Re: Moving On; ReThuglyKKKans must explain why they oppose health insurance reform!
ChasNemo
> George W. Bush may well go down as the worst president in history.
> Duly noted.
>
> At this point, Democrats need to move on. The statute of limitations
> is over, and now a new Pottery Barn rule applies to Bush and Obama: He
> broke it; you bought it..
>
> Coakley’s loss is a lesson to future candidates. If you don’t have a
> fire in your gut, stay home. When Coakley was asked what kind of creme
> pie she liked, she said "coconut"!
>
> So Democrats can stop scratching their heads as to why voters were so
> pissed off this time around, and, while it may not make sense (and it
> may not) if they can’t figure that out, they’re toast.
>
> Conventional wisdom says the Dems need a win. What they need is a
> loss. Let health care go to a vote—and lose.
>
> Until that happens, Democrats will be left explaining something
> they’ve yet to explain—why they believe it’s a good idea to extend
> health coverage to 30 million people without it. If the answer is no,
> then Republicans need to explain why 30 million people aren’t covered
> and the excesses of the insurance companies are permitted to
> continue.
Indeed, ReThuglyKKKans must explain why they oppose health insurance
reform!
AmeriKKKa spends double the percentage of GDP ("Gross Domestic
Product") on health care compared to other developed (OECD) countries
-- 16% compared to 8%. The OECD countries cover 100% of their people
for that 8% of GDP, but AmeriKKKa's 16% of GDP covers only 85% of the
population and leaves about 45 million with no coverage. Those 45
million do get treatment, but they're forced to clog emergency rooms
in order to do so. It would be much more efficient for them to go to
doctors and leave emergency rooms for emergencies.
As you say, ReThuglyKKKans need to explain why the excesses of the
insurance companies are permitted to continue -- that extra wasted 8%
of GDP, 45 million uninsured people, massive profits, denial of
coverage to people who are unlucky enough to get sick or have pre-
existing conditions, payment of grotesque salaries to insurance
company executives, etc. ad nauseum!
COL. BILL KILGORE
--
'I will stand with the Muslims should the
political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
~Barack Obama
"ChasNemo" <chas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53624135-b83f-4fc4...@m4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Why should the GOP expalin anything, especially to the likes of a
dispatriated America hater like yourself. The Dems have been in charge
since 2006 - ask them. Asshole.
ChasNemo
> --
> 'I will stand with the Muslims should the
> political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Proven fraud and disgrace Col. Bill Kilgore clearly is a moron. The
GOPee MUST EXPLAIN its oppposition to health care reform or continue
to be treated as the braindead collection of motley shitards that it
really is.
JaxKayaker
Republicans are not against health care reform you fuckin idiot. They
are against health care
reform that cost more and delivers less which is what Obies plan does
in spades.
COL. BILL KILGORE
> reform!
>
> AmeriKKKa spends double the percentage of GDP ("Gross Domestic
> Product") on health care compared to other developed (OECD) countries
> for that 8% of GDP, but AmeriKKKa's 16% of GDP covers only 85% of the
> million do get treatment, but they're forced to clog emergency rooms
> doctors and leave emergency rooms for emergencies.
>
> As you say, ReThuglyKKKans need to explain why the excesses of the
> insurance companies are permitted to continue -- that extra wasted 8%
> of GDP, 45 million uninsured people, massive profits, denial of
> coverage to people who are unlucky enough to get sick or have pre-
> existing conditions, payment of grotesque salaries to insurance
> company executives, etc. ad nauseum!
>
> Why should the GOP expalin anything, especially to the likes of a
> since 2006 - ask them. ?Asshole.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Proven fraud and disgrace Col. Bill Kilgore clearly is a moron. The
GOPee MUST EXPLAIN its oppposition to health care reform or continue
to be treated as the braindead collection of motley shitards that it
really is.
Considering the fact that they Repubs have explained their opposition
numerous times, and that the American public is opposed to this plan 67-33%,
what is it exactly you are looking for, you brain-dead moron.
ChasNemo
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Got *reliable* proof of the 67-33% opposition you claim? No? Thought
not. Liar.
Hagar
"COL. BILL KILGORE" <wski...@patriots.us.org> wrote in message
news:hjcd3a$i2h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Haha, chasZero, my little fucktard, the party's over. No one wants to hear
what you dribbledicks have to say. Go home, find your mommies and have
a good cry. I realize, you're all too dense to recognize what happened in
good ole Mass, but the centrists don't seem to be overly impressed by
the lightweight at the helm and the arrogance of his minions. One can
forgive
Obama ... what should one expect from a Community Organizer hack of the
Acorn genre, but blatant elitists like Coakley need to smell the coffee.
You
don't bad-mouth pickup trucks and their drivers ... only a fuckhead Liberal
would fail to realize that almost one of two household has a pick'em up
truck
and would be retarded enough to derive those who drive them. They do also
vote, you morons. Keep it up ... it will be a good year. The new slogan:
"Remember September" will become part of our colloquialism, just like
"Remember The Alamo". Hey chasZero, you hapless twit, they are hiring
rest room attendants ...
ChasNemo
> "COL. BILL KILGORE" <wskilg...@patriots.us.org> wrote in messagenews:hjcd3a$i2h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> - Show quoted text -
You lost your job, Hagar? I suppose that means you'll be wasting even
more time meandering mindlessly on Usenet. <sigh>
Gregory Morrow
Well if ChuKKKles gets a gig as a toilet Cloaca Queen he can put those
kneepads of his to good use, lol.......
--
Best
Greg
bvallely
> Indeed, ReThuglyKKKans must explain why they oppose health insurance
> reform!
Easy-peasy-lemon-squeazy. We're against it because it's a 2700 page
document that was written behind closed doors and nobody's read.
ChasNemo
Translation -- you can't read and are hopping flopping mad about your
lack of comprehension. Obviously others read the bills because they
wrote them, and they'll be read more in public during the
reconciliation process. Wanna try again, fool? <snicker>
bvallely
> On Jan 23, 5:09 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > .> Indeed, ReThuglyKKKans must explain why they oppose health insurance
> > > reform!
>
> > .
> > Easy-peasy-lemon-squeazy. We're against it because it's a 2700 page
> > document that was written behind closed doors and nobody's read.
>
> Translation -- you can't read and are hopping flopping mad about your
> lack of comprehension. >
NOBODY can read, understand, digest, and interpret 2700 pages of dense
lawyerese. It's the length of the last three Harry Potter novels
combined - the difference is that it's all in legal jargon, and any
sentence that's over looked has the potential of disastrous results to
the US economy, America's healthcare system, and the lives of
Americans.
.
> Obviously others read the bills because they wrote them,>
No. Nobody read the bill. Nobody wrote the bill. Many, many, many
people wrote pieces of the bill, all behind closed doors and the
contents being leaked via rumor. Isn't THAT special?
.
>..... and they'll be read more in public during the reconciliation process.>
.
Wow - so the Dems will let the American people in on sometime later?
.
> Wanna try again, fool? <snicker>
As of this writing, 61% of Americans want the Democrats to drop
healthcare all together. ObamaCare has already cost the Democrats Ted
Kennedy's old seat, and will certainly cost the Democrats the House,
and it's increasingly obvious they're losing the Senate as well.
He who <snickers> last, <snickers> best.
ChasNemo
> On Jan 23, 6:56�am, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 23, 5:09 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > .> Indeed, ReThuglyKKKans must explain why they oppose health insurance
> > > > reform!
>
> > > .
> > > Easy-peasy-lemon-squeazy. We're against it because it's a 2700 page
> > > document that was written behind closed doors and nobody's read.
>
> > Translation -- you can't read and are hopping flopping mad about your
> > lack of comprehension. >
>
> .
> NOBODY can read, understand, digest, and interpret 2700 pages of dense
> lawyerese. �It's the length of the last three Harry Potter novels
> combined - the difference is that it's all in legal jargon, and any
> sentence that's over looked has the potential of disastrous results to
> the US economy, America's healthcare system, and the lives of
> Americans.
Oh, horseshit. Far longer bills (budget, etc.) are proposed, passed,
reconciled and signed into law every year.
> .>�Obviously others read the bills because they wrote them,>
>
> .
> No. �Nobody read the bill. �Nobody wrote the bill. �Many, many, many
> people wrote pieces of the bill, all behind closed doors and the
> contents being leaked via rumor. �Isn't THAT special?
YOU'RE "special" because you hallucinate that the bill is bad just
because many people agreed on compromises. That's the way the system
has worked for 200+ years. Too bad you're totally ignorant and ride
the short bus.
> .>..... and they'll be read more in public during the reconciliation process.>
>
> .
> Wow - so the Dems will let the American people in on sometime later?
> .> �Wanna try again, fool? �<snicker>
The AmeriKKKan people are in any time they choose to be through their
elected representatives. You can call or write your Congressman or
any group to which you belong that's participating. Can you write a
letter or dial the phone? No?
.
> As of this writing, 61% of Americans want the Democrats to drop
> healthcare all together. �ObamaCare has already cost the Democrats Ted
> Kennedy's old seat, and will certainly cost the Democrats the House,
> and it's increasingly obvious they're losing the Senate as well.
Cite your 61% source.
> He who <snickers> last, <snickers> best.
We've been snickering heartily for the last year, and have at least
three and likely seven more years at the minimum of snickering.
bvallely
> > > > .> Indeed, ReThuglyKKKans must explain why they oppose health insurance
> > > > > reform!
.
> > > > Easy-peasy-lemon-squeazy. We're against it because it's a 2700 page
> > > > document that was written behind closed doors and nobody's read.
.
> > > Translation -- you can't read and are hopping flopping mad about your
> > > lack of comprehension. >
.
> > NOBODY can read, understand, digest, and interpret 2700 pages of dense
> > lawyerese. It's the length of the last three Harry Potter novels
> > combined - the difference is that it's all in legal jargon, and any
> > sentence that's over looked has the potential of disastrous results to
> > the US economy, America's healthcare system, and the lives of
> > Americans.
.
> Oh, horseshit. Far longer bills (budget, etc.) are proposed, passed,
> reconciled and signed into law every year.
.
middle of the night on Christmas Eve.
And certainly not bills that annex one sixth of the US economy.
Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
have created for themselves.
.
> > .> Obviously others read the bills because they wrote them,>
.
> > No. Nobody read the bill. Nobody wrote the bill. Many, many, many
> > people wrote pieces of the bill, all behind closed doors and the
> > contents being leaked via rumor. Isn't THAT special?
.
> YOU'RE "special" because you hallucinate that the bill is bad just
> because many people agreed on compromises. >
.
There are no compromises - the Republicans have been shut out of
writing this bill just as effectively as they were writing the
Stimulus Bill - and were this bill to be shoved through in the middle
of the night, the results would be the same ....disaster for the
Democrats.
.
> That's the way the system has worked for 200+ years.
.
Actually, no. Senators out and out bribed to vote for a bill? We
start paying four years in extra taxes and fees before the benefits
start? Nebraska and union members get a free ride? Strictly along
party lines? Annexing one sixth of the US economy? And all for a bill
that less than one in three Americans support? You do understand that
this bill is so insanely unpopular that it cost you Ted Kennedy's
seat, don't you?
And you claim this is business as usual? Horsefeathers. An historian
has to go back to 1855, when the Democrats shoved through a bill which
would authorize new states to vote on slavery to find anything that
reaches to corruption of this magnitude....and that bill lead to the
Civil War.
.
>Too bad you're totally ignorant and ride
> the short bus.
.
Ah, your second "retard" joke. Stay classy.
.
> > .>..... and they'll be read more in public during the reconciliation process.>
.
> > Wow - so the Dems will let the American people in on sometime later? BTW, you try and shove that bill through using reconciliation, it will literally destroy the Democrat Party.
.,
> > .> Wanna try again, fool? <snicker>
.
> The AmeriKKKan ....>
.
So, that's two "retard" jokes and one "AmeriKKKan" crack.
.
>.....people are in any time they choose to be through their
> elected representatives. You can call or write your Congressman or
> any group to which you belong that's participating.
.
Done and done - the Tea Party has already been formed. In Townhall
meetings across the country, we've made our voices heard loud and
clear. (I loved watching hysterical democrats have to deal with an
angry citizenry.) We've kicked the scoundrels out in New Jersey,
Virginia and. of all places, Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. As
of this writing, six Democrats have "retired", rather than face
certain defeat.
.
>Can you write a letter or dial the phone? No?
.
We now have three "stupid" jokes, (two of which make fun of the
mentally challenged) and one "AmeriKKKa" remark. And yet, you haven't
convinced anybody. I wonder why?
.
> > As of this writing, 61% of Americans want the Democrats to drop
> > healthcare all together. ObamaCare has already cost the Democrats Ted
> > Kennedy's old seat, and will certainly cost the Democrats the House,
> > and it's increasingly obvious they're losing the Senate as well.
.
> Cite your 61% source.
.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2010/61_say_it_s_time_for_congress_to_drop_health_care
.
> > He who <snickers> last, <snickers> best.
.
> We've been snickering heartily for the last year, and have at least
> three and likely seven more years at the minimum of snickering.
.
How hardily did you laugh last week at this time? Howzabout when you
lose the House and Senate in 38 weeks? What sort of gaffaws and
snorts will you spit out when the Republican Congress starts
investigating ACORN?
In case you haven't noticed, There's a whole new breed of Repubican
coming to Congress. The moderate, "compassionate conservative" is out
of style. We're sending a whole new breed, people who are pissed off
over how Sarah Palin's teenaged daughters were called whores on the
David Letterman show, or how Joe The Plumber found his tax records
spashed across the news.
ChasNemo
>
> > > > > .> Indeed, ReThuglyKKKans must explain why they oppose health insurance
> > > > > > reform!
> .
> > > > > Easy-peasy-lemon-squeazy. We're against it because it's a 2700 page
> > > > > document that was written behind closed doors and nobody's read.
> .
> > > > Translation -- you can't read and are hopping flopping mad about your
> > > > lack of comprehension. >
> .
> > > NOBODY can read, understand, digest, and interpret 2700 pages of dense
> > > lawyerese. It's the length of the last three Harry Potter novels
> > > combined - the difference is that it's all in legal jargon, and any
> > > sentence that's over looked has the potential of disastrous results to
> > > the US economy, America's healthcare system, and the lives of
> > > Americans.
> .
> > Oh, horseshit. �Far longer bills (budget, etc.) are proposed, passed,
> > reconciled and signed into law every year.
> .
> Not without debate, and passed strictly along party lines in the
> middle of the night on Christmas Eve.
Still plenty of time for compromise between the two versions.
> And certainly not bills that annex one sixth of the US economy.
Insurance companies RAPE one sixth (16% to be exact) of the US economy
at present. All other OECD (developed) countries spend half that
amount (8%) and cover 100% percent of their citizens.while AmeriKKKa
leaves almost 50 million people bare. Shameful.
> Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> have created for themselves.
Your 61% figure comes from a known rightarded shill. See below.
> .> > .> Obviously others read the bills because they wrote them,>
> .
> > > No. Nobody read the bill. Nobody wrote the bill. Many, many, many
> > > people wrote pieces of the bill, all behind closed doors and the
> > > contents being leaked via rumor. Isn't THAT special?
> .
> > YOU'RE "special" because you hallucinate that the bill is bad just
> > because many people agreed on compromises. >
> .
> There are no compromises - the Republicans have been shut out of
> writing this bill just as effectively as they were writing the
> Stimulus Bill - and were this bill to be shoved through in the middle
> of the night, the results would be the same ....disaster for the
> Democrats.
There was NO shutout, liar! Example -- 170 amendments by
ReThuglyKKKans were accepted in the Senate version!
> .>�That's the way the system has worked for 200+ years. �
>
> .
> Actually, no. �Senators out and out bribed to vote for a bill? �We
> start paying four years in extra taxes and fees before the benefits
> start? �Nebraska and union members get a free ride? �Strictly along
> party lines? Annexing one sixth of the US economy? �And all for a bill
> that less than one in three Americans support? �You do understand that
> this bill is so insanely unpopular that it cost you Ted Kennedy's
> seat, don't you?
Actually you're wrong. Compromise does not equal bribes. Even giving
a ReThuglyKKKan Senator from Nebrask unique exemption for his state's
citizens was a necessary compromise -- repulsive but necessary for the
greater good. Strict voting along party lines just means that 100% of
ReThuglyKKKans oppose progress. Financing of reform is designed to
cost net $100 billion/year for 10 years -- a tiny fraction of the cost
of the totally bogus Iraq War. Nothing's been "annexed" -- merely
cost controlled. If you subtract 61% negative (your rightarded cooked
figure) from 100%, the remainder is 39% which is much *more* than
"less than "one in three"! Your math skills sure do suck! We have
only your word that one bill cost Kennedy's seat.
You really aren't good at this at all. Your stringing bullshit
together is still bullshit. <snicker>
> And you claim this is business as usual? �Horsefeathers. �An historian
> has to go back to 1855, when the Democrats shoved through a bill which
> would authorize new states to vote on slavery to find anything that
> reaches to corruption of this magnitude....and that bill lead to the
> Civil War.
Too bad you have to stretch back to the Civil War to try to dodge
current facts and truth.
> .>Too bad you're totally ignorant and ride
> > the short bus.
> .
> Ah, your second "retard" joke. �Stay classy.
Your tacit admissions of retardation and short bus riding are duly
noted, fool.
> .> > .>..... and they'll be read more in public during the reconciliation process.>
> .
> > > Wow - so the Dems will let the American people in on sometime later? �BTW, you try and shove that bill through using reconciliation, it will literally destroy the Democrat Party.
Details have been available in the media for months as the bills
progressed.
> > > .> Wanna try again, fool? <snicker>
> .
> > The AmeriKKKan ....>
>
> .
> So, that's two "retard" jokes and one "AmeriKKKan" crack.
If the shit fits, wear it.
> .>.....people are in any time they choose to be through their
> > elected representatives. �You can call or write your Congressman or
> > any group to which you belong that's participating. �
> .
> Done and done - the Tea Party has already been formed. In Townhall
> meetings across the country, we've made our voices heard loud and
> clear. �(I loved watching hysterical democrats have to deal with an
> angry citizenry.) �We've kicked the scoundrels out in New Jersey,
> Virginia and. of all places, Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. �As
> of this writing, six Democrats have "retired", rather than face
> certain defeat.
Your Teabagging and Town Hall Meetings were nothing more than failed
attempts to shout down Congressmen and your opponents.
> .>Can you write a letter or dial the phone? �No?
>
> �.
> We now have three "stupid" jokes, (two of which make fun of the
> mentally challenged) and one "AmeriKKKa" remark. �And yet, you haven't
> convinced anybody. �I wonder why?
I haven't convinced YOU, but you're nobody -- not anybody.
> .> > As of this writing, 61% of Americans want the Democrats to drop
> > > healthcare all together. ObamaCare has already cost the Democrats Ted
> > > Kennedy's old seat, and will certainly cost the Democrats the House,
> > > and it's increasingly obvious they're losing the Senate as well.
> .
> > Cite your 61% source.
>
> .http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_event...
Keerist -- you've cited a goddamned rightarded shill -- see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports .
"Reputation - Democratic Party activists have pointed out that Scott
Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.
[10] According to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, while there are
no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or Rasmussen Reports making
contributions to political candidates and its public election polls
are generally regarded as reliable, "some observers have questioned
its issue-based polling, which frequently tends to elicit responses
that are more conservative than those found on other national
surveys."[11]"
> .> > He who <snickers> last, <snickers> best.
> .
> > We've been snickering heartily for the last year, and have at least
> > three and likely seven more years at the minimum of snickering.
>> .
> How hardily did you laugh last week at this time? �Howzabout when you
> lose the House and Senate in 38 weeks? �What sort of gaffaws and
> snorts will you spit out when the Republican Congress starts
> investigating ACORN?
We weren't converned by loss of one Senate seat. We'll wait until
2010 elections to see what happens, but loss of both Houses is merely
one of your more obvious drugged delusions. ACORN is innocent until
proven guilty, and it's emerging that smear attempts so far have been
mere witchhunts.
> In case you haven't noticed, There's a whole new breed of Repubican
> coming to Congress. �The moderate, "compassionate conservative" is out
> of style. �We're sending a whole new breed, people who are pissed off
> over how Sarah Palin's teenaged daughters were called whores on the
> David Letterman show, or how Joe The Plumber found his tax records
> spashed across the news.
Send your smarmy rightarded shouters. The Palin family proved itself
to be insufficiently trustworthy for Sarah Stupid to win the
election. I watched her grotqesque failures in her interviews with
Katie Couric. Did you? The Plumber was a buffoon and ultimately
turned on his own handlers. <snicker> KKKase KKKlosed.
Want to try some more?
bvallely
> > > Oh, horseshit. Far longer bills (budget, etc.) are proposed, passed,
> > > reconciled and signed into law every year.
.
> > Not without debate, and passed strictly along party lines in the
> > middle of the night on Christmas Eve.
.
> Still plenty of time for compromise between the two versions.
OK, so there will be a compromise between one corrupt bill that was
written behind closed doors which was passed without anyone having
read the damned thing and depended on threats and bribes to get shoved
through, and the OTHER corrupt bill that was written behind closed
doors which was passed without anyone having read the damned thing and
depended on threats and bribes to get shoved through. BTW, not a
single Republican voted for either version of the bill.
.
> > And certainly not bills that annex one sixth of the US economy.
.
> Insurance companies RAPE one sixth (16% to be exact) of the US economy
> at present. All other OECD (developed) countries spend half that
> amount (8%) and cover 100% percent of their citizens.while AmeriKKKa
> leaves almost 50 million people bare. Shameful.
My wife's mother had a stroke two years ago. She lived paralyzed for
over a year and a half, until we lost her last June. She didn't have a
fancy Cadillac insurance plan enjoyed by federal employees, she bought
her own. There wasn't a single piece of medical equipment she didn't
have access to, and she was never turned away from any hospital.
Her mother, OTOH, lived in Yugoslavia, and enjoyed the benefits of a
caring socialized helathcare plan. She broke her hip - the state
decided that her life was not worth saving, so they have her
painkillers and allowed her to die slowly over a six month period.
"Maybe grandma would be better off with painkillers than that
operation."
B. Obama.
> > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> > have created for themselves.
.
> Your 61% figure comes from a known rightarded shill. See below.
.
That' "known rightarded shill" was within a half point during Obama's
2008 election. No other poll came within three points. They
accuratly predicted the New Jersey election, Virginia and
Massachusetts. The poltically aware ignore Rasmussen at their own
peril.
> > .> > .> Obviously others read the bills because they wrote them,>
.
> > > > No. Nobody read the bill. Nobody wrote the bill. Many, many, many
> > > > people wrote pieces of the bill, all behind closed doors and the
> > > > contents being leaked via rumor. Isn't THAT special?
.
> > > YOU'RE "special" because you hallucinate that the bill is bad just
> > > because many people agreed on compromises. >
.
> > There are no compromises - the Republicans have been shut out of
> > writing this bill just as effectively as they were writing the
> > Stimulus Bill - and were this bill to be shoved through in the middle
> > of the night, the results would be the same ....disaster for the
> > Democrats.
.
> There was NO shutout, liar!
.
Really? How many Republicans were involved in writing the bills?
.
> > .> That's the way the system has worked for 200+ years.
.
> > Actually, no. Senators out and out bribed to vote for a bill? We
> > start paying four years in extra taxes and fees before the benefits
> > start? Nebraska and union members get a free ride? Strictly along
> > party lines? Annexing one sixth of the US economy? And all for a bill
> > that less than one in three Americans support? You do understand that
> > this bill is so insanely unpopular that it cost you Ted Kennedy's
> > seat, don't you?
.
> Actually you're wrong. Compromise does not equal bribes.>
.
No, they don't. However, stating that people from Nebraska's medicare
bills are covered by citizens of the other 49 States is not a
"compromise" - it's an incredibly cynical, slimy bribe - one that was
rejected by Nebraskans - the very people who were supposed to be
placated. Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their
senator made on Medicaid.
.
> Even giving a ReThuglyKKKan Senator from Nebrask...>
.
Is "ReThuglyKKKan" your cute way of spelling "Republican"? If so, may
I point out that Senator Ben Nelson (D) is a Democrat, not a
Republican.
Here is a quick way to remember who voted for voted for ObamaCare:
Everyone single person who voted for it was a Democrat. Not one
Republican supports that vile bill. Because the Democrats have clung
barnacle-like to ObamaCare, you guys lost Ted Kennedy's seat, and in
38 weeks will lose both Houses.
.
> unique exemption...>
.
Unique - except for the bribe sent to the Unions.
.
for his state's citizens was a necessary compromise (BRIBE) --
repulsive but necessary for the greater good.>
.
There's never been a fascist dictator in world history who didn't
excuse their bullying tactics as "necessary for the greater good."
.
> Strict voting along party lines just means that 100% of
> ReThuglyKKKans oppose progress. >
.
No, strict party line vote is the only reasonable response to a bill
that Democrats demand be voted on sight unseen.
.
Financing of reform is designed to
> cost net $100 billion/year for 10 years -- a tiny fraction of the cost
> of the totally bogus Iraq War.
No, ObamaCare is estimated to cost the American people 100 billion
dollars each and every year. That the TOTAL cost for the Iraq/Afghan
wars.....combined.
The cost for ObamaCare is so outrageous that for the first four years
of existance, there will be no benefits - just higher taxes and
insurance fees. That extra money will off set the massive losses for
the first six years of actual benefits. What happens during the
second decade, when there will be no such stockpile of money to fall
back oh?
.
> Nothing's been "annexed" -- merely
> cost controlled.
.
You mean, like how Hitler "cost controlled" Czechoslovakia?
.
> If you subtract 61% negative (your rightarded cooked
> figure) >
.
Gallup is a bit more optimist about ObamaCare, but not much. They
have 55% of Americans believing that Congress should just forget the
whole thing. But then, they've always leaned heavily to the left.
.
>....from 100%, the remainder is 39% which is much *more* than "less than "one in three"!
.
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30%
of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead
with health care. "
.
9% are undecided.
> Your math skills sure do suck!
.,
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30%
of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead
with health care. "
.
9% are undecided.
.
> We have only your word that one bill cost Kennedy's seat.
.
That, and the fact that THAT'S WHAT BROWN RAN ON!!!! Brown ran
against ObamaCare, and within three weeks picked up THIRTY-SIX POINTS
and WON TED KENNEDY'S SEAT!!!!
Consider - 36 points in three weeks!!!!
And you choose to ignore that?
.
> You really aren't good at this at all. >
.
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30%
of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead
with health care. "
.
9% are undecided.
.
> Your stringing bullshit
> together is still bullshit. <snicker>
.
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30%
of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead
with health care. "
.
9% are undecided.
.
> > And you claim this is business as usual? Horsefeathers. An historian
> > has to go back to 1855, when the Democrats shoved through a bill which
> > would authorize new states to vote on slavery to find anything that
> > reaches to corruption of this magnitude....and that bill lead to the
> > Civil War.
.
> Too bad you have to stretch back to the Civil War to try to dodge
> current facts and truth.
.
I didn't go back to the Civil War - I had to reach back ten years
EARLIER than the Civil War to find a bill equally corrupt and
loathsome.
.
> > .>Too bad you're totally ignorant and ride
> > > the short bus.
.
> > Ah, your second "retard" joke. Stay classy.
.
> > .> > .>..... and they'll be read more in public during the reconciliation process.>
.
> > > > Wow - so the Dems will let the American people in on sometime later? BTW, you try and shove that bill through using reconciliation, it will literally destroy the Democrat Party.
.
> Details have been available in the media for months as the bills
> progressed.
.
No, they haven't. The bills have been written behind closed doors.
Obama promised to have the debates shown on CSPAN. Instead, there
have been virtually no debate.
.
> > .>.....people are in any time they choose to be through their
> > > elected representatives. You can call or write your Congressman or
> > > any group to which you belong that's participating.
.
> > Done and done - the Tea Party has already been formed. In Townhall
> > meetings across the country, we've made our voices heard loud and
> > clear. (I loved watching hysterical democrats have to deal with an
> > angry citizenry.) We've kicked the scoundrels out in New Jersey,
> > Virginia and. of all places, Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. As
> > of this writing, six Democrats have "retired", rather than face
> > certain defeat.
.
> Your Teabagging and Town Hall Meetings were nothing more than failed
> attempts to shout down Congressmen and your opponents.
.
We've kicked the scoundrels out in New Jersey, Virginia and. of all
places, Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. As of this writing, six
Democrats have "retired", rather than face certain defeat.
I'll take that kind of "failure" any day of the week.
.
> > .> > As of this writing, 61% of Americans want the Democrats to drop
> > > > healthcare all together. ObamaCare has already cost the Democrats Ted
> > > > Kennedy's old seat, and will certainly cost the Democrats the House,
> > > > and it's increasingly obvious they're losing the Senate as well.
.
> > > Cite your 61% source.
.
> > .http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_event...
.
> Keerist -- you've cited a goddamned rightarded shill -- seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports.
.
"....while there are no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or
Rasmussen Reports making contributions to political candidates and its
public election polls are generally regarded as reliable, "some
observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently
tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found
on other national surveys."[11]"
.
So, Rasmussen is "reliable" but "some observers" "questioned" its
polling?
Really? THAT'S the most damning information you can dig up?
> > .> > He who <snickers> last, <snickers> best.
.
> > > We've been snickering heartily for the last year, and have at least
> > > three and likely seven more years at the minimum of snickering.
.
> > How hardily did you laugh last week at this time? Howzabout when you
> > lose the House and Senate in 38 weeks? What sort of gaffaws and
> > snorts will you spit out when the Republican Congress starts
> > investigating ACORN?
.
> We weren't converned by loss of one Senate seat. >
.
Good!!!!
.
> We'll wait until
> 2010 elections to see what happens,>
.
And by that time, you'll look around at being the minority party and
will be screaming "what happened?"
.
> but loss of both Houses is merely one of your more obvious drugged delusions. >
The loss of the House is all but a foregone conclusion. With
Kennedy's seat going to the GOP, and Lieberman opening talking about
jumping parties, a Republican takeover of the Senate has become
possible. Even if the Dems manage to hold onto the Senate, simply
because not many Dem Senate seats were in play this cycle, they will
be a very different group of Dems after viewing the bloodbath.
.
> ACORN is innocent until
> proven guilty, and it's emerging that smear attempts so far have been
> mere witchhunts.
.
When the GOP takes over the House, there will be a REAL
investigation. Be afraid, be very afraid.
.
> > In case you haven't noticed, There's a whole new breed of Repubican
> > coming to Congress. The moderate, "compassionate conservative" is out
> > of style. We're sending a whole new breed, people who are pissed off
> > over how Sarah Palin's teenaged daughters were called whores on the
> > David Letterman show, or how Joe The Plumber found his tax records
> > spashed across the news.
.
> Send your smarmy rightarded shouters. The Palin family proved itself
> to be insufficiently trustworthy for Sarah Stupid to win the
> election. I watched her grotqesque failures in her interviews with
> Katie Couric. Did you? The Plumber was a buffoon and ultimately
> turned on his own handlers. <snicker> KKKase KKKlosed.
.
> Want to try some more?
.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/sarah-palin-barack-obama-poll-gap-narrows.html
Click here to find out more!
Top of the Ticket
Politics and commentary, coast to coast, from the Los Angeles Times
« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »
Shocker polls: That Sarah Palin-Barack Obama gap melts to 1 point
[Updated]
December 8, 2009 | 2:42 am
SarahBookHeadshotlkrtpenap
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy, look what the pollsters just brought in.
A pair of new surveys revealing that President Obama is still
declining and has hit a new low in job approval among Americans just
56 weeks after they elected him with a decided margin.
FOR THE RECORD:
A Top of the Ticket post Tuesday on the relative popularity of Sarah
Palin and Barack Obama erred in stating in the text and the headline
that there was a Palin-Obama gap of 1 point. Two separate polls were
cited, as the post notes, so the findings are not directly comparable.
And -- wait for it -- Republican Sarah Palin is successfully selling a
whole lot more than books out there on the road. Even among those not
lining up in 10-degree weather to catch a glimpse of pretty much the
only political celebrity the GOP has these days.
First, el jefe. Facing double-digit unemployment, rising spending,
deficits and Afghan war casualties plus a keystone but stalled
healthcare reform effort that caused a rare Sunday presidential visit
to Capitol Hill, Obama recently fell below 50% job approval for the
first time.
Then, last week's deft dance of rhetoric over sending reinforcements
to Afghanistan but, on the other foot, bringing them home quickly
maybe gave him a brief boost. That, however, collapsed with equal
rapidity.
Obama's new Gallup Poll job approval number is 47%. Last month it was
53%.
Regular Ticket readers will recall how in this space in late November
we pointed out that Obama's closely watched job approval slide was
coinciding with Palin's little-noticed rise in favorability. And it
appeared they might cross somewhere in the 40s.
Well, ex-Sen. Obama, meet ex-Gov. Palin.
The new CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows Palin now at 46% favorable. [A
previous version of this post said that, at 46%, Palin was “just one
point below her fellow basketball fan." The CNN/Opinion Research Poll
did not ask respondents about Obama.]Click here to find out more!
Top of the Ticket
Politics and commentary, coast to coast, from the Los Angeles Times
« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »
Shocker polls: That Sarah Palin-Barack Obama gap melts to 1 point
[Updated]
December 8, 2009 | 2:42 am
SarahBookHeadshotlkrtpenap
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy, look what the pollsters just brought in.
A pair of new surveys revealing that President Obama is still
declining and has hit a new low in job approval among Americans just
56 weeks after they elected him with a decided margin.
FOR THE RECORD:
A Top of the Ticket post Tuesday on the relative popularity of Sarah
Palin and Barack Obama erred in stating in the text and the headline
that there was a Palin-Obama gap of 1 point. Two separate polls were
cited, as the post notes, so the findings are not directly comparable.
And -- wait for it -- Republican Sarah Palin is successfully selling a
whole lot more than books out there on the road. Even among those not
lining up in 10-degree weather to catch a glimpse of pretty much the
only political celebrity the GOP has these days.
First, el jefe. Facing double-digit unemployment, rising spending,
deficits and Afghan war casualties plus a keystone but stalled
healthcare reform effort that caused a rare Sunday presidential visit
to Capitol Hill, Obama recently fell below 50% job approval for the
first time.
Then, last week's deft dance of rhetoric over sending reinforcements
to Afghanistan but, on the other foot, bringing them home quickly
maybe gave him a brief boost. That, however, collapsed with equal
rapidity.
Obama's new Gallup Poll job approval number is 47%. Last month it was
53%.
Regular Ticket readers will recall how in this space in late November
we pointed out that Obama's closely watched job approval slide was
coinciding with Palin's little-noticed rise in favorability. And it
appeared they might cross somewhere in the 40s.
Well, ex-Sen. Obama, meet ex-Gov. Palin.
The new CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows Palin now at 46% favorable. [A
previous version of this post said that, at 46%, Palin was “just one
point below her fellow basketball fan." The CNN/Opinion Research Poll
did not ask respondents about Obama.]
ChasNemo
So socialized Medicare/Medicaid served her well?
> > > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> > > have created for themselves.
> .
> > Your 61% figure comes from a known rightarded shill. See below.
>
> .
> That' "known rightarded shill" was within a half point during Obama's
> 2008 election. No other poll came within three points. They
> accuratly predicted the New Jersey election, Virginia and
> Massachusetts. The poltically aware ignore Rasmussen at their own
> peril.
You're ignoring the fact that Rasmussens Reports shills for rightards
in most if not all cases.
> > > .> > .> Obviously others read the bills because they wrote them,>
> .
> > > > > No. Nobody read the bill. Nobody wrote the bill. Many, many, many
> > > > > people wrote pieces of the bill, all behind closed doors and the
> > > > > contents being leaked via rumor. Isn't THAT special?
> .
> > > > YOU'RE "special" because you hallucinate that the bill is bad just
> > > > because many people agreed on compromises. >
> .
