"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When it was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example, before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in charge of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a problem and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as
those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase,
but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated
the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud
with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put
stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party
is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for
supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When it was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example, before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in charge of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a problem and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It is like someone who chose not to buy collision insurance then wants
it after they totaled their car.

Not really. Not even the same scale....

--
Nom=de=Plume


Think about it. Is exactly the same. No insurance, you get sick and now
you buy the insurance. Not the way insurance works. It is to spread the
risk. If you only get the insurance when needed, then you failed in the
spreading the risk part.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:50:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:57:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in
message
...
In article
,
says...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system.
Tort
reform
could
help the situation but it's going to require it's
own
process.
Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough
states
that
have
passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work
or
not.
Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly
1-1
1/2%,
to
affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been
many
studies
that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to
the
consumer.
The fact is, there have been several great suggestions
and
dozens of
admendments/bills introduced that would provide
bipartisan
to
the
bill
and each and every one has been rejected out of hand.
Obama
clearly
promised sunshine on the process but so far all we
have
seen
is
Chris
Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding
behind
it.
Just
like
Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM
plotting
an
agenda.
More time by the way than he has spent with his
commanders
in
Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see
him
take
his
finger
out of the wind and be a president.
Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and
included
many
Rep.
amendments. Look it up.
Went through this with someone here about two months
ago..
You
are
wrong, period..
Prove it.
Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not
much
for
going
over hundreds of posts from the past...
Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your
assertion...
that
would save you going over hundreds of posts.
Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of
pics
to
post
for some folks I was photographing at the track today...
But if
I
get
time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me
cites
of
bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed...

Five seconds worth of google search, including typing:
republican
amendments to health care bill (no quotes).

http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/
From Slate:

That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67
came
from
Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew
jeers
that
Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another
explanation
may
be
that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they
are
now,
in
fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.)
Only
197
amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161
from
Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate
Republicans
classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.

I hope this helps!

It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and
large,
are
complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it.
They
will
rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even
obama
doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on
top.


It shows that neither of you can support your own arguments.

What argument? Arguing with you would be like arguing with a box
of
rocks.


Then, why do you keep trying? What's dumber than a box of rocks?

A pen name?


Like Tosk?

Uh no.. Tosk is the name I have given to my computer.


A made up name... like a pen name. Got it.

lol

Tosk is not a made up name, Tosk is real... Just ask Tom LOL...


It's made up or it's an Albanian dialect. You pick.

You didn't specify nose or butt. He requires instruction.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example, before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in charge
of the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a problem
and will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back
10-15% shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are
created and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services,
which of course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way
your party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies
on Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in
to SBA loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the
other "investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs.
Other than a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done
anyway. When that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the
worker. Govenment does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Except that this would have caused an amazing about of pain for average
people. This is the classic Milton Freedman, Chicago School of Economics
philosophy that sounds really good but doesn't work, as shown by various
examples in recent decades.

While the gov't doesn't create wealth by borrowing and spending, it does
create jobs, the perfect example being just prior to WW2. The unemployment
rate was something like 25%. The FDR got things going and prior to WW2, it
was down to 10%. Not perfect, but it was in the right direction. Then the
gov't spent an insane amount of money to fund the war. What followed was one
of the best growth periods in a long time.

The jobless rate is currently very bad, but the rate of losses per month is
headed in the right direction. The absolute percentage will likely keep
rising over the next year or so, but businesses are starting to hire, and
this trend should continue. Thus, the technical recession is over, according
to most economists, but that doesn't mean it feels good right now.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It is like someone who chose not to buy collision insurance then wants
it after they totaled their car.

Not really. Not even the same scale....

--
Nom=de=Plume


Think about it. Is exactly the same. No insurance, you get sick and now
you buy the insurance. Not the way insurance works. It is to spread the
risk. If you only get the insurance when needed, then you failed in the
spreading the risk part.

