jazzjumper 0 #1 September 10, 2004 Hmm, I guess the NCPA doesn't agree with him. Over 10 years, they estimate Kerry's health plan alone will cost more than 1 Trillion more (yes, a T). I wonder what programs he'll cut and how he'll raise taxes to fix the deficit it will obviously create. If that is $100 Billion a year for you math novices added without new taxes. Clicky But, I'm sure it's just a right wing think tank trying to influence the election. Of course, the left would never do that. Hey, anyone else here the rumor that it was the Kerry campaign that turned over the forged documents to Dan Rather that started all this fun mess? Wow, what if that were actually true? That low rumbling you hear? It's the Kerry campaign imploding. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 September 10, 2004 Anybody hear that rumor about a UFO crashing in Roswell?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #3 September 10, 2004 >Hey, anyone else here the rumor that it was the Kerry campaign that > turned over the forged documents to Dan Rather that started all this fun > mess? Wow, what if that were actually true? So I've heard lots about the forged document issues. What is the basis of that? Why are there claims of forgery? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #4 September 10, 2004 QuoteAnybody hear that rumor about a UFO crashing in Roswell? Sure, I predict two differences. 1. This one will have a shorter media life (54 days). 2. This one will be proven true within the week. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #5 September 10, 2004 Quote If that is $100 Billion a year for you math novices added without new taxes. That's less than 5% of the entire budget. Worth it to insure the 45 million people who don't have insurance now. And he can get more than half of that by not initiating Bush's $800Billion mars trip. Overall, yes. Kerry would handle economic issues better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #6 September 10, 2004 QuoteOverall, yes. Kerry would handle economic issues better. I would be a great NBA player if I were taller, dribbled better, had a wicked crossover, could hit 3s with 80% accuracy, make no-look passes and dunk the ball from the free throw line. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #7 September 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteOverall, yes. Kerry would handle economic issues better. I would be a great NBA player if I were taller, dribbled better, had a wicked crossover, could hit 3s with 80% accuracy, make no-look passes and dunk the ball from the free throw line. True. But given that you're not, if I had to choose between you or a paraplegic, you've got my vote. Both candidates are not my first choice for fiscal conservation, but Kerry is way ahead of Bush in that regard. Spend less money and spend it on health care and social services instead of trips to mars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #8 September 10, 2004 QuoteSo I've heard lots about the forged document issues. What is the basis of that? Why are there claims of forgery? Wow, I feel honored. Quade and Billvon replied quickly! Okay, even tho this might be a troll (and I can be a sucker for them), here goes. Dan Rather goes on to 60 Minutes with documents given to him, purportedly by the Kerry Campaign. Now, experts and others are saying it's almost certain they are forged. Clicky. Of course, I heard Dan deny that they were today and said he is 100% certain they are authentic, and has the proof to back that up (but won't.) The documents are simply too accurate to have been produced with anything other than a modern word processing program and a laser printer, not to mention the almost perfect alignment and strike of each letter. Since that wasn't possible back in the early 70s, then they must be... The idea that they came from the Kerry campaign emerged this afternoon on Rush Limbaugh show (flaming can now commence.) I'll find the details of that for future flaming fuel. Okay, for those who doubt Bush's service. Clicky. And if you still doubt after this, say so and I'll provide 5 other well documented and well cooraborated links. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #9 September 10, 2004 QuoteQuote If that is $100 Billion a year for you math novices added without new taxes. That's less than 5% of the entire budget. Worth it to insure the 45 million people who don't have insurance now.Quote So, you think it's worth more than $2,200 per person per year for insurance...only to nationalize it and make it something like Canada's? Long waiting for routine procedures. It's a crock. It's not only the money that bothers me, but it's the idea of ruining the best medical delivery system in the world. Not worth it to me. I don't agree with 800 Billion for a Mars trip either...but then again I never heard that either. Bottom line is how do you pay for it? What do you cut? Overall, Kerry is more liberal (look at voting records) that Carter ever was. Look what he did for our economy. No, Bush will do better. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #10 September 10, 2004 Check out what the Heritage Foundation thinks of the two candidates overall, not just on one issue that makes up less of the budget than interest on the national debt. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1239593#1239593 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jazzjumper 0 #11 September 10, 2004 QuoteBoth candidates are not my first choice for fiscal conservation... Okay, totally agree with this part. Quote..., but Kerry is way ahead of Bush in that regard. The facts in Mass don't support this. Just look at Kerry's voting record. We can dispense with the campaigning for this part of the discussion. QuoteSpend less money and spend it on health care and social services instead of trips to mars. Okay, this is where the crux of the philosophical differences come to a head. I think we spend too much on health care right now. It's not the money, it's the way it's being spent. Fix the insurance and delivery docuemntation system and there will be more to go around for the people who need it. How about this: 1. No free or subsidized health care (rather than true emergency services) extended to non-citizens (other than legal resident aliens.) 