[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Joe]

Why do you hate gays Tex?. You should get some smarts and learn to be accepting 
of people different from you.

Go figure.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> Joe:
> > You'll like my "checking" far more than 
> > the one you get at the FF TM Center Tex.
> > 
> Joe, I already told you, I'm not gay, so
> you can stop the soliciting.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

Joe:
> You'll like my "checking" far more than 
> the one you get at the FF TM Center Tex.
> 
Joe, I already told you, I'm not gay, so
you can stop the soliciting. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Joe]

You'll like my "checking" far more than the one you get at the FF TM Center Tex.

I didn't see "WillyTex" on the list either at Rishikesh back in the day or at 
Fairfield now.

What's up with that?

See you soon!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > > So, how much do you charge for 'checking'?
> > >
> Joe:
> > $2,500. 
> >
> But, it's free at the Fairfield TM Center. Why
> are some of you TM Teachers so unethical? What 
> happens to all the money?  
> 
> > I'll be over shortly Tex. 
> >
> Before I agree, can you post any evidence that 
> you're a TM checker in good standing with the 
> TMO? 
> 
> I didn't see a 'geezerfreak' on the list of 
> approved TM checkers at the Fairfield TM Center.
> 
> What's up with that?
> 
> > Barry's going to hold you down and I'll "check" 
> > you...
> >
> Why do you need Barry? I already told you I'm not
> gay, Joe.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > So, how much do you charge for 'checking'?
> >
Joe:
> $2,500. 
>
But, it's free at the Fairfield TM Center. Why
are some of you TM Teachers so unethical? What 
happens to all the money?  

> I'll be over shortly Tex. 
>
Before I agree, can you post any evidence that 
you're a TM checker in good standing with the 
TMO? 

I didn't see a 'geezerfreak' on the list of 
approved TM checkers at the Fairfield TM Center.

What's up with that?

> Barry's going to hold you down and I'll "check" 
> you...
>
Why do you need Barry? I already told you I'm not
gay, Joe.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Joe]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > > How much do you charge for the checking? I didn't
> > > see your name on the list of checkers in good
> > > standing with the TMO in Fairfield...
> > > 
> > > What happened to all the money?
> Joe:
> > Now that's funny Tex since I didn't see YOUR name 
> > on the approved list posted at Rishikesh. 
> >
> What would you be doing looking at a 'list' of 
> approved TM Teachers in Rishikesh? 
> 
> The place has been shut down over twenty years ago 
> - there are probably no list left around there by 
> now. 
> 
> You're not making any sense today, Joe.
> 
> > What did you do with all the money you charged 
> > for TM Tex?
> > 
> Joe, I already told you I was never a TM Teacher. I
> don't charge for meditation instruction like you do.
> 
> So, how much do you charge for 'checking'?
>
$2,500. I'll be over shortly Tex. Barry's going to hold you down and I'll 
"check" you.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > How much do you charge for the checking? I didn't
> > see your name on the list of checkers in good
> > standing with the TMO in Fairfield...
> > 
> > What happened to all the money?
Joe:
> Now that's funny Tex since I didn't see YOUR name 
> on the approved list posted at Rishikesh. 
>
What would you be doing looking at a 'list' of 
approved TM Teachers in Rishikesh? 

The place has been shut down over twenty years ago 
- there are probably no list left around there by 
now. 

You're not making any sense today, Joe.

> What did you do with all the money you charged 
> for TM Tex?
> 
Joe, I already told you I was never a TM Teacher. I
don't charge for meditation instruction like you do.

So, how much do you charge for 'checking'?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > > > Ron Paul thinks that health care run by the state is a
> > > > bad idea because the government takes away the money of
> > > > tax payers, so that those without money can have health
> > > > care.
> > > >
> > Bhairitu:
> > > So you want those people to get sick and infect you?
> > >
> > Of course not - I want others to keep themselves in good
> > health; to work and pay for their own health care and
> > health insurance; and to save money for their retirement,
> > not depend on government welfare.
> >
off:
> You want to stomp on Sarah Palin's down-syndrome baby's head 
> at birth,
>
That's rediculous - I already said I was not in favor of
women having abortions. I sure don't want to be paying for it.

> in case anyone else has to help in a small amount to pay for 
> the kids medical bills, and in case society has to help them.
> 
I already donate a small amount from every paycheck - I already 
told you I donate to United Way every year through my employer. 
I also donated to the FFL Haiti 'Fund', but I didn't see your 
name on the list. 

Why didn't you speak up and take action then?

> If not, then you want a family with a down-syndrome kid, 
> or born with another other debilitating ailment, to go 
> bankrupt and live in the woods, or, instead BEG for charity !
> 
> "Oh Please sir, please sir, help me and my baby, please sir, 
> don't stomp on my baby's head again"
> 
> That's what you want you disgusting piece of shit!
> 
Get a grip, Off. I already pay into welfare programs with FICA,
a payroll deduction for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Joe]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > > Well, I think I'm perfectly capable of deciding 
> > > who to give my money to, and how much to give 
> > > them. I donate to United Way every year with a 
> > > payroll deduction with my employer...
> > > 
> Joe:
> > You're not making any sense today Tex. 
> >
> You've never heard of the United Way? Go figure.
> 
> > Are you upset about something? Maybe it's time to 
> > get your meditation checked. Or maybe it's not 
> > your method of using the mantra that's at fault, 
> > but your actual mantra. Maybe it's wrong.
> > 
> What difference do you think having my mantra 
> 'checked' would make to my United Way donation 
> through my employer?
> 
> How much do you charge for the checking? I didn't
> see your name on the list of checkers in good
> standing with the TMO in Fairfield. What's up
> with that?.
> 
> What happened to all the money?
>
Now that's funny Tex since I didn't see YOUR name on the approved list posted 
at Rishikesh. What did you do with all the money you charged for TM Tex?

And now that we know that you were charging for giving out wrong mantras

What's up with that Tex?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Joe]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > > Well, I think I'm perfectly capable of deciding 
> > > who to give my money to, and how much to give 
> > > them. I donate to United Way every year with a 
> > > payroll deduction with my employer...
> > > 
> Joe:
> > You're not making any sense today Tex. 
> >
> You've never heard of the United Way? Go figure.
> 
> > Are you upset about something? Maybe it's time to 
> > get your meditation checked. Or maybe it's not 
> > your method of using the mantra that's at fault, 
> > but your actual mantra. Maybe it's wrong.
> > 
> What difference do you think having my mantra 
> 'checked' would make to my United Way donation 
> through my employer?
> 
> How much do you charge for the checking? I didn't
> see your name on the list of checkers in good
> standing with the TMO in Fairfield. What's up
> with that?.
> 
> What happened to all the money?
>
Now that's funny Tex since I didn't see YOUR name on the approved list posted 
at Rishikesh. What did you do with all the money you charged for TM Tex?

And now that we know that you were charging for giving out wrong mantras

What's up with that Tex?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "WillyTex" 
wrote:
>
> > > Are you thinking that on a government
> > > insurance plan, they won't be telling
> > > you what you can eat or not?
> > >
> off:
> > British eat what they want you dumbass.
> >
> What about smoking - isn't that regulated
> by taxation and forbidden in some public
> places in Great Britain? Of course it is>>

A corporation making a profit out of poisoning your dumb ass, so that we
healthy people have to pick up the tab of paying for your ill=health and
thereby paying indirectly for their profitsis ILLEGAL.

We will hunt down and destroy corporations that poison ANYONE. Even an
asshole dumbass like you, that doesn't know any better. We will destroy
them for poisoning you, even if you don't like it. Dumb asses like you
in the red states cost us in the civilized states a lot of money.
Poisoning people is illegal. And we don't want to keep paying for your
leeching off of society, getting benifits, while poisoning yourself.

Your days are over Willytex. You are the past. I am the future.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Ron Paul thinks that health care run by the state is a
> > > bad idea because the government takes away the money of
> > > tax payers, so that those without money can have health
> > > care.
> > >
> Bhairitu:
> > So you want those people to get sick and infect you?
> >
> Of course not - I want others to keep themselves in good
> health; to work and pay for their own health care and
> health insurance; and to save money for their retirement,
> not depend on government welfare.>>

You want to stomp on Sarah Palin's down-syndrome baby's head at birth,
in case anyone else has to help in a small amount to pay for the kids
medical bills, and in case society has to help them.

If not, then you want a family with a down-syndrome kid, or born with
another other debilitating ailment, to go bankrupt and live in the
woods, or, instead BEG for charity !

"Oh Please sir, please sir, help me and my baby, please sir, don't stomp
on my baby's head again"

That's what you want you disgusting piece of shit!

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > Well, I think I'm perfectly capable of deciding 
> > who to give my money to, and how much to give 
> > them. I donate to United Way every year with a 
> > payroll deduction with my employer...
> > 
Joe:
> You're not making any sense today Tex. 
>
You've never heard of the United Way? Go figure.

> Are you upset about something? Maybe it's time to 
> get your meditation checked. Or maybe it's not 
> your method of using the mantra that's at fault, 
> but your actual mantra. Maybe it's wrong.
> 
What difference do you think having my mantra 
'checked' would make to my United Way donation 
through my employer?

How much do you charge for the checking? I didn't
see your name on the list of checkers in good
standing with the TMO in Fairfield. What's up
with that?.

