 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mass. Senatorial race
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:01 PM Exactly, Greg... This is the point I was trying to make to Ron about the framing of issues... I argued that the Dems have not realized just how moronic the voters are and need to simplify the message down to their level... The word "obstruction" is way over their heads... Plus, it is old and tired having been used so often by the Repubs... No, these morons are like sports fans... They go strictly on emotion... That's where the Repubs are winnin' the race and bumpin' the Dems into the wall... The Dems have been accused of being these Volve drivin', latte drinkin' elitists and when the Dems use big words or concepts that won't fit on a bumper sticker they come off just as the Repubs have painted them... I'm stickin' with "No work, no pay"... It is simple... No long words... Gets the point accross that the Repubs gotta show up in Congress... Put the Repubs on the defense... Uses the Repub strategy of dumbed down messages... Yeah, I know that most of the money that Congressmen get is from lobbiests and kickbacks but that really isn't the issue here... What is at issue is that these people are being paid to participate and even if they think doing nothin' is their way of particiaptin' the Dems can use this to their advantage... One thing for sure is that the Dems had better start fightin' 'cause with today Supreme Court rulin' they are in danger of becoming an endngered species real soon... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:11 PM The most recent poll shows that a plurality of people who voted for both Obama and Brown did so as a protest vote because they feel that both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill don't go anywhere near far enough, Q.E.D. - that confirms the "Generation of Morons" thesis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:15 PM Jack the Sailor: the Republicans were a super minority in the senate. The Democrats held the super majority. They didn't NEED Republican votes to pass the legislation under consideration. All they had to have was enough Democrat votes. Unfortunately, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don't all march in lockstep. There are actual differences of opinion between Democratic senators. But I doubt the hoi polloi will understand that, used as they are to the teabaggers and the Republican senators who lick their feet. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:01 PM I'm changing my name to Bank of America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:58 PM See why it's different? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:28 PM On capping medical tort lawsuits: Maybe the cap (max amount the jury can award) should be set at a simple multiple of the insurance company CEO's total compensation package. Say 5x. What could be more fair? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:51 PM " They didn't NEED Republican votes to pass the legislation under consideration. " They need 60 votes to stop a filibuster, and the Republicans have sworn to filibuster forever to stop this bill. They have pass the SAME bill in the House & Senate, and there are votes required to agree on a version, and the Republicans can filibuster the debate on the versions. It is barely, theoretically possible to pass this, at the risk of angering many of their own supporters AND the public who want a stronger bill. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, as I have already said about polls: this vote does not show people wanted 'no health care reform' ... Polls show that Those independents who voted for Obama in Mass., but then voted for Brown against Coakley, did so because they **wanted a stronger bill**!! This seems to be a protest vote saying "Give us real reform, or don't bother". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:45 PM Doug, You need 60 votes to get by a filibuster in the Senate. Putting aside the fact that a filibuster is by definition obstructionism, the Democrats never had more than 58 votes. Last week the Senate was D 58, R 40, I 2, Today it is D 57, R 41, I2. The "supermajority" that the Democratic party supposedly had was a fiction of the media. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:30 PM Jack the Sailor: the Republicans were a super minority in the senate. The Democrats held the super majority. They didn't NEED Republican votes to pass the legislation under consideration. All they had to have was enough Democrat votes. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:23 PM DougR The Republicans have not been working in good faith. Their public, stated goal is to make Heath reform "Obama's Waterloo." It may be better to have a bipartisan bill, but there is no way that is going to happen. Personally I don't see this election result as much of a setback. As long as Lieberman is the 60'th vote, there is no workable super majority. The US Senate would be a much better place without his small mindedness and his Napoleon complex. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:21 PM This is nothing new; the republicans have been obstructionists since they were invented. Every bit of social legislation has been fought hammer and tong by them. It's been 100 years since T. Roosevelt first proposed health care and the republicans are still saying, "Not now" or "this is too much too soon". As long as they can prevent it. (health care) thousands will die needlessly for lack of care. "So many Christians, so few Lions." (Utah Phillips) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:16 PM NealD: That's an excellent critique of my post. You obviously know much more about such things than I do. Any solution to the problem is obviously going to be difficult to resolve. However a bi-partisan approach will be much more likely to pass than one proposed by a single party I believe. Yes, I do believe sufficient Republicans would join Democrats in reforming health care if both parties would begin working toward a bill that is best for the country rather than best for their party or themselves. Kendall: Tort reform does not have to mean that it is eliminated. People should still be able to sue doctors that screw up, but I would suggest a cap on awards. Juries often go a bit wild when awarding dollar amounts to plaintiffs. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:12 PM The most recent poll shows that a plurality of people who voted for both Obama and Brown did so as a protest vote because they feel that both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill don't go anywhere near far enough, rather than too far. So that means, for instance, had Congress already passed a bill with a public option, those people would not have voted for Brown. The poll also showed that the poor showing of Democrats at the polls was for the same reason - they feel that the proposed bills don't go far enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:47 AM Actually, they were quite a bit different. |
|
Subject: BS: Luis Gutierrez defeats Martha Coakley From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:40 AM On December 8 Martha Coakley won the Democratic nomination of the Senate in Massachusetts. On December 15 Luis Gutierrez introduced a bill to grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens. The administration had already announced that after health care, the next issue they were going to tackle was immigration reform. The voters in Mass. knew that; most of them probably thought health care was a done deal. It would make more sense that immigration reform was the real issue that defeated Martha Coakley.
