A couple of things you ought to know about the Healthcare Bill
sr
In the healthcare bill after the age of 50 you won't rate along with the
younger, for medical care
Also, you are required to let Gov. have access to your bank acc. and medical
papers, NO MORE PRIVACY
the Dems are behind the door making deals with the Medical Professionals,
AARP, and other agencies that will
benefit them, but not you.
This is more than about health, this is about control
Rod Speed
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
> In the healthcare bill after the age of 50 you won't rate along with the younger, for medical care
Another bare faced lie.
> Also, you are required to let Gov. have access to your bank acc. and medical papers, NO MORE PRIVACY
Another bare faced lie.
They already have that access with tax payers, you silly little pathological liar.
> the Dems are behind the door making deals with the Medical Professionals, AARP, and other agencies that will benefit
> them, but not you.
Another bare faced lie.
Everyone will benefit from the elimination of the risk of bankruptcy
due to a serious medical problem, you silly little pathological liar.
> This is more than about health, this is about control
Another bare faced lie. They have LESS control when a public option is added, you silly little pathological liar.
Cindy Hamilton
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc...
That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to a
paper
that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
Quote the specific passage(s) in the health care bill that
supports your assertions.
sr
"Cindy Hamilton" <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9375262c-faed-4909...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 7, 11:05 am, "sr" <solo...@uninets.net> wrote:
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc...
That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to a
paper
that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
we are following Europe , have you noticed?
Rod Speed
> Cindy Hamilton <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> sr <solo...@uninets.net> wrote
>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc...
>> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to a
>> paper that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link we are following Europe ,
Following the whole of the rest of the first and second world, actually.
> have you noticed?
You clearly havent.
>> Quote the specific passage(s) in the health care bill that supports your assertions.
You clearly cant do that.
Your link says none of your lies below.
Nick Naim
"sr" <sol...@uninets.net> wrote in message
news:19584$4b1d2807$ccb5841f$27...@ispn.net...
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
>
> In the healthcare bill after the age of 50 you won't rate along with the
> younger, for medical care
>
> Also, you are required to let Gov. have access to your bank acc. and
> medical papers, NO MORE PRIVACY
>
> the Dems are behind the door making deals with the Medical Professionals,
> AARP, and other agencies that will
> benefit them, but not you.
true
>
> This is more than about health, this is about control
true
I did not vote for this FUCKING THUG
in 3 more years .............the fuckers gone
>
>
>
Cindy Hamilton
> "Cindy Hamilton" <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9375262c-faed-4909...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 7, 11:05 am, "sr" <solo...@uninets.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc...
>
> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to a
> paper
> that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
>
> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
> we are following Europe , have you noticed?
No, I haven't noticed. Even if we are following
Europe, I haven't seen any compelling argument
to believe that's a bad idea. It might be a bad idea;
it might be a good idea. Running in circles
screaming "The sky is falling! We're following Europe!"
does not form a reasoned argument.
Look, if the health care bill is going to
do the things you say, then it says so somewhere in the
bill. Quoting unrelated journal articles doesn't support your
position. Find where in the health care bill that it says
"government will have access to citizen's bank accounts",
and you will be more believable. Otherwise, you're just
fear-mongering.
Cindy Hamilton
George
inefficient and insulting the Federal government is. Congress should be
totally absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for creating a
work product that absolutely no one can understand.
There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
document with tables that clearly define the scope. Anything more is an
insult to us. No one would accept a 650 page mortgage or a 550 page car
rental agreement.
Napoleon
wrote:
>There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
>document with tables that clearly define the scope. Anything more is an
>insult to us. No one would accept a 650 page mortgage or a 550 page car
>rental agreement.
You are absolutely correct. But then, how are our lords and masters
(piece of shit congress) going to satisfy their lords and masters
(lobbyists) without having at least 2-3 pages a piece for each
lobbyist's concern? Congress isn't "giving us" anything. They are
writing legislation for the corporate overlords - it can be as long
and obfuscated as needed.
Cindy Hamilton
Yes, but that doesn't contradict my point that only the health care
bill
defines what's in the health care bill. To point to an article in The
Lancet
and say that's what the health care bill will bring us is illogical.
> There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
> document with tables that clearly define the scope. Anything more is an
> insult to us. No one would accept a 650 page mortgage or a 550 page car
> rental agreement
Congress, for the most part, is made of lawyers. They love to hear
themselves
talk. I believe they think that 2000 pages will bring them something
that will
withstand legal challenge.
Cindy Hamilton
jeff
Have you read this, or for that matter, any bill?