What happened to all the money?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Joe]

You're not making any sense today Tex. Are you upset about something? Maybe 
it's time to get your meditation checked. Or maybe it's not your method of 
using the mantra that's at fault, but your actual mantra. Maybe it's wrong.

Go figure.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > > Ron Paul thinks that health care run by the state is a 
> > > bad idea because the government takes away the money of 
> > > tax payers, so that those without money can have health 
> > > care. 
> > >
> Joe:
> > Tex don't want no government revenuers taken HIS money to 
> > give to someone else. He earned it fair and square now, and 
> > seeing as how he's enlightened and all, (or pretty dad 
> > gummed close after all these years of meditaten') he don't 
> > want anyone taken' what's rightfully his and sharing it 
> > with anyone less fortunate. Karma's karma son so git yer 
> > damned government hands off of my Medicare!
> > 
> Well, I think I'm perfectly capable of deciding who to give
> my money to, and how much to give them. I donate to United Way 
> every year with a payroll deduction with my employer. But, I
> didn't see your name on the list of FFL donors to the Haitian
> tragedy. But, compared to you, almost everyone on the planet
> is enlightened. And, I'm not on Medicare - I'm on a group plan.
> 
> > > It's wrong and unconstitutional - nowhere in the U.S 
> > > Constitution does it say that the federal government 
> > > should take my money and give it to someone else to pay 
> > > for their health care expenses. It's my money! Taking
> > > my money away from me without my consent is illegal.
> > > 
> > > It is not a good idea for those who pay taxes to get 
> > > the same treatment as those who do not pay any tax. 
> > > That's really an unfair idea. Everyone should work and 
> > > make good money, so they can pay for their own care.
> > > 
> > > The only way this is going to happen is more jobs, for 
> > > more people; less government and government spending; 
> > > and bringing down the high cost of health care. There
> > > is no other way except to put people to work and 
> > > balance the federal budget.
> > > 
> > > Even an idiot can see that there will soon be more 
> > > old people in the system, instead of more younger 
> > > people paying in. It's yer basic 'Ponzi Scheme', just
> > > like Social Security.
> > >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>

> Seniors don't like their Medicare cut back

Seniors (if they've been paying attention and haven't
let the Republicans deceive them) are thrilled that
the health reform bill is going to phase out the
"donut hole" for Medicare D. This year they'll get a
$250 rebate, then next year the hole will be closed by
50 percent, then 75 percent, and it'll be gone by 2020.

And that's just one of the many benefits to seniors
from the health reform bill.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Bhairitu]

WillyTex wrote:
>   
>>> Yeah, I'd like to see the letter you send 
>>> to the IRS telling them you're not going 
>>> to pay anymore U.S. income tax... 
>>>
>>>   
> Bharitu:
>   
>> They've paid me the last few years...
>>
>> 
> It's just a return of part of your money that 
> the IRS withheld for a year. Why should the 
> IRS hold a part of your earned income without
> paying you interest? It's not fair and it's
> probably illegal.
>  
>   
>> So you're a tea partier?
>>
>> 
> Unlike yourself, I protest against high
> taxation - you just whine on the internet.
>
> Why not join a tea party protest? Let your
> voice be heard. It's not just Repugs that
> go to tea party protests. 
>
> You'd fit right in with some of your ideas, 
> but your idea about not paying IRS taxes is 
> probably impractical without changing 
> Congress. 
>
> It doesn't seem likely that Congress would
> vote to eliminate all taxation, since we
> pay their salary with tax money. But the
> idea of lowering taxes is a sound idea.
>
> 

Thanks for confirming you are a teabagger.   Yes the 16th Amendment was 
never ratified.  Therefore the federal income tax is not legal.  However 
you'll never get a judge to decide that way as they are afraid of being 
ostracized, disbarred and reputation ruined.  It's because they believe 
the government needs a way of funding.  True, but we usually don't have 
any qualms about paying for our state services so why not federal?   I 
think the tax system has been abused.  I think that corporations have 
gamed the system.  We do not need an empire.  Our military should be for 
protecting our country and not the interests of US businesses who want 
to expand their territory into foreign lands.  They should be on their 
own for that and not at our expense.

You people are so ignorant and confused.  You don't want to pay for 
government health care but you don't mind getting ripped off by health 
insurance conglomerates.  That's truly  stupid.  There is a term for 
your type: "useful idiot."  You've been gamed by the health insurance 
companies to be their shill.  And they will continue to rip you off.

Well, it probably doesn't much matter because the division has just 
ramped up another magnitude and we are well on our way to a second civil 
war.  This time between neighbor to neighbor.  Should not be a boring time.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Vaj]

On Mar 23, 2010, at 1:57 PM, WillyTex wrote:


> So you're a tea partier?
>
Unlike yourself, I protest against high
taxation - you just whine on the internet.




I know you were probably raised on Texas textbooks, so I guess we can  
forgive you, but the Boston Tea Party was about taxation without  
representation (at least in them thar Yankee textbooks).


If you're so worried about unfair taxation, why aren't you worried  
the over 50% of our taxes that go to the military? Maybe you should  
start hanging out at peace protests (although I'd drop the colonial  
outfit if you do).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > Ron Paul thinks that health care run by the state is a 
> > bad idea because the government takes away the money of 
> > tax payers, so that those without money can have health 
> > care. 
> >
Joe:
> Tex don't want no government revenuers taken HIS money to 
> give to someone else. He earned it fair and square now, and 
> seeing as how he's enlightened and all, (or pretty dad 
> gummed close after all these years of meditaten') he don't 
> want anyone taken' what's rightfully his and sharing it 
> with anyone less fortunate. Karma's karma son so git yer 
> damned government hands off of my Medicare!
> 
Well, I think I'm perfectly capable of deciding who to give
my money to, and how much to give them. I donate to United Way 
every year with a payroll deduction with my employer. But, I
didn't see your name on the list of FFL donors to the Haitian
tragedy. But, compared to you, almost everyone on the planet
is enlightened. And, I'm not on Medicare - I'm on a group plan.

> > It's wrong and unconstitutional - nowhere in the U.S 
> > Constitution does it say that the federal government 
> > should take my money and give it to someone else to pay 
> > for their health care expenses. It's my money! Taking
> > my money away from me without my consent is illegal.
> > 
> > It is not a good idea for those who pay taxes to get 
> > the same treatment as those who do not pay any tax. 
> > That's really an unfair idea. Everyone should work and 
> > make good money, so they can pay for their own care.
> > 
> > The only way this is going to happen is more jobs, for 
> > more people; less government and government spending; 
> > and bringing down the high cost of health care. There
> > is no other way except to put people to work and 
> > balance the federal budget.
> > 
> > Even an idiot can see that there will soon be more 
> > old people in the system, instead of more younger 
> > people paying in. It's yer basic 'Ponzi Scheme', just
> > like Social Security.
> >

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > Yeah, I'd like to see the letter you send 
> > to the IRS telling them you're not going 
> > to pay anymore U.S. income tax... 
> >
Bharitu:
> They've paid me the last few years...
>
It's just a return of part of your money that 
the IRS withheld for a year. Why should the 
IRS hold a part of your earned income without
paying you interest? It's not fair and it's
probably illegal.
 
> So you're a tea partier?
> 
Unlike yourself, I protest against high
taxation - you just whine on the internet.

Why not join a tea party protest? Let your
voice be heard. It's not just Repugs that
go to tea party protests. 

You'd fit right in with some of your ideas, 
but your idea about not paying IRS taxes is 
probably impractical without changing 
Congress. 

It doesn't seem likely that Congress would
vote to eliminate all taxation, since we
pay their salary with tax money. But the
idea of lowering taxes is a sound idea.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > Even an idiot can see that there will soon be more
> > old people in the system, instead of more younger
> > people paying in. It's yer basic 'Ponzi Scheme', just
> > like Social Security.
> >
off:
> Ron Paul is a complete idiot and liar.
>


Ron Paul can't compare to all your life accomplishments!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

> > Ron Paul thinks that health care run by the state is a
> > bad idea because the government takes away the money of
> > tax payers, so that those without money can have health
> > care.
> >
> > It's wrong and unconstitutional - nowhere in the U.S
> > Constitution does it say that the federal government
> > should take my money and give it to someone else to pay
> > for their health care expenses. It's my money! Taking
> > my money away from me without my consent is illegal.
> >
> > It is not a good idea for those who pay taxes to get
> > the same treatment as those who do not pay any tax.
> > That's really an unfair idea. Everyone should work and
> > make good money, so they can pay for their own care.
> >
> > The only way this is going to happen is more jobs, for
> > more people; less government and government spending;
> > and bringing down the high cost of health care. There
> > is no other way except to put people to work and
> > balance the federal budget.
> >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Bhairitu]

WillyTex wrote:
>   
>>> Are you thinking that on a government 
>>> insurance plan, they won't be telling 
>>> you what you can eat or not? 
>>>   
>>>   
> Bharirtu:
>   
>> No one tells me what to do. Not even 
>> the government...  
>>
>> 
> Yeah, I'd like to see the letter you send 
> to the IRS telling them you're not going 
> to pay anymore U.S. income tax. Please 
> send me a copy of the letter from your 
> jail cell.

They've paid me the last few years. :-D

>  
>
> Good luck.
>
> 
>
>   
>>> We need less government regulation, 
>>> not more! 
>>>   
>>>   
>> What if the majority revolts.
>>
>> 
> You don't even attend tea party protests, 
> Barry, get real! You probably don't even 
> own a gun for self-protection, so how are 
> you going to revolt - by not paying for
> health care insurance?
>   

So you're a tea partier?  Figures you seem to have the Willies all the time.

