Thank you, Mr. O.

On 2010-01-20 12:31:54 -0500, DaveS said:

On Jan 20, 5:34*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-01-20 01:58:17 -0500, riverman said:





On Jan 20, 10:30*am, David LaCourse wrote:
A Republican Senator from Massachusetts? *Who'da thunk it? *The bl
ues
t
of the blue states, a state where few Republicans hold an elected
office, has just elected a Republican. *I am not the only one sick a
nd
tired of Democrat arrogance. Nancy and Harry, and Mr. O., take notice.
*
The country does not want the health care bill or cap and trade.

Way to go Scott Brown. *And as he said, it is the PEOPLES seat, not
Ted
dy's.

Dave

Aren't you (and the press) extrapolating this rather widely?

--riverman

No, I don't. *It is Massachusetts, Myron. *Republicans are only about
12% of the electorate. *Marcia sic (a typical Kennedy gaff) aka
Martha Coakley was a shoo-in. *I believe that this election is finally
telling the Dems in DC that they had better get their act in order or
else many of them will be looking for jobs come next January.

It will be interesting to see what Sec. of State Galvin does with the
results. *Niki Znongas was seated in the House three days after she won
her election. *Galvin had better do the same with Brown. *There is ta
lk
that he will delay Brown's overwhelming win by as much as a month or
two, leaving the Senate with super majority. *The people of
Massachusetts are tired of the shenanigans of the Dems. *I predict he
will be quickly seated.

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Democrats still have a majority in both houses. Repeat after
me . . . nuclear option. . . . And I don't remember you ever raising
an eyebrow when the Rs were in control, in fact as i recall you
indicated it was just peachy fine and Mr De Lay and company were just
exercising their majorities etc.. It would be a fine touch if the
Repubs were locked out of the hearing rooms like the Dems were don't
you think?

Other than that . . . enjoy that sweet taste of victory for a bit.
That fleeting taste of victory, while us Dems make history reforming a
broken health care system in a campaign in which Republicans refused
to participate, or even offer any coherent alternatives. Big Pharma,
Senator Frisk's family companies, and the managers of many offshore
bank accounts thank you for your service on their behalf.
Dave

Uh huh. Whistling past the grave yard are we, David.

Dave
Ideology Sucks

"george9219" wrote in message
...

this election was the clear result of the Progressive wing of the Dems
sitting on their hands and letting the 41st vote in.
Anyone who participates in Progressive forums, out in the real world, has
been getting an earful about the watered down mess out of Congress.
Yes, as someone wrote, there is a wholesale wish for change in the political
status quo. In a very real sense, Obama got elected because of that
sentiment. Now, he has to deliver, and realize that HE got elected, not the
Congressional leadership.
Polls clearly indicate, that if political buzzwords get stripped away, the
public wishes to have single-payer public health insurance. And, they prefer
it by as much as 3-1 over the current system. Thus, instead of the 'death of
health reform', in the long run, what you saw yesterday, could well prove to
be the birth of a national push for single payer Universal coverage. It's
worth noting that even Brown made the case that the current proposal would
mess up MA's universal coverage law, so it wasn't the concept of healthcare
reform, but the details of what has made it onto the table.
Oh, and any nitwit that calls Curt Schilling "another Yankee's fan" deserves
to lose. If that shows her level of awareness of reality, the Senate is
better off without her.

Tom

On Jan 20, 5:50*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"george9219" wrote in message

...

this election was the clear result of the Progressive wing of the Dems
sitting on their hands and letting the 41st vote in.
Anyone who participates in Progressive forums, out in the real world, has
been getting an earful about the watered down mess out of Congress.
Yes, as someone wrote, there is a wholesale wish for change in the political
status quo. In a very real sense, Obama got elected because of that
sentiment. Now, he has to deliver, and realize that HE got elected, not the
Congressional leadership.
Polls clearly indicate, that if political buzzwords get stripped away, the
public wishes to have single-payer public health insurance. And, they prefer
it by as much as 3-1 over the current system. Thus, instead of the 'death of
health reform', in the long run, what you saw yesterday, could well prove to
be the birth of a national push for single payer Universal coverage. It's
worth noting that even Brown made the case that the current proposal would
mess up MA's universal coverage law, so it wasn't the concept of healthcare
reform, but the details of what has made it onto the table.
Oh, and any nitwit that calls Curt Schilling "another Yankee's fan" deserves
to lose. If that shows her level of awareness of reality, the Senate is
better off without her.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

Tom, if you really want to see how bad a candidate Coakely was, do
some net surfing. You might want to start with Gerald Amirault.
One of the things that really ****ed us off in MA was the arrogance of
the Democrats. They thought they could actually run a hack like
Coakely
and she would be elected. She actually took a vacation after winning
the primary.

