From: Bill Graham on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h8e4p1$qv1$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:P-qdnSpS1-lx8DTXnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8b2q8$5ms$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "Bob G" <mrbobjames(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:94a4b97f-52ef-4dbe-935b-5f0597e68566(a)t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>>> What he said was a lie, the health care will be provided to all tax
>>>>> payers and illegals are covered under the tax law so will receive free
>>>>> health care. Unless it was added all of the bills that have passed did
>>>>> not exclude illegals.
>
>>>> I don't know. Have we so lost our humanity that we think illegals are
>>>> animals? It's pathetic to hear a President promise to deny health care
>>>> to some people in order to appease Republicans.
>
>>> 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. And I would also prefer that a communicable disease 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"...
>>> --DR
>
>> So you think that the only way to improve our health care system is to
>> socialize it? You are ready and willing to completely give up on any and
>> all ideas to have a decent privatized health care system here in the US?
>> Why not give real capitalism a chance? If you were an MD, would you
>> really want to work for the government? How about a law that makes
>> everybody have a health insurance policy, together with opening up the
>> insurance companies to cross state lines and sell their policies to
>> anyone who applies for one? A real free enterprise system, IOW.
>
> It is a pleasure to read an opposing post that is reasonable, and
> especially
> civil. I applaud your comments and manner, although I may not agree with
> your point of view. I take my health coverage from a "socialized" source,
> the
> single-payer government system with my Medicare plan, and this has proven
> far more efficient in terms of overhead, distribution of services, and
> quality of
> treatment compared with conditions that existed before Medicare and
> current
> market conditions for those unlucky enough not to yet have Medicare
> available.
> While a few "tweaks" may help with our current system, it is still so
> clearly
> evident that our highly-touted medical system (which is not available to
> all),
> costs both far more per person and it also results in a very noticeably
> shorter
> average life span than is the case in EVERY other industrialized nation
> that has
> that "boogeyman" of systems, "socialized medicine". Never mind that it
> really
> does work very well, and really doesn't remove any personal control or
> choices over anything. It is time to look honestly at all the options
> (including
> ones you suggest) and see what really does or doesn't work the best for
> covering the most people and supplying the best care at the most
> reasonable
> cost. The nonsense from the Right has obviously been intended to serve to
> prevent this honest discussion - and the stony "lumpishness" demonstrated
> by
> most of the Republicans during Obama's speech illustrates the likely
> outcome
> of all this. It will be the Democrats alone who pass (or not) any
> important
> advances in the area of improving our medical coverage in this country
> with
> worthwhile legislation.
> --DR
>
Well, I will agree that our present health care system has a lot that is
wrong with it. The drug companies are getting very rich with it, for one
thing, and I would like to see regulation that controls that. But as someone
who took care to provide myself with good health care for my entire working
life, I resent Obama's willingness to use my taxpayer money to give people
health care that never bothered to spend a dime on their own health. I think
that the insurance companies should be able to sell their insurance across
state lines, for example, so that I could choose from hundreds of policies,
instead of just a few. IOW, I think that free competition has been lacking
from the system. People should be able to organize into groups that have
nothing to do with their previous health conditions, and buy their health
insurance across the board, too. Everyone in a given town, for example, or
everyone who works in a filling station, or some such thing. And all
policies should be available to the people who buy them....for example, I
have a good policy, but I have never seen a copy of it....I was unable to
get a copy from Stanford University, for whom I worked for 30 years.....Why
does the insurance company have the right to not give me a copy of my
policy?

From: Neil Harrington on

"DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:4aaab35c$0$27630$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Neil Harrington" <not(a)home.today> wrote in message
> news:xMadnTSyxu-TMzfXnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com
>> "Larry Thong" <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote in message
>> news:EKWdnfDeK_e0TTXXnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)supernews.com...
>>> It seems the meaning and value of the word "apology" has been
>>> watered down to now mean "I'm sorry I got caught for doing whatever
>>> I did but was very happy doing it up and till the point I got
>>> caught." It's sad that this practice is commonplace with
>>> business's, politicians, investment brokers, religious figures,
>>> criminals alike. Good ole boy Joe Wilson, a Republican, called out "you
>>> lie" during
>>> Obama's speech and shortly apologizes after getting called out over
>>> it.
>>
>> He apologized for calling it out, which was a rude thing to do, but
>> what he called out was the truth. Obama was lying. Since Obama lies
>> half the time and breaks his promises the other half, I suppose it
>> can be argued that Wilson's calling it out was unnecessary.
>
> Obama was not lying. He said, "There are also those who claim that our
> reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false -- the
> reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
> That is true and Wilson was wrong.

