leaving obamacare?

[MaryL]

No. Lucky me, my premiums went down since I was let go for being over 55, now just making part time wages. Ironic since it's more than likely all us older folks were let go because our long time employer found it cheaper to cut us older folks because of Obama's "affordable Health care" BS than keep us. Obama effectively threw older folk under the bus, casualties in a politically correct war to help young healthy poor lazy creeps.

 

[Andylusion]

No. Lucky me, my premiums went down since I was let go for being over 55, now just making part time wages. Ironic since it's more than likely all us older folks were let go because our long time employer found it cheaper to cut us older folks because of Obama's "affordable Health care" BS than keep us. Obama effectively threw older folk under the bus, casualties in a politically correct war to help young healthy poor lazy creeps.

That is exactly what happened.

Companies don't simply have more money to pay for labor, just because Obama made a mandate. So if you are no longer profitable to keep around, you'll be let go.

Thanks Obama. Wonderful job.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No. Lucky me, my premiums went down since I was let go for being over 55, now just making part time wages. Ironic since it's more than likely all us older folks were let go because our long time employer found it cheaper to cut us older folks because of Obama's "affordable Health care" BS than keep us. Obama effectively threw older folk under the bus, casualties in a politically correct war to help young healthy poor lazy creeps.

Yes, but now they can't deny you for coverage....isn't that great !

Never mind that you'll have to sell your house and firstborn to get it.

 

[Andylusion]

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Hammer meet nail.....squarely.

The big multinational I worked for helped regulators write specifications and regulations that favored our products and made it difficult for others to enter the market (made it very very expensive).

The left simply does not understand that the government simply becomes a tool of big business.

I'd love to know which product? I would find that very interesting.

You can start with agricultural products.

Licensing them is tedious and we purposely asked for more stringent testing requirements and tighter environmental regulations.

All of our fluorinated ag products were put into the market against very little competition.

Ok... that makes sense, because you are in an already highly regulated industry.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but the legislation was not specific to just YOUR company... right?

Or was it just "X Corp" only legislation?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Hammer meet nail.....squarely.

The big multinational I worked for helped regulators write specifications and regulations that favored our products and made it difficult for others to enter the market (made it very very expensive).

The left simply does not understand that the government simply becomes a tool of big business.

I'd love to know which product? I would find that very interesting.

You can start with agricultural products.

Licensing them is tedious and we purposely asked for more stringent testing requirements and tighter environmental regulations.

All of our fluorinated ag products were put into the market against very little competition.

Ok... that makes sense, because you are in an already highly regulated industry.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but the legislation was not specific to just YOUR company... right?

Or was it just "X Corp" only legislation?

If you have not seen it work, then it's tough to explain.

You have a product that is new. The government does not know how to regulate it. So you write the regulations and hand them to some beauracrat and explain it meets all EPA regs and others.....and in order to do so...you should meet this spec (say residue in water or toxicity test) and the spec will be to whatever your product does.

People in government have no freaking clue.

Then they help write import export controls on the product.....taking every angle possible.

We hired an EPA administrator to run our environmental group (proababaly paid her 300 K)....because she knows everyone there. She could shepherd things along as we needed her to.

 

[MaryL]

No. Lucky me, my premiums went down since I was let go for being over 55, now just making part time wages. Ironic since it's more than likely all us older folks were let go because our long time employer found it cheaper to cut us older folks because of Obama's "affordable Health care" BS than keep us. Obama effectively threw older folk under the bus, casualties in a politically correct war to help young healthy poor lazy creeps.

Yes, but now they can't deny you for coverage....isn't that great !

Never mind that you'll have to sell your house and firstborn to get it.

I lost my job of over 20 years, and Obama care is suspect cause. But I can't be denied coverage? WOOPIE! I can't begin to tell you what I lost, and all to appease Obama's politically correct gods? Underwhelmed, to say the least.

 

[Andylusion]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Hammer meet nail.....squarely.

The big multinational I worked for helped regulators write specifications and regulations that favored our products and made it difficult for others to enter the market (made it very very expensive).

The left simply does not understand that the government simply becomes a tool of big business.

I'd love to know which product? I would find that very interesting.

You can start with agricultural products.

Licensing them is tedious and we purposely asked for more stringent testing requirements and tighter environmental regulations.

All of our fluorinated ag products were put into the market against very little competition.

