On Nov 3, 10:53 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
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.


Actually, the VA system is very good except for isolated cases. But I
doubt I will be able to buy insurance at the same rate as a healthy 25
year old.

How do you figure the rates will be structured? Will a healthy 25 year
old pay the same rate as a 60 year old cancer patient for the same 80%
coverage?

That would raise the tax on the younger people quite a bit wouldn't you
say?

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 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:16:02 -0500, Strabo wrote:

smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:05:45 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
Then-Destroy-Everything at (no spam) Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:

Liberals were all so upset about Bush having Patriot act because it
would give Government too mush power to invade their privacy and run
their lives.
By doing it illegally by having no oversight, or legal basis for any of
it---spying on American citizens in direct contravention of the
constittution and established law.


Here is one section from the infamous Patriot Act as passed into law by
the US Congress in 2001 and expanded since.

Ask the Patriot Act, "who is a terrorist?" "Who is a criminal?"


Section 802 reads that YOU are a terrorist if the president or his
designee so declares.

Now ask the Patriot Act, "who is a criminal?"

Section 802 reads that YOU are a criminal if the president or his
designee so declares you a terrorist.

Note that this document specifies that a terrorist may be *any* person
so designated by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General OR,
*any* person suspected of violating any federal or state criminal law OR
*any* person suspected of actually or intending to, intimidate or coerce
any person.

In others words, any person suspected of a crime can be designated a
terrorist.

Here's the law...

Stop whining and lets get it repealed or declared unconstitutional. It
may well be that with a Democrat at the helm the rightarded will actually
challenge this crap in the courts. Those are YOUR Supremes (Roberts and
Alito) placed there by YOUR President George Bush. So why are you
hesitating to take to the courts?

smorgas at (no spam) board.com wrote:
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


What has been settled is that you and Josh Rosenbluth are
definitely Communists.

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

That is your definition of saving?

smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:kdgse5d81crthmjiq96mm8geq171c0f38q at (no spam) 4ax.com...
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


Becuase he is pushing for a bill that cannot possibly keep his promise.

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hcoidi11cmu at (no spam) news1.newsguy.com...
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?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0609-57.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704107204574471292249934348.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/will-health-care-bill-raise-
taxes-finance-committee-debates.html

Do you want me to continue....there were a whole lot more sites I could
have posted on the subject matter.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:16:18 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:kdgse5d81crthmjiq96mm8geq171c0f38q at (no spam) 4ax.com...
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


Becuase he is pushing for a bill that cannot possibly keep his promise.

So what NIT do you think you've found this time?

Don't know. What is a NIT?

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:20:47 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hcoidi11cmu at (no spam) news1.newsguy.com...
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?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb_0609-57.pdf

Cato is lying as usual. If a tax is placed on lollipops then that is a
tax on people with incomes of less that $250k according to Cato. Yet
Obama's claim that he would not raise taxes on people under the 250k
level was meant by Obama and interpreted by all the sane people to say
that he would not increase income or wage taxes on people with income
under $250k. He has yet to do so.

http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704107204574471292249934348.html

The tax on health care policies is not part of the House Bill and if it
is in the final legislation it will probably be vetoed. It is stupid and
it was placed in the bill by Max Baucus who is working to defeat health
care reform and to defeat Barak Obama and the Democratic party. He and
LIEberman are real pals.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/will-health-care-bill-raise-
taxes-finance-committee-debates.html

A fine is a tax only to a lying pig Republican Jerry. Next time you get
a speeding ticked why don't you attempt to write it off as a "state tax"
on your itemized deductions.

Do you want me to continue....there were a whole lot more sites I could
have posted on the subject matter.


No need for you to continue, lying pig. This nice sample is quite
sufficient to illustrate your commitment to the Republican pledge of

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:25:35 -0800, Bill Bowden wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:53 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
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.

Actually, the VA system is very good except for isolated cases. But I
doubt I will be able to buy insurance at the same rate as a healthy 25
year old.

How do you figure the rates will be structured? Will a healthy 25 year
old pay the same rate as a 60 year old cancer patient for the same 80%
coverage?

