..
"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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

"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.

In article
,
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.

I got a better idea. You explain to me why I'm responsible for someone
else's health care. I looked in the constitution and I could not find an
answer there. Maybe you could point it out to me.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:


I got a better idea. You explain to me why I'm responsible for someone
else's health care. I looked in the constitution and I could not find an
answer there. Maybe you could point it out to me.


Why am I responsible for your roads? Why should I have to pay for your
military?

"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

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.