycrat liberal world.
Barack Hussein Obama...MMM MMM MMM
Send HIM to Pakistan to fight Osama...MMM MMM MMM
Simple-minded dummycrats (the party that birthed the KKK) and
liberals...morons electing morons.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> So you send them to prison where they get excellent free health-care.
You're under the impression that American prisoners get "excellent free
health care"?
You're demented.
JaxKayaker
JaxKayaker
> > So you send them to prison where they get excellent free health-care.
>
> You're under the impression that American prisoners get "excellent free
> health care"?
>
> You're demented.
>
into a
Emergency room in the United States
palin@tsniffsniff.net J. Norman Gype
"buzz" <bu...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hefch7$mj$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news:d7bmg5lsvbirrlft9...@4ax.com Steve
>> <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>> For the most part, neither do I. I'll have to wait and see about the
>>> "no preconditions thing though." They can't really prevent insurance
>>> companies from doing that because people will just wait until they
>>> need insurance to buy it...
>>
>> That's why the "plan" includes fines and ultimately prison for people
>> who refuse to buy insurance.
>
> So you send them to prison where they get excellent free health-care.
> Makes sense I guess in the simple-minded dummycrat liberal world.
Next you'll swear Hitler fed the Jews steak.
Milt
> Innews:d7bmg5lsvbirrlft9...@4ax.comSteve
>
> <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> > For the most part, neither do I. I'll have to wait and see about the
> > "no preconditions thing though." They can't really prevent insurance
> > companies from doing that because people will just wait until they
> > need insurance to buy it...
>
> That's why the "plan" includes fines and ultimately prison for people
> who refuse to buy insurance.
>
Where do you get this shit?
If you choose not to buy insurance, you pay a little extra tax to
cover your ass in the event that you get sick or hurt and incur huge
bills and can't pay them. That's all. There's no fine, and no
prison...
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:22:47 -0700, buzz wrote:
>
>> So you send them to prison where they get excellent free health-care.
>
>You're under the impression that American prisoners get "excellent free
>health care"?
>
>You're demented.
Wow, Zepp's been to prison? who knew? Maybe he'll tell us about
it....
Steve
wrote:
Shook's gut feelings have let him down again.. There's a fine and a
potential prison sentance for not having insurance....
Steve
I really don't think that will fly... It's extremely unpopular with
voters as they learn about it..
palin@tsniffsniff.net J. Norman Gype
"Milt" <milt....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5290081f-2e2e-4832...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 23, 7:54 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Innews:d7bmg5lsvbirrlft9...@4ax.comSteve
>
> <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> > For the most part, neither do I. I'll have to wait and see about the
> > "no preconditions thing though." They can't really prevent insurance
> > companies from doing that because people will just wait until they
> > need insurance to buy it...
>
> That's why the "plan" includes fines and ultimately prison for people
> who refuse to buy insurance.
>
Where do you get this shit?
---------------------------
Ayatollah Limbaugh.
---------------------------
Wikking
Here's the real situation:
Joe Lieberthing represents the very rich in a very rich constituency.
He has very few people in his voting district who have anything less
than a Cadillac health care policy. Very few who would want a public
option if one was available.
So he's really like Marie Antoinette with his views. Peasants? Who
cares about the stinking peasants? Let them die!!
--
}(:
It is clear that the "Birthers", "Teabaggers", politicians and media
hosts or pundits that purvey messages of resistance, insurrection and
don't want their kids to go to school to hear the words of the POTUS
have become the dupes and stooges of foreign intelligence services
that wish to see the US destabilized by a bunch of fools - they must
be laughing their heads off at these wingnuts who are so ready to be
their pawns...
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Google "medical care American prisons"
Doestoyevski once said that the worth of a society could be assessed by
how it treats its prisoners.
If so, America is in horrible shape.
minerva
Senator Lieberman represents an entire state, not a district, and a
state with a diverse population, liberal enough to tolerate Chris
'kennedy' Dodd for many years. Lieberman is a hero because he will not
be bowled over by the socialist obama white house and those in the house
and senate who are determined to put an additional burden of trillions
of dollars onto this economy when it needs all the help it can get.
