"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.


You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...berations.html


Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But, some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

On Oct 12, 5:05*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr...

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But, some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 5:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr...

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and
it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But,
some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits
for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

Well, they weren't "locked out" either, at least not until they refused to
cooperate in good faith. That's the point. They had every opportunity to
contribute in a constructive way, and they refused to do it for purely
political reasons.

The noise from the right about Obama's terrible doings is pretty hard to
miss. The facts are a bit different. He's very middle of the road, not even
close to being a radical. Most of the Republicans who claimed to be middle
of the road have moved FAR to the right.

What passed was not "severely flawed" by any stretch. It's lacking in some
respects, but that's typical of most legislation. It can and should be
fixed, but it shouldn't be gutted, which is exactly what the right-wing nuts
want to do, along with ending Social Security and Medicare of course, not to
mention ending unemployment benefits for people.

Insurance rates have gone up and will continue to go up. They would have
done that (and did that) way before the legislation. You're correct that
neither the medical profession or the business of insurance have not be
fixed, but that's a huge issue that requires bipartisan support, something
the Republicans will not do!

So, what's your solution? Vote in Tea Baggers who are barely qualified (and
I'm being generous)?

On Oct 12, 6:17*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 5:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

....

On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr....

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and
it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But,
some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits
for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. *And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. *In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. *In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. *Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

Well, they weren't "locked out" either, at least not until they refused to
cooperate in good faith.

Then you admit they *were* locked out.


The noise from the right about Obama's terrible doings is pretty hard to
miss. The facts are a bit different. He's very middle of the road, not even
close to being a radical. Most of the Republicans who claimed to be middle
of the road have moved FAR to the right.

So you say.


What passed was not "severely flawed" by any stretch.

It's far beyond severly flawed. It's unworkable.


You're correct that
neither the medical profession or the business of insurance have not be
fixed, but that's a huge issue that requires bipartisan support, something
the Republicans will not do!

Yeah, the Dems showed their bipartisan colors, didn't they? Or more
correctly, their complete lack of.

You're so wrong on this. Millions won't have insurance if this thing
isn't repealed. And the people that do will be paying far more for
it.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...care_blowback/

"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."

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 6:17 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 5:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get
incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.)
are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr...

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it,
and
it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been.
But,
some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent
benefits
for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

Well, they weren't "locked out" either, at least not until they refused
to
cooperate in good faith.

Then you admit they *were* locked out.

It's really hard to argue that they were locked out if they refused to enter
the room to begin with. Eventually, the door closes and business gets done.


The noise from the right about Obama's terrible doings is pretty hard to
miss. The facts are a bit different. He's very middle of the road, not
even
close to being a radical. Most of the Republicans who claimed to be
middle
of the road have moved FAR to the right.

So you say.

Not I. Most people say this. Are you going to claim that McCain is middle of
the road if he panders to the Teabaggers to get elected? He used to be an
honorable guy. What happened?


What passed was not "severely flawed" by any stretch.

It's far beyond severly flawed. It's unworkable.

So you say.

You're correct that
neither the medical profession or the business of insurance have not be
fixed, but that's a huge issue that requires bipartisan support,
something
the Republicans will not do!

Yeah, the Dems showed their bipartisan colors, didn't they? Or more
correctly, their complete lack of.

Would you expect the party in power not to show partisan colors? Were the
Republicans during Bush inclusive and non-partisan?

You're so wrong on this. Millions won't have insurance if this thing
isn't repealed. And the people that do will be paying far more for
it.

?? 30+ million are insured now that weren't before. How is that fewer than
before? Please cite some factoid that claims that.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...care_blowback/

"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.

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?

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...

"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.

How much do I like of an item that isn't actually a fact is sort of a
non-question.