Speaking of misinformation

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
"John A." wrote in message ...

Then let's have both the "public option" *and* the proposed co-ops,

Just the co-ops, and only after making sure they aren't designed in such a way as to really be the same as the so-called public
option (i.e., sneaking the "public option" in through the back door). This will take very careful scrutiny since leftists are
notoriously sneaky and twisty.

A bit of advice --
A) Don't display your prejudices so blatantly, otherwise people will think
ill of you.
B) Add a ";-)" to the end when writing nonsense, pretending it was a joke
(but this may not be clear, since it can also mean that you intended it to
be sarcastic).
C) Say things that are based on reputable facts and actually make sense(!).
D) Or, ignore all the above, and let all come to the obvious conclusions...;-)
--DR

Neil Harrington wrote:

wrote in message ...
Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:

But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance companies
that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as delivering health care?
We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health care
right?

Stephanie

Government and private business do not operate in the same manner.
Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be kept honest.
Private business has external checks and balances, to be kept honest.
And while those checks and balances don't always prevent an
unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little avenue
of redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while profit-making
insurance companies do offer the same kinds of maddening rationing
decisions that the government will, two things are dramatically
different. One is that in order to protect a profit base, a company has
to protect it's customer base. Satisfactory resolution is thus tied to
self interest, buffering rash and bad decisions. Government has no such
pressure point. The other is that if satisfactory resolution isn't
achieved, there are other pressures one can bring to bear against a
profit making company. Bad press. And legal redress. Again, two
pressure points not available with government provided services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government provides
a service. One cannot simply go to another government to receive a
better product. And, no matter how much you may dislike your profit
making insurance company, they can't, no matter how they might try,
take all you own, and with armed agents, take you into custody for
incarceration because you ****ed them off.


Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.

So what is stopping you from NOT using the public option if you like the
insurance company more?

The fact that the so-called public option will squeeze out private
insurance companies and then you won't have any choice.

Maybe the CEO won't take $200 million bonus and their profits won't rise
800% over the next 5 years but I highly doubt they will fold. They NEED to
be squeezed.

Do you know what the profit margin is for most insurance companies? As I
recall it's about 4% or so.

A favorite rightard tactic: When faced with an untenable position,
change the subject.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/17/09 09:45 , wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:

But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance
companies that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as
delivering health care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health
care right?

Stephanie

Government and private business do not operate in the same
manner. Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be
kept honest. Private business has external checks and balances,
to be kept honest. And while those checks and balances don't
always prevent an unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the
government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little
avenue of redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while
profit-making insurance companies do offer the same kinds of
maddening rationing decisions that the government will, two
things are dramatically different. One is that in order to
protect a profit base, a company has to protect it's customer
base. Satisfactory resolution is thus tied to self interest,
buffering rash and bad decisions. Government has no such
pressure point. The other is that if satisfactory resolution
isn't achieved, there are other pressures one can bring to bear
against a profit making company. Bad press. And legal redress.
Again, two pressure points not available with government
provided services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government
provides a service. One cannot simply go to another government to
receive a better product. And, no matter how much you may dislike
your profit making insurance company, they can't, no matter how
they might try, take all you own, and with armed agents, take you
into custody for incarceration because you ****ed them off.


Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.

So what is stopping you from NOT using the public option if you
like the insurance company more?

I don't use insurance for most health care issues. I negotiate a
better rate, and pay out of my own pocket.

The public option will exist in a system where insurance is
mandatory. Mandatory ANYTHING is a bad idea, and a breeding ground
for precisely the issues you fear so much.





Well my bet is they (the right wing) are GOING to make insurance
Mandatory with NO public option forcing everyone into the current
insurance system. You heard it here first.

So when is the right wing going to obtain a veto-proof majority in
Congress so as to do this?




They won't need it with the MILLIONS the insurance lobby is dumping
into this. They can buy both sides.

I see. So your assertions concerning "the right wing" fail epically due to
the lack of a right wing majority in any branch of the United States
government, so you fall back to "buying both sides" with MILLIONS.
MILLIONS is one guy's political campaign for one term of office. If
MILLIONS buys politicians then howcum GM, Ford, and Chrysler never managed
to get the politicians to ban Japanese cars? Howcum RCA, GE, Zenith, etc
never managed to get the politicians to ban Japanese televisions? Howcum
emission laws for cars got passed, howcum there's a fuel economy tax? I
guess that those eeeeeevvvvviillllll car and electronics manufacturers just
couldn't manage to raise as many MILLIONS as the insurance companies.

Next time you see your doctor you might want to ask him to shoot some
cortisone into that knee.

J. Clarke wrote:
wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/17/09 09:45 , wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 9/16/09 22:52 , wrote:

But you're willing to totally trust -for profit- insurance
companies that have ZERO "check and balances" as far as
delivering health care? We
are talking about who would provide fair and balanced health
care right?

Stephanie

Government and private business do not operate in the same
manner. Goverment requires internal checks and balances to be
kept honest. Private business has external checks and balances,
to be kept honest. And while those checks and balances don't
always prevent an unsatisfactory outcome, redress is possible.

This is not the case when receiving a service from the
government.

When receiving a service from the government, one has little
avenue of redress if the service is dissatisfactory. And while
profit-making insurance companies do offer the same kinds of
maddening rationing decisions that the government will, two
things are dramatically different. One is that in order to
protect a profit base, a company has to protect it's customer
base. Satisfactory resolution is thus tied to self interest,
buffering rash and bad decisions. Government has no such
pressure point. The other is that if satisfactory resolution
isn't achieved, there are other pressures one can bring to bear
against a profit making company. Bad press. And legal redress.
Again, two pressure points not available with government
provided services.

