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

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the
competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's
wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why
should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint.

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in
message
...
On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote:
They repeatedly said they would accept a series of
new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to
purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers.

Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of
public option (competition), would be a disaster.

There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from
anti-trust laws.

It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they
needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the
removal of any antitrust exemptions.

It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote
below.

"If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an
industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a
health care bill moving toward the Senate floor."

The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized
the administration...

Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only
because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff.

If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to
'anti-trust' laws?


That's funny! Did you make that up?

Can you answer the question?

Well, I don't really know but if they were they would be sued
immediately. After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Shoot, you stole my 'thunder'. (That's a pun. A ****ty one, but one
anyway.)

On 10/22/09 7:53 PM, Tosk wrote:


Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here...

bull****.

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.

Maryland is losing doctors due to the high cost of malpractice insurance
and the lack of reasonability on judgements against doctors. The biggest
lose is in the OB/GYN area.

The fact that your baby is not perfect isn't the doctors fault, it is
yours. Do a better job picking your parents and your spouse.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:23:41 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/22/09 7:53 PM, Tosk wrote:


Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here...

bull****.

Out of whole cloth, or what he reads on the Fox News website -- which
is totally legal, you know.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:16:17 -0500, thunder
wrote:

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.

A quarter of a million dollar cap per suit is not reform. That just
means they have to file more suits. That is why you see so many lawyer
ads on TV

And it is the extra $5000 every time someone shows up at the hospital in
unneeded tests to cover their butts against a liability suit. Probably a
bigger cost than the suits themselves by a factor of 10 or more.

"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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...

"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!

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:47:01 -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...

"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!

That didn't come from Worldnet Daily!!!

It didn't come from Fox News!!!

Slate is a decidedly left-wing rag that surely doesn't report the tin
hat theories most loved by the wingnuts.

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.