?? Nothing like it. If everyone is covered, then the risk is spread among,
um, everyone. I don't (shouldn't) have to mention the enormous cost of doing
nothing differently. It's unsustainable. We really need universal coverage.
There are two ways to do it. One is a capitalistic, competitive inducing
public option. Anyone should be able to get it... no restrictions. Then, if
an ins. company wants to compete, they're going to have to trim their costs
and/or increase the benefits to keep customers. The other is heavy
regulation, much like Germany. I think the American people deserve the same
sort of options that members of Congress enjoy. Why do they get a choice and
we don't?

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:37:36 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into
a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When it was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...

You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example, before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in charge of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a problem and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad,
as those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales
increase, but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just
accelerated the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500
million if fraud with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15%
shortly. Put stops on your stocks.

Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your
party is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of
yourself for supporting The king and his court in their underhanded
activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually it is you with the intellectual dishonesty. The government spent
tons of money in the wrong place for one thing. Sent it to their cronies on
Wall Street. Want a better recovery, put 50% of that money spent in to SBA
loans. And not spend the other 50%. Let Goldmansackus and the other
"investment" banks fail. The recovery act has not created jobs. Other than
a few paving and infrastucture jobs that needed to be done anyway. When
that paving job is done. Where is the next job for the worker. Govenment
does not creat wealth by borrowing and spending.

Hank Paulson and George Bush got that ball rolling.

Goldman Sachs strikes again...

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:48:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:56:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of
the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more
efficient
than
a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we
eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning
into a
Liberal.

Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than
pay
double for something that doesn't.

Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.

Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When it
was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering
class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...


You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example, before
you
make statements like this. Check out the person who's in charge of
the
VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a problem
and
will
continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

Can you say, double standard...??


What's that? You're clear as mud.

lol lol

I guess I could take Plume fishing, or sit down and eat.. I just can't
wade through the numerous out of context and references to
intellectually dishonest rhetoric.. Sorry Plumeeeee. Just don't have the
time anymore.


Please feel free to either plonk or ignore my posts!

Oy, put yourself out of any misery. I plonked The Freak months ago
and it was a liberating experience. There are such things as hopeless
causes. I can send you my recommended bozo bin.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:40:32 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It is like someone who chose not to buy collision insurance then wants
it after they totaled their car.

Not really. Not even the same scale....

Spreading the risk is also applicable to the pool of insured. The
larger the pool the smaller the effect of taking a small percentage of
people on as they need attention.

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?
Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient
than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer
public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a
Liberal.
Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay
double for something that doesn't.
Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.
Well, I guess it depends on who is in office at the time. When it was
Bush they sure didn't, that is if you listen to the chattering class.
Now miraculously a 10% unemployment rate is a recovery...
You really need to review the facts about the VA, for example, before
you make statements like this. Check out the person who's in charge of
the VA.

There is a technical recovery in process. Jobs are still a problem and
will continue to be for quite a while. What's your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Where is the recovery? The lead in the Dow rise is financials. And
they are going up because of the huge amounts of money the Fed is
tossing at them. The job outlook is bad, the retail outlook is bad, as
those 20%+ without a job are not spending. The housing sales increase,
but the price decreased, and the $8k gift from the Fed just accelerated
the purchases and seems as if they are looking at $500 million if fraud
with the program. Look for the Dow to pull back 10-15% shortly. Put
stops on your stocks.
Look it up. It's been all over the news. So far, you haven't said
anything revealing about the recovery or lack thereof.

The recovery hasn't started yet. And it won't until REAL jobs are created
and REAL workers have money to spend on REAL goods and services, which of
course will be provided by REAL people doing REAL work. The way your party
is handling the situation is UNREAL. You should be ashamed of yourself for
supporting The king and his court in their underhanded activities.


You should be ashamed of your intellectual dishonestly.

http://www.recovery.gov


I don't know what you expect me to conclude from your presentation of
"facts". Spend a few days with that web site. Drill things down and see
if you truly and honestly can say we are on the road to recovery based
on what you find.
Using your web site. I just took a look at how my county benefited.
Supposedly there were 3 contracts awarded and 3 jobs created for a total
cost of $21,471. Thats amazing.

I am not ashamed. You need to wake up and smell the garbage.