You are correct about Brown and healthcare. He is not against
healthcare reform, only the convoluted mess that is on the table now.
If the Democrats
attempt to jam something through before Brown is seated, it will be at
their peril. They might even wind up losing the senate majority. There
are a lot
of ****ed off people out there.

On 2010-01-20 23:36:22 -0500, george9219 said:
There
are a lot
of ****ed off people out there.

And many of them supported/voted for Obama. If he doesn't square away
and listen to the people, he will be heading toward Jimmy Carterville.

Dave

o'bummer is a freakin' loone....what's he hiding & why? where are
his papers? is his illegal aunt still sucking up my tax $$? WTF ?






On Jan 21, 5:03*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-01-20 23:36:22 -0500, george9219 said:

*There
are a lot
of ****ed off people out there.

And many of them supported/voted for Obama. *If he doesn't square away
and listen to the people, he will be heading toward Jimmy Carterville.

Dave

On Jan 20, 3:50*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
Polls clearly indicate, that if political buzzwords get stripped away, the
public wishes to have single-payer public health insurance.

what polls? single payer system? I don't think so. The base system
we have is fine - the problem is that the costs are too high- be it
litigation, or overly expensive development costs, or what have you.
The US gvmt is about the worst run corp. in the country - why would
anyone in their right minds want them in the insurance business?

I don't think the medical system we have needs fixed as much as the
insurance industry needs fixed.

I think that what is really needed is a move to major medical expense
insurance- (catastrophic coverage) and let the individual pay 100%
for minor stuff. If the policy costs were decreased accordingly and
indiviuals were allowed to establish pre-tax medical savings accounts
that could accumulate, or even be swept into a 401 type plan. That
would work for most employed people. My policy costs me something like
8k a year- cut it back to 2 k a year and let me dump the 6 into a Med
savings account and I could have paid cash for my gall bladder surgery
a few years ago. That would cut out gobs and gobs of paperwork.

At issue is really those who are at or below poverty level - so we
enhancement medicare/medicade or some similar system (private,
please!) and we could have the ability to provide medical care to
those folks.

In any case, this whole health plan thing is distant secondary issue
when compared to the economy. If the US can't get a functional
sustaining economy going we have problems. The leadership of this
country needs to quit wasting its time on a health plan that is not
needed NOW, and turn its brain power onto the economy and figure out
how to get the US market going on a paying basis in the world
economy. As long as damn near everything you buy has Made in China on
it, we are screwed.

Even in the event of a us catastrophic economic meltdown though, I'd
still bet there are fish in Fawn Lake.

John

P.s. I'll save Giles the trouble

idiot

On Jan 21, 1:05*pm, jh wrote:
On Jan 20, 3:50*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

Polls clearly indicate, that if political buzzwords get stripped away, the
public wishes to have single-payer public health insurance.

what polls? *single payer system? I don't think so. *The base system
we have is fine - the problem is that the costs are too high- be it
litigation, or overly expensive development costs, or what have you.
The US gvmt is about the worst run corp. in the country - why would
anyone in their right minds want them in the insurance business?

I don't think the medical system we have needs fixed as much as the
insurance industry needs fixed.

I think that what is really needed is a move to major medical expense
insurance- (catastrophic coverage) *and let the individual pay 100%
for minor stuff. *If the policy costs were decreased accordingly and
indiviuals were allowed to establish pre-tax medical savings accounts
that could accumulate, or even be swept into a 401 type plan. *That
would work for most employed people. My policy costs me something like
8k a year- cut it back to 2 k a year and let me dump the 6 into a Med
savings account and I could have paid cash for my gall bladder surgery
a few years ago. *That would cut out gobs and gobs of paperwork.

At issue is really those who are at or below poverty level - so we
enhancement medicare/medicade or some similar system (private,
please!) and we could have the ability to provide medical care to
those folks.

In any case, this whole health plan thing is distant secondary issue
when compared to the economy. *If the US can't get a functional
sustaining economy going we have problems. *The leadership of this
country needs to quit wasting its time on a health plan that is not
needed NOW, and turn its brain power onto the economy and figure out
how to get the US market going on a paying basis in the world
economy. *As long as damn near everything you buy has Made in China on
it, we are screwed.

Even in the event of a us catastrophic economic meltdown though, I'd
still bet there are fish in Fawn Lake.