This bill will sink the nation and we will have neither democracy, nor
health care, or anything else. Do not be afraid of the rich, or very
rich. You only have to fear the rich obama liberals, democratic party
special interest groups, ultra liberal lobbyists who want to keep you
poor, socialistic and under their thumb so they can keep on their own
gravy train. We all want the american dream. many people today have
it, because they have or had jobs or their own businesses. you get jobs
from the very rich who invest in companies, or own them, or start them
so that they hire people who can then work or start their own
businesses. When people work and employ others, they earn and they buy
and put money into the economy. That is the best way to distribute
wealth, not the socialist version of the Usama Obama administration
which is to tax and drive the country to ruin by driving the nation into
debt from which it will take decades to recover.
You know, all of my doubts, maybes, about the validity of the attacks on
obama were removed for good when he and his attorney general decided to
try those terrorists in criminal court, rather than military ones, to
give the terrorists a platform to expound their hatred for america.
What person who wants the best for this country could have made that
decision?
And when we see how he just lets the generals and troops in afghanistan
wait around and get bombed and ambushed because he is not sending
reinforcements there to help those already there. He is up to no-good.
So, how can you trust him about the health care?
Lieberman is the only democrat along with 40 republicans who stand in
the way of obama and his plan to drive this country to ruin. But if you
like it, well, then you would deserved what you get, but the rest of us
do not want socialism. we want to be free of domination by any
government or any tyrant.
buzz
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:22:47 -0700, buzz wrote:
>
>> So you send them to prison where they get excellent free health-care.
>
> You're under the impression that American prisoners get "excellent free
> health care"?
>
> You're demented.
Let me put it this way and I will type v e r y s l o w l y so maybe
you can grasp it. My son is an architect who has designed prisons. These
prisons have state of the art medical facilities that would make a lot
of hospitals envious. A close friend is also a doctor who practices in
the prison system and he will assure you that inmates get excellent
health care.
Now if you can prove otherwise, please feel free to do so,
dead-between-the-ears.
buzz
>
> Where do you get this shit?
>
> If you choose not to buy insurance, you pay a little extra tax to
> cover your ass in the event that you get sick or hurt and incur huge
> bills and can't pay them. That's all. There's no fine, and no
> prison...
>
Here you go simple-minded lib.
�H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the
case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable
year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or
herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an
additional tax.� [page 1]
�If the government determines that the taxpayer�s unpaid tax liability
results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply��
[page 2]
�Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.
Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties
could apply to an individual:
� Section 7203 � misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a
fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
� Section 7201 � felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to
$250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.� [page 3]
How's that work for you?
Steve
wrote:
District???? Lieberman is a Senator. Senators do not have a
"district, " you half-witted moron, they represent the entire state.
Perhaps if you'd gotten an education, you could have a car too.
>So he's really like Marie Antoinette with his views. Peasants? Who
>cares about the stinking peasants? Let them die!!
You really are a fool..
Wikking
Yet, you were happy to spend trillions on a war based on lies and
harvest all the American jobs like trees to sell to a dictatorship in
China.
This
> bill will sink the nation and we will have neither democracy, nor health
> care, or anything else. Do not be afraid of the rich, or very rich.
> You only have to fear the rich obama liberals, democratic party special
> interest groups, ultra liberal lobbyists who want to keep you poor,
> socialistic and under their thumb so they can keep on their own gravy
> train. We all want the american dream. many people today have it,
> because they have or had jobs or their own businesses.
Actually your team smashed the American dream. You want a tiny elite
of the rich and a destroyed middle class so that you can move toward a
permanent GOP majority - Tom Delay's one party state.
you get jobs
> from the very rich who invest in companies, or own them, or start them
> so that they hire people who can then work or start their own
> businesses. When people work and employ others, they earn and they buy
> and put money into the economy. That is the best way to distribute
> wealth, not the socialist version of the Usama Obama administration
> which is to tax and drive the country to ruin by driving the nation into
> debt from which it will take decades to recover.
No, that was already done by your side.
> You know, all of my doubts, maybes, about the validity of the attacks on
> obama were removed for good when he and his attorney general decided to
> try those terrorists in criminal court, rather than military ones, to
> give the terrorists a platform to expound their hatred for america. What
> person who wants the best for this country could have made that decision?
