Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: May 03 08:45AM -0500

David Laville wrote:
> the same guy who for 8 years of his presidency preached to us about
> income inequality.
 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-book-deal-2017-2
 
"at some point, you've made enough money..."
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 03 09:37AM -0700

On 2017-05-03 6:45 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> income inequality.
 
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-book-deal-2017-2
 
> "at some point, you've made enough money..."
 
Stripped of all context.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 03 09:38AM -0700

On 2017-05-03 3:17 AM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> And yet you've provided none...
 
>> Weird.
 
> That is a lie.
 
It's the absolute truth.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 03 10:06AM -0700

On 2017-05-03 9:58 AM, Moderate wrote:
 
>>> That is a lie.
 
>> It's the absolute truth.
 
> It is an absolute lie. I provided a statement. You replied to the post.
 
Except the statement was taken out of context and wasn't "anti-capitalist"
 
 
> Obama's anti-capitalist policies and statements are hard to miss,
 
Policies, such as...
 
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 03 10:28AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 9:45:11 AM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
> > income inequality.
 
> > http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-book-deal-2017-2
 
> "at some point, you've made enough money..."
 
Obama, up til now, hasn't made a lot of money. What should he have
done with the $60m book offer, say no that's too much?
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 03 10:29AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:32:16 PM UTC-4, Carbon wrote:
 
> > Except he's never said he doesn't believe in capitalism, so...
 
> And, the only reason he's getting a 60m book deal is the current president
> is so awful that it makes him look like a genius in comparison.
 
I expect Obama's book won't be cut and pasted from other sources,
like GW Bush's was.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 03 10:30AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 10:18:42 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> >>> http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-book-deal-2017-2
 
> >> Yes, and?
 
> > The anti-capitalist statements from Obama could fill a book.
 
Really? Name one.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 03 12:25PM -0700

On 2017-05-03 12:20 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> Obama, up til now, hasn't made a lot of money. What should he have
>> done with the $60m book offer, say no that's too much?
 
> Mike was merely quoting the anti-capitalist Obama. It is called irony.
 
Sorry, but what you're doing is an exercise in a wingnut circle jerk.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: May 03 02:28PM -0500

John B. wrote:
 
>> "at some point, you've made enough money..."
 
> Obama, up til now, hasn't made a lot of money. What should he have
> done with the $60m book offer, say no that's too much?
 
Yes,yes. And Hillary was flat broke when they left the whitehouse, LOL!
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: May 03 02:30PM -0500

John B. wrote:
 
>> is so awful that it makes him look like a genius in comparison.
 
> I expect Obama's book won't be cut and pasted from other sources,
> like GW Bush's was.
 
It will be complete bullshit, just like his first book.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: May 03 03:58PM -0500

Moderate wrote:
 
>>> Mike was merely quoting the anti-capitalist Obama. It is called irony.
 
>> Sorry, but what you're doing is an exercise in a wingnut circle jerk.
 
> You seem comfortable in your role as the pivot man.
 
LOLOLOLOL!!!!
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 03 02:33PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:30:25 PM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
 
> > I expect Obama's book won't be cut and pasted from other sources,
> > like GW Bush's was.
 
> It will be complete bullshit, just like his first book.
 
Did you read his first book? It was a best-seller and he didn't
get others to write it for him.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 03 03:34AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:00:30 AM UTC-4, Carbon wrote:
> first-world countries that have better, more affordable healthcare systems
> like that?
 
> https://goo.gl/zvV96T
 
Gosh, wouldn't a single payer system result in lower costs for the public too?
After all, you wouldn't have the inefficiency of multiple different (and incompatible)
billing management systems,many of which are deliberately whacked in order to
be inefficient so as to slow down payments to healthcare providers. Similarly,
there would be a bunch of CEO's and Boards each making up to $102M per year
in compensation that would end up getting cut out as redundant inefficiencies too...
 
 
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/4/9/1376712/-UnitedHealthcare-myUHC-CEO-Stephen-Hemsley-took-home-66-million-in-2014-102-million-in-2010>
 
<http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/compensation-issues/healthcare-ceos-dominate-wsj-s-list-of-highest-paid-employees-at-nonprofits.html>
 
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-06/the-highest-paid-u-s-executives-supervise-doctors-not-bankers>
 
<https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04++>
<https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09>
<https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H03++>
 
 
-hh
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 03 10:25AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> But with the nanny state culture in full bloom on all channels, nobody
> is emphasizing that caveat. It's "OMG....I have to pay more if I get sick."
 
