Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>They should have gone to Canada where everything is free.

>Our system is not the best, but the present bill in Congress is even worse.

I say the bill they will pass soon will be an improvement. The CBO
finished their analysis today and it was described thusly
in the Huffington Post:

"Comprehensive health care reform will cost the federal
government $940 billion over a ten-year period, but will increase
revenue and cut other costs by a greater amount, leading to a
reduction of $130 billion in the federal deficit over the same
period, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget
Office, a Democratic source tells HuffPost. It will cut the
deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years."

The source said it also extends Medicare's solvency by at least
9 years and reduces the rate of its growth by 1.4 percent, while
closing the doughnut hole for seniors, meaning there will no
longer be a gap in coverage of medication. The CBO also estimated
it would extend coverage to 32 million additional people."

I say that's a significant improvement. It could be more
comprehensive, more universal and more fair, but it levels
out the present unequal healthcare problem to a significant
degree.

Steve

In news:rec.food.cooking, (Steve Pope) posted on
Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:52:14 +0000 (UTC) the following:

> Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >They should have gone to Canada where everything is free.
>
> >Our system is not the best, but the present bill in Congress is even worse.
>
> I say the bill they will pass soon will be an improvement. The CBO
> finished their analysis today and it was described thusly
> in the Huffington Post:
>
> "Comprehensive health care reform will cost the federal
> government $940 billion over a ten-year period, but will increase
> revenue and cut other costs by a greater amount, leading to a
> reduction of $130 billion in the federal deficit over the same
> period, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget
> Office, a Democratic source tells HuffPost. It will cut the
> deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years."

That's nothing. Ronald Reagan, all by himself, raised the national debt
from the billions to $4 trillion in his eight years. And in ten years,
they'll probably be talking about $150 trillion budgets. So this silly
deficit cut sounds like big dollars now. It really isn't.

> The source said it also extends Medicare's solvency by at least
> 9 years and reduces the rate of its growth by 1.4 percent, while
> closing the doughnut hole for seniors, meaning there will no
> longer be a gap in coverage of medication. The CBO also estimated
> it would extend coverage to 32 million additional people."
>
> I say that's a significant improvement. It could be more
> comprehensive, more universal and more fair, but it levels
> out the present unequal healthcare problem to a significant
> degree.

None of this would be necessary if the medical industry wasn't doubling as
an extortion industry. If people don't want to die, but feel they are
dying, they'll tell the hospital to do what they can now, and they'll find
a way to pay. Of course, being insured gets you all kinds of care. If
you're not insured, you get the bare minimums.

When I was in the hospital in 1997, I asked for a lethal injection. They
proceeded to run up $28,000 in bills I couldn't pay, probably figuring if
for some reason I /did/ die, they might get sued. I didn't plan it like
that. I actually did want a lethal injection. They just wouldn't give it
to me.

Damaeus

Damaeus wrote:

> That's nothing. Ronald Reagan, all by himself, raised the national debt
> from the billions to $4 trillion in his eight years. And in ten years,
> they'll probably be talking about $150 trillion budgets. So this silly
> deficit cut sounds like big dollars now. It really isn't.
>

Funny how that works. The conservatives run up huge bills and then blame
liberals for the debt. We had the same thing when a Liberal government
ran a deficit to deal with tough economic times. The conservatives that
replaced them harped for years about the liberal debt, but continued to
rack up debt even faster than the liberals did, and kept up the hype
about the liberal debt, and their supporters bought it.




> When I was in the hospital in 1997, I asked for a lethal injection. They
> proceeded to run up $28,000 in bills I couldn't pay, probably figuring if
> for some reason I /did/ die, they might get sued. I didn't plan it like
> that. I actually did want a lethal injection. They just wouldn't give it
> to me.


Aren't you glad they didn't.
;-)

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:21:06 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> Funny how that works. The conservatives run up huge bills and then blame
> liberals for the debt. We had the same thing when a Liberal government
> ran a deficit to deal with tough economic times. The conservatives that
> replaced them harped for years about the liberal debt, but continued to
> rack up debt even faster than the liberals did, and kept up the hype
> about the liberal debt, and their supporters bought it.
>

It took me a long time to realize how much "talking through their
hats" conservatives do . It's all scare tactics, smoke and mirrors,
then they blame the liberals when it's time to pay the piper. Their
tactics were clear as a bell when they started blaming Obama for
literally *everything* but it was before Christmas of 2008. He hadn't
even taken his oath for president yet but they were heaping blame for
everything on him. Makes me very cynical about anything they have to
say these days.

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/sf.usenet

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:21:06 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Damaeus wrote:
>
>> When I was in the hospital in 1997, I asked for a lethal injection. They
>> proceeded to run up $28,000 in bills I couldn't pay, probably figuring if
>> for some reason I /did/ die, they might get sued. I didn't plan it like
>> that. I actually did want a lethal injection. They just wouldn't give it
>> to me.
>
> Aren't you glad they didn't.
> ;-)

he might be, but i'm not sure i am.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:39:27 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:21:06 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> Funny how that works. The conservatives run up huge bills and then blame
>> liberals for the debt. We had the same thing when a Liberal government
>> ran a deficit to deal with tough economic times. The conservatives that
>> replaced them harped for years about the liberal debt, but continued to
>> rack up debt even faster than the liberals did, and kept up the hype
>> about the liberal debt, and their supporters bought it.
>>
>
> It took me a long time to realize how much "talking through their
> hats" conservatives do . It's all scare tactics, smoke and mirrors,
> then they blame the liberals when it's time to pay the piper. Their
> tactics were clear as a bell when they started blaming Obama for
> literally *everything* but it was before Christmas of 2008. He hadn't
> even taken his oath for president yet but they were heaping blame for
> everything on him. Makes me very cynical about anything they have to
> say these days.

yep. the bush administration seems to have disappeared down the memory
hole, except for how awesome torture is.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:55:24 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

> yep. the bush administration seems to have disappeared down the memory
> hole, except for how awesome torture is.

I thought Cheney was still rallying the troops.

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/sf.usenet