Someone who believes in the Anglo-Saxon vision of jurisprudence that
this country was founded upon, not some Eastern European gulag-loving
extremists.
> And when we see how he just lets the generals and troops in afghanistan
> wait around and get bombed and ambushed because he is not sending
> reinforcements there to help those already there.
He asked for an exit strategy before he gives them the troops. What do
you want, never-ending war?
He is up to no-good.
> So, how can you trust him about the health care?
Well you sure as hell couldn't trust the GOP!
>
> Lieberman is the only democrat along with 40 republicans who stand in
> the way of obama and his plan to drive this country to ruin. But if you
> like it, well, then you would deserved what you get, but the rest of us
> do not want socialism. we want to be free of domination by any
> government or any tyrant.
>
>
On the contrary, you Neocons drove the country to ruin during 8 years
of the Cheney regime. You blew $3 trillion plus just on the Iraq war
and now you're whining about someone trying to do something for
American citizens.
Wikking
Here's all he cares about, his sponsors:
Securities & Investment $1,985,350 $1,891,350 $94,000
Real Estate $1,472,580 $1,404,080 $68,500
Pro-Israel $1,207,390 $1,049,297 $158,093
Lawyers/Law Firms $1,135,256 $1,029,414 $105,842
Retired $975,788 $975,788 $0
Misc Finance $608,668 $600,168 $8,500
Insurance $427,894 $215,575 $212,319
Health Professionals $359,370 $306,870 $52,500
Business Services $358,685 $335,685 $23,000
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $297,090 $187,590 $109,500
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $277,450 $211,950 $65,500
Electric Utilities $261,119 $152,600 $108,519
Misc Business $240,051 $237,551 $2,500
Commercial Banks $199,950 $148,450 $51,500
General Contractors $184,300 $150,800 $33,500
Democratic/Liberal $182,456 $170,450 $12,006
Defense Aerospace $177,900 $107,800 $70,100
Lobbyists $174,635 $165,135 $9,500
Retail Sales $173,350 $149,350 $24,000
TV/Movies/Music $145,700 $106,700 $39,000
Some hero, some patriot, some champion of the American people.
Milt
> Milt wrote:
>
> > Where do you get this shit?
>
> > If you choose not to buy insurance, you pay a little extra tax to
> > cover your ass in the event that you get sick or hurt and incur huge
> > bills and can't pay them. That's all. There's no fine, and no
> > prison...
>
> Here you go simple-minded lib.
>
> case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable
> year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or
> herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an
>
> “If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability
> results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”
> [page 2]
>
> “Criminal penalties
>
> Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.
> Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties
> could apply to an individual:
>
> fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
>
> $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
>
> How's that work for you?
>
that is remarkable. The penalties are for not paying taxes, not for
not having insurance. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
Steve
wrote:
Even if that were true, and I doubt it since it comes from a lying
moron like you who doesn't even know <LOL> that Snators represent ther
whole state instead of a district.... I'm covered in there several
times... but I note that loser leftist morons aren't on your list so
I see why you believe that he doesn't care about you.
>Some hero, some patriot, some champion of the American people.
Yep, he sure is.. ..and the fact that you whimper and whine about it
is evidence of it..
Milt
> 5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:22:47 -0700, buzz wrote:
>
> >> So you send them to prison where they get excellent free health-care.
>
> > You're under the impression that American prisoners get "excellent free
> > health care"?
>
> > You're demented.
>
> Let me put it this way and I will type v e r y s l o w l y so maybe
> you can grasp it. My son is an architect who has designed prisons. These
> prisons have state of the art medical facilities that would make a lot
> of hospitals envious. A close friend is also a doctor who practices in
> the prison system and he will assure you that inmates get excellent
> health care.
> Now if you can prove otherwise, please feel free to do so,
> dead-between-the-ears.
>
First of all, the presence of medical facilities isn't an indication
of the quality of care. The United States has, overall, the best
health care facilities in the world, but we're 37th in the world in
health care outcomes.
Second of all, we're supposed to take your word that all health care
in all prisons is great based on the fact that your son -- an
architect -- drew a nice medical facility into a prison design?
