Since when did
kids quit getting healthcare just because the democrats took over congress?

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:g4k7h39t6j5rb27pvmssst6c9g31a3dort@4ax.com...

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:36:39 -0600, "Doorman"
<astroinc_NOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:

The only crisis that could justify a 50% increase in this one program
would
be that the democrats want to be reelected.

Or one other thing you missed - an increase in the number of kids who
don't have access to adequate health care.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a
poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after
death."
- Albert Einstein

Was there a 50% increase all the way into the middle class?

Since when did
kids quit getting healthcare just because the democrats took over congress?

Enticement to switch from private insurance to government insurance doesn't
provide care to more children.

That's the part I disagree with. We don't need to become wards of the
state.

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:t0k7h3tqf73tta0u3c6mk3lfiv62u8ocmu@4ax.com...

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:13:28 -0600, "Doorman"
<astroinc_NOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
news:HWNQi.2285$et1.791@trnddc02...

The single dumbest statement made on this newsgroup. There's no such
thing
as "free healthcare". Why don't you just rob your neighbor, what's theirs
should be yours anyway, right?

Free healthcare...what an idiot.

You have your own bodyguards? Your own fire control people? You
bring your garbage to your own dump for disposal?

Or do you demand that your neighbors pitch in to pay for your use of
those, and many other, services?

"What an idiot" is right.

Yes, I pay for protective services, water, sewage, roads, and a part of the
$1 trillion a year in social programs already in place.

BTW...how much is enough?

If you impose a 70% on me, is that enough? Why not 90%?

Those that need the care, can get the care.

How easy is it that liberals
will gradly give away my money, but never their own.

Ask any rich liberal
if they use all available tax deductions to lower their own tax liabilities?

Not a single rich liberal has ever (to my knowledge) publicized their tax
returns to prove they're giving more than asked to give.

This from the fool whose party prohibits Medicare by law from
negotiating lower prices with pharmaceutical companies.

The government has previous contracts to provide free/low cost medicine to
100 countries all over the world.

You have many liberal buddies here that
complain about high drug costs, and yet don't talk about the fact that we
pay higher prices so we can send medicine to third world countries at an
affordable cost to them.

Who donates the drugs for "Doctors without
Borders"??? The pharmaceuticals.

...and since it costs billions to develop
drugs, where do they go to get a reasonable return on their investment?

So, you want to stop the free/low cost drugs going to the rest of the world
so you can get lower cost drugs? How compassionate is that? I apologize.
You're not angy, you're just another hypocritical liberal that's also
selfish.

Have you ever invested your money in a public company that was prevented
from making a profit?

Companies unable to make a profit, go out of business.

"Collideascope" <collideasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1192466015.119899.20920@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 15, 12:18 pm, "Doorman" <astroinc_NOS...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

"Collideascope" <collideasc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1192463884.742241.132790@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 15, 11:53 am, "Doorman" <astroinc_NOS...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
messagenews:rd27h3hajss6s8qk6q17gko6je9el7ejdl@4ax.com...

http://rollcall.com/issues/53_41/rothenberg/20409-1.html

The Republicans' circular firing squad is now assembled. All
that's left is for someone - President Bush, House Minority Leader
John Boehner (Ohio) or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
(Ky.) -
to yell the appropriate command: "Fire!"...

The SCHIP expansion Atheist Pelosi proposes hurts the poor. It
actually
gives a medical subsidy to families outside the "poverty" range. The
SCHIP
expansion entices families with insurance to switch over to the
government
program. Once there, they'll always be a ward of the state.

The party which thinks such fiscal insanity as no-bid contracts to
Halliburton and prohibiting Medicare from negotiating with drug
companies for lower prices goes positively apoplectic over the notion
that ensuring poor children just might result in the occasional child
who does not have impoverished parents getting government aid.

Wrong, never said I liked no-bid contracts. It artificially increases
government costs. Find another company that can do what Halliburton can do,
and submit their qualifications to the government. You can sit around and
complain about something that has nothing to do with children's healthcare,
or you can do something about it.

