The big problem with Obama-Care
dene
responsibility requirement over a five year period. The first year, 2013,
there would be no penalty for not having healthcare coverage. The second
year, the penalty is set at $200 per person per year, and in subsequent
years, it is phased in until the full penalty is established at $750 per
person per year. The amendment also exempts individuals from the penalty if
healthcare coverage exceeds 8 percent of adjusted gross income."
----------------------------------------------------
In short, insurance companies will be required to accept all applicants
while the healthy, irresponsible slackers can continue to skate, waiting
years until they are sick to apply for health insurance. Think about it.
If you are 25 and faced with a $200/mo. premium. Are you going to pay it or
pay the eventual $750/yr. penalty?
If this sticks, health insurance premiums will rise through the roof.....or
health insurance companies will exit the individual market.
This amendment is dumb...dumb...dumb!!!
-Greg
gpsman
>
> This amendment is dumb...dumb...dumb!!!
What's it say about golf...?
-----
- gpsman
Kommienezuspadt
"gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote in message
news:2764a7ca-2335-46fe...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
- gpsman
dene is a shill for the insurance industry.
Dinosaur_Sr
You need to listen to Rep. Weimer from NY. Costs won't go up because
the public option will provide "competition", and that will keep costs
down regardless!
Kommienezuspadt
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@att.net> wrote in message
news:94fb0227-94d6-4898...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
==
dene derives his income form the insurance industry -- he has his marching
orders.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
May be so, but that doesn't change the ludicrous nature of Weimers
position.
Kommienezuspadt
===
I'd say costs will go up as long as the insurance industry has monopoly
protection and even removing that may be too late since there is no real
competion in many states.
I sure can't figure out who (beside the industry) thought giving them this
protection was good idea. What will be interesting is seeing who defends
it. Will the free market types defend it?
Dinosaur_Sr
Probably cropped up because the people decided they wanted such
services and some of the people decided to go ahead and provide the
service. In a democracy, such things aren't "given" out by some
authority, they represent the free will of the people to both use and
provide such services.
One thing for sure, govt has proven time and again it is nowhere near
as efficient or effective in providing such services as the people
themselves. They will cost us more and give us less, according to all
known examples!
William Clark
<dcb9fefd-cd7b-4712...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 11:56�am, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
> > "Dinosaur Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:8c7f55a9-c728-4b8b...@z2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 15, 9:21 am, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Dinosaur Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
The "free will" of 77% of the people (and a similar percentage of the
medical profession) want a public option. It is the health industry
lobby's ability to buy off Senators and Congressmen that is throwing up
road block after road block.
One thing is also for sure - the government has shown "time and again"
that the overheads in Medicare and Medicaid are as low and lower than
those of the health insurance industry, in spite of all the BS they try
to feed you.
dene
On Oct 15, 9:21 am, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
> dene derives his income form the insurance industry -- he has his marching
> orders.
This stupid comment is precisely why Commie remains in my KF.
Nonetheless, for the discerning reader, I'll cite these facts...
1. The more my clients pay in premium, the more money I make. However,
that's a raise I don't appreciate. I'd love to see premiums frozen or
better yet, reduced. The most fun I had in this business was selling group
plans for $53.33/mo. That was before government intervened.
2. Ignorant people like Commie choose to scapegoat the insurance industry
while refusing to answer the big questions. How does an insurance company
protect their reserves, their policyholders, from an amendment which allows
young, healthy slackers to game the system? Who pays for the substantial
rise in claims?
If Commie has an rational answer, please quote him. But....I won't hold my
breath. Every village has an idiot.
-Greg
dene
On Oct 15, 11:56 am, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
> I'd say costs will go up as long as the insurance industry has monopoly
> protection and even removing that may be too late since there is no real
> competion in many states.
Name the states that have no competition.
> I sure can't figure out who (beside the industry) thought giving them this
> protection was good idea. What will be interesting is seeing who defends
> it. Will the free market types defend it?
Unsubstantiated lies can be confusing.
------------------------------------------------------
Probably cropped up because the people decided they wanted such
services and some of the people decided to go ahead and provide the
service. In a democracy, such things aren't "given" out by some
authority, they represent the free will of the people to both use and
provide such services.
One thing for sure, govt has proven time and again it is nowhere near
as efficient or effective in providing such services as the people
themselves. They will cost us more and give us less, according to all
known examples!
------------------------------------------------------
Well said Rob!
-Greg
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <dcb9fefd-cd7b-4712-ad3d-ca7560417...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
I have never seen any indication that the people really care for a
public option. I guess you can make up some polls to show whatever you
want though, but polls don't mean much. except at elections. Seems to
me Senators and Congresspeople have been buying off public industries
for this go round though...trying to line them all up in support of
their program. Problem with mandated programs is they can't deal with
unforseen contingencies. Amongst the general public, businesses that
don't respond well go bankrupt (if the govt allows it) and are
replaced by better businesses (when the govt allows it). The govt.,
otoh, doesn't do so, it usually just adds a layer of bureaucracy
charged with avoiding the effects of the contingency...which always
translates to paying whatever it costs.
Overhead is more than what you pay to primary care providers, and for
me anyways, I don't like the idea of making "savings" at that level.
Count in the total of the govt bureaucracy associated with medicare/
medicaid, and specifically NOT costs to primary care providers and
lets see how they do. Another example of reverse investment. The
public pay the primary care providers more, thus they have higher
overheads and this is bad. The govt pays the primary care providers
less, leaving more for govt., and this is good.
The only people really having a problem with "the high cost of health
care" is the govt, and they do in fact pay less for primary care. So
why do they have the problem?