Every bill has the same format, with wide margins and 24 numbered
lines per page of perhaps 5 words per line.
It's not hard to read. Really. Not quite a picture book, but not
complex. Much easier to read than a mortgage agreement.
As far as length, George W Bush's last budget bill ran far longer.
Were you complaining about that?
You guys take some one else's opinion instead of actually looking at
the product. Try thinking for yourself instead of taking someone else's
opinion. Unlike any of George W Bush's legislation, you can actually
find drafts of this online. Easily.
Jeff
Rod Speed
Nope, its much more about a very large number of lawyers with
silly ideas about what should be in the legislation policy wise.
ChairMan
jeff <jeff_...@att.net>spewed forth:
bottom line is, if it's good enough for us, why is obammy and congress
exempt?
And not only exempt , but also exempt from the "cadillac plan" tax.
wanna buy a bridge?
jeff
You believe everything you hear on wingnut radio?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/491
If you guys stop running on myths and fear we can get somewhere. But
maybe that's all you got?
Jeff
Marsha
> You believe everything you hear on wingnut radio?
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/491
>
> If you guys stop running on myths and fear we can get somewhere. But
> maybe that's all you got?
>
> Jeff
>
>
"much like the one Congress has enjoyed" What are the differences? And
why are there any differences?
Marsha
ChairMan
Marsha <m...@xeb.net>spewed forth:
Thank you. If it's going to be social, make it social across the board. Do
away with Medicare, congresscare and make it equal to all.
One system, NO execeptions. But , we all know the government can't do
anything simply
ChairMan
jeff <jeff_...@att.net>spewed forth:
This a myth too?
"All the revenue-raising measures - the taxes and fees - come up-front,
while the benefits don't kick in until 2013 and 2014," says Robert Blendon,
the leading healthcare pollster. "There would be an initial surge in
support for this historic achievement, followed by quite a big backlash as
the costs seep through."
Pay me now and wait.
Why don't they show us FIRST, all the money this is going to save us in
their cost cutting BEFORE sending us the bill?
Napoleon
>Thank you. If it's going to be social, make it social across the board. Do
>away with Medicare, congresscare and make it equal to all.
>One system, NO execeptions. But , we all know the government can't do
>anything simply
>
Exactly. Single payer, socialized medicine. No more medicare, no more
MEDICAID (can't bitch about welfare queens anymore), No more VA, no
more private plans, no more congresscare, no more state child crappy
plans. ONE PLAN PAID FOR BY EVERYONE'S TAXES. That's it. So simple, so
very, very simple. And the only plan that will save EVERYONE money,
even with the tax increase.
Never going to happen. It makes TOO MUCH SENSE.
BTW, thank god the Public Option is gone - what a load of crap. See
how they now want to add the people (or just some people) to Medicare
- because Medicare is single payer. Why not just add everyone? What's
the big frigging deal? Oh, yeah, I forgot about what really matters -
LOBBYISTS!
Cindy Hamilton
> Innews:hfs0qu$vjd$1...@news.albasani.net,
> jeff <jeff_th...@att.net>spewed forth:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ChairMan wrote:
> >> Innews:hfrk11$bk8$1...@news.albasani.net,
> >> jeff <jeff_th...@att.net>spewed forth:
Do you spend your paycheck before you receive it? It makes sense to
me
to acquire the revenue before spending it. If only all government
spending
were so prudent.
Cindy Hamilton
jeff
I am continually amazed at the fears of what *might* happen while
ignoring what has been happening. Did you miss that health care costs
have been rising well above the cost of living? That they are now such a
large percentage of employee costs that they put the US at a
competitive disadvantage.
But there has been this rush to claim that Obama is destroying the US.
Did you miss what happened in the 8 years prior? A more than doubling of
the Federal Deficit, anemic employment figures and an unfunded Medicare
Drug Benefit of the same order of cost as the Health Care Bill. All the
while allowing the whole house of cards to careen to the worst financial
crisis in almost a century.
There is damn little credibility in this fear mongering, where were
the complaints when the country was being sold down the river?
The Republicans are doing their best to sabotage everything, so they
can get back in power. Then what? The same policies of trickle down
economics that have never worked. It's been said that there are only two
kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and Fools.
Jeff
JonquilJan
con - about the proposed healthcare bill - don't know what to believe or
not.
I have Medicare. Not the Advantage or any Supplement - just plain Medicare.
I took a bad fall in July and had to have X-rays of my wrist. The bill -
without Medicare - would have been $160. With Medicare it was $11.67. I
had met my yearly deductible.
