Jackasses Seek to Reduce Medicare Payments, Lower Costs

Democrats Look to Cut Payments to Insurers As Way to Trim Medicare
Costs
November 22, 2006 16:34
By KEVIN FREKING

WASHINGTON -- Soon to be in charge of Congress, Democrats are looking
to chip away at billions of dollars in payments to the health insurance
companies that run Medicare's managed care programs.

The cuts could range up to about $27.6 billion over five years, an
amount the industry says would reduce the number of managed care plans
serving seniors and the disabled.

Under traditional Medicare, health care providers bill the government
for the services they perform. But with "Medicare Advantage" managed
care, the insurers get a set amount per person. Then, the insurers
reimburse the people who provide the care.

Many health care experts believe that managed care leads to a greater
focus on prevention and better coordination of services. And this
focus, with an emphasis on providing only the care that's necessary,
saves money for taxpayers and patients.

But Democrats suggest the insurers are more interested in making a
profit than in saving taxpayers money. The incentive to keep costs low
also gives insurers an incentive to scrimp on care, the Democrats say.

For years, Democrats have said the Republican-led Congress
intentionally overpaid insurers so they could offer lower costs and
more benefits than are offered through traditional Medicare.

"We have strong evidence now that there are very, very large
overpayments to insurance companies," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.,
who will probably serve as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee.

Dr. Mark McClellan, who oversaw the Medicare program until just last
month, said the payments to insurers make the program more affordable
to beneficiaries. Their premiums would go up if the government
subsidies went down, he said.

He also said that the plans offer patients the promise of more
effective care than they get through traditional Medicare. For example,
many diabetics in managed care undergo aggressive counseling and
testing of their blood sugar levels to help them avoid costly
complications down the road, such as kidney disease or stroke. They
often don't get that kind of coordinated care in the fee-for-service
setting, he said.

"It would be a real shame for beneficiaries in Medicare not to have
access to that," McClellan said.

Currently, the government pays about 11 percent more for a patient in
managed care than when a comparable patient is in traditional Medicare,
says an independent advisory panel established by Congress.

The higher reimbursement rate for managed care shows that insurers are
profiting at the taxpayers expense, Democrats say.

"Much like Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the purported Medicare
Advantage cost reductions don't exist," Rep. Pete Stark of California
said in the summer. Stark oversees health care issues for Democrats on
the House Ways and Means Committee.

The same independent panel, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission,
recommended lowering the reimbursement levels for managed care so that
the rates would be the same as the fee-for-service program. Many
Democrats want to act on that recommendation, which would save about
$18 billion over five years.

The commission's work is often cited by lawmakers from both parties. It
says that overpaying for health care is a mistake.

"Organizations are more likely to be efficient when they face financial
pressure," the commission said.

The insurance industry counters that the payment gap varies by region.
In urban areas, the payments for managed care are comparable to
fee-for-service. It's in rural areas where the difference is most
dramatic, said Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health
Insurance Plans.

But that is by design, she said. Medicare also has a subsidy for rural
hospitals. If it didn't, then there would be fewer hospitals in rural
parts of the country. The same concept applies to insurers.

If the payments are lowered, she said, "there would be a contraction of
choices, and members of Congress have worked very hard to get choices
in those areas."

Overall, the commission's recommendations would trim about $27.6
billion over five years, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated.
That's out of about $300 billion that would go to managed care
companies over that time.

Insurers get only a portion of that funding. Most of the money is
passed through to the health care providers they contract with.

The payment to insurers that Democrats will target first is what they
call the insurers' "slush fund." The fund, officially called the
regional stabilization fund, ensures that certain managed care
companies called "preferred provider organizations" offer their
services widely.

Eliminating the fund, which has yet to be tapped, would save about $6
billion over five years.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said the Bush
administration opposes doing away with the fund.

"We believe there is still an ongoing need for it to be there," Leavitt
said.

Privately, lobbyists for the insurance industry acknowledge there's a
good chance the stabilization fund will meet its demise soon,
particularly because lawmakers want to avert a 4.5 percent pay cut for
doctors next year. Avoiding the cut in physician payments will cost
more than $10 billion annually. Lawmakers are looking to trim other
parts of the Medicare budget to help pay for it.

"There's a lot of money rattling around out there. The question is,
who's going to get it," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

____

On the Net:

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission: http://www.medpac.gov

Pretty inflammatory title chief. Did you actually read the article? The
title doesn't do it justice as my understanding of what this says goes.
GaryZ

