"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:39:17 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Nov 6, 4:06 pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:06:44 -0800, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Thus, things are moving in the right direction. Job numbers
take
time to
reverse.

NY Times did a good set of graphics on the state of
unemployment.
Even
the simps should be able to comprehend...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...economy/unempl...

Only an Obama voter could think that punishing small business,
(the
part of the economy that always starts to hire first at the
end of a
recession) with an 8% tax for not offering health insurance to
employees will encourage them to hire. Morons, this will
encourage
small business to lay people off AND encourage other small
businesses
to get by without getting bigger. Why grow if the penalty for
growth
is an 8% tax and endless health insurance paperwork. It will
also
keep people from even wanting to start their own businesses.
The "stimulus" offered by Bush was supposed to be used to buy
"toxic
mortgages" but was instead funelled to Obama cronies with
nearly no
such mortgages bought, they are still on the books. Now,
Barney Frank
wants to force the insurance industry to use similar low
standards to
force them to sell insurance to bad risks, a guarantee the
insurance
companies will collapse.


Reply: Nice rant, but has very little to do with reality.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually has a lot to do with reality and history. When I was
a kid,
there were ushers at the movie theater. Most of those went
away when
the minimum wage was implemented. All those jobs the kids did
starting
out and learning how to be a worker disappeared. Raise the
cost of
business too much, and the business will disappear. Just like
in
California. Raise the sales tax to 9.75%. Probably a boom in
internet
sales. People like me that were planing a trip anyway,
replaced the
tires in another state. Saved 4.5% on $800. Wife said too bad
we were
not planing a trip to Oregon. Want a nice paint job on your
car? Take
it out of state. Body shops can only use water based color
paints now.
But the home painter without a spray booth and filters can use
the good
paint.



I think he was talking about some notion of a tax on small
business re
heathcare.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He may have been, but it is all cost to the business. And if a
business
can not make a decent profit, then the business will close.

Yes, it's all cost vs. income. If you can't stand the heat, get
out of the
kitchen.

--
Nom=de=Plume


That is very true. And if the government raises costs too much, you
get
more business closing and more unemployment.

This must be a joke or you're lying.

The costs to companies who are providing health care (like my own)
are
being weighed down by the escalating costs.

My primary concern is that those costs come down. I'm hoping that
health care reform (if it has a public option) will facilitate that.
Otherwise, it's been a waste of time. I'm expecting that's not lost
on our lawmakers.

So, are you ignorant or are you lying?

Neither. How is the government going to reduce the overall cost of
health care?

By creating an atmosphere of competition.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Competition? How?

Read the bill. If you don't have time, listen to the news (no, news, not
Fox).

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, explain how the Federal Government in complete control of
healthcare is going to improve competition.

Why do you think the gov't would be in "complete" control? Where is that
in the legislation that passed the House or in ANY legislation that's been
proposed?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Other than supplemental policies, which is why AARP is supporting the
legislation, how could any private insurance company compete with a non
taxpaying, tax collecting entity?

On 11/9/09 5:45 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:39:17 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Nov 6, 4:06 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:06:44 -0800, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Thus, things are moving in the right direction. Job numbers
take
time to
reverse.

NY Times did a good set of graphics on the state of
unemployment.
Even
the simps should be able to comprehend...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...economy/unempl...

Only an Obama voter could think that punishing small business,
(the
part of the economy that always starts to hire first at the
end of a
recession) with an 8% tax for not offering health insurance to
employees will encourage them to hire. Morons, this will
encourage
small business to lay people off AND encourage other small
businesses
to get by without getting bigger. Why grow if the penalty for
growth
is an 8% tax and endless health insurance paperwork. It will
also
keep people from even wanting to start their own businesses.
The "stimulus" offered by Bush was supposed to be used to buy
"toxic
mortgages" but was instead funelled to Obama cronies with
nearly no
such mortgages bought, they are still on the books. Now,
Barney Frank
wants to force the insurance industry to use similar low
standards to
force them to sell insurance to bad risks, a guarantee the
insurance
companies will collapse.