The truth is, that there is no competition where government
provides a service. One cannot simply go to another government to
receive a better product. And, no matter how much you may dislike
your profit making insurance company, they can't, no matter how
they might try, take all you own, and with armed agents, take you
into custody for incarceration because you ****ed them off.


Never, as a principle, trust a government entity.

So what is stopping you from NOT using the public option if you
like the insurance company more?

I don't use insurance for most health care issues. I negotiate a
better rate, and pay out of my own pocket.

The public option will exist in a system where insurance is
mandatory. Mandatory ANYTHING is a bad idea, and a breeding ground
for precisely the issues you fear so much.





Well my bet is they (the right wing) are GOING to make insurance
Mandatory with NO public option forcing everyone into the current
insurance system. You heard it here first.

So when is the right wing going to obtain a veto-proof majority in
Congress so as to do this?




They won't need it with the MILLIONS the insurance lobby is dumping
into this. They can buy both sides.

I see. So your assertions concerning "the right wing" fail epically due to
the lack of a right wing majority in any branch of the United States
government, so you fall back to "buying both sides" with MILLIONS.

Despite an overall decline in lobbyist spending this year, a USA
TODAY review of disclosure reports found 20 of the largest health
insurance and drug companies and their trade groups spent nearly
$35 million in the first quarter of 2009, up more than $10 million
from the same period last year.
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/n...b-e96297bcb70c

--
Ray Fischer

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
"John A." wrote in message
...

Then let's have both the "public option" *and* the proposed co-ops,

Just the co-ops, and only after making sure they aren't designed in such
a way as to really be the same as the so-called public option (i.e.,
sneaking the "public option" in through the back door). This will take
very careful scrutiny since leftists are notoriously sneaky and twisty.

A bit of advice --
A) Don't display your prejudices so blatantly, otherwise people will
think
ill of you.

That's one of the main problems of the leftist-"liberal" -- he cares much
more about what "people will think of" him than he does about what the truth
is, and this is invariably reflected in his comments. Leftist-"liberals"
forever go around saying things they hope will get them patted approvingly
on the head by other leftist-"liberals." Eventually these reality-deficient
notions become stuck fast in their thinking and tend to stay there forever,
sort of like barnacles.

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message ...
"David Ruether" wrote in message ...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
"John A." wrote in message ...

Then let's have both the "public option" *and* the proposed co-ops,

Just the co-ops, and only after making sure they aren't designed in such a way as to really be the same as the so-called public
option (i.e., sneaking the "public option" in through the back door). This will take very careful scrutiny since leftists are
notoriously sneaky and twisty.

A bit of advice --
A) Don't display your prejudices so blatantly, otherwise people will think ill of you.
[other suggestions deleted by "NH"...]

That's one of the main problems of the leftist-"liberal" -- he cares much more about what "people will think of" him than he does
about what the truth is, and this is invariably reflected in his comments. Leftist-"liberals" forever go around saying things they
hope will get them patted approvingly on the head by other leftist-"liberals." Eventually these reality-deficient notions become
stuck fast in their thinking and tend to stay there forever, sort of like barnacles.

What a strange post......
--DR

On 9/22/09 12:21 , David Ruether wrote:
"Neil wrote in message ...
"David wrote in message ...
"Neil wrote in message
...
"John wrote in message ...

Then let's have both the "public option" *and* the proposed co-ops,

Just the co-ops, and only after making sure they aren't designed in such a way as to really be the same as the so-called public
option (i.e., sneaking the "public option" in through the back door). This will take very careful scrutiny since leftists are
notoriously sneaky and twisty.

A bit of advice --
A) Don't display your prejudices so blatantly, otherwise people will think ill of you.
[other suggestions deleted by "NH"...]

That's one of the main problems of the leftist-"liberal" -- he cares much more about what "people will think of" him than he does
about what the truth is, and this is invariably reflected in his comments. Leftist-"liberals" forever go around saying things they
hope will get them patted approvingly on the head by other leftist-"liberals." Eventually these reality-deficient notions become
stuck fast in their thinking and tend to stay there forever, sort of like barnacles.

What a strange post......
--DR



It's USENet.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ...
On 9/22/09 12:21 , David Ruether wrote:
"Neil wrote in message ...

That's one of the main problems of the leftist-"liberal" -- he cares much more about what "people will think of" him than he
does
about what the truth is, and this is invariably reflected in his comments. Leftist-"liberals" forever go around saying things
they
hope will get them patted approvingly on the head by other leftist-"liberals." Eventually these reality-deficient notions become
stuck fast in their thinking and tend to stay there forever, sort of like barnacles.

What a strange post......
--DR

It's USENet.

Yuh, but, but, but......., one does STILL expect a modicum of
thoughtfulness and logic - but perhaps your point is well-taken
after all, unfortunately.....
--DR

Neil Harrington wrote:
"David Ruether" wrote in message

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
"John A." wrote in message
...

Then let's have both the "public option" *and* the proposed co-ops,

Just the co-ops, and only after making sure they aren't designed in such
a way as to really be the same as the so-called public option (i.e.,
sneaking the "public option" in through the back door). This will take
very careful scrutiny since leftists are notoriously sneaky and twisty.

A bit of advice --
A) Don't display your prejudices so blatantly, otherwise people will
think
ill of you.

That's one of the main problems of the leftist-"liberal"

As opposed to the fascist-neonazi?

--
Ray Fischer