Prisoners often lack good health care:
California's overcrowded prisons experience one unnecessary death a
week due to lack of sufficient health care, and often don't staff
prison medical facilities fully. Yes, that's right; your son could
build the greatest prison medical facilities in the world, but if
there are no doctors...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/us/05calif.html
Overall, there are indications that prison health care isn't so hot.
And the problem is getting worse, because privatized prisons often
contract medical services to companies who try to provide as little
health care as possible, in order to maximize profits.
You might want to head to your local medical library and check out the
following article:
Health Care in Prison Thirty Years After Estelle v. Gamble, Wright, J
Correct Health Care.2008; 14: 31-35
Wikking
Odd that you claim to be American yet you don't even know where to
look up the donations that fund your politicians. Dumber than a bag of
hammers! LOL!
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000616&cycle=2010
Bert Hyman
<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
Apparently, everything in the "plan" (which doesn't really exist and
won't exist until the House and Senate agree to their massive and messy
compromise) is extremely unpopular with the voters.
That doesn't seem to matter at all.
Bert Hyman
since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:22:47 -0700, buzz wrote:
>
>> So you send them to prison where they get excellent free health-care.
>
> You're under the impression that American prisoners get "excellent
> free health care"?
>
> You're demented.
I take it that you speak from experience.
Steve
wrote:
.. doesn't even know <LOL> that Senators represent ther
whole state instead of a district.... I'm covered in there several
times... but I note that loser leftist morons aren't on your list so
I see why you believe that he doesn't care about you.
.. snip replaced...
>
>Odd that you claim to be American yet you don't even know where to
>look up the donations that fund your politicians. Dumber than a bag of
>hammers! LOL!
>
>http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000616&cycle=2010
Probably cause I'm not interested, Dummy, since Lieberman doesn't
represent my state, but I am really happy that people gave him money
so he could be there to shoot down the public option...
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> Apparently, everything in the "plan" (which doesn't really exist and
> won't exist until the House and Senate agree to their massive and messy
> compromise) is extremely unpopular with the voters.
>
> That doesn't seem to matter at all.
It would matter if there was any truth in it.
Ironically, polls show it's more popular with a strong public option.
Kevin Cunningham
wrote:
And when have you or the American right ever been interested in any
freedom? You scum wanted the Patriot Act. You scum cheered as Bush
directed warrant less wire taps. You called for every American to
either support Bush or to be shut up as we illegally and improperly
invaded Iraq.
The right wing is only interested in every one being just like them.
How sickening.
Kevin Cunningham
I have had the pleasure of working in a prison. I won't make that
mistake again. The very idea that prison any thing is as good as on
the other side of the walls is just a lie.
But this is typical of the right wing. They don't give you any facts,
just some anecdotes about how they or some one they knew triumphed
over some left wing evil. Of course the others aren't named and
mostly they use a fake name. The fact is, no facts.
But why should the right wing use facts? They are so disturbing. If
you actually use facts you will have a problem because those danged
'ole facts always point in the liberal direction.
Wikking
No, you were interested right up until I posted the link to a
legitimate site that tracks campaign contributions and lobbyist influence.
Lieberman's money comes from:
>>>> Securities & Investment $1,985,350 $1,891,350 $94,000
>>>> Real Estate $1,472,580 $1,404,080 $68,500
>>>> Pro-Israel $1,207,390 $1,049,297 $158,093
>>>> Lawyers/Law Firms $1,135,256 $1,029,414 $105,842
>>>> Retired $975,788 $975,788 $0
>>>> Misc Finance $608,668 $600,168 $8,500
>>>> Insurance $427,894 $215,575 $212,319
>>>> Health Professionals $359,370 $306,870 $52,500
>>>> Business Services $358,685 $335,685 $23,000
>>>> Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $297,090 $187,590 $109,500
>>>> Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $277,450 $211,950 $65,500
>>>> Electric Utilities $261,119 $152,600 $108,519
>>>> Misc Business $240,051 $237,551 $2,500
>>>> Commercial Banks $199,950 $148,450 $51,500
>>>> General Contractors $184,300 $150,800 $33,500
>>>> Democratic/Liberal $182,456 $170,450 $12,006
>>>> Defense Aerospace $177,900 $107,800 $70,100
>>>> Lobbyists $174,635 $165,135 $9,500
>>>> Retail Sales $173,350 $149,350 $24,000
>>>> TV/Movies/Music $145,700 $106,700 $39,000
--
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> In news:T7adnYM2zZGJp5bW...@posted.carinet "5292 Dead, 425
> since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:22:47 -0700, buzz wrote:
>>
>>> So you send them to prison where they get excellent free health-care.