2. Individual medical accounts that people are responsible for, so they choose what they spend their health care dollars on. If they see the money going down, there is a chance they might be a little more choosy about their visits. 3. Tort reform. We must cap both lawsuits and the amount a law firm can make from a lawsuit to discourage junk law. Oh, by the way, isn't Kerry's running mate an ambulance chaser who made his millions by convincing groups of people, too stupid to get out of jury duty that gynocologists were responsible for their children's birth defects? Now there is a problem that should be fixed! Kerry sure knows how to pick a running mate...guy isn't even qualified to get reelected in his own state. Yeah, Kerry is certainly my choice for the Democratic nominee! No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jazzjumper 0 #12 September 10, 2004 QuoteCheck out what the Heritage Foundation thinks of the two candidates overall, not just on one issue that makes up less of the budget than interest on the national debt. [crosspost removed] Yeah, you quoting yourself is really convincing. Why not post the like to the Heritage Foundation info. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #13 September 10, 2004 1. No free or subsidized health care (rather than true emergency services) extended to non-citizens (other than legal resident aliens.) Sounds good to me. Bush is extending rights to illegal mexicans. 2. Individual medical accounts that people are responsible for, so they choose what they spend their health care dollars on. If they see the money going down, there is a chance they might be a little more choosy about their visits. Not sure how this would work. Sounds like benefit limitations to me. 3. Tort reform. We must cap both lawsuits and the amount a law firm can make from a lawsuit to discourage junk law. Sounds good to me. QuoteOh, by the way, isn't Kerry's running mate an ambulance chaser who made his millions by convincing groups of people, too stupid to get out of jury duty that gynocologists were responsible for their children's birth defects? Now there is a problem that should be fixed! True...easy fix. Vote him into office so he can't practice law anymore QuoteKerry sure knows how to pick a running mate...guy isn't even qualified to get reelected in his own state. Yeah, Kerry is certainly my choice for the Democratic nominee! Wasn't my first choice. But Bush wasn't my choice for Republican nominee either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #14 September 10, 2004 QuoteWhy not post the like to the Heritage Foundation info. I referenced the Wall Street Journal to which I have a paid subscription so I can't link to it. Feel free to do your own research, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jazzjumper 0 #15 September 10, 2004 Quote1. No free or subsidized health care (rather than true emergency services) extended to non-citizens (other than legal resident aliens.) Sounds good to me. Bush is extending rights to illegal mexicans. Right, I think it's an election year vote grabber....won't happen and I hate the idea of it. QuoteIf they see the money going down, there is a chance they might be a little more choosy about their visits. Not sure how this would work. Sounds like benefit limitations to me. Benefit limitations....said like a true liberal. They are getting something for nothing. I prefer to think of it as putting them in charge of managing the limited government resources to handle their own healthcare. Are we to pay everything for everyone at will? QuoteQuotesnip... ambulance chaser ...snip True...easy fix. Vote him into office so he can't practice law anymore Yeah, right....that is why the people of Arkansas voted for Clinton...to get him out of state government. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jazzjumper 0 #16 September 10, 2004 QuoteI referenced the Wall Street Journal to which I have a paid subscription so I can't link to it. Feel free to do your own research, though. Thanks for offering...I almost always do. My point was you could do a little and post a workable link so others could confirm it easier. It also allows you do to some fact checking of your own (at the Heritage Foundation.) What a minute...what am I saying. Never mind. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #17 September 11, 2004 QuoteNot sure how this would work. Sounds like benefit limitations to me. Every medical insurance coverage I've had outside of the military has had a limit on benefits. I'd be in favor of limiting to emergency services (TRUE emergency services, not going to ER for a splinter) and medically necessary procedures only. I'll be DAMNED if my tax money should be paying for someone's boob job or viagra...