> > > There are no compromises - the Republicans have been shut out of
> > > writing this bill just as effectively as they were writing the
> > > Stimulus Bill - and were this bill to be shoved through in the middle
> > > of the night, the results would be the same ....disaster for the
> > > Democrats.
> .
> > There was NO shutout, liar!
>
> .
> Really? How many Republicans were involved in writing the bills?
ReThuglyKKKan got 170 amendments to the Senate version, and actively
participated in the House version too as they were invited to do.
They didn't want to risk being left totally behind when the health
care reform train left the station!
> .> > .> That's the way the system has worked for 200+ years.
> .
> > > Actually, no. Senators out and out bribed to vote for a bill? We
> > > start paying four years in extra taxes and fees before the benefits
> > > start? Nebraska and union members get a free ride? Strictly along
> > > party lines? Annexing one sixth of the US economy? And all for a bill
> > > that less than one in three Americans support? You do understand that
> > > this bill is so insanely unpopular that it cost you Ted Kennedy's
> > > seat, don't you?
> .
> > Actually you're wrong. Compromise does not equal bribes.>
> .
> No, they don't. However, stating that people from Nebraska's medicare
> bills are covered by citizens of the other 49 States is not a
> "compromise" - it's an incredibly cynical, slimy bribe - one that was
> rejected by Nebraskans - the very people who were supposed to be
> placated. Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their
> senator made on Medicaid.
A Bluedog Democrat is basically a ReThuglyKKKan. Impossible to tell
the difference.
> .> Even giving a ReThuglyKKKan Senator from Nebrask...>
> .
> Is "ReThuglyKKKan" your cute way of spelling "Republican"? If so, may
> I point out that Senator Ben Nelson (D) is a Democrat, not a
> Republican.
A Bluedog Democrat is basically a ReThuglyKKKan. Impossible to tell
the difference.
> Here is a quick way to remember who voted for voted for ObamaCare:
> Everyone single person who voted for it was a Democrat. Not one
> Republican supports that vile bill. Because the Democrats have clung
> barnacle-like to ObamaCare, you guys lost Ted Kennedy's seat, and in
> 38 weeks will lose both Houses.
> .> unique exemption...>
Too bad ReThuglyKKKans have so often on the wrong side of decency --
as with WMD lies and their totally bogus Iraq War.
> Unique - except for the bribe sent to the Unions.
>
> for his state's citizens was a necessary compromise (BRIBE) --
> repulsive but necessary for the greater good.>
> .
> There's never been a fascist dictator in world history who didn't
> excuse their bullying tactics as "necessary for the greater good."
How do you define "bribery sent to the Unions"?
> .> Strict voting along party lines just means that 100% of
> > ReThuglyKKKans oppose progress. >
> .
> No, strict party line vote is the only reasonable response to a bill
> that Democrats demand be voted on sight unseen.
You can make excuse you choose for ReThuglyKKKans' sour grapes refusal
to cooperate with the majority party.
> > Financing of reform is designed to>
> > cost net $100 billion/year for 10 years -- a tiny fraction of the cost
> > of the totally bogus Iraq War.
>
> No, ObamaCare is estimated to cost the American people 100 billion
> dollars each and every year. That the TOTAL cost for the Iraq/Afghan
> wars.....combined.
Bullshit, The projected cost of Bu$h's bogus wars is estimated to be
at least $2 trillion.
> The cost for ObamaCare is so outrageous that for the first four years
> of existance, there will be no benefits - just higher taxes and
> insurance fees. That extra money will off set the massive losses for
> the first six years of actual benefits. What happens during the
> second decade, when there will be no such stockpile of money to fall
> back oh?
Bill drafters worked out finances to net cost $100 billion/year for
the first 10 years. It's good to provide care for those in need and a
mortal sin to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while wasing $2
trillion.
> .> Nothing's been "annexed" -- merely
> > cost controlled.
> .
> You mean, like how Hitler "cost controlled" Czechoslovakia?
Your butt buddy/sock used the "annexed" word -- not me.
> .> If you subtract 61% negative (your rightarded cooked
> > figure) >
> .
> Gallup is a bit more optimist about ObamaCare, but not much. They
> have 55% of Americans believing that Congress should just forget the
> whole thing. But then, they've always leaned heavily to the left.
Can you proven that Gallup "always leaned heavily to the left" as I
proved that Rasmussen Reports is a rightarded shill? No? Thought
not. <snicker>
> .>....from 100%, the remainder is 39% which is much *more* than "less than "one in three"!
> .
> "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30%
> of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead
> with health care. "
> .
> 9% are undecided.
See above. Rasmussen Reports is a rightarded shill and can be
dismissed.
> > Your math skills sure do suck!
> .,
> "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30%
> of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead
> with health care. "
> .
> 9% are undecided.
See above. Rasmussen Reports is a rightarded shill and can be
dismissed. Your repetition of dubious stastistics does not equal
logic or facts.
> .> We have only your word that one bill cost Kennedy's seat.
> .
> That, and the fact that THAT'S WHAT BROWN RAN ON!!!! Brown ran
> against ObamaCare, and within three weeks picked up THIRTY-SIX POINTS
> and WON TED KENNEDY'S SEAT!!!!
>
> Consider - 36 points in three weeks!!!!
>
> And you choose to ignore that?
One seat is not significant, but that's all you've got so you whine
loudly about its alleged meaning.
> .> You really aren't good at this at all. >
> .
> "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30%
> of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead
> with health care. "
> .
> 9% are undecided.
See above. Rasmussen Reports is a rightarded shill and can be
dismissed. Your repetition of dubious stastistics does not equal
logic or facts.
> .> Your stringing bullshit together is still bullshit. <snicker>
> .
> "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30%
> of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead
> with health care. "
> .
> 9% are undecided.
See above. Rasmussen Reports is a rightarded shill and can be
dismissed. Your repetition of dubious stastistics does not equal
logic or facts.
> .> > And you claim this is business as usual? Horsefeathers. An historian
> > > has to go back to 1855, when the Democrats shoved through a bill which
> > > would authorize new states to vote on slavery to find anything that
> > > reaches to corruption of this magnitude....and that bill lead to the
> > > Civil War.
> .
> > Too bad you have to stretch back to the Civil War to try to dodge
> > current facts and truth.
> .
> I didn't go back to the Civil War - I had to reach back ten years
> EARLIER than the Civil War to find a bill equally corrupt and
> loathsome.
So your stretch is even worse than back to the Civil War era
> .> > .>Too bad you're totally ignorant and ride
> > > > the short bus.
> .
> > > Ah, your second "retard" joke. Stay classy.
> .
> > > .> > .>..... and they'll be read more in public during the reconciliation process.>
> .
> > > > > Wow - so the Dems will let the American people in on sometime later? BTW, you try and shove that bill through using reconciliation, it will literally destroy the Democrat Party.
<yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww> You ReThuglyKKKans sure fucked up with the
McKook/Stupid ticket, so you're hardly qualified to make predictions.
<snicker>
.
> > Details have been available in the media for months as the bills
> > progressed.
>
> .
> No, they haven't. The bills have been written behind closed doors.
> Obama promised to have the debates shown on CSPAN. Instead, there
> have been virtually no debate.
Proof of closed doors? No? Thought not.
> .> > .>.....people are in any time they choose to be through their
> > > > elected representatives. You can call or write your Congressman or
> > > > any group to which you belong that's participating.
> .
> > > Done and done - the Tea Party has already been formed. In Townhall
> > > meetings across the country, we've made our voices heard loud and
> > > clear. (I loved watching hysterical democrats have to deal with an
> > > angry citizenry.) We've kicked the scoundrels out in New Jersey,
> > > Virginia and. of all places, Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. As
> > > of this writing, six Democrats have "retired", rather than face
> > > certain defeat.
> .
> > Your Teabagging and Town Hall Meetings were nothing more than failed
> > attempts to shout down Congressmen and your opponents.
>
> .
> We've kicked the scoundrels out in New Jersey, Virginia and. of all
> places, Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. As of this writing, six
> Democrats have "retired", rather than face certain defeat.
>
> I'll take that kind of "failure" any day of the week.
You ignored Democratic victory in New York because the original
ReThuglyKKKan candidate wasn't rightarded enough for the radical GOPee
Chairman, and he insisted on running someone even more extreme after
the original ReThuglyKKKan candidate dropped out in disgust. You only
choose the sparse arguments that suit you. Shame on you!
> .> > .> > As of this writing, 61% of Americans want the Democrats to drop
> > > > > healthcare all together. ObamaCare has already cost the Democrats Ted
> > > > > Kennedy's old seat, and will certainly cost the Democrats the House,
> > > > > and it's increasingly obvious they're losing the Senate as well.
> .
> > > > Cite your 61% source.
> .
> > > .http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_event...
> .
> > Keerist -- you've cited a goddamned rightarded shill -- seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports.
>
> .
> "....while there are no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or
> Rasmussen Reports making contributions to political candidates and its
> public election polls are generally regarded as reliable, "some
> observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently
> tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found
> on other national surveys."[11]"
> .
> So, Rasmussen is "reliable" but "some observers" "questioned" its
> polling?
>
> Really? THAT'S the most damning information you can dig up?
Did you read the whole article including the extensive footnotes?
No? Then STFU. There are ample facts summarized and footnoted in the
link I gave you.
> > > .> > He who <snickers> last, <snickers> best.
> .
> > > > We've been snickering heartily for the last year, and have at least
> > > > three and likely seven more years at the minimum of snickering.
> .
> > > How hardily did you laugh last week at this time? Howzabout when you
> > > lose the House and Senate in 38 weeks? What sort of gaffaws and
> > > snorts will you spit out when the Republican Congress starts
> > > investigating ACORN?
> .
> > We weren't converned by loss of one Senate seat. >
>
> .
> Good!!!!
> .> We'll wait until
> > 2010 elections to see what happens,>
>
> .
> And by that time, you'll look around at being the minority party and
> will be screaming "what happened?"
<yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww> You ReThuglyKKKans sure fucked up with the
McKook/Stupid ticket, so you're hardly qualified to make predictions.
<snicker>
> > but loss of both Houses is merely one of your more obvious drugged delusions. >
>
> The loss of the House is all but a foregone conclusion. With
> Kennedy's seat going to the GOP, and Lieberman opening talking about
> jumping parties, a Republican takeover of the Senate has become
> possible. Even if the Dems manage to hold onto the Senate, simply
> because not many Dem Senate seats were in play this cycle, they will
> be a very different group of Dems after viewing the bloodbath.
<yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww> You ReThuglyKKKans sure fucked up with the
McKook/Stupid ticket, so you're hardly qualified to make predictions.
<snicker>
> .> ACORN is innocent until
> > proven guilty, and it's emerging that smear attempts so far have been
> > mere witchhunts.
>
> .
> When the GOP takes over the House, there will be a REAL
> investigation. Be afraid, be very afraid.
<yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww> You ReThuglyKKKans sure fucked up with the
McKook/Stupid ticket, so you're hardly qualified to make predictions.
<snicker>
> .> > In case you haven't noticed, There's a whole new breed of Repubican
> > > coming to Congress. The moderate, "compassionate conservative" is out
> > > of style. We're sending a whole new breed, people who are pissed off
> > > over how Sarah Palin's teenaged daughters were called whores on the
> > > David Letterman show, or how Joe The Plumber found his tax records
> > > spashed across the news.
> .
> > Send your smarmy rightarded shouters. The Palin family proved itself
> > to be insufficiently trustworthy for Sarah Stupid to win the
> > election. I watched her grotqesque failures in her interviews with
> > Katie Couric. Did you? The Plumber was a buffoon and ultimately
> > turned on his own handlers. <snicker> KKKase KKKlosed.
> .
> > Want to try some more?
>
> .http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/sarah-palin-barack...
<yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn> Sarah Stupid lost the election for McKook.
That's last year's big shock for you rightards. Obviously you haven't
gotten overn it and are grasping at straws years in the future and
totally beyond your reach.
Want to try again, or maybe send in your butt buddy/sock while you
take a breather? <snicker>
bvallely
> > > Still plenty of time for compromise between the two versions.
.
> > OK, so there will be a compromise between one corrupt bill that was
> > written behind closed doors which was passed without anyone having
> > read the damned thing and depended on threats and bribes to get shoved
> > through, and the OTHER corrupt bill that was written behind closed
> > doors which was passed without anyone having read the damned thing and
> > depended on threats and bribes to get shoved through. BTW, not a
> > single Republican voted for either version of the bill.
.
.
> > .> > And certainly not bills that annex one sixth of the US economy.
.
> > > Insurance companies RAPE one sixth (16% to be exact) of the US economy
> > > at present. All other OECD (developed) countries spend half that
> > > amount (8%) and cover 100% percent of their citizens.while AmeriKKKa
> > > leaves almost 50 million people bare. Shameful.
.
> > My wife's mother had a stroke two years ago. She lived paralyzed for
> > over a year and a half, until we lost her last June. She didn't have a
> > fancy Cadillac insurance plan enjoyed by federal employees, she bought
> > her own. There wasn't a single piece of medical equipment she didn't
> > have access to, and she was never turned away from any hospital.
.
> > Her mother, OTOH, lived in Yugoslavia, and enjoyed the benefits of a
> > caring socialized helathcare plan. She broke her hip - the state
> > decided that her life was not worth saving, so they have her
> > painkillers and allowed her to die slowly over a six month period.
.
> > "Maybe grandma would be better off with painkillers than that
> > operation."
> So socialized Medicare/Medicaid served her well?
No, she avoided them. AGAIN, she bought her own health insurance.
She was afraid that if she depended on Medicare, after she died, they
would annex her house - a very realistic fear, as it turned out.
Three months after the death, California's version of Medicare
(MediCal) wrote to my wife demanding the copy of the lease to her
mother's home, along with all financial statements. I sent back a
very polite note explaining that she didn't use there services, and
therefore didn't owe any money. We haven't heard from them for four
months.
.
BTW, I was quite impressed when I read of your outrage over my wife's
grandmother being allowed to die slowly. Your passion on the subject
has doubly reinforced my opinion of compassion on the Left.
.
> > > > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > > > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> > > > have created for themselves.
.
> > > Your 61% figure comes from a known rightarded shill. See below.
.
> > That' "known rightarded shill" was within a half point during Obama's
> > 2008 election. No other poll came within three points. They
> > accuratly predicted the New Jersey election, Virginia and
> > Massachusetts. The poltically aware ignore Rasmussen at their own
> > peril.
.
> You're ignoring the fact that Rasmussens Reports shills for rightards
> in most if not all cases.
.
Were that the case, shouldn't Rasmussen's numbers be HIGHER
bvallely
>
> > > > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > > > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> > > > have created for themselves.
.
> > > Your 61% figure comes from a known rightarded shill. See below.
.
> > That' "known rightarded shill" was within a half point during Obama's
> > 2008 election. No other poll came within three points. They
> > accuratly predicted the New Jersey election, Virginia and
> > Massachusetts. The poltically aware ignore Rasmussen at their own
> > peril.
.
> You're ignoring the fact that Rasmussens Reports shills for rightards
> in most if not all cases.
.
subject today.
They have the number of people who believe Congress should just forget
the who thing at 69% - a full eight points higher than Rusmussen. .
Washington (CNN) – Only three in ten Americans say they want Congress
to pass legislation similar to the health care reform bills that have
already been approved by the House and Senate, according to a new
national poll.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also indicates that nearly
half the public, 48 percent, would like federal lawmakers to start
work on an entirely new bill, and 21 percent feel Congress should stop
working an any bills that would change the country's health care
system.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/26/cnn-poll-half-say-start-anew-on-health-care-bill/
Tell me, if Rasmussen is nothing but a Republican shill, shouldn't
their negs for ObamaCare be even higher than CNN's?
oz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Poor Nemise. She's hoping the gov't will give her some free medical
coverage. She's currently seeing the local vet because he charges
less than thr MD, except for the rabis shot.
bvallely
> > > > .> > .> Obviously others read the bills because they wrote them,>
.
> > > > > > No. Nobody read the bill. Nobody wrote the bill. Many, many, many
> > > > > > people wrote pieces of the bill, all behind closed doors and the
> > > > > > contents being leaked via rumor. Isn't THAT special?
.
> > > > > YOU'RE "special" because you hallucinate that the bill is bad just
> > > > > because many people agreed on compromises. >
.
> > > > There are no compromises - the Republicans have been shut out of
> > > > writing this bill just as effectively as they were writing the
> > > > Stimulus Bill - and were this bill to be shoved through in the middle
> > > > of the night, the results would be the same ....disaster for the
> > > > Democrats.
.
> > > There was NO shutout, liar!
.
> > Really? How many Republicans were involved in writing the bills?
.
> ReThuglyKKKan got 170 amendments to the Senate version,....>
.
No, the Republicans propossed 200 amendments. Dick Durbin said four
were accepted, but Republicans deny that.
.
> and actively
> participated in the House version too as they were invited to do.
.
If that did happen (a bit "if") what proposals of their found its way
into the bill?
.
> They didn't want to risk being left totally behind when the health
> care reform train left the station!
.
That would be sort of like missing the ramp to the Titanic.
bvallely
> > .> > .> That's the way the system has worked for 200+ years.
.
> > > > Actually, no. Senators out and out bribed to vote for a bill? We
> > > > start paying four years in extra taxes and fees before the benefits
> > > > start? Nebraska and union members get a free ride? Strictly along
> > > > party lines? Annexing one sixth of the US economy? And all for a bill
> > > > that less than one in three Americans support? You do understand that
> > > > this bill is so insanely unpopular that it cost you Ted Kennedy's
> > > > seat, don't you?
.
> > > Actually you're wrong. Compromise does not equal bribes.>
.
> > No, they don't. However, stating that people from Nebraska's medicare
> > bills are covered by citizens of the other 49 States is not a
> > "compromise" - it's an incredibly cynical, slimy bribe - one that was
> > rejected by Nebraskans - the very people who were supposed to be
> > placated. Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their
> > senator made on Medicaid.
.
> A Bluedog Democrat is basically a ReThuglyKKKan. Impossible to tell
> the difference.
