Swing Votes
in [Design]
|
From: Gunner Asch on 26 Mar 2010 08:38 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:14:24 -0500, Don Ocean <ocean(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Oscar_Lives wrote: >> "Gunner Asch" <gunnerasch(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ru8gq5di409fbjdd05ibe95o5o5ekrlji8(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:01:09 -0400, "Stormin Mormon" >>> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Someone want to archive this post? Check back in one year, >>>> and then in two years and see if the American Worker feels >>>> "stood up for". >>> It would be interesting to see if Bob F survives the coming Great Cull. >>> >> >> >> Is that the coming cull sponsored by the KKK? > >If it takes the KKK to get us back on track..So be it. Ummmm? Is there >still such a thing as the KKK? >> >> The once great and mighty KKK..a Democrat founded and run organization for over 120 yrs, is now a tiny organization filled with crazed nutcases. They will be culled right along with the other crazed nutcases..the Leftists Gunner "First Law of Leftist Debate The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter to his preconceived world view and the more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot, homophobe approaches infinity. This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to the subject." Grey Ghost
From: Grumpy on 26 Mar 2010 15:11 I am sure we all will find pro and can it doesn't matter who provide what. Or who sponsor what but insurance companies had enough time to make change but they will not why not ? it is not in they interest to do so. I will not say that all what is proposed is good far way from that but we must start some place, some of us will be losers and some will have gains. At present time as it stand individuals that pay for they own insurance are subsidizing group insurer, you may say what I am talking about well it is like this. The very same coverage that group insures have the individual is paying double if not even higher for same coverage is that fair I do not think so. On other hand does teachers, public service workers and police take in consideration the medical coverage that they have, individual cost would be $30,000.00 per year these money should be included in to they salaries but are not. Who is making biggest ruckuses is the Union of this organization and telling or giving people wrong information, so that they sit in thier comfortable cahiers at retirement and collect they entitlement packages $ triple digit plus. what packages did you and I get, we got rusted shaft do I need to tell you where. I whish I could write better English <dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:59eb97d7-3db3-45f4-b3e8-34719e51b8a9(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... 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 --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Jamie on 26 Mar 2010 19:08 Grumpy wrote: > I am sure we all will find pro and can it doesn't matter who provide what. > Or who sponsor what but insurance companies had enough time to make > change but they will not why not ? it is not in they interest to do so. > I will not say that all what is proposed is good far way from that but we > must start some place, some of us will be losers and some will have gains. > At present time as it stand individuals that pay for they own insurance are > subsidizing group insurer, you may say what I am talking about well > it is like this. The very same coverage that group insures have the > individual is paying double if not even higher for same coverage is that > fair > I do not think so. On other hand does teachers, public service workers > and police take in consideration the medical coverage that they have, > individual cost would be $30,000.00 per year these money should be > included in to they salaries but are not. Who is making biggest ruckuses > is the Union of this organization and telling or giving people wrong > information, so that they sit in thier comfortable cahiers at retirement and > collect they entitlement packages $ triple digit plus. what packages did you > and I get, we got rusted shaft do I need to tell you where. > > I whish I could write better English > Don't worry, you got your point across. ;)
From: krw on 26 Mar 2010 20:47 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:06:07 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:03:37 -0400, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > >>On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:23:42 -0500, Jamie >><jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote: >> >> >>>> Here's today's pop quiz - what insurance company has the >>>> highest 'rejected claims' ratio in the industry ? >>>> >>>> >>>I wouldn't know that currently how ever, the way I see it, I most likely >>>would say in the future, "The Federal health Ins." if it survives! >> >> Very very close. >> >> Today's answer is 'Medicare'. Higher claim rejection rate >>than any private company. > >Yep. And the highest fraud losses by over double of _any_ other provider. Is that a surprise? Insurnace companies and government have opposite incentives.
From: krw on 26 Mar 2010 20:48
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:23:49 -0400, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:11:55 -0400, "Grumpy" <t.seput(a)verizon.net> >wrote: > >> >>I whish I could write better English > > So do we. Or less of it, that would be good .... [.....|] Irony |