> Not true. You pay more if you are irresponsible before becoming sick.
 
The problem with the post-ACA pre-ex regime was that insurance cos.
would use any unreported pre-ex as an excuse to terminate coverage.
A cancer patient could be cut off if he failed to report that he was
allergic to cats.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 03 12:29PM -0700

On 5/3/2017 10:25 AM, John B. wrote:
> would use any unreported pre-ex as an excuse to terminate coverage.
> A cancer patient could be cut off if he failed to report that he was
> allergic to cats.
 
The situation you John describes never happened to any client of mine.
Once a policy was rescinded, but only because the applicant failed to
disclose he had lung cancer.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 03 12:31PM -0700

On 5/2/2017 10:00 PM, Carbon wrote:
> first-world countries that have better, more affordable healthcare systems
> like that?
 
> https://goo.gl/zvV96T
 
It would be great if we were a country of 35 million like Canada. The
USA Federal government, specifically the CMS, can barely run a website.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 03 12:35PM -0700

On 5/3/2017 6:29 AM, Welcome to Trumpton wrote:
 
>> Not true. You pay more if you are irresponsible before becoming sick.
 
> Which in effect means that the people who can least afford it end up
> asked to pay more.
 
The people who can least afford get very generous subsidies. It's the
tax paying, middle class, self employed people who get hosed.
 
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 03 01:00PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:35:23 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > asked to pay more.
 
> The people who can least afford get very generous subsidies. It's
> the tax paying, middle class, self employed people who get hosed.
 
But this is still merely figuring out ways for the public to be
able to pay the ever-growing bill ... we've still not addressed
the much more fundamental basics of the total costs of healthcare,
which means that the only way for rates to go down overall is for
someone currently being paid to be paid less.
 
So whose ox is to be gored?
 

> > Of course you can avoid this inequality by having just the one state
> > run risk pool.
 
But why should the State effectively "give away" to private industry
the lower cost/risk clients for them to profit off of?
 
Is the basic idea here going to be that all of the private healthcare
companies who benefit from the State providing a healthier customer
pool...are going to pay the State for providing this service?
 
If not, why not?
 
 
-hh
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 03 02:30PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:29:42 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> The situation you John describes never happened to any client of mine.
> Once a policy was rescinded, but only because the applicant failed to
> disclose he had lung cancer.
 
My knowledge of this is admittedly anecdotal, but I read about
instances of it during the creation of Obamacare. I don't know
how widespread it was, but I think any successor to the ACA
should outlaw it. Also, I meant pre-ACA, not post-.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 03 02:31PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 3:31:08 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
> > https://goo.gl/zvV96T
 
> It would be great if we were a country of 35 million like Canada. The
> USA Federal government, specifically the CMS, can barely run a website.
 
The U.S. government runs hundreds of websites. Nobody complains
about them.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 03 05:17AM -0500


>> The anti-capitalist statements from Obama could fill a book.
 
> And yet you've provided none...
 
> Weird.
 
That is a lie.
--
"Welcome to Trumpton" <trumpton@maiIsorter.co.uk>: May 03 01:29PM

Dene wrote:
 
> nobody is emphasizing that caveat. It's "OMG....I have to pay more
> if I get sick."
 
> Not true. You pay more if you are irresponsible before becoming sick.
 
Which in effect means that the people who can least afford it end up
asked to pay more.
 
Of course you can avoid this inequality by having just the one state
run risk pool.
 
--
Most people believe there is truth and there are lies. "Alternative
facts" are lies.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 03 11:58AM -0500


>> That is a lie.
 
> It's the absolute truth.
 
It is an absolute lie. I provided a statement. You replied to the post.
 
Obama's anti-capitalist policies and statements are hard to miss,
yet you strike out.
 
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 03 02:20PM -0500


>> "at some point, you've made enough money..."
 
> Obama, up til now, hasn't made a lot of money. What should he have
> done with the $60m book offer, say no that's too much?
 
Mike was merely quoting the anti-capitalist Obama. It is called irony.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 03 03:34PM -0500

> On 2017-05-03 12:20 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> Mike was merely quoting the anti-capitalist Obama. It is called irony.
 
> Sorry, but what you're doing is an exercise in a wingnut circle jerk.
 
You seem comfortable in your role as the pivot man.
--
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment