I look forward to the Government violating my rights. You commies won't
care but freedom loving Americans will pay attention.

I'll die for my freedom.... will you die for your communism?

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:12:50 +0100, John Galt
kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?
a) anyway we can

b) law enforcement

c) the law.

And you can't stop 'em
If it comes to that, no.

Well, glad that's settled

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:14:56 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

I look forward to the Government violating my rights. You commies won't
care but freedom loving Americans will pay attention.

I'll die for my freedom.... will you die for your communism?

Snicker

Where in hell do you get this tin-hat sayings........

Oh sorry---"tin-hat"

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


He also said we needed this reform to save money? How can you save money,
if you have to raise taxes?

You make the wealth class pay

You regulate and reform the Health care
system---including the reimbursment schedule which has
been extremely profitable for the Suppliers

You make available basic health care to avoid using the
most expensive means---ER

The most "expensive means" trasnlates to live saves. Doing things on the

Plus dozens of other reforms, JerryLoon

You raise taxes to generate revenue, Jerryloon

You don't raise taxes to "save money"

That was my point.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:44:48 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

erschroedinger at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:31539e8c-e60e-45ce-9afa-
b66f53c44c9b at (no spam) f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 11:47 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth... at (no spam) Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.

Not for the middle class, which WAS his promise.

Jerry gets one right!!!! WOW!!!

He also said we needed this reform to save money? How can you save
money, if you have to raise taxes?

That question puts Jerry back in the same dumbass box he has always
inhabited. The assumption that tax proceeds are (logically) burned in a
furnace as opposed to being fruitfully redistributed is a Republican
Religious tenet. If government can improve the net income of the vast
majority by taxing the wealthy in order to subsidize health care for the
poor, then the middle class _saves_ money even though the rich do not. It
may well be that such a scheme is inefficient and the rich may lose more
than the common people gain. Yet the net social welfare may be quite
positive.

In addition: If the reform results in more monopsony power for the payers
(all insurance companies including Medicare and Medicaid), then the
aggregate cost of care will be reduced.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:42:55 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
okamuraj005 at (no spam) hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni7damks5ji4hjnov0d at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:




Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.

But only on those he already said he would.


It is a broken promise.

How can it be "broken" if nothing has passed yet, you
dingbat

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:42:55 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni7damks5ji4hjnov0d at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:




Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.

But only on those he already said he would.


It is a broken promise.

Obama said he would raise taxes on people with incomes over a quarter of
a million bucks and that is what is going to happen.

Besides, even your statement if a lie, because
the healthcare reform proposals in Congress, DOES raise taxes on those
he said he would not raise taxes on.

LIE!

Who is the liar?

Where in hell do you get this tin-hat sayings........

Oh sorry---"tin-hat"


I think I made it up?

On Nov 2, 2:37 pm, "erschroedin... at (no spam) gmail.com" <erschroedin... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:47 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:



On Oct 31, 7:31 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:

Bill Bowden wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:47 pm, Josh Rosenbluth
jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:hcica9$3i9$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:hci437$qbr$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

There is no justification for the government to become
ahealth care provider, nor to demand you become a
participant.

As explained above, there is a Constitutionally-permitted
justification. And, no one is proposing that the
government be a health careprovider.

???

That's precisely what the government itself is proposing.
Pelosi, et al, will tell you one thing, and do another.
The fact is, if they put in the Public Option (with any
f---ing name she pulls out of her fat ass), it will signal
the end of private care. Period.

The public option is government-provided health insurance,
not government-providedhealth care.

Same thing.

No.  With the public option,health careproviders remain in
the private sector.  In contrast in Britain,health
careproviders are government employees.

The government is forcing you to participate, that's
governmenthealth>>>care. Period.

No, you can do that without even a public option.

So what.

So, you can now stop making false claims about government
providedhealth care.  Please be accurate and say it is government
provided health insurance with an individual mandate.

That assertion does not make the Public Option any worse than it
already is.

The fact is, there is no requirement to participate now, and
with the proposed plan forhealth care, there will be. That makes
it publichealth> carefor no other reason than it's compulsory.
There is no Constitutioinal authority for compulsoryhealth care.

