Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I read that as righteous indignation on Bill's part.

Posted By: - on 2005-09-24
In Reply to: His hands were shaking like a leaf...sm - Democrat




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Where were you and all your righteous indignation

when Nan called Dixie Dew a drunk on the Conservative board not too long ago?


Oops, that's right.  I forgot.  If Nan or AG or MT does it, it's okay, and they're just poor victims being constantly attacked by the liberals.


Also, if Person A wishes Person B (the president) to rot in hell, it (a) does not mean they wish the person dead; it means they hope the person gets what's coming to them when they wind up IN hell for all the unnecessary deaths they are responsible for here on earth; and (b) it certainly doesn't mean that Person C (not even INVOLVED in the original thought) can take that statement and accuse Person A of wishing Person C DEAD.  Unless, of course, Person C is now hallucinating and asserting that SHE'S the President of the United States.  If that's the case, then it all makes perfect sense! 


You've shown yourself for the fraud you truly are.


Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
You have to excuse them, after Bill and Hill, scandal is just part
x
Bill Clinton gets part of the blame == refused to take out bin Laden...sm
when he had the chance.



Yep, I read that part...
and probably the difference in the cost is split between the difference in what the doctors make in both places, and if there is some sort of a cap on services...meaning, the insurance plan tells the doctor that is what you get for that particular service. No negotiation, no nothing. That is the only way I can think of that the streamlined disbursement system would work. If they do not have clerical personnel handling it, that tells me they have specific charges for specific services, regardless. That would be another sticky wicket on this side of the pond with the medical profession.

Another thing mentioned, and why the French physicians are okay to charge less...medical school in France is tuition-free. There will be another huge hit on the American taxpayer....can you even imagine the cost of that on the front end?

Like I said, it looks good on the face...one would be interested in knowing how long it took from inception to where it was "working well" and the dollar cost involved in the conversion and the ongoing maintenance.

I wonder, when they apply the "broad tax on earned and unearned income" if the French people will love it as much as they do now. It is a consideration...

Not meaning to be a fly in the ointment, kam...just looking at in stark reality.

Have a good day!
Did you not read the part
about the questioning? "Are you worshiping God?" "Are you praying?"

If it was just about parking, why would that matter?
Read The Actual Bill
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text

If you're so concerned, one would think you'd actually read the bill as written, rather than rely on someone else with a clear agenda to do your interpreting for you.

Gimme a break.
...and now we shall read the climate bill...
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/22346245/speed-reading.htm
Didn't you read this part?

"The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States."


Their system costs less per capita than our system.  You bring up a good point about the doctors making less money, but should our doctors' main objective be getting rich or providing excellent care to patients?  I'm sure many doctors would be happy to be able to help patients without having to beg insurance companies to cover the only cholesterol medications to help someone with severe CAD or not having to write letters pleading with insurance to cover a much-needed MRI or surgery.  I transcribe letters like this all the time.  Doctors are constantly taking time out of their day (and money out of their pockets) to jump through insurance companies' hoops.  They are also often frustrated by patients with no insurance who refuse to pay for a potentially life-saving echocardiogram or colonoscopy.  They might be happy with lower paychecks if they knew they could just go to work and help patients without having to stress about whether or not their patients can afford the medical help they need.  I know some doctors are probably in it mostly for the money, but that is not the kind of doctor I want to go to!


However, I want to find out more about how France transitioned into their current program, as I imagine here it would be quite difficult to make so many changes.  I believe we can do it eventually though, and anything this important is worth the effort.  I do think we can learn a lot from their system though, because they have not done away with private health insurance and choices, and I think that system would be much easier for Americans to swallow.


Did you bother to read the part that said....

The Bush Administration admits there could be no oil production in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge until 2018 and production would not peak until 2027. [U.S. Department of Energy]


 


I just read the draft of the bill on line...
the lenders are getting the bailout all right, but there are provisions in the bill about letting people in foreclosure get "modifications" so they can keep their houses. We are essentially buying the bad mortgages from the lenders, we the taxpayers. And then those folks who got those mortgages they really didn't qualify for and could not afford to begin with...can try to pay it back, which in and of itself is not a bad thing...however, the rub is the "modifications." I don't disagree with modifying the interest rate to the average others are paying...but there is a thing there that says "reduction of loan principal" as one of the options. I think that is going too far. I think they should have to pay back every dime they borrowed no matter how long it takes...becaue of they don't, WE have to. Sigh.
Boy Wonder didn't READ the bill, let alone write it!
##
Guess you didn't read this part . . .
From Wall Street Journal and other sites:

"At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal," Mr. Burton said in an email to reporters. "At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details."

