{BS} Numbers don't add up
in [Toyota]
|
From: larry moe 'n curly on 20 Mar 2010 19:18 Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:05:25 -0700, in2dadark wrote: > > I agree with the expanding medicare part. As I've said here before, > just lower the age for medicare to 55 or 60 and you'll solve a whole > LOT of our healthcare woes. Put a vice grip on the medicare and > medicaid (paying health care for dead people) fraud to fund it . > Basically a 2 line bill. > > There's the problem. Too simple. No new bureaucracies. So why are you against it? The public option is basically expansion of Medicare, and why not let everybody into the program? Explain how it could do any harm if participants younger than 65 have to pay completely for the coverage.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 20 Mar 2010 21:32 On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:18:56 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: > Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >> >> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:05:25 -0700, in2dadark wrote: >> >> I agree with the expanding medicare part. As I've said here before, just >> lower the age for medicare to 55 or 60 and you'll solve a whole LOT of >> our healthcare woes. Put a vice grip on the medicare and medicaid >> (paying health care for dead people) fraud to fund it . Basically a 2 >> line bill. >> >> There's the problem. Too simple. No new bureaucracies. > > So why are you against it? The public option is basically expansion of > Medicare The hell it is. Why would they need so much resources merely to expand Medicare? We'll just have to do what Pelosi says: pass the bill so we can find out what's in it...
From: Mike Hunter on 21 Mar 2010 12:37 DUH!! The bill in the Congress takes $500,000 OUT of Medicare, which is CURRENTLY underfunded as it is. Medicare is CURRENTLY going bankrupt as is Medicaid, dummy. When has the government run ANYTHING that works efficiently? "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8401f2ab-ea92-4541-a088-3273970888be(a)t9g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >> >> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:05:25 -0700, in2dadark wrote: >> >> I agree with the expanding medicare part. As I've said here before, >> just lower the age for medicare to 55 or 60 and you'll solve a whole >> LOT of our healthcare woes. Put a vice grip on the medicare and >> medicaid (paying health care for dead people) fraud to fund it . >> Basically a 2 line bill. >> >> There's the problem. Too simple. No new bureaucracies. > > So why are you against it? The public option is basically expansion > of Medicare, and why not let everybody into the program? Explain how > it could do any harm if participants younger than 65 have to pay > completely for the coverage. > >
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 21 Mar 2010 16:22
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:ho15e5$319$4(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:12:38 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:ho0osq$o1s$3(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:51:14 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> >>>> "Hachiroku" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:hnvuvn$695$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>>> >>>>> "You VILL haff healthcare, und you vill LIKE IT! JA?!" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What's the cost of NOT having health care? You have the information. >>>> You're a smart guy, according to you. >>> >>> Nothing. >> >> >> Y'all come on back when you're prepared to be serious. > > We have been through this before. The cost of health care in Mass is > nothing. What about places where that's not the case? |