On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:45:53 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>for whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, >>>>>>why fine them? It is their choice.
>>>>> So why are we paying for gummer?
>>>>Go ask Gummer.
>>>Because I payed for 45 yrs.
>> Welfare Queen.
Who is on welfare?
>>>And we are all still paying for every illegal alien that gets medical >>>care.
>> So cause their employers to pay for it.
>You mean the public just like with taxes. All businesses pass their >costs on their customers.
>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, >>>>>for whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, >>>>>why fine them? It is their choice.
>>>> So why are we paying for gummer?
>>>Go ask Gummer.
>> Because I payed for 45 yrs.
>Paid what? Taxes? I have you beat at that. I started paying taxes at >13, I am now 70 and I still pay them.
Good for you. Im still in the game as well.
>> And we are all still paying for every illegal alien that gets medical >> care.
>That act that allows illegals (or anyone else with no ability to pay) >came from Reagan.
Reagan? Or the Democrats who controlled Congress at that time?
>Congress passed a law in 1986, which President Reagan signed, called the >Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (or EMTALA). The law >requires hospitals and doctors to admit, treat and stabilize all patients >seeking emergency care, without regard for income or immigration status. >However, because no reimbursement provisions were included in the >legislation, it's essentially been an unfunded mandate that imposes a >major financial strain on doctors and hospitals resulting in lower >quality care and longer wait times for anyone who has to visit the >emergency room.
Ayup...Democrat Congress.
>> Notice the House pulled all the amendments that would prevent illegal >> aliens from getting medical care on the new "health care plan"?
>It isn't over yet.
Hide and watch.
Gunner
"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves, but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post, listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02 worth."
Do you have any idea what any of that means, Scott? For example, can you explain WHY Medicare should continue as a fee-for-service plan, when the vast majority of us can't get one of those, unless we pay around $18,000 for a family?
Do you know why "Medicare Advantage Plans" are recognized in the business as one of the worst consumer rip-offs of all time?
No? Then why are you posting this nonsense?
Do you know who the author of this piece of crap is? It's Betsy McCaughey, standing joke and former Lt. Governor of NY. She's a phony. Here, for example, is a typical piece about her. Having followed the original Clinton health care plan, I can tell you that much worse things have been said about her reporting of "facts," and they're right about her:
============================================
The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Betsy McCaughey
One of the wackier developments in the recent health care debate has been the sudden return of Betsy McCaughey. Fifteen years ago McCaughey wrote an error-laden piece for the New Republic, a piece the magazine later recanted, that became a rallying cry of the successful effort to kill Clintoncare, and that McCaughey parlayed into a short-lived career as the lieutenant governor of New York. McCaughey's health-care shtick in 1994 was to brag about having read all 1,000-plus pages of the bill and cite, with Biblical certainty, obscure provisions that made the Clintons look like serial killers.
And now McCaughey is back. And her shtick, like a bug trapped in the amber of the Clinton years, is to brag about having read the entire bill, while pointing to obscure provisions that make all that Obama campaign stuff about hope and change look like an excuse to get into office and start knocking off the elderly. Here she is in the Wall Street Journal, citing page numbers in various bills to equate comparative effectiveness research with "limiting care based on the patient's age." Here she is on Fox News, dropping page numbers to claim that the congressional plan will force you out of your current insurance program. And here she is on Fred Thompson's radio show, ostentatiously citing her reading of the bill to make the claim that "Congress would make it mandatory...that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner,"
That last claim about required government euthanasia counseling -- repeated hundreds of times in dozens of places over the past week -- is worth lingering over. I confess I have not read the entire House bill and, honestly, I have no plans on doing so. (Life is short, even without considering Obama's plans to euthanize us all.) But McCaughey's claim has the distinct whiff of bullshit, and I am moderately capable of using Google. So allow me to report, after five minutes of searching and reading the relevant section of the bill: There is absolutely nothing about a "required counseling session." Nothing. There is a requirement that Medicare cover the session if you haven't had it in the past five years but, naturally, that doesn't mean you are required to take advantage of the coverage. (And, by the way, the sessions in question would cover dozens of dull, informational topics besides scandalous end-of-life care.)
So it turns out that what Betsy McCaughey says is not true. But what I'm more interested in is the cruel paradox presented by a character like McCaughey: I realize that I am playing into her trap by giving her ridiculous pap additional attention. Is there a good way around that? I don't know. I do think there are people making good arguments against health-care reform -- among them Arnold Kling and Greg Mankiw and my colleague Megan McCardle. McCaughey is not one of them. The best I can do is say that her schtick about page counts and euthanasia is getting old.
================================================
Why do you post things like this without checking them out?
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, >>>>>>for whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, >>>>>>why fine them? It is their choice.
>>>>> So why are we paying for gummer?
>>>>Go ask Gummer.
>>> Because I payed for 45 yrs.
>>Paid what? Taxes? I have you beat at that. I started paying taxes at >>13, I am now 70 and I still pay them.
> Good for you. Im still in the game as well.
>>> And we are all still paying for every illegal alien that gets medical >>> care.
>>That act that allows illegals (or anyone else with no ability to pay) >>came from Reagan.
> Reagan? Or the Democrats who controlled Congress at that time?
EMTALA is the reason you're alive today, along with many other uninsured and illegal aliens.
> Read it yourself instead of being a flaming partisan bigot.
I've read over 270 pages of it over the past couple of weeks, which is enough for me. How much of it have you read?
You haven't answered my questions about fee-for-service and Advantage Plans. Do you know the stories behind them? Or are you just swallowing McCaughey's nonsense whole?
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, >>>>>>for whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, >>>>>>why fine them? It is their choice.
>>>>> So why are we paying for gummer?
>>>>Go ask Gummer.
>>> Because I payed for 45 yrs.
>>Paid what? Taxes? I have you beat at that. I started paying taxes >>at 13, I am now 70 and I still pay them.
> Good for you. Im still in the game as well.
>>> And we are all still paying for every illegal alien that gets >>> medical care.
>>That act that allows illegals (or anyone else with no ability to pay) >>came from Reagan.
> Reagan? Or the Democrats who controlled Congress at that time?
Reagan signed it into law.
>>Congress passed a law in 1986, which President Reagan signed, called >>the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (or EMTALA). The >>law requires hospitals and doctors to admit, treat and stabilize all >>patients seeking emergency care, without regard for income or >>immigration status. However, because no reimbursement provisions were >>included in the legislation, it's essentially been an unfunded mandate >>that imposes a major financial strain on doctors and hospitals >>resulting in lower quality care and longer wait times for anyone who >>has to visit the emergency room.
> Ayup...Democrat Congress.
Signed by Reagan.
>>> Notice the House pulled all the amendments that would prevent >>> illegal aliens from getting medical care on the new "health care >>> plan"?
>>It isn't over yet.
> Hide and watch.
Why hide?
-- Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?
>> Read it yourself instead of being a flaming partisan bigot.
> I've read over 270 pages of it over the past couple of weeks, which is > enough for me. How much of it have you read?
> You haven't answered my questions about fee-for-service and Advantage > Plans. Do you know the stories behind them? Or are you just swallowing > McCaughey's nonsense whole?
Not only am I not "swallowing her opinions (which you in a typical partisan whore ad hominem attack label as nonsense), I am also not buying any of the bullshit you are selling.
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, >>>>>>>for whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, >>>>>>>why fine them? It is their choice.
>>>>>> So why are we paying for gummer?
>>>>>Go ask Gummer.
>>>> Because I payed for 45 yrs.
>>>Paid what? Taxes? I have you beat at that. I started paying taxes >>>at 13, I am now 70 and I still pay them.
>> Good for you. Im still in the game as well.
>>>> And we are all still paying for every illegal alien that gets >>>> medical care.
>>>That act that allows illegals (or anyone else with no ability to pay) >>>came from Reagan.
>> Reagan? Or the Democrats who controlled Congress at that time?
>Reagan signed it into law.
Yes he did. He also signed into law a spending bill that the Democrats fucked him on.
>>>Congress passed a law in 1986, which President Reagan signed, called >>>the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (or EMTALA). The >>>law requires hospitals and doctors to admit, treat and stabilize all >>>patients seeking emergency care, without regard for income or >>>immigration status. However, because no reimbursement provisions were >>>included in the legislation, it's essentially been an unfunded mandate >>>that imposes a major financial strain on doctors and hospitals >>>resulting in lower quality care and longer wait times for anyone who >>>has to visit the emergency room.
>> Ayup...Democrat Congress.
>Signed by Reagan.
See above.
>>>> Notice the House pulled all the amendments that would prevent >>>> illegal aliens from getting medical care on the new "health care >>>> plan"?
>You are obviously a partisan whore and bigot enough to sling ad hominem >sophomoric insults against anyone who doesn't buy your verbose bullshit.
>Keep your blinders and your overly inflated sense of self superiority, you >are going to need it as all this bullshit implodes.
Eddy boy is a RINO of the worst sort. He is nearly as big a Socialist as Pelosi..yet he claims to be a Republican. Like that chick that just go voted out...Republican in name only.
