The unions are telling us that "when something goes slow enough, it's easy to kill it, dead in its tracks."
When I first saw this ad I thought they were making the argument for slowing down health care reform. But they are apparently trying to say we should speed it up.
See, to me, if something is easy to kill when it's moving slow, that's because it's pretty weak to begin with, like the snail in the ad. And besides, since when is it wrong for the public -- and their representatives -- to actually analyze and discuss a major change to the American way of life before enacting it?
Can anyone think of a really good bill that got a ton of press coverage that didn't pass because the public looked at it too much? And even if you can think of one (I can't), isn't that worth the price that democracy demands of us, having an informed electorate, and informed representatives voting on our behalf?
I am up front when I say I don't want this health care reform to pass. I am against government-controlled health insurance, against the Health Insurance Exchange, against price controls, against market controls, and so on. I don't want to amend this bill, I want it dead.
But even if I wanted it passed, I can't see myself violating my fundamental principles by pushing it through before the public could have a chance to take a good look at it.
(And don't even get me started on the dishonesty of implying that because we've been working on health care reform for years, that it is not rushing things to push a thousand-page bill through the House in a few weeks.)
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at July 27, 2009 10:59 PM | Email ThisWhat's that saying about buyer beware.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on July 28, 2009 05:57 AMWith stellar Democrat party leadership like that, 2010 and 2012 should be a very good years for Republicans.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 28, 2009 06:23 AM"What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"
So, not only do the elected reps not read it, or understand it, they don't write it. We have turned control of the country over to un-elected lawyers and staff.
Posted by: Gary on July 28, 2009 06:23 AMAnd I don't buy the argument that Bush rammed things through without debate. BUSH WASN'T SPENDING TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR DECADES TO COME!!! It's a matter of scale people!!! Obama has spent more in 6 months than Bush did in 8 years (and that's BEFORE "Cap and Tax")! It's not equivalent, it's not even in the same universe as what Bush did.
Pelosi "doesn't care if she's dispised"... Well now, isn't that special? We have a Speaker of the House who doesn't care about what the people of this country want. About 50% or more do NOT want this health care socailism, and more thatn that think it's too expensive and will raise costs. DO YOU HEAR ME JIM MCDERMOTT? WE DON'T WANT THIS DAMN SOCIALISM!!!
I predict that if Democrats pass this, not only will they be out of power in 2 years, the whole thing will be scrapped because it wound mean total destruction of our economy because businesses will dump their private plans and throw everyone on the government plan, which isn't designed to take that many people. Oh GOSH, I guess we'll have to RAISE TAXES MORE! Where in the Constitution does it say government can do this? Are there any good lawyers willing to challenge this crap?
Even the CHINESE and RUSSIANS are warning us not to incurr more debt. We're now more socialist and less capitalist than they are! UNBELIEVABLE!
Posted by: scott on July 28, 2009 07:43 AMHe doesn't have two days and two lawyers to understand it ... so ... maybe he should GET two days and two lawyers before you vote on it. Isn't that arguing against the Dem talking points that we should NOT slow down?
Posted by: pudge on July 28, 2009 08:00 AMFor those who just can't resist a numerical analysis made by a real economist who understands the future implications of this plan, look at this Graph of how large new defict spending will be under Obamacare by 2030.
But be careful, as demo kid stated in another thread the other day,
Making ad hominem attacks is relevant when someone doesn't bother reading what they present. Claiming that you're having a rational discussion is laughable when you're not presenting the data accurately so that you can falsely support your own position.
In other words, even if someone else's argument is weak or he disagrees with it, demo kid thinks that by calling that person a name or calling them stupid, that bolsters his own argument. demo kid also said that because another commenter spews ad hominem at him, that is enough justification for him to come back at you on this topic.
But there should be no pretense that one is still engaging in logical argument when ad hominem is used.
