"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 1:25 pm, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201...

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody�s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now � plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Why? You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just
presented *your* opinion. My article, if you had actually read it,
was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing
their insurance because of obamacare. As they point out if you are
required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't
there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or
the insurance company will simply close up shop. Then they cite
examples.

Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. Insurance companies
are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. How
much of that do you like?

They won't accept facts, they just keep spouting what Olbermann told
them to say. I noted two young adults who lost their insurance because
their parents couldn't afford the "new" twenty something insurance
costs on their insurance. This is fact, I know these guys and they
have both stopped riding because of it. But again, real facts don't
matter to the intellectually impaired...

So, show us some facts! I'm waiting to be convinced. Opinions aren't facts.

On Oct 13, 3:09*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201....

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Why? *You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just
presented *your* opinion. *My article, if you had actually read it,
was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing
their insurance because of obamacare. *As they point out if you are
required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't
there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or
the insurance company will simply close up shop. *Then they cite
examples.

Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. *Insurance companies
are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. *How
much of that do you like?

I have an opinion, the author had an opinion, and you have an opinion. I've
cited facts many times that support the proposition that the insurance
reform was flawed but better than what was previously in place.

If your opinion is that the costs will go up, that's fine, but it's not a
fact that has been actually verified. It's an opinion.

It's a fact. Mine has gone up, and the insurance company verified it
was because of obamacare. Fact. Other company's policies have been
verified to have gone up for the same reason. Reported here and in
the news. Still other companies are just pulling out because of the
increased costs. Reported in my cite and in the news.

Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you.

Your opinions still have no cites, and are not facts. If it's the
best you can do, we must agree to disagree.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:06:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.

That is the thing people want to ignore.
Sure they have "free" health care in Canada but their tax rate is
about 20% higher than ours.
"Free" starts looking pretty expensive when you run your 1040 against
a Canadian tax return. They are online and simpler than ours so it is
not hard to try for yourself.
When I ran mine on the Ontario web site I would have been paying
$14,000 more in 2009 (I didn't try 2010 but that would have been worse
since 2010 was the lowest tax rate I have paid since 1965 ... when I
was in the service.)

But.. the point might be that you would and should be paying a lot more to
get your country back on a sound financial system.
When was the last time your government balanced it's budget...... took in
as much as it spent??
Our government was running surpluses until y'all threw the world into
financial chaos.

Jack wrote:


Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you.


And what "facts" would those be?
Foxfacts?

Jim - Just the facts m'aam, just the facts.

On 10/13/10 4:20 PM, Jim wrote:
Jack wrote:


Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you.


And what "facts" would those be?
Foxfacts?

Jim - Just the facts m'aam, just the facts.


The health care plan Mickey D's offers its low hourly wage employees is
little more than a joke. These are the very people who, if not covered
under a parental plan, should be able to participate in a decent
"public" plan.

---

I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

On 10/13/10 4:36 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:13:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:06:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.

That is the thing people want to ignore.
Sure they have "free" health care in Canada but their tax rate is
about 20% higher than ours.
"Free" starts looking pretty expensive when you run your 1040 against
a Canadian tax return. They are online and simpler than ours so it is
not hard to try for yourself.
When I ran mine on the Ontario web site I would have been paying
$14,000 more in 2009 (I didn't try 2010 but that would have been worse
since 2010 was the lowest tax rate I have paid since 1965 ... when I
was in the service.)

Please tell us who is advocating a Canadian-style system? Nobody here,
except maybe some Canadians who like what they have.


What is the model you want to follow then? UK? Germany? Japan? Taiwan?


Switzerland. Seriously.

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

On Oct 13, 4:20*pm, Jim wrote:
Jack wrote:

Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you.

And what "facts" would those be?
Foxfacts?

Jim - Just the facts m'aam, just the facts.

I don't watch Fox.

http://www.latimes.com/sns-mcdonalds...,7605831.story

You must be thinking of the initial knee-jerk report that they may
discontinue their coverage of employees. Don't believe that came from
Fox.

Jack - Don't like knee-jerk "Must be Fox" comments.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:59:20 -0400, wrote:



That is the thing people want to ignore.
Sure they have "free" health care in Canada but their tax rate is
about 20% higher than ours.

and their healthcare costs half as much...AND covers everyone

you right wingers...can't even count to 5 using fingers AND toes...

"Free" starts looking pretty expensive when you run your 1040 against
a Canadian tax return. They are online and simpler than ours so it is
not hard to try for yourself.

gee. and when our healthcare costs 17% of GDP vs 10 in canada...

oh. you're a fundamentalist so just ignore the EVIDENCE

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:47:57 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:42:17 -0400, Secular Humouresque
wrote:

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/


I am not really sure how they reach the conclusions they did.
For example they give the US a 92 on freedom vs 100 for the countries
above us on the list. What freedom are they beating us up for?
They only give us a 62 on environment. Where is that? Certainly if you
live in Newark, the environment is bad but it is pretty nice in most
of the country.
Same with "climate". Where are they talking about? In the US we have a
choice.

This really looks like an article written to make the US look bad and
little to explain how they reached their conclusion. They only
criticized our fast pace of life in the text of the article, pointing
out it was to make our life more convenient.

Look at the info sources.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 3:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201...

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive
mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Why? You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just
presented *your* opinion. My article, if you had actually read it,
was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing
their insurance because of obamacare. As they point out if you are
required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't
there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or
the insurance company will simply close up shop. Then they cite
examples.

Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. Insurance companies
are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. How
much of that do you like?

I have an opinion, the author had an opinion, and you have an opinion.
I've
cited facts many times that support the proposition that the insurance
reform was flawed but better than what was previously in place.

If your opinion is that the costs will go up, that's fine, but it's not a
fact that has been actually verified. It's an opinion.

It's a fact. Mine has gone up, and the insurance company verified it
was because of obamacare. Fact. Other company's policies have been
verified to have gone up for the same reason. Reported here and in
the news. Still other companies are just pulling out because of the
increased costs. Reported in my cite and in the news.

So, you believe what the insurance companies are telling you? Because...
they have your best interest in mind?

Look at McDonalds...there's a fact for you.

Your opinions still have no cites, and are not facts. If it's the
best you can do, we must agree to disagree.

McDs? Your "cite" was an opinion piece. It's not been in the news (except
Faux News of course).