On 11/10/09 4:36 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
"H the wrote in message
m...
On 11/10/09 10:13 AM, Don White wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

Maybe in Maryland. Hell a majority of the babies delivered at San Diego
hospitals are illegals kids. Los Angeles spent $50 million on welfare
benefits, most on illegals in just one month this year.


You should be thinking of that when you're crusin' for cheap labour in
those
'shape-up lines' behind Home Depot




Illegals' kids? Ahh...but born in the USA. Legal kids.



And the kids should not be given legal status.




Sorry, bozo. They're born here, they're citizens.

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:30:30 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:10:00 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you want to start analysing those 47000 deaths and find out how
many came in DOA from accidents, gunshots, drug ODs and other mayhem
we might even close that gap.


I'm sorry if you don't believe the Mayo Clinic's estimate.

I didn't deny the statistic. I only ask what is in it (how did these
people die) and point out it is statistically insignificant in the 2.4
million deaths annually anyway.
It is about the same outcome you have from the insured.

Saying being uninsured killed 47000 people means about as much as
saying living in California killed 257,000 people last year.



I think you need to look at the methodology..

Enlighten me. From what I can tell the 47k is simply the number of
people without insurance who died. Considering that those with the
most dangerous lifestyles are also the most likely to not have
insurance, I am not shocked at all.

Being out of a job or in a low-paying job is now a "dangerous
lifestyle?"
Here, be enlightened.
A fat slob smoker/drinker with insurance has better odds to survive
than a fat slob smoker/drinker without insurance.
And a slim non-smoker, non-drinker smoker with hypertension, diabetes,
or other undiagnosed ailments has less odds to survive than the same
who has insurance.
Though statistics usually lie in some fashion, common sense should be
allowed to kick in. This is hardly rocket science.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/bl...ured_hold.html

--Vic

In article ,
says...

Bill McKee wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 11/10/09 10:13 AM, Don White wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...
Maybe in Maryland. Hell a majority of the babies delivered at San Diego
hospitals are illegals kids. Los Angeles spent $50 million on welfare
benefits, most on illegals in just one month this year.

You should be thinking of that when you're crusin' for cheap labour in
those
'shape-up lines' behind Home Depot



Illegals' kids? Ahh...but born in the USA. Legal kids.



And the kids should not be given legal status.


I think it's the law.

It's an old law that no longer serves it's origional purpose of taking
care of the children of slaves... Now it just is an excuse for the
democrats to build their voter base..

"*Jim*" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 11/10/09 10:13 AM, Don White wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...
Maybe in Maryland. Hell a majority of the babies delivered at San
Diego
hospitals are illegals kids. Los Angeles spent $50 million on welfare
benefits, most on illegals in just one month this year.

You should be thinking of that when you're crusin' for cheap labour in
those
'shape-up lines' behind Home Depot



Illegals' kids? Ahh...but born in the USA. Legal kids.



And the kids should not be given legal status.
I think it's the law.

Actually they are still debating that. Was to make sure the slaves were
citizens after emancipation. The parents were here legally.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 11/10/09 10:13 AM, Don White wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

Maybe in Maryland. Hell a majority of the babies delivered at San
Diego
hospitals are illegals kids. Los Angeles spent $50 million on welfare
benefits, most on illegals in just one month this year.


You should be thinking of that when you're crusin' for cheap labour in
those
'shape-up lines' behind Home Depot




Illegals' kids? Ahh...but born in the USA. Legal kids.



And the kids should not be given legal status.

If they're born in the US, their citizens. Been that way a fairly long
time.

--
Nom=de=Plume


See my other reply.

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

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:55:57 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:njfff59qq8ngiskkbtv3qja8df9lv7c9e3@4a x.com...
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:07:50 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
Tonight at 11:15 pm EST, by a 220 to 215 vote, the House passed
their
version of Health Care Reform.

Among the most meaningful pieces of legislation in history
making it
through one body of congress is a big deal. There's lots of
work left
but I'm damned happy a major bridge has been crossed.

All you folks who hate your fellow Americans and don't think
it's
worth the investment have my sympathy.


One lone Republican voted for it. 39 Democrats opposed. That
****es me
off.
Well, it's on to the Senate. I'm sure they'll do something by
2015.

Lets hope they bog it down and 2010 becomes an election issue on
the
very point. A decision this big needs direct voting on the issue.
Hell, if the majority wants government to nationalize health care,
so be
it. But I suspect when people take the time to read, this is a
hidden
tax grab. Get the cash flow to the government and then turn down
survice levels while they skim the moneys.

