Swing Votes
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 24 Mar 2010 18:11 On Mar 23, 11:59 pm, Don Ocean <oc...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On Mar 22, 10:28 pm, Alexander <Alexan...(a)thegreat.org> wrote: > > >> Obama got the Catholics on board by promising to kill the paid for > >> Abortions that are in the bill....By executive order. Legislation by > >> executive order is going to be the order of the day for this > >> administration! How long do you think Abortions will remain unpaid for > >> by the taxpayers? In many sectors it will become the method of birth > >> control. > > > Executive orders are, of course, changeable at the whim of the > > Executive. Government by fiat. > > > Anyway, the whole thing's illegal. > > > I count four or five ways it's unconstitutional, from mandates, to > > requiring you to report yourself on your tax form (self- > > incrimination), to preferences for "recognized religious > > sects" (establishment clause), to putting your personal info on the > > internet (6th amendment right to be secure in your papers and > > effects)... > > > 14 states' Attorneys General have filed suit, mostly on the mandate I > > think. Florida makes a 10th amendment argument, AIUI. > > > South Dakota has filed a lawsuit also. Cool.
From: Grumpy on 24 Mar 2010 21:52 The Health Care debate has traversed the Orwellian plane. What Obama has proposed is a "Public Option". Notice the word "option". Nobody is going to be forced into it. Nothing is going to change for those who love their private insurance plans, they can keep it just as it is, but for the 45 million plus who have no health insurance, and even more who are under-insured, and so on, they will have an opportunity to buy into a non-profit set up, much like Medicare, except that it would be available to everyone, we're calling it "the public option". For those who are denied coverage because of "pre-existing conditions", and for those denied coverage because they changed jobs, and for those denied coverage just because the insurance company decided they don't want to cover that person any more, and anyone else who can't get health insurance, it's for THEM that the public option is being created. Nobody is going to bother the private health insurance companies, and their lackeys. But the opposition from these guys has been astounding, and there's a reason why. We're talking big bucks here, take the example of one such CEO of a major health care company, Stephen Hemsley, with his assets and stock options combined, he would easily be classified a billionaire. He makes well over a hundred thousand dollars every hour he works. And what does his work consist of? Finding any way he can to deny health care to as many people as possible who have been paying for health care coverage. And THAT, ladies and gentlemen of the internet, is what is wrong with our health care system. Would someone like that want to change our system of health care? Absolutely not. So you know that these types would want to derail health care reform at any cost, or at least spend hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to. What's bizarre is that there have been willing participants to their Orwellian strategems to derail health care reform, not surprisingly, from the Republican party and Fox News, but also from the very people who would benefit the most from health care reform, which at this point would be everybody. A public option would force the insurance companies to be more competitive, and that would drive down the price and improve health care service for EVERYONE. It would bring in much needed competition, and that is the real reason why insurance companies don't like it. Let's cut thru all the LIES and distortions. Republicans claim that the public option will lead to rationing of health care. For your information, rationing already exists, thru the private insurance companies, and everyone is subject to it, people with private health insurance are routinely denied treatment. The only people who are safe are those with the most expensive insurance policies, such as members of Congress. Insurance companies routinely drop patients from coverage. As soon as you get sick with something that's expensive to cure, insurance companies reserve the right to drop you and tell you to drop dead. This is what they do, and this is how they get to be so rich, by taking your money when you're healthy and then deny you coverage when you are unhealthy. This is not a health insurance system, this is a scam. And guess who's wholeheartedly supporting that scam? That's right, it's the no good, dishonest, repulsive, useless, Republican "party of God". They've lied about Obama wanting to kill old people, to kill new borns, to kill handicapped people, and on and on. They've lied about everything. They don't have a winning argument, so they lie, and they lie, and they lie. Which is what Republicans do all the time anyways. But the best argument yet, for having the "public option" is this, for the 45 million plus Americans who have no health insurance at all, the "public option" would be better than nothing. No matter what it looks like, it would be better than nothing. For the millions who have nothing, those who have no health insurance at all, this would mean everything to them. I've said this before, a documentary I would very highly recommend is "Sicko", by Michael Moore. And for even more information on this subject, check this site out: www.sickforprofit.com It's always been this way, those who are in power, those who have the power, they want to keep things just the way they are, they are afraid of change, because change would lead to them losing their evil grip on things. This is exactly the way the health care industry is, and the way their loony puppets in the Republican party are. <dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:886af6ba-41d7-4fed-b38b-30f7e59d40fd(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Mar 22, 4:16 pm, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:22:51 -0700, "Bob F" <bobnos...