A question for Obama supporters....
 

..
"Barack Obama unveils $2 trillion healthcare cuts
Just how does insurance companies cutting spending by 200 billion
dollars result in anything other than drastically cutting back on health
care? *What logical conclusion is there other than rationing? "Sorry,
Uncle Bob, you're just too old to keep alive. *See you in Heaven".
..
*Insurance companies seem to think that they should be guaranteed a
profit of 20% or more even though they (historically) make stupid
investment and underwriting decisions.
..
So, when healthcare is rationed, and treatment is denied, all you have
to offer is your Marxist rants?

A question for Obama supporters....
 

On May 13, 2:29*pm, bvallely wrote:
.
So, when healthcare is rationed, and treatment is denied, all you have
to offer is your Marxist rants?

More will have coverage than do now. Remember right now, the estimate
is that 40 million have no coverage at all. That's the ultimate denial
of treatment. You can still pay for extra coverage if you are afraid
of rationing. The rich won't have to worry about rationing because
they can afford to pay cash.

The rationing would only apply to people receiving experimental
surgeries and who will rely on the gov't program. It's not as if
private heath care will be abolished.

How silly.

A question for Obama supporters....
 

Mike wrote:

On May 13, 2:29 pm, bvallely wrote:
.
So, when healthcare is rationed, and treatment is denied, all you have
to offer is your Marxist rants?

More will have coverage than do now. Remember right now, the estimate
is that 40 million have no coverage at all. That's the ultimate denial
of treatment. You can still pay for extra coverage if you are afraid
of rationing. The rich won't have to worry about rationing because
they can afford to pay cash.

The rationing would only apply to people receiving experimental
surgeries and who will rely on the gov't program. It's not as if
private heath care will be abolished.

How silly.

Silly is some dumbass dufus, such as yourself, once claiming to have a PhD!

You don't know jack, boy.

A question for Obama supporters....
 

On May 13, 2:58�pm, dxAce wrote:
Mike wrote:
On May 13, 2:29 pm, bvallely wrote:
.
So, when healthcare is rationed, and treatment is denied, all you have
to offer is your Marxist rants?

More will have coverage than do now. Remember right now, the estimate
is that 40 million have no coverage at all. That's the ultimate denial
of treatment. You can still pay for extra coverage if you are afraid
of rationing. The rich won't have to worry about rationing because
they can afford to pay cash.

The rationing would only apply to people receiving experimental
surgeries and who will rely on the gov't program. It's not as if
private heath care will be abolished.

How silly.

Silly is some dumbass dufus, such as yourself, once claiming to have a PhD!

You don't know jack, boy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, Steve, show us all the "jack" you know! Explain how universal
health coverage would result in less people receiving medical care
than now.

A question for Obama supporters....
 

Mike wrote:

On May 13, 2:58�pm, dxAce wrote:
Mike wrote:
On May 13, 2:29 pm, bvallely wrote:
.
So, when healthcare is rationed, and treatment is denied, all you have
to offer is your Marxist rants?

More will have coverage than do now. Remember right now, the estimate
is that 40 million have no coverage at all. That's the ultimate denial
of treatment. You can still pay for extra coverage if you are afraid
of rationing. The rich won't have to worry about rationing because
they can afford to pay cash.

The rationing would only apply to people receiving experimental
surgeries and who will rely on the gov't program. It's not as if
private heath care will be abolished.

How silly.

Silly is some dumbass dufus, such as yourself, once claiming to have a PhD!

You don't know jack, boy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, Steve, show us all the "jack" you know! Explain how universal
health coverage would result in less people receiving medical care
than now.

Hey, dufus, explain why you lied about having a PhD!

A question for Obama supporters....
 

"Mike" wrote in message
...

More will have coverage than do now. Remember right now, the estimate
is that 40 million have no coverage at all. That's the ultimate denial
of treatment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And of these 40 million, how many do you suppose are uninsured
INTENTIONALLY?
You remove the 10 million "non-citizens" and 17 million who chose to go
without it's quite a bit smaller.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/prin...718153509.aspx

A question for Obama supporters....
 

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On May 13, 2:58?pm, dxAce wrote:
Mike wrote:
On May 13, 2:29 pm, bvallely wrote:
.
So, when healthcare is rationed, and treatment is denied, all you have
to offer is your Marxist rants?

More will have coverage than do now. Remember right now, the estimate
is that 40 million have no coverage at all. That's the ultimate denial
of treatment. You can still pay for extra coverage if you are afraid
of rationing. The rich won't have to worry about rationing because
they can afford to pay cash.

The rationing would only apply to people receiving experimental
surgeries and who will rely on the gov't program. It's not as if
private heath care will be abolished.

How silly.

Silly is some dumbass dufus, such as yourself, once claiming to have a
PhD!

You don't know jack, boy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, Steve, show us all the "jack" you know! Explain how universal
health coverage would result in less people receiving medical care
than now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The supply of Doctors is not infinite.