Its been obvious for a very long time he swings that way.
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:06:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>The rest is bullshit. If someone doesn't wish to cover themselves, >>>>>>for whatever reason, they are young and invulnerable, for example, >>>>>>why fine them? It is their choice.
>>>>> So why are we paying for gummer?
>>>>Go ask Gummer.
>>> Because I payed for 45 yrs.
>>Paid what? Taxes? I have you beat at that. I started paying taxes at >>13, I am now 70 and I still pay them.
>Good for you. Im still in the game as well.
>>> And we are all still paying for every illegal alien that gets medical >>> care.
>>That act that allows illegals (or anyone else with no ability to pay) >>came from Reagan.
>Reagan? Or the Democrats who controlled Congress at that time?
>>Congress passed a law in 1986, which President Reagan signed, called the >>Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (or EMTALA). The law >>requires hospitals and doctors to admit, treat and stabilize all patients >>seeking emergency care, without regard for income or immigration status. >>However, because no reimbursement provisions were included in the >>legislation, it's essentially been an unfunded mandate that imposes a >>major financial strain on doctors and hospitals resulting in lower >>quality care and longer wait times for anyone who has to visit the >>emergency room.
>Ayup...Democrat Congress.
Signed by Reagan. You just can't admit that, can you?
Let the Record show that Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> on or about Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:27:27 -0800 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Let the Record show that Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> on or about Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:00:04 -0800 did write/type or cause to appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>>You are obviously a partisan whore and bigot enough to sling ad hominem >>sophomoric insults against anyone who doesn't buy your verbose bullshit.
>>Keep your blinders and your overly inflated sense of self superiority, you >>are going to need it as all this bullshit implodes.
>Eddy boy is a RINO of the worst sort. He is nearly as big a Socialist as >Pelosi..yet he claims to be a Republican. Like that chick that just go >voted out...Republican in name only.
>Its been obvious for a very long time he swings that way.
New term I've seen: DIABLO (Democrat in All but Name Only)
The Acorn endorse candidate in New York is a good example. - pyotr filipivich We will drink no whiskey before its nine. It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote: >Let the Record show that Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> on >or about Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:00:04 -0800 did write/type or cause to >appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: >>On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:30:36 -0800, "Scott" <nu...@bidneth.com> wrote:
>>>You are obviously a partisan whore and bigot enough to sling ad hominem >>>sophomoric insults against anyone who doesn't buy your verbose bullshit.
>>>Keep your blinders and your overly inflated sense of self superiority, you >>>are going to need it as all this bullshit implodes.
>>Eddy boy is a RINO of the worst sort. He is nearly as big a Socialist as >>Pelosi..yet he claims to be a Republican. Like that chick that just go >>voted out...Republican in name only.
>>Its been obvious for a very long time he swings that way.
> New term I've seen: DIABLO (Democrat in All but Name Only)
> The Acorn endorse candidate in New York is a good example. >- >pyotr filipivich >We will drink no whiskey before its nine. >It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
pyotr filipivich wrote: > Let the Record show that Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> on > or about Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:27:27 -0800 did write/type or cause to > appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:30:11 -0800, "Scott" <nu...@bidneth.com> wrote: >>> "Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 07:26:55 -0800, "Scott" <nu...@bidneth.com> wrote: >>>>> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote : >>>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870479560457451967105591... >>> Socialism on the March.
>> If not Marxism Lite.
> Socialism _is_ Marxism-lite. And Progressive Liberalism is just > Socialism which is not in a hurry.
Maybe, but that is what most Americans want. Across the board Americans want big government. The rich, business, the poor, the middle class. All want a big government, socialism if you like. Only right wingers want something else. You only make up 20% of the public. Socialism here we come. But don't worry it'll be better for everyone than the every man for himself, small government, individualism, that we had in the past. It doesn't work in the 21st century. See, there is no "free market" anywhere, not anymore. Get used to it.
> Do you have any idea what any of that means, Scott? For example, can you > explain WHY Medicare should continue as a fee-for-service plan, when the > vast majority of us can't get one of those, unless we pay around $18,000 for > a family?
> Do you know why "Medicare Advantage Plans" are recognized in the business as > one of the worst consumer rip-offs of all time?
> No? Then why are you posting this nonsense?
> Do you know who the author of this piece of crap is? It's Betsy McCaughey, > standing joke and former Lt. Governor of NY. She's a phony. Here, for > example, is a typical piece about her. Having followed the original Clinton > health care plan, I can tell you that much worse things have been said about > her reporting of "facts," and they're right about her:
> Why do you post things like this without checking them out?
