In article ,
says...
That married Irish woman wayyyy over yonder across the big pond in
Bognor Regis,England, she is part Irish, part British by Ancestry.

Her dad lives in Bognor Regis too.A few years ago he went to
Limerick,Ireland to visit some relatives and friends.His doctor in
Bognor Regis had told him it was ok for him to travel.As soon as he got
to Limerick, he wound up in Dooradoyle hospital in Limerick.His prostate
gland had swollen up and was just about to bust, nearly killed him.The
surgeons at Dooradoyle hospital saved his life.They were amazed that his
doctor in Bognor Regis had told him it was ok for him to travel.
I still have the email letter she sent me, telling me all about it.

You think socialized health care is good for America? You haven't seen
anything yet!
cuhulin



Doctors miss stuff all the time, that has nothing to do with insurance
coverage.
--
BDK, leader of the non-jew, non-existant jew paid shills!

On 2010-03-24, BDK wrote:

This site should get you started:


http://www.aarphealthcare.com/

Thank you

nb

"Sid9" wrote in message
...

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...

znuybv wrote:

You're in for a big surprise. The country can't afford free health
care. Your cost of health care will go up.

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote:

And the cost of health care hasn't *already* been going out of control
for the last ten years or more?

How could you have missed that? What other planet were you visiting?

Bob wrote:

How does this plan reduce the cost of health care?

It may -- or may not-- reduce the cost of health care. But it WILL stop
or slow waaay down its upward, out of control spiral.
.
.
CBO believes is will work.

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform

By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN
Published: March 20, 2010

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the
latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost
about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some
costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words,
a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs - health
insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits - would actually
improve the nation's bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a
bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more
over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take
written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of
what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework
the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform
legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads
spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin
immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10
years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs
over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114
billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary
spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office's tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised
in the first 10 years for the legislation's new long-term health care
insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the
benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the
first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the
provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax
payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years.
But since the corporations' actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would
need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars
from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would
blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in
anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending.
Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying
for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher
wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when
they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken
for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.)
It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans - which
obviously has nothing to do with health care - is rolled into the bill
because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the
legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it
to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink,
and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to
operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue
to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and
other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the
stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance
($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not
accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562
billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two
more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from
education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise
that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget
office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least
$700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to
more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit - the amount the
government must borrow to meet its expenses - is projected to be $1.2
trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a
clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting
America's fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office
from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy
institute.

On 3/23/2010 6:18 PM, bpnjensen wrote:
On Mar 23, 3:02 pm, Geo wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:46 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty Then-Destroy-





wrote:
On 3/22/2010 9:25 PM, wy wrote:

On Mar 22, 8:54 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty Then-Destroy-
wrote:
On 3/22/2010 8:26 PM, bpnjensen wrote:

On Mar 22, 5:20 pm, Paul Briskette wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:26:42 -0600, vict0r wrote:
Posted: March 22nd, 2010 12:00 PM ET

Washington (CNN) - A majority of Americans have a dim view of the
sweeping health care bill passed by the House, saying it gives
Washington too much clout and won't do much to reduce their own health
care costs or federal deficits, according to a new poll released Monday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...mericans-dont-

like-health-care-bill/?fbid=SrzW3C7j_y

That means the bill is very good. The way politics work is that "Nobody
won".

Look it up!

This bill will help my family considerably. My %^$%#^%$ insurance
company already has been raising my rates constantly, and trying to
give us the runaround. This thing, as odd as it is, will make a
difference in several important salient health-related details, cost
not being a big deal among them.

Bruce

You can fire them, up until Obama signs it into law. Then you are
forced to have insurance or accept government health care.

Too bad, you're forced by Obama to pay someone you hate.

You make it sound like you'll never ever, ever never need health care
for as long as you live. Which is an impossibility, of course. So
just cough up the cash and stop being an idiot about it.

Never...

I will go to Obama-land Prison first.

Where you will pay for food, water, sewer, Cable, clothes and electric
and room and board....

You left off free healthcare.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ROTFLMAO! :-D


That was a given..... Lots of free health care.....

U.S.Post Office was established in 1775, 234 years to get it right.It is
BROKE!

Social Security established in 1935, 74 years to get it right.It is
BROKE!

Fannie Mae established in 1938, 71 years to get it right.It is BROKE!

War on Poverty established in 1964, 45 years to get it right.A Trillion
dollars is confiscated every year and given to the poor.And they want
MORE!

Medicare and Medicaid established in 1965, 44 years to get it right.It
is BROKE!

Freddie Mac established in 1970, 39 years to get it right.It is BROKE!

Department of Energy established in 1977 to lessen our dependence on
foreign oil, 16,000 employees, a budget of 24 billion dollars each year,
32 years to get it right, it is a MISERABLE FAILURE!.And we are
importing more oil than ever BEFORE!

fed govt wants us to believe fed govt MANDATED FORCED COMMIE FASCIST
NAZI JOO TERRORIST Health Care is right! To HELL!!! WITH THOSE
MOFOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cuhulin

On Mar 23, 9:14*pm, wrote:
U.S.Post Office was established in 1775, 234 years to get it right.It is
BROKE!