Halliburton was a billion dollar business long before Bush even thought
about running for President.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that you won't bat an eye at
those no=-bid contracts, yet you froth at the mouth if the price of
providing children with good health is occasionally doing so even when
their parents have the means to do so.

Halliburton had as many or more no-bid contracts during the Clinton
years. They are a specialized company that > expands it's capabilities
in accordance to what the government needs.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that you won't bat an eye at
those no=-bid contracts, yet you froth at the mouth if the price of
providing children with good health is occasionally doing so even when
their parents have the means to do so.

Those that need the care, can get the care. How easy is it that liberals
will gradly give away my money, but never their own. Ask any rich liberal
if they use all available tax deductions to lower their own tax liabilities?
Not a single rich liberal has ever (to my knowledge) publicized their tax
returns to prove they're giving more than asked to give.

You are angry Gore lost his own state in the election.

Shifting from irrelevant tangents to flogging strawmen, I see.

Price controls (forcing free market producers to accept a standard price)
has never worked to lower prices.

This from the fool whose party prohibits Medicare by law from
negotiating lower prices with pharmaceutical companies.

The government has previous contracts to provide free/low cost medicine to
100 countries all over the world. You have many liberal buddies here that
complain about high drug costs, and yet don't talk about the fact that we
pay higher prices so we can send medicine to third world countries at an
affordable cost to them. Who donates the drugs for "Doctors without
Borders"??? The pharmaceuticals....and since it costs billions to develop
drugs, where do they go to get a reasonable return on their investment?

So, you want to stop the free/low cost drugs going to the rest of the world
so you can get lower cost drugs? How compassionate is that? I apologize.
You're not angy, you're just another hypocritical liberal that's also
selfish.

Have you ever invested your money in a public company that was prevented
from making a profit? Remember, 90% of everybody in the US has a stake in
the stock market, whether they know it or not. Even the smallest of
communities put their revenues in the hands of a fund manager to get a
return of the holdings. Because you think they develop drugs for free, I
absolutely want to avoid the companies you'd invest in.

Companies unable to make a profit, go out of business.

This sort of blatant, total ignorance is rampant in the republican
party- or is it outright dishonesty? The reason vaccine manufacturers
went out of business wasn't because of Clinton (either one) but
because of Gerald Ford's bungling mismanagement of the swine flu scare
in the 1970's.

Chris

How come you smarter people don't use google to prove us wrong?




Everyone knows America's vaccine industry is in serious trouble, with an
ever dwindling number of producers and recent severe vaccine shortages. What
everyone also should know is that the National Academy of Science's
Institute of Medicine has now pinned much of the blame on the government
vaccine-buying program promoted by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton,
according to the Wall Street Journal.

The panel of doctors and economists issuing a report on vaccines last week
identified as a fundamental cause of the problem the fact that the
government purchases 55 percent of the childhood vaccine market at forced
discount prices. The result has been "declining financial incentives to
develop and produce vaccines."

The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress
passed Clinton's Vaccines for Children program. The plan, promoted by the
Children's Defense Fund, was to use federal power to ensure universal
immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national
vaccine supply (the President and Mrs. Clinton had pushed for 100 percent)
at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver
to the poor and the un- and under-insured. As a result:


a.. Where 30 years ago, 25 companies produced vaccines for the U.S.
market., today only five remain, and there is only one producer for a number
of critical shots.
a.. Recent years have brought shortages of numerous vaccines, including
those for whooping cough, diphtheria and chicken pox.
The Institute panel in effect said that one of Senator Clinton's pet
projects is a bust. As Congress considers Medicare legislation that could do
similar harm to prescription drug makers, the vaccine tale is a timely
alarm, says the Journal.

Source: Editorial, "Hillary's Vaccine Shortage," Wall Street Journal, August
15, 2003; based on Committee on the Evaluation of Vaccine Purchase Financing
in the United States, "Financing Vaccines in the 21st Century: Assuring
Access and Availability," Institute of Medicine of the National Academies,
August 4, 2003.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2003/pd081803e.html