>>
>> You're under the impression that American prisoners get "excellent free
>> health care"?
>>
>> You're demented.
>
> I take it that you speak from experience.
Nope, just simple literacy.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> 5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:22:47 -0700, buzz wrote:
>>
>>> So you send them to prison where they get excellent free health-care.
>>
>> You're under the impression that American prisoners get "excellent free
>> health care"?
>>
>> You're demented.
>
> Let me put it this way and I will type v e r y s l o w l y so maybe
> you can grasp it. My son is an architect who has designed prisons. These
> prisons have state of the art medical facilities that would make a lot
> of hospitals envious. A close friend is also a doctor who practices in
> the prison system and he will assure you that inmates get excellent
> health care.
> Now if you can prove otherwise, please feel free to do so,
> dead-between-the-ears.
http://www.google.com/search?q=medical+care+US
+prisons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-
US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
Or, for convenience sake: http://tinyurl.com/y9b266p
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
I could have used anecdotes myself, since I know not one, but two retired
prison psychiatrists. They've told me some very disturbing tales.
But instead, I have him a faceful of Google cites of articles about the
universally disgraceful condition of US prison medical care.
Milt
> Innews:8ahmg5tb3orfs683i...@4ax.comSteve
>
>
>
> <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> > On 24 Nov 2009 00:54:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> >>Innews:d7bmg5lsvbirrlft9...@4ax.comSteve
>
> >>> For the most part, neither do I. I'll have to wait and see about
> >>> the "no preconditions thing though." They can't really prevent
> >>> insurance companies from doing that because people will just wait
> >>> until they need insurance to buy it...
>
> >>That's why the "plan" includes fines and ultimately prison for people
> >>who refuse to buy insurance.
>
> > I really don't think that will fly... It's extremely unpopular with
> > voters as they learn about it..
>
> Apparently, everything in the "plan" (which doesn't really exist and
> won't exist until the House and Senate agree to their massive and messy
> compromise) is extremely unpopular with the voters.
Please tell us which of the following are "unpopular" with voters.
(I'll ignore the extremely for now, to give your a break.)
Insurance companies will have to sell you an insurance policy if you
wish to pay for it.
Insurance companies will have to price the policy fairly.
Insurance companies will have to cover every legitimate medical
procedure your doctor and you decide you'll need.
Insurance companies can no longer deny a claim for any reason short of
fraud.
Insurance companies will not be able to deny a claim based on a pre-
existing condition.
Insurance companies will no longer be able to simply drop you if you
dare to get sick.
Almost all employers will have to offer a health insurance plan, and
will be required to pay about 3/4 of the premiums
There's more, but that's a good start. And you'll notice that I
haven't even mentioned the public option, which 70% of people are in
favor of, according to most polls. If you have any evidence showing
that any of the above are "unpopular," then present it. Otherwise, we
can assume you're full of shit, as usual. And please don't insult us
with those generic polls asking questions about a "Obama/Democratic
health care plan." When asked about the specifics, all elements of the
House plan are very popular. Also, many of those who are against the
"Obama/Democratic health care plan" are against it because it doesn't
go far enough.
>
> That doesn't seem to matter at all.
Because it's not true.
Phlip
> haven't even mentioned the public option, which 70% of people are in
> favor of, according to most polls. If you have any evidence showing
> that any of the above are "unpopular," then present it. Otherwise, we
> can assume you're full of shit, as usual.
One of the most nauseating & disgusting aspects of the anti-health movement is
their penetration into middle America.
Most people don't listen to spokesdouches like Glenn Beck. However, the "light
news" programs are generally sewn up by ClearChannel.
In San Diego, the classic rock station KGB plays songs about peace, love, &
protest against injustice. Then their morning drive-time DJ gets on the mic and
spreads Rush Limbaugh's false defense for his "phony soldiers" slip, and repeats
these fake polls results saying nobody wants HC reform...