And given the nature of written word, all of the bluster is useless. Name calling has some validity face to face but it takes for more wit and cunning to carry it off in written word. That's why I say delete those comments or the sections filled with ad hominem. When those whiners find that they are not allowed to have their tantrums, they will either become more civil or go away.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 28, 2009 08:47 AMJust up to the mid 400 page range:
Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments and benefits you get
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!
Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your banks' accounts for election funds transfer
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)
Pg 195 HC Bill - Officers and employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans' financial and personal records.
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors will all be paid the same, regardless of what specialty you have.
Pg 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of doctor's time, professional judgment, etc. Literally value of humans.
Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells doctors what/how much they can own.
Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people.! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends
Pg 429 Lines 10-12 "Advance care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV
Pg 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life
Pg 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage
Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those same services
Posted by: Huey on July 28, 2009 09:07 AMThis is simply legalizing thuggery, where the Commissioner can - at his (essentially, the Administration's) sole discretion - enact audits as often as desired, and the company must pay for the costs incurred by the Government.
Hey, you get on the wrong side of the Administration, or you don't appease the right people, expect to have annual - maybe quarterly, if you have a few dozen employees - audits at a cost of $40,000+ per audit.
But we always has HOPE AND CHANGE to make us feel better, right?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 28, 2009 09:32 AMSo, what's new. Isn't taxation in itself a form of thuggery...after all you are being forced to pay up, literally at the point of a gun. DUH! :)
Posted by: Duffman on July 28, 2009 10:46 AMNot sure what the issue is about requiring audits of self insuring employers. It has been the law in WA practically forever.
Can anyone offer any citations (not anecdotal) of the liberal democratic government of WA abusing businesses with this authority?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 28, 2009 11:10 AMWhat's the cost of not reforming?
U.S. Pays $2.5 Trillion for Care Costing $912 Billion
Find me one person here, or one person in Congress, who is against health care reform.
I doubt you can.
If you are interested in knowing the opinions of your readers, post a poll. You're admin.
Right Amused? ;-)
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 28, 2009 05:18 PMYes, it is commonly understood that the way I phrased those English words means exactly the way you interpreted them to mean something else.
Furthermore, my question "What's the cost of not reforming?" cannot mean what it reads, and is actually an assertion that Obama is unqualified to try and push through his proposal because he is not a citizen.
Ignore the link, as them is just facts and not relevant to any discussion.
:-D
Hey, did you know that in addition to paying significantly less for more health insurance, covering all the people of Canada with socialized health insurance and producing greater life expectancy than here in the USA,
there are more peopled uninsured in the USA than there are people in all of Canada? No? I didn't think so.
Well said.
It is entirely upon the filibuster proof majority of Dems to deliver health insurance reform.
The Republicans failed to pass reform when they had the whip hand, and have offered no bill to be scored by the CBO this session. And we aren't going to see a scored Republican alternative either.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 28, 2009 06:30 PMNot sure what the issue is about requiring audits of self insuring employers. It has been the law in WA practically forever.
Not like this. If you're audited in WA, then the State pays for its costs of the audit. This new legislation makes the company responsible for those costs.
In essence, the company will now have to pay for costs that it cannot control; how much will the audit cost? It cannot account or predict or control those costs, as they are purely decided by the Feds and will be presented with a bill by the Feds.
THAT'S the difference. It's one thing to have to pay for your audit costs; it's quite another to pay for the Government's costs in auditing you.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 28, 2009 07:42 PMI thought you were opposing HR 3200? After all, it's not revenue neutral - it adds $239 billion to the national debt per the CBO. You said that if the bill doesn't greatly expand coverage (the CBO says it only will cover 1/3rd of those without insurance), and it's not revenue neutral (a $239 billion deficit is hardly neutral) you wouldn't support it.
Has that position now changed?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 28, 2009 07:46 PMHope that helps.
Duffman: as usual, what is obvious to you isn't obvious to anyone else.
Frankly, those like John Conyers, Chris Dodd and any others who are arrogantly saying we don't need to read this should be prosecuted for dereliction of duty and at very least voted out in 2010. Where is the outrage - why is noone pressing charges ?
Posted by: KDS on July 28, 2009 09:23 PMDan, your coverage number is simply wrong -- I have no idea why you are so terrible at quoting the CBO accurately.
Because I'm not; you're the dolt who doesn't get it. I direct you to the CBO review of the Kennedy Health Choices Act; the House Bill supposedly will cover 35 million, but assumes that companies will add 10 million to the employer-covered insurance ranks in 2013.
I'll evaluate the deficit neutrality once the bill is done, but a significant amount of that spending is already budgeted (to prevent massive Medicare payment cuts).
So the CBO shows the deficit of the House bill at $239 billion, minimum, and you want to wait? Yet you'll take their estimate of coverage at face value right now?
How about a little consistency John. If the CBO hasn't had a chance to properly review the budget impact, then why assume they have properly reviewed the number of people added?
So I guess the status quo of bankrupting the country with Medicare spending is much better.
Yes, because it's already going bankrupt, so adding another 11 million people will stop the problem with Medicaid and Medicare! Even if you slow down the growth of the increase in deficits, you still have deficits.
John, it comes back to the original contention of Pudge's post: why the rush? Why DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW, when the bills aren't even written, when things are in flux? Does the bill as presented not stand on its merits? If not, then DON'T VOTE FOR IT.
A bad bill is worse than no bill.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 28, 2009 09:53 PM"It's one thing to have to pay for your audit costs; it's quite another to pay for the Government's costs in auditing you."
Can you explain who should pay for an audit if it is not paid for by the business entity which has chosen to go the self-insured route?
Are you saying self-insured should not be audited?
Are you saying taxpayers not receiving the tax benefit of self-insuring should pay for it? Or what?
FYI - Incidental costs associated with an WA L&I audit such as travel and per diem are the responsibility of the self-insured. And always have been.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 29, 2009 08:32 AM"Conservative leaders will push delay any vote on health care reform until after the August recess to capitalize on what they say is a growing tide of opposition to reform measures, they said on a conference call with "tea party" participants today.
"I can almost guarantee you this thing won't pass before August, and if we can hold it back until we go home for a month's break in August," members of Congress will hear from "outraged" constituents, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said on the call, which was organized by the group Conservatives for Patients Rights."
SOURCE: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Health_reform_foes_plan_Obamas_Waterloo.html
The delay is not to come up with another better proposal. The planned delay is for purposes entirely irrelevant to health insurance reform.
Everyday each and every one of us faces deadlines. I'd assume most of us put our heads down and do the work which is necessary.
That is what the 'rush' is. Time to get the work done. And ALL of the SOBs in Congress should forgo their extended August vacation and get their work done. If that means voting down a bad proposal, so be it.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~William Pitt the youngerPosted by: Rick D. on July 29, 2009 09:28 AM
In the long run, it is exactly about that. In the short run, it is to inform the public about how terrible this plan is, so it can be killed. Yes. How is that a bad thing? (Pssst: it's not.)
The planned delay is for purposes entirely irrelevant to health insurance reform.
You're not fooling anyone with such nonsense. It's obviously true that it has everything to do with health insurance reform: making sure it is not reformed BADLY.
I realize what you're doing, as everyone else does. As you did in your earlier comment that I called you on, you're trying to make it look like peiple who disagree with you about this plan or against any reform. But it's dishonest and no one believes you.
Everyday each and every one of us faces deadlines. I'd assume most of us put our heads down and do the work which is necessary.
If my "deadline" was to, say, write a new Linux compatible kernel in a few weeks, I would quit my job. It's an idiotic deadline. That's what Obama asked the Congress to do, except it was many, many times more complicated.
Health care reform of this magnitude (which I am against anyway) should take many months to go over, because that's what the job actually demands, in order to give people a chance to figure out what the bill actually says and does. The only reason to speed it through is to not give people a chance to look at it, which is downright anti-democratic.
I defy you to give me another reason why it needs to be sped through other than to not give people -- including legislators -- a chance to examine it. You can't.
That is what the 'rush' is.
Yes, you described it perfectly: pass the bill as quickly as possible no matter what is in it, just because that's the only way you think you can pass it. The bad news for you is that we have sound legislative methods on our side (as even Obama himself agreed ... that is, when Bush was President). You clearly do not.
Yes, my "If that means voting down a bad proposal, so be it. "
is precisely and accurately translated by you to mean: "pass the bill as quickly as possible no matter what is in it,"
:-D
Regarding asking someone to do something and being told it won't be done, happens all the time.
Alternatively, if you told me it would be done, and you didn't do it and you could neither tell me when you would complete or show me any progress towards, you're off the project and soon out the door.
Once again, the rush is to get the work done. If there is a better reform proposal to be offered by the Republicans, get it scored. If nobody can or will get a better bill than HR 3200, put it to a vote and knock it down.
The current political plan is to do nothing and go on vacation. To hell with that. The SOBs in Congress need to do their job not take a vacation.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 29, 2009 10:09 AMThat speaks for itself.
If there is a better reform proposal to be offered by the Republicans, get it scored.
I am against that, as it is waste of time, since it would never pass. Far better is the time spent on making sure THIS bill does not get passed.
put [HR 3200] to a vote and knock it down.
Once it's been fully vetted, yes, that's the plan.
The current political plan is to do nothing and go on vacation.
Um. Analyzing the bill and showing why it is bad is "doing nothing"? Please stop being so dishonest.
FYI (try and stay with me here)
- The House is scheduled to conclude its business Friday, July 31st and go on RECESS until September 8th.
- The Senate is scheduled to conclude its business Friday, August 7th and go on RECESS until September 8th.
If Congress has work to do (e.g. analyzing, debating, voting), then stay and get it done.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 29, 2009 11:01 AMThey do not.
I said nothing that has anything to do with any recess.
Posted by: pudge on July 29, 2009 11:20 AMI am opposed to having those being audited front the costs of the audit. If it's a function of Government, then it should be paid for by general taxes, not by direct charges for unrequested services forced.
State does it, and that's wrong. Now the Feds want to do it to, and that's wrong too.
Ultimately, the best solution is to GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF HEALTH INSURANCE. You want to self-insure? Then provide an audited record (you know, audited by your own accountants and CPAs like you have to do anyway for fiduciary and SOX compliance) and be done with it.
Extra audits are simply a way for Government - State or Federal - to exert even more control and coercion on business.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 29, 2009 01:37 PMNo, but this is. Nothing I said in the previous post is incorrect. The median income in Kenya is a paltry $1,600/yr, but George Obama says he makes less than 4x that in a year. If the median income in the U.S. is 48K/yr (which it is) and someone is making 12k/yr, what is that by your definition, the life of Reilly? No.
You're just pissed because the reality doesn't comport with your non-sensical image of Obama.
Do you really think Obama cares about improved health care ? His actions say "Hell NO". He only cares about having the Government get private information from a Public Plan like all good Marxist administrations want (see the history of Castro and Chavez for further evidence).
Some say they have to pass a plan before political campaign season starts up in 2010.
I say bullcrap - their momentum of ramrodding legislation through without the Democraps in Congress reading it has been interrupted. When the Republicans pulled this shit (to a lesser magnitude) that was their undoing in 2006.
The 47 million uninsured is another half truth - it includes 15-20 million illegal aliens and maybe 10 million who are uninsured - many younger people under 35 by choice and other millions are actually covered from their jobs, whenever they get a new one.
It's up to the people to voice their disapproval, which is almost 2-1 against now. More Tea Parties on weekends with rock bands to attract and educate younger people is vital.
Posted by: KDS on July 29, 2009 07:05 PMEvery estimate that you have seen on the Huff Post, The Nation, Daily KOS or any leftwing propaganda rag ? Every source (centrist and conservative) that I have seen has estimated from 14-20 million illegals. You ignored those who don't want insurance. Facts are getting in your way again.
Posted by: KDS on July 29, 2009 08:58 PMIf you can't understand there are TWO bills, both being pushed through, then you're the idiot, not me.
