Repubs won't fund health care changes if they take over
in [Golf]
|
From: dsc-ky on 4 Aug 2010 19:55 On Aug 4, 7:35 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <1c998a67-071d-4b1c-89f7-281dd2ee3...(a)u38g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > On Aug 4, 4:21 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > In article > > > <8e636408-d9f3-4cbf-98ad-673eec414...(a)l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > On Aug 4, 2:57 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <a78ef6da-c403-4b76-8952-6a6acd495...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2:03 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > <3f2ee47f-66dd-48ed-9a37-93fc4ce35...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 1:22 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article > > > > > > > > > <960e79b4-7fa7-4b54-8bd5-b9b34c01b...(a)14g2000yqa.googlegroups.co > > > > > > > > > m>, > > > > > > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:28 pm, George Orwell <nob...(a)mixmaster.it> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Innocent people will die. > > > > > > > > > > > Innocent people die every day... that's just part of life... > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but most of us think it is something worth fighting.... > > > > > > > > > Up to a point... then the costs become too high. > > > > > > > > I agree. But to casually dismiss something this important like that > > > > > > > seems incredibly callous to me. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Alan Baker > > > > > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > > > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > > > > > I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or not, > > > > > > that's my opinion. > > > > > > Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer Care > > > > > > is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not even > > > > > > any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of those > > > > > > innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in for 10 > > > > > > years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that fund > > > > > > too > > > > > > (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > That's not my point. > > > > > > Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". > > > > > Correct... that isn't necessarily a good enough reason... depending on > > > > what it costs. > > > > This latest answer is at odds with your earlier "who cares" attitude. > > > > -- > > > Alan Baker > > > Vancouver, British Columbia > > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> > > > Elaborate... > > Your first response was essentially "Yeah, so?" and made no mention of > cost/benefit analysis. > > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: William Clark on 4 Aug 2010 19:55 In article <B5l6o.36014$Bh2.22531(a)newsfe04.iad>, "Frank Ketchum" <nospam(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:0bfb8dd8-47d3-4bbb-9047-ed16d676c930(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 4, 3:52 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > news:alangbaker-CD69E0.11575304082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article > > > <a78ef6da-c403-4b76-8952-6a6acd495...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > >> I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or not, > > >> that's my opinion. > > >> Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer Care > > >> is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not even > > >> any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of those > > >> innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in for 10 > > >> years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that fund too > > >> (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? > > > > > Nope. > > > > > That's not my point. > > > > > Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". > > > > > Justify it to yourself any way you like. > > > > The majority of Americans didn't want Obama care. A majority of Americans > > have opposed all of Obama's major policies. The polls aren't secret. It > > isn't a surprise that Obama is polling at 41% approval if all of his major > > policies were against the wishes of the majority of Americans. > > > > It will be refreshing to have a government of the people by the people for > > the people instead of a government of the government by the government for > > the government. > > > > The saving lives line is a canard. We all die. > > If a majority of Americans have opposed all of Obama's major policies, > then why did a majority of Americans elect him to be president? He > said during the campaign that he wanted to do health care, he wanted > to do a stimulus package, he wanted to do financial services reform. > So what happened? Did people change their minds about what they wanted? > > - - - > > Really? A majority? > Try looking up the current population of the country. > Then try looking up the number of votes for Obama. > Now explain how that is a majority. > > I would do it for you, but you would accuse me of lying somehow. No, all that counts on election day is the majority of those that take the time and trouble to vote. If people choose not to, then they have no further say, and don't belong in any phony GoP "statistics" intended to obscure the truth.
From: Frank Ketchum on 4 Aug 2010 20:28 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3920df21-4cae-4949-8831-cd5a09dfdaf0(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... On Aug 4, 6:37 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3bf08710-4661-4736-a30e-72be86c76f73(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 4, 5:47 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:0bfb8dd8-47d3-4bbb-9047-ed16d676c930(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 4, 3:52 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >news:alangbaker-CD69E0.11575304082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > In article > > > > <a78ef6da-c403-4b76-8952-6a6acd495...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > >> I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or not, > > > >> that's my opinion. > > > >> Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer > > > >> Care > > > >> is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not > > > >> even > > > >> any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of those > > > >> innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in for > > > >> 10 > > > >> years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that fund > > > >> too > > > >> (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? > > > > > Nope. > > > > > That's not my point. > > > > > Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". > > > > > Justify it to yourself any way you like. > > > > The majority of Americans didn't want Obama care. A majority of > > > Americans > > > have opposed all of Obama's major policies. The polls aren't secret. > > > It > > > isn't a surprise that Obama is polling at 41% approval if all of his > > > major > > > policies were against the wishes of the majority of Americans. > > > > It will be refreshing to have a government of the people by the people > > > for > > > the people instead of a government of the government by the government > > > for > > > the government. > > > > The saving lives line is a canard. We all die. > > > If a majority of Americans have opposed all of Obama's major policies, > > then why did a majority of Americans elect him to be president? He > > said during the campaign that he wanted to do health care, he wanted > > to do a stimulus package, he wanted to do financial services reform. > > So what happened? Did people change their minds about what they wanted? > > > - - - > > > Really? A majority? > > Try looking up the current population of the country. > > Then try looking up the number of votes for Obama. > > Now explain how that is a majority. > > > I would do it for you, but you would accuse me of lying somehow. > > Well, gee, you got me there, Frank. You must be feeling very good > about yourself. A majority of American VOTERS elected him. Is that > acceptable to you? > > - - - > > You miss the point completely. > How can a majority of Americans disagree with his policies when he was > elected president? A majority of Americans don't vote. Get it? "How can a majority of Americans disagree with his policies when he was elected president?" That's an interesting sentence. A majority of Americans don't vote, but a majority of eligible voters DO vote, at least they did in 2008. Eligible voters who opposed his policies then, but didn't bother voting, have only themselves to blame. - - - That's my point. Congrats.
