Question for proponents of the Public Option Plan/Single Payer Plan.

[Immanuel]

Immie

Fewer jobs means more people on the unemployment line. I'm not talking about protecting the industry itself but the individuals like you and I who survive because of it.

But you aren't taking capital out of the system and it is capital that creates jobs. This is the same argument the left used against free trade and it was a fallacy then and a fallacy now.

But, if you eliminate the company, you eliminate the capital. Those companies will disappear.

Immie

That being said, I believe the only way to keep any industry honest is to have competition. The public option is designed to eliminate competition. In my humble opinion, that is a terrible idea.

In our current system price is negotiated between providers then packaged and sold to employers with cost to employees determined by the elimination of services and higher deductibles and co-pays. Where is the competition?

The competition is in the fact that if I (employer generally) don't like the services/costs offered by United Healthcare I can take my business to AETNA. Two years ago my employer had United Healthcare as its provider. Last year, AETNA offered us a better deal with rates and deductibles so we switched to AETNA. This year, United came back with competitive rates and now I am back with United. Next year? Will my employer have such a choice?

And I have every respect for your opinion but we do not have a competitive freemarket system now because it is not the consumer, but provider, who determines price.

Not sure what you mean here. It is always, no matter what industry we are speaking of, the provider that determines the price. It is the purchaser that decides whether or not he/she is willing to pay that price. When I go to the store tomorrow for bread, the price is already set. I can pay that price or I can go down the street and see if the next store has a better price. I can't go into the first store and say, "Your bread is over priced and sliced to thick. I'll give you $0.50 for a loaf." I have to pay the price the store is asking or go without.

So, I'm not sure what you mean here.

Immie

True, it will not happen over night. It will happen (if HR 3200 correct number?) were passed it would take no longer than five years before many of the insurers were driven out of business.

As for your Postal Service example, it is a decent one, but there is one major difference between the Postal Service and the public option/health insurance idea. The government has not mandated that UPS provide its services at $0.44 per delivery whereas under the health care plans that have been debated, private insurers are required to provide identical policies at identical prices as the public option and no other policies will be allowed. Nor will insurers be allowed to offer policies to new customers.

Those two facts, in and of themselves will kill the industry and the videos discussed above prove that this is the goal of our elected politicians.Immie

True, if that is indeed what HR3200 does. Where does it say that though? Do you have a page number?

No page number and I have not read it in a while, but I think... think mind you, can't swear to it, that it was section 102.

Although, Plymco_Pilgrim was keeping a good watch on that bill. Betcha he can tell you exactly how many sentences down from the first page it is. Okay, maybe not sentences, but lines?

Immie

 

[Coyote]

Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance. Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

How many jobs will that costs? I am not just talking about the CEOs and upper management jobs but how many jobs of people like you and me who work hard every day just to put dinner on the table will be lost. From the Janitor to middle management and don't forget the little guys, the independent agents who work for you to get you coverage. Those CEO's employ you; your brothers, sisters, parents, children, friends.

Where are those people going to go when the private health insurer disappears?

How many hundreds of thousands of jobs (Democrat jobs) are going to be lost? What industry do you work in?

Is your job safe?

edit: Oh and let me ask you this, aren't you glad Barney Frank and Barack Obama are working so hard to eliminate those jobs?

Immie

I don't trust videos that only show part of what is being said - what's the context and what else was said?

Interesting analysis of both video and his position: PolitiFact | Obama statements on single-payer have changed a bit

They also note:

At his town halls as president, he routinely answers questions about single-payer by saying he would favor it if he were starting a system "from scratch." But he consistently adds that's not the goal of the current reform. "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system," Obama said in Annandale, Va., on July 1, 2009.

And that seems to be the direction he wants to go. As you note - the insurance and associated industries represent a large economic force.

 

[PeterS]

But, if you eliminate the company, you eliminate the capital. Those companies will disappear.

Only if you burn it. The capital for the insurance industry lies in the consumers pocket. Again, you are making a failed left-wing argument.

The competition is in the fact that if I (employer generally) don't like the services/costs offered by United Healthcare I can take my business to AETNA. Two years ago my employer had United Healthcare as its provider. Last year, AETNA offered us a better deal with rates and deductibles so we switched to AETNA. This year, United came back with competitive rates and now I am back with United. Next year? Will my employer have such a choice?

You are not negotiating the price of the product. The product is not the package sold by the insurance industry but the service provided by the doctor. You cannot have a free-market system when the consumer is cut out of the loop. Doctors negotiate with insurance providers and insurance providers negotiate with employers. Deals within this system can only be achieved by a reduction in services.

I could really give a flip what choice my employer has when I have no choice what so ever in the matter.

Not sure what you mean here. It is always, no matter what industry we are speaking of, the provider that determines the price. It is the purchaser that decides whether or not he/she is willing to pay that price. When I go to the store tomorrow for bread, the price is already set. I can pay that price or I can go down the street and see if the next store has a better price. I can't go into the first store and say, "Your bread is over priced and sliced to thick. I'll give you $0.50 for a loaf." I have to pay the price the store is asking or go without.

So, I'm not sure what you mean here.

Go without bread and the price of bread drops. Go without health insurance and the price keeps going up. That's what I mean.

Immie

No page number and I have not read it in a while, but I think... think mind you, can't swear to it, that it was section 102.

Although, Plymco_Pilgrim was keeping a good watch on that bill. Betcha he can tell you exactly how many sentences down from the first page it is. Okay, maybe not sentences, but lines?Immie

I just read sec 102 and it does not peg the price of private insurance to public insurance. It does however state that the insurer cannot vary rates for certain risk groups without changing the premium for all enrollees. This means the premium for all enrollees covered by the health care organization are the same not that private and public premiums are the same.

And keeping good watch on a bill does not mean you have a clue what the bill is about. The problem with hearsay is just that...it hearsay...

 

[toomuchtime_]

I dont think the insurance companies are making enough money. Look, you have to understand, they make money when people pay, then get denied and dropped when they get sick.

Leave them alone!

That might well be how Medicare tries to hold costs down since, according to the AMA, Medicare denies more claims than any private insurance company.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

Scroll down to metric 12.

Now scroll down to the codes.

I have. What's your point?

 

[Annie]

Kausfiles : Mickey's Assignment Desk: Explain Away the Health Care Shell Game, Please!

When has government been MORE efficient or effective than the private sector? When did they ever get 'estimates' right?

Lots of links:

Mickey's Assignment Desk: Explain Away the Health Care Shell Game, Please!

Mickey's Assignment Desk: Senate Dems quietly move a bill to countermand a 21% cut in Medicare fees for doctors, which will add $247 billion to the deficit over ten years. Of course, the Baucus health care reform bill achieves its famed deficit neutrality through cuts in Medicare fees, mainly to non-physicians--saving (by my reading of the CBO analysis) at least $184 billion from Medicare over the same period. Plus there is a special panel set up to recommend further cuts.

Jonathan Cohn and Ezra Klein might productively explain a) Why this isn't a shell game, with Dems granting Medicare increases in one bill and then taking ostentatious credit for partly-offsetting cuts in a separate bill; b) Why Congress' unwillingness to put up with the scheduled Medicare doctors' cuts this year doesn't indicate that it won't put up with scheduled cuts in future years--that, as Megan McArdle among others argues, the projected Medicare cuts in Baucus' bill simply won't happen. ...

P.S.: I'm still for health care reform, of course, even if the accounting that scores it as deficit-neutral proves to be a fantasy. We make the mess now. We make it work and pay for it later. Stuff the beast! If it turns out that to get the reform passed Dems have to resort to a shell game--using phony peas--well, just keep it between us, OK?. ... 7:21 P.M.

 

[Zona]

Sen. Murray: Domestic Violence Not A Pre-Existing Condition
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TTb81phGW4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TTb81phGW4[/ame]


The real death panel people..insurance companies...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance. Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

How many jobs will that costs? I am not just talking about the CEOs and upper management jobs but how many jobs of people like you and me who work hard every day just to put dinner on the table will be lost. From the Janitor to middle management and don't forget the little guys, the independent agents who work for you to get you coverage. Those CEO's employ you; your brothers, sisters, parents, children, friends.

Where are those people going to go when the private health insurer disappears?

How many hundreds of thousands of jobs (Democrat jobs) are going to be lost? What industry do you work in?