Maybe you draw some line that's so fine I can't see it, between "lying" and
"misrepresenting." The bill (in all its various forms so far) does not give
coverage to illegal aliens. But it ALSO does not provide any means of
discovering which ones are illegals, and in fact hospitals etc. are
generally prevented by law from even ASKING would-be patients if they are
illegals, let alone requiring any sort of ID showing that they're citizens
or at least here legally.

Therefore, as one commentator has pointed out, it's like putting up speed
limit signs on the highway but also promising that no state troopers will be
allowed to enforce them. The speed limits thereby become absolutely
meaningless.

And Democrats have BLOCKED every attempt by Republicans to get any
meaningful form of enforcement into the bill.

This is typical of Obama's treacherous way of getting the illegal results he
wants, while pretending to enforce the law. He has done this sort of thing
over and over.


From: Matt Clara on
"Doug Jewell" <ask(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
news:4aa8e529$0$27610$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Larry Thong wrote:
>> It seems the meaning and value of the word "apology" has been watered
>> down to now mean "I'm sorry I got caught for doing whatever I did but was
>> very happy doing it up and till the point I got caught." It's sad that
>> this practice is commonplace with business's, politicians, investment
>> brokers, religious figures, criminals alike.
>>
>> Good ole boy Joe Wilson, a Republican, called out "you lie" during
>> Obama's speech and shortly apologizes after getting called out over it.
>> It's sad to see these juvenile actions taken by Wilson and the
>> Republicans when everyone knows Obama is very passionate and takes
>> seriously the problem of health care reform. He is the only President in
>> history that is actually doing something about removing the waste and
>> corruption in the health care system. Give Obama a round of applause!!!
> Don't you think it is kind of hypocritical that on the one hand Obama
> supports socialised health care so that the poor have access to
> life-saving medical procedures, and yet on the other hand he supports
> partial-birth abortions?
>

Not in the least.



--
www.mattclara.com

From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <not(a)home.today> wrote:
>
>"Larry Thong" <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote in message
>news:EKWdnfDeK_e0TTXXnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)supernews.com...
>> It seems the meaning and value of the word "apology" has been watered down
>> to now mean "I'm sorry I got caught for doing whatever I did but was very
>> happy doing it up and till the point I got caught." It's sad that this
>> practice is commonplace with business's, politicians, investment brokers,
>> religious figures, criminals alike.
>>
>> Good ole boy Joe Wilson, a Republican, called out "you lie" during Obama's
>> speech and shortly apologizes after getting called out over it.
>
>He apologized for calling it out, which was a rude thing to do, but what he
>called out was the truth.

In fact the legislation before the House explicitely excludes illegals
from coverage.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/

> Since Obama lies half the time

And so the partisan bigot screeches the usual bullshit.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <not(a)home.today> wrote:
>"DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
>> Obama was not lying. He said, "There are also those who claim that our
>> reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false -- the
>> reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
>> That is true and Wilson was wrong.
>
>Maybe you draw some line that's so fine I can't see it, between "lying" and
>"misrepresenting."

Wilson lied. Obama did not

>The bill (in all its various forms so far) does not give
>coverage to illegal aliens.

Q.E.D. And note also that the Bill isn't Obama's. It's a House bill.

>coverage to illegal aliens. But it ALSO does not provide any means of
>discovering which ones are illegals, and in fact hospitals etc. are
>generally prevented by law from even ASKING would-be patients if they are
>illegals, let alone requiring any sort of ID showing that they're citizens
>or at least here legally.

So Obama was, in fact, telling the truth. Your objection is that
there isn't a national id card to determine if people are legal
residents.

You prefer a totalitarian state were everybody is required to carry
papers at all times? Are you like Graham who thinks that people should
all be chipped at birth?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net