.
That's exactly the sort of thinking which will force the Democrats
back into the wilderness for the next hundred years.
.
> > .> Even giving a ReThuglyKKKan Senator from Nebrask...>
.
> > Is "ReThuglyKKKan" your cute way of spelling "Republican"? If so, may
> > I point out that Senator Ben Nelson (D) is a Democrat, not a
> > Republican.
.
> A Bluedog Democrat is basically a ReThuglyKKKan. Impossible to tell
> the difference.
.
Nelson, just today, agreed to vote with reconciliation. Does that
mean he's instantly changed from a gapped tooth hill-billy to a wise
and giving man?
.
> > Here is a quick way to remember who voted for voted for ObamaCare:
> > Everyone single person who voted for it was a Democrat. Not one
> > Republican supports that vile bill. Because the Democrats have clung
> > barnacle-like to ObamaCare, you guys lost Ted Kennedy's seat, and in
> > 38 weeks will lose both Houses.
> > .> unique exemption...>
.
> Too bad ReThuglyKKKans have so often on the wrong side of decency --
> as with WMD lies....>
.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and
is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying
to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
.
>..... and their totally bogus Iraq War.>
.
As far as I can tell, the Iraq War is the ONLY success Obama has to
point to in tonight's State of the Union, and Shut The Fuck Up
speech. .
.
> > Unique - except for the bribe sent to the Unions.
.
> > for his state's citizens was a necessary compromise (BRIBE) --
> > repulsive but necessary for the greater good.>
.
> > There's never been a fascist dictator in world history who didn't
> > excuse their bullying tactics as "necessary for the greater good."
.
> How do you define "bribery sent to the Unions"?
.
They don't have to pay taxes on their Cadillac healthcare plans as
other Americans do.
bvallely
> > .> Strict voting along party lines just means that 100% of
> > > ReThuglyKKKans oppose progress. >
.
> > No, strict party line vote is the only reasonable response to a bill
> > that Democrats demand be voted on sight unseen.
.
> You can make excuse you choose for ReThuglyKKKans' sour grapes refusal
> to cooperate with the majority party.
.
"Sour grapes"? Try "cracking out the Champagne." We just won New
Jersey, Virginia and Ted Kennedy's old seat. 69% of the American
people are against this bill, which is why in the Generic
Congressional races, Republicans currently enjoy a 9 point advantage.
in 1994, we had a two point lead.
bvallely
> > The cost for ObamaCare is so outrageous that for the first four years
> > of existance, there will be no benefits - just higher taxes and
> > insurance fees. That extra money will off set the massive losses for
> > the first six years of actual benefits. What happens during the
> > second decade, when there will be no such stockpile of money to fall
> > back oh?
> Bill drafters worked out finances to net cost $100 billion/year for
> the first 10 years.
And how do they do that? By not having any expense the first four
years of that Decade.
.
> > .> Nothing's been "annexed" -- merely
> > > cost controlled.
.
> > You mean, like how Hitler "cost controlled" Czechoslovakia?
Salty Stan
> > > > > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > > > > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
>
> Tell me, if Rasmussen is nothing but a Republican shill, shouldn't
> their negs for ObamaCare be even higher than CNN's?
Good question. Did you ever get an answer?
ChasNemo
> .> > > Still plenty of time for compromise between the two versions.
> .
> > > OK, so there will be a compromise between one corrupt bill that was
> > > written behind closed doors which was passed without anyone having
> > > read the damned thing and depended on threats and bribes to get shoved
> > > through, and the OTHER corrupt bill that was written behind closed
> > > doors which was passed without anyone having read the damned thing and
> > > depended on threats and bribes to get shoved through. BTW, not a
> > > single Republican voted for either version of the bill.
ReThuglyKKKans have established themselves as THE PARTY OF NO.
Many folks can't afford provate insurance. That's part of the reason
why healhcare reform is needed. Other reasons include AmeriKKKa
spending twice as much (16%) of its GNP on healthcare compared to
other developed nations (8%), as well denial for pre-existing
conditions and capped coverage.
> BTW, I was quite impressed when I read of your outrage over my wife's
> grandmother being allowed to die slowly. Your passion on the subject
> has doubly reinforced my opinion of compassion on the Left.
Your fake outrage is as phony as your arguments.
> > > > > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > > > > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> > > > > have created for themselves.
> .
> > > > Your 61% figure comes from a known rightarded shill. See below.
> .
> > > That' "known rightarded shill" was within a half point during Obama's
> > > 2008 election. No other poll came within three points. They
> > > accuratly predicted the New Jersey election, Virginia and
> > > Massachusetts. The poltically aware ignore Rasmussen at their own
> > > peril.
> .
> > You're ignoring the fact that Rasmussens Reports shills for rightards
> > in most if not all cases.
>.
> Were that the case, shouldn't Rasmussen's numbers be HIGHER
Higher than what?
So then ReThuglyKKKan 100% votes were bribes to KKKorporations?
You seem to have conceded pretty much everything, Valley Girl.
<snicker>
ChasNemo
Never called him anything but a Bluedog Democart. You drew your own
conclusion, fool.
Rightarded CIA and military lies, along with Bu$h's WMD lies, led to
the whole Middle East morass in which AmeriKKKa is now stuck. Kudos
to President Obama for thinking about working toward solutions.
> .> > Unique - except for the bribe sent to the Unions.
> .
> > > �for his state's citizens was a necessary compromise (BRIBE) --
> > > repulsive but necessary for the �greater good.> �
> .
> > > There's never been a fascist dictator in world history who didn't
> > > excuse their bullying tactics as "necessary for the greater good."
> .
> > How do you define "bribery sent to the Unions"?
>
> .
> They don't have to pay taxes on their Cadillac healthcare plans as
> other Americans do.
Who are the "other AmeriKKKans"?
ChasNemo
You must be smoking crack as you swill your cheap champagne. A few
election wins don't amount to much. Democrats control the White House
for at least 3 and likely 7 more years. Democrats still have
substantial majorities in both Houses. One Senate seat and two
governorships mean nothing at the federal level and little at the
state level.
ChasNemo
> > > The cost for ObamaCare is so outrageous that for the first four years
> > > of existance, there will be no benefits - just higher taxes and
> > > insurance fees. �That extra money will off set the massive losses for
> > > the first six years of actual benefits. �What happens during the
> > > second decade, when there will be no such stockpile of money to fall
> > > back oh?
> .
> > Bill drafters worked out finances to net cost $100 billion/year for
> > the first 10 years.
>
> .
> And how do they do that? �By not having any expense the first four
> years of that Decade.
That may change, but obviously those crafting the bills are working
out the financial aspects carefully. Health care reform clearly is
needed, but after so many decades of rightarded opposition to delay
it, it's going to take awhile to implement it. Relax and go with the
flow.
.
> > > .> �Nothing's been "annexed" -- merely
> > > > cost controlled.
> .
> > > You mean, like how Hitler "cost controlled" Czechoslovakia?
> .
> > Your butt buddy/sock used the "annexed" word -- not me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
<crickets> <crickets>
bvallely
> > > > OK, so there will be a compromise between one corrupt bill that was
> > > > written behind closed doors which was passed without anyone having
> > > > read the damned thing and depended on threats and bribes to get shoved
> > > > through, and the OTHER corrupt bill that was written behind closed
> > > > doors which was passed without anyone having read the damned thing and
> > > > depended on threats and bribes to get shoved through. BTW, not a
> > > > single Republican voted for either version of the bill.
> > (crickets)
> ReThuglyKKKans have established themselves as THE PARTY OF NO.
.
No more Chicago Thug politics.
No more socialising our industries.
No more "Stimulus Spending"
No more "Cap and Trade"
All sounds like winners to me.
.
And many more without insurance simply choose not to buy it. When we
get down to the actual number of people who want insurance, and can't
afford it, we're talking about a couple of percentage points - surely
theres a better way to cover those people than destroying the finest
medical system in the world.
.
> That's part of the reason
> why healhcare reform is needed. Other reasons include AmeriKKKa
> spending twice as much (16%) of its GNP on healthcare compared to
> other developed nations (8%), as well denial for pre-existing
> conditions and capped coverage.
.
And how do those other country save cash? By refusing treatment when
people become very old and very ill. Hope you have fun when YOU
become an economic liability. Mind you, such actions are never called
"Death Panels" - they're usually called something nice. In England,
the name is literally NICE.
.
> > BTW, I was quite impressed when I read of your outrage over my wife's
> > grandmother being allowed to die slowly. Your passion on the subject
> > has doubly reinforced my opinion of compassion on the Left.
.
> Your fake outrage is as phony as your arguments.
.
I have no outrage - doing so would imply that I was thought you were a
decent man. I know far better.
> You seem to have conceded pretty much everything, Valley Girl.
> <snicker>
.
What happened is that I accidentally pushed the "enter" button long
before I meant to, and decided that I liked how the shorter message
looks - it give you far less room to scurry and hide.
bvallely
> > > > > > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > > > > > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> > Tell me, if Rasmussen is nothing but a Republican shill, shouldn't
> > their negs for ObamaCare be even higher than CNN's?
> Good question. Did you ever get an answer?
Yeah, the answer I got was an over the shouted "oops, gotta go" and
Chase ran for the high grass.
bvallely
> > > A Bluedog Democrat is basically a ReThuglyKKKan. Impossible to tell
> > > the difference.
.
> > That's exactly the sort of thinking which will force the Democrats
> > back into the wilderness for the next hundred years.
.
.
> > .> > .> Even giving a ReThuglyKKKan Senator from Nebrask...>
.
> > > > Is "ReThuglyKKKan" your cute way of spelling "Republican"? If so, may
> > > > I point out that Senator Ben Nelson (D) is a Democrat, not a
> > > > Republican.
.
> > > A Bluedog Democrat is basically a ReThuglyKKKan. Impossible to tell
> > > the difference.
.
> > Nelson, just today, agreed to vote with reconciliation. Does that
> > mean he's instantly changed from a gapped tooth hill-billy to a wise
> > and giving man?
> Never called him anything but a Bluedog Democart. You drew your own
> conclusion, fool.
.
ReThuglyKKKan. Impossible to tell the difference. >
.
If A = B,
And B = C
Then A = C dealies.
You implied, in the strongest terms possible, that Ben Nelson is a
brutal thug and a member of the KKK. Is he still those things, now
that he's back on the Harry Reid plantation?
.
> > .> > Here is a quick way to remember who voted for voted for ObamaCare:
> > > > Everyone single person who voted for it was a Democrat. Not one
> > > > Republican supports that vile bill. Because the Democrats have clung
> > > > barnacle-like to ObamaCare, you guys lost Ted Kennedy's seat, and in
> > > > 38 weeks will lose both Houses.
> > > > .> unique exemption...>
.
> > > Too bad ReThuglyKKKans have so often on the wrong side of decency --
> > > as with WMD lies....>
.
> > "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> > develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
> > That is our bottom line."
> > --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
.
> > "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
> > clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
> > weapons of mass destruction program."
> > --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
.
> > "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
> > great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
> > use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
> > is the greatest security threat we face."
> > --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
.
> > "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
> > times since 1983."
> > --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
.
> > "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
> > the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
> > if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
> > respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
> > weapons of mass destruction programs."
> > Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
> > -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
> > others, Oct. 9, 1998
.
> > "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
> > destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
> > and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> > -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
.
> > "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
> > destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> > -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
> > As far as I can tell, the Iraq War is the ONLY success Obama has to
> > point to in tonight's State of the Union, and Shut The Fuck Up
> > speech. .
.
> Rightarded CIA and military lies, along with Bu$h's WMD lies, led to
> the whole Middle East morass in which AmeriKKKa is now stuck. Kudos
> to President Obama for thinking about working toward solutions.
.
Interesting.
How is Bush responsible for what Clinton said in 1998?
> > .> > Unique - except for the bribe sent to the Unions.
.
> > > > for his state's citizens was a necessary compromise (BRIBE) --
> > > > repulsive but necessary for the greater good.>
.
> > > > There's never been a fascist dictator in world history who didn't
> > > > excuse their bullying tactics as "necessary for the greater good."
.
> > > How do you define "bribery sent to the Unions"?
.
> > They don't have to pay taxes on their Cadillac healthcare plans as
> > other Americans do.
.
> Who are the "other AmeriKKKans"?
.
I have no idea of any AmericiKKKans.
bvallely
> On Jan 27, 11:35 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > .> Strict voting along party lines just means that 100% of
> > > > > ReThuglyKKKans oppose progress. >
> > .
> > > > No, strict party line vote is the only reasonable response to a bill
> > > > that Democrats demand be voted on sight unseen.
> > .
> > > You can make excuse you choose for ReThuglyKKKans' sour grapes refusal
> > > to cooperate with the majority party.
>
> > .
> > "Sour grapes"? Try "cracking out the Champagne." We just won New
> > Jersey, Virginia and Ted Kennedy's old seat. 69% of the American
> > people are against this bill, which is why in the Generic
> > Congressional races, Republicans currently enjoy a 9 point advantage.
> > in 1994, we had a two point lead.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPiNIzSM3RQ
.
> You must be smoking crack as you swill your cheap champagne. >
I must be mad for depending on empirical evendence instead of your
shrill rants.
.
> A few election wins don't amount to much. >
Three elections.
One being Ted Kennedy's seat.
Won with a 36 point rise in three weeks.
AND OBAMA CAMPAIGNED FOR ALL OF THEM.
EVERYONE OBAMA CAMPAIGNED FOR, WENT DOWN IN FLAMES.
69% of the American people want ObamaCare just dropped.
Obama refuses to listen to the American people.
In the Generic Congressional races, Republicans currently enjoy a 9
point advantage.
In 1994, we had a two point lead.
Unemployment rate shows strong signs of creeping even higher.
The stock market has been tanking.
Last night, Obama, at best, insulted, and at worst, threatened, the
Supreme Court. He did so on internatioinal television ... and did so
to their faces.
I used to think that 2010 was going to be a recap of 1994.
I might have been wrong - this is shaping up to be a repeat of 1974.
.
> Democrats control the White House
> for at least 3 and likely 7 more years.>
.
I'm not sure where you come across with Obama being "likely" to win in
2012. Hell, I'm not even sure he'll win the nomination.
.
Democrats still have
> substantial majorities in both Houses.
.
For 38 more weeks. In the coming weeks, the various campaigns will
begin, and the Democrats will be FORCED to talk to their
constituents. No more having Union Thugs shout down people at Town
Hall meetings. Their condescending attitudes will be addressed.
.
> One Senate seat and two governorships mean nothing at the federal level and little at the
> state level.
38 weeks is not a lot of time
bvallely
> > > Bill drafters worked out finances to net cost $100 billion/year for
> > > the first 10 years.
.
> > And how do they do that? By not having any expense the first four
> > years of that Decade.
> That may change,...>
.
That's about the only aspect of ObamaCare that makes any sense
whatsoever. It's unfair, will cripple the economy, and make
healthcare much worse, but it's the only part of the bill I've seen
that at least acknowledges the disaster that is ObamaCare.
.
> but obviously those crafting the bills are working
> out the financial aspects carefully.
No, they're throwing sit against the wall and hoping something
sticks. This is why the bill is written under the cover of darkness,
and without debate. Remember "debate"? The thing Obama promised for
the bill? He promised that it would be written on CSPAN?
.
> Health care reform clearly is
> needed,>
Not to 69% of the American people, it's not. Certainly not with the
bill that exists now.
.
>..... but after so many decades of rightarded opposition to delay it, it's going to take awhile to implement it.>
.
You don't get it, do you? It's almost certainly dead.
It's dead because the Democrats wanted to humiliate the Republicans.
You wanted socialized medicine, something the American people didn't.
You could have passed a Health Care Bill with the Republicans easily,
if the bill included the following:
1. Tort Reform.
2. Extending COBRA indefinately.
3. Allowing insurance companies to compete nationally.
A bill based around those three reforms would have worked - it would
have provided better and cheaper care. But Obama decided to play to
the Democrat shaved apes, and instead has to resort to the sleaziest
of all tactics to shove through reconciliation - and if you think the
Democrats are hated now, wait until Obama tries to take over 1/6 of
the US economy on 50 votes.
.
>Relax and go with the flow.
.
Admittedly, it will be a lot of fun to see the Democrats crash and
burn.
.
ChasNemo
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:08:09 -0800 (PST), bvallely <bvall...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Many folks can't afford provate insurance.>
> >.
> >And many more without insurance simply choose not to buy it.
>
Indeed! AmeriKKKa spends double the percentage (16%) of its GNP on
healthcare, compared to other developed countries (8%). AmeriKKKan
insurance companies have a license to steal with little or no
competition in many areas, and the unrestrained ability to refuse or
cancel people in order to keep profits hight. HMOs (health
maintenance organizations) are a cruel fraud -- imposing additional
bureaucracy between doctors and patients and offering no real benefit
at all. Such grotesque abuses must be ended!
bvallely
> >> Many folks can't afford provate insurance.>
.
> >And many more without insurance simply choose not to buy it.
> Because of the cost.
.
Yes they'd rather spend the money on plasma TVs.
bvallely
> Indeed! AmeriKKKa spends double the percentage (16%) of its GNP on
> healthcare, compared to other developed countries (8%). >
Because other "developed countries" have a bad habit of allowing the
most expensively sick, and the old, to die - that portion of the
populartioin consumes the majority of America's medical resources..
Yes, letting old people rot is a real budget stretcher, but at what
cost to a nation's soul?
.
"Maybe Grandma would be better off with painkillers than surgery."
B. Obama.
.
> AmeriKKKan insurance companies have a license to steal with little or no competition in many areas,>
And the Democrats refusal to address that issue is a large reason
Republicans refused to support ObamaCare. No kidding, why are the
Democrats so adamant in their refusal for this common sense solution -
to allow ALL insurance companies to compete on a level playing field?
.
> and the unrestrained ability to refuse or cancel people in order to keep profits hight. >
Canceling insurance for people with catastrophic medical needs is VERY
illegal.
.
> HMOs (health
> maintenance organizations) are a cruel fraud -- imposing additional
> bureaucracy between doctors and patients and offering no real benefit
> at all. Such grotesque abuses must be ended!
Do you know who first pushed HMOs? Ted Kennedy. HMOs were presented
with virtually the same promises that ObamaCare is currently making.
HMOs were supposed to cut bureaucracy, increase care, increase doctor
time....
ChasNemo
You arrogant horse's ass.
ChasNemo
> .> Indeed! �AmeriKKKa spends double the percentage (16%) of its GNP on
> > healthcare, compared to other developed countries (8%). >
>
> .
> Because other "developed countries" have a bad habit of allowing the
> most expensively sick, and the old, to die - that portion of the
> populartioin consumes the majority of America's medical resources..
> Yes, letting old people rot is a real budget stretcher, but at what
> cost to a nation's soul?
Got proof? No? Thought not. <snicker>
> .
> "Maybe Grandma would be better off with painkillers than surgery."
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � B. Obama.
Another lie from Valley Girl. <snicker>
> .>�AmeriKKKan insurance companies have a license to steal with little or no competition in many areas,>
>
> .
> And the Democrats refusal to address that issue is a large reason
> Republicans refused to support ObamaCare. �No kidding, why are the
> Democrats so adamant in their refusal for this common sense solution -
> to allow ALL insurance companies to compete on a level playing field?
The public option would offer real competition. UPS and other
delivery companies are forced to keep prices low because of the
efficient USPS, which has been around a long time.
Why make health care a profit operation anyway?
> .> and the unrestrained ability to refuse or cancel people in order to keep profits hight. >
> .
> Canceling insurance for people with catastrophic medical needs is VERY
> illegal.
Prove it.
> .>�HMOs (health
> > maintenance organizations) are a cruel fraud -- imposing additional
> > bureaucracy between doctors and patients and offering no real benefit
> > at all. �Such grotesque abuses must be ended!
> .
> Do you know who first pushed HMOs? �Ted Kennedy. �HMOs were presented
> with virtually the same promises that ObamaCare is currently making.
> HMOs were supposed to cut bureaucracy, increase care, increase doctor
> time....
HMO's have worked out badly regardless of how they originated.
ChasNemo
More bullshit from Valley Girl. Please cite comparative poll numbers
and how they were conducted. If identical polling techniques weren't
used, they different polls can't be compared.
ChasNemo
> .> > > A Bluedog Democrat is basically a ReThuglyKKKan. Impossible to tell
> > > > the difference.
> .
> > > That's exactly the sort of thinking which will force the Democrats
> > > back into the wilderness for the next hundred years.
>.
> (crickets)
Wow, now Valley Girl's insane predictions reach 100 years into the
future. <snicker>
Nelson may be all that. I never said he's "a gapped tooth hill-billy"
though. You're likely just projecting. <snicker>
The CIA has lied about many things to many presidents, and the
military is biased to favor war too.
> > > .> > Unique - except for the bribe sent to the Unions.
> .
> > > > > for his state's citizens was a necessary compromise (BRIBE) --
> > > > > repulsive but necessary for the greater good.>
> .
> > > > > There's never been a fascist dictator in world history who didn't
> > > > > excuse their bullying tactics as "necessary for the greater good."
> .
> > > > How do you define "bribery sent to the Unions"?
> .
> > > They don't have to pay taxes on their Cadillac healthcare plans as
> > > other Americans do.
> .
> > Who are the "other AmeriKKKans"?
> .
> I have no idea of any AmericiKKKans.
So you lied. KKKased KKKlosed, Valley Girl.
ChasNemo
> On Jan 28, 6:00�pm, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 27, 11:35 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > .> Strict voting along party lines just means that 100% of
> > > > > > ReThuglyKKKans oppose progress. >
> > > .
> > > > > No, strict party line vote is the only reasonable response to a bill
> > > > > that Democrats demand be voted on sight unseen.
> > > .
> > > > You can make excuse you choose for ReThuglyKKKans' sour grapes refusal
> > > > to cooperate with the majority party.
>
> > > .
> > > "Sour grapes"? Try "cracking out the Champagne." We just won New
> > > Jersey, Virginia and Ted Kennedy's old seat. 69% of the American
> > > people are against this bill, which is why in the Generic
> > > Congressional races, Republicans currently enjoy a 9 point advantage.
> > > in 1994, we had a two point lead.
> .
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPiNIzSM3RQ
> .
> > You must be smoking crack as you swill your cheap champagne. >
>
> .
> I must be mad for depending on empirical evendence instead of your
> shrill rants.
Three elections is empirical evidence allowing you to see ahead as
much as 100 years as you claimed in an earlier message? You must be
wearing a super duper tin foil hat! <snicker>
> >�A few election wins don't amount to much. >
>
> Three elections.
>
> One being Ted Kennedy's seat.
>
> Won with a 36 point rise in three weeks.
>
> AND OBAMA CAMPAIGNED FOR ALL OF THEM.
>
> EVERYONE OBAMA CAMPAIGNED FOR, WENT DOWN IN FLAMES.
ONE SENATE SEAT!.
> 69% of the American people want ObamaCare just dropped.
>
> Obama refuses to listen to the American people.
Poll by who conducted how?
> In the Generic Congressional races, Republicans currently enjoy a 9
> point advantage.
>
> In 1994, we had a two point lead.
Currently is not November.
> Unemployment rate shows strong signs of creeping even higher.
That's gthe Bu$h trickle down effect of his bankrupt financial
policy. That takes awhile to correct.
> The stock market has been tanking.
Banks still haven't been reined in.
> Last night, Obama, at best, insulted, and at worst, threatened, the
> Supreme Court. �He did so on internatioinal television ... and did so
> to their faces.
Great! The Supreme Court undid 100 years of stare decisis (settled
case law) and ruled more broadly that needed. The Supremes equated
corporations totally to people. That's absurd on its face, since
corporations live forever (unless charters are revoked). Further, why
give foreign corporations the same rights as U.S. corporations?
President Obama merely called for Congress to undo the Supremes'
travesting by passing corrective legislation. If the Supremes felt
insulted, it was their own fault!
> I used to think that 2010 was going to be a recap of 1994.
>
> I might have been wrong - this is shaping up to be a repeat of 1974.
Wow, now you're reaching back 35 years to different facts. Your
insanity knows no bounds, Valley Girl. <snicker>
> .>�Democrats control the White House
> > for at least 3 and likely 7 more years.>
> .
> I'm not sure where you come across with Obama being "likely" to win in
> 2012. �Hell, I'm not even sure he'll win the nomination.
At least you're not sure about SOMETHING. <snicker>
> >��Democrats still have substantial majorities in both Houses.
> .
> For 38 more weeks. In the coming weeks, the various campaigns will
> begin, and the Democrats will be FORCED to talk to their
> constituents. �No more having Union Thugs shout down people at Town
> Hall meetings. �Their condescending attitudes will be addressed.
The thugs shoting at town hall meetings were rightards ("teabaggers"}.
> >�One Senate seat and two governorships mean nothing at the federal level and little at the
> > state level.
>
> 38 weeks is not a lot of time
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na6ttUVrH0
38 weeks is plenty of time to expose you rightards even more broadly.
Gospel.
ChasNemo
> .> > > Bill drafters worked out finances to net cost $100 billion/year for
> > > > the first 10 years.
> .
> > > And how do they do that? By not having any expense the first four
> > > years of that Decade.
> .
> > That may change,...>
> .
> That's about the only aspect of ObamaCare that makes any sense
> whatsoever. �It's unfair, will cripple the economy, and make
> healthcare much worse, but it's the only part of the bill I've seen
> that at least acknowledges the disaster that is ObamaCare.
Everything crippling was done during the Bu$h regime -- doubling the
national debt, launching two wars, giving unsupportable tax cuts to
the rich, tanking the economy, etc. ad nauseum.
> .> but obviously those crafting the bills are working
> > out the financial aspects carefully.
> .
> No, they're throwing sit against the wall and hoping something
> sticks. �This is why the bill is written under the cover of darkness,
> and without debate. �Remember "debate"? �The thing Obama promised for
> the bill? �He promised that it would be written on CSPAN?
The bill has been and is being debated vigorously, which is good.
> >�Health care reform clearly is needed,
> .
> Not to 69% of the American people, it's not. Certainly not with the
> bill that exists now.
More education will correct any misunderstandings. That's underway.
Your poll source is rightarded anyway as I've shown
> .>..... but after so many decades of rightarded opposition to delay it, it's going to take awhile to implement it.>
> .
> You don't get it, do you? �It's almost certainly dead.
Your brain is what's dead.
> It's dead because the Democrats wanted to humiliate the Republicans.
> You wanted socialized medicine, something the American people didn't.
>
> You could have passed a Health Care Bill with the Republicans easily,
> if the bill included the following:
>
> 1. �Tort Reform.
> 2. �Extending COBRA �indefinately.
> 3. �Allowing insurance companies to compete nationally.
1. Tort reform means allowing tortfeasors (doctors committing
malpractice) to escape punishment. Studies have shown that
malpractice awards account for only a small portion of medical
expenses.
2. COBRA merely allows insurance companies to continue to gouge
consumers. A public option will provide real competition. Why are
you so afraid of real competition.
3. Insurance companies are exempt from antitrust laws (another
problem). States decide insurance requirements now, but real
competition isn't available in many states or regions. A public
option will provide real competition. Why are you so afraid of real
competition?
> A bill based around those three reforms would have worked - it would
> have provided better and cheaper care. �But Obama decided to play to
> the Democrat shaved apes, and instead has to resort to the sleaziest
> of all tactics to shove through reconciliation - and if you think the
> Democrats are hated now, wait until Obama tries to take over 1/6 of
> the US economy on 50 votes.
Those three "reforms" would be merely more surrender to insurance
companies as I've proven above.
> .>Relax and go with the flow.
>
> Admittedly, it will be a lot of fun to see the Democrats crash and
> burn.
You really need to lay off the bong, Valley Girl.
leonox1
Was it nothing when Scott Brown stopped Obama Care?
leonox1
> The public option would offer real competition. UPS and other
> delivery companies are forced to keep prices low because of the
> efficient USPS, which has been around a long time.
>
LOL.Forgive me for being blunt, but that is one of the *dumbest*
things I have ever heard.
You can't be serious.
bvallely
Sorry, but it's true. Hell, it might even be a smart investment. For
a 24 year old just starting out in the workplace, an argument can be
made for rolling the dice and doing without health insurance. They're
young, and the odds are against them getting ill. That's why many
don't have health insurance: They don't want to be bothered.
bvallely
Here ya go. Now crawl under your rock and pout.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125327/Majority-Favors-Suspending-Work-Healthcare-Bill.aspx
bvallely
> The CIA has lied about many things to many presidents, and the
> military is biased to favor war too.
.
How is it that President Bush, who took office in 2001, was able to
supply President Clinton with false information in 1998?
bvallely
(to the tune of "The Twelve Days of Christmas)
One Senate Seat
Two Governorships
Six retired Democrats
10 Democrat seats in play
Scott just 36 points in three weeks.
Obama's down to 44%
69% oppose ObamaCare.....
And 2010 Republican majority
> > 69% of the American people want ObamaCare just dropped.
.
> > Obama refuses to listen to the American people.
.
> Poll by who ....>
.
CNN/Gallap
.
>conducted how?
.
Read em and weep.
.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/26/cnn-poll-half-say-start-anew-on-health-care-bill/
.
.
> > In the Generic Congressional races, Republicans currently enjoy a 9
> > point advantage.
.
> > In 1994, we had a two point lead.
.
> Currently is not November.
.
That's the sort of things people who are trailing and falling further
behind write.
.
> > Unemployment rate shows strong signs of creeping even higher.
.
> That's gthe Bu$h trickle down effect of his bankrupt financial
> policy. That takes awhile to correct.
.
When the Democrats won both Houses in 2006, unemployment was 4.6%.
Today, it's still in the double digits. The last budget written and
signed by the Republicans was 187 billion dollars. After three years
of the Democrats controlling spending, it's increased a ten fold, and
is now in the trillions.
.
So, let me ask you something, punk: Is America better off now than it
was three years ago?
.
> > The stock market has been tanking.
.
> Banks still haven't been reined in.
.
If only the Democrats could run a complete police state, everyone
would be happy, huh?
.
> > Last night, Obama, at best, insulted, and at worst, threatened, the
> > Supreme Court. He did so on international television ... and did so
> > to their faces.
.
> Great! The Supreme Court undid 100 years of stare decisis (settled
> case law)
.
They did the same with Brown v. The Board of Education. What THAT an
outrage, too?
.
>.... and ruled more broadly that needed. >
.
Awwwwwwwwww - a case didn't turn out the way you wanted. What are you
going to do, crybaby? Cry?
.
> The Supremes equated corporations totally to people.>
.
They have for the past hundred years - the only difference is that
they gave SOME corporations rights, while withholding it from others.
Please explain why the billion dollar corporation which prints the New
York Times is allowed to express any political opinion they like,
whenever they like, while a Pennsylvanian coal company is forbidden to
buy an ad in the New York Times to explain why the President is wrong
on his coal policy.
.
> That's absurd on its face,>
.
What's absurd about it? Corporations are not magic balls of flashing
lights, but people who have agreed to work together. Why should these
people lose their free speech rights?
> since
> corporations live forever (unless charters are revoked). >
.
Live forever, say you? Please list a dozen corporations that have
existed a thousand years, and put that list right here
---------------------------------->
.
> Further, why give foreign corporations the same rights as U.S. corporations?
.
Because they already, defacto, have it. Mexican billionaire Carlos
Slim has been buying the New York Times, brick at a time, for the past
several years - HE'S allowed to publish whatever he likes, but Wal-
Mart is not allowed to buy an ad from the Times to oposse an increase
in the minimum wage. What kind of sense does THAT make?
.
> President Obama merely called for Congress to undo the Supremes'
> travesting by passing corrective legislation. >
.
No, that was a slap to the judicial branch of the United States of
Ameica. The President meant it, the Supreme Court got the message
loud and clear, and Obama just made his life far more difficult for no
other reason than he was pissed off and felt like venting..
.
>.... If the Supremes felt insulted, it was their own fault!
.
I hope you still think this was funny after losing a series of close
SC decisions.
.
> > I used to think that 2010 was going to be a recap of 1994.
.
> > I might have been wrong - this is shaping up to be a repeat of 1974.
.
> Wow, now you're reaching back 35 years to different facts. Your
> insanity knows no bounds, Valley Girl. <snicker>
.
What is it with the left and their very shallow knowledge of history?
.
> > .> Democrats control the White House
> > > for at least 3 and likely 7 more years.>
.
> > I'm not sure where you come across with Obama being "likely" to win in
> > 2012. Hell, I'm not even sure he'll win the nomination.
.
> At least you're not sure about SOMETHING. <snicker>
.
Mind you, I hope that lox wins - it will assure a Republican White
House.
.
> > > Democrats still have substantial majorities in both Houses.
.
> > For 38 more weeks. In the coming weeks, the various campaigns will
> > begin, and the Democrats will be FORCED to talk to their
> > constituents. No more having Union Thugs shout down people at Town
> > Hall meetings. Their condescending attitudes will be addressed.
.
> The thugs shoting at town hall meetings were rightards ("teabaggers"}.
.
Yes, the Democrats pissed off Americans - now, somehow, they have to
win the votes of people they spent the last year insulting. This is
going to be fun.
.
> > > One Senate seat and two governorships mean nothing at the federal level and little at the
> > > state level.
.
> > 38 weeks is not a lot of time
.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na6ttUVrH0
.
> 38 weeks is plenty of time to expose you rightards even more broadly.
.
It might be ... if Obama knew what the Hell is was doing. Sadly, he's
proven himself to be an incompetent fool who's surrounded himself with
a confederacy of dunces. And the saddest part? He's squandered an
historic opportunity to please fools like, well, yourself.
.
> Gospel.
.
I know that you think that you're being cute by ending what you write
with the word "Gospel" - all you're doing is alienating Christian
independents. I'm sure doing that makes you giggle, but it costs the
Dems votes.
ChasNemo
Yo, Valley Girl, you're full of shit. For every wastrel that wastes
essential money on a plasma TV, there are plenty of sick and/or old
folks who need affordable health care. Sick and/or old people don't
have the energy or the interest to waste on electronic doodads.
Further, most younger people are responsible enough to know that they
need to have health insurance rather than consumer crap. You're
merely projecting your own lifestyle onto others. Asshole.
ChasNemo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Any fool can find a quick-and-dirty poll that supports something. We
were talking about the rightarded Rasmussen Reports, and then you ran
to CNN. Now it's Gallup from you. What happened to comparison of
Rasmussen and CNN? Where's your methodology comparison?
For example, Gallup surveyed only 1,010 people. Further, Gallup
admits: "In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical
difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into
the findings of public opinion polls. Polls conducted entirely in one
day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not
found in polls conducted over several days."
Want to try again? <snicker>
bvallely
> > That's about the only aspect of ObamaCare that makes any sense
> > whatsoever. It's unfair, will cripple the economy, and make
> > healthcare much worse, but it's the only part of the bill I've seen
> > that at least acknowledges the disaster that is ObamaCare.
.
> Everything crippling was done during the Bu$h regime -->
It's Bush's fault. Come on, everyone, remember how much fun we used
to have hating Bush?
>. doubling the national debt,>
.
Obama's deficit spending makes Bush look like nothing.
.
> launching two wars,>
.
Which kept America safe. Why do you think Obama never pulled out?
.
> giving unsupportable tax cuts to
> the rich, tanking the economy, etc. ad nauseum.
.
When the Democrats took over both houses in 2006, unemployment was
4.6%. Today it's in the double digits.
.
> > .> but obviously those crafting the bills are working
> > > out the financial aspects carefully.
.
> > No, they're throwing shit against the wall and hoping something
> > sticks. This is why the bill is written under the cover of darkness,
> > and without debate. Remember "debate"? The thing Obama promised for
> > the bill? He promised that it would be written on CSPAN?
.
> The bill has been and is being debated vigorously, which is good.
.
It's being debated right now? Where, exactly?
.
> > > Health care reform clearly is needed,
.
