In article ,
says...

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?

Well, I don't really know but if they were they would be sued
immediately. After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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?

Well, I don't really know but if they were they would be sued
immediately. After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Shoot, you stole my 'thunder'. (That's a pun. A ****ty one, but one
anyway.)

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a
Liberal.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a
Liberal.

Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay
double for something that doesn't.

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a
Liberal.

Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay
double for something that doesn't.

Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a
Liberal.

Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay
double for something that doesn't.

Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.

lol

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a
Liberal.

Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay
double for something that doesn't.

Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.

Funny thing is that he isn't paying anything.

You actually have to pay taxes to be considered a taxpayer.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a
Liberal.

Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay
double for something that doesn't.

Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.

Funny thing is that he isn't paying anything.

You actually have to pay taxes to be considered a taxpayer.


John seems to have devolved into typing lol a bunch of times rather than
actually have a discussion. I guess he's run out of things to say.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:42:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a
Liberal.

Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay
double for something that doesn't.

Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.

Funny thing is that he isn't paying anything.

You actually have to pay taxes to be considered a taxpayer.


John seems to have devolved into typing lol a bunch of times rather than
actually have a discussion. I guess he's run out of things to say.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. lol lol

You get what you deserve.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:42:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:34:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk wrote:


After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public
funded not for profit?

Huh? I thought "privatization" was the cost cutting mantra of the
Right. You know, how a lean mean corporation was more efficient than a
bloated government agency. So, does this mean that if we eliminate
private health insurance companies, and go with a single payer public
option, our health cost would go down? Damn, you're turning into a
Liberal.

Not really, look at the success record of govt "not for profit"
organizations. I would rather pay for something that works, than pay
double for something that doesn't.

Yup. Medicare and the VA don't work. Bummer.

Funny thing is that he isn't paying anything.

You actually have to pay taxes to be considered a taxpayer.


John seems to have devolved into typing lol a bunch of times rather than
actually have a discussion. I guess he's run out of things to say.

He's checking Worldnut Daily and Fox for fresh info while moving his
index finger between upper and lower lips. Snotty is scouring the MN
news for any fraudulent Franken activity and Jim is picking his nose
or something else.