My main concern, if Medicare payments to doctors, etc, is reduced will fewer
doctors accept Medicare patients? Not many doctors accept Medicaid for that
reason. At the present, hospitals and those facilities associated with
hospitals get much higher reimbursements for Medicaid patients than the
independent practitioner. (This is New York state - other places may be
different).
So will the same thing happen with Medicare? That reduces the options a
great deal and puts those in rural areas (such as my location) in a position
that would require much more travel distance and time to get to a
practitioner that accepts Medicare.
But things are so confusing with the bill - and things being changed back
and forth so often - who really knows. Not even the ones who are voting on
the changes.
JonquilJan
Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying
Rod Speed
Sometimes.
> It makes sense to me to acquire the revenue before spending it.
That doesnt always make sense.
> If only all government spending were so prudent.
If they did it that way, we'd be in another great depression or worse.
3877
That is inevitable given that we can do much more health care wise than we
used to be able to do. It will always be a lot cheaper to just let people die.
That they are now
> such a large percentage of employee costs that they put the US at a
> competitive disadvantage.
Its at a competitive disadvantage employee cost anyway.
> But there has been this rush to claim that Obama is destroying the
> US. Did you miss what happened in the 8 years prior? A more than
> doubling of the Federal Deficit, anemic employment figures
That is a lie. The unemployment rate bottomed ate 4.x%
with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
and an
> unfunded Medicare Drug Benefit of the same order of cost as the
> Health Care Bill. All the while allowing the whole house of cards to
> careen to the worst financial crisis in almost a century.
> There is damn little credibility in this fear mongering, where were
> the complaints when the country was being sold down the river?
There have always been plenty of those.
Dave C.
>
> Do you spend your paycheck before you receive it? It makes sense to
> me
> to acquire the revenue before spending it. If only all government
> spending
> were so prudent.
If only the intent was to balance the budget. The intent of
front-loading the funding is to hide the true cost. It's well over two
trillion already, before cost overruns kick in. Of course, the cost
overruns have been deliberately delayed for several years. Now you
know why. -Dave
jeff
> jeff wrote:
>> ChairMan wrote:
>>> In news:hfs0qu$vjd$1...@news.albasani.net,
>>> jeff <jeff_...@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>> In news:hfrk11$bk8$1...@news.albasani.net,
>>>>> jeff <jeff_...@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>>> George wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 3:21 pm, "sr"<solo...@uninets.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Cindy Hamilton"<angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
<snip>
>> But there has been this rush to claim that Obama is destroying the
>> US. Did you miss what happened in the 8 years prior? A more than
>> doubling of the Federal Deficit, anemic employment figures
>
> That is a lie. The unemployment rate bottomed ate 4.x%
> with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
An absolutely meaningless figure.
132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his last.
(from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
That's less than 2 million added over 8 years. Note that the demand
from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
A pent up disaster.
>
> and an
>> unfunded Medicare Drug Benefit of the same order of cost as the
>> Health Care Bill. All the while allowing the whole house of cards to
>> careen to the worst financial crisis in almost a century.
>
>> There is damn little credibility in this fear mongering, where were
>> the complaints when the country was being sold down the river?
>
> There have always been plenty of those.
Not from the right. The same Tea Partiers that are complaining now
were big W boosters. The simple fact is that they don't mind spending,
they just don't ever want to pay for it. Thats why the Medicare Drug
bill got overwhelming Republican support, because they never had to pay
for it.
Jeff
clams_casino
>
>
> 132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his last.
> (from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
>
> That's less than 2 million added over 8 years. Note that the demand
> from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
>
>
Any reference for that data considering the unemployment rate was 4.2%
when he took office and 7.6% (80% increase) when he left (using Jan -
Jan data)?
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
"When President Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent
and the ranks of the unemployed stood at just over 6 million. As it
turns out, the nation would never again see unemployment that low during
the entire Bush term. Today, the unemployment rate is 7.2 percent and
there are 11.1 million people unemployed." - 1/9/09 (approximately
85% increase).
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010209/another-bush-legacy-84-percent-more-unemployed
jeff
who never became employed and so could never join the ranks of the
unemployed.
Any way you look at it, George W Bush's legacy is grim.
Jeff
3877
> 3877 wrote:
>> jeff wrote:
>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>> In news:hfs0qu$vjd$1...@news.albasani.net,
>>>> jeff <jeff_...@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>>> In news:hfrk11$bk8$1...@news.albasani.net,
>>>>>> jeff <jeff_...@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>>>> George wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 3:21 pm, "sr"<solo...@uninets.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Cindy Hamilton"<angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> But there has been this rush to claim that Obama is destroying the
>>> US. Did you miss what happened in the 8 years prior? A more than
>>> doubling of the Federal Deficit, anemic employment figures
>>
>> That is a lie. The unemployment rate bottomed ate 4.x%
>> with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
>
> An absolutely meaningless figure.
