nom=de=plume wrote:
"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
On Mar 23, 8:44 pm, hk wrote:
On 3/23/10 8:41 PM, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:16:54 -0400, wrote:
Where is all of the extra medical capacity going to come from to deal
with 31 million new patients?
Supply and demand says the cost of providing care will go up.
And quality and availability will go down. It has to, supply is
relatively inelastic.
Here we have a couple of "haves" hoping to maintain their medical
distance from the "have nots."
Come on, Harry. Has it ever crossed your pea-sized brain that he
(Wayne) may have *earned* the privilege of having or maintaining the
type of insurance and care he wants? You know, perhaps he busted his
ass during his career, took substantial risks, employed many people,
etc.?

That's not to imply that others didn't or don't. But sounds like the
end result may have been different. Good for him.

You have nothing to worry about, though. Barack Hussein Obama
included a "Cadillac Tax" provision that basically exempts all taxes
and penalties for Unions until, what? 2018? That should also make you
a, as you put it, "have".

Wonder why that was.

Just curious, did you ever serve our country in the U.S. military?
Enlisted or Officer; doesn't matter. I'm willing to bet anything that
you didn't.

My guess is that you ducked the service in favor for an easy-ass
liberal arts curriculum at some College or University.

Mike


Reply: Except that the union workers gave up other benefits to get better
healthcare coverage. So, basically, you're just repeating the rightwing
talking points without thinking about it one iota.

They did? Like what?


Like wage increases, like job security. Like... do your own research instead
of relying on Rush.

Who's Rush? Tell me about the job security bit. What wage increases? Do
you have any info on exactly what they gave up. You imply that you know
but you are probably just guessing. Lay some facts on the table and we
might pay attention to you.