The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Neil Harrington on 16 Sep 2009 19:14 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4ab07bb5$0$1669$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >>message > >>> Consider: for all the promise of banking "reform," which should have >>> been >>> simpler than health care, nothing has actually changed, except that >>> there >>> aren't as many banks. >> >>And if the health care bill gets signed into law, there probably won't be >>as >>many doctors. >> >>This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page > > Ah yes. IBD. > > Do you remember their earlier screed against health care reform? > They claimed that Stephen Hawking would be dead if he had to rely > upon Britian's socialized health care. > > People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in > the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of > this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is > essentially worthless. > > Pretty funny given that Hawking is a professor at the University of > Cambridge in the U.K. and is quite alive thanks to NHS. Thanks to NHS and several grants from others that paid for things that NHS did not. And of course thanks to the fact that Hawking is a very famous celebrity and therefore privileged. Socialism doesn't mean that everyone gets the same treatment, you see -- whatever the socialist theory is.
From: Bill Graham on 16 Sep 2009 19:22 "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4ab10bc3$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Bill Graham wrote: >> >> "Douglas Johnson" <post(a)classtech.com> wrote in message >> news:bm0la513ptifqd2htorhffbk4a24j9sbtg(a)4ax.com... >>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> .....Can I blame the liberals for it? After all, it is a socialist >>>> idea. Can >>>> anyone get food simply by putting their feet on a supermarkets >>>> property? If >>>> so, then would you go for the idea today that food should be >>>> socialized? How >>>> about getting a room for the night by simply setting foot on a hotel's >>>> property? >>> >>> So you have a heart attack. The paramedics show up. Should they >>> require proof >>> of citizenship or ability to pay before starting CPR? Or before they >>> transport >>> you to the hospital? Should the hospital require it before they treat >>> you? >> >> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us citizens) >> should have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted in us that >> identifies us as US citizens in good standing, and if we are sick, then >> the chip should get us the treatment we need. Today's technology is more >> than adequate to accomplish this. > > Jeez. Ever read 1984? > I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole in "1984".
From: Bill Graham on 16 Sep 2009 19:29 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab1116d$0$1588$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > David Ruether wrote: > >> Yes - and that health care would not be "free" in any case, as it now is >> for many who currently (and expensively for the rest of us) use emergency >> room facilities in lieu of having a regular (and far less expensive) GP. >> As a tax-payer and health-care payer, I would much prefer to cover a >> $100 GP visit than a $1000 ER visit for an "illegal" concealed inside my >> bills. > > It's more logical and less expensive, but you'll never see it for two > reasons. First, it's politically impossible because there are still too > many Republicans in the House and Senate. Second, that "free" ER visit is > now being funded by the operator of the hospital or clinic (public or > private or non-profit) and everyone's private insurance which goes up as a > result of the cost of indigent care. It's basically another unfunded > federal mandate borne by state and local governments and private insurers. > Providing coverage for illegals, while it would be cheaper overall, would > be something that the federal government would have to fund. It would also > attract more illegals. It's really moot anyway, as illegals would be > unlikely to sign up for government health care even if offered since > they'd be worried about being caught and deported. > > OTOH, something needs to be done regarding the ER situation. My nephew is > an ER physician and the ERs are being overwhelmed by the uninsured, mostly > legal residents, that come in for free medical care, most of which would > not be necessary were the condition treated earlier. The people really > being hurt are the people that cannot afford insurance but that are not > indigent. They are the only ones paying $1000 for a $1000 ER visit, just > as they are the only one's paying rack rate for hospital stays. > >> And I would also prefer that a communicable desease or potentially >> very serious and expensive condition be caught early through good care. >> It is short-sighted to see this in "us vs. them" terms when universal >> health care, including preventive care, helps us all. Or, for those >> against >> single payer health care (which is what SS Medicare is - and most are >> VERY happy with that, and its administrative costs are a small fraction >> of those of private insurance), look at the statistics. In EVERY country >> that has a single-payer system of health care, the average life span is >> greater than ours(!), and the cost of the health care system is less than >> ours(!). Yet the "know-nothings" hide their heads in the sand and mutter >> idiotic things like, "socialism"... > > They mutter it because they are being told to mutter it. You have to > realize who these people are, for the most part. Under-educated, > under-employed, middle-aged, white males. These are now the core > constituency of the Republican party, and they do and say what Rush, Sean, > Glenn, etc. tell them do and say. They have no capacity for looking at the > big picture, and they have no desire or ability to check out any facts for > themselves. I don't want to have Godwin's law kick-in so I'll avoid making > the obvious statement. Gee, amazing how you can get inside our minds and figure out why we think the things we do. Have you ever considered becoming a psychic? think of all the crimes you could solve for the police departments..... > > Maybe before Obama works on the health care problem he needs to work on > the education problem, or we'll raise another generation of people that > lack critical thinking skills. But he'd better hurry. The Democrats are > unlikely to pick up any more House and Senate seats in the mid-term > election in 2010, and if history is any indication they'll likely lose > some seats. So Obama has only a year and a half to push through his agenda > prior to the evil-doers having more of a chance to stop him. Lets see....A hundred days equals a trillion dollars, so a year and a half.......Oh, oh.....
From: Bill Graham on 16 Sep 2009 19:31 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab125e7$0$1644$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > David Ruether wrote: > >> And in the last couple of days, well over 70% of doctors >> supported the "public option" in another poll I caught on TV. >> Good ol' polls can "say" whatever you want, I guess...! ;-) > > There is hope. According to a Gallup poll (that's a lot more reliable than > the push poll by the right-wing IBD), by a 68% to 21% margin, Americans > oppose rather than support South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's shouted �You > lie!� outburst. Oppose shouting it, but not the truth of it......
From: Neil Harrington on 16 Sep 2009 19:35
"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab129bf$0$1589$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Neil Harrington wrote: > >> This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page >> headline saying: >> "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting >> If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul. > > IBD has as much credibility at Fox News, the New York Post, and the > Washington Times. Yes, those news organizations have all reported on the Van Jones scandal, which the mainstream media took great pains to avoid any mention of -- with the result that when Jones resigned, people who didn't follow Fox News, the New York Post, the Washington Times et al. didn't even know what he was resigning for. That's the state of the news media today. Much the same with the latest ACORN scandal, which stunk so badly that even Democrats in Congress finally voted to stop funding ACORN. But you never even heard about it from ABC, CBS or NBC, did you? Poor Charlie "Bush Doctrine" Gibson, when asked, said he didn't know anything about it. A major scandal involving Obama's old pals, on TV repeatedly, on all the best blogs, Democrats so embarrassed they joined Republicans in defunding the whole organization, and ABC News ace journalist Gibson never heard anything about it. Neither did anyone in the other MSM groups apparently. What a bunch of clowns! Here, read all about it from a functional news organization and learn something for a change: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/14/dan-gainor-acorn-media-ignore/ |