Dinosaur_Sr
That answer is easy. The income earning workers. We are supposed to
cover the cost of these silly Utopian boondoggles. For once, I'd like
to see a wealth tax to pa7y for these things. They won't even spring
for a luxury goods tax! But I guess as most liberals are rich people,
it's hardly surprising!
dene
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-75E0A2....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Cite the 77%
> One thing is also for sure - the government has shown "time and again"
> that the overheads in Medicare and Medicaid are as low and lower than
> those of the health insurance industry, in spite of all the BS they try
> to feed you
Really! Then explain why the "government" funds Medicare Advantage plans
and why medicare recipients buy them in droves. For the uninformed, like
Clark, Advantage plans are offered by private insurers to administer
medicare benefits while providing additional coverages, like dental, vision,
Rx, alternative care, and most important, an out of pocket maximum. The
premiums are quite low to enrollees.....in certain plans, zero.
Reason....the private insurers are able to do more the money they receive
from Medicare than what Medicare offers by itself, for the same money. Yet
you claim that it's the government who is responsible for this "low
overhead."
Hmmm....care to explain this, Clark???
-Greg
Kommienezuspadt
===
Your post leads to much head shaking.
What service are you saying the people got for having Congress grant them
this exemption?
In many states one company controls @ 2/3 & more of the market. This
exemption allows this to happen.
Since you did say "probably" tells me you have not studied the issue much. I
doubt the "people" you cite were clamoring to ask that insurance companies
be allowed to have this exemption -- but feel free to prove me wrong!
As for your other claim -- it is just pure right wing hogwash --- or do you
deny that Medicare has a lower cost of service structure than insurance
companies?
If you think this is the case == why not disband the police & the military
in favor of private business doing it?
== but then YOU said your claim is based on -- I quote here --- "according
to all known examples!" === So feel free to give them to us!
Kommienezuspadt
"dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
news:7jp663F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:dcb9fefd-cd7b-4712...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 15, 11:56 am, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>
>> I'd say costs will go up as long as the insurance industry has monopoly
>> protection and even removing that may be too late since there is no real
>> competion in many states.
>
> Name the states that have no competition.
>
I said no real competion -- you should try 3rd grade again -- but you won't
see this because you hide from my posts -- remeber?
>> I sure can't figure out who (beside the industry) thought giving them
>> this
>> protection was good idea. What will be interesting is seeing who defends
>> it. Will the free market types defend it?
>
> Unsubstantiated lies can be confusing.
You try it often enough --- but what does that mean in relation to what I
posted?
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Probably cropped up because the people decided they wanted such
> services and some of the people decided to go ahead and provide the
> service. In a democracy, such things aren't "given" out by some
> authority, they represent the free will of the people to both use and
> provide such services.
>
> One thing for sure, govt has proven time and again it is nowhere near
> as efficient or effective in providing such services as the people
> themselves. They will cost us more and give us less, according to all
> known examples!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well said Rob!
>
> -Greg
>
>
Says the insurance shill to the ill-informed ---
Kommienezuspadt
And your money comes from them --- everyone should keep that in mind when
you post -- they can decide if you are to believed with that information in
hand.
Kommienezuspadt
>
> "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-75E0A2....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> In article
>> <dcb9fefd-cd7b-4712...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> > Probably cropped up because the people decided they wanted such
>> > services and some of the people decided to go ahead and provide the
>> > service. In a democracy, such things aren't "given" out by some
>> > authority, they represent the free will of the people to both use and
>> > provide such services.
>> >
>> > One thing for sure, govt has proven time and again it is nowhere near
>> > as efficient or effective in providing such services as the people
>> > themselves. They will cost us more and give us less, according to all
>> > known examples!
>>
>> The "free will" of 77% of the people (and a similar percentage of the
>> medical profession) want a public option. It is the health industry
>> lobby's ability to buy off Senators and Congressmen that is throwing up
>> road block after road block.
>
> Cite the 77%
>
I found this from the NY Times:
The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found
that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered
insurance plan � something like Medicare for those under 65 � that would
compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were
opposed.
I have not seen the 77% number -- but you won't like my link -- so what else
is new with your ignoring questions & facts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html
Kommienezuspadt
> news:clark-75E0A2....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> In article
>> <dcb9fefd-cd7b-4712...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> > Probably cropped up because the people decided they wanted such
>> > services and some of the people decided to go ahead and provide the
>> > service. In a democracy, such things aren't "given" out by some
>> > authority, they represent the free will of the people to both use and
>> > provide such services.
>> >
>> > One thing for sure, govt has proven time and again it is nowhere near
>> > as efficient or effective in providing such services as the people
>> > themselves. They will cost us more and give us less, according to all
>> > known examples!
>>
>> The "free will" of 77% of the people (and a similar percentage of the
>> medical profession) want a public option. It is the health industry
>> lobby's ability to buy off Senators and Congressmen that is throwing up
>> road block after road block.
>
> Cite the 77%
heh -- here it is:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693
you lose.
William Clark
"dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark-75E0A2....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article
> > <dcb9fefd-cd7b-4712...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > Probably cropped up because the people decided they wanted such
> > > services and some of the people decided to go ahead and provide the
> > > service. In a democracy, such things aren't "given" out by some
> > > authority, they represent the free will of the people to both use and
> > > provide such services.
> > >
> > > One thing for sure, govt has proven time and again it is nowhere near
> > > as efficient or effective in providing such services as the people
> > > themselves. They will cost us more and give us less, according to all
> > > known examples!
> >
> > The "free will" of 77% of the people (and a similar percentage of the
> > medical profession) want a public option. It is the health industry
> > lobby's ability to buy off Senators and Congressmen that is throwing up
> > road block after road block.
>
> Cite the 77%
Done:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8
-62b9d1ba8693
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960
>
> > One thing is also for sure - the government has shown "time and again"
> > that the overheads in Medicare and Medicaid are as low and lower than
> > those of the health insurance industry, in spite of all the BS they try
> > to feed you
>
> Really! Then explain why the "government" funds Medicare Advantage plans
> and why medicare recipients buy them in droves. For the uninformed, like
> Clark, Advantage plans are offered by private insurers to administer
> medicare benefits while providing additional coverages, like dental, vision,
> Rx, alternative care, and most important, an out of pocket maximum. The
> premiums are quite low to enrollees.....in certain plans, zero.