"Fire Chief" <CALIFORNIA_CHIEF@PEOPLEPC.COM> wrote in message
news:1164258225.563654.58180@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
> Democrats Look to Cut Payments to Insurers As Way to Trim Medicare
> Costs
> November 22, 2006 16:34
> By KEVIN FREKING
>
> WASHINGTON -- Soon to be in charge of Congress, Democrats are looking
> to chip away at billions of dollars in payments to the health insurance
> companies that run Medicare's managed care programs.
>
> The cuts could range up to about $27.6 billion over five years, an
> amount the industry says would reduce the number of managed care plans
> serving seniors and the disabled.
>
> Under traditional Medicare, health care providers bill the government
> for the services they perform. But with "Medicare Advantage" managed
> care, the insurers get a set amount per person. Then, the insurers
> reimburse the people who provide the care.
>
> Many health care experts believe that managed care leads to a greater
> focus on prevention and better coordination of services. And this
> focus, with an emphasis on providing only the care that's necessary,
> saves money for taxpayers and patients.
>
> But Democrats suggest the insurers are more interested in making a
> profit than in saving taxpayers money. The incentive to keep costs low
> also gives insurers an incentive to scrimp on care, the Democrats say.
>
> For years, Democrats have said the Republican-led Congress
> intentionally overpaid insurers so they could offer lower costs and
> more benefits than are offered through traditional Medicare.
>
> "We have strong evidence now that there are very, very large
> overpayments to insurance companies," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.,
> who will probably serve as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
> Committee.
>
> Dr. Mark McClellan, who oversaw the Medicare program until just last
> month, said the payments to insurers make the program more affordable
> to beneficiaries. Their premiums would go up if the government
> subsidies went down, he said.
>
> He also said that the plans offer patients the promise of more
> effective care than they get through traditional Medicare. For example,
> many diabetics in managed care undergo aggressive counseling and
> testing of their blood sugar levels to help them avoid costly
> complications down the road, such as kidney disease or stroke. They
> often don't get that kind of coordinated care in the fee-for-service
> setting, he said.
>
> "It would be a real shame for beneficiaries in Medicare not to have
> access to that," McClellan said.
>
> Currently, the government pays about 11 percent more for a patient in
> managed care than when a comparable patient is in traditional Medicare,
> says an independent advisory panel established by Congress.
>
> The higher reimbursement rate for managed care shows that insurers are
> profiting at the taxpayers expense, Democrats say.
>
> "Much like Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the purported Medicare
> Advantage cost reductions don't exist," Rep. Pete Stark of California
> said in the summer. Stark oversees health care issues for Democrats on
> the House Ways and Means Committee.
>
> The same independent panel, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission,
> recommended lowering the reimbursement levels for managed care so that
> the rates would be the same as the fee-for-service program. Many
> Democrats want to act on that recommendation, which would save about
> $18 billion over five years.
>
> The commission's work is often cited by lawmakers from both parties. It
> says that overpaying for health care is a mistake.
>
> "Organizations are more likely to be efficient when they face financial
> pressure," the commission said.
>
> The insurance industry counters that the payment gap varies by region.
> In urban areas, the payments for managed care are comparable to
> fee-for-service. It's in rural areas where the difference is most
> dramatic, said Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health
> Insurance Plans.
>
> But that is by design, she said. Medicare also has a subsidy for rural
> hospitals. If it didn't, then there would be fewer hospitals in rural
> parts of the country. The same concept applies to insurers.
>
> If the payments are lowered, she said, "there would be a contraction of
> choices, and members of Congress have worked very hard to get choices
> in those areas."
>
> Overall, the commission's recommendations would trim about $27.6
> billion over five years, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated.
> That's out of about $300 billion that would go to managed care
> companies over that time.
>
> Insurers get only a portion of that funding. Most of the money is
> passed through to the health care providers they contract with.
>
> The payment to insurers that Democrats will target first is what they
> call the insurers' "slush fund." The fund, officially called the
> regional stabilization fund, ensures that certain managed care
> companies called "preferred provider organizations" offer their
> services widely.
>
> Eliminating the fund, which has yet to be tapped, would save about $6
> billion over five years.
>
> Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said the Bush
> administration opposes doing away with the fund.
>
> "We believe there is still an ongoing need for it to be there," Leavitt
> said.
>
> Privately, lobbyists for the insurance industry acknowledge there's a
> good chance the stabilization fund will meet its demise soon,
> particularly because lawmakers want to avert a 4.5 percent pay cut for
> doctors next year. Avoiding the cut in physician payments will cost
> more than $10 billion annually. Lawmakers are looking to trim other
> parts of the Medicare budget to help pay for it.
>
> "There's a lot of money rattling around out there. The question is,
> who's going to get it," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
>
> ____
>
> On the Net:
>
> Medicare Payment Advisory Commission: http://www.medpac.gov
>

GARY Z wrote:
> Pretty inflammatory title chief. Did you actually read the article? The
> title doesn't do it justice as my understanding of what this says goes.
> GaryZ

I agree. Sounds like FC had a knee jerk reaction after reading a single
paragraph instead of reading (and understanding?) the entire article.
Interesting topics within included:
- pushing the insurance companies to pay for preventive medicine
- Republican overpayments to insurance companies (not surprising, given
the tendency to just dole out money to Haliburton and other such
monstrosities)
- increasing competition int he insurance marketplace by removing the
'preferred provider' pork barelling

One thing the article doesn't say is that for the cost of the Iraq war,
America could have established health care as a right several times
over, and created a two system structure like we have here: healthcare
for all under the public system and if you want to pay for private care
you have that choice (and get to stay in more hotel like conditions and
get into non critical surgery faster, etc). Several times over is not an
exaggeration, and the bill keeps growing. Republicans were also the
(Bush Snr, Reagan) to poor money into Iraq to support Saddam, so let's
not go on the 'but we had to get rid of the insane dictator' crap, we
made him and funded him.

Now, perhaps we can leave out the inflamatory political titles and this
can be a discussion about the actual issues involved in this. Perhaps FC
could start a new thread, with a more appropriate title?