Ok... that makes sense, because you are in an already highly regulated industry.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but the legislation was not specific to just YOUR company... right?

Or was it just "X Corp" only legislation?

If you have not seen it work, then it's tough to explain.

You have a product that is new. The government does not know how to regulate it. So you write the regulations and hand them to some beauracrat and explain it meets all EPA regs and others.....and in order to do so...you should meet this spec (say residue in water or toxicity test) and the spec will be to whatever your product does.

People in government have no freaking clue.

Then they help write import export controls on the product.....taking every angle possible.

We hired an EPA administrator to run our environmental group (proababaly paid her 300 K)....because she knows everyone there. She could shepherd things along as we needed her to.

Now that is entirely believable to me. On import export laws, yeah no doubt the companies try and sway it to keep imports out.

But even the toxicity, I believe that too. The EPA wants to regulate something, who are they going to ask? A large company. They have to ask someone, or they could make a regulation that wipes out the entire market, and that would cause a massive outcry that could cause problems for politicians, who would cause problems for those in the EPA.

ANd of course which company are you going to ask? Bob's Fertilizer barn that sells a hundred bags a year, or MegaCorp? Of course MegaCorp. And when they ask, what answer are you going to give? The answer that fits your current products, or an answer that ruins your business?

It's all logical. This is why we shouldn't regulate to begin with.

Well I've seen the other way around.

The government comes and asks if you can do something... and the big companies can, while small companies can't simply because the big companies have the money to implement the regulation, and others do not.

For example.... CAFE standards.

Again, I highly doubt it's some grand scheme. It's simply how 'regulation' works. The only solution is to not regulate.

 

[Arianrhod]

The only solution is to not regulate.

The snake-oil salesmen of American agree!

 

[Andylusion]

The only solution is to not regulate.

The snake-oil salesmen of American agree!

Regulations is how snake-oil salesmen make their money.

Case and point: Ethanol.

 

[Arianrhod]

The only solution is to not regulate.

The snake-oil salesmen of American agree!

Regulations is how snake-oil salesmen make their money.

Case and point: Ethanol.

I was thinking of actual, historical snake-oil and other fraudulent and often dangerous products sold in the 19th century in that magical time when four-year-olds worked in coal mines and manufacturers filled their sausages with sawdust.

It's a shame so few Americans know history anymore.

As for ethanol, just if you so much as whisper "end farm subsidies," you'd better learn to run fast.

 

[dblack]

I'm not saying ACA is a success, at least not for the nation. It serves the interests of those who wrote it. My point here is that the major players in the insurance industry will use ACA to destroy competition and position themselves as ubiquitous rent-collectors in the health care market. We'll probably end up with two or three major health insurers whose profits will be protected by government.

I make it a point to emphasize this because when liberals hear about ACA killing off insurance companies, they take it differently than you might be. They see it as a sign of success, wrongly assuming that it will lead to single-payer. They are deluded. Everything about ACA was designed in reaction to the threat of single-payer, with the intent of avoiding it.

Well regulations by definition, reduce competition.

The way you wrote that, makes it sound like this was part of a grand scheme. I promise you, it was not.

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

So, even without there being some 'grand intentional devious scheme'.... by it's very nature regulations benefit the big companies, and squash the small ones.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Yes I do.

I think the cases where specific companies, push for laws that hinder "all competitors" are fairly small.

Liz Fowler got a job in the private sector, as a liaison to the government.

This is again, NORMAL. It's not something hideous, or intrinsically evil.

When the government makes the decision that it's going to regulate the widget business.... inherently the widget company now has invested interest in giving feed back to the government.

If you want to get your story related to government, how do you go about it? Find some guy off the street, and tell him to talk to people in Washington? Promote the guy who works in the mail-room? Or hiring someone with experience working in Washington?

You are of course going to hire someone with experience in government. If were going to hire a guy to fix your car, you would generally hire someone who has experience as a mechanic. Or to fix your driveway, someone with experience in asphalt. Or fix your roof, someone with experience in roofing.

Companies do the same thing, and you automatically assume it's corruption. I don't think so.

I think you're, partially at least, missing my point here. I'm not blaming the insurance companies for ACA. I'm not saying Liz Fowler had evil intent. She was protecting the vested interests in the industry from government regulators who were threatening to destroy them. In my view, the blame lies squarely with the members of Congress who passed the law, and the President for signing it.