> Reason....the private insurers are able to do more the money they receive
> from Medicare than what Medicare offers by itself, for the same money. Yet
> you claim that it's the government who is responsible for this "low
> overhead."
>
> Hmmm....care to explain this, Clark???
>
> -Greg
All of which, of course, is almost completely irrelevant. For one,
dental and vision plans are not "insurance", they are actually simply
subscriptions to pay for upcoming costs on a regular basis, just like
paying your gas bill on a monthly budget plan, rather than by usage (and
so evening out seasonal fluctuations). Has anyone ever have a vision
"emergency" (and I don't mean eye damage that will send you to the
emergency room, I mean to do with glasses)? Of course not, there is no
such thing as a trip to the emergency room because your bifocals
malfunction. No wonder health insurers are keen to offer these services
- they can very precisely control both costs and the income stream from
them, in a way that they do not with real health insurance. Research
indicates that only 14 cents on the dollar of Medicare Advantage plans
goes to treating subscribers - the other 86 cents goes to the insurance
companies, mostly as profit. Hmmmm.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/medicare-advantage-cuts-once-more-with-
feeling/
Oh, and just a reminder about the relative overheads:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/january/cahis_claim_of_medi.php
Kommienezuspadt
dene has kf'd me for answering him and/or questioning him. Not to worry --
I'll post to him anyway -- since I know others will see it.
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article <7jp7l2F361hn...@mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
> "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> >news:clark-75E0A2....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > In article
> > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Probably cropped up because the people decided they wanted such
> > > > services and some of the people decided to go ahead and provide the
> > > > service. In a democracy, such things aren't "given" out by some
> > > > authority, they represent the free will of the people to both use and
> > > > provide such services.
>
> > > > One thing for sure, govt has proven time and again it is nowhere near
> > > > as efficient or effective in providing such services as the people
> > > > themselves. They will cost us more and give us less, according to all
> > > > known examples!
>
> > > The "free will" of 77% of the people (and a similar percentage of the
> > > medical profession) want a public option. It is the health industry
> > > lobby's ability to buy off Senators and Congressmen that is throwing up
> > > road block after road block.
>
> > Cite the 77%
>
> Done:
>
> -62b9d1ba8693
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.s...
> feeling/
>
> Oh, and just a reminder about the relative overheads:
>
> http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/january/cahis_claim_of_medi.php
Health Insurance that pays for primary care isn't insurance either, in
exactly the same light. Very few people can't come up with $500.00 for
a checkup if *THEY* want to, and there is no reason to pay the govt
far more than that per person to have the govt force them to do it.
Of course with "free" health care for some people, they will suddenly
become "responsible" and be accessing the system every 2 weeks or so
with themselves and their kids.
Some congressman was talking on the news today that we need state run
health care because people going to emergency rooms cost us about
$1,100 each per year. So I suppose this cost will go away somehow.
They do say that fining people who don't sign up for some sort of plan
$750.00 each will somehow cover these costs, but how much will it cost
to administer the application and collection of these fines...nothing
is said.
IMHO, the libs want this for it's own sake. It is a holy grail of some
sort, despite the fact it is failing everywhere else. Even in vaunted
Japan, people die waiting to get into the system, like in Canada and
the UK. People don't die like that here. One of the big lies is that
people here die for want of health care. If they do, it is because of
their own irresponsibility. All they have to do is go to an emergency
room and they will be treated. Another lie is that tort reform won't
make a difference...then they talk only about capping settlements. I
want tort reform, but not caps on settlements; that['s regressive
IMHO. We need to eliminate the frivolous lawsuits, and about 75% of
the lawsuits brought against people in the health care system are
frivolous. Define precisely what is and is not malpractice, and have
tribunals rule on these things for the most part with a right of
appeal under defined circumstances, but don't cap the awards. If some
hospital kills someone because of malpractice, it should be up to the
public (ie the jury) to determine the award unfettered by the
political class.
Dinosaur_Sr
There's a weak argument. You want private armies and police forces?
The reason why we don't want that is obvious to anyone with any sense
at all.
The issue Greg brought up is the idea that you have to cover everyone,
regardless of pre-existing condition. The problem with that is people
will wait till they have a medical problem before buying
insurance...like buying car insurance after you have a wreck and
expecting the insurance to cover the wreck! However, the insurance
industry said OK to the provision if they fined those who did not get
insurance sufficiently. However, they lowered those fines to the point
where they are almost meaningless, and so the insurance industry came
out with an accounting of the effect of this; cover everyone, but
don't make it too hard on people if they don't sign up for
insurance...compare the cost of the extra coverage to the revenue you
can collect from people not now insured, and it's a big cost wit the
amendment Greg mentioned. Of course the lib media doesn't talk about
the actual issue itself here...just stuff like Wiemer's rant. So why
Weimer can't adress the actual issue; you "insure" anyone who shows up
at the door, but don't make it too hard on people who don't pay up
until they actually need the service..at most $750.00 per year...and
starting at $50.00 per year..so pay a $50.00 to $750.00 per year fine
or buy health insurance, and if you say get in a serious car accident,
you can always buy insurance then and be covered! So why buy the
health insurance...and how does this "cut costs" as Weimer suggests?
And that is the issue; nothing else.
The reason medicare has a lower "cost structure" is they pay less to
primary providers. I don't like that. I want the doctors, nurses and
techs to make more...get rid of the bureaucratic costs.
If you feel there is an example of something the govt does more cost
effectively than the public, let me know, say building a building, or
a road...total cost to do so. If you cannot refute my view, then you
cannot, as a point of fact, and my view is valid. You can hold the
opposite view if you want, fine with me.
Kommienezuspadt
____===
Did all of this come from Beck or do you actually have a source for this?
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4515 (20091016) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
Beck is hard to watch for me. Sometimes he is OK, but more times he
rants too much for me. The only stat I had in there was the 75%.
Pretty much common knowledge, but if you don't want to believe it,
what and why difference would it make to me? You an ambulance chaser?
William Clark
<c3ff84bd-3909-43e2...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 10:56�am, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoWay.com> wrote:
> > "Dinosaur Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1e6af45c-65ab-4aa4...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 16, 7:16 am, William Clark <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-
> >
> >
> >
> > state.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <7jp7l2F361hn...@mid.individual.net>,
> >
> > > "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > > "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> > > >news:clark-75E0A2....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <dcb9fefd-cd7b-4712-ad3d-ca7560417...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > >http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/january/cahis claim of medi.php
> > ===
> >
> > Did all of this come from Beck or do you actually have a source for this?
>
>
> Beck is hard to watch for me. Sometimes he is OK, but more times he
> rants too much for me. The only stat I had in there was the 75%.
> Pretty much common knowledge, but if you don't want to believe it,
> what and why difference would it make to me? You an ambulance chaser?
Sorry, but "common knowledge" does not constitute a reliable source,
except in the minds of neocons. You should know better.
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <c3ff84bd-3909-43e2-8549-a089bdb59...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
You can see things however you want. If you care, and look it up, you
will find the 75% number. If you want me to find it for you, well
education is what I do for a living, so I want at least $500.00 to do
it for you. Otherwise, anyone who knows the issue knows...and knows
that you don't!
I am a neocon though...used to be a lot more liberal, but not any
more. Lies only go so far. Not that conservatives don't lie, but they
don't always lie.
William Clark
<b212db16-d4eb-4c6d...@11g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
Where would I find the "75% number"? I really hope that you teach your
Mississippi College kids better ethics than this - pulling data out of
the air with no sources? Tut, tut. And you call yourself a scientist?
Shame on you.
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <b212db16-d4eb-4c6d-b57b-b66e51d1a...@11g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
I am absolutely a scientist. You can hardly more forward if you have
to keep rehashing previously established issues. If you can refute the
75% number, then do so, otherwise you are just a troll. No wonder you
are no more than an equipment operator.
Kommienezuspadt
===
translation --- Jr. has nothing.
Kommienezuspadt
===
Actually -- you made boat load of claims --
that "Very few people can't come up with $500.00 for a check-up".
and:
Of course with "free" health care for some people, they will suddenly become
"responsible" and be accessing the system every 2 weeks or so with
themselves and their kids.
and this whole pile of smelling stuff: (without a single cite)
IMHO, the libs want this for it's own sake. It is a holy grail of some
> sort, despite the fact it is failing everywhere else. Even in vaunted
> Japan, people die waiting to get into the system, like in Canada and
> the UK. People don't die like that here. One of the big lies is that
> people here die for want of health care. If they do, it is because of
> their own irresponsibility. All they have to do is go to an emergency
> room and they will be treated. Another lie is that tort reform won't
> make a difference...then they talk only about capping settlements. I
> want tort reform, but not caps on settlements; that['s regressive
> IMHO. We need to eliminate the frivolous lawsuits, and about 75% of
> the lawsuits brought against people in the health care system are
> frivolous. Define precisely what is and is not malpractice, and have
> tribunals rule on these things for the most part with a right of
> appeal under defined circumstances, but don't cap the awards. If some
> hospital kills someone because of malpractice, it should be up to the
> public (ie the jury) to determine the award unfettered by the
> political class.
Am I an ambulance chaser? NO -- BUT - I do serve on the Governing Board of
Trustees of a small rural hospital --- and an EMS (Emergency Services )
Task Force -- so I just *might* have some insights that Beck & Rush have not
passed on to you....
Have you anything like that in your background?
Kommienezuspadt
====
You truly know so little it amazes me.
1. I did not say I supported private armies & police -- that one came from
your delusions.
2. I agree that allowing people to opt out is wrong -- truth it -- it should
be single payer to make it even for all.
3. You trying to twist the "cost structure" of Medicare is simply you trying
to mis-quote in order to make yourself look dishonest -- well done I say!
Why? because I said: Medicare has a lower cost of service structure than
insurance companies?
Yare so smart -- you tell me why this is wrong:
Another is less obvious: Private insurers consistently spend more on
overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad
prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although
these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead
cost of Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent, far below the administrative
costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090610_why_so_scared_of_a_public_plan/
===
Now I've seen studies that suggest the numbers are closer together -- but I
challenge you find a source that says private insurance has a lower overhead
costs as a percentage. You can stuff the reimbursement rates because they
are not part of the equation for overhead.
William Clark
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
Indeed, nothing at all. He is a dunce.
The moderator
>
> Sorry, but "common knowledge" does not constitute a reliable source,
> except in the minds of neocons. You should know better.
I agree. You lack common sense so we shouldn't expect you to understand
common knowledge.
William Clark
"The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
Good Lord, don't you ever give up - or grow up?
Kommienezuspadt
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
news:4ada3884$0$643$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
I hear crickets......
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4524 (20091019) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4524 (20091019) __________
Dinosaur_Sr
What is interesting is that you are a lawyer, interested in the issue,
but you are not aware of the reported stat that 75% of health care
related lawsuits are without merit. I see it discussed all the time. I
never listen to Rush, FWIW...in my life I have never listened to his
program once. Beck does a lot of research, much more than you on this
issue despite your service...and with that service, how can you be
unaware of the 75% thing...it's pretty commonly reported. One would
think something like that would be an issue at a hospital. But in your
case I suppose not.
William Clark
<75445d17-bc90-4ba8...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 4:32�pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
> > "Dinosaur Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:c3ff84bd-3909-43e2...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 16, 10:56 am, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoWay.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Dinosaur Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
> >
> > >news:1e6af45c-65ab-4aa4...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Oct 16, 7:16 am, William Clark <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-
> >
> > > state.edu> wrote:
> > > > In article <7jp7l2F361hn...@mid.individual.net>,
> >
> > > > "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> > > > > "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in
> > > > > message
> > > > >news:clark-75E0A2....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <dcb9fefd-cd7b-4712-ad3d-ca7560417...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/january/cahis claim of medi.php
In fact, it is so "commonly" reported that he can't actually produce a
cite to the "common" data. Surprise, surprise.
Kommienezuspadt
tinfoil reception is weak this month....