Regards,

Ari


>
> "Fire Chief" <CALIFORNIA_CHIEF@PEOPLEPC.COM> wrote in message
> news:1164258225.563654.58180@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...
>> Democrats Look to Cut Payments to Insurers As Way to Trim Medicare
>> Costs
>> November 22, 2006 16:34
>> By KEVIN FREKING
>>
>> WASHINGTON -- Soon to be in charge of Congress, Democrats are looking
>> to chip away at billions of dollars in payments to the health insurance
>> companies that run Medicare's managed care programs.
>>
>> The cuts could range up to about $27.6 billion over five years, an
>> amount the industry says would reduce the number of managed care plans
>> serving seniors and the disabled.
>>
>> Under traditional Medicare, health care providers bill the government
>> for the services they perform. But with "Medicare Advantage" managed
>> care, the insurers get a set amount per person. Then, the insurers
>> reimburse the people who provide the care.
>>
>> Many health care experts believe that managed care leads to a greater
>> focus on prevention and better coordination of services. And this
>> focus, with an emphasis on providing only the care that's necessary,
>> saves money for taxpayers and patients.
>>
>> But Democrats suggest the insurers are more interested in making a
>> profit than in saving taxpayers money. The incentive to keep costs low
>> also gives insurers an incentive to scrimp on care, the Democrats say.
>>
>> For years, Democrats have said the Republican-led Congress
>> intentionally overpaid insurers so they could offer lower costs and
>> more benefits than are offered through traditional Medicare.
>>
>> "We have strong evidence now that there are very, very large
>> overpayments to insurance companies," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.,
>> who will probably serve as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
>> Committee.
>>
>> Dr. Mark McClellan, who oversaw the Medicare program until just last
>> month, said the payments to insurers make the program more affordable
>> to beneficiaries. Their premiums would go up if the government
>> subsidies went down, he said.
>>
>> He also said that the plans offer patients the promise of more
>> effective care than they get through traditional Medicare. For example,
>> many diabetics in managed care undergo aggressive counseling and
>> testing of their blood sugar levels to help them avoid costly
>> complications down the road, such as kidney disease or stroke. They
>> often don't get that kind of coordinated care in the fee-for-service
>> setting, he said.
>>
>> "It would be a real shame for beneficiaries in Medicare not to have
>> access to that," McClellan said.
>>
>> Currently, the government pays about 11 percent more for a patient in
>> managed care than when a comparable patient is in traditional Medicare,
>> says an independent advisory panel established by Congress.
>>
>> The higher reimbursement rate for managed care shows that insurers are
>> profiting at the taxpayers expense, Democrats say.
>>
>> "Much like Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the purported Medicare
>> Advantage cost reductions don't exist," Rep. Pete Stark of California
>> said in the summer. Stark oversees health care issues for Democrats on
>> the House Ways and Means Committee.
>>
>> The same independent panel, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission,
>> recommended lowering the reimbursement levels for managed care so that
>> the rates would be the same as the fee-for-service program. Many
>> Democrats want to act on that recommendation, which would save about
>> $18 billion over five years.
>>
>> The commission's work is often cited by lawmakers from both parties. It
>> says that overpaying for health care is a mistake.
>>
>> "Organizations are more likely to be efficient when they face financial
>> pressure," the commission said.
>>
>> The insurance industry counters that the payment gap varies by region.
>> In urban areas, the payments for managed care are comparable to
>> fee-for-service. It's in rural areas where the difference is most
>> dramatic, said Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health
>> Insurance Plans.
>>
>> But that is by design, she said. Medicare also has a subsidy for rural
>> hospitals. If it didn't, then there would be fewer hospitals in rural
>> parts of the country. The same concept applies to insurers.
>>
>> If the payments are lowered, she said, "there would be a contraction of
>> choices, and members of Congress have worked very hard to get choices
>> in those areas."
>>
>> Overall, the commission's recommendations would trim about $27.6
>> billion over five years, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated.
>> That's out of about $300 billion that would go to managed care
>> companies over that time.
>>
>> Insurers get only a portion of that funding. Most of the money is
>> passed through to the health care providers they contract with.
>>
>> The payment to insurers that Democrats will target first is what they
>> call the insurers' "slush fund." The fund, officially called the
>> regional stabilization fund, ensures that certain managed care
>> companies called "preferred provider organizations" offer their
>> services widely.
>>
>> Eliminating the fund, which has yet to be tapped, would save about $6
>> billion over five years.
>>
>> Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said the Bush
>> administration opposes doing away with the fund.
>>
>> "We believe there is still an ongoing need for it to be there," Leavitt
>> said.
>>
>> Privately, lobbyists for the insurance industry acknowledge there's a
>> good chance the stabilization fund will meet its demise soon,
>> particularly because lawmakers want to avert a 4.5 percent pay cut for
>> doctors next year. Avoiding the cut in physician payments will cost
>> more than $10 billion annually. Lawmakers are looking to trim other
>> parts of the Medicare budget to help pay for it.
>>
>> "There's a lot of money rattling around out there. The question is,
>> who's going to get it," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
>>
>> ____
>>
>> On the Net:
>>
>> Medicare Payment Advisory Commission: http://www.medpac.gov
>>
>
>


--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

>
> Now, perhaps we can leave out the inflamatory political titles and this
> can be a discussion about the actual issues involved in this. Perhaps FC
> could start a new thread, with a more appropriate title?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ari
>

Do you just skim over the news and eat what they give you or do you dig
deeeeper?
Iraq was supported because of what Iran was becoming. Iraq tried and
failed to take out Bush 41 and if they tried to kill my dad,,,, I would be
worse than Bush 43.
I want you to try to face what should be done if Iran does what they
promised they were going to do and wipe out the Jews. Would you blame your
thinking if this takes place??? Or would you figure a way to blame someone
else for that too. Should we do a Jimmy Carter back out while we kiss
their A@#$ in any way that seems right at the time.
Can you face what the world would be like if we have a couple more of
those 9-11
days??? I grieve over lives of our soldiers and I grieve over all those
that died on 9-11. I also hate the fact that a trillion dollars will be
wasted letting those terrorists know that war can come to their back yard
also.
Sure,,,, we supported Iraq against Iran. Sure we supported the Afgan
when the Russians were pushing to have a sea port to their south. These
things seemed the right thing to do at the time but we have to face what is
taking place today and what the world will be like when Iran takes over Iraq
which is what is going to happen. Will you cry for the Jews when their home
land glows in the dark for a thousand years? Will they do the same thing to
New York or DC before you decide that maybe social programs need to wait and
action taken to stop them?
This war has been going on for about 700 years and they are not in any
hurry because another Jimmy Carter will come along make it easy for them.
So it goes.

Harv

This has a fighting chance of possibly helping folks like us get a shot
at better health care. For the short term anyway, which is the best we
can hope for until the elephants and jackasses take the time and
establish a system where efficiency replaces corporate corruption. This
"Managed Care" that the dems are proposing looks simple and
straightforward enough to actually work.

Thanks for the info Chief. Had not seen this yet.
Something that gives me a little hope while I am in the middle of a
fight with my insurer over the hospital bill for taking my gall bladder
out. They don't want to pay for 2 full days of hospital time prior to
the procedure. Thats over $$12,000.oo. Like I should've ripped the IV's
off and crawled out of there while they prepped me for 2 different
surgical procedures. These bureaucrats are completely out of control.
On the phone a few days ago I got passed thru 4 people before ending up
with the first person I had talked to 40 min. prior and she had the
info I needed. The same info I had asked for at the onset. She refused
to discuss why she didn't give it to me the first time....HUH?.... Had
to finally laugh it off.

I added a " 'big' thankful for / to the democrats " at our Thanksgiving
Meal today. It got the biggest laugh of the day but I actually meant
it. Gotta hang your hat on something occasionally.

high desert 'hopeful'
johnie


Fire Chief wrote:
> Democrats Look to Cut Payments to Insurers As Way to Trim Medicare
> Costs
> November 22, 2006 16:34
> By KEVIN FREKING
>
> WASHINGTON -- Soon to be in charge of Congress, Democrats are looking
> to chip away at billions of dollars in payments to the health insurance
> companies that run Medicare's managed care programs.
>
> The cuts could range up to about $27.6 billion over five years, an
> amount the industry says would reduce the number of managed care plans
> serving seniors and the disabled.
>
> Under traditional Medicare, health care providers bill the government
> for the services they perform. But with "Medicare Advantage" managed
> care, the insurers get a set amount per person. Then, the insurers
> reimburse the people who provide the care.
>
> Many health care experts believe that managed care leads to a greater
> focus on prevention and better coordination of services. And this
> focus, with an emphasis on providing only the care that's necessary,
> saves money for taxpayers and patients.
>
> But Democrats suggest the insurers are more interested in making a
> profit than in saving taxpayers money. The incentive to keep costs low
> also gives insurers an incentive to scrimp on care, the Democrats say.
>
> For years, Democrats have said the Republican-led Congress
> intentionally overpaid insurers so they could offer lower costs and
> more benefits than are offered through traditional Medicare.
>
> "We have strong evidence now that there are very, very large
> overpayments to insurance companies," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.,
> who will probably serve as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
> Committee.
>
> Dr. Mark McClellan, who oversaw the Medicare program until just last
> month, said the payments to insurers make the program more affordable
> to beneficiaries. Their premiums would go up if the government
> subsidies went down, he said.
>
> He also said that the plans offer patients the promise of more
> effective care than they get through traditional Medicare. For example,
> many diabetics in managed care undergo aggressive counseling and
> testing of their blood sugar levels to help them avoid costly
> complications down the road, such as kidney disease or stroke. They
> often don't get that kind of coordinated care in the fee-for-service
> setting, he said.
>
> "It would be a real shame for beneficiaries in Medicare not to have
> access to that," McClellan said.
>
> Currently, the government pays about 11 percent more for a patient in
> managed care than when a comparable patient is in traditional Medicare,
> says an independent advisory panel established by Congress.
>
> The higher reimbursement rate for managed care shows that insurers are
> profiting at the taxpayers expense, Democrats say.
>
> "Much like Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the purported Medicare
> Advantage cost reductions don't exist," Rep. Pete Stark of California
> said in the summer. Stark oversees health care issues for Democrats on
> the House Ways and Means Committee.
>
> The same independent panel, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission,
> recommended lowering the reimbursement levels for managed care so that
> the rates would be the same as the fee-for-service program. Many
> Democrats want to act on that recommendation, which would save about
> $18 billion over five years.
>
> The commission's work is often cited by lawmakers from both parties. It
> says that overpaying for health care is a mistake.
>
> "Organizations are more likely to be efficient when they face financial
> pressure," the commission said.
>
> The insurance industry counters that the payment gap varies by region.
> In urban areas, the payments for managed care are comparable to
> fee-for-service. It's in rural areas where the difference is most
> dramatic, said Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health
> Insurance Plans.
>
> But that is by design, she said. Medicare also has a subsidy for rural
> hospitals. If it didn't, then there would be fewer hospitals in rural
> parts of the country. The same concept applies to insurers.
>
> If the payments are lowered, she said, "there would be a contraction of
> choices, and members of Congress have worked very hard to get choices
> in those areas."
>
> Overall, the commission's recommendations would trim about $27.6
> billion over five years, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated.
> That's out of about $300 billion that would go to managed care
> companies over that time.
>
> Insurers get only a portion of that funding. Most of the money is
> passed through to the health care providers they contract with.
>
> The payment to insurers that Democrats will target first is what they
> call the insurers' "slush fund." The fund, officially called the
> regional stabilization fund, ensures that certain managed care
> companies called "preferred provider organizations" offer their
> services widely.
>
> Eliminating the fund, which has yet to be tapped, would save about $6
> billion over five years.
>
> Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said the Bush
> administration opposes doing away with the fund.
>
> "We believe there is still an ongoing need for it to be there," Leavitt
> said.
>
> Privately, lobbyists for the insurance industry acknowledge there's a
> good chance the stabilization fund will meet its demise soon,
> particularly because lawmakers want to avert a 4.5 percent pay cut for
> doctors next year. Avoiding the cut in physician payments will cost
> more than $10 billion annually. Lawmakers are looking to trim other
> parts of the Medicare budget to help pay for it.
>
> "There's a lot of money rattling around out there. The question is,
> who's going to get it," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
>
> ____
>
> On the Net:
>
> Medicare Payment Advisory Commission: http://www.medpac.gov

Ari responding to FireChief:
> >
> > Now, perhaps we can leave out the inflamatory political titles and this
> > can be a discussion about the actual issues involved in this. Perhaps FC
> > could start a new thread, with a more appropriate title?
> >
so
Harvey R. Stone wrote:
>
> Do you just skim over the news and eat what they give you or do you dig
> deeeeper?

> ...Super Snip... <
>
and johnie queries:

Are you absolutely sure that Ari is the appropriate person to ask this
of or did you just skim over the posts?

johnie

>
> Are you absolutely sure that Ari is the appropriate person to ask this
> of or did you just skim over the posts?
>
> johnie
>

Do not reply to the truth of what was said. Live in and with the spin of
politics. It will not save the Jews. It will not save the next 9-11.
The Dems will???? Show me the truth in that.

Harv

Harvey R. Stone wrote:
>> Now, perhaps we can leave out the inflamatory political titles and this
>> can be a discussion about the actual issues involved in this. Perhaps FC
>> could start a new thread, with a more appropriate title?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ari
>>
>
> Do you just skim over the news and eat what they give you or do you dig
> deeeeper?
> Iraq was supported because of what Iran was becoming. Iraq tried and
> failed to take out Bush 41 and if they tried to kill my dad,,,,

When was this, when he was burrying drafted starving young men in their
trenches with bulldozers when if they tried to flee or surrender they'd
be shot by their own side, with weapons we paid for?

> I would be
> worse than Bush 43.
> I want you to try to face what should be done if Iran does what they
> promised they were going to do and wipe out the Jews.

Oh, so you're kinda grasping here and throwing as much crap in as you
can? Yeah, I guess this thing that never happened and never will
justifies us getting Iraq to use chemical weapons against Iranians and
the Kurds in Iraq's north while we kept signing cheques.