Nope. Yours is given the complete implosion of the world financial
system that we only see once in roughly a hundred years now.
> 132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his last.
Nothing like the official figure.
> (from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
Like hell they are.
> That's less than 2 million added over 8 years.
What matters is what it peaked at.
> Note that the demand from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
And that was clearly satisified fine to see the unemployment rate bottom at 4.x%
> A pent up disaster.
Nope, just the result of the complete implosion of the world financial system.
>>
>> and an
>>> unfunded Medicare Drug Benefit of the same order of cost as the
>>> Health Care Bill. All the while allowing the whole house of cards to
>>> careen to the worst financial crisis in almost a century.
>>
>>> There is damn little credibility in this fear mongering, where
>>> were the complaints when the country was being sold down the river?
>>
>> There have always been plenty of those.
> Not from the right.
They have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Those fools produced the complete implosion of the world financial system, AGAIN.
3877
That is not how the unemployed are defined.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
> Any way you look at it, George W Bush's legacy is grim.
It is indeed. The only real saving grace is that we have not seen another 9/11 on US soil.
> Jeff
clams_casino
which occurred on GW's watch - another notch in his legacy.
jeff
> jeff wrote:
>> 3877 wrote:
>>> jeff wrote:
>>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>> In news:hfs0qu$vjd$1...@news.albasani.net,
>>>>> jeff <jeff_...@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>>>> In news:hfrk11$bk8$1...@news.albasani.net,
>>>>>>> jeff <jeff_...@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>>>>> George wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 3:21 pm, "sr"<solo...@uninets.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Cindy Hamilton"<angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> message
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>> But there has been this rush to claim that Obama is destroying the
>>>> US. Did you miss what happened in the 8 years prior? A more than
>>>> doubling of the Federal Deficit, anemic employment figures
>>> That is a lie. The unemployment rate bottomed ate 4.x%
>>> with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
>> An absolutely meaningless figure.
>
> Nope. Yours is given the complete implosion of the world financial
> system that we only see once in roughly a hundred years now.
As opposed to what you have which is: nothing.
>
>> 132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his last.
>
> Nothing like the official figure.
Post up your source.
>
>> (from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
>
> Like hell they are.
>
>> That's less than 2 million added over 8 years.
>
> What matters is what it peaked at.
Does that sentence not make the least sense to you?
>
>> Note that the demand from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
>
> And that was clearly satisified fine to see the unemployment rate bottom at 4.x%
Unemployment rates never count people who have given up or those who
never entered the workforce. But if you want to use that, look at where
Bush left it, sailing higher by the month.
Jeff
3877
jeff
Lie lie lie, what's with you? Can't we be civil?
What I said is not accurate. Technically those looking for first time
work can be counted as unemployed. In practice, they seldom are. Note
the total employed figures do not reflect such pre discouraged
individuals or else the unemployment figure would be far higher. The raw
statistics of who is employed contain few of America's growing population.
Jeff
3877
OK, that is wrong.
> What I said is not accurate. Technically those looking for first
> time work can be counted as unemployed. In practice, they seldom are.
In fact they always are.
> Note the total employed figures do not reflect such pre discouraged
> individuals or else the unemployment figure would be far higher.
Wrong again. The govt lists those separately.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
The
> raw statistics of who is employed contain few of America's growing
> population.
Wrong again.
Marsha
>>> Any way you look at it, George W Bush's legacy is grim.
>>>
>>
>> It is indeed. The only real saving grace is that we have not seen
>> another 9/11 on US soil.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
> which occurred on GW's watch - another notch in his legacy.
You're saying that none of the planning, flight training, etc. started
until after he became president and then they managed to carry it out in
just 9 months? Don't think so.
clams_casino
Fully agree. Car bombings, etc have been around for >100 years.
Suicide terrorists have been around for longer that that.
sf
>You believe everything you hear on wingnut radio?
>
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/491
>
>If you guys stop running on myths and fear we can get somewhere. But
>maybe that's all you got?
http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/poRescue/?source=fbc
let's get this show on the road!
--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.
tmclone
The 3877 thing is a troll. It's been all over the place in the last
few hours. Just killfile it and move on.
tmclone
> jeff wrote:
The 3877 thing is a troll. Not as bad as Rod Speed, but few are. Hell,
maybe it IT Rod Speed. Who cares? It's been all over the place in the