Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: gray asphalt on 26 Sep 2009 19:03 "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message news:d67b74f3-767b-4921-a912-c8e0353a7665(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... On Sep 24, 9:17 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:238d23c8-5a78-4e36-9faf-300cdf6fd8ce(a)g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 23, 5:15 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:29:07 -0500, The moderator wrote: > > > Chump change to a Liberal, but a lot of money to those of us who can > > > count. > > > Back here on planet Earth, who ran a leaner government over their two > > terms, Clinton or Bush? It kind of seems like this brainless slur of > > yours is totally off base, huh? > > I'll never understand why Americans lay this on Presidents. Congress > controls spending. The president can suggest and administer. The > president cannot allocate funds. Only Congress does that. So the GOP > Congress under Clinton spent less than the GOP Congress and the Dem > congress under Bush. The Newt effect, no doubt! > > Bush didn't veto one single bill until what - > the six year in office. That's a fact Jack. That's true. Think Obama will veto and of Pelosi's bills? > +++++++++++++++++ One is about health care, the other a complete lack of fiscal responsibility. Question for you: How come the Republicans voted for the bank bailout when it was comming from Bush, but against it when it was Obama in office? One of the best clips I've ever seen was when Jesse Ventura hit Shawn Hannity with that one. Hannity cut the interview short ... I wonder what it is that makes some people so consumed with winning that they are willing to hurt the whole country to be right (I mean to win when they wrong). I guess that's human nature and not having the time to really try to understand the issues and blind faith, blind loyalty.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 27 Sep 2009 17:13 On Sep 26, 6:03 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > news:d67b74f3-767b-4921-a912-c8e0353a7665(a)h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 24, 9:17 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote in message > > >news:238d23c8-5a78-4e36-9faf-300cdf6fd8ce(a)g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > On Sep 23, 5:15 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:29:07 -0500, The moderator wrote: > > > > Chump change to a Liberal, but a lot of money to those of us who can > > > > count. > > > > Back here on planet Earth, who ran a leaner government over their two > > > terms, Clinton or Bush? It kind of seems like this brainless slur of > > > yours is totally off base, huh? > > > I'll never understand why Americans lay this on Presidents. Congress > > controls spending. The president can suggest and administer. The > > president cannot allocate funds. Only Congress does that. So the GOP > > Congress under Clinton spent less than the GOP Congress and the Dem > > congress under Bush. The Newt effect, no doubt! > > > Bush didn't veto one single bill until what - > > the six year in office. That's a fact Jack. > > That's true. Think Obama will veto and of Pelosi's bills? > > > +++++++++++++++++ > > One is about health care, the other a complete lack > of fiscal responsibility. Question for you: How come > the Republicans voted for the bank bailout when it > was comming from Bush, but against it when it was > Obama in office? One of the best clips I've ever > seen was when Jesse Ventura hit Shawn Hannity > with that one. Hannity cut the interview short ... I > wonder what it is that makes some people so consumed > with winning that they are willing to hurt the whole > country to be right (I mean to win when they wrong). > I guess that's human nature and not having the time > to really try to understand the issues and blind faith, > blind loyalty. I thought the bailout was ridiculous, as I stated here. Banks are not that hard to found (all you need is some seed money), and really are worth nothing other than their positive assets. Letting AIG go down the tubes would have hurt no one other than say Goldman Sacs and a few of the other big banks like Citibank...but so what? If the problem were liquidity, all the govt had to do was say here's some free money...which they did and are doing. IMHO it's not so much there is no money to lend but that there are no genuinely creditworthy borrowers out there...otherwise why do they have to give it away? FWIW the dem health care plan reflects a complete lack of financial responsibility...say anything to get it passed because we will be so better off in the end...ends justify means...and IMHO they are dead wrong. The dem health care plan will be a disaster financially speaking, just like medicare is. If they can't fund medicare they can't fund general health care. To think you can apportion less money to medicare when the problem is it needs more...a lot more...and use that as a base for general health care doesn't make any sense. There are no savings to be made in medicare, which is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain.
From: Howard Brazee on 27 Sep 2009 22:23 I'm curious. One of the things that increase the cost of health care in the U.S. is when people wait until the weekend to take their kids to be treated - at the expensive hospitals - because that's the day when they have time off. Is there any process in places like Canada or the UK to counter this? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: gray asphalt on 29 Sep 2009 20:57 "The moderator" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote in message news:4aba2934$0$23766$bbae4d71(a)news.suddenlink.net... > > "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:Naeum.49208$JG1.39006(a)newsfe24.iad... >> >> >>>> To cut to the chase ... I think it is wishful >>>> thinking to believe that the current insurance >>>> companies are going to treat you fairly. >>>> If they wanted to be up front about what >>>> they do and do not cover there would be >>>> a list. >>> >>> Coverage is defined and exceptions listed in every insurance policy. >> >> How come there are lawsuits, won by individuals, who claim >> that they should have been covered and weren't? ... broad terms >> like "experimental" are used to deny common sense procedures ... >> procrastinating payment until the policyholder is dead ... >> Do insurance companies insist that the details of their lost >> cases not be revealed? Is there a list of what cases have been >> filed and the verdicts and the outcomes for the families? > > Do you have any examples? Specifics? > > What about those ads on television from lawyers looking for clients to sue > for health claims? Don't you think we could reduce insurance costs if we > had some tort reform to limit how these shysters make money recruiting > "victims?" Are you saying that you doubt that insurance companies intentionally deny legitimate claims, with the outcome of death and delayed treatment causing permanent injury? Did you see the Dr. who testified before congress that did exactly that and was promoted because she was considered a company man? She admitted to murder on CSPAN, imo.
From: gray asphalt on 29 Sep 2009 21:00
Can someone explain to me why the % of GDP, (which used to be GNP), has anything to do with health care? Does that mean if GDP goes up, health care is less important because it is a smaller percentage of GDP? |