> Would you blame your
> thinking if this takes place???

So funding someone to commit crimes against humanity somehow ensures
your imagined attack on Israel by Iran won't happen?

> Or would you figure a way to blame someone
> else for that too.

That? Too many pain killers tonight? You're confusing your imaginings
with something that hasn't happened.

> Should we do a Jimmy Carter back out while we kiss
> their A@#$ in any way that seems right at the time.
> Can you face what the world would be like if we have a couple more of
> those 9-11
> days???

Sorry, Harv, I don't have the limitation of black and white thinking.
'All good' and 'All bad' and no context. If we keep it up, we will have
more. As a nation we've been stupid in our hubris in dealing with this
region.

> I grieve over lives of our soldiers and I grieve over all those
> that died on 9-11. I also hate the fact that a trillion dollars will be
> wasted letting those terrorists know that war can come to their back yard
> also.
> Sure,,,, we supported Iraq against Iran.

No, we encouraged that war. How many /million/ arabs died?

> Sure we supported the Afgan
> when the Russians were pushing to have a sea port to their south.

Great job we did building up the Taliban and not the Northern Alliance.
The Northern Alliance wouldn't take CIA bribes, but the oh so pious
Taliban would. Didn't that turn out well for us?

> These
> things seemed the right thing to do at the time but we have to face what is
> taking place today and what the world will be like when Iran takes over Iraq
> which is what is going to happen.

So it seemed like the right thing to do when Hussein was using WMDs, as
long as it wasn't against us? Just like it seemed the right thing to do
to ignore the Holocaust because it wasn't convenient for the US to
engage at the time (we actively joined the war a bit late).

> Will you cry for the Jews when their home
> land glows in the dark for a thousand years?

LOL, yes, let's try and be as irrational and hysterical as possible.
That's always a good thing! We get to support mass murdering dictators
then and feel /good/ about it!

> Will they do the same thing to
> New York or DC before you decide that maybe social programs need to wait and
> action taken to stop them?

Yeah, because we kicked the shit out of Iraq repeatedly and for many
years, starving their children while letting the dictator feed off them
like a bloated tick, they Iraq was such a big threat! LOL What a great
trade, a useless war on a crippled opponent instead of healthcare for
all Americans. Yeah dude that rocks!

So, to recap, we should imagine things that aren't going to come to pass
and use them as excuses for encouraging conflicts that kill millions and
the use of weapons of mass destruction and that makes it all okay and
we're all good and they're all bad. Yeah. Sounds reasonable.

Until we take responsiblility for our screw ups so that we can stop
making them the global situation won't get any better.

Bwahahaha

Ari


--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

Harvey, I am really making an effort to be nice about the nastiness
your perpetuating.

YOU have completely ignored the original issue: The fact is that Fire
Chief mistakenly posted something very positive about the democrats
thinking it was something negative showing that he hadn't even bothered
to read past the first half-sentence. When Gary and Ari pointed this
out and did it without antagonism you started ranting out about the
jews and jimmy carter and neither have a damn thing to do with "Health
Care".
YOU don't seem to be able to do that either. What is wrong with you?
The story and issue is about "Health Care". Are you so obsessed with
War and Destruction you can't even attempt to talk about the "Healing
Arts".

Now, granted Ari gave you an opening by editorilizing on "war
costs-health costs"
But you have shown how desperate your stand has become by evoking the
memory of Jimmy Carter into the argument. Why don't we get Howard Taft
involved in this also? It might be more relevant.
And Besides who gives a ' flying rats ass' what Ari thinks about the
War in Iraq. Last time I checked, the country he pays taxes in wasn't
spending a KaZillion dollars a day on it. For some reason John Howard
has continued to support Bush's folly but there is a big difference
between 100 million and 100 billion dollars. so what difference does it
make what any Australian thinks about american policy in Iraq. He just
likes to show how easy it is to push your buttons and get you all riled
up.
Its too bad cause this whole thing could have been kept pretty light
hearted and maybe even a little fun if you would have shown any
restraint.

So take some of your own advise for a change and You try replying to
what the thread was actually about and it wasn't WAR, What is It Good
For?.........ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
It was about Fire Chief's lousy reading comprehension skills.

johnie

Harvey R. Stone wrote:
> >
> > Are you absolutely sure that Ari is the appropriate person to ask this
> > of or did you just skim over the posts?
> >
> > johnie
> >
>
> Do not reply to the truth of what was said. Live in and with the spin of
> politics. It will not save the Jews. It will not save the next 9-11.
> The Dems will???? Show me the truth in that.
>
> Harv

> Until we take responsiblility for our screw ups so that we can stop making
> them the global situation won't get any better.
>
> Bwahahaha
>
> Ari
>
>
> --

What you fail to grasp is that most of the killing is done by their own
people in a power grab. If you are saying that we need to bring all our
troops home from all over the world,,,,,,,, I agree with you. If you think
we should not of supported the Afgans against the Russians,,,, you are
stupid. If you can not face what took place with Jimmy Carter and Iran,,,
that is not my problem,,, its yours. I could add about a dozen things he
was responsible for during his presidency and after that has been the cause
of many things that have happened to cause what has taken place later.
Iran and North Korea have to be faced and stopped. Strange but I never
hear how that is going to happen from people that think like you. You can
not hide from what terrorists say and do if you are to survive. They will
win. Bill Clinton used every missile we had that did not have a nuke on
its nose and they cost over a million dollars apiece and did nothing but
blow up some cardboard tanks in Bosnia and an aspirin factory in the
mid-east..... So much for that kind of thinking. This is a waste of words
and time. You just can not force people to see facts and think clearly.
Lets see who answers for what over the next few years.
Harv

"johnie" <jhugh@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1164381383.105859.10370@k70g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Harvey, I am really making an effort to be nice about the nastiness
> your perpetuating.
>
> YOU have completely ignored the original issue: The fact is that Fire
> Chief mistakenly posted something very positive about the democrats
> thinking it was something negative showing that he hadn't even bothered
> to read past the first half-sentence. When Gary and Ari pointed this
> out and did it without antagonism you started ranting out about the
> jews and jimmy carter and neither have a damn thing to do with "Health
> Care".

I think you are correct.