> The fact is, over half of Americans are 
> opposed to the health care reform bill. 
>
> If they see their insurance premiums 
> increase, or if there are big changes in 
> their group plan, they will probably vote 
> Republican or independent in the next 
> election.
>   

The health reform bill is a Republican bill.  Independent is fine.  
Bernie Sanders is a good example.
> It is going to be a difficult election 
> year for some Democrats. Over thirty Dems 
> voted 'no' on the Health Care Insurance 
> Reform Bill, so they will probably be 
> re-elected. 
>
>   

The Republicans don't love you either, Comrade Willy.  You're just one 
of their "useful idiots."
> But, the others maybe not - they are 
> going to have to hard 'sell' the bill to 
> the voters when they get back home. 
>
> Good luck with that!
>
> Seniors don't like their Medicare cut 
> back, and most people don't like 
> increased taxes. Many young people don't 
> want to have to pay for the health care 
> of older people, so they are going to 
> resent additional payroll deductions.
>
> My plan makes sense, you're does not.
>
> Your plan is to conspire to revolt 
> against the U.S. Government, with a 
> show of arms, to what, change the U.S.
> Constitution? 
>
> My plan is to increase jobs for everyone, 
> paying good money, so that people can 
> pay for their own health care and their
> insurance; reduce government spending, 
> so we can reduce the deficit and taxes; 
> and bring down the high cost of health 
> care by doctors and hospitals and drug
> companies. 
>   

Jobs doing what, o' brilliant one?  You still haven't answered that 
question yet.
> Ron Paul thinks it is not a good idea 
> to have the federal government running 
> the U.S. health care system. Ron Paul
> wants to reduce the size of government
> and stick to the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Paul thinks it is illegal for the 
> government to take your money without
> your consent, and give it to others.
>
> Paul thinks it's not fair for you to 
> have to pay for the same level of care 
> with your hard-earned money, while 
> others, who pay no taxes, get the same 
> level of care as you do.
>   

You mean the folks who sit around a swimming pool cutting coupons? Yes, 
unearned income should be taxed a little.  I believe there is something 
about that in this bill.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > Ron Paul thinks that health care run by the state is a 
> > bad idea because the government takes away the money of 
> > tax payers, so that those without money can have health 
> > care. 
> >
Bhairitu:
> So you want those people to get sick and infect you?
>
Of course not - I want others to keep themselves in good
health; to work and pay for their own health care and
health insurance; and to save money for their retirement,
not depend on government welfare.

> Or do you just want them dead, Comrade Willy?  
>
Strawman argument.

> Sounds like typical Texas cracker logic.
>
You're not making any sense: objecting to the government
taking my money and giving it someone else is part of 
the U.S. Constitution, not a Texas idea at all.

> > It's wrong and unconstitutional - nowhere in the U.S 
> > Constitution does it say that the federal government 
> > should take my money and give it to someone else to 
> > pay for their health care expenses. It's my money! 
> > Taking my money away from me without my consent is 
> > illegal.
> >
> So you oppose the VA?
>
Is it in the U.S. Constitution?

> > It is not a good idea for those who pay taxes to get 
> > the same treatment as those who do not pay any tax. 
> > That's really an unfair idea. Everyone should work 
> > and make good money, so they can pay for their own 
> > care.
> >   
> Work at what, Comrade Willy?
>
Good paying jobs?

> What work needs to be done?
>
There are thousands of jobs in the health care 
industry, that pay good money. 

> What jobs are there?
>
There will be thousands of good-paying jobs if we can
improve the economy. There are jobs in the IT sector 
that pay good money. What you need is some training 
and a degree with some certifications in CIS.

> Seems there are fewer and fewer.
>
That's because we are in a recession.

> > The only way this is going to happen is more jobs, 
> > for more people; less government and government 
> > spending; and bringing down the high cost of health 
> > care. There is no other way except to put people to 
> > work and balance the federal budget.
> >   
> Let's start by cutting the defense budget and bringing 
> the troops home. Close the bases in Germany, Japan and 
> Korea.  
>
It's a good idea, but our allies can't afford to pay for
their own self-defense. Also, we have treaties to honor,
which would take an act of congress to change. But, if
the global economy was to improve, other coutries that
we help support could pay their own way.

> Those wars were over years ago, Comrade Willy.
>
There are currently three wars to fight: Korea, Bosnia,
and Afghanistan, not to mention the global war on the
terrorists. We won the war in Europe, Asia, and in Iraq.

> > Even an idiot can see that there will soon be more 
> > old people in the system, instead of more younger 
> > people paying in. It's yer basic 'Ponzi Scheme', 
> > just like Social Security.
> 
> So? Readjust the paradigm. I don't think it is an 
> impossible task to figure out other ways of financing 
> it.
>
Readjust a Ponzi Scheme? You're not serious, right? The
only way you can do that is to cut welfare benefits and 
increase taxes on wage-earners. Good luck on that!

There are going to be more older folks in the future,
and less young people to pay in. It's really simple,
if you know basic math and economics 101.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > Are you thinking that on a government 
> > insurance plan, they won't be telling 
> > you what you can eat or not? 
> >   
Bharirtu:
> No one tells me what to do. Not even 
> the government...  
>
Yeah, I'd like to see the letter you send 
to the IRS telling them you're not going 
to pay anymore U.S. income tax. Please 
send me a copy of the letter from your 
jail cell. 

Good luck.



> > We need less government regulation, 
> > not more! 
> >   
> What if the majority revolts.
>
You don't even attend tea party protests, 
Barry, get real! You probably don't even 
own a gun for self-protection, so how are 
you going to revolt - by not paying for
health care insurance?

The fact is, over half of Americans are 
opposed to the health care reform bill. 

If they see their insurance premiums 
increase, or if there are big changes in 
their group plan, they will probably vote 
Republican or independent in the next 
election.

It is going to be a difficult election 
year for some Democrats. Over thirty Dems 
voted 'no' on the Health Care Insurance 
Reform Bill, so they will probably be 
re-elected. 

But, the others maybe not - they are 
going to have to hard 'sell' the bill to 
the voters when they get back home. 

Good luck with that!

Seniors don't like their Medicare cut 
back, and most people don't like 
increased taxes. Many young people don't 
want to have to pay for the health care 
of older people, so they are going to 
resent additional payroll deductions.

My plan makes sense, you're does not.

Your plan is to conspire to revolt 
against the U.S. Government, with a 
show of arms, to what, change the U.S.
Constitution? 

My plan is to increase jobs for everyone, 
paying good money, so that people can 
pay for their own health care and their
insurance; reduce government spending, 
so we can reduce the deficit and taxes; 
and bring down the high cost of health 
care by doctors and hospitals and drug
companies. 

Ron Paul thinks it is not a good idea 
to have the federal government running 
the U.S. health care system. Ron Paul
wants to reduce the size of government
and stick to the U.S. Constitution.

Paul thinks it is illegal for the 
government to take your money without
your consent, and give it to others.

Paul thinks it's not fair for you to 
have to pay for the same level of care 
with your hard-earned money, while 
others, who pay no taxes, get the same 
level of care as you do.

Do you think that's fair?

I agree with Paul, apparently you do 
too, (except for the violence part 
against the IRS), which in your case
was obviously a joke. LOL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > Are you thinking that on a government 
> > insurance plan, they won't be telling 
> > you what you can eat or not?
> >
off:
> British eat what they want you dumbass. 
>
What about smoking - isn't that regulated
by taxation and forbidden in some public 
places in Great Britain? Of course it is, 
and it's going to get a lot more restrictive 
in the future, if the government is running
your life. 

Do you like the government to tell you what 
you can do or how you must spend your money? 
I sure don't!



> We need to regulate Texas out of existence.
> 
So, you're in favor of changing the U.S.
Constitution. Good luck with that.

And, you're saying I'm the 'dumbass'? LOL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "WillyTex" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> > > If you have a group insurance policy through
> > > work, you'll pay the same rate as everyone
> > > else in your demographic group (age and gender)
> > > whether you are sick as a dog or as healthy as
> > > Superman...
> > >
> Bhairitu:
> > When I went off the COBRA and called the insurance
> > company to set up a new policy the agent mentioned
> > something about being overweight...
> >
> Are you thinking that on a government insurance plan,
> they won't be telling you what you can eat or not?>>

British eat what they want you dumbass. but poisoning them is illegal.

< Or,
> how much weight you'll have to lose in order to
> qualify for a health insurance plan?>>

Nope. British obese are all cared for and rehabilitated you dumbass.

>
> The government is  already telling you what you can
> use to heal yourself, and it doesn't include vitamins
> you buy at grocery stores. >>

TM and Ayurved can be gottn for free in Britain if a doctor prescribes
it you dumbass.

>
> We need less government regulation, not more! >>

We need to regulate Texas out of existence.

< fail to pay, the IRS will come after you - you've got
> no choice now - it's pay up or pay a fine.>>

Lol, not true. You'll get a tiny amount taken off your tax refund that
you won't even notice. Pay up or shut up.

<< Getting
> the federal government to run your health care system
> is a really bad idea, according to Ron Paul.>>

Ron Paul wants the sick to use charity. People don't accept charity, it
is degrading to them. So you will spread diseases because no-one will go
to the hospital if it is charity.