Because he never thought that someone like you would. By the way, Ms. Betsy was on the Daily show with John Stewart and she brought the bill with her. When he got done with her she looked like a fool. Which is exactly what she is, an overly partisan right wing nutbar. She's part of that crowd Groucho Marx sang about in his old song where he says I don't know what's in it but I'm again it.
PLMerite wrote: > "Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message > news:cq2af55m8oh7tce2vhhiaubnck3b4fslgb@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:28:43 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)" >> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Probably, but a lot of folks like Gunner would not have had healthcare >>>>> or insurance in the first place. That would be their choice. >>>> Tax gummer & be sure he pays. >>>> Why should I pay for him? >>> You are a Democrat. >> Now if I were an illegal alien..or a minority member..he would be all >> for other people paying for my medical care.
>> Because Im a white male citizen..all bets are off.
> Exactly. Your job in this Brave New World is to be quiet and pay taxes to > support the freeloaders.
>> Do you have any idea what any of that means, Scott? For example, can you >> explain WHY Medicare should continue as a fee-for-service plan, when the >> vast majority of us can't get one of those, unless we pay around $18,000 >> for a family?
>> Do you know why "Medicare Advantage Plans" are recognized in the business >> as one of the worst consumer rip-offs of all time?
>> No? Then why are you posting this nonsense?
>> Do you know who the author of this piece of crap is? It's Betsy >> McCaughey, standing joke and former Lt. Governor of NY. She's a phony. >> Here, for example, is a typical piece about her. Having followed the >> original Clinton health care plan, I can tell you that much worse things >> have been said about her reporting of "facts," and they're right about >> her:
>> Why do you post things like this without checking them out?
> Because he never thought that someone like you would. By the way, Ms. > Betsy was on the Daily show with John Stewart and she brought the bill > with her. When he got done with her she looked like a fool. Which is > exactly what she is, an overly partisan right wing nutbar. She's part of > that crowd Groucho Marx sang about in his old song where he says I don't > know what's in it but I'm again it.
> Hawke
I've got to start watching the Daily Show. <g>
McCaughey is notorious. Most legit publications won't touch her with a ten-foot pole anymore -- except to swat her with it -- unless their only objective is to stir the pot. Thus, the WSJ, a paper with outstanding journalistic credentials combined with a reputation for reckless op-eds.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:05:55 -0800, Dave B <debc...@hm.com> wrote: >On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:52:37 -0500, Cliff ><Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>Notice the House pulled all the amendments that would prevent illegal >>>aliens from getting medical care on the new "health care plan"?
>> Good for them !!
>>Cliff
>Goof for them eh?
Why do you want people working in the US dead? And their kids?
BTW, Let's see your National Identity implanted RFID chip and supporting ID cards. Show at every corner & on demand & I'm demanding. -- Cliff
>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.
>>>>>Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is only >>>>>the VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is actually a >>>>>hybrid since the actual hands on is done by the private sector.
>>>> That's true in many nations with universal coverage. >>>> There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better >>>> results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).
>>>Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in the >>>US.
>> "In many", eh? S oin others it's lower.
>> BTW, Do you care if you pay for health care with a 5% tax or >>a 20% insurance fee?
>Neither of those numbers mean shit to anyone but you.
IOW You want to pay more for less. Pretty stupid IMHO.
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:11:25 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)" >>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Medicare is just socialized insurance for older people.
>>>>>>Pretty much although true socialized medicine in this country is only >>>>>>the VA and military hospitals. In the other areas it is actually a >>>>>>hybrid since the actual hands on is done by the private sector.
>>>>> That's true in many nations with universal coverage. >>>>> There are all sorts of systems. All far cheaper with better >>>>> results (except for CEO & lobbiest bonuses).
>>>>Prove it. Tax rates in many of those countries is far higher than in the >>>>US.
>>> "In many", eh? S oin others it's lower.
>>> BTW, Do you care if you pay for health care with a 5% tax or >>>a 20% insurance fee?
>>Neither of those numbers mean shit to anyone but you.
> IOW You want to pay more for less. > Pretty stupid IMHO.
The republicans have lost every races since the election. It started with Begich, defeated incumbent Ted Stevens in Alaska which has been held by a republican for almost 40 years.And then Al Frankin won in Minnesota. In the last 30 years he's only the 3rd democrat from Minnesota. And now a New York Congressional district that has been held by a republican since the Civil War has gone to a democrat.
Can you feel the change?
And what are you going to do when Obama a centrist judge to Thomas' slot on the Supreme Court?
|