From: dene on 4 Aug 2010 20:25 "dsc-ky" <Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu> wrote in message news:3ce7b57d-c615-436a-8ca5-7b49e07680d5(a)u31g2000pru.googlegroups.com... > O'Care forces the uninsured to make a choice. Pay a tax penalty while > risking your assets or pay premiums and protect your assets. Most will > choose the latter and that, in of itself, will stabilize the market. That remains to be seen... some will have to make the choice based on cash flow, and it may not be much of a choice. ---------------------------------------------------------- If there is a legitimate cash flow issue, then they will receive subsidies under O'Care. For many of the 30 million, it's a matter of priorities and the knowledge that if they need medical care, you/I and the other insured will pay for it while they are in the E.R. -Greg
From: John B. on 4 Aug 2010 20:24
On Aug 4, 8:28 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3920df21-4cae-4949-8831-cd5a09dfdaf0(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 4, 6:37 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:3bf08710-4661-4736-a30e-72be86c76f73(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > On Aug 4, 5:47 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...(a)thanksanyway.fu> wrote: > > > > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:0bfb8dd8-47d3-4bbb-9047-ed16d676c930(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Aug 4, 3:52 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > >news:alangbaker-CD69E0.11575304082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > > > In article > > > > > <a78ef6da-c403-4b76-8952-6a6acd495...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...(a)eku.edu> wrote: > > > > > >> I've had quite a while to think about Bummer Care. Callous or not, > > > > >> that's my opinion. > > > > >> Probably the majority of people in the US agree that the Bummer > > > > >> Care > > > > >> is a bad plan and not worth what it will cost in $. There's not > > > > >> even > > > > >> any conclusive proof that it will be better at saving any of those > > > > >> innocent lives you are worried about. It doesn't even kick in for > > > > >> 10 > > > > >> years. Wanna bet that the government finds a way to raid that fund > > > > >> too > > > > >> (like others)... and it never actually kicks in at all? > > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > That's not my point. > > > > > > Someone says: "This will cost lives", and your reply is: "Meh.". > > > > > > Justify it to yourself any way you like. > > > > > The majority of Americans didn't want Obama care. A majority of > > > > Americans > > > > have opposed all of Obama's major policies. The polls aren't secret.. > > > > It > > > > isn't a surprise that Obama is polling at 41% approval if all of his > > > > major > > > > policies were against the wishes of the majority of Americans. > > > > > It will be refreshing to have a government of the people by the people > > > > for > > > > the people instead of a government of the government by the government > > > > for > > > > the government. > > > > > The saving lives line is a canard. We all die. > > > > If a majority of Americans have opposed all of Obama's major policies, > > > then why did a majority of Americans elect him to be president? He > > > said during the campaign that he wanted to do health care, he wanted > > > to do a stimulus package, he wanted to do financial services reform. > > > So what happened? Did people change their minds about what they wanted? > > > > - - - > > > > Really? A majority? > > > Try looking up the current population of the country. > > > Then try looking up the number of votes for Obama. > > > Now explain how that is a majority. > > > > I would do it for you, but you would accuse me of lying somehow. > > > Well, gee, you got me there, Frank. You must be feeling very good > > about yourself. A majority of American VOTERS elected him. Is that > > acceptable to you? > > > - - - > > > You miss the point completely. > > How can a majority of Americans disagree with his policies when he was > > elected president? A majority of Americans don't vote. Get it? > > "How can a majority of Americans disagree with his policies when he > was > elected president?" That's an interesting sentence. A majority of > Americans don't vote, but a majority of eligible voters DO vote, at > least they did in 2008. Eligible voters who opposed his policies then, > but didn't bother voting, have only themselves to blame. > > - - - > > That's my point. Congrats. No, it wasn't your point, but you go ahead and pat yourself on the back, sonny boy. |