> With the federal government running the program, you
> can say goodbye to your individual freedom to eat
> whatever and how much you want>>

Nope. Except corporations will not be allowed to poison you.

> Or, think about it - you're going to have to pay for
> other people's health insurance, even if they insist
> on killing themselves with unhealthy living?>>

Minor expense -- like giving up a cup of coffee per month -- and a small
inconvenience for the masses. We have broad shoulders, unlike the
Neocons. We can put more tax alcohol for example to pay for the
alcoholically poisoned and care and educate them and the children about
the dangers, and tax food that makes people obese to pay for the
treatment and education of the obese, and teach the children. Works fine
in Europe. And people are healthier as a result.

You loose Willytex. Your time is over. Welcome to the 21st century.

OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Bhairitu]

WillyTex wrote:
>   
>>> If you have a group insurance policy through 
>>> work, you'll pay the same rate as everyone 
>>> else in your demographic group (age and gender) 
>>> whether you are sick as a dog or as healthy as 
>>> Superman...
>>>
>>>   
> Bhairitu: 
>   
>> When I went off the COBRA and called the insurance 
>> company to set up a new policy the agent mentioned 
>> something about being overweight...
>>
>> 
> Are you thinking that on a government insurance plan,
> they won't be telling you what you can eat or not? Or,
> how much weight you'll have to lose in order to 
> qualify for a health insurance plan? 
>   

I can tell them to go fuck themselves.  No one tells me what to do. Not 
even the government.  I'll have to ratchet up my uchattan so that they 
find the agents wondering around in the desert totally out of their minds.
> The government is  already telling you what you can 
> use to heal yourself, and it doesn't include vitamins
> you buy at grocery stores. Some states want to put
> a tax on sweet drinks! 
>   

I must have missed their phone call or am just not listening.  They 
don't know anything about nutrition anyway.  They just think they do.  
But hey, Michelle is planting organic gardens.  Nothing wrong with that 
Comrade Willy.
> We need less government regulation, not more! If you 
> fail to pay, the IRS will come after you - you've got 
> no choice now - it's pay up or pay a fine. Getting
> the federal government to run your health care system 
> is a really bad idea, according to Ron Paul.
>   

What if the majority revolts.  The IRS is vastly outnumbered.  They 
better make sure their healthcare is in good shape.  Never let the IRS 
scare you.
> With the federal government running the program, you
> can say goodbye to your individual freedom to eat
> whatever and how much you want, right? 
>   

You sound very scared, Comrade Willy.  Maybe you've been eating too much 
Texas hot sauce?  Or prairie dog pie?

> Or, think about it - you're going to have to pay for 
> other people's health insurance, even if they insist 
> on killing themselves with unhealthy living?
If they kill themselves I guess we won't be paying for them.  You need 
some smarts, Comrade Willy.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Bhairitu]

WillyTex wrote:
> off: 
>   
>> You will look back and wish you celebrated this day...
>>
>> 
> Ron Paul thinks that health care run by the state is a 
> bad idea because the government takes away the money of 
> tax payers, so that those without money can have health 
> care. 
>
>   

So you want those people to get sick and infect you?

Or do you just want them dead, Comrade Willy?  Sounds like typical Texas 
cracker logic.
> It's wrong and unconstitutional - nowhere in the U.S 
> Constitution does it say that the federal government 
> should take my money and give it to someone else to pay 
> for their health care expenses. It's my money! Taking
> my money away from me without my consent is illegal.
>
>   

So you oppose the VA?
> It is not a good idea for those who pay taxes to get 
> the same treatment as those who do not pay any tax. 
> That's really an unfair idea. Everyone should work and 
> make good money, so they can pay for their own care.
>   

Work at what, Comrade Willy?  What work needs to be done?  What jobs are 
there?  Seems there are fewer and fewer.
> The only way this is going to happen is more jobs, for 
> more people; less government and government spending; 
> and bringing down the high cost of health care. There
> is no other way except to put people to work and 
> balance the federal budget.
>   

Let's start by cutting the defense budget and bringing the troops home.  
Close the bases in Germany, Japan and Korea.  Those wars were over years 
ago, Comrade Willy.
> Even an idiot can see that there will soon be more 
> old people in the system, instead of more younger 
> people paying in. It's yer basic 'Ponzi Scheme', just
> like Social Security.

So?  Readjust the paradigm.  I don't think it is an impossible task to 
figure out other ways of financing it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Joe]

Tex don't want no government revenuers taken HIS money to give to someone else. 
He earned it fair and square now, and seeing as how he's enlightened and all, 
(or pretty dad gummed close after all these years of meditaten') he don't want 
anyone taken' what's rightfully his and sharing it with anyone less fortunate. 
Karma's karma son so git yer damned government hands off of my Medicare!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> off: 
> > You will look back and wish you celebrated this day...
> > 
> Ron Paul thinks that health care run by the state is a 
> bad idea because the government takes away the money of 
> tax payers, so that those without money can have health 
> care. 
> 
> It's wrong and unconstitutional - nowhere in the U.S 
> Constitution does it say that the federal government 
> should take my money and give it to someone else to pay 
> for their health care expenses. It's my money! Taking
> my money away from me without my consent is illegal.
> 
> It is not a good idea for those who pay taxes to get 
> the same treatment as those who do not pay any tax. 
> That's really an unfair idea. Everyone should work and 
> make good money, so they can pay for their own care.
> 
> The only way this is going to happen is more jobs, for 
> more people; less government and government spending; 
> and bringing down the high cost of health care. There
> is no other way except to put people to work and 
> balance the federal budget.
> 
> Even an idiot can see that there will soon be more 
> old people in the system, instead of more younger 
> people paying in. It's yer basic 'Ponzi Scheme', just
> like Social Security.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

Ron Paul is a complete idiot and liar.
He says one thing to Fox News and another to CNN.
His only re-deeming virtue is his anti-war stance, his fight to end the
war on drugs, his stance to close Guantanomo, his stance supporting gay
marriage, and a couple of other things.
On abortion and climate change he is either an idiot or a liar.

PS. The socialist health care system in Britain is FAR better than yours
in every way. Top notch doctors from all over the world. Even American
doctors are going there in droves now. You are getting a brain drain
from America.

OffWorld

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "WillyTex" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> off:
> > You will look back and wish you celebrated this day...
> >
> Ron Paul thinks that health care run by the state is a
> bad idea because the government takes away the money of
> tax payers, so that those without money can have health
> care.
>
> It's wrong and unconstitutional - nowhere in the U.S
> Constitution does it say that the federal government
> should take my money and give it to someone else to pay
> for their health care expenses. It's my money! Taking
> my money away from me without my consent is illegal.
>
> It is not a good idea for those who pay taxes to get
> the same treatment as those who do not pay any tax.
> That's really an unfair idea. Everyone should work and
> make good money, so they can pay for their own care.
>
> The only way this is going to happen is more jobs, for
> more people; less government and government spending;
> and bringing down the high cost of health care. There
> is no other way except to put people to work and
> balance the federal budget.
>
> Even an idiot can see that there will soon be more
> old people in the system, instead of more younger
> people paying in. It's yer basic 'Ponzi Scheme', just
> like Social Security.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

off: 
> You will look back and wish you celebrated this day...
> 
Ron Paul thinks that health care run by the state is a 
bad idea because the government takes away the money of 
tax payers, so that those without money can have health 
care. 

It's wrong and unconstitutional - nowhere in the U.S 
Constitution does it say that the federal government 
should take my money and give it to someone else to pay 
for their health care expenses. It's my money! Taking
my money away from me without my consent is illegal.

It is not a good idea for those who pay taxes to get 
the same treatment as those who do not pay any tax. 
That's really an unfair idea. Everyone should work and 
make good money, so they can pay for their own care.

The only way this is going to happen is more jobs, for 
more people; less government and government spending; 
and bringing down the high cost of health care. There
is no other way except to put people to work and 
balance the federal budget.

Even an idiot can see that there will soon be more 
old people in the system, instead of more younger 
people paying in. It's yer basic 'Ponzi Scheme', just
like Social Security. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "authfriend" 
> wrote:

> > One more time: The options were (a) the current bill but
> > with a public option, and (b) the identical bill except
> > with no public option.
> >
> > We got (b).
> 
> WRONG. This was just a first stage. There are more bills
> in congress right now with public options and have as
> much chance of passing under another name.

That's a different question entirely. It wasn't what you
were claiming to start with, and it wasn't what I was
addressing.

 And your
> assumption that this means the Republicans will
> win more in the Fall is wrong also. They will loose more. 
> The ones that will survive are those that break out of the
> party of no.

We'll see.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"
 wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > > wrote:
> > 
> > > > I read what you said. All that would have been the same
> > > > with the public option, except that there would have been
> > > > the *additional* component of competition with the private
> > > > insurance companies to bring down premiums and increase
> > > > benefits. To say the current bill is "better than the
> > > > public option" makes no sense; it's like saying a car
> > > > without brakes is better than a set of brakes.
> > >
> > > I can assure you, it is a much better option.
> >
> > One more time: The options were (a) the current bill but
> > with a public option, and (b) the identical bill except
> > with no public option.
> >
> > We got (b).
>
>
> Your logic assumes the (a) version (with the public option), was
acceptable to
> the Senate. It was not. Perhaps your hero Hillary would have insisted
on the
> (a) version, but she would have failed insisting on it, similar to her
failures
> on the health care issue in 1994. Obama is head and shoulders above
everyone,
> in intellect and temperament. Thank God he beat Hillary.>

Absolutely. Amen to that. Hillary is old school, and cannot break out of
that.

