Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: dene on 20 Jan 2010 17:47 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:u2tel51cco5pann4d6i8utqsp139nluqme(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:34:25 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> > wrote: > > >"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >news:sffel51hqod1n5gvclejgcs58116t2hh5i(a)4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:29:03 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > > >> If I was the Democratic leadership, I would make the changes to the > >> health care bill, pass it through the House and let the Republicans > >> kill it in the Senate. This way they can blame the Republicans for > >> killing the bill. Next I would forget about cap and tax and the union > >> card check bill and move on to working on the economy. > > > >That's probably what they will do. The high road would be to actually > >negotiate a bi partisan bill and present it to the President. It's what > >they should have done in the first place. > > > >-Greg > > All they have to do is tort reform and allow people to buy only what > coverage they want in any state they want. Neither proposal would > cost the government a dime and it would lower costs. > > As you know, if they don't allow insurance companies to reject > pre-exists, a lot of young people will cancel their insurance. The > thing that keeps them in is the fear that they will get sick and then > not be able to get coverage. That's a good start. I think the individual mandate needs to happen too, especially if you are going to insist that insurance companies have to accept all applicants. Also, as Rob said, eliminate bankruptcy as a means skate out of medical bills. Put these deficit nuetral steps in place and premiums will drop. Congress can also expand medicaid to the working poor and unemployed, by eliminating waste and cutting out the cream in medicare. An excise tax on cadillac benefits isn't a bad idea if the revenue truly funds the expansion of medicaid. Also, medicaid needs to roll back their benefits, having higher co-pays for services. That makes recipients more responsible about using their benefits, plus it expands coverage to others. Common sense stuff! -Greg
From: R&B on 20 Jan 2010 17:53 On 2010-01-20 15:18:41 -0500, BigSlicer said: > Being a realistic person, no doubt we had a major setback last night. > Because many Democrats see themselves as vulnerable. Being politicans > first, they will drop their passion for health care and one by one > distance themselves from Obama. As hurtful as it is to me, as someone > that volunteered for Obama and spent countless hours on the phone, he may > end up being a one termer. Because the right hates him, and whatever idea > he presents will be thwarted. The right would hate him if he was a CONSERVATIVE Democrat. The right is all about obstructionism. Period. Furthermore, if you want to know why O's approval ratings are down, it's because he hasn't delivered on the sweeping change he promised. Remember, he told us he had the opportunity to be a TRANSFORMATIONAL president, not merely an "incrementalist" who nibbles around the edges. But because he's treaded lightly and extended an olive branch to Republicans, they have viewed this as a sign of weakness and exploited it. To date, no more than one Republican has voted in favor of any of Obama's legislative agenda. Contrast that to how Democrats voted in '81 in Reagan's first year. Or in '69 in Nixon's first year in office. Or even in '01 in Bush's first year in office after a most contentious election. In the past, the party who lost the White House has accepted that "the people have spoken" and have gotten on board, however begrudgingly, with the President's agenda. Sure, within a couple years they began to perform as a "loyal opposition." But we've never, in the nation's history, seen the kind of near-unanimous (among Republicans) obstructionism that we've seen in Obama's first year in office. So in effect, a 40-seat minority in the Senate has effectively blocked the will of the people that was expressed on election day 2008, when we voted for sweeping change, and, for all intents and purposes, somehow reversed the outcome of the election. Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. Getting 60 Democrats to show the sort of unity the Republicans have is never going to happen. With Democrats, it's like herding cats. Good luck with that. But I don't blame the President. Do I think he could have done more? Absolutely. But he took a calculated risk on health care, betting that doing it differently than Bill Clinton and relying upon Congress to come with a bill (rather than offering his own and threatening to veto anything else) would be more effective. He didn't factor in the "herding cats" problem with Dems. Personally, I think Obama could turn this whole health care debate on its head and win huge favor from both sides if he simply did one thing: veto whatever bill comes to his desk. Clearly, whatever