info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: President Obama's Affordable Care Act Saves the Life of Republican Brent Brown
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul
Mar 5, 2016, 4:32:18 AM3/5/16
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYZnk86Dqbw
And this is NOT the only story....there are many others, some of
whom I know personally!
VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
David J. Littleboy
Mar 5, 2016, 10:20:24 AM3/5/16
to
"Paul" wrote in message news:nbe8t7$h51$1...@dont-email.me...
But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could (and
did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not paying
claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
if you’d ever been sick, they wouldn't sell you one.
Bernie talks a lot about heath care, Hillary and Obama actually do something
about it. Big difference.
-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could (and
did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not paying
claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
if you’d ever been sick, they wouldn't sell you one.
Bernie talks a lot about heath care, Hillary and Obama actually do something
about it. Big difference.
-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
nospam
Mar 6, 2016, 1:40:17 PM3/6/16
to
In article <IIydnWIYyMKoZEfL...@giganews.com>, David J.
the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
so healthy people are now overinsured. the subsidized policies are
being paid for by everyone else, where the premiums are double what
they used to be in some cases.
Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> > VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
> >REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
>
> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could (and
> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not paying
> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
> if youąd ever been sick, they wouldn't sell you one.
> > VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
> >REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
>
> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could (and
> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not paying
> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
so healthy people are now overinsured. the subsidized policies are
being paid for by everyone else, where the premiums are double what
they used to be in some cases.
Tony Cooper
Mar 6, 2016, 3:38:57 PM3/6/16
to
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 13:40:14 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <IIydnWIYyMKoZEfL...@giganews.com>, David J.
>Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> > VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
>> >REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
>>
>> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
>> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
>> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
>> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
>> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could (and
>> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not paying
>> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
>> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
>> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
>> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
>> if youąd ever been sick, they wouldn't sell you one.
>
>the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
>so healthy people are now overinsured.
Healthy people don't need *any* insurance. Insurance is there because
healthy people sometimes become unhealthy.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
wrote:
>In article <IIydnWIYyMKoZEfL...@giganews.com>, David J.
>Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>> > VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
>> >REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
>>
>> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
>> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
>> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
>> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
>> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could (and
>> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not paying
>> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
>> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
>> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
>> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
>> if youąd ever been sick, they wouldn't sell you one.
>
>the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
>so healthy people are now overinsured.
healthy people sometimes become unhealthy.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
nospam
Mar 6, 2016, 3:53:47 PM3/6/16
to
In article <685pdbp5c1bo38kiv...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> Insurance is there because
> healthy people sometimes become unhealthy.
sometimes they do, but the costs are usually less than the premiums
paid.
catastrophic insurance is for major events, but that's now illegal.
put another way, people are prohibited from buying the insurance that
best fits their needs.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
> >> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
> >> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
> >> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
> >> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could
> >> (and
> >> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not
> >> paying
> >> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
> >> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
> >> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were
> >> no
> >> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford
> >> them,
> >> if youąd ever been sick, they wouldn't sell you one.
> >
> >the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
> >so healthy people are now overinsured.
>
> Healthy people don't need *any* insurance.
true, and yet it's now forced on everyone, healthy or not.
> >> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
> >> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
> >> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
> >> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
> >> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could
> >> (and
> >> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not
> >> paying
> >> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
> >> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
> >> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were
> >> no
> >> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford
> >> them,
> >> if youąd ever been sick, they wouldn't sell you one.
> >
> >the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
> >so healthy people are now overinsured.
>
> Healthy people don't need *any* insurance.
> Insurance is there because
> healthy people sometimes become unhealthy.
paid.
catastrophic insurance is for major events, but that's now illegal.
put another way, people are prohibited from buying the insurance that
best fits their needs.
PeterN
Mar 6, 2016, 5:41:03 PM3/6/16
to
On 3/6/2016 1:40 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <IIydnWIYyMKoZEfL...@giganews.com>, David J.
> Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>> VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
>>> REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
>>
>> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
>> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
>> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
>> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
>> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could (and
>> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not paying
>> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
>> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
>> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
>> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
>> if you¹d ever been sick, they wouldn't sell you one.
> In article <IIydnWIYyMKoZEfL...@giganews.com>, David J.
> Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>> VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
>>> REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
>>
>> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
>> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
>> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
>> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
>> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could (and
>> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not paying
>> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
>> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
>> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
>> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
>
> the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
> so healthy people are now overinsured. the subsidized policies are
> being paid for by everyone else, where the premiums are double what
> they used to be in some cases.
>
You are cherry picking, just to get in on an argument.
> the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
> so healthy people are now overinsured. the subsidized policies are
> being paid for by everyone else, where the premiums are double what
> they used to be in some cases.
>
The underlying concept is that reasonable medical care is a human right.
No person should have to become bankrupt because they get sick. By the
same token people should not be let to die because they are living from
hand to mouth. If I wanted to, I could point out lot's of stupid
provisions in the ACA as written. Many of which are far worse than vague
statement you make such a big deal about.
BTW what you call catastrophic coverage is coverage above the payout
limits of the old policies. Come out with a better plan, and then people
will listen.
--
PeterN
nospam
Mar 6, 2016, 6:13:03 PM3/6/16
to
In article <nbibj...@news4.newsguy.com>, PeterN
> The underlying concept is that reasonable medical care is a human right.
if it's a human right, then why do they have to pay for it?
> No person should have to become bankrupt because they get sick.
instead they might become bankrupt from paying drastically higher
premiums for less coverage, even when they're healthy.
> By the
> same token people should not be let to die because they are living from
> hand to mouth. If I wanted to, I could point out lot's of stupid
> provisions in the ACA as written. Many of which are far worse than vague
> statement you make such a big deal about.
> BTW what you call catastrophic coverage is coverage above the payout
> limits of the old policies. Come out with a better plan, and then people
> will listen.
what i call catastrophic coverage is high deductible, something which
is now illegal.
people should be able to choose as much or as little coverage they want.
<pete...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
> >> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
> >> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
> >> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
> >> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could
> >> (and
> >> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not
> >> paying
> >> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
> >> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
> >> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
> >> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
> >> if you1d ever been sick, they wouldn't sell you one.
> >> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
> >> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
> >> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
> >> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
> >> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could
> >> (and
> >> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not
> >> paying
> >> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
> >> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
> >> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
> >> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
> >
> > the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
> > so healthy people are now overinsured. the subsidized policies are
> > being paid for by everyone else, where the premiums are double what
> > they used to be in some cases.
>
> You are cherry picking, just to get in on an argument.
nope.
> > the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
> > so healthy people are now overinsured. the subsidized policies are
> > being paid for by everyone else, where the premiums are double what
> > they used to be in some cases.
>
> You are cherry picking, just to get in on an argument.
> The underlying concept is that reasonable medical care is a human right.
> No person should have to become bankrupt because they get sick.
premiums for less coverage, even when they're healthy.
> By the
> same token people should not be let to die because they are living from
> hand to mouth. If I wanted to, I could point out lot's of stupid
> provisions in the ACA as written. Many of which are far worse than vague
> statement you make such a big deal about.
> BTW what you call catastrophic coverage is coverage above the payout
> limits of the old policies. Come out with a better plan, and then people
> will listen.
is now illegal.
people should be able to choose as much or as little coverage they want.
PeterN
Mar 6, 2016, 6:45:51 PM3/6/16
to
The vase majority of people do not have the capacity to select the type
of policy that's "best" for them. Almost all policies are written in
ambiguous language, that is interpreted under the laws of the Sate of
the insured.
As I said the ACA has a lot of flaws, and I would like to see a much
better law. I have serious doubts that it will happen during the
lifetime of anyone here.
Any better law would have to start with a complete overhaul of our
health delivery system, including severe impediments to malpractice
lawsuits.
Understand I am talking morality, not legality, or practicality.
--
PeterN
don hindenach
Mar 6, 2016, 10:19:39 PM3/6/16
to
--
-donh-
donh at audiosys dot com
pltrgyst
Mar 7, 2016, 11:44:30 AM3/7/16
to
On 3/6/16 1:40 PM, nospam wrote:
> the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
Of course there is. Where did you ever get that idea?
