http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA


In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions. Perhaps, if
Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would hear some
of that. ;)

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA


In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions. Perhaps, if
Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would
hear some of that.

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA


In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions. Perhaps, if
Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would hear
some of that. ;)


some cross-posting removed

You may want to tell that to John Boehner. This is what he stated earlier
today:

"Boehner repeated Saturday the four main elements of the GOP's health care
agenda:

– To let individuals and small businesses look for better insurance deals
in other states.

– To allow them to pool together to receive the kind of insurance deals
typically offered to large corporations.

– To create an environment that gives states greater range to experiment
with cost-saving health care reforms.

– To institute tort reform."

In other words, beyond obstructionism, the GOP got nothing. "Tort reform"
is a joke and, while limiting malpractice victims' rights, amounts to mere
peanuts in potential savings. Grayson nailed it.

We need the public option, and better yet, single payer.

"SgtMinor" <Sarge at (no spam) the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote in message
news:R7OdndGYN9puKnHXnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA


In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions. Perhaps, if
Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would
hear some of that. ;)


some cross-posting removed

You may want to tell that to John Boehner. This is what he stated
earlier today:

"Boehner repeated Saturday the four main elements of the GOP's health
care agenda:

– To let individuals and small businesses look for better insurance
deals in other states.

– To allow them to pool together to receive the kind of insurance
deals typically offered to large corporations.

– To create an environment that gives states greater range to
experiment with cost-saving health care reforms.

– To institute tort reform."

In other words, beyond obstructionism, the GOP got nothing. "Tort
reform" is a joke and, while limiting malpractice victims' rights,
amounts to mere peanuts in potential savings. Grayson nailed it.

We need the public option, and better yet, single payer.

If you do not put a high value on your freedoms, you want someone else
to pay for what you need or want, like someone else paying for your
healthcare.

If you put a high value on your freedom, you don't want
anyone to take care of you, you want to be able to take care of
yourself. Or as Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up
essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety".

Jerry Okamura wrote:

"SgtMinor" <Sarge at (no spam) the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote in message
news:R7OdndGYN9puKnHXnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA


In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions. Perhaps, if
Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would hear
some of that. ;)


some cross-posting removed

You may want to tell that to John Boehner. This is what he stated
earlier today:

"Boehner repeated Saturday the four main elements of the GOP's health
care agenda:

– To let individuals and small businesses look for better insurance
deals in other states.

– To allow them to pool together to receive the kind of insurance deals
typically offered to large corporations.

– To create an environment that gives states greater range to experiment
with cost-saving health care reforms.

– To institute tort reform."

In other words, beyond obstructionism, the GOP got nothing. "Tort
reform" is a joke and, while limiting malpractice victims' rights,
amounts to mere peanuts in potential savings. Grayson nailed it.

We need the public option, and better yet, single payer.

If you do not put a high value on your freedoms, you want someone else to
pay for what you need or want, like someone else paying for your
healthcare.

Huh? When we do something together as a society we don't put a high value
on our freedoms? Because I want the police to protect my community, and
the fire department to protect my house, I don't put a high price on my
freedom?

If I receive employer paid health care that means I don't value my
freedom?

You go ahead and fight all your battles by yourself. As for me, I"ll go
with Patrick Henry who believed that "united we stand, divided we fall."

Jerry Okamura wrote:

"SgtMinor" <Sarge at (no spam) the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote in message
news:R7OdndGYN9puKnHXnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA


In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy
from Republicans although they have continually stated that they
want tort reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers,
no loss of insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions.
Perhaps, if Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears
he would hear some of that. ;)


some cross-posting removed

You may want to tell that to John Boehner. This is what he stated
earlier today:

"Boehner repeated Saturday the four main elements of the GOP's health
care agenda:

– To let individuals and small businesses look for better insurance
deals in other states.

– To allow them to pool together to receive the kind of insurance
deals typically offered to large corporations.

– To create an environment that gives states greater range to
experiment with cost-saving health care reforms.

– To institute tort reform."

In other words, beyond obstructionism, the GOP got nothing. "Tort
reform" is a joke and, while limiting malpractice victims' rights,
amounts to mere peanuts in potential savings. Grayson nailed it.

We need the public option, and better yet, single payer.

If you do not put a high value on your freedoms, you want someone else
to pay for what you need or want, like someone else paying for your
healthcare.

Huh? When we do something together as a society we don't put a high
value on our freedoms? Because I want the police to protect my
community, and the fire department to protect my house, I don't put a
high price on my freedom?

If I receive employer paid health care that means I don't value my freedom?

You go ahead and fight all your battles by yourself. As for me, I"ll go
with Patrick Henry who believed that "united we stand, divided we fall."

If you put a high value on your freedom, you don't want anyone to take
care of you, you want to be able to take care of yourself. Or as
Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguessw... at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA

In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions.  Perhaps, if
Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would
hear some of that.  ;)

Bellyaching  and a plan to achieve your goals aren't the same thing......

--
John R. Carroll

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA


In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions. Perhaps, if
Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would
hear some of that. ;)

Bellyaching and a plan to achieve your goals aren't the same
thing.....

