Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Delicious...
On Oct 21, 6:50*am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. *Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. |
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Delicious...
More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. -- Nom=de=Plume |
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Delicious...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? |
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? -- Nom=de=Plume |
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Delicious...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Came off one his fave White Power websites. |
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Delicious...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? |
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Delicious...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? lol lol |
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message
news On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? Can you ask questions that have some thought to them? -- Nom=de=Plume |
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:09:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message news On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? Can you ask questions that have some thought to them? Are you saying you can't answer the question because you've backed yourself into another corner? lol lol |
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Delicious...
|
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Double Delicious! | General | |||
Delicious! | General | |||
The irony is, well, delicious | General | |||
What a delicious feast! | General | |||
This is just too delicious not to comment... | General |