Obama is the future, and a role model for millions now.

Thank God !... as you say !

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , off_world_beings 
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com

> >  > , "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> 
> > > I read what you said. All that would have been the same
> > > with the public option, except that there would have been
> > > the *additional* component of competition with the private
> > > insurance companies to bring down premiums and increase
> > > benefits. To say the current bill is "better than the
> > > public option" makes no sense; it's like saying a car
> > > without brakes is better than a set of brakes.
> >
> > I can assure you, it is a much better option.
>
> One more time: The options were (a) the current bill but
> with a public option, and (b) the identical bill except
> with no public option.
>
> We got (b).
>

WRONG. This was just a first stage. There are more bills in congress
right now with public options and have as much chance of passing under
another name. And your assumption that this means the Republicans will
win more in the Fall is wrong also. They will loose more. The ones that
will survive are those that break out of the party of no. The guy from
massachussttes for example is now about to be raked over the coals in
the coming months, he won't know what hit him. He is a naive fool. He
will be more democratic than most democrats, and will be walking around
with his tail between his legs. He is finished due to buying into the
party of no.

This is a GREAT day for America. I feel sorry for Americans that are not
celebrating this day. You will look back and wish you did. Days like
this do not come very often. This is a watershed moment for America, and
due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and Fundies are dead in
the water. Change has come."

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > >  , "authfriend" 
> > > wrote:
> > 
> > > > I read what you said. All that would have been the same
> > > > with the public option, except that there would have been
> > > > the *additional* component of competition with the private
> > > > insurance companies to bring down premiums and increase
> > > > benefits. To say the current bill is "better than the
> > > > public option" makes no sense; it's like saying a car
> > > > without brakes is better than a set of brakes.
> > > 
> > > I can assure you, it is a much better option.
> > 
> > One more time: The options were (a) the current bill but
> > with a public option, and (b) the identical bill except
> > with no public option.
> > 
> > We got (b).
> 
> Your logic assumes the (a) version (with the public option),
> was acceptable to the Senate. It was not.

Uh, no, it doesn't. Not sure where you get that idea.

> Perhaps your hero Hillary would have insisted on the

I haven't mentioned Hillary in quite awhile. You seem to
be the one hung up on her.




> (a) version, but she would have failed insisting on it, similar to her 
> failures
> on the health care issue in 1994. Obama is head and shoulders above everyone,
> in intellect and temperament. Thank God he beat Hillary.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"
 wrote:
>
>
> Whoa, Off. This bill is a necessary small step in the right direction,
not in
> itself an admirable bill. All of inefficient stake holders in the
health care
> industry are boosted by this bill. Private health insurance companies,
> exhorbitantly-priced pharmaceuticals, for-profit and non-profits who
act as
> for-profit hospitals and health care personell will all see a boost
from this
> bill.
> The inefficiencies and profit motivation of the private health
insurance
> industry are still in place, despite this bill. How is that admirable,
when 40%
> of health insurance premiums will still go to profits and
administrative
> overhead.
> Had I not been paying attention to the issue for the past decade and
was
> presented today's headlines and stories on the bill, I'd have thought
the
> Republicans sponsored the bill, because this bill favors the
Republican party's
> interests.
> Hopefully, this bill is a small step toward a single-payer healthcare
system
> which hopefully will be funded by the top 15% of the U.S. population
who've
> disproportionately benefitted most over the past 30 years.
> The Republicans, normally loathe to advocate for tax increases, will
now
> advocate FOR a national sales tax, which as a regressive tax would
place a
> greater burden on low-income and middle-class taxpayers. Charles
Krauthammer, a
> conservative columnist, today proposed a national sales tax to pay for
> healthcare costs. Republicans represent the wealthiest among us, and
they will
> begin to advocate for a national sales tax, to divert attention away
from any move toward re-establishing a progressive tax system.
> -Mainstream

As I said, this about way more than the health care bill. Now Obama
knows he can win on seemingly impossible issues, and the Republicans
know that they cannot use their stupid tea-bagger tactics to win
anything.

The party of NO is dead.

They have to play along now, or risk everything. They are squirming with
pain inside because they do not know what to do now.

This is a watershed moment for America, and for the world. I feel sorry
for those people who are not able to celebrate this momentous change in
the status quo that IS FAR MORE than just the healtcare bill.

You will look back and wish you celebrated this day.

Change has come.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[WillyTex]

> > If you have a group insurance policy through 
> > work, you'll pay the same rate as everyone 
> > else in your demographic group (age and gender) 
> > whether you are sick as a dog or as healthy as 
> > Superman...
> >
Bhairitu: 
> When I went off the COBRA and called the insurance 
> company to set up a new policy the agent mentioned 
> something about being overweight...
>
Are you thinking that on a government insurance plan,
they won't be telling you what you can eat or not? Or,
how much weight you'll have to lose in order to 
qualify for a health insurance plan? 

The government is  already telling you what you can 
use to heal yourself, and it doesn't include vitamins
you buy at grocery stores. Some states want to put
a tax on sweet drinks! 

We need less government regulation, not more! If you 
fail to pay, the IRS will come after you - you've got 
no choice now - it's pay up or pay a fine. Getting
the federal government to run your health care system 
is a really bad idea, according to Ron Paul.

With the federal government running the program, you
can say goodbye to your individual freedom to eat
whatever and how much you want, right? 

Or, think about it - you're going to have to pay for 
other people's health insurance, even if they insist 
on killing themselves with unhealthy living?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >> 
> >>
> >>> It looks like we voted for the right man for the job when we voted
> >>> for Obama. Super-big high-five to the O-man.
> >>>
> >>> Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
> >>>
> >> Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
> >> the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
> >>
> >
> > It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions more,
and
> > in time will cover anyone currently not covered. It is now illegal
for
> > people to not have coverage, but just like in the past, the
Democrats
> > made it illegal for hospitals to refuse someone, and so local,
state,
> > and federal funding HAD to cover the treatment costs. As it should
be.
> > NOW everyone who is not insured has to have insurance, but THEY do
not
> > have to pay a penny if they cannot afford it - it is subsidized by
the
> > tax payers now.
> >
> > Those who can afford it, but do not want health insurance of any
kind
> > (like Willyltex for example, if he was ever self-employed), it will
> > simply be like a tiny insignificant tax on them that they won't even
> > notice, and they will have to put up or shut up, just like in
Britain.
> > And the British like their system, and the health insurance tax
(which
> > is seperated out on payroll checks) is the LAST thing they would
> > complain about on their paycheck deductions.
> >
> > I saw this is what Obama was doing a long time ago, and these rules
will
> > never be repealed, even if Republicans gain in the Fall --- which
they
> > won't.
> >
> > This is a GREAT day for America. This is a watershed moment for
America,
> > and due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and Fundies are
> > dead in the water. Change has come.
> >
> > OffWorld
>
> I think health insurance should be like car insurance: if you use
> alternative and preventative medicine to keep yourself healthy you
> should get a tremendous break on your bill.  You get one for being a
> safe driver on auto insurance so why not health insurance?  The
problem
> would be the way the dumbed down way health insurance companies
measure
> things.  But the health insurance companies are crooks anyway and need
> to be regulated out of business or just provide "premium care" for the
> elite.
>
> And we need to get the AMA out formula too.  Let's help people who may
> not come from a line of doctors become one if they are interested.
> Groups like the AMA lobby to keep the entrants into medical schools
down
> so the cost of medicine is high.  Let's expose this fraud.   There are
> all kinds of things that could be done to reduce the cost of health
> care.  But dummies with health care benefits from work run to the
doctor
> if they even have the sniffles.   People need to learn that is not
what
> it is for.>>

Nah, just have it for everyone like in Britain, top notch doctors from
all over the world come to work there, tax junk food and poisons like
alcohol, and put that money back into healthcare, and spend it on
education about health.
Europe does this, and they are healthier and better educated than
Americans overall (mind you, you guys have the dead weight of the
brainless Southerners skewing the stats.)

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  , "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> 
> > > I read what you said. All that would have been the same
> > > with the public option, except that there would have been
> > > the *additional* component of competition with the private
> > > insurance companies to bring down premiums and increase
> > > benefits. To say the current bill is "better than the
> > > public option" makes no sense; it's like saying a car
> > > without brakes is better than a set of brakes.
> > 
> > I can assure you, it is a much better option.
> 
> One more time: The options were (a) the current bill but
> with a public option, and (b) the identical bill except
> with no public option.
> 
> We got (b).


Your logic assumes the (a) version (with the public option), was acceptable to
the Senate. It was not. Perhaps your hero Hillary would have insisted on the
(a) version, but she would have failed insisting on it, similar to her failures
on the health care issue in 1994. Obama is head and shoulders above everyone,
in intellect and temperament. Thank God he beat Hillary.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[mainstream20016]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >  , "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> 
> > > I read what you said. All that would have been the same
> > > with the public option, except that there would have been
> > > the *additional* component of competition with the private
> > > insurance companies to bring down premiums and increase
> > > benefits. To say the current bill is "better than the
> > > public option" makes no sense; it's like saying a car
> > > without brakes is better than a set of brakes.
> > 
> > I can assure you, it is a much better option.
> 
> One more time: The options were (a) the current bill but
> with a public option, and (b) the identical bill except
> with no public option.
> 
> We got (b).
>


Your logic assumes the (a) version, with the public option, was acceptable to 
the Senate. It was not.  Perhaps your hero Hillary would have insisted on the 
(a) version, but she would have failed insisting on it, similar to her failures 
on the health care issue in 1994.  Obama is head and shoulders above everyone, 
in intellect and termperment.  Thank God he beat Hillary.

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "authfriend" 
> wrote:

> > I read what you said. All that would have been the same
> > with the public option, except that there would have been
> > the *additional* component of competition with the private
> > insurance companies to bring down premiums and increase
> > benefits. To say the current bill is "better than the
> > public option" makes no sense; it's like saying a car
> > without brakes is better than a set of brakes.
> 
> I can assure you, it is a much better option.

One more time: The options were (a) the current bill but
with a public option, and (b) the identical bill except
with no public option.

We got (b).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , off_world_beings 
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , off_world_beings no_reply@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
> > > > > the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
> > > >
> > > > It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions
> > > > more, and in time will cover anyone currently not covered.
> > >
> > > Oopsie, you need to read up on what the public option would
> > > have involved:
> >
> > I know what the Public Option is. But like I said in the
> > post (try reading next time) -- Quote:
>
> I read what you said. All that would have been the same
> with the public option, except that there would have been
> the *additional* component of competition with the private
> insurance companies to bring down premiums and increase
> benefits. To say the current bill is "better than the
> public option" makes no sense; it's like saying a car
> without brakes is better than a set of brakes.

I can assure you, it is a much better option. A public option would not
have worked to bring down insurance costs unless you pumped tons of
taxpayer money into it. Now what you have is restraints on insurance
companies, which will slowly translate into less of the rampant use of
needless costly technologies, and eventually the big pharma will have to
get more reasonable in pricing to get the larger mareket that is now out
there - (eg. millions more insured and therefore able to pay for
medicines and treatments.)

It will be the market that decides, and that means, an insurance company
will compete with lower rates, but work with and doctors who are more
careful about giving expensive unneccessary treatments - that in the
past made them money (like MRI scans for someone with an upset stomache
-- seriously, they tried to give it to a friend of mine who simple had
some acidity in her stomache. And the doctors make money from that, and
the MRI manufactureres and the politicians too. ) Now the focus will not
be on getting the most expensive charges to a smaller pool of people.
Now the inseentive will be to gain as much of the client base as
possible -- which will eventually be a potential 300 million paying
customers -- all of whom can pay due to required insurance.

Now, an insurance company will start to offer lower rates because
EVERYONE has to get insured, and they want to capture as much of that
market as possible, and encourage the use of doctors who are not in that
money-vice, and prices will go down.

But fret not, there is a bill in congress now, to let anyone buy into
Medicare. Get the word out. Alan Grayson is the sponsor.

The change has come.

OffWorld

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Bhairitu]

ShempMcGurk wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>   
>> off_world_beings wrote:
>> 
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>>>   
>>>   
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
 
 
 
> It looks like we voted for the right man for the job when we voted
> for Obama. Super-big high-five to the O-man.
>
> Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
>   
>   
 Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
 the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
 
 
>>> It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions more, and
>>> in time will cover anyone currently not covered. It is now illegal for
>>> people to not have coverage, but just like in the past, the Democrats
>>> made it illegal for hospitals to refuse someone, and so local, state,
>>> and federal funding HAD to cover the treatment costs. As it should be.
>>> NOW everyone who is not insured has to have insurance, but THEY do not
>>> have to pay a penny if they cannot afford it - it is subsidized by the
>>> tax payers now.
>>>
>>> Those who can afford it, but do not want health insurance of any kind
>>> (like Willyltex for example, if he was ever self-employed), it will
>>> simply be like a tiny insignificant tax on them that they won't even
>>> notice, and they will have to put up or shut up, just like in Britain.
>>> And the British like their system, and the health insurance tax (which
>>> is seperated out on payroll checks) is the LAST thing they would
>>> complain about on their paycheck deductions.
>>>
>>> I saw this is what Obama was doing a long time ago, and these rules will
>>> never be repealed, even if Republicans gain in the Fall --- which they
>>> won't.
>>>
>>> This is a GREAT day for America. This is a watershed moment for America,
>>> and due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and Fundies are
>>> dead in the water. Change has come.
>>>
>>> OffWorld
>>>   
>> I think health insurance should be like car insurance: if you use 
>> alternative and preventative medicine to keep yourself healthy you 
>> should get a tremendous break on your bill.  You get one for being a 
>> safe driver on auto insurance so why not health insurance?
>> 
>
>
>
> In one sense insurance companies already do that; in another sense, they 
> don't.
>
> If you have a group insurance policy through work, you'll pay the same rate 
> as everyone else in your demographic group (age and gender) whether you are 
> sick as a dog or as healthy as Superman.
>
> If you have an individual policy you can not only be rated but have certain 
> pre-existing conditions excluded from coverage.  And you can be declined for 
> coverage.  You can't be declined under a group policy (although there may be 
> waiting periods for pre-existing conditions).
>
> Life insurance of course rates people and declines them as well.
>   

When I went off the COBRA and called the insurance company to set up a 
new policy the agent mentioned something about being overweight and I 
said, "I suppose everyone at Blue Cross is all fit and trim."  Big pause 
on the other end of the line.  "Well", she said, "if you aren't going to 
be using insurance that much then we have these higher deductible 
policies"  Hehe, wasn't going to trot out the cheaper policies 
unless I forced them to I guess.

Now my question without having to wade through those horribly formatted 
PDFs of the bill is will I be forced to pay for a more expensive premium 
right away because they won't be allowing high deductible any more?  
I'll fight that.  Or hey, maybe I can become a guru too and scam people 
to cover the extra for my insurance premiums.  Maybe I can write a book 
on how to be a scam guru.  That's the ticket!

>
>
>
>   
>>  The problem 
>> would be the way the dumbed down way health insurance companies measure 
>> things.  But the health insurance companies are crooks anyway and need 
>> to be regulated out of business or just provide "premium care" for the 
>> elite.
>>
>> And we need to get the AMA out formula too.
>> 
>
>
>
>
> That point, for me, is the biggest bone of contention I have about the whole 
> thing.
>
> For all their talk about free markets, I never hear much from the 
> conservative side about breaking the AMA monopoly.
>
> And this should be something of concern for the kinds of folks that read FFL 
> because, I assume, we've all tried various forms of alternative medicines, 
> including Ayur-Veda.  Well, for starters, let's let other "associations" 
> provide rules for western medicine as well as the AMA (which can control 
> supply of doctors) as well as putting alternative medicines and practitioners 
> on a par with those licensed under the AMA.
>   

It's easy for "organized medicine" to call a lot of stuff quackery 
because they can trust the public won't know any better.  I hav

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >   
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> It looks like we voted for the right man for the job when we voted
> >>> for Obama. Super-big high-five to the O-man.
> >>>
> >>> Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
> >>>   
> >> Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
> >> the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
> >> 
> >
> > It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions more, and
> > in time will cover anyone currently not covered. It is now illegal for
> > people to not have coverage, but just like in the past, the Democrats
> > made it illegal for hospitals to refuse someone, and so local, state,
> > and federal funding HAD to cover the treatment costs. As it should be.
> > NOW everyone who is not insured has to have insurance, but THEY do not
> > have to pay a penny if they cannot afford it - it is subsidized by the
> > tax payers now.
> >
> > Those who can afford it, but do not want health insurance of any kind
> > (like Willyltex for example, if he was ever self-employed), it will
> > simply be like a tiny insignificant tax on them that they won't even
> > notice, and they will have to put up or shut up, just like in Britain.
> > And the British like their system, and the health insurance tax (which
> > is seperated out on payroll checks) is the LAST thing they would
> > complain about on their paycheck deductions.
> >
> > I saw this is what Obama was doing a long time ago, and these rules will
> > never be repealed, even if Republicans gain in the Fall --- which they
> > won't.
> >
> > This is a GREAT day for America. This is a watershed moment for America,
> > and due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and Fundies are
> > dead in the water. Change has come.
> >
> > OffWorld
> 
> I think health insurance should be like car insurance: if you use 
> alternative and preventative medicine to keep yourself healthy you 
> should get a tremendous break on your bill.  You get one for being a 
> safe driver on auto insurance so why not health insurance?



In one sense insurance companies already do that; in another sense, they don't.

If you have a group insurance policy through work, you'll pay the same rate as 
everyone else in your demographic group (age and gender) whether you are sick 
as a dog or as healthy as Superman.

If you have an individual policy you can not only be rated but have certain 
pre-existing conditions excluded from coverage.  And you can be declined for 
coverage.  You can't be declined under a group policy (although there may be 
waiting periods for pre-existing conditions).

Life insurance of course rates people and declines them as well.




>  The problem 
> would be the way the dumbed down way health insurance companies measure 
> things.  But the health insurance companies are crooks anyway and need 
> to be regulated out of business or just provide "premium care" for the 
> elite.
> 
> And we need to get the AMA out formula too.




That point, for me, is the biggest bone of contention I have about the whole 
thing.

For all their talk about free markets, I never hear much from the conservative 
side about breaking the AMA monopoly.