> the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
-- Larry
nospam
Mar 7, 2016, 12:22:36 PM3/7/16
to
In article <nbkavk$acf$1...@dont-email.me>, pltrgyst <nn...@xhost.org>
> Where did you ever get that idea?
multiple insurance companies all saying that they're now prohibited
from offering catastrophic coverage.
wrote:
>
> > the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
>
> Of course there is.
definitely not.
>
> > the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
>
> Of course there is.
> Where did you ever get that idea?
from offering catastrophic coverage.
nospam
Mar 7, 2016, 12:22:36 PM3/7/16
to
In article <nbifb...@news7.newsguy.com>, PeterN
> The vase majority of people do not have the capacity to select the type
> of policy that's "best" for them. Almost all policies are written in
> ambiguous language, that is interpreted under the laws of the Sate of
> the insured.
that's a separate issue.
the issue i have is that catastrophic coverage used to be offered and
now it's prohibited.
for some people, catastrophic coverage is enough, but since it's no
longer offered, they have to pay *substantially* more money for
coverage they don't want or need.
> As I said the ACA has a lot of flaws, and I would like to see a much
> better law. I have serious doubts that it will happen during the
> lifetime of anyone here.
> Any better law would have to start with a complete overhaul of our
> health delivery system, including severe impediments to malpractice
> lawsuits.
> Understand I am talking morality, not legality, or practicality.
i do agree with that. the whole system is broken.
<pete...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> By the
> >> same token people should not be let to die because they are living from
> >> hand to mouth. If I wanted to, I could point out lot's of stupid
> >> provisions in the ACA as written. Many of which are far worse than vague
> >> statement you make such a big deal about.
> >> BTW what you call catastrophic coverage is coverage above the payout
> >> limits of the old policies. Come out with a better plan, and then people
> >> will listen.
> >
> > what i call catastrophic coverage is high deductible, something which
> > is now illegal.
> >
> > people should be able to choose as much or as little coverage they want.
>
> Why. When they get really sick, do we leave them to die in the streets.
who said anything about leaving people to die in the streets?
> >> By the
> >> same token people should not be let to die because they are living from
> >> hand to mouth. If I wanted to, I could point out lot's of stupid
> >> provisions in the ACA as written. Many of which are far worse than vague
> >> statement you make such a big deal about.
> >> BTW what you call catastrophic coverage is coverage above the payout
> >> limits of the old policies. Come out with a better plan, and then people
> >> will listen.
> >
> > what i call catastrophic coverage is high deductible, something which
> > is now illegal.
> >
> > people should be able to choose as much or as little coverage they want.
>
> Why. When they get really sick, do we leave them to die in the streets.
> The vase majority of people do not have the capacity to select the type
> of policy that's "best" for them. Almost all policies are written in
> ambiguous language, that is interpreted under the laws of the Sate of
> the insured.
the issue i have is that catastrophic coverage used to be offered and
now it's prohibited.
for some people, catastrophic coverage is enough, but since it's no
longer offered, they have to pay *substantially* more money for
coverage they don't want or need.
> As I said the ACA has a lot of flaws, and I would like to see a much
> better law. I have serious doubts that it will happen during the
> lifetime of anyone here.
> Any better law would have to start with a complete overhaul of our
> health delivery system, including severe impediments to malpractice
> lawsuits.
> Understand I am talking morality, not legality, or practicality.
Scott Dorsey
Mar 7, 2016, 2:54:23 PM3/7/16
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <nbifb...@news7.newsguy.com>, PeterN
><pete...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >> By the
>> >> same token people should not be let to die because they are living from
>> >> hand to mouth. If I wanted to, I could point out lot's of stupid
>> >> provisions in the ACA as written. Many of which are far worse than vague
>> >> statement you make such a big deal about.
>> >> BTW what you call catastrophic coverage is coverage above the payout
>> >> limits of the old policies. Come out with a better plan, and then people
>> >> will listen.
>> >
>> > what i call catastrophic coverage is high deductible, something which
>> > is now illegal.
>> >
>> > people should be able to choose as much or as little coverage they want.
>>
>> Why. When they get really sick, do we leave them to die in the streets.
>
>who said anything about leaving people to die in the streets?
