From: Howard Brazee on
One point of view says the people are mad that Washington has moved
way to the left and wants to return to Republican values.

The alternative point of view says the people are mad that Washington
has not given the change the people voted for. That they are owned
by the same people who owned them in the previous administration.

They voted against foreign wars, they voted against corporate
bailouts, they voted against a Washington that worked for big money.

So can the Republicans persuade them that previous Republican
administrations were anomalies?

--
"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: dene on

"R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message
news:2010012020220416807-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
> On 2010-01-20 17:32:19 -0500, dene said:

> Dene, I don't need to "cite" anything. Pretty much everyone knows
> someone who has encountered one or more of these obstacles with health
> insurance companies.

Yeah Randy....you need to cite. If this was the experience of the many
Americans, there would be an uproar, but it's simply isn't the case, except
for few pundits on MessNBC repeating lies.

> In the case of outright denial of coverage, I need look no further than
> my own case, where I was turned away by several providers before I
> finally settled on one of those "limited benefit" cooperatives, where
> the benefits are, well, like it says, limited.

> I have no record of health problems. None. Unless you count chronic
> sinusitis every Spring and Fall when the weather changes.

There is more to this story. Cite the reason you were turned down.

> There was a parade of speakers at the 2008 Democratic National
> Convention, many of whom told their personal stories dealing with
> health insurance providers. I suppose you're goint to call them all
> liars, despite the fact that you have not one shred of evidence to back
> up your claims.

I have years of experience.

> One need only to survey their friends -- be sure to poll those who've
> gone into business for themselves. They're the ones who suffer the
> most in this arcane system of health insurance-based health care.

It's a federal law that a business of two employees can acquire health
insurance without any regard to medical conditions. So exactly how are they
suffering? If you claim price, I agree....and it's largely due to
irresponsible people waiting until they are sick to buy health insurance or
showing up in the emergency room, uninsured.

> >> Most of these people would have insurance if (a.) they could afford it,
> >> or (b.) they hadn't been denied coverage by insurance companies.
> >
> > or (c), if it was a priority.

> Dene, I hate to burst your bubble here, but I make a six-figure income,
> and I was unable to get health insurance. It certainly isn't because I
> didn't try.

> I was simply denied coverage, despite having no record of health
> problems. None.

Again....there is more to your story. I suspect your problem is
height/weight ratio. If so, those are valid risks that any smart insurance
underwriter needs to be wary of. The same rules should have applied to
risky mortgage loans and we both know what kind of fiasco that created.

> > If you or I were killing as many people each year as health insurance
> >> companies routinely do, we would be on every federal Most Wanted list.
> >
> > Leftist bloggist horsemanure

> Really?
>
> If you or I killed more than 3,000 people each year, you think we
> wouldn't be on the Most Wanted list?

Health insurance companies aren't killing anyone. They are not a social
agency, like Medicare. They have a responsibility to maintain a state
mandated claims loss ratio and they do it by not accepting all comers who
are legitimate risks. Suppose your premium is $3600/yr. It only takes a
few minutes in the hospital before that $3600 is out the door. Put it
another way....would you risk $100,000 of your own money on your own health?

> I guess after you've been killing that many, or more, each year, you
> become desensitized to it. Is that your defense?

There is no reason to defend a lie.

> Herein lies the fundamental core of the argument. And as long as you
> continue to cling to the notion that the health care debate is an
> economic issue, we will never have much to discuss.
>
> This is the crux of the issue to most of us on the left. Health care
> is not an economic issue. It is a question of life and death.

It's also a question of services being rendered and then paid for.


> > The right believes it is more "entitled" to life as long as they can
> >> AFFORD health care coverage. In other words, they believe the right to
> >> life is tied to one's wealth.

It's tied to responsibility. Taking care of yourself and never going a day
without health insurance. You haven't answered my question yet but I
suspect the truth behind your tale of woe is that you chose to go without
health insurance and now that delay is costing you. Your solution is
simple. Lose the weight and reapply.

> > It's what you do with your wealth. If you are poor, you are eligible
for
> > public assistance. Most of the uninsured, including you, choose to be
> > uninsured.

> I chose to be denied by all those insurance companies? I don't think
> so, Dene. I had the money, and I was willing to pay a higher premium.
> But no go. They simply weren't interested. Funny how that happens
> when you get to be in your late 50s and aren't a flatbelly. And while
> your juvenile characterizations of my height and weight may provide you
> with a laugh, you really don't know my height or my weight. I can
> assure you it ain't that far out of whack. Certainly not enough to
> justify my being excluded...especially when I'm willing (and able) to
> pay a higher premium.

Ah....finally the truth. Underwriters go on stats, Randy. Overweight
people are very succeptible to expensive medical ailments, like heart
disease and strokes, especially men. So again....would you bet your own
money on your own health? Why should they? Also....nobody forced the
macaroni down your throat. You chose to be overweight.

Also, your state probably has a well meaning law that says insurers either
must accept or reject. They probably cannot charge a higher premium plan,
leaving you on a state high risk plan. So...how do you like those "state"
plans??

> > And they call themselves pro-life.
> >
> > Pro-liberty. You have the right to be stupid in this country.
>
>
> And it's good to know that you exercise that right every day.

I'm not overweight and I have health insurance. Who's the stupid one?

> > Yeah, right.
> >>
> >> Keep valuing money over life and you will have a very unpleasant
judgment
> > day.
> >
> > Further proof of your irrational state of mine.
>
>
> The word is "mind." It's a terrible thing to waste. If only you had one.

You've shown your level of intelligence and maturity with this remark.

> > Those who think like you go
> > to heaven. Those who don't deserve hell.
>
>
> You value money over life. How is that a Christian value? Or for that
> matter, a Hindu value? Or a Muslim value? Or any other spiritual
> value?

I value personal responsibility, free enterprise, and helping those who
legitimately need it, like the people in Haiti and Africa. I do not value
the notion of expanding the government to include 1/6th of our economy just
to satisfy a few loons like yourself.

> > Perhaps you should revisit the
> > Scriptures and view the ones which speak of honesty and hatred, then
take
> > the log out of your own eye.
>
>
> As if you'd ever actually read the Bible. That's a laugh.

Almost every day. I'm guessing I've read it around 30 times...cover to
cover.

> You getting to heaven...like an elephant passing through the eye of a
needle.

You have no concept of grace.

> Thanks, by the way, for not refuting anything I said.

I just did.

> We all know the reason why.

Sometimes I have time to waste. Sometimes I don't....

-Greg



From: Moderate on

"R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message
news:2010012020220416807-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
> On 2010-01-20 17:32:19 -0500, dene said:
>
>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010012017095816807-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>>> On 2010-01-20 13:41:54 -0500, Howard Brazee said:
>>
>>> How about life and death? Do you suppose those issues cut across
>>> Conservative/Liberal idealogical lines?
>>>
>>> Fact: Insurance companies today (and every day) deny coverage to
>>> people who need health care.
>>
>> Cite this lie. That has never happened in my 20 years of experience in
>> this
>> business.
>>
>>> Fact: They also (every day) deny payment to cover health care to
>>> people who have paid into their health care insurance for years.
>>
>> Cite this lie. That has never happened in my 20 years of experience in
>> this
>> business.
>>
>>> Fact: They also (every day) cancel people's fully-paid-up policies
>>> just because the policyholder commits the sin of getting sick.
>>
>> Cite this lie. That has never happened in my 20 years of experience in
>> this
>> business.
>>
>>> Fact: They also (every day) refuse to cover people because of
>>> pre-existing conditions.
>>>
>>> Fact: In many of these cases, these decisions to refuse health care
>>> benefits have life and death consequences.
>>
>> Cite this lie. That has never happened in my 20 years of experience in
>> this
>> business.
>>
>>> Fact: Depending on whose estimates you believe, anywhere from 20,000
>>> to 50,000 Americans die each year from a lack of health care coverage.
>>
>> Cite.
>
>
>
> Dene, I don't need to "cite" anything. Pretty much everyone knows someone
> who has encountered one or more of these obstacles with health insurance
> companies.
>
> In the case of outright denial of coverage, I need look no further than my
> own case, where I was turned away by several providers before I finally
> settled on one of those "limited benefit" cooperatives, where the benefits
> are, well, like it says, limited.
>
> I have no record of health problems. None. Unless you count chronic
> sinusitis every Spring and Fall when the weather changes.
>
> There was a parade of speakers at the 2008 Democratic National Convention,
> many of whom told their personal stories dealing with health insurance
> providers. I suppose you're goint to call them all liars, despite the
> fact that you have not one shred of evidence to back up your claims.
>
> One need only to survey their friends -- be sure to poll those who've gone
> into business for themselves. They're the ones who suffer the most in
> this arcane system of health insurance-based health care.
>
>
>>
>>> Most of these people would have insurance if (a.) they could afford it,
>>> or (b.) they hadn't been denied coverage by insurance companies.
>>
>> or (c), if it was a priority.
>
>
>
> Dene, I hate to burst your bubble here, but I make a six-figure income,
> and I was unable to get health insurance. It certainly isn't because I
> didn't try.
>
> I was simply denied coverage, despite having no record of health problems.
> None.
>
>
>> If you or I were killing as many people each year as health insurance
>>> companies routinely do, we would be on every federal Most Wanted list.
>>
>> Leftist bloggist horsemanure
>
>
>
> Really?
>
> If you or I killed more than 3,000 people each year, you think we wouldn't
> be on the Most Wanted list?
>
> I guess after you've been killing that many, or more, each year, you
> become desensitized to it. Is that your defense?
>
>
>
>> And as I said earlier, if Al Queda killed as many Americans each year
>>> as health insurance companies do, there would be no end to the funding
>>> and resources Americans would be willing to pour into stopping and
>>> KILLING them.
>>
>> More unsubstantiated rhetoric.
>
>
> I stand by those remarks.
>
> You and I both know that if any organization killed 3,000 or more
> Americans each year, the government would pour whatever resources were
> necessary into stopping it. But for some reason, they view this sort of
> killing as "the free market at work" when it's health insurance providers
> that are the ones allowing people to die.
>
>
>> The health care debate isn't about money, as much as the right would
>>> like us to believe.
>>>
>>> It's about life and death.
>>
>> More unsubstantiated rhetoric.
>
>
>
> Herein lies the fundamental core of the argument. And as long as you
> continue to cling to the notion that the health care debate is an economic
> issue, we will never have much to discuss.
>
> This is the crux of the issue to most of us on the left. Health care is
> not an economic issue. It is a question of life and death.
>
>
>
>> The right believes it is more "entitled" to life as long as they can
>>> AFFORD health care coverage. In other words, they believe the right to
>>> life is tied to one's wealth.
>>
>> It's what you do with your wealth. If you are poor, you are eligible for
>> public assistance. Most of the uninsured, including you, choose to be
>> uninsured.
>
>
> I chose to be denied by all those insurance companies? I don't think so,
> Dene. I had the money, and I was willing to pay a higher premium. But no
> go. They simply weren't interested. Funny how that happens when you get
> to be in your late 50s and aren't a flatbelly. And while your juvenile
> characterizations of my height and weight may provide you with a laugh,
> you really don't know my height or my weight. I can assure you it ain't
> that far out of whack. Certainly not enough to justify my being
> excluded...especially when I'm willing (and able) to pay a higher premium.
>
>
>
>> And they call themselves pro-life.
>>
>> Pro-liberty. You have the right to be stupid in this country.
>
>
> And it's good to know that you exercise that right every day.
>
>
>
>> Yeah, right.
>>>
>>> Keep valuing money over life and you will have a very unpleasant
>>> judgment
>> day.
>>
>> Further proof of your irrational state of mine.
>
>
> The word is "mind." It's a terrible thing to waste. If only you had one.
>
>
>> Those who think like you go
>> to heaven. Those who don't deserve hell.
>
>
> You value money over life. How is that a Christian value? Or for that
> matter, a Hindu value? Or a Muslim value? Or any other spiritual value?
>
>
>
>> Perhaps you should revisit the
>> Scriptures and view the ones which speak of honesty and hatred, then take
>> the log out of your own eye.
>
>
> As if you'd ever actually read the Bible. That's a laugh.
>
> You getting to heaven...like an elephant passing through the eye of a
> needle.
>
>
>
> Thanks, by the way, for not refuting anything I said.
>
> We all know the reason why.
>
> Randy

The solution to this debate is simple. Dene should write a policy for
Randy.


From: dene on

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:po9fl55fodvrhnoajlhm5052qflumkg8j9(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:29:06 -0800, "BigSlicer"
> <a5a6abe(a)webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >If Randy is interested, I can send him a few biblical passages that might
> >help him deal with all this. Because I too am very disappointed where
> >health care has gone. But rather than channeling my passion toward anger
> >and accuse others , I seek Jesus. When I am down or out, five minutes
> >of Bible readings and all my earthly woes and obsessions seem miniscule.
> >Let me know Randy if you would like some verse, your soul will be soothed
> >and maybe hope renewed. God bless this feeling, decent man. His heart
is
> >in the right place.
>
> It's getting weird around here.
>
> BTW BS, what's your view on homosexuality and abortion.

He's a troll, using religious terms to get attention.

-Greg


From: R&B on
On 2010-01-20 14:14:29 -0500, dene said:

> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4b56f5a5$0$4969$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:00:19 -0800, dene wrote:
>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2010012001542916807-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>>>
>>>> Dene, the majority of voting Americans voted for Obama's agenda a
>>>> year ago. Their disapproval now is not over how far-reaching his
>>>> agenda has been. They voted for it. They voted for SWEEPING CHANGE.
>>>> Their disapproval is over how little the Dems have been able to get
>>>> done with the obstructionist right standing in their way at every
>>>> step, and how watered-down the health care bill has become.
>>>
>>> So you are among the small number of loons who do not think Obama is
>>> left enough. No surprise. He's surrounded himself with your types
>>> and they are completely out of touch with the pulse of America.
>>>
>>> Yes....America voted for change, but not change that involves big
>>> government, higher taxes, bailouts, and deficits. America is voting
>>> for change once again and this time, it will be liberal Dems who get
>>> the boot, starting with Reid.
>>
>> I think Randy is right about this. People did vote for sweeping change,
>> especially for things like genuine healthcare reform. But the reality of
>> Washington is that you cannot get something without giving something
>> else away, and inevitably legislation becomes clogged with pork and
>> give-aways to special interests. The current healthcare reform bill has
>> been watered down to the extent that nobody likes it.
>>
>> The issue is not Obama. The issue is systemic corruption and a
>> government more beholden to special interest groups than it is to
>> voters.
>
> It's also too much, too quick. Reasonable steps can be taken systematically
> to reform insurance, thereby dropping premiums. It's the one thing the
> government can do...even the playing field all at once. For example, no
> pre-ex underwriting.
>
> I think Obama knew in advance about the back room deals to get the Senate
> votes. It's how they play the game in Chicago.
>
> -Greg

It 's also how legislation gets done in Washington. Always has been.

Randy