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?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:42:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"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.

Funny thing is that he isn't paying anything.

You actually have to pay taxes to be considered a taxpayer.


John seems to have devolved into typing lol a bunch of times rather than
actually have a discussion. I guess he's run out of things to say.

He's checking Worldnut Daily and Fox for fresh info while moving his
index finger between upper and lower lips. Snotty is scouring the MN
news for any fraudulent Franken activity and Jim is picking his nose
or something else.

wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

They "work" just fine, we just can't afford to spend that much money
for the other 300,000,000 people in the country.

Medicare is only here because the old people vote and they don't
really care about how our kids will deal with the crushing debt.


Feel not to use your Medicare then...

They certainly work, they certainly curtail costs, they certainly have some
problems, they certainly have nothing to do with preventing other people
from getting affordable, quality coverage.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"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

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:10:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:40 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:

Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and
have
driven the ins. companies into the ground.

Obama just needs to pump lots of money into those systems and everything
will be fine.

Isn't it strange how the VA has improved so dramatically from when
Bush was president. Then, the VA medical system was an example of how
inefficient Bush was.


?? Vets actually have a guy in charge of the VA who cares about them. Did
you miss that news?

Eric Shinseki - He was fired by Bush for being honest.

http://www.va.gov/

Shinseki resigned. He realized he was beating his head against a brick
wall (named Rumsfeld). lol lol


He was fired. He disagreed with Rumsfeld and was forced out.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:40 -0400, Jim wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:

Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures
and
have
driven the ins. companies into the ground.

Obama just needs to pump lots of money into those systems and
everything
will be fine.

Isn't it strange how the VA has improved so dramatically from when
Bush was president. Then, the VA medical system was an example of how
inefficient Bush was.


?? Vets actually have a guy in charge of the VA who cares about them. Did
you miss that news?

ROTFLMAO... But at the same time won't support the boys in the field..
LOL. Of course he did have more time to spend with "co-operative"
propagandists last week in the White House, more time than he has spent
with the commanders in the field... This is just funny...


Eric Shinseki - He was fired by Bush for being honest.

http://www.va.gov/

?? He's not a war hero and a patriot? Revisionism doesn't cut it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:36:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Bummer about competition. Medicare and the VA systems are failures and
have
driven the ins. companies into the ground

The insurance companies managed to make sure Medicare people still
need to buy a "gap" policy so they are doing fine.


And, that's yet another item that needs to be addressed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"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?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:39:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That money you get is coming from everyone else, not the doctor.
If you want to be insured against mistakes, make that a separate
policy others can opt out of, not part of "medical insurance". They
we all won't be paying for a few bad doctors.


What if it's not criminal? What if it's criminal, but can't be prosecuted
for various techincal reasons? $250K is nothing. OIC... buy more
unaffordable insurance is the answer! NOT


You are going to pay one way or the other as long as mal-practice is
just another insurance item.
There is no incentive to stop bad doctors, they just let them continue
screwing up and passing the cost on to the public.
People like you who think a quarter of a million is not just
compensation are just increasing the size of the problem.

The reality is there is no way to compensate someone for mal-practice.
Lawyers invented this cash payout model, just because they get a third
to half of the money.
Sweet deal. Don't stop bad doctors, cash in on them.


Sorry, but tort reform and caps on compensation for loss are small items in
the scheme of healthcare reform. How about no pre-existing conditions? How
about removing the anti-trust exemptions? How about ensuring competition in
the ins. field? Those are the big items.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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...??