If Republicans had any brains they'd let the stupid Dems pass this POS health Bill.

[Nick Gromicko]

And when Americans realize that they MUST pay 17% of their income to buy an overpriced product or be fined or jailed... there won't be a Democrat party anymore.

[William J. Decker]

THe only problem with that, Nick, is that it would take practically forever to recind it. And think of all the damage that would occur in the interum.

Good men should not stand back and let bad things happen.

[Gary Farnsworth]

That said, I guess there are few good men in Kansas. If health care and cap and trade pass, better by all of the canned goods and ammo you can.

[Jeffrey R. Knight]

It seems lately I have come to a realization that whatever party is NOT in power wants to screwup the country as much as possible so that when the next election comes they can push for CHANGE to get their party in. I keep thinking back over the past 20 years and it seems there is a case for it every time no matter what party is in charge. Maybe I am just being a little pessimistic during the holiday season. Nick kinda proves my point.

If either party really wanted to accomplish something good with all this health care BS they would split the bill into smaller parts and concentrate on the pieces they agree on...maybe health insurance reform first....then tackle the more difficult issue of public options etc. Throwing it ALL together into one bill just makes the one party seem like they want the bill to be trash if it passes so they can say "I told you so." and the other party thinks that if they bundle it all together they can get the bad passed with the good at the same time.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

And when Americans realize that they MUST pay 17% of their income to buy an overpriced product or be fined or jailed... there won't be a Democrat party anymore.

Please read and act, only takes a minute!

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan.

• It took me less than a minute to sign up to require our congressmen and senators to drink at the same trough!

• Three cheers for Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana !

Congressman John Fleming ( Louisiana physician) has proposed an amendment that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt).

Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and sign his petition (very simple - just first, last and email). I have immediately done just that at:

http://fleming.house.gov/index.cfm sectionid=55&sectiontree=29,55

• Please urge as many people as you can to do the same!

If Congress forces this on the American people, the Congressmen should have to accept the same level of health care for themselves and their families.

• To do otherwise is the height of hypocrisy!

Check this out yourself on Snopes http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hr615.asp

PS:
This was sent to me by my nephew in Houston. I urge ALL of you to sign this petition and ask EVERYONE you know to do the same!

[Doug Edwards]

“It has been said, the greatest volume of sheer brain power in one place occurred when Jefferson dined alone..." John F. Kennedy

HOW DID JEFFERSON KNOW??????




When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as inEurope

We shall become as corrupt asEurope.
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those

Who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it

Goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half

The wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent

The government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government

Results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep

And bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves

Against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the

Blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of

Ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow

Private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered..'


'If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do

Read the newspaper you are misinformed.'
-Mark Twain

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Obama mulls making vets foot bill for service injuries

By David Goldstein
McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
Updated: March 17, 2009, 9:13 AM / 3 comments
Story tools:
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is considering making veterans use private insurance to pay for treatment of combat and service-related injuries.

The plan would be an about-face on what veterans believe is a long-standing pledge to pay for health care costs that result from their military service.

But in a White House meeting Monday, veterans groups apparently failed to persuade President Obama to take the plan off the table.

“Veterans of all generations agree that this proposal is bad for the country and bad for veterans,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “If the president and the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] want to cut costs, they can start at AIG, not the VA.”

Under current policy, veterans are responsible for health care costs that are unrelated to their military service. Exceptions in some cases can be made for veterans who do not have private insurance or are 100 percent disabled.




The president spoke Monday at the Department of Veterans Affairs to commemorate its 20th anniversary and said he hopes to increase funding by $25 billion over the next five years.

• But he said nothing about the plan to bill private insurers for service-related medical care.

Few details about the plan have been available, and a VA spokesman did not provide additional information. But the reaction on Capitol Hill to the idea has been swift and harsh.
“Dead on arrival” is how Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington described the idea.
“ . . . when our troops are injured while serving our country, we should take care of those injuries completely,” Murray, a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, told a hearing last week.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki said at the same hearing that the plan was “a consideration.” He also acknowledged that the VA’s proposed budget for next year included it as a way to increase revenue. But he told the committee that “a final decision hasn’t been made yet.”



For veterans, that was little comfort.

• Veterans claim that the costs of treating expensive war injuries could raise their insurance costs, as well as those for their employers.
• Some worried that it also could make it more difficult for disabled veterans to find work.

The leaders of several veterans groups had written Obama last month complaining about the new plan.

• “There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide,” they wrote.

Many veterans had high expectations for Obama after years of battling the Bush administration over benefit cuts and medical concerns such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

• But the VA’s decision to float a potential change in its policy of paying for service-related injuries could signal a quick end to the honeymoon.

“It’s a betrayal,” said Joe Violante, legislative director of Disabled American Veterans, which signed the letter to Obama. “My insurance company didn’t send me to Vietnam, my government did.

• The same holds true for men and women now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s the government’s responsibility.”

Meanwhile, a new poll by the independent Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has found Obama’s approval rating falling to 59 percent from 64 percent in February.

• It also found the ranks of Americans who disapprove of his job performance rising, to 26 percent from 17 percent.

Pew found that 44 percent think that the president listens more to liberals than to moderates in his party, while 30 percent think he listens more to moderates. In January, 44 percent thought he listened more to moderates and 34 percent more to liberals.

http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/610029.html

[William J. Decker]

I just heard our federal Rep, Jan Shankoswki, speak on this issue. In a nutshell, what she said was that this bill was just a way to, eventually, get single payer health care, like in Canada.

Let's be clear.

"Progressives" are defined as left wing, politically, with an emphesis towards statism (i.e., more government central control of the economy). They believe that they can perfect society and use government control to achieve this goal. The perfection of society, in their thinking, is egalitarianism, i.e., equality of outcome as oppsed to the Constitutional emphesis on equality of opportunity.

They use the term "social justice" alot. Social justice, in the Progressive political form, means that any "oppression" real or perceived, must be addressed and corrected, usually through governmental action.

So, someone does not "succeed" in life, it is not their fault, it is the fault of the oppressive society and the scoiety must change to allow this person to succeed.

Let's apply it to our industry. A very reputable and successful local inspector once said "10% of the inspectors do 90% of the inspections. The reason for this is that they are well educated for their work, both in terms of inspection knowledge and in terms of business knowledge (accounting, marketing, networking, business law). They do inspections full time and produce a superior work product (i.e, their report)."

According to the "Social Justice" concept, all home inspectors should be equally successful. But, on its face, this is absurd. Social justice is merely a methodology that brings everyone down to the same low level. I prefer Capitalism, which is based upon the concept of profit.

I would further posit that the profit motive is a moral imperative.

I think that you would all agree with the Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. If I was having a home inspected, I would want a good, knowledgable and professional inspector. So, I treat my clients as I would want to be treated.

Successful business do not screw over their customers. If they did, no one whoold do business with them. To keep business, and make a profit, good businesses must do a good job. To gain market share, a business must do a better job then their competitors.

Sure, the low ballers get some business, but no lowballer is going to be successful, or stay in business, over the long run. There is no profit in being a lowballer.

Well, enough of politics and economics 101.

Hope this helps;

[James H. Bushart]

"If Republicans had any brains..."

...they'd be Democrats.

End of discussion.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

"If Republicans had any brains..."

...they'd be Democrats.

End of discussion.

"If Democrats had any brains..."

They'd move to Canada.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

"If Republicans had any brains..."

...they'd be Democrats.

End of discussion.

I prefer ideology to politcial part affiliation.

The country, according to every poll, is center-right. The contry leans towards conservatism.

Liiberals (now calling themselves "progressives") work according to a self-contradictory ideology. It's basic arguements are not rational or logical, they are emotional.

"Moderates", also called "independents" are, usually, people who either are not interested in politics or don't want to be bothered or have never really examined their political beliefs or just want to feel superior and "above it all".

Hope this helps;

[James H. Bushart]

If it makes you feel better to post it, then it helps, Will.

[Jeffrey R. Knight]

"Liberalism = Open-minded....open for change...if you look at the actual definition.

"Conservatism = Close-minded....against change....if you look at the actual definition.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jknight

"Liberalism = Open-minded....open for change...if you look at the actual definition.

"Conservatism = Close-minded....against change....if you look at the actual definition.

Always been that way.

Jefferson's conservative father rolled his eyes and cringed, hoping that his ultra-liberal son would someday wise up and realize that he would not prosper in business if he did not conform to the laws of the King instead of insisting on "changing everything". His dad was right and Jefferson died....a debtor....having held no real job other than "politician".

Somehow or another, these ultra-liberal forefathers are the heroes of today's conservatives.

Go figure.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jknight

"Liberalism = Open-minded....open for change...if you look at the actual definition.

"Conservatism = Close-minded....against change....if you look at the actual definition.

I was speaking with regards to current usage, in a political sense, in the U.S., not the common venacular meaning.

Modern Political conservatives are open to change, but only when that change has been evaluated, fully, and found to be better than the status quo.

Modern politcal "liberals" are for change for changes sake and, if one examines history, it is clear that their changes have made things worse, in the long run.