That would raise the tax on the younger people quite a bit wouldn't you
say?

It is a health care premium and not a tax.  The taxes being raised are on
individuals booking in excess of half a million a year, and couples in
excess of a million.

The rate on the 60 year old will be twice the rate on the 25 year old
according to HR 3962 (the revised HR 3200) the current House bill
available for viewing which will be voted on in the House within weeks.
But still the rate on the 25 year old healthy people MAY BE higher in
this system than in the current system. This "MAY BE" really depends on
how health care would be provided to the 60 year old cancer person in the
current system and how health care is being provided to the indigent of
all ages in the current system. If the care is provided free of charge
because these people cannot pay then the providers will pass the cost of
that care to all others and insurance premiums will reflect the cost
shifting. Therefore, the 25 year old person and all other insured persons
already pay the cost of that care in the current system.

But the FACT is that the vast majority of 25 year old healthy people will
actually live to be 60 and longer. Age discrimination in insurance
premiums is actually pretty lame if it is the government regulating or
running the system. You can't really lose by virtue of some company like
GM going tits up. So when you are 60 you will be getting a full refund
of the excess you paid when young.

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

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

So what NIT do you think you've found this time?

Don't know. What is a NIT?

A fine is a tax only to a lying pig Republican Jerry. Next time you get
a speeding ticked why don't you attempt to write it off as a "state tax"
on your itemized deductions.

Not to the person who is paying the fine. To that person, whether you call
if a fine or a tax, the bottom line is the government took their money away
from them.

smor... at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message

news:cmgne59cm9n988aer9ee25k55f1525q3ml at (no spam) 4ax.com...

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:00:19 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlrj... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

He's taxing EVERYBODY for health care. If your employer pays all or part
of
your health care, Obama is gonna tax it as income

Sounds like TownHall propaganda, JeffyLoon

Sounds like it until you read the bill.

There's no way in Hell that Obama can provide health care without raising
taxes. No f---ing way.

And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.

Commerce Clause under Raich.  Namely, Congress has a rational basis for
the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall regulatory
scheme on health care (which obviously involves interstate commerce) would
be undercut.

Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

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

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hchrqu$h0m$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...





Jeff Strickland wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hchof4$ig3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...

Jeff Strickland wrote:

And there's absolutely no Constitutional justification to mandate
participation in health care. None. Not any.

Commerce Clause under Raich.  Namely, Congress has a rational basis for
the claim that without mandatory health insurance, the overall regulatory
scheme on health care (which obviously involves interstate commerce)
would be undercut.

Theymight claim that, but 60 some odd years proves them wrong.

60 some years of what?

There is no justification for the government to become a health 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 care provider.

???

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 government will operate health the way it operates the mail. It has no
competitors, and does not have to make money to survive. Private health care
for the masses will go away. The rich will afford private care, but the rich
can afford a tandem-axle diesel pusher to take them to the marina where they
park the yacht.

I'm not dissing the rich for having stuff. Please don't construe my comments
like that.

I'm dissiing you for buying the bullshit story that Pelesoi is pedalling.
You can be sure that if everybody is forced to buy health care, your costs
will be high to cover the overhead. Public health care is not free, or even
cheap. And in many instances it's not even effective.

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hciep5$no3$1 at (no spam) josh.motzarella.org...





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 a health
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 care provider.

???

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-provided health care.

Same thing.

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

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

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

So what.

So, you can now stop making false claims about government provided health
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 for health care, there will be. That makes it public health
care for no other reason than it's compulsory. There is no
Constitutioinal authority for compulsory health 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.

So, you can call the fire department before calling the insurtance company
for fire insurance? That's absurd.

You're gonna wait to have coronary herart disease, then set about to buy
health insurance, and expect the insurance company to cover the coronary
heart disease? That's absurd.

Now, if you HAVE coverage, discover you have coronary heart disease and then
get fired, it's reasonable that the next insurance company give you the
coverage you had under the prior job. If THAT'S the pre-existing coverage
you think should be covered, then I agree.

But you have no underlying RIGHT to be healthy, and that means the
government has no underlying right to IMPOSE health insurance upon you.

Josh Rosenbluth

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