And this should be something of concern for the kinds of folks that read FFL 
because, I assume, we've all tried various forms of alternative medicines, 
including Ayur-Veda.  Well, for starters, let's let other "associations" 
provide rules for western medicine as well as the AMA (which can control supply 
of doctors) as well as putting alternative medicines and practitioners on a par 
with those licensed under the AMA.








>  Let's help people who may 
> not come from a line of doctors become one if they are interested.  
> Groups like the AMA lobby to keep the entrants into medical schools down 
> so the cost of medicine is high.


Precisely! (I actually wrote what I did above before I read this by Bhairitu).

Bhairitu, you are talking like a true free-marketer!

You should go to the Ludwig Von Mises site; they've got great articles on the 
AMA monopoly.

>  Let's expose this fraud.   There are 
> all kinds of things that could be done to reduce the cost of health 
> care.  But dummies with health care benefits from work run to the doctor 
> if they even have the sniffles.   People need to learn that is not what 
> it is for.
>

...and now you're sounding like Rush Limbaugh (I mean that as a complement) 
because he talks a lot about how health insurance should NOT be paying for 
doctor's visits and all that but for catastrophic coverage.

By the way, there are many in the insurance industry that want to see high 
deductible insurance policies made available but, apparently, the government 
makes it difficult for such policies to come into existance.  I'm not up on it 
enough to kno

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:

> I had C-SPAN on one of the computers here for the last couple
> hours of the debate while I was doing some work.  It was
> incredible what the subspecies called "Republicans" (shitheads
> is more like it). spewed out of their gullets.

It was appalling. And it was *all grandstanding*, because
they knew the Dems had the votes to pass the bill. They've
known it ever since Pelosi scheduled the vote.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
> 
> Whoa, Off. This bill is a necessary small step in the right 
> direction, not in itself an admirable bill. All of inefficient
> stake holders in the health care industry are boosted by this
> bill. Private health insurance companies, exhorbitantly-priced 
> pharmaceuticals, for-profit and non-profits who act as
> for-profit hospitals and health care personell will all see a
> boost from this bill.
>
> The inefficiencies and profit motivation of the private health
> insurance industry are still in place, despite this bill.

Exactly right. This is what the public option would have
been able to curb to some extent, by introducing
competition.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[mainstream20016]

Whoa, Off. This bill is a necessary small step in the right direction, not in
itself an admirable bill. All of inefficient stake holders in the health care
industry are boosted by this bill. Private health insurance companies,
exhorbitantly-priced pharmaceuticals, for-profit and non-profits who act as
for-profit hospitals and health care personell will all see a boost from this
bill.
The inefficiencies and profit motivation of the private health insurance
industry are still in place, despite this bill. How is that admirable, when 40%
of health insurance premiums will still go to profits and administrative
overhead.
Had I not been paying attention to the issue for the past decade and was
presented today's headlines and stories on the bill, I'd have thought the
Republicans sponsored the bill, because this bill favors the Republican party's
interests.
Hopefully, this bill is a small step toward a single-payer healthcare system
which hopefully will be funded by the top 15% of the U.S. population who've
disproportionately benefitted most over the past 30 years.
The Republicans, normally loathe to advocate for tax increases, will now
advocate FOR a national sales tax, which as a regressive tax would place a
greater burden on low-income and middle-class taxpayers. Charles Krauthammer, a
conservative columnist, today proposed a national sales tax to pay for
healthcare costs. Republicans represent the wealthiest among us, and they will
begin to advocate for a national sales tax, to divert attention away from any 
move toward re-establishing a progressive tax system.
-Mainstream




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> > 
> > > It looks like we voted for the right man for the job when we voted
> > > for Obama. Super-big high-five to the O-man.
> > >
> > > Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
> >
> > Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
> > the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
> 
> It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions more, and
> in time will cover anyone currently not covered. It is now illegal for
> people to not have coverage, but just like in the past, the Democrats
> made it illegal for hospitals to refuse someone, and so local, state,
> and federal funding HAD to cover the treatment costs. As it should be.
> NOW everyone who is not insured has to have insurance, but THEY do not
> have to pay a penny if they cannot afford it - it is subsidized by the
> tax payers now.
> 
> Those who can afford it, but do not want health insurance of any kind
> (like Willyltex for example, if he was ever self-employed), it will
> simply be like a tiny insignificant tax on them that they won't even
> notice, and they will have to put up or shut up, just like in Britain.
> And the British like their system, and the health insurance tax (which
> is seperated out on payroll checks) is the LAST thing they would
> complain about on their paycheck deductions.
> 
> I saw this is what Obama was doing a long time ago, and these rules will
> never be repealed, even if Republicans gain in the Fall --- which they
> won't.
> 
> This is a GREAT day for America. This is a watershed moment for America,
> and due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and Fundies are
> dead in the water. Change has come.
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[mainstream20016]

Whoa,  Off.   This bill is a necessary small step in the right direction, not 
in itself an admirable bill. All of inefficient stake holders in the health 
care industry are boosted by this bill.  Private health insurance companies, 
exhorbitantly-priced pharmaceuticals, for-profit and non-profits who act as 
for-profit hospitals and health care personell will all see a boost from this 
bill.  
The inefficiencies and profit motivation of the private health insurance 
industry are still in place, despite this bill.  How is that admirable, when 
40% of health insurance premiums will still go to profits and administrative 
overhead.  
Had I not been paying attention to the issue for the past decade and  was 
presented  today's headlines and stories on the bill, I'd have thought the 
Republicans sponsored the bill, because this bill favors the Republican party's 
interests.
Hopefully, this bill is a small step toward a single-payer healthcare system 
which hopefully will be funded by the top 15% of the U.S.  population who've 
disproportionately   benefitted most over the past 30 years.   
The Republicans, normally loathe to advocate for tax increases, will now 
advocate FOR a national sales tax, which as a regressive tax would place a 
greater burden on low-income and middle-class taxpayers.  Charles Krauthammer, 
a conservative columnist,  today proposed a national sales tax to pay for 
healthcare costs.  Republicans represent the wealthiest among us, and they will 
begin to advocate for a national sales tax, to protect the interest of the 
wealthies among us.
-Mainstream   


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> > 
> > > It looks like we voted for the right man for the job when we voted
> > > for Obama. Super-big high-five to the O-man.
> > >
> > > Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
> >
> > Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
> > the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
> 
> It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions more, and
> in time will cover anyone currently not covered. It is now illegal for
> people to not have coverage, but just like in the past, the Democrats
> made it illegal for hospitals to refuse someone, and so local, state,
> and federal funding HAD to cover the treatment costs. As it should be.
> NOW everyone who is not insured has to have insurance, but THEY do not
> have to pay a penny if they cannot afford it - it is subsidized by the
> tax payers now.
> 
> Those who can afford it, but do not want health insurance of any kind
> (like Willyltex for example, if he was ever self-employed), it will
> simply be like a tiny insignificant tax on them that they won't even
> notice, and they will have to put up or shut up, just like in Britain.
> And the British like their system, and the health insurance tax (which
> is seperated out on payroll checks) is the LAST thing they would
> complain about on their paycheck deductions.
> 
> I saw this is what Obama was doing a long time ago, and these rules will
> never be repealed, even if Republicans gain in the Fall --- which they
> won't.
> 
> This is a GREAT day for America. This is a watershed moment for America,
> and due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and Fundies are
> dead in the water. Change has come.
> 
> OffWorld
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Bhairitu]

off_world_beings wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>   
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> It looks like we voted for the right man for the job when we voted
>>> for Obama. Super-big high-five to the O-man.
>>>
>>> Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
>>>   
>> Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
>> the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
>> 
>
> It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions more, and
> in time will cover anyone currently not covered. It is now illegal for
> people to not have coverage, but just like in the past, the Democrats
> made it illegal for hospitals to refuse someone, and so local, state,
> and federal funding HAD to cover the treatment costs. As it should be.
> NOW everyone who is not insured has to have insurance, but THEY do not
> have to pay a penny if they cannot afford it - it is subsidized by the
> tax payers now.
>
> Those who can afford it, but do not want health insurance of any kind
> (like Willyltex for example, if he was ever self-employed), it will
> simply be like a tiny insignificant tax on them that they won't even
> notice, and they will have to put up or shut up, just like in Britain.
> And the British like their system, and the health insurance tax (which
> is seperated out on payroll checks) is the LAST thing they would
> complain about on their paycheck deductions.
>
> I saw this is what Obama was doing a long time ago, and these rules will
> never be repealed, even if Republicans gain in the Fall --- which they
> won't.
>
> This is a GREAT day for America. This is a watershed moment for America,
> and due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and Fundies are
> dead in the water. Change has come.
>
> OffWorld

I think health insurance should be like car insurance: if you use 
alternative and preventative medicine to keep yourself healthy you 
should get a tremendous break on your bill.  You get one for being a 
safe driver on auto insurance so why not health insurance?  The problem 
would be the way the dumbed down way health insurance companies measure 
things.  But the health insurance companies are crooks anyway and need 
to be regulated out of business or just provide "premium care" for the 
elite.