Is your job safe?

edit: Oh and let me ask you this, aren't you glad Barney Frank and Barack Obama are working so hard to eliminate those jobs?

Immie

I don't think you understand what the public option would do.

 

[Annie]

Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance. Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

How many jobs will that costs? I am not just talking about the CEOs and upper management jobs but how many jobs of people like you and me who work hard every day just to put dinner on the table will be lost. From the Janitor to middle management and don't forget the little guys, the independent agents who work for you to get you coverage. Those CEO's employ you; your brothers, sisters, parents, children, friends.

Where are those people going to go when the private health insurer disappears?

How many hundreds of thousands of jobs (Democrat jobs) are going to be lost? What industry do you work in?

Is your job safe?

edit: Oh and let me ask you this, aren't you glad Barney Frank and Barack Obama are working so hard to eliminate those jobs?

Immie

I don't think you understand what the public option would do.

Then again, perhaps you don't:

Regional inequities in health care reform  |  KeithHennessey.com

Regional inequities in health care reform
Posted on October 15th, 2009 by kbh in featured, health

In the pending health care bills, low-income individuals and families who buy health insurance outside employment will get large government subsidies. Those subsidies vary by locale. This represents a significant implicit policy decision with enormous distributional and political consequences. I don’t think most Members or their constituents have focused on this. I think they should...

Now let’s look at what the Baucus bill does for the new low-income subsidies to purchase health insurance outside of employment. Here is the key sentence from the conceptual description of the Senate Finance Committee-reported bill (labeled as page 27, it’s page 30 of the PDF).

The premium credit amount would be tied to the second lowest-cost silver plan in the area where the individual resides.

This is approach (2) (and it becomes clear it’s the extreme when you study the details). If you live in an area with relatively inexpensive health plans, low- and moderate-income people in your area will receive smaller government subsidies than their similarly-situated identical twins who live in relatively high-cost areas.

A “health plan” is not a commodity like “a gallon of milk.” A health plan in Las Vegas is quite different from one in Portland. While the overall cost-of-living in Portland is higher, health care spending is much higher in Las Vegas. This higher health spending is a function of different prices and different usage of medical care.

Atul Gawande wrote a much-discussed article on this topic in The New Yorker, “The Cost Conundrum: What a Texas town can teach us about health care.” There are wide geographic dispersions in medical care spending, and it cannot all be explained by different prices. While I disagree with Gawande’s policy conclusions, I recommend the article....

It's rather long, has lots of links, but is easy enough to understand...

 

[Immanuel]

Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance. Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

How many jobs will that costs? I am not just talking about the CEOs and upper management jobs but how many jobs of people like you and me who work hard every day just to put dinner on the table will be lost. From the Janitor to middle management and don't forget the little guys, the independent agents who work for you to get you coverage. Those CEO's employ you; your brothers, sisters, parents, children, friends.

Where are those people going to go when the private health insurer disappears?

How many hundreds of thousands of jobs (Democrat jobs) are going to be lost? What industry do you work in?

Is your job safe?

edit: Oh and let me ask you this, aren't you glad Barney Frank and Barack Obama are working so hard to eliminate those jobs?

Immie

I don't think you understand what the public option would do.

I do think I understand. I also think that the proponents in Washington of public options are lying to you about what their ultimate goal is. Their ultimate goal is to take control of our health care via a National Health Plan. I will say that I am not sure that there is a "better" alternative, but I do not like the idea. Other countries have tried it some with decent results.

I have listed many "fears" that I have of the plan over the last several months, but I can honestly say that I don't have a better option and that keeping the status quo is not an option.

I believe that this plan will destroy private health insurance. Many people who post here think that is a good thing. I don't for many reasons... jobs is just one of those.

Something that bothers me, is those comments by our leaders in which they clearly state that they want a government run National health care system. I am sorry to say it, but, although I believe in the ideas behind Social Security and Welfare, I do not believe that our government can successfully accomplish any of these things and that when they fail they do not go away, the government simply keeps throwing bad money after good.

PeterS,

I'm not ignoring your post, thank you for it, I just can't think of how to respond without repeating myself and getting us into a circular argument. If I can when I wake up, I'll comment again if others don't come up with a better response.

