From: Bob Larter on
Doug Jewell wrote:
> 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?

Don't you think it's kind of hypocritical that on the one hand
right-wingers oppose abortion, calling it murder, and yet on the other
hand, they support the death penalty?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4aaf4e92$0$1646$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> mikey4 <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>>It has to do with the insurance side of health care. Should health
>>>>care insurance providers be heavily regulated, or should they be
>>>>allowed to compete in a free market?
>>>
>>> A "free market" means that they charge whatever they want, cancel
>>> coverage when they want, and the people who might cost too much
>>> are encouraged to die.
>>>
>>And you have the ability to purchase insurance from *any* insurance
>>company
>>any where in the country.
>
> That's not free market. That's socialism. In a free market you may
> purchase insurance only if you can afford the price being demanded and
> if the insurer agrees to sell you a policy.
>
> What you write about is socialism. Not capitalism.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer(a)sonic.net
>
Wrong again Ray







From: mikey4 on

"Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b557db8-68c0-4e69-a538-00ff16dd787a(a)h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 14, 11:16 pm, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>
> >>Yes.....We, conservatives don't like to be part of a group.
>
> > LOL! That's why all the "conservatives" dance to whatever tune the
> > O'Reillys and Limbaughs are playing.
>
> And all liberals dance to their tune as well.

Excuse me?

You seem to having a bad acid trip there, so just lie back and relax
for a while, listen to the music, and have a few beers.

Everything will look better in the morning.

Why should you be excused? You've had good acid trips?
Are you claiming that liberals don't dance?


From: Twibil on
On Sep 15, 7:05 am, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>
> > > And all liberals dance to their tune as well.
>
> > Excuse me?
>
> > You seem to having a bad acid trip there, so just lie back and relax
> > for a while, listen to the music, and have a few beers.
>
> > Everything will look better in the morning.
>
> Why should you be excused? You've had good acid trips?
> Are you claiming that liberals don't dance?

Okay, maybe you *aren't* on drugs. As an alternative, you could be
suffering from some *other* abberation that causes you to post
nonsense.

Choose one.

From: C J Campbell on
On 2009-09-14 11:34:57 -0700, Allen <allent(a)austin.rr.com> said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2009-09-13 12:24:05 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, juries have very good "bullshit detectors" by and large, and
>>>>> it's very rare for a frivolous or fraudulent malpractice suit to
>>>>> succeed. Any little guy vs big guy sympathies are balanced by the
>>>>> pleasure to be had in sending a con packing. Seriously, the whole idea
>>>>> that's been going around of capping awards in these cases serves no
>>>>> one near as well as the *real* incompetent and/or reckless medical
>>>>> professionals who will save money but who should be out of the
>>>>> business entirely. Hey, if folks are hell-bent on capping rightfully
>>>>> won awards, I guess they will, but let's have some professional
>>>>> repercussions to weed out the real bad doctors, nurses, etc. and keep
>>>>> them out.
>>>>
>>>> The trouble is that most cases never go to trial. The insurance companies
>>>> nearly always settle for something, because the cost of defending is
>>>> greater than the cost of paying something on even the most frivolous
>>>> claim. That raises insurance rates for everyone, plus it encourages
>>>> medical professionals to practice exceedingly defensive medicine.
>>>
>>> Actually, people who have looked at medical malpractice cases find that
>>> frivolous claims are few and far between and almost never get paid (and, as
>>> above, the ones that make it to trial do badly).
>>>
>>> Inversely, the number of cases where people are hurt by medical malpractice
>>> and don't get compensated is large. Many don't even turn into claims, it
>>> would have been difficult to sue), and many valid claims get discarded,
>>> rejected, or lose in court. The bottom line is that the reason there is so
>>> much paid out to patients from malpractice insurance is that there's so much
>>> malpractice.
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/opinion/12baker.html?_r=1
>>>
>>> http://www.insurance-reform.org/issues/MedMalMedmalErrorsFactSheet2009F.html
>>>
>>> And the amount of money changing hands in malpractice cases is insignificant
>>> and falling.
>>>
>>> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158494.php
>>>
>>> Thus there are three problems in medical malpractice system: (1) (as above)
>>> too few people are being compensated, (2) the malpractice insurance
>>> companies aren't lowering their premiums even though the number of cases and
>>> awards has been falling (and thus are ripping off the doctors*, but not by
>>> an amount that has any significance at the policy level), and (3) the
>>> doctors don't want there to be any malpractice system at all, i.e. don't
>>> want to take responsibility for their mistakes.
>>>
>>> *: http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/070328.html
>>
>> Generally the only people who believe these claims are the trial
>> lawyers lobby and those who are beholden to it.
>>
>
> You left out the people who can read and comprehend; this of course
> excludes those who are frightened to death about children hearing a
> talk about the value of education.
> Allen

You miss your welfare check or something?

The fact is, you can find Internet sites that support both views. I am
not surprised that the New York Times and the trial lawyer financed
Insurance-Reform.org would blame everyone but the trial lawyers, any
more than I am not surprised that the Wall Street Journal, doctors, and
insurance companies put the blame entirely on them. The fact is,
though, it only takes a few cases to destroy peoples' faith in the rule
of law. And that is exactly what has happened here.

But of course, your own reading and comprehension skills are, at best,
minimal, or you would know that.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor