O/T: Knee Jerk

Sen. Max Baucus reports health care bill out of committee.

Sen. Mitch McConnel immediately grabs mike and opposes.

Must be a good bill.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett
Loading thread data ...

Last count, Baucus has one vote for his bill.

Right now, with the Kennedy seat vacant, the Democrats can't break a filibuster (they still need 60 votes and there are only 59 Democrats). Interestingly, if another Democrat dies - leaving them with 58 - they'll only need 58 votes to invoke cloture.

Pray for the continued breathing of Robert Byrd.

Reply to
HeyBub

And naturally, they get to count the communist, Liberian and so forth as Democrats... all non-Republican.

Mart> Lew Hodgett wrote:

Reply to
Martin H. Eastburn

Reply to
Michael Kenefick

When I was an obnoxious teen, bitching about how screwed up things were, the adults would ask "And your proposed solution for correcting the problem is . . .?"

Opposing something is very easy. Fixing something you think isn't working - well that takes a lot more time and effort.

When opposing a change one must always consider the price of doing nothing. The uninsured get medical treatment when it's an emergency. And emergency room costs are multiples of the cost of doctor visits before things get critical - and really expensive.

The other thing to be aware of is which industries and which lobbyists are opposing the change, what ever the proposed change is, and examine their reason(s) for that opposition. I'm willing put money on the it's not for altruistic reasons.

And if you've ever had a "problem" with your health insurance company, especially if it's a life threatening thing, be aware that it's in THEIR best interest for you to die - before they have to expend any money on you. At least with the government you CAN try and get your elected congress person and senator to look into your problem. With an insurance company - your screwed - AFTER you probably have spent months on the phone talking to someone in a Call Center - in Pakistan or the Philipines or Honduras - who may or may not speak english.

Reply to
charlieb

And this naturally leads to the conclusions that having the *government* run things is a better choice? Seriously? An institution rife with corruption, graft, payoffs, virtually no limits on power, almost no meaningful redress (try calling your Senator, and the Honduran call center will seem like a well oiled machine)? An institution with almost no meaningful feedback when it fails insofar as its programs, once instantiated, are outside the election/unelection process?

It seems that the pro-government healthcare bunch have adopted a breathtaking piece of logic: The government that has run Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA into fiscal and operational ruin should be asked to do more of the same. "Since they've already screwed things up beyond belief, lets have them do even more of it."

Astonishing and profoundly stupid.

The real answer is remove bureaucratic impediments to interstate competition among private healthcare providers, put a feedback loop in place to punish the ambulance chasers that manufacture insane legal claims, and inch the government *out* of healthcare entirely in the next 25 years or so.

You don't have a right to healthcare anymore than you do to a house, a car, or a vacation. All these things must be earned.

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk

For just one minute, why don't you try substituting "FREEDOM" in place of your continual healthcare attacks?

Because in all honesty, many people who face serious difficulties with their healthcare view it NO DIFFERENTLY than a direct limitation of their freedom. I KNOW this to be fact. And, it has the exact same effect. Unfortunately, you don't have the imagination or intelligence to realize that. You take advantage of your right to freedom by continually whining how much it costs you. I wonder how you'd deal with it if that part of your freedom was removed?

Pathetic little wimp. Can you sink any further?

Reply to
Upscale

Your "freedom" is not such thing. It's at the expense of another citizen. Your "free" healthcare means someone else has less money for their own family's needs. My worldview is not built on stealing, yours is. My worldview isn't dependent on impoverishing other people. Your's is. I don't ask third parties in government to do my stealing. You do.

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk

Are you really so self absorbed that you can't see that?

Reply to
Upscale

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in news:7JBsm.27324$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-06.dc.easynews.com:

Since when do Liberians get to vote here?

Reply to
Elrond Hubbard

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). Born in 1917. He is ~92.

Reply to
HeyBub

The real answer is remove bureaucratic impediments to interstate

Jeffrey Skilling may be looking for work, once he is paroled.

Reply to
Buck Turgidson

Tim, how old is your mother? Is she on Medicare? Why is she entitled to it?

