Posted by Rod Speed on December 7, 2009, 12:47 pm
sr wrote:
>
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
> In the healthcare bill after the age of 50 you won't rate along with the
younger, for medical care
Another bare faced lie.
> Also, you are required to let Gov. have access to your bank acc. and medical
papers, NO MORE PRIVACY
Another bare faced lie.
They already have that access with tax payers, you silly little pathological
liar.
> the Dems are behind the door making deals with the Medical Professionals,
AARP, and other agencies that will benefit
> them, but not you.
Another bare faced lie.
Everyone will benefit from the elimination of the risk of bankruptcy
due to a serious medical problem, you silly little pathological liar.
> This is more than about health, this is about control
Another bare faced lie. They have LESS control when a public option is added,
you silly little pathological liar.
Posted by Cindy Hamilton on December 7, 2009, 1:48 pm
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to a
paper
that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
Quote the specific passage(s) in the health care bill that
supports your assertions.
> In the healthcare bill after the age of 50 you won't rate along with the
> younger, for medical care
> Also, you are required to let Gov. have access to your bank acc. and medical
> papers, NO MORE PRIVACY
> the Dems are behind the door making deals with the Medical Professionals,
> AARP, and other agencies that will
> benefit them, but not you.
> This is more than about health, this is about control
Posted by Rod Speed on December 8, 2009, 3:29 am
sr wrote
>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
>> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to a
>> paper that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link we are following Europe ,
Following the whole of the rest of the first and second world, actually.
> have you noticed?
You clearly havent.
>> Quote the specific passage(s) in the health care bill that supports your
assertions.
You clearly cant do that.
Your link says none of your lies below.
>>> In the healthcare bill after the age of 50 you won't rate along with the
younger, for medical care
>>> Also, you are required to let Gov. have access to your bank acc. and medical
papers, NO MORE PRIVACY
>>> the Dems are behind the door making deals with the Medical Professionals,
AARP, and other agencies that will benefit
>>> them, but not you.
>> This is more than about health, this is about control
Posted by Cindy Hamilton on December 9, 2009, 3:46 pm
> >http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to a
> paper
> that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
> we are following Europe , have you noticed?
No, I haven't noticed. Even if we are following
Europe, I haven't seen any compelling argument
to believe that's a bad idea. It might be a bad idea;
it might be a good idea. Running in circles
screaming "The sky is falling! We're following Europe!"
does not form a reasoned argument.
Look, if the health care bill is going to
do the things you say, then it says so somewhere in the
bill. Quoting unrelated journal articles doesn't support your
position. Find where in the health care bill that it says
"government will have access to citizen's bank accounts",
and you will be more believable. Otherwise, you're just
fear-mongering.
Cindy Hamilton
Posted by George on December 10, 2009, 8:27 am
On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
>>
>> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link to a
>> paper
>> that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
>>
>> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
>> we are following Europe , have you noticed?
> No, I haven't noticed. Even if we are following
> Europe, I haven't seen any compelling argument
> to believe that's a bad idea. It might be a bad idea;
> it might be a good idea. Running in circles
> screaming "The sky is falling! We're following Europe!"
> does not form a reasoned argument.
> Look, if the health care bill is going to
> do the things you say, then it says so somewhere in the
> bill. Quoting unrelated journal articles doesn't support your
> position. Find where in the health care bill that it says
> "government will have access to citizen's bank accounts",
> and you will be more believable. Otherwise, you're just
> fear-mongering.
> Cindy Hamilton
Hardly fear mongering. It is a critical comment on how bureaucratic,
inefficient and insulting the Federal government is. Congress should be
totally absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for creating a
work product that absolutely no one can understand.
There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
document with tables that clearly define the scope. Anything more is an
insult to us. No one would accept a 650 page mortgage or a 550 page car
rental agreement.
XML site map