Immie

 

[Cold Fusion38]

IMM

The competition is in the fact that if I (employer generally) don't like the services/costs offered by United Healthcare I can take my business to AETNA. Two years ago my employer had United Healthcare as its provider. Last year, AETNA offered us a better deal with rates and deductibles so we switched to AETNA. This year, United came back with competitive rates and now I am back with United. Next year? Will my employer have such a choice?(QUOTE)


Does it occure to you how difficult it is for your EMPLOYEES to have to figure out all the new litttle "DEDUCTABLES" and "COVERAGES" that they have to negotiate like a MINEFIELD?


No Probably not. I DO resepect you for trying to get your employees the best deal we just had a meeting at my wife's job to hear about benefits and although thepremium is about $250 a month and there are a HOST of deductables and co=pays but it is pretty good.......

But do you see the REAL problem with your story? TWO PROVIDERS!!!!! There are only TWO businesses to compete for your business. NOT GOOD BRO!!! REALLY NOT GOOD!!!

 

[Immanuel]

IMM

The competition is in the fact that if I (employer generally) don't like the services/costs offered by United Healthcare I can take my business to AETNA. Two years ago my employer had United Healthcare as its provider. Last year, AETNA offered us a better deal with rates and deductibles so we switched to AETNA. This year, United came back with competitive rates and now I am back with United. Next year? Will my employer have such a choice?(QUOTE)


Does it occure to you how difficult it is for your EMPLOYEES to have to figure out all the new litttle "DEDUCTABLES" and "COVERAGES" that they have to negotiate like a MINEFIELD?


No Probably not. I DO resepect you for trying to get your employees the best deal we just had a meeting at my wife's job to hear about benefits and although thepremium is about $250 a month and there are a HOST of deductables and co=pays but it is pretty good.......

But do you see the REAL problem with your story? TWO PROVIDERS!!!!! There are only TWO businesses to compete for your business. NOT GOOD BRO!!! REALLY NOT GOOD!!!

I agree it is not good, but are you saying one provider is better? Under a single payer system that is what you will have.

Those things do occur to me. I do not make the decision as to who my employer chooses, although I do have some input in the decision.

I also realize that my employer cannot afford to provide health insurance for his employees, but despite my reluctant efforts to convince my boss that the over $125,000 (net of employee contributions) that he pays to cover his employees is double the net loss of the company, every year, my boss continues to insist that he will not increase employee contributions or eliminate the benefit.

Yes, it does occur to me about the deductibles etc.! Remember, I have to walk that minefield too. However, paying the deductibles is better than not having insurance and having to pay everything up front.

At my company, and I imagine it is typical of others, single coverage runs about $350/month. My employer charges $52 a year. I don't remember the cost for employee and spouse but employee and family is over $1200 per month and my employer charges me about $1400/year. My employer may not be the best compared to the rest of the world, but in this case, I can say that he is pretty damned good.

Oh and one more thing about the employees, they don't have a clue as to how much the employer pays to cover their health insurance nor do they realize that that benefit is actually part of their wages when you get right down to it even though it is tax free at least for now.

Immie

 

[Cold Fusion38]

IMM

The competition is in the fact that if I (employer generally) don't like the services/costs offered by United Healthcare I can take my business to AETNA. Two years ago my employer had United Healthcare as its provider. Last year, AETNA offered us a better deal with rates and deductibles so we switched to AETNA. This year, United came back with competitive rates and now I am back with United. Next year? Will my employer have such a choice?(QUOTE)


Does it occure to you how difficult it is for your EMPLOYEES to have to figure out all the new litttle "DEDUCTABLES" and "COVERAGES" that they have to negotiate like a MINEFIELD?


No Probably not. I DO resepect you for trying to get your employees the best deal we just had a meeting at my wife's job to hear about benefits and although thepremium is about $250 a month and there are a HOST of deductables and co=pays but it is pretty good.......

But do you see the REAL problem with your story? TWO PROVIDERS!!!!! There are only TWO businesses to compete for your business. NOT GOOD BRO!!! REALLY NOT GOOD!!!

I agree it is not good, but are you saying one provider is better? Under a single payer system that is what you will have.