> > Not to 69% of the American people, it's not. Certainly not with the
> > bill that exists now.
.
> More education will correct any misunderstandings.>
.
There are no misunderstandings. Americans know exactly what kind of
stunts you guys are trying to pull. Last summer, 75 percent of
Americans supported ObamaCare. As Americans learned what was ACTUALLY
in the monstrosity, they turned against the bill with a passion.
This is why the Democrats are going to lose both Houses in 38 weeks.
.
> Your poll source is rightarded anyway as I've shown
.
CNN is rightwing? Really?
.
> > .>..... but after so many decades of rightarded opposition to delay it, it's going to take awhile to implement it.>
.
> > It's dead because the Democrats wanted to humiliate the Republicans.
> > You wanted socialized medicine, something the American people didn't.
.
> > You could have passed a Health Care Bill with the Republicans easily,
> > if the bill included the following:
.
> > 1. Tort Reform.
> > 2. Extending COBRA indefinately.
> > 3. Allowing insurance companies to compete nationally.
.
> 1. Tort reform means allowing tortfeasors (doctors committing
> malpractice) to escape punishment. >
.
Nope. We have tort reform in California - and the way it works here
is that a doctor who committed malpractice is responsible for medical
care for the person he was wronged. That portion is unlimited. It's
the "pain and suffering" angle that restricted to a "mere" quarter of
a million dollars.
.
> Studies have shown that
> malpractice awards account for only a small portion of medical
> expenses.
You mean studies by people like MIT economist Jonathan Gruber? Yeah,
he provided a LOT of info to support ObamaCare. It seems almost
churlish to point out that Johnny was paid almost $300,000 by the
Obama Administration for "special studies and analysis" of the health
care bills,
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/prominent_voice_in_health_care.php
> 2. COBRA merely allows insurance companies to continue to gouge
> consumers.>
.
No, it allows people to stay insured in the policy they like.
.
> A public option will provide real competition. >
.
No, its purpose is to DESTROY competition.
.
> Why are
> you so afraid of real competition.>
.
I favor competition strongly.... that is why I'm against ObamaCare.
.
> 3. Insurance companies are exempt from antitrust laws (another
> problem). States decide insurance requirements now, but real
> competition isn't available in many states or regions.
.
I have no idea what you're trying to say? Do you claim that insurance
companies DON'T want to service all of the country?
.
> > A bill based around those three reforms would have worked - it would
> > have provided better and cheaper care. But Obama decided to play to
> > the Democrat shaved apes, and instead has to resort to the sleaziest
> > of all tactics to shove through reconciliation - and if you think the
> > Democrats are hated now, wait until Obama tries to take over 1/6 of
> > the US economy on 50 votes.
.
> Those three "reforms" would be merely more surrender to insurance
> companies as I've proven above.
.
You've proven nothing. You've simply repeated threadbare arguments
that America has rejected.
.
> > .>Relax and go with the flow.
.
> > Admittedly, it will be a lot of fun to see the Democrats crash and
> > burn.
.
> You really need to lay off the bong, Valley Girl.
ChasNemo
Obviously you can't read OR think. I never said Bu$h provided Clinton
with false information in 1998. Try reading what I said again. Mouth
the syllables one by one if you need to do that. Here's what I said
again: "The CIA has lied about many things to many presidents, and the
military is biased to favor war too." CIA/military advice has
misinformed many presidents, including Johnson on Vietnam. Got it
now, Valley Girl?
ChasNemo
You'll never cut it in the world of xmas tunes any more than you have
in the world of political debate, Valley Girl. <snicker>
> > > 69% of the American people want ObamaCare just dropped.
> .
> > > Obama refuses to listen to the American people.
> .
> > Poll by who ....>
>
> .
> CNN/Gallap
> .>conducted how?
> Read em and weep.
> .http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/26/cnn-poll-half-say-sta...
ONLY HALF say start anew in CNN, and methodology is as flawed as it
was for Gallup. Want to try some more?
> .> > In the Generic Congressional races, Republicans currently enjoy a 9
> > > point advantage.
> .
> > > In 1994, we had a two point lead.
> .
> > Currently is not November.
>
> .
> That's the sort of things people who are trailing and falling further
> behind write.
Polls are cited by election losers like you, Valley Girl. It's all
you've got going for you other than one Senate seat and several state
offices. You ignore the whupping that rightards took in New York
Congressional election when their preferred candidate quit in disgust.
> .> > Unemployment rate shows strong signs of creeping even higher.
> .
> > That's the Bu$h trickle down effect of his bankrupt financial
> > policy. �That takes awhile to correct.
> .
> When the Democrats won both Houses in 2006, unemployment was 4.6%.
> Today, it's still in the double digits. The last budget written and
> signed by the Republicans was 187 billion dollars. �After three years
> of the Democrats controlling spending, it's increased a ten fold, and
> is now in the trillions.
Everyone knows that a president's first budget is inherited from his
predecessor. Clinton passed a SURPLUS to Bu$h. Bu$h passed a $1.4
trillion deficit to Obama. Democrats didn't have in 2006 and still
don't have the solid majority needed to pass progressive legislation,
and so the GOPee has become THE PARTY OF NO.
.
> So, let me ask you something, punk: �Is America better off now than it
> was three years ago?
AmeriKKKa became better the very microsecond that the Bu$h/Cheney
KKKrime Family left office in defeat, and its spendthrift,
warmongering agenda was derailed. Gospel.
> .> > The stock market has been tanking.
> .
> > Banks still haven't been reined in.
> .
> If only the Democrats could run a complete police state, everyone
> would be happy, huh?
There you go with your wild exaggerations again. <snicker> Banks
have been running wild with CDO's and other irresponsible behavior.
Their CEOs have admitted it.
> .> > Last night, Obama, at best, insulted, and at worst, threatened, the
> > > Supreme Court. He did so on international television ... and did so
> > > to their faces.
> .
> > Great! �The Supreme Court undid 100 years of stare decisis (settled
> > case law)
> .
> They did the same with Brown v. The Board of Education. �What THAT an
> outrage, too?
How do you compare Brown to corporate contributions? Brown dealt with
fairness among AmeriKKKans. The new Supremes ruling opens the
floodgates to influence by foreign corporations!
> .>.... and ruled more broadly than needed. >
> .
> Awwwwwwwwww - a case didn't turn out the way you wanted. �What are you
> going to do, crybaby? �Cry?
Obviously your knowledge of law is as defective as your political
information and polls. Courts typically rule only on specific facts.
> .>�The Supremes equated corporations totally to people.>
> .
> They have for the past hundred years - the only difference is that
> they gave SOME corporations rights, while withholding it from others.
> Please explain why the billion dollar corporation which prints the New
> York Times is allowed to express any political opinion they like,
> whenever they like, while a Pennsylvanian coal company is forbidden to
> buy an ad in the New York Times to explain why the President is wrong
> on his coal policy.
Buying elections is radically different than expressing opinions.
.
> �>�That's absurd on its face,>
> .
> What's absurd about it? �Corporations are not magic balls of flashing
> lights, but people who have agreed to work together. �Why should these
> people lose their free speech rights?
Corporations are groups of RICH people who work to steal everything
that isn't nailed down and pollute what's left. Bank trashing of the
economy and coal company opposition to contrrol of climate changing
pollutant carbon dioxide are solid proof of both points!
> > since corporations live forever (unless charters are revoked). >
> .
> Live forever, say you? �Please list a dozen corporations that have
> existed a thousand years, and put that list right here
There you go again with your extreme projections. AmeriKKKa has
existed only 200+ years, and there are many corporations that have
existed for 100+ years -- far longer than all by a handful of humans.
Try to deal with facts and context rather than running with silly
exaggerations that make you look ever more foolish.
> ---------------------------------->
> .>�Further, why give foreign corporations the same rights as U.S. corporations?
> .
> Because they already, defacto, have it. �Mexican billionaire Carlos
> Slim has been buying the New York Times, brick at a time, for the past
> several years - HE'S allowed to publish whatever he likes, but Wal-
> Mart is not allowed to buy an ad from the Times to oposse an increase
> in the minimum wage. �What kind of sense does THAT make?
So you want to cement de facto foreign corporate power into law (de
jure)? Why don't you just sign over AmeriKKKa to China the way
ReThuglyKKKans began to do as they doubled the national debt (much of
which was bought by China)? See also my point above -- there's a huge
difference between buying elections with corporate contributions, and
merely expressing opinions.
> .> President Obama merely called for Congress to undo the Supremes'
> > travesting by passing corrective legislation.
> .
> No, that was a slap to the judicial branch of the United States of
> Ameica. �The President meant it, the Supreme Court got the message
> loud and clear, and Obama just made his life far more difficult for no
> other reason than he was pissed off and felt like venting.
As I said earlier, if calling for legislative reform is a slap, then
it was deserved. An even bigger slap to the Supremes was appropriate
for their thwarting of the 2000 Florida vote recount. President Obama
is a Harvard Law School graduate who taught Constitutional Law at the
University of Chicago and is well qualified to express views on the
Supremes' error in broadening corporate contribution rights!
> .>....�If the Supremes felt insulted, it was their own fault!
>
> .
> I hope you still think this was funny after losing a series of close
> SC decisions.
There you go with projections again. Facts? No? Thought not.
<snicker>
> .> > I used to think that 2010 was going to be a recap of 1994.
> .
> > > I might have been wrong - this is shaping up to be a repeat of 1974.
> .
> > Wow, now you're reaching back 35 years to different facts. �Your
> > insanity knows no bounds, Valley Girl. �<snicker>
>
> .
> What is it with the left and their very shallow knowledge of history?
What is with rightards and your constant attempts to dodge current
truth?
> .> > .> Democrats control the White House
> > > > for at least 3 and likely 7 more years.>
> .
> > > I'm not sure where you come across with Obama being "likely" to win in
> > > 2012. Hell, I'm not even sure he'll win the nomination.
> .
> > At least you're not sure about SOMETHING. �<snicker>
> .
> Mind you, I hope that lox wins - it will assure a Republican White
> House.
Explain.
> .> > > Democrats still have substantial majorities in both Houses.
> .
> > > For 38 more weeks. In the coming weeks, the various campaigns will
> > > begin, and the Democrats will be FORCED to talk to their
> > > constituents. No more having Union Thugs shout down people at Town
> > > Hall meetings. Their condescending attitudes will be addressed.
> .
> > The thugs shoting at town hall meetings were rightards ("teabaggers"}.
> .
> Yes, the Democrats pissed off Americans - now, somehow, they have to
> win the votes of people they spent the last year insulting. �This is
> going to be fun.
So you ADMIT that town hall shouters were teabaggers rather than
unions! Shame on you, liar!
> .> > > One Senate seat and two governorships mean nothing at the federal level and little at the
> > > > state level.
> .
> > > 38 weeks is not a lot of time
> .
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na6ttUVr0
> .
> > 38 weeks is plenty of time to expose you rightards even more broadly.
> .
> It might be ... if Obama knew what the Hell is was doing. �Sadly, he's
> proven himself to be an incompetent fool who's surrounded himself with
> a confederacy of dunces. � And the saddest part? �He's squandered an
> historic opportunity to please fools like, well, yourself.
President Obama has trusted too many rightards. He needs more
progressive liberals. Democrats in Congress are making that clear.
> .> Gospel.
>
> I know that you think that you're being cute by ending what you write
> with the word "Gospel" - all you're doing is alienating Christian
> independents. �I'm sure doing that makes you giggle, but it costs the
> Dems votes.
BFD. Xtian independents are braindead crypto fascists. Religious
beliefs are no subsitute for facts and decency. Gospel.
ChasNemo
> .> > That's about the only aspect of ObamaCare that makes any sense
> > > whatsoever. It's unfair, will cripple the economy, and make
> > > healthcare much worse, but it's the only part of the bill I've seen
> > > that at least acknowledges the disaster that is ObamaCare.
> .
> > Everything crippling was done during the Bu$h regime -->
>
> .
> It's Bush's fault. �Come on, everyone, remember how much fun we used
> to have hating Bush?
We're still having fun hating the Bu$h/Cheney KKKrime Family. It did
serious, longlasting harm to AmeriKKKa and the world -- WMD lies,
bogus Iraq War, tanked economy, etc. ad nauseum. Naturally you
rightarded whores want to try to ignore it. No such luck! <snicker>
> >. doubling the �national debt,>
>
> Obama's deficit spending makes Bush look like nothing.
Obama inherited his $1.4 trillion deficit from Bu$h. GAWD but you are
both ignorant AND sleazy, Valley Girl!
> .> launching two wars,>
> .
> Which kept America safe. �Why do you think Obama never pulled out?
Iraq was no threat, as Bu$h would have learned if he'd waited for the
UN to finish its inspections. Bu$h made AmeriKKKa LESS SAFE by
diverting attention to Iraq. Bu$h also committed fatal error by
killing countless Iraqis and Afghanis while letting OBL slip away.
President Obama will pull out of those sure losers. It's just taking
awhile.
> .> giving unsupportable tax cuts to
> > the rich, tanking the economy, etc. ad nauseum.
> .
> When the Democrats took over both houses in 2006, unemployment was
> 4.6%. �Today it's in the double digits.
That's the Bu$h legacy. Democrats haven't had real control of both
Houses yet, and you know it.
> > > .> but obviously those crafting the bills are working
> > > > out the financial aspects carefully.
> .
> > > No, they're throwing shit against the wall and hoping something
> > > sticks. This is why the bill is written under the cover of darkness,
> > > and without debate. Remember "debate"? The thing Obama promised for
> > > the bill? He promised that it would be written on CSPAN?
> .
> > The bill has been and is being debated vigorously, which is good.
>
> .
> It's being debated right now? �Where, exactly?
Can you read newspapers? Do you have a small B/W teevee in your
single wide, Valley Girl?
> .> > > Health care reform clearly is needed,
> .
> > > Not to 69% of the American people, it's not. Certainly not with the
> > > bill that exists now.
We've already hammered the methodology of your shifting polls.
<snicker>
> > More education will correct any misunderstandings.>
> .
> There are no misunderstandings. �Americans know exactly what kind of
> stunts you guys are trying to pull. �Last summer, 75 percent of
> Americans supported ObamaCare. �As Americans learned what was ACTUALLY
> in the monstrosity, they turned against the bill with a passion.
Obviously you know nothing because you've said you haven't read the
bills. ReThuglyKKKans ware running a misinformation and shouting
campaign against health care reform because they're merely whoring for
the insurance industry!
> This is why the Democrats are going to lose both Houses in 38 weeks.
> .> Your poll source is rightarded anyway as I've shown
> .
> CNN is rightwing? �Really?
We were talking about Rasmussen Reports. You shifted to Gallup,. and
I demonstrated flawed polling methodology. You shifted to CNN, which
shows only HALF oppose the current bills and also has differnet
methodology. You can pimp any flawed poll you choose, and I can knock
it down.
> .> > .>..... but after so many decades of rightarded opposition to delay it, it's going to take awhile to implement it.>
>
> > > It's dead because the Democrats wanted to humiliate the Republicans.
> > > You wanted socialized medicine, something the American people didn't.
Democrats want decent healthcare for everyone. ReThuglyKKKans
humiliate themselves by opposing that.
> > > You could have passed a Health Care Bill with the Republicans easily,
> > > if the bill included the following:
> .
> > > 1. Tort Reform.
> > > 2. Extending COBRA indefinately.
> > > 3. Allowing insurance companies to compete nationally.
> .
> > 1. Tort reform means allowing tortfeasors (doctors committing
> > malpractice) to escape punishment. >
> .
> Nope. �We have tort reform in California - and the way it works here
> is that a doctor who committed malpractice is responsible for medical
> care for the person he was wronged. �That portion is unlimited. �It's
> the "pain and suffering" angle that restricted to a "mere" quarter of
> a million dollars.
Pain and suffering limits in other states such as Ohio have been cut
to as little as $5,000. That's not justice. It's unfair to limit a
jury's ability to really punish tortfeasors (doctors committing
malpractice).
> >�Studies have shown that
> > malpractice awards account for only a small portion of medical
> > expenses.
>
> You mean studies by people like MIT economist Jonathan Gruber? �Yeah,
> he provided a LOT of info to support ObamaCare. �It seems almost
> churlish to point out that Johnny was paid almost $300,000 by the
> Obama Administration for "special studies and analysis" of the health
> care bills,
>
> http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/prminent_voice_...
You haven't shown inaccuracy of the FACT that malpractice awards
account for only a small portion of medical expenses. You're merely
whoring for the medical and insurance industry which wants to avoid
punishment for its errors.
> > 2. COBRA merely allows insurance companies to continue to gouge
> > consumers.>
> .
> No, it allows people to stay insured in the policy they like.
People don't "like" current insurance. They're stuck with it, even
though its overpriced. COBRA merely prevents a complete cut-off for
18 months when people lose jobs.
> .> �A public option will provide real competition. >
> .
> No, its purpose is to DESTROY competition.
No, public option has the insurance industry scared that it'll lose
its cosy price fixing status. Recall that antitrust laws don't apply.
> .>�Why are you so afraid of real competition.>
> .
> I favor competition strongly.... that is why I'm against ObamaCare.
Public option is competition. See above.
> .> 3. Insurance companies are exempt from antitrust laws (another
> > problem). �States decide insurance requirements now, but real
> > competition isn't available in many states or regions.
> .
> I have no idea what you're trying to say? �Do you claim that insurance
> companies DON'T want to service all of the country?
Insurance companies can divide territories and fix prices without real
competition.
> .> > A bill based around those three reforms would have worked - it would
> > > have provided better and cheaper care. But Obama decided to play to
> > > the Democrat shaved apes, and instead has to resort to the sleaziest
> > > of all tactics to shove through reconciliation - and if you think the
> > > Democrats are hated now, wait until Obama tries to take over 1/6 of
> > > the US economy on 50 votes.
> .
> > Those three "reforms" would be merely more surrender to insurance
> > companies as I've proven above.
> .
> You've proven nothing. �You've simply repeated threadbare arguments
> that America has rejected.
You can't refute my arguments and so resort to attempted dismissal.