Reply: Nice rant, but has very little to do with reality.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually has a lot to do with reality and history. When I was
a kid,
there were ushers at the movie theater. Most of those went
away when
the minimum wage was implemented. All those jobs the kids did
starting
out and learning how to be a worker disappeared. Raise the
cost of
business too much, and the business will disappear. Just like
in
California. Raise the sales tax to 9.75%. Probably a boom in
internet
sales. People like me that were planing a trip anyway,
replaced the
tires in another state. Saved 4.5% on $800. Wife said too bad
we were
not planing a trip to Oregon. Want a nice paint job on your
car? Take
it out of state. Body shops can only use water based color
paints now.
But the home painter without a spray booth and filters can use
the good
paint.



I think he was talking about some notion of a tax on small
business re
heathcare.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He may have been, but it is all cost to the business. And if a
business
can not make a decent profit, then the business will close.

Yes, it's all cost vs. income. If you can't stand the heat, get
out of the
kitchen.

--
Nom=de=Plume


That is very true. And if the government raises costs too much, you
get
more business closing and more unemployment.

This must be a joke or you're lying.

The costs to companies who are providing health care (like my own)
are
being weighed down by the escalating costs.

My primary concern is that those costs come down. I'm hoping that
health care reform (if it has a public option) will facilitate that.
Otherwise, it's been a waste of time. I'm expecting that's not lost
on our lawmakers.

So, are you ignorant or are you lying?

Neither. How is the government going to reduce the overall cost of
health care?

By creating an atmosphere of competition.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Competition? How?

Read the bill. If you don't have time, listen to the news (no, news, not
Fox).

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, explain how the Federal Government in complete control of
healthcare is going to improve competition.

Why do you think the gov't would be in "complete" control? Where is that
in the legislation that passed the House or in ANY legislation that's been
proposed?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Other than supplemental policies, which is why AARP is supporting the
legislation, how could any private insurance company compete with a non
taxpaying, tax collecting entity?




D'oh...the answer is, they won't be competing. Different markets.
Sheesh. Right-wing morons...there's no end to them.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:39:17 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Nov 6, 4:06 pm, jps wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:06:44 -0800, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Thus, things are moving in the right direction. Job numbers
take
time to
reverse.

NY Times did a good set of graphics on the state of
unemployment.
Even
the simps should be able to comprehend...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...economy/unempl...

Only an Obama voter could think that punishing small
business, (the
part of the economy that always starts to hire first at the
end of a
recession) with an 8% tax for not offering health insurance
to
employees will encourage them to hire. Morons, this will
encourage
small business to lay people off AND encourage other small
businesses
to get by without getting bigger. Why grow if the penalty
for growth
is an 8% tax and endless health insurance paperwork. It will
also
keep people from even wanting to start their own businesses.
The "stimulus" offered by Bush was supposed to be used to buy
"toxic
mortgages" but was instead funelled to Obama cronies with
nearly no
such mortgages bought, they are still on the books. Now,
Barney Frank
wants to force the insurance industry to use similar low
standards to
force them to sell insurance to bad risks, a guarantee the
insurance
companies will collapse.


Reply: Nice rant, but has very little to do with reality.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually has a lot to do with reality and history. When I was
a kid,
there were ushers at the movie theater. Most of those went
away when
the minimum wage was implemented. All those jobs the kids did
starting
out and learning how to be a worker disappeared. Raise the
cost of
business too much, and the business will disappear. Just like
in
California. Raise the sales tax to 9.75%. Probably a boom in
internet
sales. People like me that were planing a trip anyway,
replaced the
tires in another state. Saved 4.5% on $800. Wife said too bad
we were
not planing a trip to Oregon. Want a nice paint job on your
car? Take
it out of state. Body shops can only use water based color
paints now.
But the home painter without a spray booth and filters can use
the good
paint.



I think he was talking about some notion of a tax on small
business re
heathcare.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He may have been, but it is all cost to the business. And if a
business
can not make a decent profit, then the business will close.

