Jeff Binkley -> Ed Hulett wrote:



 >>>> Then she may not like having a new law passed that will fine her
 >>>> for not being
 >>>> insured.

 ST>>> It wouldn't happen because they would provide her insurance she
 ST>>> could afford.  She would be fined if she didn't get any
 EH>> insurance, but not if she
 ST>>> couldn't afford it.  That's one of the misconceptions that is
 ST>>> consistently being popularized by the conservative movement that
 ST>>> is trying to get this discredited.  I thought you'd be better
 ST>>> than that.

 EH>> So, only those who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it
 EH>> will be fined? Where is the authority to do that in the Constitution?
 EH>> And who exactly do you think will pay for those who cannot afford to
 EH>> pay for their own? The "evil" rich?

 JB> Have you seen now where the unions are lining up against this ?  They
 JB> have figured out that these "caddilac" healthcare plans
that are going
 JB> to be taxed include their own.  Nobody is going to take away what they
 JB> have fought and struck over for years.  It is funny to watch.

I noticed that. It's interesting to see them do a 180 so quickly without
getting whiplash.

Ed

-- 
"Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the
entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world
disagrees with it." --Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135-1204)

Blogs: http://edsramblings.wordpress.com | http://woodcaringnsuch.wordpress.com
http://edsscrollsawbits.blogspot.com

Facebook: http://wwwfacebook/com/ed.hulett | Twitter: yaesu

Linux User #416016
Linux Machine #385030

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)