Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#52
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
JLH OPAof7 wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:24:47 -0400, J i m wrote: H the K wrote: Moron. Go pound sand. You are the moron. Your unions are falling apart. Your guy's "jam it down their throats" policy is finally meeting resistance from Americans who are waking up to the administration's bullying tactics. Wake up and realize that you are the one with oddball mindset. It's been fun toying with you but this crap is getting old. Bye! Plonk! Finally! Anything for you, buddy. :-) |
#53
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote: It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option was the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the plan. And, in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are discussing the failures of centralized health care management and the need to move to patient centered health care. Nothing would please me more than to see morons like you lose their jobs, their health care insurance, their homes, and then be faced with a significant chronic illness for which they cannot afford treatment. Way to go Harry, avoid the issue and attack the messenger. It's really sad in this country that the only contribution the GOP makes is in the area fear-mongering, but they are good at it. The GOP is all about lifting all boats. We want everyone to have the opportunity to become rich. Conversely, you progressives, liberals, Democrats want everyone to become equally poor. I'm sure we will have some form of health care insurance reform moving through Congress this fall. No one expected it to do everything necessary at once. It isn't looking good for your side of the argument. You can't even get your message straight. One minute the public option is a requirement, the next minute it isn't a requirement and then it is a requirement. Obama just can't get his message out to his people or his people just don't listen to him. Either way it doesn't matter because it doesn't look good for you and your firends. |
#54
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
H the K wrote:
thunder wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote: Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health- insurance- oxymoron http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269 The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates, among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else. It's inhumane. I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much Federal anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry. There's Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that provides the schedules used in determining reimbursement for out-of-network charges, used by most of the major players. Then there is the acquisitions, subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting in a few major players. It ain't a competitive market. in fact, the only real competition is in the federally managed FEHBA program, where hundreds of insurance companies compete for the health care dollars of federal workers, who can pick the health care plans they want. What insurance company wants to get on the wrong side of the government? Not true in the private sector. If you get health insurance through your employer, you have no or very little choice. Your employer makes the decision. The employers are limited by the number of employees they bring to the insurance companies. There is no marketplace for health insurance consumers. The government at the federal and state levels has closed the markets to true competition. |
#55
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:
They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-) More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong news reports? Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull**** on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder what has changed? http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory- death-counseling-exposed.aspx |
#56
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
says... On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote: They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-) More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong news reports? Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull**** on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder what has changed? They read the bill... http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory- death-counseling-exposed.aspx -- Wafa free since 2009 |
#57
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote: They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-) More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong news reports? Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull**** on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder what has changed? They read the bill... http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory- death-counseling-exposed.aspx Isn't it interesting how conservative dirtbags like JustWait, Herring, and a few others latch onto a bit of political flotsam and perseverate on it no matter what, even when it has been shown to be absolute bull****? |
#58
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:24:57 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote: They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-) More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong news reports? Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull**** on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder what has changed? http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory- death-counseling-exposed.aspx Hey - you were the one using the phrase, 'Isakson's "death panel" made it in'. -- John H "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." -- Thomas Sowell |
#59
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
H K wrote:
JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote: They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-) More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong news reports? Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull**** on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder what has changed? They read the bill... http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory- death-counseling-exposed.aspx Isn't it interesting how conservative dirtbags like JustWait, Herring, and a few others latch onto a bit of political flotsam and perseverate on it no matter what, even when it has been shown to be absolute bull****? We, the "conservative dirtbags", are winning this battle. It matters not where the language came from it only matters that it is the Democrats bill. The fact that the Democrats have shut the Republicans out of writing the bill isn't in the Democrats favor either. The Democrats wanted all the glory of providing "universal health care" and they are getting all of that glory and ignominy of the adverse nuggets that can be mined. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
~~ snerk ~~ | General | |||
Snerk | General | |||
~~ snerk ~~ | General | |||
SNERK | General | |||
~~snerk~~ | General |