 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Republican response to Health Reform
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Mar 10 - 08:54 PM Is pdq's point that opinion polls ought to overrule elections? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 26 Mar 10 - 01:20 AM Amos: Is health care reform a binary event? Are there no alternatives to Obama's health care plan? You are so into these one way or the other issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: artbrooks Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:03 AM There is an alternative. That is the bill that was passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress. It contains some of what the president wanted and some things he did not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Greg F. Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:44 AM Is pdq's point that opinion polls ought to overrule elections? No, PeeDee's point is that HE should be able to overrule elections. Or at least the BuShites should be, as they did in the 2000 presidential election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: GUEST,Neil D Date: 26 Mar 10 - 10:18 AM There was a time that both of my Senators, John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum, had the highest progressive rating in the Senate and got elected for term after term. I wouldn't have traded them in for anyone. What possible purpose would term limits serve. Presidential term limits did not exist until Republicans pushed them through in reaction to FDR being elected 4 times. It was also Republicans who wanted to get rid of them so we could have 4 more years of Reagan. Now if you want to talk about campaign finance reform we might be on to something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Amos Date: 26 Mar 10 - 02:58 PM "...Devin Nunes, a Republican of California, warns that by passing health reform, Democrats "will finally lay the cornerstone of their socialist utopia on the backs of the American people." Gosh, that sounds uncomfortable. And it's been a hoot watching Mitt Romney squirm as he tries to distance himself from a plan that, as he knows full well, is nearly identical to the reform he himself pushed through as governor of Massachusetts. His best shot was declaring that enacting reform was an "unconscionable abuse of power," a "historic usurpation of the legislative process" — presumably because the legislative process isn't supposed to include things like "votes" in which the majority prevails. A side observation: one Republican talking point has been that Democrats had no right to pass a bill facing overwhelming public disapproval. As it happens, the Constitution says nothing about opinion polls trumping the right and duty of elected officials to make decisions based on what they perceive as the merits. But in any case, the message from the polls is much more ambiguous than opponents of reform claim: While many Americans disapprove of Obamacare, a significant number do so because they feel that it doesn't go far enough. And a Gallup poll taken after health reform's enactment showed the public, by a modest but significant margin, seeming pleased that it passed. But back to the main theme. What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party's leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was "Armageddon." The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee's chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on "the firing line." And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight. All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you'll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials. No, to find anything like what we're seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president. Like President Obama, Bill Clinton faced a G.O.P. that denied his legitimacy — Dick Armey, the second-ranking House Republican (and now a Tea Party leader) referred to him as "your president." Threats were common: President Clinton, declared Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, "better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard." (Helms later expressed regrets over the remark — but only after a media firestorm.) And once they controlled Congress, Republicans tried to govern as if they held the White House, too, eventually shutting down the federal government in an attempt to bully Mr. Clinton into submission. Mr. Obama seems to have sincerely believed that he would face a different reception. And he made a real try at bipartisanship, nearly losing his chance at health reform by frittering away months in a vain attempt to get a few Republicans on board. At this point, however, it's clear that any Democratic president will face total opposition from a Republican Party that is completely dominated by right-wing extremists. For today's G.O.P. is, fully and finally, the party of Ronald Reagan — not Reagan the pragmatic politician, who could and did strike deals with Democrats, but Reagan the antigovernment fanatic, who warned that Medicare would destroy American freedom. It's a party that sees modest efforts to improve Americans' economic and health security not merely as unwise, but as monstrous. It's a party in which paranoid fantasies about the other side — Obama is a socialist, Democrats have totalitarian ambitions — are mainstream. And, as a result, it's a party that fundamentally doesn't accept anyone else's right to govern. ..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Mar 10 - 02:59 PM When Bush was President He said, "I don't pay attention to the poles." and Republicans cheered him. This crop of Republicans, many of whom cheered Bush are saying that Obama should govern by the results of the poles. How much credibility do they have? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:23 PM Trem limits??? I'd like to see a constitutional ammendment that limits president to one (1) six (6) year term... That would go along way toward presidents doinh what they feel in thei hearts is the right thing for the country rather than spending their first terms setting up the comapaign for the nest one and then being stuck in a mindset/mold that is hard to break in the 2nd term... Now back to out regularially scheduled program... Sorry for the drift... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM Oops... POLLS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:32 PM ""If you had a more keen sense of humor, you would not be a Republican."" I don't know though JtS, I think a sense of humour would be imperative in one who thought GeeDub would be a good man to put in charge of the World's largest nuclear arsenal. "Having a laugh" is a mild description. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:36 PM This is great news, however. In some countries in this world, they provide free national health care for all. Why can't this also be done in the United States? As a nation over the last four decades or so. They have spent many billions$ , covertly and overtly murdering millions of men women and children in other countries for trumpt up reasons. The real reasons being strategic, mineral and energy control for individual companies. Had they spent this money looking after their own people, then the States would be a happier and safer place to live in today. It is not the ordinary person in the States who is to blame. They have the same dreams as everybody else in this world. It is the result of a group of so called Christian people who have no moral code that I can recognise, taking total power in the name of capitalism. Using this power totally selfishly, internally and worldwide. Lets hope that these reforms will herald the beginning of a new phase in United States. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:41 PM ""eleuntilction""........? This is not a snide dig MGoH, but an honest, if tongue in cheek, suggestion that this typo might warrant inclusion tn the Guiness Book of World Records, containing a whole extra five letter word. LOL Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: beeliner Date: 26 Mar 10 - 04:54 PM I'd like to see a constitutional ammendment that limits president to one (1) six (6) year term... . An even better idea, once you get used to it, would be to have three presidents in overlapping six-year-terms, with a new president chosen every two years. Each president would serve two years as Junior President, followed by two years as Executive President, then two more years as Senior President. Each of the three offices would have its own set of responsibilities, with some overlap. But this is admittedly off the theme of the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Mar 10 - 03:36 PM Hey Poppa Amos. How about those Democrats the voted against the bill? How many were there? What were their names? Are they bad like the Republicans that voted against the bill? What kind of threats did they get? Why was there such a battle and why was it all blamed on Republicans when the Democrats have a clear majority in Congress? Such a wonderful, too good to be true bill should have sailed through. Seems like the battle was within the Democratic party to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Big Mick Date: 27 Mar 10 - 03:48 PM There would not have been a battle if it were not for outdated rules that allow one Senator out of a hundred to put holds on legislation. As to the "Blue Cross" Democrats, I think they are fair game as well. Not because they have a different view, but because they would not invoke cloture to allow a simple up or down vote. That is anti democratic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:07 PM >>What kind of threats did they get? I wrote the Congressman from this district, NC 7th and told him that the next time I campaigned for a Democrat I would campaign against him. It wasn't so much a threat as a promise. I also suggested that he out to become a Republican and be done with it so that we can work to elect an actual Democrat. So far, he has not done that. Here is the weasel's website. http://www.house.gov/mcintyre/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Stringsinger Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:19 PM The significant gorilla in the room was Ron Paul. The Libertarian approach eschews health care through government aid. Paul got a big response at the GOP convention. There is a tendency in Libertarian thought to disregard the plight of poor people who are often blamed for their circumstances. "Why should I pay your care through my taxes?" Tax rhymes with ax. Revenue is an obligation of citizenship. Why is it that many Libertarians have no problem with the military industrial complex which own a good piece of American government? Free enterprise is not free. Let the Libertarians pay for their own roads, postal service and the armed services. See how they like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 27 Mar 10 - 07:46 PM The real gorilla in the room isn't Ron Paul as much as it is Rupert Murdock's Tea Party... Yes, Rupert Murdock!!! The Tea Party would not be without the massive organizing and PR from FOX un-news... The Republican Party is now very much under the Ruperts Puppet's control and, frankly, scared to death of these people... Did ya see the look on McCain's face on the news last night when the Queen Rupert Puppet, Ms. Sarah, mentioned the Tea Party??? I mean, you could tell he was trying very hard not to show his emotions here but, hey, it has become very hard to be an elected Republican leader... Well, leader, doesn't even matter any more 'cause the real leadership of the Republican Party is a commitee of Rupert's boys (and girl) and Rush Limbaugh... I reckon if Rupert could get Rush under contract then he'd have the entire Republican Party in his pocket... So when we look at the Tea Party folks and the Repubs in Congress lets keep in mind just who is pulling the strings... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:02 PM "From the Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott we learn that CNN commissioned Opinion Research to conduct a survey on ObamaCare over the weekend during the run-up to the Democrats pushing the bill through the U.S. House of Representatives. The results of the poll are out, and they plainly demonstrate that the votes of 219 House Democrats are a slap in the faces of a clear majority of Americans: Here are the major initial points of interest in the CNN/OR results: · 59% oppose the Democrats' health care bill, while only 39% favor it. · 70% say the federal budget deficit will go up under the Democrats' health care bill; only 12% believe it will go down. · 56% say the bill creates "too much government involvement in the nation's health care system," 28% say about the right amount, while 16% say not enough. · 62% say they'll pay more for medical care under the Democrats' health care bill. · 47% say they and their families will be worse off under the Democrats' health care bill; 33% say things will be about the same, and only 19% think they'll be better off. · 45% say seniors on Medicare will be worse off; 34% say things will be about the same, and only 20% think they'll be better off. The Democrats' latest argument is that the more the American public learns about ObamaCare, the more they will come to like it. The results of this poll argue otherwise. American already know quite a lot about ObamaCare, and three of every five of them don't like it at all." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 27 Mar 10 - 08:05 PM Another bogus opinion poll... (((yawn))) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:53 PM "during the run-up" pdq, Obviously you are a good Republican, arguing against points no one has made. Supporters of the bill, including, myself and Carol and Big Mick on this forum have been saying that polls taken SINCE the passing of the bill have been favorable. Show me numbers like that in a month and we will have something to be concerned about. By the way, where were you when George W Bush was slapping the up to 80% of Americans in the face by ignoring public opinion? In 2004 I learned that the only poll that mattered was the vote. One would have thought that you had learned that in 2008. Obama's mandate was quite a bit larger than Bush's. Add that to the mandate in the House and the Senate and its pretty clear that NOT to keep the election promise would have been the real slap in the face. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:55 PM pdq, the poll I posted is more recent than yours. And the poll I posted shows that a plurality of people like the new health care law. Your poll was conducted before the law was passed. My poll was conducted after the law was passed. So your poll has no more legitimacy than earlier polls that show a clear majority of people supporting health care reform. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:56 PM cross posted |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: artbrooks Date: 27 Mar 10 - 10:04 PM Yep, yep. Like said a couple of days ago: "That polling took place on 3/19-3/21. This from the CNN article (I knew I saw that someplace!): Roughly one in five of respondents who said they opposed the bill did so because it was not liberal enough, and those people are unlikely to vote Republican. Take them out of the picture and opposition to the bill because it is too liberal is 43 percent. More recent surveys have a very different result." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: GUEST Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:21 PM The AP has just reported that the Health Care Bill actually exempts the house majority leadership. I am not kidding about this. For all of you liberals, what this means is that those who wrote the bill made themselves exempt from the bill. And you expect the rest of the country to believe that this is a good bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:28 PM 1 in 5 children go hungry at night according to the USDA. Another bogus opinion attributed to the USDA and unproven. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:32 PM Guest, Obama said that "Anyone happy with their insurance would be able to keep it." Please tell us what part of that you don't understand so that we can explain it to you in smaller words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Amos Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM
The critical element left out, however, is how people feel about the specifics of the bill; I suspect a majority of those polled do not know what is in it. Also omitted is those who are against it because they wanted more from it, rather than opposing it for over-reaching. Another sample in a month will be very different, I predict. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: artbrooks Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:46 PM Exactly the opposite, ANON.GUEST. This from Politifact.com: There is "a specific provision in the bill that would require lawmakers and their staff to buy health insurance through an exchange, a virtual market place where consumers can pick and choose among plans based on coverage and price. To our knowledge, members of Congress and their aides are the only people who are being forced to give up their employer's health care plan -- in this case, one administered by the federal government." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Mar 10 - 12:54 PM Healthcare 101: What the bill means to you The rollout starts with children. Six months from the day the bill was signed (let's see ... that'll be Sept. 23, by our calculation), insurers will no longer be able to exclude children with preexisting conditions from being covered by their family policy. For current policies, that means insurers will have to rescind preexisting-condition exclusions. Insurers will not have to take the same steps for adults until Jan. 1, 2014. Why will it take so long? Because it will be years before the bill's mandate that individuals have health insurance takes effect. The mandate is expected to bring in tens of millions of new customers for insurance firms compensation for accepting customers with preexisting conditions, which can be expensive. The individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014 partly because it will take a long time to set up the state-run exchanges at which individuals and small-business employees will be able to comparison-shop for policies. The new reform law does create a temporary backup plan for those uninsured who have health problems. This Plan B is a short-term, national high-risk insurance pool. US citizens and legal immigrants who have preexisting conditions and have been uninsured for at least six months will be eligible to enroll in this pool and receive subsidies to help them afford the premiums. Under the law, the premiums for this pool will be