The polls are very clear in that Americans want health care
reform.

Haley Barbour was on Meet the Press today insisting the majority
of
Americans don't want health care reform. I don't know of a single
poll, apart from heavy Republican districts, who are against
health
care reform.

Lying straight faced is Republican strong suit.

Yes, the people are for health care reform. Or really cheaper
healthcare.
But do they want the government telling them what services they can
have?

Oy. Doesn't that happen right now? What makes you think the
government is going to deny any more procedures or care than the
profit making health care business?

The government has never run anything cheaper than private industry.

Oh boy, here we go. Isn't most medicare administration done by
private industry?

And
ramming through a "healthcare reform" bill in a short time in the
back room
and then voting on it less than 3 days later, leads to those ****ED
UP laws
that the unintended consequences are worse than the cure. The Feds
should
be working on creating sustainable jobs, cutting spending and curing
a
depression first.

Don't you think keeping people solvent who might otherwise be
swamped
by medical costs is a good investment?

Perhaps it's not the first consideration in getting us back on our
economic feet but it's up there.

Did President Bush focus only on invading Iraq or was he also
working
on making the Chinese-funded tax cuts for US rich permanent?

jps, you seem to be a one trick pony. Everything is fubar because
Bush invaded the Middle East. Ain't so, and until you can come up
with resonable debates: kiss my ass!

I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even that
was messed up.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I stated that jps believes all the crap is Bush's fault. Everything
was perfect before Bush 2. Except We are still spending money in
Bosnia, look what a fine place Clinton left Somalia. Bush was not the
one who signed the bill to let banks be brokerage houses. Something
that had worked well after the 1929 crash. I hope you did better
reading on your patent searches.

Somalia? That's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things. Bosnia...
we did a lot of good there. Do you deny that?

It's not all Bush's fault. He just was a significant contributor ...
more than anyone else.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Bush just added to the Clusterf*&k. Somalia, killed a lot of our men for
nothing. Bosnia was not our problem, we had no right to interfere. And
Albanians and Serbs have been killing each other for 600 years. Let
Europe take care of the problem if needed, was their playground. How
many billions we waste there? And we are still there.


Bush promoted the clusterfk, but ok. Somalia was a mistake, but thousands
of our troops didn't die. "any man's death diminishes me, because I am
involved in mankind").

We saved lives in Bosnia, and it was necessary to "interfere" in ethnic
cleansing. We should have intervened in Rwanda and we should intervene in
Darfur. Don't forget that WW2 started in the region.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why should we interfere in Bosnia because of ethic cleansing? Ruwanda was a
lot better place to interfere. Bosnia has had Albanians cleansing Serbs and
Serbs cleansing Albanians for centuries. But the Albanians seem to have the
upper hand in all the years. They ran death camps for the NAZI and even
some of the Germans were grossed out by the gusto that they went about the
job. Are we the police department for Europe?

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:44:40 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:55:57 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news:njfff59qq8ngiskkbtv3qja8df9lv7c9e3@4a x.com...
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:07:50 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

nom=de=plume wrote:
"jps" wrote in message
...
Tonight at 11:15 pm EST, by a 220 to 215 vote, the House passed
their
version of Health Care Reform.

Among the most meaningful pieces of legislation in history
making
it
through one body of congress is a big deal. There's lots of
work
left
but I'm damned happy a major bridge has been crossed.

All you folks who hate your fellow Americans and don't think
it's
worth the investment have my sympathy.


One lone Republican voted for it. 39 Democrats opposed. That
****es me
off.
Well, it's on to the Senate. I'm sure they'll do something by
2015.

Lets hope they bog it down and 2010 becomes an election issue on
the
very point. A decision this big needs direct voting on the issue.
Hell, if the majority wants government to nationalize health care,
so be
it. But I suspect when people take the time to read, this is a
hidden
tax grab. Get the cash flow to the government and then turn down
survice levels while they skim the moneys.

The polls are very clear in that Americans want health care
reform.

Haley Barbour was on Meet the Press today insisting the majority
of
Americans don't want health care reform. I don't know of a single
poll, apart from heavy Republican districts, who are against
health
care reform.

Lying straight faced is Republican strong suit.

Yes, the people are for health care reform. Or really cheaper
healthcare.
But do they want the government telling them what services they can
have?

Oy. Doesn't that happen right now? What makes you think the
government is going to deny any more procedures or care than the
profit making health care business?

The government has never run anything cheaper than private industry.

Oh boy, here we go. Isn't most medicare administration done by
private industry?