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >amdx wrote: > >> "amdx" <a...(a)knology.net> wrote in message > >>news:40f09$4ba7b730$4501398d$12184(a)KNOLOGY.NET... > > >>> "Steve" <jstev...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > >>>news:ho89lf$5sj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > >>>>http://www.firenancypelosi.com/ > > >>> I can't get tohttp://www.gop.com/I wanted to check the legitimacy > >>> of http://www.firenancypelosi.com/ before I give my donation. > >>> Does it work for anybody else? > >>> Mike > > >> I hope it is busy cause everybody is pissed at the democrats. > > >Finally, the Democrats have stood up for the American worker. > > Yeh - by forcing them to buy health insurance whether they > want to or not, can afford it or not, etc. A simple overview of the actual cost of this bill, in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html But, this accounting omits the largest 'tax' of all, the fact that 30 million people will be forcibly made to buy 'insurance', and everyone else will pay higher premiums (because they're required to buy bigger policies that cover more conditions, with fewer limitations. The CBO tallies this, and the President admits this, but Mr. Obama says it's really a reduction since you're getting more for your money. Says he). This article touches on that factor: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/08/baucus-bill-would-cost-more-than-2-trillion/ It's a neat trick--now the government simply commands that you will spend your money, how much, and on what. That way they don't have count it as a cost on their bill, since they're not spending it, you are. Resist, and be imprisoned. Saves them a lot of trouble--taxing and spending is now obsolete. Of course all that money comes from regular people, who'll now have less to spend on their own lives. P.S. Q: Among the evil insurers, who's the largest denier of claims? A: Medicare. They deny 6.85% of claims, more than any private insurer.. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf, page 5. The reasons for denial, on page 13, are astounding. James Arthur --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Grumpy on 24 Mar 2010 22:02 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diA-CXTErUY&feature=related "amdx" <amdx(a)knology.net> wrote in message news:f37a$4ba5143e$18ec6dd7$12492(a)KNOLOGY.NET... > Last chance to voice your outrage. > > Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411 > > Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588 > > Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914 > > Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 (925) 833-0643 > > John Salazar (202) 225-4761 (970) 245-7107 > > Jim Himes (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028 > > Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757 > > Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 (630) 406-1114 > > Baron Hill (202) 225-5315 (812) 288-3999 > > Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075 > > Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227 > > Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 (702) 256-3462 > > Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813 > > Tim Bishop (202) 225-3826 (631) 696-6500 > > John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371 > > Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150 > > Mike Arcuri (202) 225-3665 (315) 793-8146 > > Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657 > > Earl Pomneroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355 > > Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723 > > Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196 > > Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300 > > Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038 > > Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963 > > Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988 > > Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200 > > John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114 > > Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291 > > Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422 > > Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000 > > Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954 > > John Boccieri (202) 225-3876 (330) 489-4414 > > Jason Altmire (202) 225-2565 (724) 378-0928 > > Rick Boucher (202) 225-3861 (276) 628-1145 > > Suzane Kosmas (202) 226-6299 (407) 208-1108 > > Betsey Markey (202) 225-4676 (970) 221-7110 > > Scott Murphy (202) 225-5614 (518) 828-3109 > > Glenn Nye (202) 225-4215 (757) 326-6201 > > Allen Boyd (202) 225-5235 (850) 561-3979 > > John Tanner (202) 225-4714 (731) 885-7070 > > Bart Gordon (202) 225-4231 (615) 896-1986 > > John Adler (202) 225-4765 (732) 608-7235 > > Brian Baird (202) 225-3536 (360) 695-6292 > > Frank Kratovil (202) 225-5311 (410) 420-8822 > > Dennis Kucinich (202)225-5871 (216) 228-8850 > > Ed Markey (202) 225-2836 (781) 396-2900 > > Michael McMahon (202) 225-3371 (718) 351-1062 > > Chris Murphy (202) 225-4476 (860) 223-8412 > > Gerry Connolly (202) 225-1492 (703) 256-3071 > > Brad Ellsworth (202) 225-4636 (812) 465-6484 > > Marion Berry (202) 225-4076 (870) 972-4600 > > Henry Cuellar (202) 225-1640 (956) 725-0639 > > Jim Barrow (202) 225-2823 (706)722-4494 > > Lincoln Davis (202) 225-6831 (931) 490-8699 > > Joe Donnelly (202) 225-3915 (574) 288-2780 > > Mike Doyle (202) 225-2135 (412) 261-5091 > > Luis Gutierrez (202) 225-8203 (773) 342-0774 > > Marcy Kaptur (202) 225-4146 (419) 259-7500 > > Daniel Lipinski (202) 225-5701 (312) 886-0481 > > Jim Matheson (202) 225-3011 (801) 486-1236 > > Bart Stupak (202) 225-4735 (989) 356-0690 > > Harry Teague (202) 225-2365 (575) 393-0510 > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: JosephKK on 25 Mar 2010 01:12 On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:28:57 -0500, Alexander <Alexander(a)thegreat.org> wrote: >dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> On Mar 22, 4:16 pm, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:22:51 -0700, "Bob F" <bobnos...