Originally Posted by Riot

Gotta love the rocket scientists on here, for whom the rude personal attack is the crowning glory of their intellectual contribution to the subject :tro:

Hey, you removed your "Obama and Rahm are the anti-christ" post, too. :(

Originally Posted by witchdoctor

Not sure what Docicu does. (I suspect he is a ICU specialist.) I try to get along with all docs as you never know when you may need them.


As for ER, I don't work in the ER directly but I sure get a lot of MIs from there that we take to the lab and open up the artery.

Originally Posted by geeker2

Deb..I will come visit you in jail should that happen ;) :{>:

but not in the winter time....

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think its funny Riot didnt even say a word about RileyORiley's post yet she had a response to everyone else's.

She doesnt have an agenda :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

Jail is my retirement plan. Free healthcare, housing, meals, lawyers. Hell I can even attend college!:D

Originally Posted by Riot

Geesh, you have my dream job ... ! :p

Originally Posted by Danzig

don't worry, the smart will take care of the dumb, unwashed masses who ought to know better than to formulate an ignorant opinion.

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, for costs/fines. But then go ahead explain how having mandatory insurance relates to MA's state treasury, and the inability to pay it's matching Medicare responsibilities? Is the state not having money directly due to having mandatory insurance? (could be, I don't know).

And is the mandatory program is funded with the same cost ratios and income as the Senate federal program (works the same, on the same scale) so is directly applicable?

To me the post sounded like a pretty broad, "government involvement in healthcare sucks, look at Canada" kind of thing to me. Too general, not directly applicable.

I think if you are trying to make the argument, "as MA goes, so will go the entire country" under either the House or Senate healthcare reform you'll need a little more detail.

So rather than some secret agenda that Antitrust suspects I have :D , I figured it was just a good point, what's to debate about it?

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

It's wrong, but requiring 60 makes it ripe territory for these parasites to withold their support for enrichment. Requiring just 55 would lessen their power. A good idea will get 55 Senators that support it for the right reasons. It doesn't help when you have a party that is lacking in differing views. The way the Republicans went lock step just made it easier for 4 or 5 crooks to hold out for ransom. This is simply an example of parasites taking advantage of a situation. These people (Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu) are simply self-centered human parasites. They are in the direct center because that's where they've realized they can get the most money, and attention. They actually don't believe in much(except for Lieberman being a shill for Israel.) JOE cares about Israel, and not much else.

Originally Posted by Honu

I just want to know how an almost bankrupt government that is most likely going to have to ask for money from bankrupt banks is going to pay for the "right for all Americans" to have health insurance. Tell me how this is going to work out.

Originally Posted by Honu

I just want to know how an almost bankrupt government that is most likely going to have to ask for money from bankrupt banks is going to pay for the "right for all Americans" to have health insurance. Tell me how this is going to work out.

Originally Posted by Riot

Don't you think there is a difference between saying, "Healthcare reform is terrible, because of ... increased costs, etc."; and saying that the American people should actually pray that something happens to a Democratic Senator so they can't make the 1am vote on the bill? (as Sen. Tom Coburn from Oklahoma had the nerve to say on the Senate floor yesterday).

Big difference in "opinion" between those two in my eyes, and yeah, I think the personal attack is pretty much the sign of the ignorant.
Of course, there is a debate question there: the Senator's presumption that God is on his side ;)

Originally Posted by Danzig

some don't think about how the govt operates, college degrees notwithstanding. the govt has nothing without first taking it from someone. they play robin hood, taking from the haves to give to the have nots-while giving themselves a little along the way. problem is, you can only take so much from the haves, and then you have to start taking from the have a littles. at any rate, the govt gives NOTHING that didn't first belong to someone else. the govt makes no money, it's not a business. it shows no profits. a whole lot of people will be affected because the govt is attempting to cater to a segment of the population. the costs will become astronomical-meaning a huge tax increase to cover the gap.
the fed has outgrown itself by leaps and bounds. we all benefit from the interestate hwy system, the military. we won't all benefit from this garbage they're trying to pass.