From: MNMikeW on

"Moderate" <> wrote in message
> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message
> news:ae6dnZzPWclREMrWnZ2dnUVZ_tRi4p2d(a)
>> dene wrote, On 1/20/10 4:59 PM:
>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message
>>> news:4JudnbknW9QiG8rWnZ2dnUVZ_gRi4p2d(a)
>>>> dene wrote, On 1/20/10 4:37 PM:
>>>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_oednTqscIKbHMrWnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)
>>>>>> 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.
>>> In Usenet?? It's jungle rules, baby! Besides, returning fire can be
>>> kinda
>>> fun.
>> Yeah, ok. But work on your skills. Make it as fun to read
>> as it must be to write, otherwise you're just strokin'
>> yourself, you know?
>> cb
> Good point. R&B's posts are certainly fun to read.
Yes I can imagine the bulging blood vessels and sweat pouring from his brow
when he's typing his screeds.

From: MNMikeW on

"R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> wrote in message
> On 2010-01-20 15:42:22 -0500, MNMikeW said:
>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> 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
Your perverted view of the world tells me all I need to know about you
that's for sure.

From: MNMikeW on

"R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> wrote in message
> On 2010-01-20 22:03:52 -0500, Moderate said:
>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> wrote in message
>> news:2010012021512816807-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom...
>>> On 2010-01-20 14:14:29 -0500, dene said:
>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b56f5a5$0$4969$9a6e19ea(a)
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:00:19 -0800, dene wrote:
>>>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)> 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
>> Then what was 'hope and change?'
> It's what the majority voted for.
> The fact that the Grand Obstructionist Party has managed to stop the
> change agenda in its tracks is a poor testimony on the ability of
> Congressional Dems. Says very little about Obama.
> Randy

You seem to forget the the government works for us. America dosent want this
kind of change. But unlike the Dems, the Repubs. actually listened to their

From: William Clark on
In article <dtrgl5tok8u6gbv8p734sintefkqecmr3m(a)>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:12:08 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)>
> wrote:
> >> So don't tell me this stuff doesn't happen. Insurance companies
> >> themselves have admitted they do.
> >
> >It's never happened in my experience and I've seen my clients have some
> >hefty claims. My best friend's premature baby spent two months in ICY
> >prenatal, costing 800k, before dying. The insurance company paid it all
> >without blinking. I can cite heart attacks, strokes, long term cancer
> >illnesses, etc. All paid in full.
> As my wife says, you are covered for what your policy says you're
> covered for. If you need a heart transplant and you insurance doesn't
> cover transplants the insurance company has every right to deny the
> claim. If you lie on your application, the insurance company has
> every right to cancel your policy.
> Every state has insurance regulators who will mediate any dispute
> between a company and a policyholder.

Which is precisely what makes insurance an idiotic vehicle for
determining health care. Health care should be determined by what is
wrong with you that needs treating, not the fine print in some
unreadable insurance policy. What next "I'm sorry, I can't have kidney
failure today, my insurance company won't allow it?" This is simply nuts.
From: dene on

"William Clark" <clark(a)> wrote in message

> Which is precisely what makes insurance an idiotic vehicle for
> determining health care. Health care should be determined by what is
> wrong with you that needs treating, not the fine print in some
> unreadable insurance policy. What next "I'm sorry, I can't have kidney
> failure today, my insurance company won't allow it?" This is simply nuts.

Nor does it happen with mainstream policies from a mainstream insurance
company. Just because Obama bought a beer for a racist professor doesn't
mean all professors are racist....or beer drinkers.

You should really stick to what you know....