The CBO says it'll blow the budget; you say the bill's not complete. I point out - rightly - that the bill will greatly limit choices. You say I'm wrong the bill will change.
So essentially you want to see a bill pushed through that is not done, does not meet your stated "requirements", and doesn't say who gets what or when.
But you know you want it. And you have a problem with slowing down the process.
OK... That's fine, enjoy!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 29, 2009 09:01 PMThese guys can't do anything. Good!
"House Republicans have offered alternatives, including the Republican Study Committee's Empowering Patients First Act (H.R. 3400), that would both empower patients and reduce costs."
You may want to check your facts on the Cash for Clunkers program. Looks like it was an overwhelming stimulative success.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 31, 2009 06:41 AMAnd you think that's a well-run government program?
I'm a Republican. I think the federal government should not be in the car selling business.
What is your source for the Cash for Clunkers program's $1 billion appropriation to last through October?
Wasn't the intent of the program to stimulate auto sales? As fast as possible?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 31, 2009 07:42 AM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090731/D99PE5280.html
Hey I know! Let's just give everyone $30k! Think how many cars they can buy with that! I'm sure that would be a smashing success too, because people like free money. And we have plenty of it... not like we're in debt or anything.
My gosh... is there any part of your life you don't want the federal government involved with?
I asked you to check your facts against your assertion that the "They completely mis-forecast the "Cash For Clunkers" dollar projections."
The source you provided says:
"The program was scheduled to last through Nov. 1 or until the money ran out,"
Thank-you.
I'm glad you're there to stand up for them.
So, it is your opinion that they made *no* miscalculation at all, and they fully expected that they could run out of money, in like, one day?
Would you like me to provide quotes of politicians saying that they miscalculated?
Posted by: Gary on July 31, 2009 08:04 AMCare to expand on the thought and explain how you reach that conclusion?
Bingo!! ...and couldn't have happened at a better time to illustrate the Government's ineptitude to the American people mulling over if that same inept entity should have broader control of our healthcare decisions.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 31, 2009 08:13 AMThey budgeted $1 billion for the stupid car thing, and now they're talking about adding $2 billion. So they were a little off, weren't they? Now, they're talking about $1 trillion for Obamacare. Do you believe them?
It is my understanding the primary intent of the program was to stimulate new auto sales as fast as possible, and to spend the appropriated money as fast as possible to provide the greatest stimulative effect.
The source you provided provides us information that the money had to be spent not later than October 31st (end of the budget year) and clearly identifies that spending it sooner is calculated.
The program was intended to 'run out of money' because it is not a long term program, but a short term stimulus. YES, it was not only expected the program would run out of money, it was the goal of the program to spend its full appropriation. The fact that it is doing so sooner than October is why the WSJ analyzes it as an "unqualified success".
Beyond the issue of whether or not the government should continue to be involved with providing businesses like the auto industry money, I don't understand what your point is on miscalculation of the Cash for Clunkers program.
Would it have been more successful in your mind if the Congress had appropriated the $4 billion the administration originally asked for?
I think that the point that Gary was making and that I touched on is that obamination designed this program to last until October. They anticipated it running that long and budgeted accordingly. They could have possibly mis-forecast worse. They are now scrambling to fix their fix.
My extension of that thought is, given how incompetently they planned this little one, do you really want these same people in complete dictatorial control of 20% of our economy?
My guess is that you have no problem with it...
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 31, 2009 08:22 AMThey're going to anyway. Don't you get it? They're talking about taking $2 billion from somewhere else right now. So, regardless of the *intent* of the program, like always, they'll go beyond the intent.
They should not be in the car selling business. For crying out loud. They are a government, not a business.
Check your facts on "designed this program to last until October"
@67 Gary on July 31, 2009 08:22 AM,
No, I don't get your point. The administration proposed $4 billion on the Cash for Clunkers program. Negotiations with Republican Congressional leaders got the spending portion of the stimulus bill cut in favor of tax cuts resulting in the lower actual $1 billion appropriation.
Again, in the reference you provided, it is not simply liberal/socialist Democrats calling for reallocating money from non-performing stimulus programs to the successful Cars for Clunkers program, it includes Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich "I can think of no better use for unspent stimulus dollars that are gathering dust than financing 'Cash for Clunkers,'"
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 31, 2009 08:34 AM
When does this crap end?
I know.
"I can think of no better use for unspent stimulus dollars that are gathering dust than financing 'Cash for Clunkers,'"
We're doomed.
Posted by: Gary on July 31, 2009 08:38 AMI'd say don't despair . . . but,
Mike is only one of many millions of functional idiots in America who believe what they believe because they feeeeel it is true. Any reasoning ability they have is used to prop up their emotional prejudices. Beyond that there is little of substance to observe.
I sincerely hope you weren't thinking that you could talk sense into Mike? In a discourse so polluted with dishonesty, what can we expect? Liberalism is a mental disease proliferated by infected teachers. Mike and MikeBoy Scout are interesting to read because they show what liberalism does to the brain.
We may well be doomed.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 31, 2009 10:27 AMWe can always try. Just heard that the House is adding more billions to this stupid thing. (but I thought it was only supposed to run until the money ran out? It *never* runs out in Washington.)
Pretty much working exactly as those of us who opposed it knew it would... costing way more than they told us it would, and distorting the real market.
Posted by: G on July 31, 2009 10:33 AM"C.A.RS. [sic] is a perfect example of a poorly run government program."
How has it been poorly run exactly?
"because of the types of cars that will have to be bought to qualify, a great deal of the program's funds will end-up in foreign hands. Now THAT'S stimulus!!!"
Unlike a great deal of the money you yourself today on manufactured things won't end up in foreign hands?
In case you haven't noticed, we in the USA produce less and less of what we consume, a 40 year trend. Where is the computer you are typing on manufactured???
Hopeless.
You think the government spending a billion dollars in a few days is success? That's easy.
MikeBoyScout. You are adding billions to it now. Is that what was supposed to happen when you all passed this thing?
Why do I need to buy your used to car to help you buy a new one?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dealers-race-to-get-their-clunkers-crushed/?hp
Posted by: Gary on July 31, 2009 11:23 AMYou started this Cash for Clunkers diversion with the documented incorrect assertion that the amount appropriated was miscalculated (see #58 above).
I am not a Cash for Clunkers supporter, but neither am I ignorant of the fact that by the objective observation of the Wall Street Journal and most others the program has been a huge success.
If you can show where and how this program is mismanaged then maybe you can let us all know. Otherwise you are offering uninformed opinion.
FYI, in addition to the WA Democrats voting for additional appropriation to Cash for Clunkers today, voting AYE included D. Reichert (R-WA 08)
Additional cash? Why does it need additional cash?
My "diversion" was to simply point out that these clowns cannot anticipate the consequences of their actions.
If you don't support this stupid thing, why are you arguing with me about it?
Posted by: Gary on July 31, 2009 12:04 PMWhy do they need more cash? Why must I buy someone's used car? Why do I care about Reichert's vote?
If you hate this bill, why are you sighing?
So, tell my why it is a good thing for the Feds to sponsor the movement of the majority of the now 3 billion dollars allotted to the C.A.R.S. program to the corporate coffers and tax bases of foreign companies and foreign governments? How does that help me or you for that matter?
Forget me buying what I want from where I want, that has nothing to do with it BUT the decisions do. C.A.R.S. is the kind of non-nonsensical, half-baked, privileged constituency driven decisions that will be controlling our health care.
Posted by: G Jiggy on July 31, 2009 02:08 PMHa!
Posted by: Gary on July 31, 2009 03:19 PM"I can't muster a passable argument ..."
Something new here???? :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 31, 2009 03:44 PMAnd then they will at the same time kill off private insurance by actually making it illegal for insurance companies to write new policies. This is competition?
Posted by: Michele on August 2, 2009 08:55 PM