Reply to
Buck Turgidson

Defending the borders benefits everyone more-or-less equally. Stealing from some citizens to give to others harms freedom. Your kind of "freedom" only exists because you are diminishing another person's freedom.

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk

People who paid into the existing system have a reasonable right to expect they will get back what they put in. But the system today pays out far, far more than the recipients every put in. The system is iniquitous and should never have been implemented in the first place - it is a ponzi scheme the like of which Madoff would only have dreamed. The way you get out of it is by diminishing benefits 4% per year for the next 25 years until it is gone entirely. Retire today, get full benefits for life. Retire next year, get 96% benefits, and so on.

This is bad logic: The government screwed up social services for the last 60 years - let's have them do more of it.

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk

If it never should have been implemented, then urge your mother to swear it off, and you pay for her healthcare out-of-pocket.

Put your money where you mouth is.

Reply to
Buck Turgidson

You seem unclear on the concept. People have a legitimate right to those things to which they have contributed, even if they were forced to do it. The problem is that the political swine have been handing out more and more "benefits" without taxing to pay for them. So, the system does not work. It is mathematically impossible. Social entitlements now consume 1/2 of the U.S. Federal budget in their current form and they are destroying the economic future of the next several generations. Adding government healthcare for everyone to the mix would add another *$1 Trillion* approximately to the debt. At current rates - WITHOUT healthcare added - the debt is already slated to be equal to the entire GDP of the US by around 2015 or so This is not a controversial view, it is simply a matter of fact.

The problem is that the "I need something, therefore I am entitled to it" crowd lack the brains and integrity to do even a minor examination of the financial reality that the progressive piglets created over the last 60 years. Picking people pockets is bad enough, but now we're proposing to pick the pockets of people yet to be born. Why? So the revolting 60s generation that is now retiring - that has the largest aggregate savings of any generation in U.S. history - can retire, spend their money as they wish, and have everyone else pay for their healthcare. Don't ever kid yourself, this whole government healthcare business hasn't got that much to do with the poor un/under-insured. It has everything to do with the retirees wanting what they never paid for or saved for theselves. This IS a class war - beetween my future grandchildren and the smelly hippies that are now dropping out of the workforce.

I do - on a regular basis. I just don't fund moochers, whiners, or thieves voluntarily.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key:

formatting link

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk

To extend the Madoff analogy, as long as you're sure you'd get YOUR money back (with 11% interest of course), it's ok to invest with him, even if you knew he was a phony?

I doubt you or your mother will ever put into Medicare what you'll take out. So isn't it hypocritical to participate in the program?

Are you funding your own healthcare needs for your retirement?

Reply to
Buck Turgidson

No because I'd be voluntarily supporting fraud. But in the case of government-run Ponzi schemes, I don't have the choice to make it voluntary. I am compelled to do so if I earn income (and earning income is necessary for survival - unless you're an ACORN client, welfare queen, or other inter-generational moocher).

As I said, the problem is that I don't have the choice. Participating in the system as it is while simultaneously working to repeal it is about the best you can do. The alternative is to be forced to pay into a system and get NOTHING back, which just adds insult to injury. I get that retired folk want what they believe they've paid for. I am merely pointing out that the system has now become a runaway freightrain that is flatly unsustainable. Only college students or foolish ideologues refuse to live in the world as it is.

To the best of my ability yes. But considering that my net tax burden (state, local, federal, excise, sin taxes, etc.) on a middle class income is approaching 50%, it's hard to save a lot and live - and I do not live excessively by pretty much any reasonable definition. But, I have been saving for retirement since I was 28 and continue to do so now, if that's your question. If that's not enough when the time comes, I don't think it morally entitles me to pick your pocket. I'll have to (politely) ask for voluntary charity. If that fails, I'll become fertilizer a bit earlier than I'd like.

Reply to
Tim Daneliuk

On Sep 18, 12:17=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote: [snip]

Out on a week-end pass, Tim?

Reply to
Robatoy

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.