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> amdx wrote: >>>>> "amdx" <a...(a)knology.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:40f09$4ba7b730$4501398d$12184(a)KNOLOGY.NET... >>>>>> "Steve" <jstev...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:ho89lf$5sj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>>> http://www.firenancypelosi.com/ >>>>>> I can't get tohttp://www.gop.com/I wanted to check the legitimacy >>>>>> of http://www.firenancypelosi.com/ before I give my donation. >>>>>> Does it work for anybody else? >>>>>> Mike >>>>> I hope it is busy cause everybody is pissed at the democrats. >>>> Finally, the Democrats have stood up for the American worker. >>> Yeh - by forcing them to buy health insurance whether they >>> want to or not, can afford it or not, etc. >> >> A simple overview of the actual cost of this bill, in the NYT: >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html >> >> But, this accounting omits the largest 'tax' of all, the fact that 30 >> million people will be forcibly made to buy 'insurance', and everyone >> else will pay higher premiums (because they're required to buy bigger >> policies that cover more conditions, with fewer limitations. The CBO >> tallies this, and the President admits this, but Mr. Obama says it's >> really a reduction since you're getting more for your money. Says >> he). >> >> This article touches on that factor: >> http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/08/baucus-bill-would-cost-more-than-2-trillion/ >> >> It's a neat trick--now the government simply commands that you will >> spend your money, how much, and on what. That way they don't have >> count it as a cost on their bill, since they're not spending it, you >> are. Resist, and be imprisoned. Saves them a lot of trouble--taxing >> and spending is now obsolete. >> >> Of course all that money comes from regular people, who'll now have >> less to spend on their own lives. >> >> P.S. >> Q: Among the evil insurers, who's the largest denier of claims? >> A: Medicare. They deny 6.85% of claims, more than any private >> insurer.. >> >> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf, page >> 5. The reasons for denial, on page 13, are astounding. >> >> James Arthur > > >Obama got the Catholics on board by promising to kill the paid for >Abortions that are in the bill....By executive order. Legislation by >executive order is going to be the order of the day for this >administration! How long do you think Abortions will remain unpaid for >by the taxpayers? In many sectors it will become the method of birth >control. What in the hell do mean "will become"? "Has been long standing" is more like what has actually happened.
From: dagmargoodboat on 25 Mar 2010 20:58
On Mar 24, 8:52 pm, "Grumpy" <t.se...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > The Health Care debate has traversed the Orwellian plane. What Obama > has proposed is a "Public Option". Notice the word "option". Nobody > is going to be forced into it. Thanks Grumpy! I appreciate the clarity of your response. But I've read a great deal of the actual bills, and they don't matchyour impressions, or the public statements made by the President and his allies. That's my complaint. If what you said above and below were true I'd feel much differently about the bill. Fact is, this thing is mandatory--I only have a few minutes just now, so I'll cite the legislation later. You have to prove to the IRS that you have 'acceptable' insurance. If you don't, you pay a fine, or go to jail. > Nothing is going to change for those > who love their private insurance plans, they can keep it just as it > is, That isn't true either. I have to check the language in this (Senate) bill, and see how the amendments in the reconciliation bill amended it, but the House bill provided such strict limitations on keeping your policy that, eventually, everyone would be forced out of their current coverage. I'm also not an expert on the insurance business, but the new bill cuts the insurance companies to such tight margins--15%, which has to cover their costs and profit--that I'm not sure they can survive. (The industry-wide profit margin last year was only 2-odd percent, and that was with a 35% markup permitted.) > but for the 45 million plus who have no health insurance, and even There are not 45 million Americans without health insurance. That figure counted 12 million illegal aliens, and a bunch of people who qualify for government-run health care (mostly Medicaid), but who haven't applied. Take those out, and there are only 12 million who both don't have and can't afford it. > more who are under-insured, and so on, they will have an opportunity > to buy into a non-profit set up, much like Medicare, except that it > would be available to everyone, we're calling it "the public option". Remember that lady whom the President's been talking about, the one who dropped her insurance in January because she couldn't afford it and got leukemia two weeks later? The new heath care plan is more expensive than the plan she dropped. Of course there will be subsidies for her in the new plan, but the plan we'll all be buying for her costs more than the one she quit. She was getting a great deal from her insurance company. I'll get to the rest of your points tomorrow--gotta run right now. -- Cheers, James Arthur |