Kommienezuspadt
====
Can you please show me where I claimed to be a lawyer?
We are all still waiting for you to give us some cites for these claims you
keep making.
If I show you that Beck does NOT do much research -- will you admit he's
just making it to get fools to tune him in?
I know he CLAIMS that some of the biggest minds in the country do his
research ---
Beck called Van Jones a convicted felon -- which was wrong.
He claimed that Vancouver lost a billion dollars when they held the
Olympics -- which have NOT been held yet.
He claims that Obama has an unprecedented number of czars -- but W. Bush had
more & Obama has actually only appointed 8 brand new czars.
He claimed that the gov't was going to have full access to the public's
computers if they logged onto the Cash For Clunkers website -- which was
false.
Beck admitted on the show the View that does not check facts because " I am
a commentator. I commentate on life."
While making fun of a website to help relieve stress about the economy he
said: We don't need a website. We didn't need one after Oklahoma City. We
didn't need one after Columbine. We didn't need one even after 9-11. You
know why? Because we had each other. == Which was false because there was a
website from the Untied States Department of Health & Human Services.
There are many more laughable "facts" --- but they are all common
knowledge -- like you say....
How do you like your crow?
Kommienezuspadt
"The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
news:4adcb3c7$0$23772$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
It is common knowledge you are simply mailing in your dumbest thoughts now.
gray asphalt
If one congressman wants too much money
for his vote, doesn't the free market dictate
that another congressman will sell at a cheaper
cost?
Regulating price fixing is another
story. If congressmen get together and conspire
to sell their vote at a higher cost, that is definitely
against the free market.
And how to you comparethings like discounted loans
to campaign contributions? Perhaps there should be
bribery consultants to make sure that the congress gets
it's fair market value.
And don't forget, we have to compete with the
governments of other countries. It is not easy to compete
with countries with a longer tradition of public
corruption. They have more practice and we have to deal
with the added cost of paying for corruption costs associated
with the 4th estate. That is not one of John Mc Cain's
houses, but the press, television and radio.
One of there main jobs is to report tha stock market as if it
were a measure of the financial health of the country.
When jobs are exported stocks go up. When unemployment
is high, costs go down and stocks go up. When the price of
congressmen goes down, stocks go up.
I'm not sure that this post is really fair and balanced so I
intend to begin an investigation of myself.
gray asphalt
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
>
> "dene" <de...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
> news:7jp7l2F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark-75E0A2....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>>> In article
>>> <dcb9fefd-cd7b-4712...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> >
>>> > Probably cropped up because the people decided they wanted such
>>> > services and some of the people decided to go ahead and provide the
>>> > service. In a democracy, such things aren't "given" out by some
>>> > authority, they represent the free will of the people to both use and
>>> > provide such services.
>>> >
>>> > One thing for sure, govt has proven time and again it is nowhere near
>>> > as efficient or effective in providing such services as the people
>>> > themselves. They will cost us more and give us less, according to all
>>> > known examples!
>>>
>>> The "free will" of 77% of the people (and a similar percentage of the
>>> medical profession) want a public option. It is the health industry
>>> lobby's ability to buy off Senators and Congressmen that is throwing up
>>> road block after road block.
>>
>> Cite the 77%
>>
>
>
> I found this from the NY Times:
>
> The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16,
> found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a
> under 65 - that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty
>
> I have not seen the 77% number -- but you won't like my link -- so what
> else is new with your ignoring questions & facts?
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html
>
>>> One thing is also for sure - the government has shown "time and again"
>>> that the overheads in Medicare and Medicaid are as low and lower than
>>> those of the health insurance industry, in spite of all the BS they try
>>> to feed you
>>
>> Really! Then explain why the "government" funds Medicare Advantage plans
>> and why medicare recipients buy them in droves. For the uninformed, like
>> Clark, Advantage plans are offered by private insurers to administer
>> medicare benefits while providing additional coverages, like dental,
>> vision,
>> Rx, alternative care, and most important, an out of pocket maximum. The
>> premiums are quite low to enrollees.....in certain plans, zero.
>> Reason....the private insurers are able to do more the money they receive
>> from Medicare than what Medicare offers by itself, for the same money.
>> Yet
>> you claim that it's the government who is responsible for this "low
>> overhead."
>>
>> Hmmm....care to explain this, Clark???
>>
>> -Greg
What was the exact question asked in the survey?
gray asphalt
____
Beck does not rant. He whines in a ranty sort of way.
Kommienezuspadt
"gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:_bsDm.31440$eF1....@newsfe24.iad...
A fair question --- you'll have to ask the NYTimes though -- I did not find
the exact wording in the article.
Dinosaur_Sr
> We are all still waiting for you to give us some cites for these claims you
> keep making.
I never offered to cite anything. If you aren't up to date on these
commonly known things, that's your problem, not mine!
If you are waiting for me to do so, as you claim, please hold your
breath...please!
FWIW, continually asking for lame references is a poor debating trick.
It's like teaching physics and always having to review the Laws of
Thermodynamics and such...OK for newbies, but after that you should
know it, and if you don't, the fault is yours. If you are so uptight
about the 75% figure, show it to be inaccurate. I am obviously very
comfortable with it.
Dinosaur_Sr
Great description!
dene
>
> Beck is hard to watch for me. Sometimes he is OK, but more times he
> rants too much for me. The only stat I had in there was the 75%.
> Pretty much common knowledge, but if you don't want to believe it,
> what and why difference would it make to me? You an ambulance chaser?
>
> ____
>
> Beck does not rant. He whines in a ranty sort of way.
Great description!
----------------------------------------------------------------
I can barely stomach he or Rush. Each week he appears on O'Reilly. I use
the FF on my DVR to zoom past it.
-Greg
Kommienezuspadt
===
So we must accept several things --- you have no proof of any of the sh*t
you post and you must resort to snipping content to hide from it.
Like I said before -- it has become common knowledge that you know nothing
about what you post.
FWIW -- it is common knowledge that making claims without a single shred of
evidence makes you -- as clueless as Glenn Beck!