Bert Hyman
wrote:
>
> One of the most nauseating & disgusting aspects of the anti-health
> movement
Anti-health?
Opposition to a government takeover of the medical care system in the US
is now characterized as "anti-health?"
Now, that's interesting.
> is their penetration into middle America.
You apparently find that constitutional republic sucks.
> In San Diego, the classic rock station KGB
Now, that's fitting.
buzz
> On Nov 24, 1:58 am, buzz <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Milt wrote:
>>
>>> Where do you get this shit?
>>> If you choose not to buy insurance, you pay a little extra tax to
>>> cover your ass in the event that you get sick or hurt and incur huge
>>> bills and can't pay them. That's all. There's no fine, and no
>>> prison...
>> Here you go simple-minded lib.
>>
>> case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable
>> year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or
>> herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an
>>
>> �If the government determines that the taxpayer�s unpaid tax liability
>> results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply��
>> [page 2]
>>
>>
>> Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.
>> Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties
>> could apply to an individual:
>>
>> fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
>>
>> $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.� [page 3]
>>
>> How's that work for you?
>>
> Wow... the mental gymnastics you had to go through to come up with
> that is remarkable. The penalties are for not paying taxes, not for
> not having insurance. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
It means that if you fail to purchase insurance you will be taxed. Fail
to pay the tax, meaning you also have failed to purchase health
insurance and you pay a fine and/or go to jail. It is all based on the
fact one has not purchased health care insurance.
I figured it would be way above you comprehension level.
buzz
> Senator Lieberman represents an entire state, not a district, and a
> state with a diverse population, liberal enough to tolerate Chris
> 'kennedy' Dodd for many years.
And a good possibility that "I get special loan deals from Countrywide"
Dodd may be going down in the next election. How lucky can we get?
Milt
> > There's more, but that's a good start. And you'll notice that I
> > haven't even mentioned the public option, which 70% of people are in
> > favor of, according to most polls. If you have any evidence showing
> > that any of the above are "unpopular," then present it. Otherwise, we
> > can assume you're full of shit, as usual.
>
> One of the most nauseating & disgusting aspects of the anti-health movement is
> their penetration into middle America.
What are you talking about?
They haven't been able to penetrate middle America at all. That's why
they're forced to cite bullshit generic polls.
A generic poll on this is useless, since many of those who are against
the current health care plans in Congress are against them because
they don't go far enough; they don't contain enough price controls,
and the public option simply isn't strong enough. Major health
insurance reform will pass; the only question is how strong it is. And
this is only the beginning of a major reform movement; they're going
to be crying for years.
Middle America sees these people as bozos. As well they should.
>
> Most people don't listen to spokesdouches like Glenn Beck. However, the "light
> news" programs are generally sewn up by ClearChannel.
>
> In San Diego, the classic rock station KGB plays songs about peace, love, &
> protest against injustice. Then their morning drive-time DJ gets on the mic and
> spreads Rush Limbaugh's false defense for his "phony soldiers" slip, and repeats
> these fake polls results saying nobody wants HC reform...
And none of it works. Clear Channel is on the brink of bankruptcy, to
the point that they added Randi Rhodes to their talk lineup, and
they're looking to add a couple more progressive talkers, as well.
Everyone wants health care reform, regardless of what these clowns
say. Everyone knows someone who's been fucked by a private insurance
company in the last several years. They're not fooling anyone. The
reason teabaggers had to get so loud was because there were so few of
them; they were even trucking them from city to city to pad the
numbers where possible.
They're over, and the only thing keeping them alive is our constant
worry over shit that doesn't matter. Limbaugh's their biggest radio
deal, but both of NPR's news shows have audiences larger than his.
Most of the day, Fox News has between 500,000-800,000 viewers; their
largest audiences occasionally reach 3 million. CNN and Big freaking
deal. The lowest rated nightly news show has about 6 million vuewers,
and when you combine CNN and HLN, most of the day their audience is
larger.
I do wish rich liberals would start buying radio stations, though.