That's pretty much what I got when I went to a hospital with a torn hand
>In article <nbifb...@news7.newsguy.com>, PeterN
><pete...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >> By the
>> >> same token people should not be let to die because they are living from
>> >> hand to mouth. If I wanted to, I could point out lot's of stupid
>> >> provisions in the ACA as written. Many of which are far worse than vague
>> >> statement you make such a big deal about.
>> >> BTW what you call catastrophic coverage is coverage above the payout
>> >> limits of the old policies. Come out with a better plan, and then people
>> >> will listen.
>> >
>> > what i call catastrophic coverage is high deductible, something which
>> > is now illegal.
>> >
>> > people should be able to choose as much or as little coverage they want.
>>
>> Why. When they get really sick, do we leave them to die in the streets.
>
>who said anything about leaving people to die in the streets?
thirty years ago. "Oh, you can't come here, we don't take people without
insurance. You'll have to go to the poor people's hospital downtown. I
guess you could get a taxi if you can't walk."
This sort of thing is now illegal; they have to at least stabilize you and
stop the bleeding before they send you on your way. But experiences like
this make me realize just how bad our health care system really is, and
to what extent people who think they are healthy may in fact suddenly be in
need of expensive care.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
nospam
Mar 7, 2016, 2:59:14 PM3/7/16
to
In article <nbkm9c$8sg$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Scott Dorsey
> This sort of thing is now illegal; they have to at least stabilize you and
> stop the bleeding before they send you on your way. But experiences like
> this make me realize just how bad our health care system really is, and
> to what extent people who think they are healthy may in fact suddenly be in
> need of expensive care.
that's what catastrophic insurance is intended to cover.
<klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >> By the
> >> >> same token people should not be let to die because they are living from
> >> >> hand to mouth. If I wanted to, I could point out lot's of stupid
> >> >> provisions in the ACA as written. Many of which are far worse than vague
> >> >> statement you make such a big deal about.
> >> >> BTW what you call catastrophic coverage is coverage above the payout
> >> >> limits of the old policies. Come out with a better plan, and then people
> >> >> will listen.
> >> >
> >> > what i call catastrophic coverage is high deductible, something which
> >> > is now illegal.
> >> >
> >> > people should be able to choose as much or as little coverage they want.
> >>
> >> Why. When they get really sick, do we leave them to die in the streets.
> >
> >who said anything about leaving people to die in the streets?
>
> That's pretty much what I got when I went to a hospital with a torn hand
> thirty years ago. "Oh, you can't come here, we don't take people without
> insurance. You'll have to go to the poor people's hospital downtown. I
> guess you could get a taxi if you can't walk."
that's a different issue.
> >> >> By the
> >> >> same token people should not be let to die because they are living from
> >> >> hand to mouth. If I wanted to, I could point out lot's of stupid
> >> >> provisions in the ACA as written. Many of which are far worse than vague
> >> >> statement you make such a big deal about.
> >> >> BTW what you call catastrophic coverage is coverage above the payout
> >> >> limits of the old policies. Come out with a better plan, and then people
> >> >> will listen.
> >> >
> >> > what i call catastrophic coverage is high deductible, something which
> >> > is now illegal.
> >> >
> >> > people should be able to choose as much or as little coverage they want.
> >>
> >> Why. When they get really sick, do we leave them to die in the streets.
> >
> >who said anything about leaving people to die in the streets?
>
> That's pretty much what I got when I went to a hospital with a torn hand
> thirty years ago. "Oh, you can't come here, we don't take people without
> insurance. You'll have to go to the poor people's hospital downtown. I
> guess you could get a taxi if you can't walk."
> This sort of thing is now illegal; they have to at least stabilize you and
> stop the bleeding before they send you on your way. But experiences like
> this make me realize just how bad our health care system really is, and
> to what extent people who think they are healthy may in fact suddenly be in
> need of expensive care.
PeterN
Mar 8, 2016, 8:31:48 PM3/8/16
to
--
PeterN
dsi1
Mar 9, 2016, 5:18:19 PM3/9/16
to
some serious flaws with it? Republicans should get their own medical
plans and stop sucking monies out of a system intended for decent,
hard-working, Americans.
dsi1
Mar 9, 2016, 5:23:20 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/6/2016 8:40 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <IIydnWIYyMKoZEfL...@giganews.com>, David J.
> Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>> VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
>>> REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
>>
>> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
>> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
>> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
>> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
>> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could (and
>> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not paying
>> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
>> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
>> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
>> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
>> if you¹d ever been sick, they wouldn't sell you one.
> In article <IIydnWIYyMKoZEfL...@giganews.com>, David J.
> Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>> VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
>>> REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
>>
>> But that's not logical; Obamacare working is a reason to vote for Hillary.
>> And Obamacare really works. Obamacare already provides affordable health
>> care to everyone the Republicans didn't take it away from (by making the
>> Medicaid expansion optional). Prior to Obamacare, the insurance products
>> were largely frauds: they didn't cover the things you needed, and could (and
>> did) kick you off any time. The insurance companies made money by not paying
>> claims. After that ACA, they don't (if anything, they lose money by not
>> paying claims). They can't kick you off, and they can't not sell you a
>> policy. And the policies are way better than they used to be. There were no
>> subsidies, so most couldn't afford them, and even if you could afford them,
>
> the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
> so healthy people are now overinsured. the subsidized policies are
> being paid for by everyone else, where the premiums are double what
> they used to be in some cases.
>
What you say make sense. Why the heck would any insurance want to offer
> the policies are worse. for instance, there's no catastrophic coverage,
> so healthy people are now overinsured. the subsidized policies are
> being paid for by everyone else, where the premiums are double what
> they used to be in some cases.
>
coverage to non-healthy people? That's just bad/stupid business. Repeal
Obamacare now!
dsi1
Mar 9, 2016, 5:28:02 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/4/2016 11:31 PM, Paul wrote:
>
>
does not bode well for Mr. Sanders. Too bad.
Steven Bornfeld
Mar 9, 2016, 6:30:09 PM3/9/16
to
be one of the worst campaign slogans in history, I think.
dsi1
Mar 9, 2016, 6:37:12 PM3/9/16
to
Steven Bornfeld
Mar 9, 2016, 7:59:50 PM3/9/16
to
dsi1
Mar 9, 2016, 8:16:15 PM3/9/16
to
On 3/9/2016 2:59 PM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> No Crown of Thorns No Cruz of Gold
I don't know about you but having a megalomaniac president with a loose
> No Crown of Thorns No Cruz of Gold
grip on reality and the average American citizen pretty much assures
100% pure, unadulterated, entertainment. I mean, what's the worst that
can happen - we nuke N. Korea or some other country that makes us mad. I
suspect we'd impeach the guy or the military will stage a coup before
all that fun can get out of hand. :)
Steve Daniels
Mar 9, 2016, 9:20:34 PM3/9/16
to
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:16:16 -1000, against all advice, something
compelled dsi1 <ds...@fishing.net>, to say:
What I can't believe is that the Republican Party could not run a
candidate I could vote for over Hillary.
fuck fuck fuck
compelled dsi1 <ds...@fishing.net>, to say:
candidate I could vote for over Hillary.
fuck fuck fuck
Les Cargill
Mar 9, 2016, 10:26:11 PM3/9/16
to
Where the center's on the right.
Where the ghost of William Jennings Bryant
Preaches every night
To save our souls
In the dashboard light. " - James McMurtry.
There is another line to tag the chorus, but I don't know Stephen
well enough to type it in :)
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Mar 9, 2016, 10:28:59 PM3/9/16
to
uglier than this.
Trump's figured out people don't like ideology.
Parties grew up with newspapers, then adapted to TV - 66
years ago. Either they'll adapt to social media or... it'll be
something else.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
dsi1
Mar 9, 2016, 11:04:18 PM3/9/16
to
relate to on any kind of level is a mystery.
>
>
> fuck fuck fuck
>
>
>
>
Steve Daniels
Mar 10, 2016, 1:08:16 AM3/10/16
to
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 21:34:24 -0600, against all advice, something
compelled Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com>, to say:
Wish you we'r . . .
Oh yeah. I see the problem now.
compelled Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com>, to say:
Oh yeah. I see the problem now.
Les Cargill
Mar 10, 2016, 12:54:59 PM3/10/16
to
the most artificial thing there is. I can heartily recommend "Hank
Williams" by Colin Escott to totally destroy any idea you might have
that any public figure is just a genuine human being. A genuine
human being wouldn't be interesting to start with.
