Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Republicans will say that the people in the park should be left alone to participate in free enterprise without government intervention. Of course, if they're not the right color then they should probably be arrested, unless they have a gun that they bought at Walmart. The Democrats would say, it's okay for them to gather there, before they go to the building next door to pick up their weekly government stipend. The Independents are waiting to see what incentives they can get from the Demo's or Rep's before deciding which side they agree with. The Green party would like to have a meeting with them in the hope that they will decide to build a community garden in the park. The Libertarians would say they should be left alone to do anything they wish.


...And the people from "Occupy" will show up with signs and banners for a sit-in protest, as soon as they figure out something to complain about, even if it has nothing to do with the park, or even Costa Rica.

Edited by ciclista
Link to post
Share on other sites

And a fine good morning to all on another beautiful day in Costa Rica


ciclista (POST #33 above) I'm sure it was only a unintentional oversight on your part, but to be in compliance with the "FAIR & EQUAL TREATMENT CLAUSE" of the United States Constitution, You failed to include the JOHN BIRTCH SOCIETY in your post. I do not mean to meddle in you affairs, but no one wants the "POLITICALLY CORRECT POLICE" coming to their door for a Warrantless Search and Seizure of personal property.


Ms. DANAJ (POST #34 above) "PARDY HARDY PARTY" sounds like an affiliation I would be interested in. Please rush all available literature, inclusive of enrolment forms. IT SOUNDS LIKE A PARTY I COULD SUPPORT.


And to my newest and bestest friend (next to Barack) MR. DAVID, a fine good morning.

Just a quick note to let you know, I am giving your latest posts their due consideration before responding. I am a bit confused, and thus delayed in response, by your most recent POST #31 where you state " you have to have your facts right" . I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING POLITICS, WHAT THE HELL DO FACTS HAVE TO DO WITH POLITICS ????? Anyway have a wonderful day.

One of your best friends


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don Ron, you wrote, " I am a bit confused, and thus delayed in response, by your most recent POST #31 where you state " you have to have your facts right" . I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING POLITICS, WHAT THE HELL DO FACTS HAVE TO DO WITH POLITICS ?????

The facts "have to do with [it]" once the political process is complete. Once the law (ObamaCare, in this case) becomes the law of the land, politics ceases to be relevant. Then (and, sadly, only then) are we confronted with the actual, verifiable truth of the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Evening David


I hope your aforementioned statement "once the Law becomes the Law of the land, politics ceases to be relevant" doesn't come back to bite you in the A_ _ after the 2016 elections. I will file it away for reference.


I am concerned for your wellbeing after reading and dissecting your post #25. I don't think I have seen such a professional "POLITICAL DOUBLE SPEAK" as you offered.


1)At first you agree with the FACT that I offered, "special consideration (LAW) for Pharmaceutical Co's". Your response was "who included the "no price negotiation" provision". I will take that as agreement of FACTS I offered. Is that provision still LAW ???


2) You immediately take exception to my comments regarding Medicare Part D, (by Senator Kennedy) insisting that it is solely the efforts of President Bush's Administration for the passage of this very important Senior Benefit. Are you now saying the REPUBLICANS are more responsive and concerned about the wellbeing of it's citizens than the DEMOCRATS.


3)In paragraph 2 you state "It is not, absolutely NOT, ILLEGAL for government agency to require pricing/volume discounting". Wait a minute, didn't you just say in paragraph one that the LAW states "NO PRICING NEGOTIATING PROVISION". This is why I'm concerned about your wellbeing.


On a personal note I, as a former Bostonian, take exception to how fast you threw DEMOCRAT Senator Ted Kennedy (PATRON SAINT OF Massachusetts) under the bus. We the people know that during HIS 54 YEARS in Washington, nothing ever got done unless HE was driving the bus (not that I ever wanted to be a passenger in a vehicle HE was driving).


In closing, I thank you MASTER for the lessons you have taught me well in DOUBLE SPEAK. May the angels always fly on your "LEFT" side.


one of your bestest friends



PS: I'll call the next time Barack and I are having a couple of cold ones at Bro. South West Conner of Grecia Park.

Edited by ronofboston
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It was the Bush Administration and their supporters in Congress who drafted, amended and enacted Medicare Part D. That law does, indeed, prohibit price negotiation within the Medicare Part D system, but you've asserted that (paraphrasing) it's illegal for a government agency to require price negotiations or volume discounts. Unless and until you can name one (just one) other federal law that contains such a proscription, you will remain wrong.


2) I would never suggest that Republicans are more responsive to human needs than Democrats. What I will say, with respect to Medicare Part D, is that the Bush Administration wanted it and the Republicans (and indeed some Democrats) in Congress were rubber stamping anything and everything the Bush Administration wanted in those years. If you don't believe that, have a cursory look at the enactment of the Patriot Act, the Authorization to use Military Force which "justified" the U.S.' invasion of Iraq, and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy for prime examples.


3) In my response #25, I quote your own words that ". . . it is ILLEGAL for a [emphasis added] government agency to require Pricing . . or Volume discounting." What you said then, and what I'm saying now, is that you're simply wrong.


When you wrote that " . . . a government agency . . ." you cast your net over every agency of government in the United States -- federal, state and local. And you got it wrong, as I pointed out. Not only is the VA permitted to negotiate prices but so are fifty state Medicaid programs, the Medicaid programs in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and elsewhere, the States Title V (Children witjh Special Health Care Needs) programs, many or most governmental employee health plans, health systems which the government runs or subsidizes for underserved areas and Native American reservations and elsewhere, the entire U.S. military medical establishment, and in other settings.


For you to assert that it is illegal for a governmental agency to negotiate price or volume discounts, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Or prove me wrong. Cite one (just one) other example.




​And as for throwing Senator Kennedy under the bus, I did no such thing. If he supported passage of Part D, he's to be thanked for that. I've never said it was a bad thing. But understand, too, that plenty of things passed through Congress in his years there that Senator Kennedy neither favored nor supported. By a very wide margin, he did not get his way every time or things would be very different today.




And, by the way, you have yet to volunteer yourself and your entire extended family to be among the nameless, faceless "them" who go without health care coverage. When will we be hearing about that? Remember, you and they are equally "them". (See Response #2.)

Edited by David C. Murray
Link to post
Share on other sites


That was a really dirty trick, to POST at @ 9:01 am, send me on my way to research FACTs to respond, only to find you change your POST at 3:18 pm (6hrs. later) with different verbiage and points of contention. I had not printed your first post, but that is a mistake I will not make again !!!!



Why is it that POLITICIANS feel compelled to use 600=800=1200 words in response, where TWO words would suffice, "YOUR WRONG". Why does it take a politician 6 paragraphs to say YOUR WRONG ???? What a waste of paper and energy !!!


Another note, why do DEMOCRATS insist on ruining a fine discussion/debate with FACTS.




Having read your post early this am (whether original or changed since) I was offended by your criticism of one of our outstanding Presidents in the last hundred years, President Bush. You either said or implied He and his gang of REPUBLICAN Representatives started a unjust or illegal war. This sent me back to my history books covering the previous 100 yrs.

Did you know who took us into war before:


World War 1: President Woodrow Wilson DEMOCRAT

World War 2: President Franklin Roosevelt DEMOCRAT

Korean War: President Harry Truman DEMOCRAT

Vietnam War: President John F. Kennedy DEMOCRAT

*Middle East War: President Bush REPUBLICAN


* Why????: Because the United States was attacked by a gang of Muslims from the Middle East who MUDERD 3,000 U.S. Citizens. He said you will HEAR from us and he sent our troops over their to kill the SOBs. What would the DEMOCRATS have done ? Send a letter of apology, and ask, Why Can't We Get Along ?


One more note: The Military called in (pre 9/11) "We have Osama Bin Laden in our cross hairs, awaiting orders. RESPONSE: STAND DOWN. Know who gave that order ???? that's right PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON DEMOCRAT.

I'm sure their are 3,000 families who regret that Presidential Order.


You bemoan the "PATRIOT ACT" ( I am not a proponent of same), but I have to ask, When the DEMOCRATS ruled the world, (2008,2009,2010) with Senator Harry Reed (wake me when it's over) ruler of the senate, Madam Pelosi (please GOD, just one more facelift) ruler of Congress, and the GREAT ONE (a personal friend) in the WHITE HOUSE, Why didn't they REPEAL all of these outrages deeds of the REPUBLICANS ???

Is it they are POLITICIANS first, foremost, and always.

By the way, speaking of FACTS




it is getting late, and I do have to get up early and get to the Library to research your MODIFIED post.

My very best regards



PS: I do expect to see this weekend a press release from Washington "BUSH ADMINISTATION RESPONSIBLE FOR EBOLA PLAUGE" and why not, it's worked for 6 years.

Edited by ronofboston
Link to post
Share on other sites

To Dave and Ron . . .




If you wish to continue the personal debate that this has become, i.e., off-topic from the thread topic, and which has turned a little bit snippy, I'm suggesting that you exchange emails with one another (via PM) and that you take the rest of your discussion off-list and continue it there privately. Any subsequent posts of your aformentioned private, off-topic discussion will be summarily removed, so please continue the discussion, but kindly do so privately.


Since this Obamacare Debate topic as of now seems essentially to have run it's course it will be closed Friday night at midnight. That should allow ample time for any other Forums Members who wish to add information or comment on-topic to the thread.


Thank You.


Paul M.

Forums Moderator


Link to post
Share on other sites

MR. MODERATOR, I would request you keep this thread open for the benefit of those working through the maze of ACA, a place where valuable information can be exchanged. I will recuse myself from this Thread.




This topic has been open since October 11th, one week now. Members who wished to join the thread did so and there has been an entire week to comment if they wanted to.


There is still until midnight tonight for Forum Members to add anything on-topic that they would like to, so it will remain open until then.


PM - Moderator


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.