the same as would be charged for a standard population of people with varying risks. Maximum out-of-pocket cost sharing for enrollees will be $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families, per year. This risk pool is supposed to be up and running within 90 days and then fade into the sunset on Jan. 1, 2014. But Sawz, Are you saying it will cost $500 to $1000 per month to join this new universal low cost government health care plan? Are you saying that there is nothing to keep health care costs down? Are you saying there is nothing to keep Insurance companies from raising their rates as their costs go up? Are you saying they are rubbing their hands together with glee in anticipation of the 30+ million new customers that will be forced to buy insurance and they can keep on making the same 8% profit? Say it ain't so Sawz. That would mean the holocaust continues while the Dems are whopping themselves on the back and declaring victory. Look at how many kids could die before Sep 23 and how many adults could die by 2014 due to lack of health insurance. Well just don't worry about it Sport 'cause once the American people find out what is in the bill, you know how it was kept from them, they will love it and the shortage of doctors, nurses and medical facilities is going to magically go away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:22 PM "...they will love it and the shortage of doctors, nurses and medical facilities is going to magically go away." I heard one doctor suggest that by 2014, when the ObamaCare bill is fully functional, half of the doctors now practicing will have left and most will not have been replaced. Many will have taken an early retirenment because the overwork will have become impossible and the government regulation will have become intolerable. Good job there, Obama/Reid/Pelosi. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: beeliner Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:38 PM ONE doctor suggested that, eh? Geez Louise, it MUST be true! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: DougR Date: 28 Mar 10 - 01:59 PM Mick: your chatisement of Democrats who did not vote for cloture to allow an up and down vote, would that same criticism apply when the Democrats are in the minority? (Not that I expect a reply) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:48 PM "who have pre existing conditions and have been uninsured for at least six months will be eligible to enroll in this pool" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 10 - 02:49 PM Look at how many kids could die before Sep 23 and how many adults could die by 2014 due to lack of health insurance. Well, speaking as one who has no health care now, it's still a big improvement, because I would have to wait until 2021 before I would have access to proper health care if it hadn't been passed. And I guess you don't give a crap about all of the kids whose lives will be saved after September 23. Better to let them die than to pass a bill that won't save any kids before September 23. Right? That's how your math works? And it's just not true that people like us won't see any improvement until 2014. We will be eligible for a tax credit to help us buy insurance next year. Even if we can't get full medical coverage, if the tax credit will help us get catastrophic coverage, we'll still be better off than we are now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:37 PM "Assigned risk is a term used to describe a person or company who cannot get insurance through normal means and is placed in an assigned risk pool of people whom insurers must cover. This term is seen most commonly in car insurance although it may also be used to refer to companies which cannot get workers' compensation insurance by other means. The purpose of this is to ensure that everyone can access insurance because this is deemed better for society as a whole than the alternative." People who were unable to get medical insurance do to pre-existing conditions (maybe other reasons) should have placed in an "assigned risk" pool and assigned to the various health coverage entities equally. Similar to a lottery. Everyone gets covered and there in minimal increase in the bloated federal bureaucracy. We did not need 2900 pages of legislation that no one person has read completely, even the people who wrote it. We had the Congressional "win one for the Gipper!" mentality with Obama as the star player. This is how bad legislation is passed, it seems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM That idea wouldn't work because it wouldn't have any low risk people in it. All insurance pools need a combination of high risk and low risk people in them in order to be viable. It's simple economics, pdq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:47 PM I should rephrase that. They don't need to have high risk people to be viable, but they can't just have high risk people if they're going to be viable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 28 Mar 10 - 03:58 PM You don't get how it works. The government would assign an equal number (say 3% of their total clients) to each health management entity. Cost of coverage to the other clients would go up somewhat, but no federal bureaucracy , just a reasonable number on new names for each companty to deal with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:06 PM Under an "assigned risk pool" would those high risk people pay the same premiums as everyone else, or would their premiums be higher because of the risk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:24 PM That would be set by the federal government. Same or perhaps slightly lower depending on ability to pay. The health care entities would then have to compensate by slight inceases in premiums for all non-assigned risk clients. They have a duty to stay profitable. The average profit margin for HMOs is 3-3.5%. Geogre Soros profit margin has averaged 20% since 1969 and he (and most of the investor-speculator class) produce nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:37 PM 3-5% is obscenely high considering it is other people's money. It's more like a gamblers vig than real profit. And don't forget that their are executive salaries, some up to 20 million a year do not come out of the