And we need to get the AMA out formula too.  Let's help people who may 
not come from a line of doctors become one if they are interested.  
Groups like the AMA lobby to keep the entrants into medical schools down 
so the cost of medicine is high.  Let's expose this fraud.   There are 
all kinds of things that could be done to reduce the cost of health 
care.  But dummies with health care benefits from work run to the doctor 
if they even have the sniffles.   People need to learn that is not what 
it is for.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
> > > >
> > > > Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
> > > > the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
> > >
> > > It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions
> > > more, and in time will cover anyone currently not covered.
> >
> > Oopsie, you need to read up on what the public option would
> > have involved:
> 
> I know what the Public Option is. But like I said in the
> post (try reading next time) -- Quote:

I read what you said. All that would have been the same
with the public option, except that there would have been
the *additional* component of competition with the private
insurance companies to bring down premiums and increase
benefits. To say the current bill is "better than the
public option" makes no sense; it's like saying a car
without brakes is better than a set of brakes.

The public option was a component of the bill, not the
bill itself.

The bill would have been better with a public option.

Again, check Wikipedia so you have some idea what
you're talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option

 "This bill is WAY better than any Public
> Option. It insures millions more, and in time will cover anyone
> currently not covered. It is now illegal for people to not have
> coverage, but just like in the past, the Democrats made it illegal for
> hospitals to refuse someone, and so local, state, and federal funding
> HAD to cover the treatment costs. As it should be. NOW everyone who is
> not insured has to have insurance, but THEY do not have to pay a penny
> if they cannot afford it - it is subsidized by the tax payers now."
> 
> "Those who can afford it, but do not want health insurance of any kind
> (like Willyltex for example, if he was ever self-employed), it will
> simply be like a tiny insignificant tax on them that they won't even
> notice, and they will have to put up or shut up, just like in Britain.
> And the British like their system, and the health insurance tax (which
> is seperated out on payroll checks) is the LAST thing they would
> complain about on their paycheck deductions."
> 
> I saw this is what Obama was doing a long time ago, and these rules will
> never be repealed, even if Republicans gain in the Fall --- which they
> won't.
> 
> "This is a GREAT day for America. This is a watershed moment for
> America, and due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and
> Fundies are dead in the water. Change has come."
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> 
> > > > Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
> > >
> > > Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
> > > the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
> >
> > It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions
> > more, and in time will cover anyone currently not covered.
>
> Oopsie, you need to read up on what the public option would
> have involved:


I know what the Public Option is. But like I said in the post (try
reading next time) -- Quote: "This bill is WAY better than any Public
Option. It insures millions more, and in time will cover anyone
currently not covered. It is now illegal for people to not have
coverage, but just like in the past, the Democrats made it illegal for
hospitals to refuse someone, and so local, state, and federal funding
HAD to cover the treatment costs. As it should be. NOW everyone who is
not insured has to have insurance, but THEY do not have to pay a penny
if they cannot afford it - it is subsidized by the tax payers now."

"Those who can afford it, but do not want health insurance of any kind
(like Willyltex for example, if he was ever self-employed), it will
simply be like a tiny insignificant tax on them that they won't even
notice, and they will have to put up or shut up, just like in Britain.
And the British like their system, and the health insurance tax (which
is seperated out on payroll checks) is the LAST thing they would
complain about on their paycheck deductions."

I saw this is what Obama was doing a long time ago, and these rules will
never be repealed, even if Republicans gain in the Fall --- which they
won't.

"This is a GREAT day for America. This is a watershed moment for
America, and due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and
Fundies are dead in the water. Change has come."

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:

> > > Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
> >
> > Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
> > the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
> 
> It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions
> more, and in time will cover anyone currently not covered.

Oopsie, you need to read up on what the public option would
have involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option

The public option wasn't *replaced* by anything that's in
the bill now. It was an additional option, a low-cost plan
offered by the government that would have competed with
private plans, lowering premiums and increasing benefits.
It wouldn't have resulted in fewer people being covered 
than will be covered by the current bill.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> 
> > It looks like we voted for the right man for the job when we voted
> > for Obama. Super-big high-five to the O-man.
> >
> > Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
>
> Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
> the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>

It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions more, and
in time will cover anyone currently not covered. It is now illegal for
people to not have coverage, but just like in the past, the Democrats
made it illegal for hospitals to refuse someone, and so local, state,
and federal funding HAD to cover the treatment costs. As it should be.
NOW everyone who is not insured has to have insurance, but THEY do not
have to pay a penny if they cannot afford it - it is subsidized by the
tax payers now.

Those who can afford it, but do not want health insurance of any kind
(like Willyltex for example, if he was ever self-employed), it will
simply be like a tiny insignificant tax on them that they won't even
notice, and they will have to put up or shut up, just like in Britain.
And the British like their system, and the health insurance tax (which
is seperated out on payroll checks) is the LAST thing they would
complain about on their paycheck deductions.

I saw this is what Obama was doing a long time ago, and these rules will
never be repealed, even if Republicans gain in the Fall --- which they
won't.

This is a GREAT day for America. This is a watershed moment for America,
and due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and Fundies are
dead in the water. Change has come.

OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:

> It looks like we voted for the right man for the job when we voted  
> for Obama. Super-big high-five to the O-man.
> 
> Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.

Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
the public option (while pretending to still be for it).

RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[Rick Archer]

From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of authfriend
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:38 PM
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown
 
  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rick Archer"  wrote:

> Hopefully you're watching the death throes of an outmoded
> paradigm.

It's got a ways to go yet. The Republicans have a shot
at getting back the House and the Senate in 2010 because
of the way the administration and the Dems mishandled
the process. They ended up not only sabotaging the bill
but sabotaging the public perception thereof (or rather,
failing to sabotage the Republicans' crusade to shape
the public perception their way).

One hopes they didn't mess up the bill so badly that it
will do more harm than good; but that won't be apparent,
either way, for some time yet.
I'm thinking bigger-picture, transition into the New Age/Age of
Enlightenment kind of stuff. If it's actually happening, then we're watching
it happen, although we may be unable to see the forest for the trees.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> It's really fascinating being in the United States as
> this momentous bill passes. It's even more fascinating
> being stuck in a hotel room working and, contrary to my
> normal habits, watching the 'pundits' on the TV news
> melt down over this.
>
> FOX has gone bull goose loony. There is not even the
> pretense of "fair and balanced." It's pure propaganda,
> verging on hate crime. If they're not "preaching to the
> camera" quoting polls that don't exist, they're playing
> "lead the witness" by trying to put words into the
> mouths of anyone they interview who is even slightly
> in favor of the bill.
>
> It's like watching Off or Shemp melt down when something
> they believe could never happen happens. >

Actually, its more like when you meltdown Turq, and start hating on
people and chasing them away from FFL -- just like you did here below
with this person, and many other times.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , TurquoiseB 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 , Bronte Baxter
>  wrote:
> >
> > Turq and other guru enthusiasts...>

Bronte and other idiots, take a look at yourselves.

You're PROJECTING your own shit, babe. As almost anyone here could tell
you, I am no "guru enthusiast." Get your own act together before you
start bagging others, eh?

I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post, and probably won't
until you catch a clue.

--Turq. in Message 148985



OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:

> Hopefully you're watching the death throes of an outmoded
> paradigm.

It's got a ways to go yet. The Republicans have a shot
at getting back the House and the Senate in 2010 because
of the way the administration and the Dems mishandled
the process. They ended up not only sabotaging the bill
but sabotaging the public perception thereof (or rather,
failing to sabotage the Republicans' crusade to shape
the public perception their way).

One hopes they didn't mess up the bill so badly that it
will do more harm than good; but that won't be apparent,
either way, for some time yet.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> It's really fascinating being in the United States as
> this momentous bill passes. It's even more fascinating
> being stuck in a hotel room working and, contrary to my
> normal habits, watching the 'pundits' on the TV news 
> melt down over this.

Actually, most of the TV news pundits are pleased. Fox
is an exception.

> FOX has gone bull goose loony.

No worse than the Republicans in the House last night.

 There is not even the
> pretense of "fair and balanced." It's pure propaganda,
> verging on hate crime. If they're not "preaching to the
> camera" quoting polls that don't exist, they're playing
> "lead the witness" by trying to put words into the 
> mouths of anyone they interview who is even slightly
> in favor of the bill. 
> 
> It's like watching Off or Shemp melt down when something
> they believe could never happen happens. But on TV.

They've known it was going to happen for some days already.
What they're after now is making it seem like a disaster
so they can use it against Democrats in the 2010 elections.

They'll probably succeed in many cases, because a lot of
the provisions in the bill won't go into effect until 2014.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of TurquoiseB
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 11:37 AM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] The health care meltdown
>  
>   
> It's really fascinating being in the United States as
> this momentous bill passes. It's even more fascinating
> being stuck in a hotel room working and, contrary to my
> normal habits, watching the 'pundits' on the TV news 
> melt down over this.
> 
> FOX has gone bull goose loony. There is not even the
> pretense of "fair and balanced." It's pure propaganda,
> verging on hate crime. If they're not "preaching to the
> camera" quoting polls that don't exist, they're playing
> "lead the witness" by trying to put words into the 
> mouths of anyone they interview who is even slightly
> in favor of the bill. 
> 
> It's like watching Off or Shemp melt down when something
> they believe could never happen happens. But on TV. 


> Hopefully you're watching the death throes of an outmoded paradigm.
>


I don't think so. I think the Bush administration's publicly successful 
promotion of misinformation and lies gave legitimacy to and empowered the 
normally safely confined in their respective asylum abodes loonie tunes, 
whack-a-doodle alternate reality fringe. 

Now they consider themselves mainstream and even have corporate backing.

And they don't even appear to have the capability to discern that they're not 
telling the truth.