Ted?

Did you find the information on the exemptions for large companies and
unions from the "healthcare bill"? If it's so good for everyone, why
would they be giving exemptions? And why would so many of them be to
rabid obama followers?

On May 18, 8:12*am, pigo wrote:
Did you find the information on the exemptions for large companies and
unions from the "healthcare bill"? If it's so good for everyone, why
would they be giving exemptions? And why would so many of them be to
rabid obama followers?

Holy ****, Brain Fried Bob calling anyone rabid? The original
teabagger pathological liar? Birther Bob? Swift Boat Bob?
A new name joins the pantheon. Rabid Bob.

On 05/18/11 08:12, pigo wrote:

Did you find the information on the exemptions for large companies and
unions from the "healthcare bill"? If it's so good for everyone, why
would they be giving exemptions? And why would so many of them be to
rabid obama followers?

These are rhetorical questions, right?


--
Cheers,
Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
Non illegitimi carborundum.

On May 18, 11:37*am, The Real Bev wrote:
On 05/18/11 08:12, pigo wrote:

Did you find the information on the exemptions for large companies and
unions from the "healthcare bill"? If it's so good for everyone, why
would they be giving exemptions? And why would so many of them be to
rabid obama followers?

These are rhetorical questions, right?

Well, no. I'm curious how anyone can support it at all. But especially
as conditions develop as those of us against the bill said that they
would. And Ted and I have had conversations about issues like this on
which we disagree in which he gives me his opinion without the name
calling and other devices used to avoid the issue.

On May 19, 6:39*am, pigo wrote:
On May 18, 11:37*am, The Real Bev wrote:

On 05/18/11 08:12, pigo wrote:

Did you find the information on the exemptions for large companies and
unions from the "healthcare bill"? If it's so good for everyone, why
would they be giving exemptions? And why would so many of them be to
rabid obama followers?

These are rhetorical questions, right?

Well, no. I'm curious how anyone can support it at all.

I'm curious about how you became such a deranged, delusional,
psychopathic asshole.


But especially
as conditions develop as those of us against the bill said that they
would.

Holy ****. You got into DEATH PANELS!!!!!! Where are the death
panels? NONE of the lies you teabagging piece of **** lying freaks
have developed.

And Ted and I have had conversations about issues like this on
which we disagree in which he gives me his opinion without the name
calling and other devices used to avoid the issue.

Sorta like YOU and I disagree, and you call me a child molester, you
deranged wack job?
Hey, how about that contact info? Sorta like you disagree with me, so
you call the cops and falsely accuse me of heinous crimes?
Irony meter forms a death panel and denies rehab to Death Panel Bob.

On May 21, 7:40*am, Ted Waldron wrote:

* My three goals that I want any Health Care in the US to do, besides
lower costs and expand coverage, are much more emphasis on preventative
care. lower infant mortality rates, and have better prenatal care for
expectant mothers.

Problem with the waivers (if you prefer) is that they are
disproportionately going to unions and similarly Pelosi's district.
Another part of the obama slushfund like the porkulus.

I think that _everyone_ would say that their goals for HC are similar
to yours. But there are many things that could have been done without
giving the government control of 6% of the U.S. economy and intituting
a system that has been shown not to work where it's been tried. Let's
not forget that my wife is from a socialist country and knows that
"going to the Dr. in Holland" sucks.

I think that if you work hard, save some money and pay for good
insurance or get it through your employer, that is a reward for your
responsibility. If you work at McDonalds and have 3 kids, well then
you are ****ing stupid for having 3 kids with a job that cannot pay
for them. If you spend your money on hair extentions, cell phones,
liquor, and cigarettes instead of insurance, that's not my problem.

If a state wants to enact a system like o****wit's plan, that might be
something to look at. Those of us that don't want to be part of the
nanny culture could move.

On May 21, 8:52*am, Ted Waldron wrote:

The Netherland isn't a "Socialist Country", Its Prime Minister at the
moment is from the VVD, a Centre-Right party. * *It may do things
differently than the US on certain things, but that hardly labels it a
"Socialist" country.

It is a socialist country. They have seen the light,as has much or
Europe and are on a path of trying to dig themselves out.


*The problem is Pigo, healthcare costs are rising so much and so fast it
is doing two things.. It is freezing wages and salaries, because even
though productivity is going up, and business earnings go up, health
care is gobbling up those earnings, so people's salaries are staying the
same.

This isn't really a problem that "oh people are lazy, or uneducated so
they deserve bad or no health insurance", this is a huge problem
effecting a major sector of the US economy. * It is effecting much more
people and effecting things on a huge macro scale in the US. *It is more
using a finite amount of resources in the best possible way, instead of
wasting an incredible amount of resources while costs are doubling, as
they doubled in health care in the past ten years, and will double in
the next ten years. *More and more people will pay more of out of pocket
costs for health care as insurance raises premiums and deny coverage..

Paying a hundred or two dollars to go to the Dr. is where we should
be. Too many people rely on insurance for everyday medical bull****
that should just be part of your expenses. One should be able to go
get a few stitches or have a minor medical visit for a hundred bucks.
With "insurance" the way it is people go in for every little thing
because it's "free". We don't have "hotel room" insurance. If we did,
hotel rooms would be $5000. per night.

Second it is putting a huge damper on US GDP growth. *More and more of
GDP is going to the health care sector, where resources are being wasted
or procedures are incredibly confusing for costs and for many ways
rational reasons.

It's just all out of wack. If people paid cash for their normal, run
of the mill, medical during the course of the year you'd see a big
change in insurance and prices.

* The Federal Government has to be involved, because the problem is so
huge, and because the costs for healthcare are going to double in a
decade if nothing is done. *No one likes it, but something had to be
done to control costs and do something about coverage. *Coverage and
more preventative care should stem costs rises. *More coverage doesn't
mean higher costs. *Health Care mandates have to be done to help control
costs.

The whole problem is so huge _because_ the federal govt. is involved.
"Coverage" isn't medical care. And some people get sick, some people
die. It's part of life.

More "coverage" does mean higher costs. Because the consumer is not
involved in the pricing and sorting out the most bang for their buck.


*The big hypocrisy of what Romney is spewing about the Massachusetts
Health Care plan and mandate, is that he needed $400 million dollars
from the US Government to make it work, (it was Medicaid money that was
going to go back to the Federal Government if not used by Massachusetts,
and yes Romney had to get a "voucher" from the US Gov't and HHS to
transfer the Medicaid money to MA healthcare plan ) *

I'm not supporting Romney care. I'm saying make it state by state so
those of us not into being nannied can escape it .

* Look on this issue, (Healthcare) we need to shed the ideology, and not
sip the stuff fed by Fox News

Hehe. That's funny. You want to "shed the ideology" and then
immeadiately revert to ideology. Funny.

narrative or any ideological media
services. * We have a huge macro problem, and we need to use all the
tools in the tool box to fix it. *It is going to take many ideas that
anathema to all political ideologues, whether gov't intervention to free
market ideas to control health care costs and expand coverage.

There are a lot of very rich liberals that could pay for a lot of
peoples healthcare on their own.

*Much like I would be much more in favor of *Paul Ryan's plan for
Medicare, if he and the House GOP address the biggest problem to make
his plan successful, control the rising health care costs. *He and the
House GOP do not address it or think the free market will take care of
itself in health care, and it makes the Medicare voucher plan a disaster
waiting to happened. *As much as Medicare has some serious problems, it
also has the weight to negotiate with Health Care providers to control
some costs.

People paying for their own health care would control costs. Anything
up to $500 should not even be an insurable case.