> YOU don't seem to be able to do that either. What is wrong with you?
> The story and issue is about "Health Care". Are you so obsessed with
> War and Destruction you can't even attempt to talk about the "Healing
> Arts".

And you think that what is set up with medicare and medicade is the answer
to health care. I do not think so. Just as soon as big insurance and
pharm. pay off the Dems instead of the Reps. nothing will change. It will
get worse.


>
> Now, granted Ari gave you an opening by editorilizing on "war
> costs-health costs"

and that should not of been answered... I do not think so.


> But you have shown how desperate your stand has become by evoking the
> memory of Jimmy Carter into the argument. Why don't we get Howard Taft
> involved in this also? It might be more relevant.
> And Besides who gives a ' flying rats ass' what Ari thinks about the
> War in Iraq. Last time I checked, the country he pays taxes in wasn't
> spending a KaZillion dollars a day on it. For some reason John Howard
> has continued to support Bush's folly but there is a big difference
> between 100 million and 100 billion dollars. so what difference does it
> make what any Australian thinks about american policy in Iraq. He just
> likes to show how easy it is to push your buttons and get you all riled
> up.

That may be true but lies that are told over and over do not become truth
with me.

> Its too bad cause this whole thing could have been kept pretty light
> hearted and maybe even a little fun if you would have shown any
> restraint.

Bullshit,,,, Hillery's plan to socialize medicine is not a little fun. The
local governments are going bankrupt from your idea of how it treat illigals
and that is not fun. I never have heard how you people think Iran and North
Korea should be dealt with. Ignore it and it goes away,,,,, more bullshit.


>
> So take some of your own advise for a change and You try replying to
> what the thread was actually about and it wasn't WAR, What is It Good
> For?.........ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
> It was about Fire Chief's lousy reading comprehension skills.
>
> johnie
>

More bad thinking and use of words. You can not get away condemning a
persons whole way of life and actions with one incorrect post but you seem
to think you can.
The truth of it is in my case,,,, I hope some good things come from the
change in power in D.C. I will not be watching what takes place with Rose
glasses on. Lets hope The People in Power have learned from the past... We
shall see. I do not think you and Ari have.
Harv

Harvey R. Stone wrote:
>> Until we take responsiblility for our screw ups so that we can stop making
>> them the global situation won't get any better.
>>
>> Bwahahaha
>>
>> Ari
>>
>>
>> --
>
> What you fail to grasp is that most of the killing is done by their own
> people in a power grab.

And we've had our dirty little fingers in there making the situation
worse for us if we want a world where diplomacy and democracy are the
rule, not the exception.

> If you are saying that we need to bring all our
> troops home from all over the world,,,,,,,, I agree with you.

I disagree.

> If you think
> we should not of supported the Afgans against the Russians,,,, you are
> stupid.

Apparently you're illiterate, or are just hearing voices. I can't seem
to find where I said that. Oh, that's right, I didn't. Do you even know
the history of that conflict, the details of our role, and the main
power groups involved: one that we backed which came back to hurt us and
another we neglected because they weren't greedy and our CIA likes greed.

> If you can not face what took place with Jimmy Carter and Iran,,,
> that is not my problem,,, its yours.

Considering I was talking about the money that has been spent and is
currently being spent on an ill thought out and moronically executed
takeover of another country and how this money could have been used to
provide health care for all Americans, apparently you're way the heck
off topic. Or drunk. Or both. Not quite sure why you have decided to
talk about Pres. Carter when you get all wobbly. Nice but of snipping my
post, even when I had the courtesy to address your points. To bad you
had no real responses.

> Iran and North Korea have to be faced and stopped. Strange but I never
> hear how that is going to happen from people that think like you.

Yeah, and your plan is to attack a crippled third party nation (I know
that they are right next to each other, and history, culture, and
geography aren't your strong points, but really, they are different
countries) instead of providing health care to all Americans while
simultaneously giving terrorists all the recruits and combat training
they could ever hope for.. Woooooooohoo that's a brilliant plan! Damn
that should qualify for some sort of prize. Pose a potential threat to
the world and we'll attack someone else, mess it up, make the world more
dangerous, and screw our own people in the process. Damn that's a good one.

Ari

Last time I checked this was an arthritis newsgroup, not a political one. Could
we please keep the (mostly) American politics off here? I, for one, am not
interested, or if I am I listen to the news and read the papers. Thank you.
---
Joan

Harvey R. Stone wrote:
> More bad thinking and use of words. You can not get away condemning a
> persons whole way of life and actions with one incorrect post but you seem
> to think you can.

Harvey, you are really confused right now. I didnt condemn Fire Chief.
I tried to explain what Gary and Ari were saying in hopes of getting
you off your rant. He did indeed post that article obviously thinking
it was a bad thing about dems when it was good. Poking a bit of fun at
this mistake in light of the jingoistic crap and sheer number of posts
FC puts up here everyday is more than appropriate. Cmon Harv, FC says
more nasty things about dems than everyone else combined. He does these
things everyday on an NG that is about arthritis. A place where stress
levels need to be kept to a minimum. He does this in spite of others
asking him nicely to stop. He is truly mean spirited about the whole
issue and he gets away with it with your help.

But enough about FC. You have decided to make this thread about you and
your need to blow off some steam. You are always promising to stop
doing this but you just can't help yoursel.

Here is a good example from your last reply showing how you take a
statement that has nothing to do with your political world and you turn
it into a forum for you to Rant out about whats wrong with the world
because of the dems. Interesting that the world is so completely
screwed up right now yet the dems haven't had any power or clout for a
decade. Your unwillingness to take responsiblity for your leaderships
mistakes is funny whether you think so or not. I don't even have to
comment about the following post you just made. I would like you to
explain to me how poking a little fun at FC for the way he posted has
anything to do with North Korea, Iran or the Illegal issue. You will
take anything out of context so you can demonstrate your hatred for
people that hold "different" political views than your own. That is the
kind of intolerance that is destroying this country.

You posted:
I said:

> Its too bad cause this whole thing could have been kept pretty light
> hearted and maybe even a little fun if you would have shown any
> restraint.