"John R. Carroll" <nunya at (no spam) bidness.dev.nul> wrote in news:KpednX18-
dkhLnHXnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com:

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA


In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy
from Republicans although they have continually stated that they
want tort reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance
providers, no loss of insurance if they lose their jobs, and no
preconditions. Perhaps, if Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit
and open his ears he would hear some of that. ;)

Bellyaching and a plan to achieve your goals aren't the same
thing.....


And which of those do you apply to Grayson?

On Oct 31, 5:57 pm, "John R. Carroll" <nu... at (no spam) bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguessw... at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA

In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy from
Republicans although they have continually stated that they want tort
reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance providers, no loss of
insurance if they lose their jobs, and no preconditions.  Perhaps, if
Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit and open his ears he would
hear some of that.  ;)

Bellyaching  and a plan to achieve your goals aren't the same thing......

What do you think of voting for a plan you haven't read?

"SgtMinor" <Sarge at (no spam) the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote in message
news:K7KdnYEYJppvSXHXnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:

"SgtMinor" <Sarge at (no spam) the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote in message
news:R7OdndGYN9puKnHXnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA


In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy
from Republicans although they have continually stated that they
want tort reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance
providers, no loss of insurance if they lose their jobs, and no
preconditions. Perhaps, if Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit
and open his ears he would hear some of that. ;)


some cross-posting removed

You may want to tell that to John Boehner. This is what he stated
earlier today:

"Boehner repeated Saturday the four main elements of the GOP's
health care agenda:

– To let individuals and small businesses look for better insurance
deals in other states.

– To allow them to pool together to receive the kind of insurance
deals typically offered to large corporations.

– To create an environment that gives states greater range to
experiment with cost-saving health care reforms.

– To institute tort reform."

In other words, beyond obstructionism, the GOP got nothing. "Tort
reform" is a joke and, while limiting malpractice victims' rights,
amounts to mere peanuts in potential savings. Grayson nailed it.

We need the public option, and better yet, single payer.

If you do not put a high value on your freedoms, you want someone
else to pay for what you need or want, like someone else paying for
your healthcare.

Huh? When we do something together as a society we don't put a high
value on our freedoms? Because I want the police to protect my
community, and the fire department to protect my house, I don't put a
high price on my freedom?

"If" a group of citizens get together to do something together, they are
doing so because they want to do what they are doing. They are
exercizing their "freedom" to do so. "If" you want the police to
protect your community or the fire department to protect your home, you
have said that you want someone else to protect yourself, or your home,
that you are not willing to protect yourself or protect your own home.

If I receive employer paid health care that means I don't value my
freedom?

Yes. You are free, when you depend on yourself to provide for your
needs. Anytime you depend on someone else to give you want you want or
need, you are not truly free.

You go ahead and fight all your battles by yourself. As for me, I"ll
go with Patrick Henry who believed that "united we stand, divided we
fall."

I will go with the New Hamshire state motto, "live free or die". By the
way, we are not united, we are divided. Especially on this healthcare
reform bill. You cannot be united, "if" one group of people are trying
to shove down the throats something that many people do not want them to
do.

SgtMinor wrote:
Jerry Okamura wrote:

"SgtMinor" <Sarge at (no spam) the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote in message
news:R7OdndGYN9puKnHXnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
news:lr4pe5p6ffn7hlvtelqf9ql5b1i977atp1 at (no spam) 4ax.com:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H3gND4M9HA


In that piece he complained that he hadn't heard of any strategy
from Republicans although they have continually stated that they
want tort reform, an end to state boundaries on insurance
providers, no loss of insurance if they lose their jobs, and no
preconditions. Perhaps, if Grayson would shut his mouth for a bit
and open his ears he would hear some of that. ;)


some cross-posting removed

You may want to tell that to John Boehner. This is what he stated
earlier today:

"Boehner repeated Saturday the four main elements of the GOP's
health care agenda:

– To let individuals and small businesses look for better insurance
deals in other states.

– To allow them to pool together to receive the kind of insurance
deals typically offered to large corporations.

– To create an environment that gives states greater range to
experiment with cost-saving health care reforms.

– To institute tort reform."

In other words, beyond obstructionism, the GOP got nothing. "Tort
reform" is a joke and, while limiting malpractice victims' rights,
amounts to mere peanuts in potential savings. Grayson nailed it.

We need the public option, and better yet, single payer.

If you do not put a high value on your freedoms, you want someone
else to pay for what you need or want, like someone else paying for
your healthcare.

Huh? When we do something together as a society we don't put a high
value on our freedoms? Because I want the police to protect my
community, and the fire department to protect my house, I don't put a
high price on my freedom?


Inappropriate analogy.

If I receive employer paid health care that means I don't value my
freedom?


Yes because you encourage your employer, government and corporations
to dictate the terms of your health care. You have no say, no freedom,
in the matter.

As a free man you would buy your services on the free market. There
they are many times cheaper. Below is an example. Compare these prices
with the ridiculous prices charged to insurance companies.


http://surgerycenterok.com/pricing.php

You go ahead and fight all your battles by yourself. As for me, I"ll
go with Patrick Henry who believed that "united we stand, divided we
fall."


"united we stand" means that every one must act *independently according
to shared principles*.

If you put a high value on your freedom, you don't want anyone to
take care of you, you want to be able to take care of yourself. Or
as Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".