Those things do occur to me. I do not make the decision as to who my employer chooses, although I do have some input in the decision.

I also realize that my employer cannot afford to provide health insurance for his employees, but despite my reluctant efforts to convince my boss that the over $125,000 (net of employee contributions) that he pays to cover his employees is double the net loss of the company, every year, my boss continues to insist that he will not increase employee contributions or eliminate the benefit.

Yes, it does occur to me about the deductibles etc.! Remember, I have to walk that minefield too. However, paying the deductibles is better than not having insurance and having to pay everything up front.

At my company, and I imagine it is typical of others, single coverage runs about $350/month. My employer charges $52 a year. I don't remember the cost for employee and spouse but employee and family is over $1200 per month and my employer charges me about $1400/year. My employer may not be the best compared to the rest of the world, but in this case, I can say that he is pretty damned good.

Oh and one more thing about the employees, they don't have a clue as to how much the employer pays to cover their health insurance nor do they realize that that benefit is actually part of their wages when you get right down to it even though it is tax free at least for now.

Immie

ANYONE who has had the "option" of COBRA knows exactly how much they pay.

 

[midcan5]

I find these threads bizarre. The onus is always on the other, the other is not sincere or has some ulterior motive. Those of us who think healthcare should not be so pathetic in our nation should invest in mirrors and have the wingnuts, conservatives, and republican naysayers look at themselves as they sure as hell accomplished nothing while in power except war debt and poverty. I laughed the other day when I heard again Tort reform, what BS, the republicans controlled all branches of government and didn't do a fluckin thing except make the rich richer. When you accomplish nothing good, it is time to STFU, and let others try.

I love the jobs crying too, do you ever hear them question outsourcing or shifting work overseas, nah, of course not, corporate consciousness keeps them from thought. Speculative negativity must be rampant among the cave dwellers.

There is a wonderful book which I post occasionally for anyone interested in understanding reactionary politics, see link.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255790984&sr=1-4]Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books[/ame]

 

[Ravi]

If you didn't have to worry about health insurance, you wouldn't be tied to a dead end job. Lots of small businesses never get off the ground or fail because of the expense or unavailability of affordable health care.

 

[Immanuel]

ANYONE who has had the "option" of COBRA knows exactly how much they pay.

Only the rich truly have the COBRA option. It is no option for the unemployed.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

If you didn't have to worry about health insurance, you wouldn't be tied to a dead end job. Lots of small businesses never get off the ground or fail because of the expense or unavailability of affordable health care.

You are right and how do you think the public option plan or single payer health care is going to change that?

Employers will be mandated to provide health insurance for their employees or face stiff fines. This could put some employers out of business. They are not required to offer this as a benefit. They can still choose to deduct the full cost of health insurance out of their employee's paychecks if they so choose.

Working people whose employers refuse to pay for their health insurance and choose instead to pay the fine and the unemployed will still have to pay for their own coverage and those that can't afford it will also be fined. I understand that the extreme poor will be given credits but that doesn't necessarily mean full credit nor if is it a tax credit (refunded at the end of the year) does it mean that during the rest of the year, when they have to pay their premiums, they can make ends meet.

They are not going to "give away" health care. They are going to charge you. The current costs of health insurance for a family as I showed above is $1200/month or $14,400/year (varies, I am sure) but let's say the government plan brings that down to say $10,000/year and your employer does not cover your insurance. Can you afford $10,000 per year? How about self employed people who can't afford coverage? They are now going to be mandated to carry coverage and what if they can't cover those expenses?

It seems to me that people who are arguing for this plan think that this insurance is going to come free to all, but I don't think that is the case... is it?

Immie

 

[toomuchtime_]

If you didn't have to worry about health insurance, you wouldn't be tied to a dead end job. Lots of small businesses never get off the ground or fail because of the expense or unavailability of affordable health care.

Then why are the Dems so dead set against reforms that would introduce choice and competition into the health insurance market to drive down health insurance costs and to make health insurance portable? At no expense to taxpayers, Congress could amend ERISA so that your employer had to give you the choice of accepting the company's health insurance plan or receiving a voucher that you could use to buy an individual policy that you could carry with you if you wanted to move to another company, and if the Dems would drop their opposition to allowing insurers to sell national health insurance policies, the employee could carry that policy from state to state as opportunities arose.

Under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, there is no impediment to Congress passing a law allowing private insurers to sell national health insurance policies, in addition to the state regulated policies they now sell, allowing hundreds of companies to compete for the business of every employee who chose the voucher over the company plan and thus introducing intense price competition among those insurers who are now frozen out of markets that cater to the needs of companies rather than to the needs of employees. This choice and competition would not only drive down health insurance costs for both employers and employees and make insurance companies more responsive to the concerns of the policy holders, rather than to the concerns of their bosses, but it would also allow labor to move to its most highly valued use, thus facilitating economic growth and prosperity. So why are the Dems, who claim to be in favor of choice and competition and lowering health insurance costs, so dead set against these reforms?

It isn't an either or choice. These reforms could fit seamlessly into any of the proposed bills in Congress without adding one penny to the costs, so why are the Dems so dead set against these reforms?

 

[Bfgrn]

I would have called for the Nazis closing their death camps, if it weren't for the secretaries, janitors and people that were employed sweeping the ashes out of the ovens...

Hey pea brain...ACORN employs people...WHERE'S the outrage???


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[judyd]

Immie

Fewer jobs means more people on the unemployment line. I'm not talking about protecting the industry itself but the individuals like you and I who survive because of it.

But you aren't taking capital out of the system and it is capital that creates jobs. This is the same argument the left used against free trade and it was a fallacy then and a fallacy now.

But, if you eliminate the company, you eliminate the capital. Those companies will disappear.



The competition is in the fact that if I (employer generally) don't like the services/costs offered by United Healthcare I can take my business to AETNA. Two years ago my employer had United Healthcare as its provider. Last year, AETNA offered us a better deal with rates and deductibles so we switched to AETNA. This year, United came back with competitive rates and now I am back with United. Next year? Will my employer have such a choice?




Not sure what you mean here. It is always, no matter what industry we are speaking of, the provider that determines the price. It is the purchaser that decides whether or not he/she is willing to pay that price. When I go to the store tomorrow for bread, the price is already set. I can pay that price or I can go down the street and see if the next store has a better price. I can't go into the first store and say, "Your bread is over priced and sliced to thick. I'll give you $0.50 for a loaf." I have to pay the price the store is asking or go without.

So, I'm not sure what you mean here.

Immie

True, it will not happen over night. It will happen (if HR 3200 correct number?) were passed it would take no longer than five years before many of the insurers were driven out of business.

As for your Postal Service example, it is a decent one, but there is one major difference between the Postal Service and the public option/health insurance idea. The government has not mandated that UPS provide its services at $0.44 per delivery whereas under the health care plans that have been debated, private insurers are required to provide identical policies at identical prices as the public option and no other policies will be allowed. Nor will insurers be allowed to offer policies to new customers.

Those two facts, in and of themselves will kill the industry and the videos discussed above prove that this is the goal of our elected politicians.Immie

True, if that is indeed what HR3200 does. Where does it say that though? Do you have a page number?

No page number and I have not read it in a while, but I think... think mind you, can't swear to it, that it was section 102.

Although, Plymco_Pilgrim was keeping a good watch on that bill. Betcha he can tell you exactly how many sentences down from the first page it is. Okay, maybe not sentences, but lines?

Immie

The question should be why would employers want to deal with this year after year? How did healthcare get so tied up with employment? I would think the employers would welcome the opportunity to be able to get out of healthcare problems and run their companies. It would be a boon to them and they could put more of their money into their business, rather than employee healthcare.

 

[Immanuel]

I would have called for the Nazis closing their death camps, if it weren't for the secretaries, janitors and people that were employed sweeping the ashes out of the ovens...

Hey pea brain...ACORN employs people...WHERE'S the outrage???


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Sure you would have BFGRN, sure you would have? Just kidding!

So now you are comparing US citizens who happen to work for legal corporations doing the business of keeping you alive with NAZIs that ran concentration camps?

I don't see anyone putting ACORN out of business do you? I think the President just signed a stimulus package earlier this year, that rewarded them for their service quite well. In much the same manner as George Bush rewarded Halliburton for its services.

Immie