You turned it into this:

Bullshit,,,, Hillery's plan to socialize medicine is not a little fun.
The
local governments are going bankrupt from your idea of how it treat
illigals
and that is not fun. I never have heard how you people think Iran and
North
Korea should be dealt with. Ignore it and it goes away,,,,, more
bullshit.

I also said but you didn't read it...again... even though you reposted
it:

> So take some of your own advise for a change and You try replying to
> what the thread was actually about and it wasn't WAR, What is It Good
> For?.........ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
> It was about Fire Chief's lousy reading comprehension skills.

Your politics aside for a moment Harv. What really bothered me about
your last post was when you said: " I never have heard how you people
think"

YOU PEOPLE. What You People are you referencing Harv. Us
African-American people. Maybe us Mexican-American people. Or is it us
Women or Middle Eastern people. Your Racism is showing white boy.
Everyone understands the sentiments and intolerance behind the phrase
"you people".

For your information Harvey, my people were doing just fine till your
people destroyed our way of life and infected our children and
grandparents with your diseases. Everything was running pretty smoothly
in the americas till your people intentionally committed genocide on an
entire nation of thriving, healthy, generous, and loving human beings
just to satisfy your Greed.
Remembering what really happened in this country is how much of my
traditional thanksgiving weekend is spent.

johnie

"johnie" <jhugh@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1164424477.743567.108640@14g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
> Harvey R. Stone wrote:
>> More bad thinking and use of words. You can not get away condemning a
>> persons whole way of life and actions with one incorrect post but you
>> seem
>> to think you can.

LOLOL Talk about a rant,,,,, I hope you feel better. The actions of
people that think like you,,, are what counts. Lets see what good will be
done.
Harv

It makes a good mantra for you Harv. Now if you would truly take it to
heart. You have never been able to respond to real issues nor have you
ever engaged anyone here with honest discussion about the things you
claim are wrong with the united states.I have watched you operate on
this board for nine years and did not expect you get beyond your name
calling and blame placing with this binge. You never have. Not once.

johnie


Harvey R. Stone wrote:
> "johnie" <jhugh@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1164424477.743567.108640@14g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
> > Harvey R. Stone wrote:
> >> More bad thinking and use of words. You can not get away condemning a
> >> persons whole way of life and actions with one incorrect post but you
> >> seem
> >> to think you can.
>
> LOLOL Talk about a rant,,,,, I hope you feel better. The actions of
> people that think like you,,, are what counts. Lets see what good will be
> done.
> Harv

Harvey R. Stone wrote:
> LOLOL Talk about a rant,,,,, I hope you feel better. The actions of
> people that think like you,,, are what counts.

Not really. 'Us people' never really get comfortable with intolerance
and racism.
It is "the actions of people that think...that keeps you up at night.
Isn't it Harv?

johnie

On 25 Nov 2006 07:33:14 -0800, "johnie" <jhugh@cox.net> wrote in
alt.support.arthritis:

>It makes a good mantra for you Harv. Now if you would truly take it to
>heart. You have never been able to respond to real issues nor have you
>ever engaged anyone here with honest discussion about the things you
>claim are wrong with the united states.I have watched you operate on
>this board for nine years and did not expect you get beyond your name
>calling and blame placing with this binge. You never have. Not once.

I must say I often wonder what makes Harv such an angry man. It comes across
often, especially over controversial things.

---
Joan

"Joan Carter" <spamfree@sentex.ca> wrote in message
news:47qgm2ha35hvul8ou0pslmcar39p34jd0n@4ax.com...
> On 25 Nov 2006 07:33:14 -0800, "johnie" <jhugh@cox.net> wrote in
> alt.support.arthritis:
>
>>It makes a good mantra for you Harv. Now if you would truly take it to
>>heart. You have never been able to respond to real issues nor have you
>>ever engaged anyone here with honest discussion about the things you
>>claim are wrong with the united states.I have watched you operate on
>>this board for nine years and did not expect you get beyond your name
>>calling and blame placing with this binge. You never have. Not once.
>
> I must say I often wonder what makes Harv such an angry man. It comes
> across
> often, especially over controversial things.
>
> ---
> Joan

It is true. I am an angry man and with good reason. I do not post this
anger in this newsgroup until I have what they call a fire in my belly and
johnie knows that. I am angry because people do not realize that they can
not buy part of people like johnie says without buying all of it.... The
points about J. Carter, Clinton, Kerry is that you should see what they are
by what they have done. They really are what the Dem. party is just like
Howard Dean says and is ignored because he is speaking to the far left of
the party which keeps them voting for the Dems.
Even though socialism has failed or nearly failed all over the world,,,,
people still want to buy part of it thinking they do not have to eat the
rest....
I tried to stop this business when asked to by a lady who did not give a
dam about American politics. You got a days rest and then here comes
johnie again. If you can not see that they have no plan to stop Iran, Korea
and that nothing was offered but I hate Bush in the election cycle,,,, they
love you. I just want you to actually see what is taking place in the
next few years and if you do not,,, it will not make me less angry.
Harv

"johnie" <jhugh@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1164469969.919202.78140@f16g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Harvey R. Stone wrote:
>> LOLOL Talk about a rant,,,,, I hope you feel better. The actions of
>> people that think like you,,, are what counts.
>
> Not really. 'Us people' never really get comfortable with intolerance
> and racism.
> It is "the actions of people that think...that keeps you up at night.
> Isn't it Harv?
>
> johnie
>

awwwhhh john,,,, intolerance and racism,,,, how low can you go?? It is not
either of those thing to not buy into the song and dance of communism and/or
socialism and the Dem. party. I sleep really well and I apply what I
believe every day of my life but then you do too,,, we just see the world in
a different light. We look at the system of gov. in the USA in different
ways. You will not see what the open border is actually doing to the
American way of life. City, county, state cost it soooo high. That is not
intolerance or racism and they might make good voters because they are
running from communist dominated governments,,,, just like they did from
eastern Germany. Please give Chavez a hug when you see him and buy your gas
at Citgo.

:-)
Harv

"Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:uW%9h.3959$wc5.1555@newssvr25.news.prodigy.ne t...