As I already explained, because it is rational for Congress to
believe the mandate is necessary to support the requirement on
private insurance companies not to reject people because of
pre-existing conditions (*), it is permitted under the Commerce
Clause.

Josh Rosenbluth

(*) Even Republicans believe this requirement is a constitutional
regulation of commerce and a good idea

So, how does that work out amongst the various insurance
companies as to who will accept the high risk cases, and who will
insure the low risk cases? Will the risk be divided equally
amongst the many insurance companies, or will some do better than
others? How do they equalize the risks involved?

Just wondering.

That's where the mandatory insurance comes in - the healthy pay
into the system.

Josh Rosenbluth

Yes, I understand. But I wasn't referring to the healthy. Suppose a
person has heart disease and cancer and requires a CAT scan and other
major expenses every 6 months and has no insurance.

Under the plan, that's impossible.  Everyone will have to have
insurance.


Yes, I understand, but I have both cancer and heart disease and no
insurance. Currently, I get health care at the Veterans Hospital with
small co-payments. So, when it comes time to buy insurance, WHICH
insurance company should I sign up with to force them to take big time
losses? The last insurance company I had lost about 6 figures on my
case, and they don't want me back.

-Bill

Which insurance
company will take on the expenses knowing in advance it will cost
many times more than the premiums collected?

Since health insurance will be mandated, it appears any high risk
individual can apply for cheap insurance with Blue Cross /  Blue
Shield and simply demand full cheap coverage under the law.

The question was, how will the risks be divided so that all the
insurance companies carry equal obligations?

-Bill

smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an
insurance company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?

a) anyway we can

b) law enforcement

c) the law.

And you can't stop 'em

If it comes to that, no.

But, then, we will be no different than some totalitarian state in the
Middle East.

If you believe that it's proper to suggest that the police be used to
invade a person's privacy, do not be suprised when another person
believes it proper to use violence to defend against it. Historically,
this is the beginning of the end of nations. The Framers granted us the
2nd Amendment for just this reason -- to defend against the tyranny of
the majority.

JG

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
John Galt wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

On Nov 2, 4:12 pm, John Galt <kady... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

smor... at (no spam) board.com wrote:

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:21:04 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an
insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?

a) anyway we can
b) law enforcement
c) the law.
And you can't stop 'em

If it comes to that, no.

But, then, we will be no different than some totalitarian state in
the Middle East.

If you believe that it's proper to suggest that the police be used
to invade a person's privacy, do not be suprised when another person
believes it proper to use violence to defend against it.
Historically, this is the beginning of the end of nations. The
Framers granted us the 2nd Amendment for just this reason -- to
defend against the tyranny of the majority.


I suspect enforcement will something akin to tax enforcement.


I would expect that's correct. It's the least intrusive method.

Of

course, we all hate the IRS because the power of authority has gotten
to their heads, but you aren't suggesting it's OK to violently revolt
against a legitimate IRS "invasion of privacy" enforcement of a tax
cheat.


This level of enforcement belongs in the courts, IMO. The original
scenario at the least implied a forcible entry of law enforcement into
a home without any evidence of wrongdoing; so a different matter, and
not one that could be engaged without an expectation of violence.

There's your answer Poetic Justice. See you in court.

Josh Rosenbluth



Kool I'll be there if/when the Subpoena or warrant arrive.

till then I will Not turn over any information papers or person to the
government.

I'll cost you millions in courts to force me to pay $3,000, and then
I'll refuse and take the jail time and cost you 30,000 to 50,000 a
year... That socialism should go broke fast if a few more people will
follow me. And I'll have all day in prison to spend suing your favorite
socialist government and supporters.


Lets dance...

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:42:55 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:1abme5t09jjsu12ni7damks5ji4hjnov0d at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:




Obama is raising taxes in the health care bill.

But only on those he already said he would.


It is a broken promise.

Obama said he would raise taxes on people with incomes over a quarter of
a million bucks and that is what is going to happen.