Social Security established in 1935, 74 years to get it right.It is
BROKE!

Fannie Mae established in 1938, 71 years to get it right.It is BROKE!

War on Poverty established in 1964, 45 years to get it right.A Trillion
dollars is confiscated every year and given to the poor.And they want
MORE!

Medicare and Medicaid established in 1965, 44 years to get it right.It
is BROKE!

Freddie Mac established in 1970, 39 years to get it right.It is BROKE!

Department of Energy established in 1977 to lessen our dependence on
foreign oil, 16,000 employees, a budget of 24 billion dollars each year,
32 years to get it right, it is a MISERABLE FAILURE!.And we are
importing more oil than ever BEFORE!

fed govt wants us to believe fed govt MANDATED FORCED COMMIE FASCIST
NAZI JOO TERRORIST Health Care is right! To HELL!!! WITH THOSE
MOFOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cuhulin

So, did you compile this, or find it somewhere?

On Mar 23, 5:58*pm, BDK wrote:
In article ,
says...





That married Irish woman wayyyy over yonder across the big pond in
Bognor Regis,England, she is part Irish, part British by Ancestry.

Her dad lives in Bognor Regis too.A few years ago he went to
Limerick,Ireland to visit some relatives and friends.His doctor in
Bognor Regis had told him it was ok for him to travel.As soon as he got
to Limerick, he wound up in Dooradoyle hospital in Limerick.His prostate
gland had swollen up and was just about to bust, nearly killed him.The
surgeons at Dooradoyle hospital saved his life.They were amazed that his
doctor in Bognor Regis had told him it was ok for him to travel.
I still have the email letter she sent me, telling me all about it.

You think socialized health care is good for America? You haven't seen
anything yet!
cuhulin

Doctors miss stuff all the time, that has nothing to do with insurance
coverage.
--
BDK, leader of the non-jew, non-existant jew paid shills!

Yes, but it makes good talking points to scare people.

On Mar 23, 7:11*pm, Bob Dobbs wrote:
znuybv wrote:

You're in for a big surprise. *The country can't afford free health
care. *Your cost of health care will go up.

The upper class wealthy (bourgeoisie) can most certainly afford
to pay a higher share to subsidize the greatness of this country
and who cares if their taxes go up.

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

Wow! I'm upper class bourgeoisie!

Look at me, I'm so privileged :-D

(Actually, I am well below the tax rate lower income horizon of $250k
for married).

Bruce

On Mar 23, 7:19*pm, "Bob" wrote:
"Sid9" wrote in message

...







"Joe from Kokomo" wrote in message
...

znuybv wrote:

You're in for a big surprise. *The country can't afford free health
care. *Your cost of health care will go up.

"Joe from Kokomo" wrote:

And the cost of health care hasn't *already* been going out of control
for the last ten years or more?

How could you have missed that? What other planet were you visiting?

Bob wrote:

How does this plan reduce the cost of health care?

It may -- or may not-- reduce the cost of health care. But it WILL stop
or slow waaay down its upward, out of control spiral.
.
.
CBO believes is will work.

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform

By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN
Published: March 20, 2010

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the
latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost
about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some
costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words,
a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs - health
insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits - would actually
improve the nation's bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a
bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more
over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take
written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of
what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework
the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform
legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads
spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin
immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10
years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs
over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114
billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary
spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office's tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised
in the first 10 years for the legislation's new long-term health care
insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the
benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the
first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the
provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax
payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years..
But since the corporations' actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would
need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars
from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would
blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in
anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending.
Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying
for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher
wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when
they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken
for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent..)
It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans - which
obviously has nothing to do with health care - is rolled into the bill
because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the
legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it
to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink,
and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to
operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue
to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and
other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the
stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance
($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not
accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562
billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two
more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from
education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise
that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget
office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least
$700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to
more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit - the amount the
government must borrow to meet its expenses - is projected to be $1.2
trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a
clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting
America's fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office
from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy
institute.

Something is not adding up here.

Did this guy read the whole bill? This same guy who was in charge of
the CBO when Bush charged up a trillion bucks worth of war debt and a
half trillion of new Medicare prescription coverage for seniors who he
felt would vote his way in 2004? And did not apparently bat an eye
about THAT?

Why have NONE of the Republican leaders made a *single one* of these
specific points at any time in their diatribes, choosing instead to
use gauzy generalities about budget without specific reference, right
up to the final vote? Why did THIS guy wait until the last possible
minute to roll out this buzzword-filled argument, instead of putting
it out there a week in advance so that it could have a real impact?
Or is it actually like so many other Republican stunts these days, a
desperate tissue of lies that must be shoved out quick and dirty
because, given even a tiny iota of time, it would be exposed as the
fabrication it really is?

znuybv wrote:
On Mar 22, 5:26 pm, wrote:


Bruce

You're in for a big surprise. The country can't afford free health
care. Your cost of health care will go up.

It will cost more to do nothing.

What we can't afford is shooting wars on the other side of the world.
That's the 800 pound gorilla. War is ****ed-up. Why don't we give each
Taliban 50 grand to leave us alone. Still cheaper than martyring them.