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #18 September 11, 2004 QuoteI'll be DAMNED if my tax money should be paying for someone's boob job or viagra... I don't know of any health plans, gov't or private that pay for those things, except in the case of a mastectomy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #19 September 11, 2004 QuoteBenefit limitations....said like a true liberal. They are getting something for nothing. I prefer to think of it as putting them in charge of managing the limited government resources to handle their own healthcare. Are we to pay everything for everyone at will? I think you're misunderstanding. I believe there should be limits. People shouldn't be able to go to a podiatrist to get their toe nails trimmed or other needless routine wastes. But if someone gets cancer, I don't think they should get treatment for a couple years and then we say, "Ooopss, you used up your alotment, time to die." There's a big difference between giving someone something for nothing and society doing everything it can to protect the lives of its citizens. I have a problem understanding why people would support spending billions of dollars to fight wars to save a few thousand people while they balk at spending the same amount of money for health care that could save tens of thousands a year. By that logic, using the military to protect people that aren't in the military is giving them something for nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,110 #20 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuote Now, experts and others are saying it's almost certain they are forged. Well, the primary "expert" apparently forgot to include the IBM Selectric in his analysis. He has now changed his mind.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #21 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'll be DAMNED if my tax money should be paying for someone's boob job or viagra... I don't know of any health plans, gov't or private that pay for those things, except in the case of a mastectomy. Surely you don't mean that? After all the news stories about military coverage for boob jobs?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,110 #22 September 11, 2004 It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #23 September 11, 2004 Quote It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has. Actually, what would be worse is to start long term programs requiring constant maintenance forever. I know that Bush has done some of that, but in terms of total impact over my lifetime, I'm more worried about expansions of social programs (that are incredibly difficult to roll back) than the initiation of wars (which eventually end). There is, of course, a certain additional expense in waging a relatively selective war. If you really want to see a cheap war, you could always go for the glass parking lot approach.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,110 #24 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuote It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has. Actually, what would be worse is to start long term programs requiring constant maintenance forever. I know that Bush has done some of that, but in terms of total impact over my lifetime, I'm more worried about expansions of social programs (that are incredibly difficult to roll back) than the initiation of wars (which eventually end). There is, of course, a certain additional expense in waging a relatively selective war. If you really want to see a cheap war, you could always go for the glass parking lot approach. 1.1 million more on government payroll since 1999. Tha's a long-term problem, since getting rid of them is almost impossible.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #25 September 11, 2004 Plastic surgery was an option for full time military personal that could convince their commanding officers to allow them to have the procedure and to take time off for it. This benifit does not extend for example to BLM, NPS, DOT, or treasury employes. Its selective benifits. Offer it to one type of employee but not others Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
PhillyKev 0 #10 September 10, 2004 Check out what the Heritage Foundation thinks of the two candidates overall, not just on one issue that makes up less of the budget than interest on the national debt. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1239593#1239593 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #11 September 10, 2004 QuoteBoth candidates are not my first choice for fiscal conservation... Okay, totally agree with this part. Quote..., but Kerry is way ahead of Bush in that regard. The facts in Mass don't support this. Just look at Kerry's voting record. We can dispense with the campaigning for this part of the discussion. QuoteSpend less money and spend it on health care and social services instead of trips to mars. Okay, this is where the crux of the philosophical differences come to a head. I think we spend too much on health care right now. It's not the money, it's the way it's being spent. Fix the insurance and delivery docuemntation system and there will be more to go around for the people who need it. How about this: 1. No free or subsidized health care (rather than true emergency services) extended to non-citizens (other than legal resident aliens.) 2. Individual medical accounts that people are responsible for, so they choose what they spend their health care dollars on. If they see the money going down, there is a chance they might be a little more choosy about their visits. 3. Tort reform. We must cap both lawsuits and the amount a law firm can make from a lawsuit to discourage junk law. Oh, by the way, isn't Kerry's running mate an ambulance chaser who made his millions by convincing groups of people, too stupid to get out of jury duty that gynocologists were responsible for their children's birth defects? Now there is a problem that should be fixed! Kerry sure knows how to pick a running mate...guy isn't even qualified to get reelected in his own state. Yeah, Kerry is certainly my choice for the Democratic nominee! No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #12 September 10, 2004 QuoteCheck out what the Heritage Foundation thinks of the two candidates overall, not just on one issue that makes up less of the budget than interest on the national debt. [crosspost removed] Yeah, you quoting yourself is really convincing. Why not post the like to the Heritage Foundation info. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #13 September 10, 2004 1. No free or subsidized health care (rather than true emergency services) extended to non-citizens (other than legal resident aliens.) Sounds good to me. Bush is extending rights to illegal mexicans. 