John

P.s. I'll save Giles the trouble

idiot

So, the government you want to bring its awesome collective intellect
and power to bear on the current economic woes that beset the
nation.....would that be a different United States government than the
"worst run corp. in the country," the one that no one in their right
minds would want in the insurance business?

Moron.

g.
who is happy that, at long last, we have a positive answer to the ages
old question of whether or not stupid people know they are stupid.

On Jan 21, 1:05*pm, jh wrote:


John

P.s. I'll save Giles the trouble

idiot

p.s. You shouldn't feel too badly about not having any idea at all of
what you said. I mean, it's not as if you started out with anything
resembling an idea of wanted you wanted to say.....right?

g.

On Jan 21, 1:53*pm, Giles wrote:
On Jan 21, 1:05*pm, jh wrote:





On Jan 20, 3:50*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

Polls clearly indicate, that if political buzzwords get stripped away, the
public wishes to have single-payer public health insurance.

what polls? *single payer system? I don't think so. *The base system
we have is fine - the problem is that the costs are too high- be it
litigation, or overly expensive development costs, or what have you.
The US gvmt is about the worst run corp. in the country - why would
anyone in their right minds want them in the insurance business?

I don't think the medical system we have needs fixed as much as the
insurance industry needs fixed.

I think that what is really needed is a move to major medical expense
insurance- (catastrophic coverage) *and let the individual pay 100%
for minor stuff. *If the policy costs were decreased accordingly and
indiviuals were allowed to establish pre-tax medical savings accounts
that could accumulate, or even be swept into a 401 type plan. *That
would work for most employed people. My policy costs me something like
8k a year- cut it back to 2 k a year and let me dump the 6 into a Med
savings account and I could have paid cash for my gall bladder surgery
a few years ago. *That would cut out gobs and gobs of paperwork.

At issue is really those who are at or below poverty level - so we
enhancement medicare/medicade or some similar system (private,
please!) and we could have the ability to provide medical care to
those folks.

In any case, this whole health plan thing is distant secondary issue
when compared to the economy. *If the US can't get a functional
sustaining economy going we have problems. *The leadership of this
country needs to quit wasting its time on a health plan that is not
needed NOW, and turn its brain power onto the economy and figure out
how to get the US market going on a paying basis in the world
economy. *As long as damn near everything you buy has Made in China on
it, we are screwed.

Even in the event of a us catastrophic economic meltdown though, I'd
still bet there are fish in Fawn Lake.

John

P.s. I'll save Giles the trouble

idiot

So, the government you want to bring its awesome collective intellect
and power to bear on the current economic woes that beset the
nation.....would that be a different United States government than the
"worst run corp. in the country," the one that no one in their right
minds would want in the insurance business?

Moron.

g.
who is happy that, at long last, we have a positive answer to the ages
old question of whether or not stupid people know they are stupid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually I am rather hoping that with some intelligence, along with
some advisors from the hated big business community, they can develop
and pass decent legislation that creates a business environment that
lets US business compete in the world market. I don't actually expect
them to actually run any of these businesses (please!).

I think that is their job (legislation). Maybe they should just do
it. It won't be easy or trivial- as long as China and other places
have $2/hr wages and no environmental laws to speak of, it won't be
easy for the US market to build affordable tennis shoes, electronics,
or cars, or widgets, or ---. I don't think we can wait it out for 60
or 70 years until they have their own ecology movement (and then pass
the "industrial revolution" on to the next batch of up and coming
developing nations.)

I consider myself to be something of an environmentally aware /
responsible person - but I have to say that I was somewhat dismayed
recently when it became good news that the local paper mill is
shutting down. 470 +/- layoffs from the mill directly and another
1200 jobs in related and support industry. This is good news because
something like 7% of the sub 2.5 micron pollution in the Missoula
basin is from the mills hog fuel boilers, and the air quality here may
fail new lower standard EPA regulations. Missoula made the news last
night as being one the top 15 cities in the country for job losses in
the last 16 months. But, by golly, we'll have clean air.

I shoot a lot of skeet these days - The latest panic in the skeet
world is lead shot prices are heading back up to ridiculous levels--
because China shut one of their lead mines down.

john

moron

On 2010-01-21 14:05:24 -0500, jh said:


Even in the event of a us catastrophic economic meltdown though, I'd
still bet there are fish in Fawn Lake.

I have it from a very reliable lib......progr......idi.....source that
there are NO fish in Fawn Lake. Matter of fact, Fawn Lake is not even
a lake.


John

P.s. I'll save Giles the trouble

Who's Giles?