"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message
...
On Oct 5, 1:27 am, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 16:39:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 10:35:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

According to you. Kids are allowed to stay on the parent policies
until
26.
Yes, there are always exceptions.

It is true that your 2o something can stay on the policy but it is
extra money. ($200 at Aetna)

As from a previous response... Did she suppose it would be free?

$2400 a year is far from free though and that is after tax money so it
is more like $2700. If your kid doesn't have a serious disease, it is
a horrible deal.

Well, not to beat a dead horse but of course it's a bad deal for us
and a great deal for those who wrote the bill..

Actually, I almost agree. It's a great deal for the insurance companies...
30M new people, and a so-so deal for everyone else. Fortunately, unlike The
Constitution, it can be amended and improved... lol You know... In order to
form a __more__ perfect union. Sorry. Scalia/Thomas **** me off.

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:59:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

$2400 a year is far from free though and that is after tax money so it
is more like $2700. If your kid doesn't have a serious disease, it is
a horrible deal.

Well, not to beat a dead horse but of course it's a bad deal for us
and a great deal for those who wrote the bill..

Actually, I almost agree. It's a great deal for the insurance companies...
30M new people, and a so-so deal for everyone else. Fortunately, unlike
The
Constitution, it can be amended and improved... lol You know... In order
to
form a __more__ perfect union. Sorry. Scalia/Thomas **** me off.


We could have written the right bill from nothing as easily as we can
fix this boondoggle. Now we not only need to come up with the right
plan, we need to repeal this one. Bureaucracies are hard to get rid of
once they are entrenched.

No repeal is needed or warranted. It's totally fixable. The repeal first is
just a reactionary load of crap that would put us back. Many programs start
as major compromises. There's nothing new. Social Security and Medicare are
good examples. They've been amended many times, and they still have problems
(fixable problems), but few people seriously advocate repealing them.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:39:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Actually, I almost agree. It's a great deal for the insurance
companies...
30M new people, and a so-so deal for everyone else. Fortunately, unlike
The
Constitution, it can be amended and improved... lol You know... In order
to
form a __more__ perfect union. Sorry. Scalia/Thomas **** me off.


We could have written the right bill from nothing as easily as we can
fix this boondoggle. Now we not only need to come up with the right
plan, we need to repeal this one. Bureaucracies are hard to get rid of
once they are entrenched.

No repeal is needed or warranted. It's totally fixable. The repeal first
is
just a reactionary load of crap that would put us back. Many programs
start
as major compromises. There's nothing new. Social Security and Medicare
are
good examples. They've been amended many times, and they still have
problems
(fixable problems), but few people seriously advocate repealing them.


By definition you have to repeal one law to replace it with another
one.
In fact when you actually read the legislation it will say "delete XXX
add YYY" to whatever statute they are changing.

No.... did we repeal the Constitution when we amended it? I missed that one.
So, by your own statement, laws are changed. Would you like to try again?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:32:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No repeal is needed or warranted. It's totally fixable. The repeal first
is
just a reactionary load of crap that would put us back. Many programs
start
as major compromises. There's nothing new. Social Security and Medicare
are
good examples. They've been amended many times, and they still have
problems
(fixable problems), but few people seriously advocate repealing them.


By definition you have to repeal one law to replace it with another
one.
In fact when you actually read the legislation it will say "delete XXX
add YYY" to whatever statute they are changing.

No.... did we repeal the Constitution when we amended it? I missed that
one.
So, by your own statement, laws are changed. Would you like to try again?

Counselor it is clear you have read a lot of laws but it is also clear
you have not read much of the legislation that writes those laws.

This is the first part of the current stem cell bill (just chosen at
random from yesterday on Thomas.)

Every time they say "strike" they are repealing that part of the
existing law and most legislation is actually changing an existing
law. Most if the heath care bill looks just like this.



A BILL

To amend the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research
Reauthorization Act of 2010'.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH ACT OF
2005.

(a) Cord Blood Inventory- Section 2 of the Stem Cell Therapeutic
and Research Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 274k note) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting `at least' before
`150,000';

(2) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting `at least' before
`150,000';

(3) in subsection (d)--

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking `; and' and
inserting `;';

(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5);
and

(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

`(3) will provide a plan to increase cord blood unit
collections at collection sites that exist at the time of application,
assist with the establishment of new collection sites, or contract
with new collection sites;

`(4) will annually provide to the Secretary a plan for,
and demonstrate, ongoing measurable progress toward achieving
self-sufficiency of cord blood unit collection and banking operations;
and';

(4) in subsection (e)--

(A) in paragraph (1)--

(i) by striking `10 years' and inserting `a
period of at least 10 years beginning on the last date on which the
recipient of a contract under this section receives Federal funds
under this section'; and

(ii) by striking the second sentence and
inserting `The Secretary shall ensure that no Federal funds shall be
obligated under any such contract after the date that is 5 years after
the date on which the contract is entered into, except as provided in
paragraphs (2) and (3).';

(B) in paragraph (2)--

(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--

(I) by striking `Subject to paragraph
(1)(B), the' and inserting `The'; and

(II) by striking `3' and inserting `5';

(ii) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) by inserting `at least' before
`150,000'; and

(II) by striking `; and' and inserting
`;';

(iii) in subparagraph (B)--

(I) by inserting `meeting the
requirements under subsection (d)' after `receive an application for a
contract under this section'; and

(II) by striking `or the Secretary' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `; or';
and

(iv) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) the Secretary determines that the outstanding
inventory need cannot be met by the qualified cord blood banks under
contract under this section.'; and



... and on and on, striking and inserting.

Repealing PART of a law is not the same as repealing the ENTIRE law. As I
said, laws are amended all the time, including the Constitution... like when
they REPEALED the 18th (Volstead Act). They didn't repeal the entire
Constitution.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:36:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Repealing PART of a law is not the same as repealing the ENTIRE law. As I
said, laws are amended all the time, including the Constitution... like
when
they REPEALED the 18th (Volstead Act). They didn't repeal the entire
Constitution.


The health care law is just like this one. Most of it is changing
existing law. To repeal it they will need another 2000 pages of
"strikes" and "inserts" restoring the original language., It won't
just be a 1 liner like Sec 1 of the 21st amendment.

In that regard the whole idea of "repeal" is just a metaphor to feed
the masses. I think the GOP is screwing up even using the word.
It is stupid, politically but they have not really showed much
political intelligence for 15 years

?? You're making my argument for me. Again, modifying a law isn't
necessarily a repeal, and the 21st didn't repeal the Const.

If it's pabulum for the masses, why do you keep trying to use it in an
argument? You used it. The GOP is using it.