"Joan Carter" <spamfree@sentex.ca> wrote in message
news:47qgm2ha35hvul8ou0pslmcar39p34jd0n@4ax.com...
>>
> I must say I often wonder what makes Harv such an angry man. It comes
> across
> often, especially over controversial things.
>
> ---
> Joan

It is true. I am an angry man and with good reason. I do not post this
anger in this newsgroup until I have what they call a fire in my belly and
johnie knows that. I am angry because people do not realize that they can
not buy part of people like johnie says without buying all of it.... The
points about J. Carter, Clinton, Kerry is that you should see what they are
by what they have done. They really are what the Dem. party is just like
Howard Dean says and is ignored because he is speaking to the far left of
the party which keeps them voting for the Dems.
Even though socialism has failed or nearly failed all over the world,,,,
people still want to buy part of it thinking they do not have to eat the
rest....
I tried to stop this business when asked to by a lady who did not give a
dam about American politics. You got a days rest and then here comes
johnie again. If you can not see that they have no plan to stop Iran, Korea
and that nothing was offered but I hate Bush in the election cycle,,,, they
love you. I just want you to actually see what is taking place in the
next few years and if you do not,,, it will not make me less angry.
Harv

it is interesting, harv. you say you believe we should bring our troops
home from iraq--it was john murtha, a democrap, who was one of the first to
have the courage to give voice and lend his gravitas to what many in this
nation felt about getting our troops out of iraq.

lots of things were proposed by the democraps during the election
cycle--fixing the medicare drug donut hole; fixing the congressional ethics
committee; fixing our education system and no child left behind; moving
towards resolving the problem of oil dependency; eliminating earmarks;
acting on the 9-11 commissions' reccommendations; resolving the iraq
quagmire with redeployments and lots of other things were proposed.

the details of how to accomplish these kinds of proposals are NEVER
expounded upon, by either side, in any election campaign. even the
rebumblingcan candidates, during election campaigning, speak in GENERALITIES
about what they want to accomplish, guy. so, you either weren't really
paying attention, or you simply didn't want to listen. you apparently
closed your mind to changing the status quo.

why are you soooo fearful about the democraps turning our nation
socialistic, guy? there is simply no need to be fearful about that. each
and every new congress and each and every new president remakes our
government anew. they discard or dispose of those things that didn't work
or don't work or that the people don't want (like, for example,
prohibition). our form of government is experimental by intent. that's how
our founders wanted it. congressional laws and programs are recinded or are
modified (improved upon) all the time. our gov't representatives often keep
what is good for the country and get rid of what they recognize is not.

it is NOT TRUE that just because you agree with and/or want one aspect of
any political agenda, or political idea, that you have to accept all of it.
and in fact, our elections prove, with regularity, that is not true. the
very design of our government is based upon bits and pieces of various other
political ideas (madison read 300 books of various, and some of outrageous
political concepts for the time, just to glean pieces to assemble into what
we have today).

"people like johnie", guy, are americans and human beings, just like you
are. so what if you both disagree? it doesn't make either of you right or
wrong. it just means you disagree. and just because somebody disagrees,
doesn't mean that person should be demonized. often, very often, something
good is created by taking a bit of this extreme idea or perspective and a
bit of that extreme idea or perspective. that is not compromise; it is
creating something new from two old ideas. that was exactly the method
used, by our founders, to create a new republic. why? because they valued
and respected bits and pieces of diverse thought and ideas, which more often
than not came from people who disagreed.

this country bravely and with good faith gave the rebumblingcans a chance to
serve us well. dissatisfied with the results, this country now bravely and
with good faith is giving the democraps a chance to serve us well. time
will tell us if democraps satisfy what the majority of the nation requires,
of its representatives, or not. if not, the next election will change the
matrix, once again. and the govenment will be remade anew, once again. it
really IS as simple as that. there is nothing to fear in that. in fact,
that's something to celebrate, because we are not stuck with what we have.

"fire in the belly" is not always a good thing, guy. it could mean ulcers
are forming<smile--punning a bit>, because one is clinging to fears, instead
of to hope and faith.

kate

Well spoke, Kate,

The process of objective analysis (picking apart) of every party's
proposals <including those of the Independents and Libertarians> and the
synthesis ( pulling together) of the best ideas in the best interests of the
majority of the people is the way it's 'sposed to work. And it does, no
matter whose ideas you affiliate with.

And besides, it's the successful wooing of the aforementioned
Independents that decides how elections turn out these days, ya know.

Synthesis Hugs from Rosie

--
"If you wanna get it done, you gotta fight for yourself." -- Meat Loaf, Bat
Outta Hell II
"d'huit" <threecedars1@comcast2.net> wrote in message
news:x-udnRprNJ4HN_XYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:uW%9h.3959$wc5.1555@newssvr25.news.prodigy.ne t...
>
> "Joan Carter" <spamfree@sentex.ca> wrote in message
> news:47qgm2ha35hvul8ou0pslmcar39p34jd0n@4ax.com...
> >>
> > I must say I often wonder what makes Harv such an angry man. It comes
> > across
> > often, especially over controversial things.
> >
> > ---
> > Joan
>
> It is true. I am an angry man and with good reason. I do not post
this
> anger in this newsgroup until I have what they call a fire in my belly and
> johnie knows that. I am angry because people do not realize that they
can
> not buy part of people like johnie says without buying all of it.... The
> points about J. Carter, Clinton, Kerry is that you should see what they
are
> by what they have done. They really are what the Dem. party is just like
> Howard Dean says and is ignored because he is speaking to the far left of
> the party which keeps them voting for the Dems.
> Even though socialism has failed or nearly failed all over the
world,,,,
> people still want to buy part of it thinking they do not have to eat the
> rest....
> I tried to stop this business when asked to by a lady who did not give
a
> dam about American politics. You got a days rest and then here comes
> johnie again. If you can not see that they have no plan to stop Iran,
Korea
> and that nothing was offered but I hate Bush in the election cycle,,,,
they
> love you. I just want you to actually see what is taking place in the
> next few years and if you do not,,, it will not make me less angry.
> Harv
>
> it is interesting, harv. you say you believe we should bring our troops
> home from iraq--it was john murtha, a democrap, who was one of the first
to
> have the courage to give voice and lend his gravitas to what many in this
> nation felt about getting our troops out of iraq.
>
> lots of things were proposed by the democraps during the election
> cycle--fixing the medicare drug donut hole; fixing the congressional
ethics
> committee; fixing our educat