Ohh -- and here is what you snipped -- did you think it went away when you
did that?
> Am I an ambulance chaser? NO -- BUT - I do serve on the Governing Board of
> Trustees of a small rural hospital --- and an EMS (Emergency Services )
> Task Force -- so I just *might* have some insights that Beck & Rush have
> not
> passed on to you....
>
> Have you anything like that in your background?
What is interesting is that you are a lawyer, interested in the issue,
but you are not aware of the reported stat that 75% of health care
related lawsuits are without merit. I see it discussed all the time. I
never listen to Rush, FWIW...in my life I have never listened to his
program once. Beck does a lot of research, much more than you on this
issue despite your service...and with that service, how can you be
unaware of the 75% thing...it's pretty commonly reported. One would
think something like that would be an issue at a hospital. But in your
case I suppose not.
====
Can you please show me where I claimed to be a lawyer?
We are all still waiting for you to give us some cites for these claims you
keep making.
If I show you that Beck does NOT do much research -- will you admit he's
Kommienezuspadt
so you admit allowing O'Lielly to rot your brain -- or what we assume is a
brain.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
Now there's a rant! Got any legitimate citations for this stuff, or
just some list on some loony website. The czars thing for example.
Comparing the total number of czars Bush had over 8 years to the
number Obama has now are we? Of course even that begs the
question...even if Beck is human, and makes errors during his rants,
which no doubt he does, it's the things he is right about that count,
like the fact that Van Jones is a loony racist...and the evidence is
vids of Van Jones himself spewing forth his filth.
In any event, you provide zero citations for the stuff you post, and
it doesn't matter in any event. If you don't know about the stat of
75% of medical malpractice suits being brought being without merit,
you aren't informed on the issue.
Errors someone makes are hardly crow, even if they are true. However,
having no legitimate points to make yourself, and having to resort to
showing where other people make errors is pretty clear indication of
complete rhetorical bankruptcy.
I see the liberals have even come out with a copy cat book to counter
Sarah Palins book. If she is so dumb, why bother? Amazing the degree
to which Palin scares the left.
MNMikeW
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
Beck, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Olberman. All entertainers, not
newsmen. Politics aside, the only one that's entertaining is
Olberman.
BK
William Clark
<005541a2-6569-4b8c...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
This Dinosaur-speak for "I don't have any - I'll have to try the same
old worn our deflection tactic".
dene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not easy for me to distinguish but I think it's Commie you are
responding to. You're right to not waste your time with him. Whackjob...to
say the least.
-Greg
dene
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7kb8lfF...@mid.individual.net...
Most losers don't have a garage.
-Greg
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:30u0e55ejtpdl8386...@4ax.com...
head entertainment. :-)
To bad the White House can't seem to differentiate between entertainers and
newsmen.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
I have never watched his show, but I do go to his web site and view
his "Worst Persons in the World" clips. They're entertaining...and
remember that I'm not dealing with the politics. Sometimes they're
off base, but always funny.
>To bad the White House can't seem to differentiate between entertainers and
>newsmen.
>
Its difficult.
BK
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <005541a2-6569-4b8c-a68a-925faccfb...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Really? Since you are too dishonest to directly pay me for my work;
typical socialist, BTW, I will bet you $500.000 that I can find at
least one other online source that supports the 75% figure. Don't know
what difference it makes though, you will claim the source, or any
sources I produce are bogus, even tho0ugh you have no clue on the
issue.
Clear fact is you don't know what you are talking about or you
wouldn't make the comments you make. The 75% figure is very well known
and comes up almost any time people discuss the issue in depth.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
Yup. It's commie!
Dinosaur_Sr
> "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7kb8lfF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
> >news:4adfa0dd$1$32459$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> > >news:7k91rlF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > >> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6e9524bb-44ec-473c...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> Beck is hard to watch for me. Sometimes he is OK, but more times he
> > >>> rants too much for me. The only stat I had in there was the 75%.
> > >>> Pretty much common knowledge, but if you don't want to believe it,
> > >>> what and why difference would it make to me? You an ambulance chaser?
>
> > >>> ____
>
> > >>> Beck does not rant. He whines in a ranty sort of way.
>
> > >> Great description!
>
> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > >> I can barely stomach he or Rush. Each week he appears on O'Reilly. I
> > >> use
> > >> the FF on my DVR to zoom past it.
>
> > >> -Greg
>
> > > so you admit allowing O'Lielly to rot your brain -- or what we assume is
> a
> > > brain.
> > I bet you have a poster of Keith Olberman in your garage.
>
> Most losers don't have a garage.
>
> -Greg
Best thing about Olberman is that he does no research at all; just
makes it up and comments on the fantasy.
MNMikeW
William Clark
<7faac535-56ef-4830...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
Well, I'm sorry that your principles are now so corrupt that you try to
extort money in order to provide references to your "data". Do you do
this with the scientific journals, too? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. You
don't publish any science in the scientific journals.
In the meantime, just keep on trying to deflect away from the fact that
you pulled some fictional figure out of the air (to put it politely) and
now have a full time job trying to make it look credible.
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <7faac535-56ef-4830-8e58-1be2fc7e4...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
I have no publications? Interesting bit of loony chauvinism there! Of
course what I do is *MY* research, not a tag along on someone else's.
Sounds like you are just ducking your own ignorance...you are not sure
of the 75% thing so you won't commit.
The moderator
The Artful Dodger deflects again.
MNMikeW
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-37A0BB....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
According to the most recent data from the Physician Insurers Association of
America, 71 percent of medical malpractice cases were dropped or dismissed
in 2004, 22 percent were settled, 6 percent went to trial and were decided
in favor of the defense, and 1 percent went to trial and yielded a verdict
for the plaintiff.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12723303/
Kommienezuspadt
===
Now you are the tops! Asking someone else for cites that have already been
stated as being common knowledge!
You must dizzy all the time with spinning you do in a futile attempt to get
out of the holes you keep digging.