(OT) : Paying For A National "Universal" Health Care System -via- AUniversal Flat 15% Payroll, Earnings and Contract Tax {Everybody Pays}
 

On May 13, 1:03*pm, "MNMikeW" wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message

...

- More will have coverage than do now.
- Remember right now, the estimate is that
- 40 million have no coverage at all.
- That's the ultimate denial of treatment.

MN Mike,

No the Un-Covered go to any Hospital Emergency
Room and Get Treatment at the Taxpayers Expense.

Somebody {You and I} Else Pays For The Un-Covered
Because They Do Not Pay Their Fair Share.

One of the Key {Cost Containment} Features of
any National "Universal" Health Care System is
Prevention and Early Treatment in Public Clinics
and Doctor's Offices -versus- Costly Late Treatment
in a Hospital's Emergency Room and Hospitalization.

Health Care Costs are about 15% of the US GDP
and a Universal Flat 15% Payroll, Earnings and
Contract Tax* would be Required to Pay for a any
National "Universal" Health Care System.
THAT'S THE REALITY !

* Note - That is 15% Above and Beyond the Federal
and State Income Taxes you are already Paying.

A question for Obama supporters....
 

On May 13, 1:46*pm, wrote:
On May 13, 12:54*pm, Mike wrote:

On May 13, 2:29*pm, bvallely wrote:

.
So, when healthcare is rationed, and treatment is denied, all you have
to offer is your Marxist rants?

More will have coverage than do now. Remember right now, the estimate
is that 40 million have no coverage at all. That's the ultimate denial
of treatment. You can still pay for extra coverage if you are afraid
of rationing. The rich won't have to worry about rationing because
they can afford to pay cash.

The rationing would only apply to people receiving experimental
surgeries and who will rely on the gov't program. It's not as if
private heath care will be abolished.

Until Canada's supreme court overturned the rule, Canadians were
prohibited from seeking medical care outside the government system on
the grounds that everyone was entitled to equal treatment, and that
rich people should not be allowed to purchase superior treatment that
the poor didn't receive. *As a result, Canadians who can afford it go
the U.S. for treatment, even though they have to pay all the costs out
of their own pockets.



How silly.

OK so now can Canadians 'buy' a "Private"
USA Health Care Insurance Policy for their
Treatment in the USA ?

(OT) : Paying For A National "Universal" Health Care System -via-A Universal Flat 15% Payroll, Earnings and Contract Tax {Everybody Pays}
 

On May 13, 3:15*pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On May 13, 1:03*pm, "MNMikeW" wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message

...

- More will have coverage than do now.
- Remember right now, the estimate is that
- 40 million have no coverage at all.
- That's the ultimate denial of treatment.

MN Mike,

No the Un-Covered go to any Hospital Emergency
Room and Get Treatment at the Taxpayers Expense.

Somebody {You and I} Else Pays For The Un-Covered
Because They Do Not Pay Their Fair Share.

One of the Key {Cost Containment} Features of
any National "Universal" Health Care System is
Prevention and Early Treatment in Public Clinics
and Doctor's Offices -versus- Costly Late Treatment
in a Hospital's Emergency Room and Hospitalization.

Health Care Costs are about 15% of the US GDP
and a Universal Flat 15% Payroll, Earnings and
Contract Tax* would be Required to Pay for a any
National "Universal" Health Care System.
THAT'S THE REALITY !

* Note - That is 15% Above and Beyond the Federal
and State Income Taxes you are already Paying.
*.
Universal Health Care It's As Simple As 1-2-3http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/dde71b44cb7f7488
National 'Universal' Health Care System
{Remember It's Socialism}
*.
Getting More Doctors and Nurses for a True
"Universal" Health Care Systemhttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/956227cb65e0d445
"IF" Health Care Is A Human Right : Then
Health Care Must Be Universal For All :
Therefore Health Care Must Be Socialized
and All Health Care Workers Public Employees.
*.
universal health care it's as simple as 1-2-3 ~ RHF
*.
*.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------*----
And of these 40 million, how many do you suppose are uninsured
INTENTIONALLY?
You remove the 10 million "non-citizens" and 17 million who chose to go
without it's quite a bit smaller.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/prin...18153509.aspx- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For a large part of my life I used employer-paid health care. That
meant that our product / service was undercut by one from a nation
that had an NHS.
I was in the Navy and earner a pensin and medical care TFL.

I lived in GB for years, using their NHS.

Back in the states, I was on TFL for a couple of years before they
shifted me over to whatever SS calls their plan.

Were I running the world, we would all have something like the British
NHS or TFL. (I understand that the French NHS is even better)

NO insurance companies involved means doing away with a whole arm of
financial paperwork and being able to devote the saved cash to
medicines, instead.
The saved space from the bean=counters would mean being able to hold
more beds, too, I guess.

My late wife was a medical secretary, so she would be needed, but the
accointants - most of them - could take a hike!