McCain released statement minutes after responding to Obama.
It's just that feigned Republican indignation
That's all. They're panties are all in a wad today because they lost and they're having to eat sour grapes. Too bad they are too narrow minded to share in the jubilation.
God bless the self-righteous!

nm


She's not self-righteous.... we need to be kind to each other (sm)
She said she was very happy about Obama being elected. She is not self-righteous at all. Come on now.
So, was Hitler righteous then? sm

Unfortunately, the reality is that the good guys don't always win.


Oh, there's that self-righteous garbage again
I don't care when you were born, abortion is wrong.....PERIOD!

Even moreso the point you seemed to have missed, it ain't enough I'm going to pay to murder unborn children anyway, Obama is going to FORCE US to pay for babies to be slaughtered in Ethiopia? If they want to kill their babies, they can do it without MY MONEY!
why is it that the Christians are self-righteous sm
condescending and judgement and insulting and your posts are not? Whether you get to heaven is based on whether you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and SAvior. You cannot do anything on your own to warrant heaven.

Whether you believe or not, I am not going to deny my Lord and Savior because you think I am condescending or anything else. I truly hope you reconsider.
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
You got a lotta nerve being so self-righteous
nm
The Church of the Self-Righteous Has Spoken

I don't care what anyone believes or practices - freedom of religion 


It's the freaks who think THEIR religion is the ONLY RIGHT religion who scare me.


Even Jesus was a liberal.


Like heck it ain't......poster is a self-righteous
:{
I was not referring to an individual as being self-righteous,
I was referring to the collective you that applies to anyone that maybe needs to see a different perspective.
Feel better after your self-righteous rant?
The Palestinians are terrorits, who thrive on chaos and bloodshed.

If it makes you feel all giddy to root for the savages, go ahead. You've clearly closed your mind off to the truth. Just like they wanted you to.

Nice to know even monsters can find support from folks like you.

It must really burn you, though, that Israel is kicking the holy h3ll out of your little bunch of Arab buddies.

So what do you think about the warnings that Palestinans are going to resort to suicide bombers (since they clearly can't hit squat with their rockets)?

Who do you think they're going to strap those little puppies to, anyway? It won't be the "soldiers." No sir. They're targeting their recruitment at women and boys. Yeah, that's real gallant.

Back to the Stone Age! Shouldn't take long now.
The righteous prevail? What a crock.
The self-righteous who are legends in their own minds, maybe, but they are also deluded and never come out on top. And, my dear, there is nothing righteous about wholesale genocidal slaughter of innocent populations no matter how hard you try to justify it.

Fact is that Palestine had been kept geographically intact and its population was not displaced under numerous occupations and invasions for the past 3000 years UNTIL the west got their hands on it. What part of it ain't gonna fly do you not comprehend? Call them losers to your heart's content. They are STILL there and will be there long after you and I have turned to dust.
I forgot, that is reserved only for the self-righteous on this board
besides, I never claimed I am a woman.

why not bother some of the other posters below regarding their anti-obama comments, no, you probably will not do that, very progressive indeed!
Angry, smug and terminally self-righteous.
x
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.


You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.


How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?


BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.


But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...


O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.


MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?


You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.


O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.


But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?


All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?


MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.


O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.


MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.


O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...


MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.


In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.


We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...


O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.


MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...


O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.


MAHER: Whatever it costs.


O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?


MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.


O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.


MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.


O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.


MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.


O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.


MAHER: Thank you.


O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.


MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.


O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?


MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?


O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.


MAHER: Yes.


O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.


But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.


There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.


I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.


MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.


O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.


Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?


MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.


O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.


Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.


MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.


O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.


Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"


Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.


Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.

Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.

It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
only part saved was the ignorant part
You can read the whole article.  This quote was saved to show what she said that was so stupid.
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.

I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.

So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
oh no Mr Bill

The communists are coming!!!!!!


 


Can you say BILL C-L-I-N-T-O-N???? He
xx
I will try this once more....this is a bill
put forth by a VERY unpopular REPUBLICAN president. All we hear ad nauseam from the Obama campaign is McCain is another Bush, we can't afford more Bush, heck, Pelosi said the same darned thing in her little speech before the vote blew up. The Democrats do NOT want to be identified as voting in the majority, against the Republicans, WITH Bush, to pass the bill because if they did, and it does not work, they will be forever identified with voting WITH Bush. Political suicide. Surely you can see that.

What I am saying is, Obama is a far left socialist and the party has become the majority far left socialist. So they will SUPPORT his agenda, and they have the majority in congress to back it up. Surely you can see that they will vote FOR Obama's agenda. You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that you think enough Democrats would vote against him to stop something he wants? You really think that??
I second that bill!

There was a bill that they both
worked on together.  John McCain's people called Obama's people.  It was not the other way around.
But you know something, Bill still came out
smelling like a rose, after all that, didn’t he? A much admired man, makes $$$$ for speeches, welcomed here at home and around the world. Oh, the 2nd Mr. Bush could only wish for so much.
This bill
is a slippery slope and doesn't deserve the slightest considersation. All people should be protected from criminal or harmful behavior. If a homosexual or pedophile deserves protection from someone, doesn't the child or even an adult who may be raped because of a deviants "sexual orientation" deserve the same protection? Having a so-called "sexual orientation" does not give you the right to act on that "orientation" simply because you can't control your "urges." This bill gives deviants free range to imbibe in their "deviant urges" without consequences. Why any president would consider such an atrocity is beyond me. If Obama signs this bill, the damage done will be on his loony head.
bill maher.com
Hey, if any of you want to post on another board, I mean when this one gets overloaded with conservative attacks, Bill Maher.com.  It is pretty cool and you can post away however you want, whatever you want.  In order to post, you must pick a handle and password and register and log in each time..Check it out.
WHATever and thank you, Bill Clinton
with a thriving economy, an honest attempt at protecting our environment, and peace.

*The bill is about when and not now, meaning NOW* HUH??

Then let's get out of there and let them control their government.  Let's take off the *training wheels* (like Murtha has been saying) and let them learn to ride their *bike* while we observe from the periphery, there if they need us to *catch* them.  As long as we are there doing it for them, they will never do it on their own.  And by agreeing to amnesty, we're publicly telling the world that the lives of our soldiers aren't important, regardless of how you try to spin it. 


And, yes, the media is eerily silent about this.  The last article I read last week indicated that the Iraqi Prime Minister was AGAINST amnesty for anyone who kills an IRAQI but was in FAVOR of amnesty for anyone who kills AMERICANS.  What a wonderful plan. 


I'm a friend of Bill!
from the uber-liberal state of Massachusetts. I was just responding to previous post of why Observer posts on this forum.
Did Bush actually say he was against this bill

Do you have a link to an article or anything where he states that?  I agree with you to some extent on that point.  My only issue is that within the 6 months it takes to get a different bill ready to go kids in middle-income and lower-middle-income families with be spending another 1/2 year without health insurance, and what if the new bill gets held up for some reason - then it's just more waiting for something I think we should have had long ago - access to affordable heath insurance for America's kids.  Poor people are already receiving free healthcare on Medicaid, obviously, but many middle-class children are slipping through the cracks.  I just didn't see any articles where Bush said the illegal immigrants were part of the reason he was vetoing the bill.  He always seems to be saying positive things about the hispanic community in generaly because he seems to want the hispanic vote (for his party).


I think all presidents are given too much power.  Hundreds of representatives that we took the time and effort to vote for can have their bill vetoed by 1 guy with entirely too much power.  A decent number of Republicans voted for the expansion to the SCHIP bill as well, and I definitely applaud their courage to go against their leader.  If the plan is so seriously flawed, then why did those Republicans feel so passionate about voting for it and trying to talk the President into signing it?  If the bill is allowing tons of immigrants onto it, then that is an issue, but aren't illegals getting hoards of free healthcare already just because they are poor?  I don't want them to get free healthcare, but it seems like they are already, so is this issue really the best battleground to fight the illegals, or is this just a symptom of a far greater problem that needs to be dealt with on a greater scale?  I just don't want the fact that illegals are sneaking onto the SCHIP program to be the only reason we don't pass the bill.  If illegals receive a free hospital stay should we close down the whole hospital?  Of course not.  Maybe not the greatest analogy, but I think you get what I'm saying.  If you do have a link to an article I would be happy to read it, as I want to know as much about this issue as possible.


They need to write a better bill
This is a mute point now, because the bill was vetoed by the Pres.and for good reason. Why do we have to accept bad bills? This was a poorly written bill, and that's the reason it was vetoed. Why all the vagueness? $83,000 per year is hardly poverty level. If this bill was truly going to help poor kids then write it that way. I don't understand why it has to be so vague. To me it reeks of dishonesty and pork.

Write a good understandable bill...what's the problem with that?
Bill Maher
Great show last night! Loved David Frost. Couldn't get over West Clark saying that Middle Eastern women are content being forced to cover themselves from head to toe!

Live in San Francisco area so really want to get to LA for the taping of his show.
Does that mean you believe that Bill and Hillary were....
sincere?