On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:37:50 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 17/04/2010 3:21 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:19 -0600,
wrote:

of course, he's NOT...except to make it a bit more cost effective...

You mean less coverage to conserve cash for a bloated overspending
debt-spend government.

no one knows what 'less coverage' means.

and how much coverage do you have if you cant get ANY coverage?

kinda forgot about that, didn't you?


Hey, why cut the pork when you can slash what the people really need to
justify higher taxes eh?

as opposed to higher insurance premiums?


Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a
presidential BS line like Obama has for you.

except, of course, the deficit is smaller this year than projected AND
obama's plans have been demonstrated to be at LEAST deficiit neutral
and may evenb REDUCE the deficit.


That is also why
they wanted to jam it through congress/senate so fast,

HHAhAHAHAAHAH!!!!

it took a YEAR to get through!! BWHAHAHAHAH!!!!

For the lethargic geriatrics in DC, that is fast. Just enough time to
pork it up.

IOW it's fast only if you say it's fast.

golly. i had no idea you had a govt job determining what 'fast' is.


Think, Obama is playing you for a fool.

and you're the king of fools

Time will tell. But forgve me if I start laughing now.

wait a year. you seem to think that's fast