You made the claims that Beck had this great research staff -- then you
whine about it when I list errors he made due to no research. Are you a
pink stuffed animal or a quivering mass? I can't decide.
Why don't you google beck facts errors? Why? Because you know he's a
certifiable loon.
Palin is just plain fun -- I mean -- she quit 5 or 6 schools -- quit her job
at the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission -- quit her job as
gov. --- I just love the idea of her running for office....
Kommienezuspadt
I understand why you would think that way --- I am simply asking him to
prove his claims -- the same thing I've done with you -- and you ran with
your tail tucked.
Kommienezuspadt
Yup. It's commie!
==
dene is just another one that can't stand being challenged on his claims --
just like some one else --- it's all common knowledge!
Kommienezuspadt
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7kb8lfF...@mid.individual.net...
>
You would be wrong -- I do have a Ford Red-Belly one though.
Kommienezuspadt
as opposed to using Vick's to make Beck cry on cue?
Kommienezuspadt
You should know -
Kommienezuspadt
===
So -- you admit to watching him -- or are you just making this up too?
The moderator
Clark isn't going to read that.
William Clark
"The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
You know, if you really have nothing more pertinent to add than childish
snipes, it is best to keep quiet. Otherwise you simply look like the
little kid in the playground that tries to hide behind the big boys and
then yell insults.
William Clark
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
The figure in this cite is "40% . . .are groundless". Last time I
checked, 40% was only slightly more than half of "75%".
So I thank you for once again demonstrating that Dino talks from the end
opposite his mouth.
MNMikeW
"William Clark" <wcl...@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wclark2-2557BD...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Figgures you only check the MSNBC site.
Dinosaur_Sr
Really? You posted nothing. No citations at all. If you are going to
insist on citations from me, you need to provide them for yourself,
otherwise you are a hypocrite...which is true, so what should I
expect.......
Why would I want to look at a bunch of websites operated by nutcases
who catalog errors other people make? Only a loon would do that...of
course only an ultra loon would sit around cataloging errors other
people make.
As for Palin...you been elected as anything? If not, she is that much
better than you politically speaking, as you are a total zero, just
like me.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7kbdsmF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
Of course you didn't see the need to prove anything yourself though,
just let off with some 100% unsubstantiated rant against Beck! Beck
being correct or incorrect about this or that means nothing of course.
The fact that 75% of the lawsuits filed against doctors are frivolous
costs us all a lot of the wealth we earn. That you don't know this
simple fact, and need to be given a reference simply shows that you
are a know nothing on the issue.
Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:
> In article <7kbpm4F38st5...@mid.individual.net>,
>
>
>
> "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> >news:clark-37A0BB....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > In article
> > on/Malpractice-Are-frivolous-suits-ireallyi-a-problem/ArticleStandard/Article/
> > detail/278014
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12723303/
>
> The figure in this cite is "40% . . .are groundless". Last time I
> checked, 40% was only slightly more than half of "75%".
>
> So I thank you for once again demonstrating that Dino talks from the end
> opposite his mouth.
I speak the language you understand..but I'll take pity on you as one
of the woesomely uniformed people out there. Here is a web reference
you can jump on, which you will do despite your admitted total lack of
knowledge on the issue.
http://blog.medicaljustice.com/?s=75%25&x=27&y=11
Of course if you followed the debate, the issue will be discussed
repeatedly by various commentators on the left and right...but that
would be too tough for you, so I give you a website, which is about
all you can handle I suppose.
Kommienezuspadt
===
Let me get this straight = what is good enough for you -- is not good enough
for anyone else --- why I think I spy a Repub hypocrite.
But -- here's some for you --- I suggest a tight towel around your head
before viewing.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909300033
http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-gets-facts-wrong-on-so-called-czars/
Kommienezuspadt
++++
right -- quitting is the best sign of leadership -- it is common knowledge!
and trust me -- I did not think you had the guts to actually learn
something.
But -- you are about as amusing as Palin -- so I'll keep you around.
Kommienezuspadt
http://blog.medicaljustice.com/?s=75%25&x=27&y=11
+++ I'm laughing at it right now -- saying that statistics show
something -- without showing or linking to the quoted statistics -- is
soooooo Glenn Beck it's a laugh a minute!
But wait -- that is exactly what beck does....... I guess we can see how
easily you are led around.
William Clark
<93d17765-6358-42d5...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 4:29�pm, William Clark <wcla...@colnospamumbus.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > In article <7kbpm4F38st5...@mid.individual.net>,
> >
> >
> >
> > �"MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > "William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:clark-37A0BB....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > > In article
> > > > <7faac535-56ef-4830-8e58-1be2fc7e4...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
So the best you can do, apart from the usual gratuitously offensive
insults, is to give a URL to a web site of a for profit company
dedicated, in its own words, to "Protecting Physicians from Frivolous
Lawsuits". And you expect me to take that as an objective and unbiased
source? Right. What's more it doesn't actually give any sources for the
75% figure that you are so wedded to, unlike the research cited above.
If I gave you a URL to the DNC outlining who is paying for the attempts
to block health care reform, you would simply accept that as gospel, I
suppose? Cotton on to yourself.
William Clark
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
Than you - my sentiments exactly, too.
William Clark
<94806565-c493-465b...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
Right - it's really Nobel quality work. It's just unfortunate that no
one gets to read it.
>
> Sounds like you are just ducking your own ignorance...you are not sure
> of the 75% thing so you won't commit.
All you have some up with is some loony doctor's commercial web site,
that gives no more reference to the mythical "75%" than you do. Where is
the actual data? Even you can do better than this.
Kommienezuspadt
I see no evidence that this is not Jr's best work.
Dinosaur_Sr
Media matters and some idiot blog devoted to boycotting a news source
with which you don't agree politically! I wouldn't waste my time even
clicking onto such trash...nor would I waste my time with things like
The Drudge Report either, FWIW. In any event, if you waste your time
reading crap like that....well, it explains a lot.
Try thinking for yourself sometime!