bill they bring him isn't going to be what we voted for in '08. So why not just veto the damn thing and start over? This notion that people are angry and are going to throw out Democrats in '10 may be wishful thinking on the part of Republicans. People are angry alright. People on both sides are angry. But the majority that prevailed in '06 and '08 is angry because the Grand Obstructionist Party effectively reversed the outcome of the elections with their political maneuvering. If we have to elect a 70-seat majority in the Senate, we will. We're going to get what we voted for. And the Republicans are damn fools to ignore the will of the people the way they did in '09. Randy > I leave it all in Gods hands. I will not > resort to the name calling or hostility that you and others demonstrate in > frustration, that just makes those of us on the left appear worse, it > solves nothing, it is not constructive. I wish Brown well, the people > voted him in and we are after all a democracy. Hopefully, we will talk > about health care again and maybe more of our leaders will look to Jesus > and ask WWJD. Jesus would never let anyone die or get inferior care, just > because they were poor or did not have good coverage. I am convinced in > the end that unrelenting belief in Jesus will help all sides of this issue > find agreement. > > --------� > : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
From: dene on 20 Jan 2010 17:59 "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message news:4JudnbknW9QiG8rWnZ2dnUVZ_gRi4p2d(a)supernews.com... > dene wrote, On 1/20/10 4:37 PM: > > "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message > > news:_oednTqscIKbHMrWnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)supernews.com... > >> R&B wrote, On 1/20/10 4:10 PM: > >> > >>> I have no respect for Dene because he shows no one else any respect. > >> He deserves a baseline of consideration for being a fellow > >> human being. This being MLK week, let me remind you: > >> > >> "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do > >> that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." > >> > >> I'll add that the only time those words have real meaning > >> is when they are uncomfortable and/or difficult. That's > >> where the rubber meets the road. So even when I chastise > >> Dene, I do it out of hope that he'll let go of pettiness > >> and get a sense of perspective. It's a moral imperative > >> to me that I do. YMMV and probably does. > >> > >> cb > > > > And since you do it respectfully, sometimes I listen. > > > > I follow a simple set of rules in here. If you want to discuss issues, I'm > > game. Throw in demeaning insults, then I return fire. > > Why? > > Seriously, dude, that's the ethos of a teenager. Rise above. > > cb In Usenet?? It's jungle rules, baby! Besides, returning fire can be kinda fun. -Greg
From: R&B on 20 Jan 2010 17:59 On 2010-01-20 15:42:22 -0500, MNMikeW said: > "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message > news:2010012013205616807-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... >> You and your insurance company pals are lower than Al Queda and the > >> terrorists. You just kill Americans (or let them die) FOR THE MONEY. > >> You're all sick fucks at your core, and Dene, I think anyone who's ever >> > read one of your posts on this subject here in RSG gets a real clear >> > picture of what kind of human being you are. It's no accident you >> were > bestowed the title of "The Turd In The Punchbowl." You earned >> it. >> >> There isn't a hell hot enough for the likes of you. But I'm betting >> one > is being prepared for you right now. >> >> Randy >> > You do realize your credibility goes right down the toilet with your > textbook rants like this. Not that you had much to begin with. I stand by every word of it. Insurance companies are responsible for more American deaths each year than the terrorists. Through recission, exclusion and discriminatory policies that prevent Americans from receiving the health care the need, companies like Aetna, United, Blue Cross and the rest render "death panel" decisions that play a direct role in more American deaths each year than you can attribute to terrorists. That's an irrefutable fact, sir. But at least the terrorists do it for some religious belief, however perverted it might be. Insurance companies do it for money. The fact that you don't find such a thing reprehensible tells me all I need to know about you. Randy
From: dene on 20 Jan 2010 18:04
"R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message news:2010012017343950073-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... > There is a special place in hell for you. > > Randy Ya know....you had me until this line. While I was reading your post, I was thinking that perhaps you could discuss these ideas without rancor. You actually made a couple valid points. Then I got to this line, which nullifies everything you say. Now go away, grow up, and then post when you can exchange ideas like an adult. -Greg |