Besides, even your statement if a lie, because
the healthcare reform proposals in Congress, DOES raise taxes on those
he said he would not raise taxes on.

LIE!

Who is the liar?

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:14:02 -0800, Bill Bowden wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:37 pm, "erschroedin... at (no spam) gmail.com" <erschroedin... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:47 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:

On Oct 31, 7:31 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:

Bill Bowden wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:47 pm, Josh Rosenbluth
jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
messagenews:hcica9$3i9$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
messagenews:hci437$qbr$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

There is no justification for the government to become
ahealth care provider, nor to demand you become a
participant.

As explained above, there is a Constitutionally-permitted
justification. And, no one is proposing that the
government be a health careprovider.

???

That's precisely what the government itself is proposing.
Pelosi, et al, will tell you one thing, and do another.
The fact is, if they put in the Public Option (with any
f---ing name she pulls out of her fat ass), it will signal
the end of private care. Period.

The public option is government-provided health insurance,
not government-providedhealth care.

Same thing.

No.  With the public option,health careproviders remain in
the private sector.  In contrast in Britain,health
careproviders are government employees.

The government is forcing you to participate, that's
governmenthealth>>>care. Period.

No, you can do that without even a public option.

So what.

So, you can now stop making false claims about government
providedhealth care.  Please be accurate and say it is government
provided health insurance with an individual mandate.

That assertion does not make the Public Option any worse than it
already is.

The fact is, there is no requirement to participate now, and
with the proposed plan forhealth care, there will be. That makes
it publichealth> carefor no other reason than it's compulsory.
There is no Constitutioinal authority for compulsoryhealth care..

As I already explained, because it is rational for Congress to
believe the mandate is necessary to support the requirement on
private insurance companies not to reject people because of
pre-existing conditions (*), it is permitted under the Commerce
Clause.

Josh Rosenbluth

(*) Even Republicans believe this requirement is a constitutional
regulation of commerce and a good idea

So, how does that work out amongst the various insurance
companies as to who will accept the high risk cases, and who will
insure the low risk cases? Will the risk be divided equally
amongst the many insurance companies, or will some do better than
others? How do they equalize the risks involved?

Just wondering.

That's where the mandatory insurance comes in - the healthy pay
into the system.

Josh Rosenbluth

Yes, I understand. But I wasn't referring to the healthy. Suppose a
person has heart disease and cancer and requires a CAT scan and other
major expenses every 6 months and has no insurance.

Under the plan, that's impossible.  Everyone will have to have
insurance.

Yes, I understand, but I have both cancer and heart disease and no
insurance. Currently, I get health care at the Veterans Hospital with
small co-payments. So, when it comes time to buy insurance, WHICH
insurance company should I sign up with to force them to take big time
losses? The last insurance company I had lost about 6 figures on my
case, and they don't want me back.

-Bill

You will continue to get health care at the VA, or you can buy
insurance.  Your option.  VA health care suffices for the required
insurance.  But perhaps you believe you will get better care from the
private system.  Is this the problem you are attempting to expose?  You
want to now drag out this boogerman?  This Oh My God all the vets with
cancer will now seek care in the private sector because VA health care is
so poor?  That is rubbish.

Which insurance
company will take on the expenses knowing in advance it will cost
many times more than the premiums collected?

Since health insurance will be mandated, it appears any high risk
individual can apply for cheap insurance with Blue Cross /  Blue
Shield and simply demand full cheap coverage under the law.

The question was, how will the risks be divided so that all the
insurance companies carry equal obligations?

-Bill

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:14:56 -0500, Poetic Justice
PoeticJustice at (no spam) talk-n-dog...com> wrote:

I look forward to the Government violating my rights. You commies won't
care but freedom loving Americans will pay attention.

I'll die for my freedom.... will you die for your communism?

Snicker

Where in hell do you get this tin-hat sayings........

Oh sorry---"tin-hat"

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:12:50 +0100, John Galt
kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

How will you force me to turn over my papers and person to an insurance
company, will you get a warrant and break down my door?
a) anyway we can

b) law enforcement

c) the law.

And you can't stop 'em
If it comes to that, no.

Well, glad that's settled