This ignores a handful of geniuses that make it truly work, who are
actual good folks but mostly, you're seeing constructed characters
designed to equalize out distortions from the medium itself.
The last person who was, for example POTUS who as even
close to genuine was Eisenhower. Look at footage of his speeches.
it seems stilted and amateurish now.
It's a corollary of "it costs a lot of money to look this cheap".
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Steven Bornfeld
Mar 10, 2016, 3:01:46 PM3/10/16
to
out in the general election if he's nominated.
I think his grip on reality is probably not good, but better than he's
letting on. There is genius of a sort here. There seems to be
literally nothing Trump can say that can hurt his chances.
Remember Howard Dean's "whoop" at the Iowa caucuses in which he finished
3rd in 2004? He is said to have sunk his chances for the White House
with one syllable.
What syllable will Trump have to utter to be hurt? It's hard to say,
but I know 4-letter words ain't gonna do it.
Steve
Steven Bornfeld
Mar 10, 2016, 3:06:04 PM3/10/16
to
dsi1
Mar 10, 2016, 6:02:22 PM3/10/16
to
On 3/10/2016 8:03 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>> On 3/9/2016 4:20 PM, Steve Daniels wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:16:16 -1000, against all advice, something
>>> compelled dsi1 <ds...@fishing.net>, to say:
>>>
>>>> On 3/9/2016 2:59 PM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>>>> No Crown of Thorns No Cruz of Gold
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about you but having a megalomaniac president with a loose
>>>> grip on reality and the average American citizen pretty much assures
>>>> 100% pure, unadulterated, entertainment. I mean, what's the worst that
>>>> can happen - we nuke N. Korea or some other country that makes us
>>>> mad. I
>>>> suspect we'd impeach the guy or the military will stage a coup before
>>>> all that fun can get out of hand. :)
>>>
>>>
>>> What I can't believe is that the Republican Party could not run a
>>> candidate I could vote for over Hillary.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, why it is so hard to find a human being that regular folks can
>> relate to on any kind of level is a mystery.
>>
>
>
> Ever seen "A Face In The Crowd"? Folksy gladhanding pubic figures are
> the most artificial thing there is. I can heartily recommend "Hank
> Williams" by Colin Escott to totally destroy any idea you might have
> that any public figure is just a genuine human being. A genuine
> human being wouldn't be interesting to start with.
I like that idea - you get to be El Presidente only if you don't want to
> dsi1 wrote:
>> On 3/9/2016 4:20 PM, Steve Daniels wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:16:16 -1000, against all advice, something
>>> compelled dsi1 <ds...@fishing.net>, to say:
>>>
>>>> On 3/9/2016 2:59 PM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>>>> No Crown of Thorns No Cruz of Gold
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about you but having a megalomaniac president with a loose
>>>> grip on reality and the average American citizen pretty much assures
>>>> 100% pure, unadulterated, entertainment. I mean, what's the worst that
>>>> can happen - we nuke N. Korea or some other country that makes us
>>>> mad. I
>>>> suspect we'd impeach the guy or the military will stage a coup before
>>>> all that fun can get out of hand. :)
>>>
>>>
>>> What I can't believe is that the Republican Party could not run a
>>> candidate I could vote for over Hillary.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, why it is so hard to find a human being that regular folks can
>> relate to on any kind of level is a mystery.
>>
>
>
> Ever seen "A Face In The Crowd"? Folksy gladhanding pubic figures are
> the most artificial thing there is. I can heartily recommend "Hank
> Williams" by Colin Escott to totally destroy any idea you might have
> that any public figure is just a genuine human being. A genuine
> human being wouldn't be interesting to start with.
be El Presidente. I've been El Presidente before but I never wanted to
be. It looks like I'm going to be El Presidente in a few months but my
feeling is that anybody that wants me to lead them is probably nuts or
really desperate.
>
> This ignores a handful of geniuses that make it truly work, who are
> actual good folks but mostly, you're seeing constructed characters
> designed to equalize out distortions from the medium itself.
>
> The last person who was, for example POTUS who as even
> close to genuine was Eisenhower. Look at footage of his speeches.