2. Individual medical accounts that people are responsible for, so they choose what they spend their health care dollars on. If they see the money going down, there is a chance they might be a little more choosy about their visits. Not sure how this would work. Sounds like benefit limitations to me. 3. Tort reform. We must cap both lawsuits and the amount a law firm can make from a lawsuit to discourage junk law. Sounds good to me. QuoteOh, by the way, isn't Kerry's running mate an ambulance chaser who made his millions by convincing groups of people, too stupid to get out of jury duty that gynocologists were responsible for their children's birth defects? Now there is a problem that should be fixed! True...easy fix. Vote him into office so he can't practice law anymore QuoteKerry sure knows how to pick a running mate...guy isn't even qualified to get reelected in his own state. Yeah, Kerry is certainly my choice for the Democratic nominee! Wasn't my first choice. But Bush wasn't my choice for Republican nominee either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #14 September 10, 2004 QuoteWhy not post the like to the Heritage Foundation info. I referenced the Wall Street Journal to which I have a paid subscription so I can't link to it. Feel free to do your own research, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jazzjumper 0 #15 September 10, 2004 Quote1. No free or subsidized health care (rather than true emergency services) extended to non-citizens (other than legal resident aliens.) Sounds good to me. Bush is extending rights to illegal mexicans. Right, I think it's an election year vote grabber....won't happen and I hate the idea of it. QuoteIf they see the money going down, there is a chance they might be a little more choosy about their visits. Not sure how this would work. Sounds like benefit limitations to me. Benefit limitations....said like a true liberal. They are getting something for nothing. I prefer to think of it as putting them in charge of managing the limited government resources to handle their own healthcare. Are we to pay everything for everyone at will? QuoteQuotesnip... ambulance chaser ...snip True...easy fix. Vote him into office so he can't practice law anymore Yeah, right....that is why the people of Arkansas voted for Clinton...to get him out of state government. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jazzjumper 0 #16 September 10, 2004 QuoteI referenced the Wall Street Journal to which I have a paid subscription so I can't link to it. Feel free to do your own research, though. Thanks for offering...I almost always do. My point was you could do a little and post a workable link so others could confirm it easier. It also allows you do to some fact checking of your own (at the Heritage Foundation.) What a minute...what am I saying. Never mind. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #17 September 11, 2004 QuoteNot sure how this would work. Sounds like benefit limitations to me. Every medical insurance coverage I've had outside of the military has had a limit on benefits. I'd be in favor of limiting to emergency services (TRUE emergency services, not going to ER for a splinter) and medically necessary procedures only. I'll be DAMNED if my tax money should be paying for someone's boob job or viagra...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #18 September 11, 2004 QuoteI'll be DAMNED if my tax money should be paying for someone's boob job or viagra... I don't know of any health plans, gov't or private that pay for those things, except in the case of a mastectomy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #19 September 11, 2004 QuoteBenefit limitations....said like a true liberal. They are getting something for nothing. I prefer to think of it as putting them in charge of managing the limited government resources to handle their own healthcare. Are we to pay everything for everyone at will? I think you're misunderstanding. I believe there should be limits. People shouldn't be able to go to a podiatrist to get their toe nails trimmed or other needless routine wastes. But if someone gets cancer, I don't think they should get treatment for a couple years and then we say, "Ooopss, you used up your alotment, time to die." There's a big difference between giving someone something for nothing and society doing everything it can to protect the lives of its citizens. I have a problem understanding why people would support spending billions of dollars to fight wars to save a few thousand people while they balk at spending the same amount of money for health care that could save tens of thousands a year. By that logic, using the military to protect people that aren't in the military is giving them something for nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,110 #20 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuote Now, experts and others are saying it's almost certain they are forged. Well, the primary "expert" apparently forgot to include the IBM Selectric in his analysis. He has now changed his mind.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #21 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'll be DAMNED if my tax money should be paying for someone's boob job or viagra... I don't know of any health plans, gov't or private that pay for those things, except in the case of a mastectomy. Surely you don't mean that? After all the news stories about military coverage for boob jobs?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,110 #22 September 11, 2004 It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #23 September 11, 2004 Quote It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has. Actually, what would be worse is to start long term programs requiring constant maintenance forever. I know that Bush has done some of that, but in terms of total impact over my lifetime, I'm more worried about expansions of social programs (that are incredibly difficult to roll back) than the initiation of wars (which eventually end). There is, of course, a certain additional expense in waging a relatively selective war. If you really want to see a cheap war, you could always go for the glass parking lot approach.