Doesn't mean it's corruption. If anything, it just means the public needs to stop being stupid, and supporting regulations.

I think it is. At least in as much as the entire corporatist mode of government is a corruption of liberal democracy.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No. Lucky me, my premiums went down since I was let go for being over 55, now just making part time wages. Ironic since it's more than likely all us older folks were let go because our long time employer found it cheaper to cut us older folks because of Obama's "affordable Health care" BS than keep us. Obama effectively threw older folk under the bus, casualties in a politically correct war to help young healthy poor lazy creeps.

Yes, but now they can't deny you for coverage....isn't that great !

Never mind that you'll have to sell your house and firstborn to get it.

I lost my job of over 20 years, and Obama care is suspect cause. But I can't be denied coverage? WOOPIE! I can't begin to tell you what I lost, and all to appease Obama's politically correct gods? Underwhelmed, to say the least.

I hope you know I was being sarcastic in my post.

 

[Andylusion]

The only solution is to not regulate.

The snake-oil salesmen of American agree!

Regulations is how snake-oil salesmen make their money.

Case and point: Ethanol.

I was thinking of actual, historical snake-oil and other fraudulent and often dangerous products sold in the 19th century in that magical time when four-year-olds worked in coal mines and manufacturers filled their sausages with sawdust.

It's a shame so few Americans know history anymore.

As for ethanol, just if you so much as whisper "end farm subsidies," you'd better learn to run fast.

Well the sausage with sawdust is a myth. You talk about others knowing history, and then repeat a myth that was proven false for decades. Leftists are always spewing myths. Your whole ideology is base on a myth.

That said, again you want talk about something that happened a hundred years ago, and I want to talk about how it TODAY. Right now, we have snake oil salesmen. They are in the government. Pushing regulations, to force us to buy products that suck. Ethanol. Wind Mills.

How many times have we seen the government buy Snake Oil?
Top 20 Worst Ways the Government Wasted Your Tax Dollars
Swedish massages for rabbits: $387,000
Teaching Mountain Lions to Ride a Treadmill: $856,000
Studying how many times “hangry” people stab a voodoo doll: $331,000
Studying the gambling habits of monkeys: $171,000
Funding Climate Change Alarmist Video Game: $5.2 million
Help Parents Counter Kids’ Refusals to Eat Fruits and Veggies: $804,254

Need more?

But of course you want to talk about the massive snake oil salesman....

Remember this?

Michigan stands to get $1.36 billion of a $2.4-billion federal grant program designed to spur manufacturing of batteries and other components for electric vehicles in the United States, creating up to 6,800 jobs in the next 18 months and up to 40,000 in the state over the next 11 years.
​

8 Years ago right? 2008, or 2009, $2.4 Billion grants for new batteries for electric cars. Michigan would be BOOMING... oh yes. Massive job creator there.

What happened? Snake oil. They got the money, and we got the tax bill. Thanks a ton.

Your regulations haven't stopped a single snake oil salesmen. They have created snake oil salesmen.

 

[Andylusion]

Well regulations by definition, reduce competition.

The way you wrote that, makes it sound like this was part of a grand scheme. I promise you, it was not.

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

So, even without there being some 'grand intentional devious scheme'.... by it's very nature regulations benefit the big companies, and squash the small ones.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Yes I do.

I think the cases where specific companies, push for laws that hinder "all competitors" are fairly small.

Liz Fowler got a job in the private sector, as a liaison to the government.

This is again, NORMAL. It's not something hideous, or intrinsically evil.

When the government makes the decision that it's going to regulate the widget business.... inherently the widget company now has invested interest in giving feed back to the government.

If you want to get your story related to government, how do you go about it? Find some guy off the street, and tell him to talk to people in Washington? Promote the guy who works in the mail-room? Or hiring someone with experience working in Washington?

You are of course going to hire someone with experience in government. If were going to hire a guy to fix your car, you would generally hire someone who has experience as a mechanic. Or to fix your driveway, someone with experience in asphalt. Or fix your roof, someone with experience in roofing.

Companies do the same thing, and you automatically assume it's corruption. I don't think so.

I think you're, partially at least, missing my point here. I'm not blaming the insurance companies for ACA. I'm not saying Liz Fowler had evil intent. She was protecting the vested interests in the industry from government regulators who were threatening to destroy them. In my view, the blame lies squarely with the members of Congress who passed the law, and the President for signing it.

Doesn't mean it's corruption. If anything, it just means the public needs to stop being stupid, and supporting regulations.

I think it is. At least in as much as the entire corporatist mode of government is a corruption of liberal democracy.

In my view, it's the public that is corrupt. Everyone knows what government is doing, but as long as the other guy is punished, and their guy is not, that's all they really care about.

And honestly, I can see why. When you see democrats supporting officials who openly break federal law, and they still support them 100%... why should the other side care either?

 

[Arianrhod]

The only solution is to not regulate.

The snake-oil salesmen of American agree!

Regulations is how snake-oil salesmen make their money.

Case and point: Ethanol.

I was thinking of actual, historical snake-oil and other fraudulent and often dangerous products sold in the 19th century in that magical time when four-year-olds worked in coal mines and manufacturers filled their sausages with sawdust.

It's a shame so few Americans know history anymore.

As for ethanol, just if you so much as whisper "end farm subsidies," you'd better learn to run fast.

Well the sausage with sawdust is a myth.

Prove it.

Then you can address the rest of my post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You don't think the lobbyists took these kinds of dynamics into consideration? I promise you they did.

Absolutely true, but I also think it's very clear that big companies support and manipulate these regulations for that reason.

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Yes I do.

I think the cases where specific companies, push for laws that hinder "all competitors" are fairly small.

Liz Fowler got a job in the private sector, as a liaison to the government.

This is again, NORMAL. It's not something hideous, or intrinsically evil.

When the government makes the decision that it's going to regulate the widget business.... inherently the widget company now has invested interest in giving feed back to the government.

If you want to get your story related to government, how do you go about it? Find some guy off the street, and tell him to talk to people in Washington? Promote the guy who works in the mail-room? Or hiring someone with experience working in Washington?

You are of course going to hire someone with experience in government. If were going to hire a guy to fix your car, you would generally hire someone who has experience as a mechanic. Or to fix your driveway, someone with experience in asphalt. Or fix your roof, someone with experience in roofing.

Companies do the same thing, and you automatically assume it's corruption. I don't think so.

I think you're, partially at least, missing my point here. I'm not blaming the insurance companies for ACA. I'm not saying Liz Fowler had evil intent. She was protecting the vested interests in the industry from government regulators who were threatening to destroy them. In my view, the blame lies squarely with the members of Congress who passed the law, and the President for signing it.

Doesn't mean it's corruption. If anything, it just means the public needs to stop being stupid, and supporting regulations.

I think it is. At least in as much as the entire corporatist mode of government is a corruption of liberal democracy.

In my view, it's the public that is corrupt. Everyone knows what government is doing, but as long as the other guy is punished, and their guy is not, that's all they really care about.

And honestly, I can see why. When you see democrats supporting officials who openly break federal law, and they still support them 100%... why should the other side care either?

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”
Milton Friedman



"Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)"
Mrs. Robinson

 

[Arianrhod]

No, they do not. They were counting on the government making it a mandatory requirement to force people to buy insurance. That was their win. When this plan was shelved in favor of the insignificant tax penalty, most of them left the discussion with the Obama administration. You don't remember that? It happened in 2009, before they passed the bill.

The insurance lobby represents hundreds of insurance companies. If the companies knew they would be driving themselves out of business, to end up merged with two or three large companies, the other 90% of insurance companies would never support it.

And we're seeing that all over the place.

Why do big health insurance companies want to merge?

"As the nation’s top five health insurance companies jockey through merger proposals that could leave just three large companies at the top, a big question is, what does it mean for consumers – and the rest of the industry?"

You think that Anthem and Healthcare Select, would actively push these regulations and controls, knowing it would land them out of a job? Of course not.

Yet that is what is happening.

Again, there is very little evidence that large companies push most regulations knowing it will destroy themselves.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the large companies push regulations that they know will destroy competitors, leaving them in a more powerful position.

Do you think Liz Fowler was ignorant of all this?

Yes I do.

I think the cases where specific companies, push for laws that hinder "all competitors" are fairly small.

Liz Fowler got a job in the private sector, as a liaison to the government.

This is again, NORMAL. It's not something hideous, or intrinsically evil.

When the government makes the decision that it's going to regulate the widget business.... inherently the widget company now has invested interest in giving feed back to the government.

If you want to get your story related to government, how do you go about it? Find some guy off the street, and tell him to talk to people in Washington? Promote the guy who works in the mail-room? Or hiring someone with experience working in Washington?

You are of course going to hire someone with experience in government. If were going to hire a guy to fix your car, you would generally hire someone who has experience as a mechanic. Or to fix your driveway, someone with experience in asphalt. Or fix your roof, someone with experience in roofing.

Companies do the same thing, and you automatically assume it's corruption. I don't think so.

I think you're, partially at least, missing my point here. I'm not blaming the insurance companies for ACA. I'm not saying Liz Fowler had evil intent. She was protecting the vested interests in the industry from government regulators who were threatening to destroy them. In my view, the blame lies squarely with the members of Congress who passed the law, and the President for signing it.

Doesn't mean it's corruption. If anything, it just means the public needs to stop being stupid, and supporting regulations.

I think it is. At least in as much as the entire corporatist mode of government is a corruption of liberal democracy.

In my view, it's the public that is corrupt. Everyone knows what government is doing, but as long as the other guy is punished, and their guy is not, that's all they really care about.

And honestly, I can see why. When you see democrats supporting officials who openly break federal law, and they still support them 100%... why should the other side care either?

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”
Milton Friedman



"Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)"
Mrs. Robinson

So where do your thoughts fall between these two extremes, and what does it have to do with the PPACA?

 

[Andylusion]

The only solution is to not regulate.

The snake-oil salesmen of American agree!

Regulations is how snake-oil salesmen make their money.

Case and point: Ethanol.

I was thinking of actual, historical snake-oil and other fraudulent and often dangerous products sold in the 19th century in that magical time when four-year-olds worked in coal mines and manufacturers filled their sausages with sawdust.

It's a shame so few Americans know history anymore.

As for ethanol, just if you so much as whisper "end farm subsidies," you'd better learn to run fast.

Well the sausage with sawdust is a myth.

Prove it.

Then you can address the rest of my post.

If you understood basic logic, you would know it's impossible to prove a negative. Now I realize that in childish left-wing world, "if you can't prove it didn't happen... then it did!"

But for the rest of us, you make the allegation that someone put saw dust in sausage, then *YOU* are the one who must prove it happened.

The only claims that people put saw dust in the sausage, was in a novel written in 1906, called "The Jungle". The book was a NOVEL. FICTION. You don't find "the Jungle" in your documentary section of the library.

Even FDR said the novel was crap, and Sinclair was a liar.

Leftist belief is built on myth and lies. You guys have to completely fabricate stuff like 'saw dust in the sausage', to justify your entire ideology.

 

[Arianrhod]

The snake-oil salesmen of American agree!

Regulations is how snake-oil salesmen make their money.

Case and point: Ethanol.

I was thinking of actual, historical snake-oil and other fraudulent and often dangerous products sold in the 19th century in that magical time when four-year-olds worked in coal mines and manufacturers filled their sausages with sawdust.

It's a shame so few Americans know history anymore.

As for ethanol, just if you so much as whisper "end farm subsidies," you'd better learn to run fast.

Well the sausage with sawdust is a myth.

Prove it.

Then you can address the rest of my post.

it's impossible to prove a negative.

You said it was a myth, and you said it with conviction - as if something you'd read had convinced you. If that's not the case, never mind, then.

 

[Andylusion]

Regulations is how snake-oil salesmen make their money.

Case and point: Ethanol.

I was thinking of actual, historical snake-oil and other fraudulent and often dangerous products sold in the 19th century in that magical time when four-year-olds worked in coal mines and manufacturers filled their sausages with sawdust.

It's a shame so few Americans know history anymore.

As for ethanol, just if you so much as whisper "end farm subsidies," you'd better learn to run fast.

Well the sausage with sawdust is a myth.

Prove it.

Then you can address the rest of my post.

it's impossible to prove a negative.

You said it was a myth, and you said it with conviction - as if something you'd read had convinced you. If that's not the case, never mind, then.

Yeah...... When you read that there was never any evidence supporting the allegation.... that's proof it was a myth. I look at the "evidence", and the only thing is a fictional novel. When you base your entire allegation on a novel... that was never at any point claimed to be true..... It's a myth.