Steve
wrote:
>On Nov 24, 2:39�pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > There's more, but that's a good start. And you'll notice that I
>> > haven't even mentioned the public option, which 70% of people are in
>> > favor of, according to most polls. If you have any evidence showing
>> > that any of the above are "unpopular," then present it. Otherwise, we
>> > can assume you're full of shit, as usual.
>>
>> One of the most nauseating & disgusting aspects of the anti-health movement is
>> their penetration into middle America.
>
>What are you talking about?
>
>They haven't been able to penetrate middle America at all. That's why
>they're forced to cite bullshit generic polls.
>
>A generic poll on this is useless, since many of those who are against
>the current health care plans in Congress are against them because
>they don't go far enough; they don't contain enough price controls,
>and the public option simply isn't strong enough. Major health
>insurance reform will pass; the only question is how strong it is. And
>this is only the beginning of a major reform movement; they're going
>to be crying for years.
>
>Middle America sees these people as bozos. As well they should.
As if an out of the main stream loser like Shook would know..
--
Any doubt that Milt Shook is a moron is erased by the following.
"I said that it's not entirely beyond the realm of possibility
that the US government created the AIDS virus, "
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7c9c1d3963761e64
"It doesn't matter if it's state property or not; the state doesn't
have to power to limit access to a public area. They can charge to
access it, but they can't force people to have a state ID card or
something. It's right in the 14th Amendment; if you allow one person
to get in for free, then all people have to be allowed in for free, if
it's public property."
--Milt Shook.. more ignorance of the law
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/83e117a21b818c9b
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/f7a3aebb956b7ff7
"I'm at a loss as to why you think increasing the
necessary collateral, while not decreasing the
value of the loan, is not a net loss."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/eca4b4662ef2cc82?hl=en&
"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH!
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
"I was hit by buckshot by accident once when I was a kid. I
have a scar to show for it. But no matter where it would have hit me,
it wouldn't have killed me, because I was running away from it."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=383b35e7.10549606%40news.earthlink.net
"And one of the ironies of this entire discussion is that a company
that pays corporate income taxes one year can deduct them as a
business expense the next.
--Milt Shook, Feb 4, 2008 who claims to have been a business
consultant and have his own corporation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b0151278e691117b.
"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com
"the private insurance company is answerable to no
legal authority"
--Milt Shook Jun 1 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/610d6e9e4a15f116?hl=en
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is reduced by the
amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
--Milt Shook.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the
Bill of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com
"Anyone who doesn't deal with fiction has no clue how the world works,
because most real truth is found in fiction. I'll also note that all
"reality" is perception, and there really is no such thing."
--Milt Shook Apr 9, 2008
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/77781222624b4444
"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around here
and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
"I just pinged your sorry ass and found three open ports, as well."
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407231847.76c7fc4e%40posting.google.com
,
Steve
Ironically, that's a lie...
Steve
wrote:
Nope, Sorry... I live a very long way from Lieberman's state.. but
I sure do like him.. and I really don't care where he or anyone else
get's their campaign money.. as long as they vote the right way... as
Lieberman usually does.
Milt
> Milt wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 1:58 am, buzz <b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> Milt wrote:
>
> >>> Where do you get this shit?
> >>> If you choose not to buy insurance, you pay a little extra tax to
> >>> cover your ass in the event that you get sick or hurt and incur huge
> >>> bills and can't pay them. That's all. There's no fine, and no
> >>> prison...
> >> Here you go simple-minded lib.
>
> >> case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable
> >> year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or
> >> herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an
>
> >> “If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability
> >> results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”
> >> [page 2]
>
> >> “Criminal penalties
>
> >> Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.
> >> Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties
> >> could apply to an individual:
>
> >> fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
>
> >> $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
>
> >> How's that work for you?
>
> > Wow... the mental gymnastics you had to go through to come up with
> > that is remarkable. The penalties are for not paying taxes, not for
> > not having insurance. But then, you knew that, didn't you?
>
> It means that if you fail to purchase insurance you will be taxed. Fail
> to pay the tax, meaning you also have failed to purchase health
> insurance and you pay a fine and/or go to jail. It is all based on the
> fact one has not purchased health care insurance.
So the penalty is a tax, not a jail sentence. The fine and jail time
is for not paying your taxes.
Thanks for correcting yourself.
>
> I figured it would be way above you comprehension level.
Mine?