Yes, it's all cost vs. income. If you can't stand the heat, get
out of the
kitchen.

--
Nom=de=Plume


That is very true. And if the government raises costs too much,
you get
more business closing and more unemployment.

This must be a joke or you're lying.

The costs to companies who are providing health care (like my own)
are
being weighed down by the escalating costs.

My primary concern is that those costs come down. I'm hoping that
health care reform (if it has a public option) will facilitate
that.
Otherwise, it's been a waste of time. I'm expecting that's not
lost
on our lawmakers.

So, are you ignorant or are you lying?

Neither. How is the government going to reduce the overall cost of
health care?

By creating an atmosphere of competition.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Competition? How?

Read the bill. If you don't have time, listen to the news (no, news,
not Fox).

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, explain how the Federal Government in complete control of
healthcare is going to improve competition.

Why do you think the gov't would be in "complete" control? Where is that
in the legislation that passed the House or in ANY legislation that's
been proposed?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Other than supplemental policies, which is why AARP is supporting the
legislation, how could any private insurance company compete with a non
taxpaying, tax collecting entity?

By offering added value. Personally, I don't care how they compete, since it
should not be about competition. It should be about allowing all to have
affordable healthcare without restrictions for "pre-existing" conditions. If
you prefer heavy regulation instead of a public option, I'm all for it.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On 11/9/09 6:05 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
news

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:39:17 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Nov 6, 4:06 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:06:44 -0800, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Thus, things are moving in the right direction. Job numbers
take
time to
reverse.

NY Times did a good set of graphics on the state of
unemployment.
Even
the simps should be able to comprehend...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...economy/unempl...

Only an Obama voter could think that punishing small
business, (the
part of the economy that always starts to hire first at the
end of a
recession) with an 8% tax for not offering health insurance
to
employees will encourage them to hire. Morons, this will
encourage
small business to lay people off AND encourage other small
businesses
to get by without getting bigger. Why grow if the penalty
for growth
is an 8% tax and endless health insurance paperwork. It will
also
keep people from even wanting to start their own businesses.
The "stimulus" offered by Bush was supposed to be used to buy
"toxic
mortgages" but was instead funelled to Obama cronies with
nearly no
such mortgages bought, they are still on the books. Now,
Barney Frank
wants to force the insurance industry to use similar low
standards to
force them to sell insurance to bad risks, a guarantee the
insurance
companies will collapse.


Reply: Nice rant, but has very little to do with reality.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually has a lot to do with reality and history. When I was
a kid,
there were ushers at the movie theater. Most of those went
away when
the minimum wage was implemented. All those jobs the kids did
starting
out and learning how to be a worker disappeared. Raise the
cost of
business too much, and the business will disappear. Just like
in
California. Raise the sales tax to 9.75%. Probably a boom in
internet
sales. People like me that were planing a trip anyway,
replaced the
tires in another state. Saved 4.5% on $800. Wife said too bad
we were
not planing a trip to Oregon. Want a nice paint job on your
car? Take
it out of state. Body shops can only use water based color
paints now.
But the home painter without a spray booth and filters can use
the good
paint.



I think he was talking about some notion of a tax on small
business re
heathcare.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He may have been, but it is all cost to the business. And if a
business
can not make a decent profit, then the business will close.

Yes, it's all cost vs. income. If you can't stand the heat, get
out of the
kitchen.

--
Nom=de=Plume


That is very true. And if the government raises costs too much,
you get
more business closing and more unemployment.

This must be a joke or you're lying.

The costs to companies who are providing health care (like my own)
are
being weighed down by the escalating costs.

My primary concern is that those costs come down. I'm hoping that
health care reform (if it has a public option) will facilitate
that.
Otherwise, it's been a waste of time. I'm expecting that's not
lost
on our lawmakers.

So, are you ignorant or are you lying?

Neither. How is the government going to reduce the overall cost of
health care?

By creating an atmosphere of competition.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Competition? How?

Read the bill. If you don't have time, listen to the news (no, news,
not Fox).

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, explain how the Federal Government in complete control of
healthcare is going to improve competition.

Why do you think the gov't would be in "complete" control? Where is that
in the legislation that passed the House or in ANY legislation that's
been proposed?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Other than supplemental policies, which is why AARP is supporting the
legislation, how could any private insurance company compete with a non
taxpaying, tax collecting entity?

By offering added value. Personally, I don't care how they compete, since it
should not be about competition. It should be about allowing all to have
affordable healthcare without restrictions for "pre-existing" conditions. If
you prefer heavy regulation instead of a public option, I'm all for it.



McKee apparently is a fan of the free market competitive system that
isn't operative in the health care insurance industry.


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

"H the K" wrote in message
news
On 11/9/09 6:05 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
news

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:39:17 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Nov 6, 4:06 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:06:44 -0800, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Thus, things are moving in the right direction. Job
numbers
take
time to
reverse.

NY Times did a good set of graphics on the state of
unemployment.
Even
the simps should be able to comprehend...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...economy/unempl...

Only an Obama voter could think that punishing small
business, (the
part of the economy that always starts to hire first at the
end of a
recession) with an 8% tax for not offering health insurance
to
employees will encourage them to hire. Morons, this will
encourage
small business to lay people off AND encourage other small
businesses
to get by without getting bigger. Why grow if the penalty
for growth
is an 8% tax and endless health insurance paperwork. It
will
also
keep people from even wanting to start their own
businesses.
The "stimulus" offered by Bush was supposed to be used to
buy
"toxic
mortgages" but was instead funelled to Obama cronies with
nearly no
such mortgages bought, they are still on the books. Now,
Barney Frank
wants to force the insurance industry to use similar low
standards to
force them to sell insurance to bad risks, a guarantee the
insurance
companies will collapse.


Reply: Nice rant, but has very little to do with reality.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually has a lot to do with reality and history. When I
was
a kid,
there were ushers at the movie theater. Most of those went
away when
the minimum wage was implemented. All those jobs the kids
did
starting
out and learning how to be a worker disappeared. Raise the
cost of
business too much, and the business will disappear. Just
like
in
California. Raise the sales tax to 9.75%. Probably a boom
in
internet
sales. People like me that were planing a trip anyway,
replaced the
tires in another state. Saved 4.5% on $800. Wife said too
bad
we were
not planing a trip to Oregon. Want a nice paint job on your
car? Take
it out of state. Body shops can only use water based color
paints now.
But the home painter without a spray booth and filters can
use
the good
paint.



I think he was talking about some notion of a tax on small
business re
heathcare.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He may have been, but it is all cost to the business. And if
a
business
can not make a decent profit, then the business will close.

Yes, it's all cost vs. income. If you can't stand the heat, get
out of the
kitchen.

--
Nom=de=Plume


That is very true. And if the government raises costs too much,
you get
more business closing and more unemployment.

This must be a joke or you're lying.

The costs to companies who are providing health care (like my
own)
are
being weighed down by the escalating costs.

My primary concern is that those costs come down. I'm hoping
that
health care reform (if it has a public option) will facilitate
that.
Otherwise, it's been a waste of time. I'm expecting that's not
lost
on our lawmakers.

So, are you ignorant or are you lying?

Neither. How is the government going to reduce the overall cost
of
health care?

By creating an atmosphere of competition.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Competition? How?

Read the bill. If you don't have time, listen to the news (no, news,
not Fox).

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, explain how the Federal Government in complete control of
healthcare is going to improve competition.

Why do you think the gov't would be in "complete" control? Where is
that
in the legislation that passed the House or in ANY legislation that's
been proposed?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Other than supplemental policies, which is why AARP is supporting the
legislation, how could any private insurance company compete with a non
taxpaying, tax collecting entity?

By offering added value. Personally, I don't care how they compete, since
it
should not be about competition. It should be about allowing all to have
affordable healthcare without restrictions for "pre-existing" conditions.
If
you prefer heavy regulation instead of a public option, I'm all for it.



McKee apparently is a fan of the free market competitive system that isn't
operative in the health care insurance industry.


Well, that's what I don't get... it seems to me that especially among
Republicans they would want a competitive system, even if there's only a
possibility of it, even if it meant that the insurance companies couldn't
compete and went belly up. That's the free market capitalistic system
defined. Eat or be eaten. Survival of the fittest. So, there must be some
other reason for the opposition, and I'd like one of these people to be
honest and say what it is.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message news:hda8e9

McKee apparently is a fan of the free market competitive system that
isn't operative in the health care insurance industry.


Well, that's what I don't get... it seems to me that especially among
Republicans they would want a competitive system, even if there's only a
possibility of it, even if it meant that the insurance companies couldn't
compete and went belly up. That's the free market capitalistic system
defined. Eat or be eaten. Survival of the fittest. So, there must be some
other reason for the opposition, and I'd like one of these people to be
honest and say what it is.

--
Nom=de=Plume


We do not have major competion now, because of government regulation. How
do you think more governmental regulation will increase competition.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:00:54 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message news:hda8e9

McKee apparently is a fan of the free market competitive system that
isn't operative in the health care insurance industry.


Well, that's what I don't get... it seems to me that especially among
Republicans they would want a competitive system, even if there's only a
possibility of it, even if it meant that the insurance companies couldn't
compete and went belly up. That's the free market capitalistic system
defined. Eat or be eaten. Survival of the fittest. So, there must be some
other reason for the opposition, and I'd like one of these people to be
honest and say what it is.

--
Nom=de=Plume


We do not have major competion now, because of government regulation. How
do you think more governmental regulation will increase competition.

Looks like Bill done drunk the Kool-aid!

Guvment regulashon is wats rong.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message news:hda8e9

McKee apparently is a fan of the free market competitive system that
isn't operative in the health care insurance industry.


Well, that's what I don't get... it seems to me that especially among
Republicans they would want a competitive system, even if there's only a
possibility of it, even if it meant that the insurance companies couldn't
compete and went belly up. That's the free market capitalistic system
defined. Eat or be eaten. Survival of the fittest. So, there must be some
other reason for the opposition, and I'd like one of these people to be
honest and say what it is.

--
Nom=de=Plume


We do not have major competion now, because of government regulation. How
do you think more governmental regulation will increase competition.

It certainly would not. You're not getting it. We need to have affordable
healthcare coverage for average people. There are two ways to do that. 1)
increase competition via a public option. 2) increase regulation so that
insurance companies can't deny people coverage for things like pre-existing
conditions.


--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message news:hda8e9

McKee apparently is a fan of the free market competitive system that
isn't operative in the health care insurance industry.


Well, that's what I don't get... it seems to me that especially among
Republicans they would want a competitive system, even if there's only a
possibility of it, even if it meant that the insurance companies
couldn't compete and went belly up. That's the free market capitalistic
system defined. Eat or be eaten. Survival of the fittest. So, there must
be some other reason for the opposition, and I'd like one of these
people to be honest and say what it is.

--
Nom=de=Plume


We do not have major competion now, because of government regulation.
How do you think more governmental regulation will increase competition.

It certainly would not. You're not getting it. We need to have affordable
healthcare coverage for average people. There are two ways to do that. 1)
increase competition via a public option. 2) increase regulation so that
insurance companies can't deny people coverage for things like
pre-existing conditions.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Pre-existing is actually 2 items. Those with no insurance and a
pre-existing condition and those with insurance and changing insurance. Put
a large penalty on those with no insurance and a pre-existing condition.
Sort of like buying fire insurance after your house burned down. If you are
going to require the insurance company cover it, then you better make it
possible to recover the excess payouts. If you have a insurance, make the
new insurance company deal with your former as to payments. We could get a
lot more competition in insurance prices with opening up the market, across
state lines, etc. Why should a company with enough reserves to be an
insurance company be banned from selling in a state?

The other question is the healthcare bill affordable healthcare, or
affordable insurance? This "healthcare" bill does nothing for lowering
healthcare costs.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:25:56 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"H the K" wrote in message
news
On 11/9/09 6:05 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill wrote in message
news
wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:39:17 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Nov 6, 4:06 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:06:44 -0800, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Thus, things are moving in the right direction. Job
numbers
take
time to
reverse.

NY Times did a good set of graphics on the state of
unemployment.
Even
the simps should be able to comprehend...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...economy/unempl...

Only an Obama voter could think that punishing small
business, (the
part of the economy that always starts to hire first at the
end of a
recession) with an 8% tax for not offering health insurance
to
employees will encourage them to hire. Morons, this will
encourage
small business to lay people off AND encourage other small
businesses
to get by without getting bigger. Why grow if the penalty
for growth
is an 8% tax and endless health insurance paperwork. It
will
also
keep people from even wanting to start their own
businesses.
The "stimulus" offered by Bush was supposed to be used to
buy
"toxic
mortgages" but was instead funelled to Obama cronies with
nearly no
such mortgages bought, they are still on the books. Now,
Barney Frank
wants to force the insurance industry to use similar low
standards to
force them to sell insurance to bad risks, a guarantee the
insurance
companies will collapse.


Reply: Nice rant, but has very little to do with reality.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Actually has a lot to do with reality and history. When I
was
a kid,
there were ushers at the movie theater. Most of those went
away when
the minimum wage was implemented. All those jobs the kids
did
starting
out and learning how to be a worker disappeared. Raise the
cost of
business too much, and the business will disappear. Just
like
in
California. Raise the sales tax to 9.75%. Probably a boom
in
internet
sales. People like me that were planing a trip anyway,
replaced the
tires in another state. Saved 4.5% on $800. Wife said too
bad
we were
not planing a trip to Oregon. Want a nice paint job on your
car? Take
it out of state. Body shops can only use water based color
paints now.
But the home painter without a spray booth and filters can
use
the good
paint.



I think he was talking about some notion of a tax on small
business re
heathcare.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He may have been, but it is all cost to the business. And if
a
business
can not make a decent profit, then the business will close.

Yes, it's all cost vs. income. If you can't stand the heat, get
out of the
kitchen.

--
Nom=de=Plume


That is very true. And if the government raises costs too much,
you get
more business closing and more unemployment.

This must be a joke or you're lying.

The costs to companies who are providing health care (like my
own)
are
being weighed down by the escalating costs.

My primary concern is that those costs come down. I'm hoping
that
health care reform (if it has a public option) will facilitate
that.
Otherwise, it's been a waste of time. I'm expecting that's not
lost
on our lawmakers.

So, are you ignorant or are you lying?

Neither. How is the government going to reduce the overall cost
of
health care?

By creating an atmosphere of competition.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Competition? How?

Read the bill. If you don't have time, listen to the news (no, news,
not Fox).

--
Nom=de=Plume


Nope, explain how the Federal Government in complete control of
healthcare is going to improve competition.

Why do you think the gov't would be in "complete" control? Where is
that
in the legislation that passed the House or in ANY legislation that's
been proposed?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Other than supplemental policies, which is why AARP is supporting the
legislation, how could any private insurance company compete with a non
taxpaying, tax collecting entity?

By offering added value. Personally, I don't care how they compete, since
it
should not be about competition. It should be about allowing all to have
affordable healthcare without restrictions for "pre-existing" conditions.
If
you prefer heavy regulation instead of a public option, I'm all for it.



McKee apparently is a fan of the free market competitive system that isn't
operative in the health care insurance industry.


Well, that's what I don't get... it seems to me that especially among
Republicans they would want a competitive system, even if there's only a
possibility of it, even if it meant that the insurance companies couldn't
compete and went belly up. That's the free market capitalistic system
defined. Eat or be eaten. Survival of the fittest. So, there must be some
other reason for the opposition, and I'd like one of these people to be
honest and say what it is.

Secret is out.

They LOVE socialism, but only if it's a small club who benefits. Cuz
there just ain't enough to go around!