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <93d17765-6358-42d5-8878-d1200a4cf...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
So your claim is that the 75% figure is wrong. Fine with me! Again,
all I can do is try to educate you, however you and commie are both
blockheads who are incapable of learning. Maybe some day you will come
up with a neame for an X ray crystallograph...how about X Ray
Crystallograph!
bkn...@conramp.net
That hasn't worked too well for you Rob.
BK
William Clark
<6b654d72-ca5b-45ba...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...@att.net> wrote:
You cannot "educate" anyone by pulling fairytale numbers out of your
ass, and then pretending that they are valid. God forbid anyone should
have a teacher with those educational ethics.
Still embarrassed about the "x-ray crystallograph" gaffe, I see. No
surprise these, you should be red-faced about that one. Or maybe you
read it on some doctor's for profit web page?
Kommienezuspadt
+++= So far the evidence is overwhelming that you don't do facts.
gray asphalt
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:30u0e55ejtpdl8386...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>news:4adfa0dd$1$32459$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>>>
>>> news:7k91rlF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Beck is hard to watch for me. Sometimes he is OK, but more times he
>>>>> rants too much for me. The only stat I had in there was the 75%.
>>>>> Pretty much common knowledge, but if you don't want to believe it,
>>>>> what and why difference would it make to me? You an ambulance chaser?
>>>>>
>>>>> ____
>>>>>
>>>>> Beck does not rant. He whines in a ranty sort of way.
>>>>
>>>> Great description!
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> I can barely stomach he or Rush. Each week he appears on O'Reilly. I
>>>> use
>>>> the FF on my DVR to zoom past it.
>>>>
>>>> -Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> so you admit allowing O'Lielly to rot your brain -- or what we assume is
>>> a
>>> brain.
>>I bet you have a poster of Keith Olberman in your garage.
>>
> newsmen. Politics aside, the only one that's entertaining is
> Olberman.
>
O'Reilly is a very angry man. And he doesn't hide
it that well. His "body language" expert must bite
her tongue a lot. imo
gray asphalt
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
I didn't realize that Beck was an animal lover. I thought
he cries by pulling a hair out of his mask.
gray asphalt
On Oct 22, 11:06 am, "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7kb8lfF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >news:4adfa0dd$1$32459$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> > >news:7k91rlF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > >> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6e9524bb-44ec-473c...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>> Beck is hard to watch for me. Sometimes he is OK, but more times he
> > >>> rants too much for me. The only stat I had in there was the 75%.
> > >>> Pretty much common knowledge, but if you don't want to believe it,
> > >>> what and why difference would it make to me? You an ambulance
> > >>> chaser?
>
> > >>> ____
>
> > >>> Beck does not rant. He whines in a ranty sort of way.
>
> > >> Great description!
>
> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > >> I can barely stomach he or Rush. Each week he appears on O'Reilly. I
> > >> use
> > >> the FF on my DVR to zoom past it.
>
> > >> -Greg
>
> > > so you admit allowing O'Lielly to rot your brain -- or what we assume
> > > is
> a
> > > brain.
> > I bet you have a poster of Keith Olberman in your garage.
>
>
> -Greg
Best thing about Olberman is that he does no research at all; just
makes it up and comments on the fantasy.
_____
O'Reilly claimed to have gotten a Peabody Award and
didn't or is that pure bs by Keith?
annika1980
> O'Reilly claimed to have gotten a Peabody Award and
> didn't or is that pure bs by Keith?
In February, O'Reilly gave a speech seemingly taking credit for
winning a coveted Peabody award while an anchor at the tabloid TV show
Inside Edition. After comedian Al Franken pointed out that the show
never won a Peabody, O'Reilly retorted, in Mamet-esque syntax
(O'Reilly Factor, 3/13/01): "Guy says about me, couple of weeks ago,
'O'Reilly said he won a Peabody Award.' Never said it. You can't find
a transcript where I said it."
But on his May 19, 2000 broadcast, he repeatedly told a guest who
brought up his tabloid past: "We won Peabody Awards. . . . We won
Peabody awards. . . . A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest
award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?" (Inside
Edition won a Polk Award, not the better-known Peabody, for reporting
that was done after O'Reilly left the show--Washington Post, 3/1/01.)
Dinosaur_Sr
> <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>
> news:30u0e55ejtpdl8386...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:31:10 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
> >>news:4adfa0dd$1$32459$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> >>>news:7k91rlF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>>> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:6e9524bb-44ec-473c...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>> Beck is hard to watch for me. Sometimes he is OK, but more times he
> >>>>> rants too much for me. The only stat I had in there was the 75%.
> >>>>> Pretty much common knowledge, but if you don't want to believe it,
> >>>>> what and why difference would it make to me? You an ambulance chaser?
>
> >>>>> ____
>
> >>>>> Beck does not rant. He whines in a ranty sort of way.
>
> >>>> Great description!
>
> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>> I can barely stomach he or Rush. Each week he appears on O'Reilly. I
> >>>> use
> >>>> the FF on my DVR to zoom past it.
>
> >>>> -Greg
>
> >>> so you admit allowing O'Lielly to rot your brain -- or what we assume is
> >>> a
> >>> brain.
> >>I bet you have a poster of Keith Olberman in your garage.
>
> > Beck, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Olberman. All entertainers, not
> > newsmen. Politics aside, the only one that's entertaining is
> > Olberman.
>
> > BK
>
> O'Reilly is a very angry man. And he doesn't hide
> it that well. His "body language" expert must bite
> her tongue a lot. imo
Really? I see a guy laughing all the way to the bank! Pretty good gig
for a history teacher!
Dinosaur_Sr
Apparently saying you won some award is one thing. Making up news is
another.
bkn...@conramp.net
<frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 4:38�am, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...@att.net> wrote in message
>> O'Reilly claimed to have gotten a Peabody Award and
>> didn't or is that pure bs by Keith?
>
>Apparently saying you won some award is one thing. Making up news is
>another.
O'Reilly's lie about the Peabody is well documented. "Making up" news
has been charged against many journalists....mostly debunked.
BK