That doesn't cut it.
> .> > .>Relax and go with the flow.
> .
> > > Admittedly, it will be a lot of fun to see the Democrats crash and
> > > burn.
> .
> > You really need to lay off the bong, Valley Girl.
>
> .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5le9UmPmU
<yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn> That all you got?
bvallely
> On Jan 30, 4:02 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 5:35 pm, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 29, 2:59 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > .> >> Many folks can't afford provate insurance.>
> > > > .
> > > > > >And many more without insurance simply choose not to buy it.
> > > > .
> > > > > Because of the cost.
> > .
> > > > Yes they'd rather spend the money on plasma TVs.
> > .
> > > You arrogant horse's ass.
> > .
> > Sorry, but it's true. Hell, it might even be a smart investment. For
> > a 24 year old just starting out in the workplace, an argument can be
> > made for rolling the dice and doing without health insurance. They're
> > young, and the odds are against them getting ill. That's why many
> > don't have health insurance: They don't want to be bothered.
.
> Yo, Valley Girl, you're full of shit. For every wastrel that wastes
> essential money on a plasma TV, there are plenty of sick and/or old
> folks who need affordable health care. >
So, the mathematical equalization you use is "plenty", huh?
Hows that work, exactly?
If the number of heathy people without health insurance is "x", the
number of old people without insurance is, what? "plentyX"?
I'm not quite sure why any old American lacks health insurance. We
already have medicare to avoid that crisis.
> Sick and/or old people don't
> have the energy or the interest to waste on electronic doodads.
> Further, most younger people are responsible enough to know that they
> need to have health insurance rather than consumer crap. >
.
"The Young" are all responsible? Really? When did this major change
is human DNA take place? I seen to remember spending my early
twenties dividing my time between getting the cat high and filling a
55 gallon garbage bag will water, sealing it tightly, and along with
five other art students, rolling it off the top of an eight story
building to see what would happen. (Surprise - it bounced. Sounded
like a canon.)
Millions of young fit healthy Americans in their first jobs do not
require health insurance at this stage in their lives will be forced
to pay for coverage they neither want nor need.
OTOH, those Americans who have health plans Harry Reid determines to
be excessively “generous” will be subject to punitive taxes up to 40
percent.
OTOOH, if you’re the member of a union you’ll be exempt from that 40
percent shakedown.
OTOOOH, if you’re already enjoying government health care, well,
you’re 83 years old, you're going to get your benefits slashed.
OTOOOOH, ObamaCare leaves several million uninsured, the rest have
with worse treatment and reduced access, and the millions it makes pay
significantly more for their current health care
bvallely
> On Jan 29, 3:09 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > .> Indeed! AmeriKKKa spends double the percentage (16%) of its GNP on
> > > healthcare, compared to other developed countries (8%). >
>
> > .
> > Because other "developed countries" have a bad habit of allowing the
> > most expensively sick, and the old, to die - that portion of the
> > populartioin consumes the majority of America's medical resources..
> > Yes, letting old people rot is a real budget stretcher, but at what
> > cost to a nation's soul?
> Got proof?
.
Sure, right here.
.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html
.
> No? >
.
I didn't say "no". Here you go.
.
http://business-school-blog.elliottback.com/79/health-care-rationing-and-the-nhs-londons-troubling-precedent/
.
>Thought not. >
.
Doesn't that expression mean you're, well, brain dead?
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewanted=all
.
> > "Maybe she would be better off with painkillers than surgery."
> > B. Obama.
.
> Another lie from Valley Girl. <snicker>
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADydpgPktX0
.
> > .> AmeriKKKan insurance companies have a license to steal with little or no competition in many areas,>
.
> > And the Democrats refusal to address that issue is a large reason
> > Republicans refused to support ObamaCare. No kidding, why are the
> > Democrats so adamant in their refusal for this common sense solution -
> > to allow ALL insurance companies to compete on a level playing field?
.
> The public option would offer real competition. UPS and other
> delivery companies are forced to keep prices low because of the
> efficient USPS, which has been around a long time.
.
Exactly the opposit. During the Nixon administration, the post
service had become so unreliable that it became a national crisis.
Ever hear the joke "the check is in the mail?" Well, during the 70s,
that wasn't a joke - letters often took a month to go cross town, and
even then it was far from certain that the letter would ever arrive.
It became so desperate that Nixon allowed the creation of UPS and
FedEx.
You idea of "competition" is forcing people with insurance they like
to pay for the mandated insurance. Americans understand the shell
game you guys are attempting to play, and this is the reason that
ObamaCare is so unpopular.
.
> Why make health care a profit operation anyway?
.
Because we want the best minds in America to work in hospitals - not
the kind of people who currently infest the DMV.
.
> > .> and the unrestrained ability to refuse or cancel people in order to keep profits hight. >
.
> > Canceling insurance for people with catastrophic medical needs is VERY
> > illegal.
.
> Prove it.
.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996:
.
> > .> HMOs (health
> > > maintenance organizations) are a cruel fraud -- imposing additional
> > > bureaucracy between doctors and patients and offering no real benefit
> > > at all. Such grotesque abuses must be ended!
.
> > Do you know who first pushed HMOs? Ted Kennedy. HMOs were presented
> > with virtually the same promises that ObamaCare is currently making.
> > HMOs were supposed to cut bureaucracy, increase care, increase doctor
> > time....
.
> HMO's have worked out badly regardless of how they originated.
.
Just as ObamaCare is a disaster waiting to happen, no matter how
flowery the promised made.
bvallely
> On Jan 30, 4:05 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 5:40 pm, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 7:09 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > .> > > > > > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > > > > > > > > > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> > > > .
> > > > > > Tell me, if Rasmussen is nothing but a Republican shill, shouldn't
> > > > > > their negs for ObamaCare be even higher than CNN's?
> > > > .
> > > > > Good question. Did you ever get an answer?
> > .
> > > > Yeah, the answer I got was an over the shouted "oops, gotta go" and
> > > > Chase ran for the high grass.
> > .
> > > More bullshit from Valley Girl. Please cite comparative poll numbers
> > > and how they were conducted. If identical polling techniques weren't
> > > used, they different polls can't be compared.
>
> > Here ya go. Now crawl under your rock and pout.
>
.
> Any fool can find a quick-and-dirty poll that supports something.
And yet, such an action is beyond your limited abilities.
bvallely
> > It's Bush's fault. Come on, everyone, remember how much fun we used
> > to have hating Bush?
> We're still having fun hating the Bu$h/Cheney KKKrime Family.
The problem is the "we" you're referring to continues to grow smaller
and smaller every week.
.
> > >. doubling the national debt,>
> > Obama's deficit spending makes Bush look like nothing.
>
> Obama inherited his $1.4 trillion deficit from Bu$h
.
and signed by Obama.
.
> > .> launching two wars,>
.
> > Which kept America safe. Why do you think Obama never pulled out?
> Iraq was no threat,
.
The hell it wasn't. The fourth largest army in the world and had used
nukes on it's own people. There was a reason the UN unleashed 17
sanctions against your buddy.
.
> > .> giving unsupportable tax cuts to
> > > the rich, tanking the economy, etc. ad nauseum.
.
> > When the Democrats took over both houses in 2006, unemployment was
> > 4.6%. Today it's in the double digits.
.
> That's the Bu$h legacy. Democrats haven't had real control of both
> Houses yet, and you know it.
.
spending since 2006.
.
> > > > .> but obviously those crafting the bills are working
> > > > > out the financial aspects carefully.
.
> > > > No, they're throwing shit against the wall and hoping something
> > > > sticks. This is why the bill is written under the cover of darkness,
> > > > and without debate. Remember "debate"? The thing Obama promised for
> > > > the bill? He promised that it would be written on CSPAN?
.
> > > The bill has been and is being debated vigorously, which is good.
.
> > It's being debated right now? Where, exactly?
> Can you read newspapers? Do you have a small B/W teevee in your
> single wide, Valley Girl?
.
And I repeat, howzabout proving something that you claimed. Where,
EXACTLY, is the healthcare being debated right now?
ChasNemo
ChasNemo
Medicare only applies to old people over 65. There are plenty of old
people younger than 65 without health insurance, and almost 50 million
people overall. Not all of them are 24 years old as in your tiny
example. So you've hoisted yourself on your own petard yet again.
Moron.
> > Sick and/or old people don't
> > have the energy or the interest to waste on electronic doodads.
> > Further, most younger people are responsible enough to know that they
> > need to have health insurance rather than consumer crap. >
> .
> "The Young" are all responsible? Really? When did this major change
> is human DNA take place? I seen to remember spending my early
> twenties dividing my time between getting the cat high and filling a
> 55 gallon garbage bag will water, sealing it tightly, and along with
> five other art students, rolling it off the top of an eight story
> building to see what would happen. (Surprise - it bounced. Sounded
> like a canon.)
I said "MOST young people are responsible..." Emphasis added to
assist your poor reading and debating skills and your lack of logic.
Idiot.
> Millions of young fit healthy Americans in their first jobs do not
> require health insurance at this stage in their lives will be forced
> to pay for coverage they neither want nor need.
Everyone should be insured so that the rest of us don't get stuck in
long emergency room lines for uninsured people with minor illnesses,
and paying high costs for such care. Costs and inconvenience will be
lower overall, and those few who do get sick won't be ruined by high
medical costs.
> OTOH, those Americans who have health plans Harry Reid determines to
> be excessively “generous” will be subject to punitive taxes up to 40
> percent.
>
> OTOOH, if you’re the member of a union you’ll be exempt from that 40
> percent shakedown.
Only the rich will pay tax on deluxe plans. Union members aren't
rich, but neither are most AmeriKKKans. Congress determines the tax
-- not Reid alone. Your examples (like your poll citations) are
absurd, Valley Girl.
> OTOOOH, if you’re already enjoying government health care, well,
> you’re 83 years old, you're going to get your benefits slashed.
"Slashed"? Prove it. Can't? Thought not.
> OTOOOOH, ObamaCare leaves several million uninsured, the rest have
> with worse treatment and reduced access, and the millions it makes pay
> significantly more for their current health care
Health care will be cheaper overall for more AmeriKKKans. Everyone
will eventually be brought under the umbrella of socialized medicine.
Until then the few outside it can still get emergency room care as
under the current grossly expensive, inefficient and unfair system.
As mentioned several times, the overall abusrdity of the current
system is proven by the simple fact that AmeriKKKa pays twice as much
(16% of GNP) as other developed nations (8%).
You just can't refute REAL facts, can you? Lies, absurd examples and
biased polls are all you rightards have. Shame on you!
ChasNemo
> On Jan 30, 2:45�am, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 4:05 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 5:40 pm, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 29, 7:09 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > .> > > > > > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > > > > > > > > > > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> > > > > .
> > > > > > > Tell me, if Rasmussen is nothing but a Republican shill, shouldn't
> > > > > > > their negs for ObamaCare be even higher than CNN's?
> > > > > .
> > > > > > Good question. Did you ever get an answer?
> > > .
> > > > > Yeah, the answer I got was an over the shouted "oops, gotta go" and
> > > > > Chase ran for the high grass.
> > > .
> > > > More bullshit from Valley Girl. Please cite comparative poll numbers
> > > > and how they were conducted. If identical polling techniques weren't
> > > > used, they different polls can't be compared.
>
> > > Here ya go. Now crawl under your rock and pout.
>
> .
> > Any fool can find a quick-and-dirty poll that supports something.
> .
> And yet, such an action is beyond your limited abilities.
You've just suggested that I should become like you, i.e., "[a] fool
can find a quick-and-dirty poll that supports something." I'm not
going to respond to your biased polls with biased polls. I'm decent,
ethical and logical. You're simply not, Valley Girl. You're simply a
whore for the insurance companies.
ChasNemo
leonox1
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 7:09 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > .> > > > > > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > > > > > > > > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> > > .
> > > > > Tell me, if Rasmussen is nothing but a Republican shill, shouldn't
> > > > > their negs for ObamaCare be even higher than CNN's?
> > > .
> > > > Good question. Did you ever get an answer?
> .
> > > Yeah, the answer I got was an over the shouted "oops, gotta go" and
> > > Chase ran for the high grass.
> .
I predict he'll run away from the question.
> > More bullshit from Valley Girl. Please cite comparative poll numbers
> > and how they were conducted. If identical polling techniques weren't
> > used, they different polls can't be compared.
>
I rest my case.
> Here ya go. Now crawl under your rock and pout.
>
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/125327/Majority-Favors-Suspending-Work-Hea...
leonox1
> On Jan 30, 4:05 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Any fool can find a quick-and-dirty poll that supports something.
Really? OK, then, find a poll thaty says a majority of American
*support* ObamaCare.
Go ahead.
Any time now.
(Evasion predicted)
leonox1
> On Jan 30, 4:18 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 5:45 pm, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How is Bush responsible for what Clinton said in 1998?
> > .
> > > The CIA has lied about many things to many presidents, and the
> > > military is biased to favor war too.
>
> > .
> > Yeah, that's great.
>
> > How is it that President Bush, who took office in 2001, was able to
> > supply President Clinton with false information in 1998?
Let me guess: Bush had a super secret time machine he used to send
false information to Clinton.
>
> Obviously you can't read OR think. I never said Bu$h provided Clinton
> with false information in 1998.
(interesting now he's seen the time paradox, he backing off that claim
now)
>Try reading what I said again. Mouth
> the syllables one by one if you need to do that. Here's what I said
> again: "The CIA has lied about many things to many presidents, and the
> military is biased to favor war too." CIA/military advice has
> misinformed many presidents, including Johnson on Vietnam. Got it
> now, Valley Girl?
Hmm, my time machine response was more credible.
At first it was "Bush lied" - now it's the "CIA lied"
leonox1
> On Jan 30, 5:05 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > So, let me ask you something, punk: Is America better off now than it
> > was three years ago?
>
> AmeriKKKa became better the very microsecond that the Bu$h/Cheney
> KKKrime Family left office in defeat, and its spendthrift,
> warmongering agenda was derailed. Gospel.
>
Yes we are SO much better off with three times the deficit, 10%
unemployment, and wasted time and resources on a failed
ChasNemo
> On Jan 29, 5:38�pm, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 29, 3:09 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > .> Indeed! AmeriKKKa spends double the percentage (16%) of its GNP on
> > > > healthcare, compared to other developed countries (8%). >
>
> > > .
> > > Because other "developed countries" have a bad habit of allowing the
> > > most expensively sick, and the old, to die - that portion of the
> > > populartioin consumes the majority of America's medical resources..
> > > Yes, letting old people rot is a real budget stretcher, but at what
> > > cost to a nation's soul?
> .
> > Got proof?
> .
> Sure, right here.
> .http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html
You cited alleged UK practices while trying to prove that AmeriKKKa
will do the same thing. That's absurd on its face.
> .> �No? �>
> .
> I didn't say "no". �Here you go.
> .http://business-school-blog.elliottback.com/79/health-care-rationing-...
More UK bullshit that you're trying to use to smear President Obama.
<yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn>
> .>Thought not. >
> .
> Doesn't that expression mean you're, well, brain dead?
No, it means YOU'RE unable to support a rightarded claim of "death
panels" in the future U.S. That bullshit has been disclaimed by
President Obama. Why don't you READ the bills and try to find some
support for your B.S.? Can't? Thought not!
> .http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?pagewa...
What a college professor thinks is different than President Obama's
position. KKKase KKKlosed, Valley Girl. <snicker>
> > > "Maybe she would be better off with painkillers than surgery."
> > > B. Obama.
> .
> > Another lie from Valley Girl. �<snicker>
>
> .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADydpgPktX0
Your exact point is...?
> .> > .> AmeriKKKan insurance companies have a license to steal with little or no competition in many areas,>
> .
> > > And the Democrats refusal to address that issue is a large reason
> > > Republicans refused to support ObamaCare. No kidding, why are the
> > > Democrats so adamant in their refusal for this common sense solution -
> > > to allow ALL insurance companies to compete on a level playing field?
So are you saying that state regulation of insurance companies should
be assumed by the federal government in order to allow national
competition by the insurance companies? A national public option will
provide national competition.
> > The public option would offer real competition. �UPS and other
> > delivery companies are forced to keep prices low because of the
> > efficient USPS, which has been around a long time.
> .
> Exactly the opposit. �During the Nixon administration, the post
> service had become so unreliable that it became a national crisis.
> Ever hear the joke "the check is in the mail?" �Well, during the 70s,
> that wasn't a joke - letters often took a month to go cross town, and
> even then it was far from certain that the letter would ever arrive.
>
> It became so desperate that Nixon allowed the creation of UPS and
> FedEx.
Nixon Schmixon. The USPS is quite effective although it runs at a
small loss from time to time. UPS and FedEx are private. That system
proves that government and private entities can compete effectively in
the same arena. What's your beef?
> You idea of "competition" is forcing people with insurance they like
> to pay for the mandated insurance. �Americans understand the shell
> game you guys are attempting to play, and this is the reason that
> ObamaCare is so unpopular.
People with insurance they like can keep it according to President
Obama. You rightards are playing the lie game!
> .> Why make health care a profit operation anyway?
> .
> Because we want the best minds in America to work in hospitals - not
> the kind of people who currently infest the DMV.
Making money off sick people is sick. It's the same mentality that
allows companies to run prisons for profit and lobby for more. It's
the same mentality that allows Halliburton (now renamed XE in view of
bad publicity) to run wars and lobby for more. It's the same
mentality that causes a rightarded U.S. Supreme Court to remove
restrictions on lobbying by corporations. Rightardism = greed!
> .> > .> and the unrestrained ability to refuse or cancel people in order to keep profits hight. >
> .
> > > Canceling insurance for people with catastrophic medical needs is VERY
> > > illegal.
> .
> > Prove it.
>
> .
> The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996:
Deatils???
> .> > .> HMOs (health
> > > > maintenance organizations) are a cruel fraud -- imposing additional
> > > > bureaucracy between doctors and patients and offering no real benefit
> > > > at all. Such grotesque abuses must be ended!
> .
> > > Do you know who first pushed HMOs? Ted Kennedy. HMOs were presented
> > > with virtually the same promises that ObamaCare is currently making.