profit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: beeliner Date: 28 Mar 10 - 04:48 PM pdq, just a few quick questions if you don't mind: The system you outline seems reasonable in some respects, but can you name some countries that are using it now, and how many such countries are there? How many with single payer? How many with free medical care for everyone? I don't know, I'm just asking. It is true that the 'health care entities', as you call them, I would call them 'the insurance parasites', have by their nature a 'duty to stay profitable'. Why do we need them? Why not eliminate the middle man? I won't question your stated profit margin for the HMO's. What is the average profit margin for ordinary health insurers? And is it true that most HMO's are co-ops, that is, owned by the doctors who are participating members? Once again, I was told that, I'm not certain that it's true. If you can answer those I might have some more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: pdq Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:04 PM beeliner... It looks like you have some good questions there. Hope your research proves fuitful and you find all those answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:13 PM Evidently CC doesn't care about how many people die because they don't have health insurance. If the Dems were so wonderful and concerned they could have passed a bill a year ago with their majority. They even had some Repubs on board then but their own internal struggles delayed the whole thing. Those kids could have been covered last September and lives saved. Democrats Vied while Kids Died. They could have been working on J O B S, Biden's 3 letter word, more people would be working now and they would have health insurance. How about the Dems that still voted against it? Are they evil like the Republicans who voted against it or do they get judged by a different standard? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:17 PM A year ago, the Republicans like Collins and Snow were pretending to act in a bipartisan manner so that they could delay the bill. Most of the delay has been in showing undeserved good will to lying Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:20 PM Evidently CC doesn't care about how many people die because they don't have health insurance. How so, Sawzaw? Or is that just a knee-jerk attempt to reverse an argument that really can't be reversed? I have been very critical of all of the members of the House and Senate who have stood in the way of health care reform. Including my own Democratic representative, whom I have promised I will campaign against the next time he comes up in a primary. Remember, I am one of the people who could die for lack of access to health insurance if health care reform didn't pass, so this isn't theoretical for me as it appears to be for you. For me, it really is a matter of life and death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Bobert Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:36 PM Knee "jerk" = Sawz, Carol... That is is game here and it is all he knows... He more than likely is not a musican... He more than likely couldn't name one member of the Kingston Trio or ther Pozo Seco Singers without Googling them up... He is nothing bhut a highly loyal Republican lap-dog with no ability to think for himself... Plus, he makes these terribly outragious statements about what other say, that they didn't say and what they meant, which is is clueless and what all this means in the big picture for which again he is clueless... That is who he is... A real couch case... And now he has a new buddy here, icthy, who dispalys the same personality disorder... Oh well... It ain't boring... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: beeliner Date: 28 Mar 10 - 05:48 PM It looks like you have some good questions there. Hope your research proves fuitful and you find all those answers. Well, pdq, I asked you because as chief bloviator (or perhaps bloviatrix) here you seem to have all the answers. I do know this. Several years ago I had my eyes 'done' (cataracts removed). As you know, in such cases they normally only do one eye at a time, starting with the worse one. About two years later I went back to have the other one done, as it had worsened in the meantime. A day or two after the operation, I went back for a follow-up, and happened to look over the receptionist's shoulder at her computer screen as she checked me in, and I saw that my HMO had not even paid for the first one yet, two years after the fact. She made no mention of it, and later I was told that the doctor was probably a partner in the HMO so, in a sense, he had not paid himself and no doubt some adjustment in that direction would be made eventually. I don't know if this is common practice with HMO's, I thought perhaps you knew. Why could the insured not form similar co-ops, insuring themselves in much the same manner as the doctors? Sounds like a deal to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Mar 10 - 06:03 PM ""I have been very critical of all of the members of the House and Senate who have stood in the way of health care reform. Including my own Democratic representative, whom I have promised I will campaign against the next time he comes up in a primary. Remember, I am one of the people who could die for lack of access to health insurance if health care reform didn't pass, so this isn't theoretical for me as it appears to be for you."" Damn right Carol, and in addition, perhaps Sawzaw will tell us whether he is critical of the repubs who could have reformed healthcare over at least the last eight years (but in reality many more than that), and instead fulfilled their duty as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parasitic Insurance Industry by blocking every attempt.? Think of the 45,000 lives that could have been saved in each of the years of the Bush presidency. 360,000 dead, from lack of access to healthcare, since Bush took office for the first term, and Sawzaw has the nerve to complain about six months lead time to set up the new scheme. If he and his kind had their way, there would be no reform at all......EVER!! But hey! What the hell, Sawzaw, as long as you've got yours, screw the rest. Isn't that right mate? Don T. |