Like threads combined |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:40 AM Sorry, Bobert. It just doesn't work that way. The Democrats could already paint the Republicans as obstructionists. But either you get legislation through or you are seen as incompetent. And don't be spooked by "polls" saying that supposedly 46% of the electorate is against this bill. We don't know the exact wording of such polls--and that makes a difference. Also, the "46%" reflects not only Republican nay-saying but also Democratic bitterness that there is no public option in the the bill and that there is language, as I understand it, that restricts Federal funding for abortions. There is good stuff in the bill--even the Senate bill, which is the one which must be accepted, as is, by the House. For one thing it ends the insurance firm practice of denying people because of pre-existing conditions. And there are other items--which the Democrats can run on. Also, is there a trigger mechanism for public option now in the bill or not? They can't spend all this time and energy and just walk away now, without telegraphing that--with majorities in the House and Senate, and a Democratic president--- they can't govern. Remember those famous political analysts, the Stones: "You can't always get what you want. ...But if...." You can try to get everything you want in a bill. But if the votes for all your wishes aren't there, you need to work on the voters for later legislation. And remember, there is still is desire for health-care reform---not least from President Obama, who has made it a key issue. As it should be. They need to pass what they can, and go on to employment issues, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:09 AM All depends on just how the Dems frame it, Ron... It's really not complex at all... I have volunteered my services to the Obama folks to help them simplify their message to bumper-sticker length nuggets... That is what the right does... This is where the Dems are losing these battles... It has nothin' to do with ideologies or policies but everything to do with PR... The Dems can turn this one back on the Repubs very easily by taking up the slogan "No work, no pay" in regards to the Repubs... If they were to all adopt that and use it for one week the message would get thru to the votersw and the voters would get it that the Repubs are just taking up space in Congress... This is how you win the PR wars... Keep it simple, stupid" is what the right has mastered... "No work, no pay!!!" That will sho nuff put the Repubs on the defense which, BTW, they have had the Dems on since the last election... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:01 AM Bobert-- I'm afraid your analysis is just too complex for most voters to understand it. The general view is bound to be: the Democrats still have 59 votes in the Senate--the loose-cannon status of Lieberman and the conflicting views of some others will not be taken into account. And they have a sizable majority in the House. Therefore they should be able to get legislation through. My father always said : "We pay off on results". i.e. not excuses. If the Democrats get no health care bill through Congress, there will be hell to pay at the polls. I hope they realize this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 21 Jan 10 - 08:23 AM Ron, Think about it this way... When the Dems had the 60 votes that allowed them to play "one party rule" if they could pull it off... And the Repubs knew it and forced them to play that game... That game is over and the Repubs no longer can force the Dems to do the 60-vote-shuffle because the Dems no longer have the "super majority"... This makes the Repubs claim that the Dems are doing whatever they want regardless of the wishes of the voters a null-and-void arguement... So what we have is a new game here where the Dems can "legitimately" call the Reoubs "obstructionists"... This is why the Dems are better off without the "super majority"... Especially since the "super majority" had so many righties in it... Watch how this plays out before telling me that I am wrong here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 21 Jan 10 - 08:05 AM One more: Abortions would not be paid for from federal funds. DougR Yesiree, Douggie-Boy: Zygotes, blastulas and clumps of undifferentiated cells have a "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"- its just human beings that don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:41 AM Yes, tort reform would be a big step forward, but health care wasn't the only issue in this race. There's this: ALIPAC Endorses Scott Brown for US Senate Americans for Legal Immigration PAC Endorses Scott Brown for US Senate Due To Opposition To Amnesty ALIPAC) is endorsing Scott Brown for US Senate today due to his campaign's focus on the issue of the illegal immigration and his opponent Martha Coakley's support for Amnesty for illegal aliens. ALIPAC is one of the nation's largest multi-ethnic and non-partisan grassroots organizations dedicated to opposing illegal immigration and amnesty for illegals, while supporting the enforcement of America's existing immigration laws and borders. "Scott Brown has publicly stated he opposes Amnesty for illegal aliens while Coakley has state she supports Amnesty," said William Gheen President of ALIPAC. "His vote in opposition to Amnesty will be needed in a few weeks as President Obama, with Democrats in the Senate and House, and a handful of misguided Republicans attempt to pass new Amnesty legislation." Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty legislation was defeated in 2006 and 2007 due to massive public opposition, which collapsed the Washington, DC phone systems connected to the offices of lawmakers. Certified scientific polls continue to show that 66-80% of Americans support immigration enforcement, instead of a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens. Amnesty legislation was filed in the US House on December 12, with 91 Democrat cosponsors lead by Congressman Luis Gutierrez supporting the bill. The legislation would legalize over 12 million illegal aliens currently in the US, increase current hyper legal immigration levels, and turn immigration regulating efforts over to big business. Democrats in the US Senate are working with a few Republicans in an attempt to file similar legislation in the Senate this month. Scott Brown's Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, has clearly stated she supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,Kendall Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:30 AM Tort reform. Doctors have to pay outrageous premiums for mal practice suits. Why? because they screw up! that's why. Who awards high awards? common juries! Do lawyers create these problems? NO! people do. Greedy people. Lay the blame where it belongs. Here is one case, a minor one but personal. A few years ago my dentist fitted me for a partial upper because I broke a tooth and cracked it down to the root. No other option than to remove it and make a partial. In the process he cut deep grooves in my other healthy teeth to anchor the plate. Over the years they have been breaking off because he cut the grooves too deep and weakened them. Now I need over 2000k worth of dental work and he denies doing anything wrong. My lawyer/friend tells me that mal practice against a dentist is difficult to prove and could run into real money. This is why they have to carry high insurance policies. If a doctor left a sponge inside me, as one did to a friend of mine, and it nearly killed me when it went septic, I would sue! So, what is the answer? Let them run amok? I don't think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:13 AM A short UK summary of what (political) tea-bagging means http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/13/pass-notes-tea-party-movement |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Neil D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:10 AM Funny how this thread about Mass. Senatorial race turned into a second thread on healthcare reform. I guess maybe that really was the overriding issue of that election. From: katlaughing - PM Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:53 PM My very liberal friend in MA said he basically ran as an Independent and she has been impressed by what she's heard from and of him so far. Being an independent can mean being to the right of mainstream Republicans, a feat that is increasingly difficult. He's a darling of the Tea Party movement who, whether they realize it or not, are the de facto right wing of the Republican Party masquerading as populists. They're shadowy quasi-leader is Dick Armey a longtime Republican insider.(He was co-author of the Contract With America and co-founder of the Republican Revolution of the nineties which spawned from the killing of healthcare form back then.) Test them on their populism. Ask if they support a windfall profit tax on corporations who took Tarp funds and more regulation on investment banking like reinstating Glass Steagall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Neil D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:47 AM From: DougR - PM Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:14 PM No, Guest Neill, I don't think I would say that. I believe if the Democratic leadership and White House would agree to work with the Republican leadership a reasonable, affordable health care bill could be passed with bi-partisan support. From the Republican POV I would imagine that it would have to include at the least: 1. Allowance for people to purchase health care insurance from across state lines. 2. Tort reform. A major reason for high health care costs is the cost of doctor's having to purchase insurance to protect them from predator lawsuits. 3. Assurance from private insurance companies that people with medical conditions that currently prevent them from buying insurance, be allowed to do so at reasonable cost. 4. Allow prescription drugs to be purchased from countries that offer them at less cost than is available in the U. S. These would be the primary points I would support in such a plan. OK Doug, let's pretend we're sitting on a bipartisan congressional committee and negotiating these points. 1. Allowance for people to purchase health care insurance from across state lines. The only way this would be possible is if you took standards on minimum coverage, pricing etc. out of state hands and made a universal policies that not only cost the same but have the same amount of coverage as well. Otherwise you would have the Insurance commissioner of Mississippi setting policy standards for the state of New York. In the first place, I don't know how you do this fairly when the CODB varies wildly from one state to the next and secondly, if you could create such universal policies what would be the advantage of buying across state lines. 2. Tort reform. A major reason for high health care costs is the cost of doctor's having to purchase insurance to protect them from predator lawsuits. The major tort reform proposals have been: A.Special medical malpractice courts B.Limits on noneconomic damages C.Reduction in the statute of limitations of action Ok then, one at a time. A. I'm not totally against this but who makes up these courts and how are they appointed. Where do we find court officers who have the necessary medical knowledge to navigate medical issues yet are not going to be naturally prejudicial towards the defense (medical professionals and institutions). If this could be accomplished this one's a go. B. That's fine. I would recommend it be based on a percentage of the economic damages rather than a flat rate like the $250,000 allowed in the prototypical California reform law. You can also limit or eliminate punitive damages which are only evoked when recklessness is a factor, but in the case of recklessness a much tougher censure of medical pros(license suspensions and revokations) must be applied for the public good. C. OK fine with one exception. It be based on the date that the resulting damage from malpractice manifests itself and not on the date of the malpractice. Fot example, you could be carrying a misplaced metal pin or staple internally with no effect until years later an MRI tries to rip it out of your body. So some tort reform is possible. I'll have to get my side to turn their backs on heavily contibuting trial lawyers just like you'll have to get your side to go against their insurance company overlords when we get to your third proposal and big pharma on #4. 3. Assurance from private insurance companies that people with medical conditions that currently prevent them from buying insurance, be allowed to do so at reasonable cost. Assurance from insurance companies is not enough, it would have to be mandated. I can see them saying we promise to play fair with their fingers crossed behind their backs. What is required is a federal oversite agency like a cross between a public utilities commission and the price fixing boards we had during WW11. Some European countries have not done away with private health insurance companies but they have made it illegal to make ANY profit from selling basic policies. Believe it or not these companies still compete for the business. They can make profits by selling upgraded plans to those who can afford them. We might not need to go that far but we must drastically curtail the nearly 40% overhead that currently lets insurance executives live like kings. The wealthiest of kings at that. Of course this is anathema for the insurance industry and if any of your side (and I include the Blue Dogs) seriously considered this they'd feel a hard tug at their leashes. Some Senators have taken over 4 million dollars from insurance and pharma. 4. Allow prescription drugs to be purchased from countries that offer them at less cost than is available in the U. S. I have no problem at all with #4. Hell, its a liberal idea. But see what I said above about the millions flowing to Senators and Reps from Big Pharma. So do you think if the Dems give in on tort reform we could get some Republicans to sign on? There might be enough of them who aren't completely in thrall to the industry to get something passed. I suggested that very idea in an E-Mail to the one of my Senators who is a liberal Dem months ago.(I got a nice generic form letter from his office for my trouble.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:58 PM He'd better watch his back. The Republicans don't take too kindly to anyone within their ranks who isn't in lockstep with the party's far right. At least nowadays when keeping the teabaggers on board appears to be their raison d'être. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: katlaughing Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:53 PM My very liberal friend in MA said he basically ran as an Independent and she has been impressed by what she's heard from and of him so far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:08 PM Clearly Coakley was beyond stupid and Brown was sharp as a tack (at least about how to win an election -- I can speak to his truck purchasing abilities). Whether it says something more universal about "the Country", or the health care bills, or which party the public would rather be seen with on a nude bathing beach, is rather doubtful and at any rate far too early to tell. But we'll find out, I suppose. As a left-leaner, it does make me feel uneasy for the coming year and a half. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:01 PM Re: Coakley: evidently one of her many mistakes was casting herself as "the woman candidate". I suspect people could tell that by looking at her. Supposedly a guy listening to her speak said he thought she was about to break into "I am woman, hear me roar." Not the way to win hearts and minds of blue-collar voters--or many others. While she wrapped herself in EMILY's List, Mr. Brown didn't exactly wrap himself in the banner of the Republican party--or the Tea Party either. One columnist said she heard it put: sexy independents win. Doesn't matter if it's a total fabrication. Just like Hillary sold herself as a blue collar gal--and won the Massachusetts primary. Also didn't help that Coakley supposedly didn't campaign for the first 4 of the 6 week campaign. Just because the electorate is 11% registered Republican in the Bay State--and about 37% Democrat? She forgot it's 51% independents, perhaps. She's somewhat of a political novice. But should have gotten better advice. Like: assume nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:48 PM Sorry, Bobert, the ball is still in the court of the party with the huge majorities. It ain't the Republicans. And the Democrats have to prove they can actually get major legislation through. Or maybe they should join us here below the line, where some Mudcatters seem to believe ideological purity is more important than accomplishing something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:40 PM There is a silver lining here, folks... Now the Repubs have their 41 they are gonna have to play ball whether they like it or not... No more "Party of No"... Party of stupid??? Yeah, maybe... But the ball is really in their court now... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: GUEST,999 Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:20 PM Well, Coakley would likely be in had she not referred to Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling as a Yankees fan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:20 PM So nothing's changed, except the Democrats have become more like Republicans. Alas! Oh, for a real progressive party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: dick greenhaus Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:05 PM Rig- and that's why they've lost ground. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Jan 10 - 07:59 PM So nothing's changed, except the Democrats have become more like Republicans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: kendall Date: 20 Jan 10 - 07:49 PM Doug, you must know that the republicans not only never introduced any such legislation as SS, Medicare, etc. but actively fought them tooth and nail. If they had their way we would still be working 8 days a week for 10 cents an hour with no benefits at all. The Robber Barons would still be in charge with their own flunkies such as Harding in the White House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 07:44 PM Donuel: "The Insurance companies won't like it ..." So? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:55 PM A post of mine above (indeed the most recent post of mine above) has become meaningless thanks to the deletion of the post to which it responded. That and this should be deleted please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:20 PM Yeah, mouse-t... Any given night on any given netwrok (except FOX): Obama: 20 seconds Tea-bagger: 20 seconds Birthers and/or other dillussional people: 20 seconds The health insurance companies: Oh, maybe 10 minutes of 15 and 30 second ads in prime time... Final Score for the average night: Obama: 20 Obama haters: 640 You do the math... Ain't rocker surgery here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Greg F. Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:34 PM By the way, Doug is not crazy; Documentation, please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:22 PM You've got it straight, Bobert, re. the ads the Repugs and their backers are running. If you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: beardedbruce Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:07 PM Donuel I don't. Try reading what I write instead of making it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:58 PM I don't think of a government provided yhealth care as insurance anymore than I think that educatin' kids is insurance... Or fixin' roads... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:52 PM Then why do you say Govement health insurance benefits are wasteful hand outs. Or is that only when compared with defense spending. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:50 PM And for the record, the insurance industry produces absolutely nothing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:49 PM Yeah, Rigs, that is exactly what it is... A rip... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:39 PM ">>Do YOU have ANY idea what INSURANCE is?" It's a complete rip. Before they had the money to buy Congressmen and Senators it was called the protection racket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:34 PM >>Do YOU have ANY idea what INSURANCE is? I pay into the insurance - the Insurance then pays the costs of my care- based on acturial tables- some cost more than the amount paid in, some less. There ( usually ) are limits on lifetime benefits, but that is dependent on the policy (and premium paid). Are you claiming that those who pay in less than ME should get less care? If so, CarolC should be shaming YOU. << It is you who don't know what insurance is. In this country there is no health insurance. There is a con game where the companies write the rules and even then constantly cheat to favor themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:31 PM I showed that CarolC ie UNWILLING to pay for her health care. This is a bald faced lie, beardedbruce. You were shown that there is no health care available to me that I am able to pay for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mass. Senatorial race From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:27 PM Now as for BB's assertion that Obama got more corporate donors during the campaign... That is not what I said... What I said is that the right wing has since been pumping gobs of money into anti-Obama, anti-health-care refore and anti-Dem ads... Far more than the Dems... Where is all that oney coming from??? I'm seeing 10 to 1 rightwinged ads against healtyh care reform... Sure, Obama can get up everyday and do a speech and what does that get him in terms of equal time in prome time??? 20 seconds on the news compared to 20 anti-health-care-reform ads for the rest of the night??? Then you have tea-baggers out there telling outright lies and getting even more news coverage... I mean, media wise the Dems and progressives don't have the access or that big kettloe of corpoarte money to begin to compete... Same rssponse to you Sawz... The reason that people in Mass are parroting this "one party" crap is because it has been equally hammered into the parrots in unequal doses... This really comes down to who has the money to control the "noise" and the folks who have the money are the Boss Hogs and Fat Cats and they are using the stupidest of the stupid who always fall easily for any campaign that pits them against any6one who has bothered to get an education... But now with the incessant media buys they have absoluted drowned out the Dems and Obama with 24/7 hammering... That is why even moderates have fallen victim... Ain't like the average moderate is all that well informed these days 'cause most are out beating their brains out trying to pay their bills and keep their kids in college... They really don't have time that most of the folks here in Mudville have or the story in Mass would be much different... Tom Jefferson said it would take an informed electorate for democrary to work... One thing for sure is that it ain't workin'... That really is what people are pissed off about... They wanted change and then the corporations and their Babbit-brained followers have pulled out all the stops to stop change and folks are either too stupid or too busy to figure out who gets and deserves the blame... And in the words of Walter Cronkite, "That's the way it is..." B~ |