> > > HMOs were supposed to cut bureaucracy, increase care, increase doctor
> > > time....
> .
> > HMO's have worked out badly regardless of how they originated.
> .
> Just as ObamaCare is a disaster waiting to happen, no matter how
> flowery the promised made.
Your absurd argument attempts to equate failed HMOs to President
Obama's healthcare plan that hasn't enacted yet. That attempted
sleight of hand just doesn't work, Valley Girl.
ChasNemo
> On Jan 30, 4:05�am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 5:40�pm, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 7:09 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > .> > > > > > Throw into the mix that 61% of Americans are against the bill, and
> > > > > > > > > > suddenly one can see just how large a disaster the Democrats and Obama
> > > > .
> > > > > > Tell me, if Rasmussen is nothing but a Republican shill, shouldn't
> > > > > > their negs for ObamaCare be even higher than CNN's?
> > > > .
> > > > > Good question. Did you ever get an answer?
> > .
> > > > Yeah, the answer I got was an over the shouted "oops, gotta go" and
> > > > Chase ran for the high grass.
> > .
>
> I predict he'll run away from the question.
>
> > > More bullshit from Valley Girl. �Please cite comparative poll numbers
> > > and how they were conducted. �If identical polling techniques weren't
> > > used, they different polls can't be compared.
>
> I rest my case.
Your "case" is obviously your own mental case. I proved that
Rasmussen Reports was a rightarded shill. Then Valley Girl shifted to
Gallup, and I cited Gallup's own admission of defects (only 1,010
people surveyed in only one day). Then Valley Girl shifted to CNN,
but only 50% (not 69%) oppose President Obama's plan and that poll's
methodology is defective too.
Obviously hastily cobbled polls and other lies are the last resort of
rightard losers of 2008 elections. THE PARTY OF NO continues to
squeal. <snicker>
ChasNemo
Obviously lies and hasitly cobbled polls are the last resort of
rightarded losers of 2008 elections. Keep trying. You'll fall as
flat as McKook/Stupid did as their campaign faltered and failed.
Voters learned that ReThuglyKKKan "core values" are lying, cheating
and stealing.
bvallely
> > I'm not quite sure why any old American lacks health insurance. We
> > already have medicare to avoid that crisis.
.
> Medicare only applies to old people over 65. >
Yes. For the old.
.
> There are plenty of old
.
In a land where people regularly live into their 80s and 90s, 65 is a
relative spring chicken.
.
> without health insurance, and almost 50 million
> people overall.>
Is it 50 now? Obama said it was 36. Or 40. For a while it was 56.
Let's say 45.
.
>.. Not all of them are 24 years old as in your tiny example. >
.
No, they're not. Out of the 45 million, the Census Bureau itself says
over nine million aren’t Americans at all, but foreign nationals, and
they have various health-care back-ups: If you’re an uninsured
Canadian in Detroit and you get an expensive chronic disease, you can
go over the border to Windsor, Ontario, and re-embrace the delights of
socialized health care; if you’re an uninsured Uzbek, it might be more
complicated.
Of the remaining 36 million, a 2005 Actuarial Research analysis for
the Department of Health and Human Services says that another nine
million did, in fact, have health coverage through Medicare.
Where are we now? 27 million? So who are they? Desperately old 42 year
olds covered with a vast mountain of emaciated husks of enlarged
bowels and shriveled skin covered in boils and pustules?
Nope, it’s a rotating population: People who had health insurance but
changed jobs, people who are between jobs, and the young (18 - 34) who
feel they’re fit and healthy and at this stage of their lives would
rather put a monthly health tab towards buying a home, starting a
family or building a business
That last category is the one to watch: Americans between the ages of
18 and 34 account for 18 million of the army of the “uninsured.” Look,
there’s a 22-year old and he doesn’t have health insurance!
Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
That same 22 year old doesn’t have life insurance, either, or
homeowner’s insurance. He lives a life blessedly free of the tedious
bet-hedging paperwork of middle-age. He’s 22 and he thinks he’s
immortal.
So, out of 45 million uninsured Americans, nine million aren’t
American, nine million are insured, 18 million are young and healthy.
And the rest? According to the Census Bureau’s August 2006 report on
“Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage,” 37 percent of those
without health insurance — that’s 17 million people — come from
households earning more than $50,000. Nineteen percent — 8.7 million
people — of those downtrodden paupers crushed by the brutal inequities
of capitalism come from households earning more than $75,000.
The proportion of the uninsured earning less than 25,000 has fallen by
20% and the proportion earning more than 75 grand has increased by
155%.
> > > Sick and/or old people don't
> > > have the energy or the interest to waste on electronic doodads.
> > > Further, most younger people are responsible enough to know that they
> > > need to have health insurance rather than consumer crap. >
.
> > "The Young" are all responsible? Really? When did this major change
> > is human DNA take place? I seen to remember spending my early
> > twenties dividing my day between getting the cat high and filling a
> > 55 gallon garbage bag will water, sealing it tightly, and along with
> > five other art students, rolling it off the top of an eight story
> > building to see what would happen. (Surprise - it bounced. Sounded
> > like a canon.)
.
> I said "MOST young people are responsible..."
.
Who says that spending money to start a business and raise a family,
instead of on protecting against an unlikely health crisis is is
irresponsible?
.
>
> > Millions of young fit healthy Americans in their first jobs do not
> > require health insurance at this stage in their lives will be forced
> > to pay for coverage they neither want nor need.
>
> Everyone should be insured ....>
.
That's a very different statement than "everyone must under penalty of
law".
.
> so that the rest of us don't get stuck in
> long emergency room lines for uninsured people with minor illnesses,
> and paying high costs for such care.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
.
> Costs and inconvenience will be
> lower overall,>
.
That is, word for word, the exact same promise made when Ted Kennedy
pushed HMOs. PS - when Kennedy got sick, he stayed away from HMOs.
.
and those few who do get sick won't be ruined by high
> medical costs.
.
No, they'll just die.
> > OTOH, those Americans who have health plans Harry Reid determines to
> > be excessively “generous” will be subject to punitive taxes up to 40
> > percent.
>
> > OTOOH, if you’re the member of a union you’ll be exempt from that 40
> > percent shakedown.
.
> Only the rich will pay tax on deluxe plans.>
.
Are you saying that there is a cut off point for that tax? If so,
please provide evidence of same, and post it right here
------------------------------------>
.
> > OTOOOH, if you’re already enjoying government health care, well,
> > you’re 83 years old, you're going to get your benefits slashed.
.
> "Slashed"? Prove it. Can't? Thought not.
>
> > OTOOOOH, ObamaCare leaves several million uninsured, the rest have
> > with worse treatment and reduced access, and the millions it makes pay
> > significantly more for their current health care
leonox1
> On Jan 30, 12:12 pm, leonox1 <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I predict he'll run away from the question.
>
> > > > More bullshit from Valley Girl. Please cite comparative poll numbers
> > > > and how they were conducted. If identical polling techniques weren't
> > > > used, they different polls can't be compared.
>
> > I rest my case.
>
> Your "case" is obviously your own mental case. I proved that
> Rasmussen Reports was a rightarded shill.
He "proved" it. <smile>
leonox1
Prediction fulfilled.
Clave
news:30ab550e-bce4-412b...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Prediction fulfilled.
=====================================================
Speaking of evasions, what about those questions I asked you yesterday?
Jim
bvallely
> > Obviously lies and hasitly cobbled polls are the last resort of
> > rightarded losers of 2008 elections. Keep trying. You'll fall as
> > flat as McKook/Stupid did as their campaign faltered and failed.
> > Voters learned that ReThuglyKKKan "core values" are lying, cheating
> > and stealing.
> Prediction fulfilled.
.
I don't know if that even counts as an "evasion". That's more of an
hysterical sputter.
bvallely
Canada, I don't know where you get the nerve to criticize any country
in the world.
Seriously, is there a world famous building in Canada? A single great
film? A world changing invention? If Canada sank into the sea
tomorrow, what would the world miss?
I'd suggest that Canada has an inferiority complex, but the truth is
that you're just.....inferior.
ChasNemo
So after all your dodging and weaving, there are still tens of
millions without insurance that will be covered under President
Obama's plan. We can ignore the foreign nations, since President
Obama has promised they won't be covered, but they're still a tiny
fraction of the total uninsured population. Sophistry just isn't your
skill, Valley Girl.
> > > > > Sick and/or old people don't
> > > > have the energy or the interest to waste on electronic doodads.
> > > > Further, most younger people are responsible enough to know that they
> > > > need to have health insurance rather than consumer crap. >
> .
> > > "The Young" are all responsible? Really? When did this major change
> > > is human DNA take place? I seen to remember spending my early
> > > twenties dividing my day between getting the cat high and filling a
> > > 55 gallon garbage bag will water, sealing it tightly, and along with
> > > five other art students, rolling it off the top of an eight story
> > > building to see what would happen. (Surprise - it bounced. Sounded
> > > like a canon.)
> .
> > I said "MOST young people are responsible..."
> .
> Who says that spending money to start a business and raise a family,
> instead of on protecting against an unlikely health crisis is is
> irresponsible?
I never said that either, fool. People starting a business and
raising a family typically are responsible enough to have insurance
> > > Millions of young fit healthy Americans in their first jobs do not
> > > require health insurance at this stage in their lives will be forced
> > > to pay for coverage they neither want nor need.
>
> > Everyone should be insured ....>
> .
> That's a very different statement than "everyone must under penalty of
> law".
Enforced insurance is fine. Those who don't have insurance now get
medical treatment via inefficient emergency room treatment.
> .> so that the rest of us don't get stuck in
> > long emergency room lines for uninsured people with minor illnesses,
> > and paying high costs for such care.
>
> .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
> .> Costs and inconvenience will be
> > lower overall,>
>
> .
> That is, word for word, the exact same promise made when Ted Kennedy
> pushed HMOs. PS - when Kennedy got sick, he stayed away from HMOs.
Ted had government insurance as a U.S. Senator. Why would it have
required an HMO?
.
> and those few who do get sick won't be ruined by high> medical costs.
> .
> No, they'll just die.
Not if they get insurance via the public option.
> > OTOH, those Americans who have health plans Harry Reid determines to
> > > be excessively “generous” will be subject to punitive taxes up to 40
> > > percent.
>
> > > OTOOH, if you’re the member of a union you’ll be exempt from that 40
> > > percent shakedown.
> .
> > Only the rich will pay tax on deluxe plans.>
> .
> Are you saying that there is a cut off point for that tax? If so,
> please provide evidence of same, and post it right here
> ------------------------------------>
Choke on it, fool:
"...would raise the threshold on insurance policies subject to tax
from $8,500 in the Senate-passed bill to $8,900 for singles and from
$23,000 to $24,000 for family coverage. Even the new thresholds would
be subject to adjustment if unexpected rises in health care occur by
the time the plan is effective..."
How many families have family plans costing $23K? How many
individuals have individual plans costing $8.5K? Those are DELUXE
HEALTH PLANS that would affect very few people! I earn a healthy 6-
figure income, have had high level invidivual or family coverage for
decades, but have NEVER paid anywhere near that much!
> .> > OTOOOH, if you’re already enjoying government health care, well,
> > > you’re 83 years old, you're going to get your benefits slashed.
> .
> > "Slashed"? Prove it. Can't? Thought not.
>
> > > OTOOOOH, ObamaCare leaves several million uninsured, the rest have
> > > with worse treatment and reduced access, and the millions it makes pay
> > > significantly more for their current health care
>
> .http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/mdi-n16.shtml
Benefits would be cut for SOME elderly. Please document exactly how
many would be affected and the exact effects and put it right here
=================>
ChasNemo
What I said. <smirk>
ChasNemo
I don't live in Canada (or the UK as several buffoons have alleged),
but Canadians seem damn happy with their health care according to
occasional articles and TV interviews that I've seen. Can you prove
otherwise? If so, put the proof right here ============>
Have you been to Canada lately (or at all)? Cities are clean and
prosperous because responsible government didn't let bankers run hog
wild with subprime mortgages, etc., and so Canada has largely avoided
the AmeriKKKan financial meltdown! Many mulinationals have huge
operations there as you'd see if you drove along the main highway
north from Toronto. The modern buildings line both sides of the
highway for dozens of miles.
AmeriKKKa had a couple of world famous buildings once. They got
knocked down on 911 and haven't been rebuilt yet. Replacements will
be a shadow of former glory and new targets for ambitious young
Muslims.
Seems to me that you have no real perspective from which to blabber,
and that AmeriKKKa has become the shithole of which you speak
following eight years of the Bu$h/Cheney KKKrime Family's WMD lies,
bogus Iraq War, tanked economy, Katrina bungle, etc. ad nauseum!
Thankfully President Obama and the Democratic Congress are working to
reverse rightarded debacles of that era!!!
bvallely
.
> Benefits would be cut for SOME elderly. Please document exactly how
> many would be affected and the exact effects and put it right here
What is it about KKKanada that makes people such petty jerks? I mean,
don't you have your own country to ruin? Why do you guys keep
sticking your maple covered nose here, where it doesn't belong?
ChasNemo
Evasion of questions about (1) Canadian healthcare system and (2)
AmeriKKKan elderly healhcare duly noted, you jingoistic, nattering
nitwit. <snicker>
bvallely
> On Jan 31, 4:06 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > .> Benefits would be cut for SOME elderly. Please document exactly how
> > > many would be affected and the exact effects and put it right here
>
> > .
> > What is it about KKKanada that makes people such petty jerks? I mean,
> > don't you have your own country to ruin? Why do you guys keep
> > sticking your maple covered nose here, where it doesn't belong?
> Evasion of questions ....
Blah blah blah
.
Why on Earth did I waste so much time with a troll like yourself?
bvallely
> On Jan 31, 9:08 am, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > What's with the AmeriKKKa? Considering that you live in that shithole
> > Canada, I don't know where you get the nerve to criticize any country
> > in the world.
>
> > Seriously, is there a world famous building in Canada? A single great
> > film? A world changing invention? If Canada sank into the sea
> > tomorrow, what would the world miss?
>
> > I'd suggest that Canada has an inferiority complex, but the truth is
> > that you're just.....inferior.
>
> I don't live in Canada (or the UK as several buffoons have alleged),
> but Canadians seem damn happy with their health care according to
> occasional articles and TV interviews that I've seen. Can you prove
> otherwise? If so, put the proof right here ============>
Fuck off, troll.
ChasNemo
You're sure a sore loser, Valley Girl. <snicker>
ChasNemo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Such petulant sour grapes. Tsk tsk, Valley Girl. <snicker>
P.S. Continued evasion duly noted.
leonox1
Speaking of evasion - why do you keep running away from these:
Tell me, if Rasmussen is nothing but a Republican shill, shouldn't
their negs for ObamaCare be even higher than CNN's?
> Any fool can find a quick-and-dirty poll that supports something.
Really? OK, then, find a poll that says a majority of American
*support* ObamaCare.
ChasNemo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Polls -- the last resort of desperate losers. <snicker>
bvallely
You consider what you've done "winning"?
bvallely
fuck off, troll.
ChasNemo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course. <snicker>
ChasNemo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Back atcha. <snicker>
Gregory Morrow
> On Jan 31, 11:48?pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 5:55?pm, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 8:42 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 1:09 pm, ChasNemo <chasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 31, 4:06 pm, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> .> Benefits would be cut for SOME elderly. Please document
>>>>>> exactly how
>>>>>>> many would be affected and the exact effects and put it right
>>>>>>> here
>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> What is it about KKKanada that makes people such petty jerks? I
>>>>>> mean, don't you have your own country to ruin? Why do you guys
>>>>>> keep sticking your maple covered nose here, where it doesn't
>>>>>> belong?
>>>> .
>>>>> Evasion of questions ....
>>
>>>> Blah blah blah
>>>> .
>>>> Why on Earth did I waste so much time with a troll like yourself?
>>
>>> You're sure a sore loser, Valley Girl. ?<snicker>
>>
>> You consider what you've done "winning"?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Of course. <snicker>
U R truly PATHETIC, ChuKKKles..........!!!!!!
<snigger>
--
Best
Greg
morgan
were they good questions?
--
www.wel.come
leonox1
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:45:11 -0800
>
> > =====================================================
>
> > Speaking of evasions, what about those questions I asked you yesterday?
>
> > Jim
>
> were they good questions?
>
> --www.wel.come
Hey, wanna see something funny? Watch ChasNemo squirm
Hey Chas.Nemo, I got some questions for you. Please don't run away.
* Obama said he would "pay" for his Health care plan with savings from
eliminating corruption and waste from Medicare and Medicaid. Do you
believe him? Why wait, why doesn't he go ahead and do it now?
* Obama said we needed to pass his massive pork barrel spending to
prevent unemployment from passing 8%. We did pass it and unemployment
is now over 10%. What went wrong?
* If the Bush deficit was so bad, wouldn't Obama's be 3 times worse?
Clave
>
> > =====================================================
>
> > Speaking of evasions, what about those questions I asked you yesterday?
>
> > Jim
>
> were they good questions?
>
> --www.wel.come
Hey, wanna see something funny?
================================================
Yeah -- dance some more for us, punk.
Jim
morgan
lousy dirty harry impression there...
--
www.wel.come
leonox1
> "leonox1" <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Jim, what do you think?
Clave
On Feb 1, 6:51 pm, "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> "leonox1" <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5586a167-a9f1-47bd...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 2:58 pm, morgan <mo...@lib.cm> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:45:11 -0800
>
> > > =====================================================
>
> > > Speaking of evasions, what about those questions I asked you
> > > yesterday?
>
> > > Jim
>
> > were they good questions?
>
> > --www.wel.come
>
> Hey, wanna see something funny?
> ================================================
>
> Yeah -- dance some more for us, punk.
>
> Jim
Jim, what do you think?
==================================================
I think that when you blamed the Democratic congress for the recession, you
were talking straight out of your ass, and that you've been trying ever
since, desperately and with a spectacular lack of success, to distract
people's attention from your pig-ignorance.
Jim
morgan
wow, mouthy but still unpleasant.
--
www.wel.come