> it seems stilted and amateurish now.
public demands today. It appears that it's gonna be a three-ring big-top
spectacle rarely seen before. Then, the fun and the laughs are going to
stop real fast.
dsi1
Mar 10, 2016, 6:07:35 PM3/10/16
to
On 3/10/2016 10:01 AM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> On 3/9/2016 8:16 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 3/9/2016 2:59 PM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>> No Crown of Thorns No Cruz of Gold
>>
>> I don't know about you but having a megalomaniac president with a loose
>> grip on reality and the average American citizen pretty much assures
>> 100% pure, unadulterated, entertainment. I mean, what's the worst that
>> can happen - we nuke N. Korea or some other country that makes us mad. I
>> suspect we'd impeach the guy or the military will stage a coup before
>> all that fun can get out of hand. :)
>>
>
> I suspect for not a few people that is exactly the appeal. We'll find
> out in the general election if he's nominated.
> I think his grip on reality is probably not good, but better than he's
> letting on.
I think you're right about that. It's an act and some people know it and
> On 3/9/2016 8:16 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 3/9/2016 2:59 PM, Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>> No Crown of Thorns No Cruz of Gold
>>
>> I don't know about you but having a megalomaniac president with a loose
>> grip on reality and the average American citizen pretty much assures
>> 100% pure, unadulterated, entertainment. I mean, what's the worst that
>> can happen - we nuke N. Korea or some other country that makes us mad. I
>> suspect we'd impeach the guy or the military will stage a coup before
>> all that fun can get out of hand. :)
>>
>
> I suspect for not a few people that is exactly the appeal. We'll find
> out in the general election if he's nominated.
> I think his grip on reality is probably not good, but better than he's
> letting on.
most people believe it. When he goes out on stage, he probably says to
himself "It's showtime!" Hee hee.
>There is genius of a sort here. There seems to be
> literally nothing Trump can say that can hurt his chances.
> Remember Howard Dean's "whoop" at the Iowa caucuses in which he finished
> 3rd in 2004? He is said to have sunk his chances for the White House
> with one syllable.
> What syllable will Trump have to utter to be hurt? It's hard to say,
> but I know 4-letter words ain't gonna do it.
powerful than you can ever imagine. :)
>
> Steve
dsi1
Mar 10, 2016, 6:09:00 PM3/10/16
to
Rockhound57
Feb 6, 2017, 12:54:34 AM2/6/17
to
On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 02:31:56 -0700, Paul <quill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYZnk86Dqbw
>
>
>And this is NOT the only story....there are many others, some of
>whom I know personally!
>
> VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
>REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
Right. FREE SHIT FOR EVERYONE!!!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYZnk86Dqbw
>
>
>And this is NOT the only story....there are many others, some of
>whom I know personally!
>
> VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS,
>REGARDLESS OF INCOME!!!
Rockhound57
Feb 6, 2017, 12:56:43 AM2/6/17
to
worked is getting your boyfriend's rod up your poop chute.
Paul
Feb 6, 2017, 10:57:28 AM2/6/17
to
IT WOULD BE PAYED FOR BY OUR TAXES, WHICH ARE NOW WASTED ON STUPID
SHIT LIKE OBSCENE MILITARY SPENDING ON THE F-35, AND OTHER THINGS WE
DON'T NEED, LIKE TRUMP'S STUPID AND INEFFECTIVE WALL!
TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS, AND YOU MIGHT START SEEING REALITY!
Rockhound57
Mar 10, 2017, 11:32:58 PM3/10/17
to
SECOND, THE MEDICAL SYSTEM IS GOING TO GET SWAMPED LIKE A TITANIC
LIFEBOAT.
THIRD, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS KINGPIN IN A SINGLE PAYER SCHEME THEY
CAN AND WILL DICTATE WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T EAT. HOW MUCH EXERCISE YOU
HAVE TO DO, ETC.
I REALIZE A STATIST PRICK LIKE YOURSLF WOULD LIKE THAT BUT FOR THOSE
THAT ENJOY WHAT LIBERTY THEY HAVE LEFT, THEY DON'T NEED THIS
BOONDOGGLE.
BUT DO GO ON DRINKING THE KOOL-AID. EVEN MOPES HAVE A PLACE IN THIS
WORLD.
0 new messages