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,110 #24 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuote It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has. Actually, what would be worse is to start long term programs requiring constant maintenance forever. I know that Bush has done some of that, but in terms of total impact over my lifetime, I'm more worried about expansions of social programs (that are incredibly difficult to roll back) than the initiation of wars (which eventually end). There is, of course, a certain additional expense in waging a relatively selective war. If you really want to see a cheap war, you could always go for the glass parking lot approach. 1.1 million more on government payroll since 1999. Tha's a long-term problem, since getting rid of them is almost impossible.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #25 September 11, 2004 Plastic surgery was an option for full time military personal that could convince their commanding officers to allow them to have the procedure and to take time off for it. This benifit does not extend for example to BLM, NPS, DOT, or treasury employes. Its selective benifits. Offer it to one type of employee but not others Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
PhillyKev 0 #13 September 10, 2004 1. No free or subsidized health care (rather than true emergency services) extended to non-citizens (other than legal resident aliens.) Sounds good to me. Bush is extending rights to illegal mexicans. 2. Individual medical accounts that people are responsible for, so they choose what they spend their health care dollars on. If they see the money going down, there is a chance they might be a little more choosy about their visits. Not sure how this would work. Sounds like benefit limitations to me. 3. Tort reform. We must cap both lawsuits and the amount a law firm can make from a lawsuit to discourage junk law. Sounds good to me. QuoteOh, by the way, isn't Kerry's running mate an ambulance chaser who made his millions by convincing groups of people, too stupid to get out of jury duty that gynocologists were responsible for their children's birth defects? Now there is a problem that should be fixed! True...easy fix. Vote him into office so he can't practice law anymore QuoteKerry sure knows how to pick a running mate...guy isn't even qualified to get reelected in his own state. Yeah, Kerry is certainly my choice for the Democratic nominee! Wasn't my first choice. But Bush wasn't my choice for Republican nominee either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 September 10, 2004 QuoteWhy not post the like to the Heritage Foundation info. I referenced the Wall Street Journal to which I have a paid subscription so I can't link to it. Feel free to do your own research, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #15 September 10, 2004 Quote1. No free or subsidized health care (rather than true emergency services) extended to non-citizens (other than legal resident aliens.) Sounds good to me. Bush is extending rights to illegal mexicans. Right, I think it's an election year vote grabber....won't happen and I hate the idea of it. QuoteIf they see the money going down, there is a chance they might be a little more choosy about their visits. Not sure how this would work. Sounds like benefit limitations to me. Benefit limitations....said like a true liberal. They are getting something for nothing. I prefer to think of it as putting them in charge of managing the limited government resources to handle their own healthcare. Are we to pay everything for everyone at will? QuoteQuotesnip... ambulance chaser ...snip True...easy fix. Vote him into office so he can't practice law anymore Yeah, right....that is why the people of Arkansas voted for Clinton...to get him out of state government. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #16 September 10, 2004 QuoteI referenced the Wall Street Journal to which I have a paid subscription so I can't link to it. Feel free to do your own research, though. Thanks for offering...I almost always do. My point was you could do a little and post a workable link so others could confirm it easier. It also allows you do to some fact checking of your own (at the Heritage Foundation.) What a minute...what am I saying. Never mind. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 September 11, 2004 QuoteNot sure how this would work. Sounds like benefit limitations to me. Every medical insurance coverage I've had outside of the military has had a limit on benefits. I'd be in favor of limiting to emergency services (TRUE emergency services, not going to ER for a splinter) and medically necessary procedures only. I'll be DAMNED if my tax money should be paying for someone's boob job or viagra...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #18 September 11, 2004 QuoteI'll be DAMNED if my tax money should be paying for someone's boob job or viagra... I don't know of any health plans, gov't or private that pay for those things, except in the case of a mastectomy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #19 September 11, 2004 QuoteBenefit limitations....said like a true liberal. They are getting something for nothing. I prefer to think of it as putting them in charge of managing the limited government resources to handle their own healthcare. Are we to pay everything for everyone at will? I think you're misunderstanding. I believe there should be limits. People shouldn't be able to go to a podiatrist to get their toe nails trimmed or other needless routine wastes. But if someone gets cancer, I don't think they should get treatment for a couple years and then we say, "Ooopss, you used up your alotment, time to die." There's a big difference between giving someone something for nothing and society doing everything it can to protect the lives of its citizens. I have a problem understanding why people would support spending billions of dollars to fight wars to save a few thousand people while they balk at spending the same amount of money for health care that could save tens of thousands a year. By that logic, using the military to protect people that aren't in the military is giving them something for nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,110 #20 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuote Now, experts and others are saying it's almost certain they are forged. Well, the primary "expert" apparently forgot to include the IBM Selectric in his analysis. He has now changed his mind.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #21 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'll be DAMNED if my tax money should be paying for someone's boob job or viagra... I don't know of any health plans, gov't or private that pay for those things, except in the case of a mastectomy. Surely you don't mean that? After all the news stories about military coverage for boob jobs?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,110 #22 September 11, 2004 It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #23 September 11, 2004 Quote It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has. Actually, what would be worse is to start long term programs requiring constant maintenance forever. I know that Bush has done some of that, but in terms of total impact over my lifetime, I'm more worried about expansions of social programs (that are incredibly difficult to roll back) than the initiation of wars (which eventually end). There is, of course, a certain additional expense in waging a relatively selective war. If you really want to see a cheap war, you could always go for the glass parking lot approach.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,110 #24 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuote It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has. Actually, what would be worse is to start long term programs requiring constant maintenance forever. I know that Bush has done some of that, but in terms of total impact over my lifetime, I'm more worried about expansions of social programs (that are incredibly difficult to roll back) than the initiation of wars (which eventually end). There is, of course, a certain additional expense in waging a relatively selective war. If you really want to see a cheap war, you could always go for the glass parking lot approach. 1.1 million more on government payroll since 1999. Tha's a long-term problem, since getting rid of them is almost impossible.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #25 September 11, 2004 Plastic surgery was an option for full time military personal that could convince their commanding officers to allow them to have the procedure and to take time off for it. This benifit does not extend for example to BLM, NPS, DOT, or treasury employes. Its selective benifits. Offer it to one type of employee but not others Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
TomAiello 26 #21 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'll be DAMNED if my tax money should be paying for someone's boob job or viagra... I don't know of any health plans, gov't or private that pay for those things, except in the case of a mastectomy. Surely you don't mean that? After all the news stories about military coverage for boob jobs?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,110 #22 September 11, 2004 It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #23 September 11, 2004 Quote It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has. Actually, what would be worse is to start long term programs requiring constant maintenance forever. I know that Bush has done some of that, but in terms of total impact over my lifetime, I'm more worried about expansions of social programs (that are incredibly difficult to roll back) than the initiation of wars (which eventually end). There is, of course, a certain additional expense in waging a relatively selective war. If you really want to see a cheap war, you could always go for the glass parking lot approach.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,110 #24 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuote It would be very hard to have a worse economic record than: Poverty levels UP Unemployment UP Health care costs UP Number of ininsured Americans UP Energy costs UP Record surplus turned into record deficit contrary to President's assertions ("..deficit will be small and short term", GWB, January 2002) $200+ Billion spent on a war based on lies. A chimpanzee could do better than Bush has. Actually, what would be worse is to start long term programs requiring constant maintenance forever. I know that Bush has done some of that, but in terms of total impact over my lifetime, I'm more worried about expansions of social programs (that are incredibly difficult to roll back) than the initiation of wars (which eventually end). There is, of course, a certain additional expense in waging a relatively selective war. If you really want to see a cheap war, you could always go for the glass parking lot approach. 1.1 million more on government payroll since 1999. Tha's a long-term problem, since getting rid of them is almost impossible.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #25 September 11, 2004 Plastic surgery was an option for full time military personal that could convince their commanding officers to allow them to have the procedure and to take time off for it. This benifit does not extend for example to BLM, NPS, DOT, or treasury employes. Its selective benifits. Offer it to one type of employee but not others Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
