D.Duck wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:08:44 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:18:04 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:15:21 -0500, C. Mor Butts
wrote:

The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports,
contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.
actually it excludes union members.
Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason
except politics?
of course, there are no uniion members in the US so the question is
irrelevant

Maybe no "uniion" members. What about "union" members


those tooo

The meaning of your answer escapes me.

Yet another contribution from Duck that is totally devoid of content,
other than the snipe.

HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:08:44 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:18:04 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:15:21 -0500, C. Mor Butts

wrote:

The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports,
contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.
actually it excludes union members.
Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason
except politics?
of course, there are no uniion members in the US so the question is
irrelevant

Maybe no "uniion" members. What about "union" members


those tooo

The meaning of your answer escapes me.

Yet another contribution from Duck that is totally devoid of content,
other than the snipe.

I know, that was stupid of me to say, especially since my post was
totally devoid of content, except for the snipe.