And
ramming through a "healthcare reform" bill in a short time in the
back
room
and then voting on it less than 3 days later, leads to those ****ED
UP
laws
that the unintended consequences are worse than the cure. The Feds
should
be working on creating sustainable jobs, cutting spending and curing
a
depression first.

Don't you think keeping people solvent who might otherwise be
swamped
by medical costs is a good investment?

Perhaps it's not the first consideration in getting us back on our
economic feet but it's up there.

Did President Bush focus only on invading Iraq or was he also
working
on making the Chinese-funded tax cuts for US rich permanent?

jps, you seem to be a one trick pony. Everything is fubar because
Bush
invaded the Middle East. Ain't so, and until you can come up with
resonable debates: kiss my ass!

I find it difficult to find one thing that Bush did with actual
compassionate results. Perhaps the Africa AIDS program, but even that
was messed up.

--
Nom=de=Plume


I stated that jps believes all the crap is Bush's fault. Everything
was
perfect before Bush 2. Except We are still spending money in Bosnia,
look what a fine place Clinton left Somalia. Bush was not the one who
signed the bill to let banks be brokerage houses. Something that had
worked well after the 1929 crash. I hope you did better reading on
your
patent searches.

Somalia? That's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things. Bosnia...
we
did a lot of good there. Do you deny that?

It's not all Bush's fault. He just was a significant contributor ...
more
than anyone else.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Bush just added to the Clusterf*&k. Somalia, killed a lot of our men for
nothing. Bosnia was not our problem, we had no right to interfere. And
Albanians and Serbs have been killing each other for 600 years. Let
Europe
take care of the problem if needed, was their playground. How many
billions
we waste there? And we are still there.

Please tell us how many billions we've wasted in Bosnia.

Then tell us how many billions it takes to make a trillion x 3. Can
you say several orders of magnitude?

A billion hear a billion there, and you are talking real money. How many
billions has Obama overspent in the last 10 months?

On 11/11/09 12:42 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:31:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was discussing this with someone else last night and we have another
interesting statistic to throw in the fray.
Heart disease in the leading cause of death in the US but we also lead
the world in obesity. The numbers when compared to the other countries
we use as models for the successes of public medicine are striking.
Chew on this and tell me spending a trillion on insurance will make us
healthier.
Percentage of citizens who are clinically defined as being obese


I'm no expert re the methodology. I don't have the time to look right now,
but let's just assume it is as you say.

In any case, the latter part of your comment... "spending a trillion" is not
actually spending, since the criteria is deficit neutral, which it pretty
much is currently (FYI, I don't think it needs to be deficit neutral, but
that's not the issue/question). It would actually save money compared to the
high cost of doing nothing. You think a trillion is bad? Just wait if we do
nothing.


Anyone who really thinks this is deficit neutral also believes the
post office is self sustaining.

Nobody believes it will be, although we do have a bunch of liars out
there that are still saying it will...


Why would this concern you? You are unemployed. You don't pay taxes.


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 11/10/09 10:13 AM, Don White wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
m...

Maybe in Maryland. Hell a majority of the babies delivered at San
Diego
hospitals are illegals kids. Los Angeles spent $50 million on
welfare
benefits, most on illegals in just one month this year.


You should be thinking of that when you're crusin' for cheap labour in
those
'shape-up lines' behind Home Depot




Illegals' kids? Ahh...but born in the USA. Legal kids.



And the kids should not be given legal status.

If they're born in the US, their citizens. Been that way a fairly long
time.

--
Nom=de=Plume


See my other reply.

Not sure who you mean by "they." It's a pretty straightforward legal status.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_chi...born_in_the_US

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:31:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was discussing this with someone else last night and we have another
interesting statistic to throw in the fray.
Heart disease in the leading cause of death in the US but we also lead
the world in obesity. The numbers when compared to the other countries
we use as models for the successes of public medicine are striking.
Chew on this and tell me spending a trillion on insurance will make us
healthier.
Percentage of citizens who are clinically defined as being obese


I'm no expert re the methodology. I don't have the time to look right now,
but let's just assume it is as you say.

In any case, the latter part of your comment... "spending a trillion" is
not
actually spending, since the criteria is deficit neutral, which it pretty
much is currently (FYI, I don't think it needs to be deficit neutral, but
that's not the issue/question). It would actually save money compared to
the
high cost of doing nothing. You think a trillion is bad? Just wait if we
do
nothing.


Anyone who really thinks this is deficit neutral also believes the
post office is self sustaining.


It's as deficit neutral as possible in a political environment. It certainly
won't be spending trillions more.

--
Nom=de=Plume