On 4/2/2010 12:16 AM, Bob Klahn -> John Massey wrote:


 JM>> * They don't want to have to defend the revelation that
 JM>> Obama and his family will not be subject to the
 JM>> restrictions, requirements and penalties of ObamaCare.

 BK> Uh... the president has his own medical team.

Like I said that he's exempt from his own program that he is pushing on the
rest of the country.


 BK> Are you willing to defend the fact that Bush got gold plated
 BK> medical care while 45 million had no coverage, and limited care?

Bush is no longer president, I don't care what Bush did. I care about what
the current president is doing to the United States.

 JM>> * They don't want to have to explain how an insurance
 JM>> company can charge lower premiums when its healthier
 JM>> policy holders take a hike and they're forced to insure
 JM>> people who are already sick.

 BK> That is why they have mandated coverage. The only other
 BK> alternative is single payer government medicine.

No Bob, that is not the only other answer.

 BK> Or do you prefer the alternative of uninsured Americans?



 JM>> * They don't want a discussion on how our children and
 JM>> grandchildren are going to pay off the massive debt
 JM>> they will have to overcome courtesy of ObamaCare.

 BK> They won't have to worry, the massive debt going back through
 BK> Gwb to GHWB to Reagan will be enough to worry about.

Those debts will be peanuts compared to what Barack Obama is going to
settle this country with.


 BK> Do you want to explain to your grandchildren why they are living
 BK> in a third world country, that used to be the United States of
 BK> America?

I don't have children.


 JM>> * They don't want to have to defend the gimmicks they
 JM>> used to force the Congressional Budget Office to
 JM>> falsely report that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit.

 BK> You mean the truth? Or how it will save $1 trillion a year if
 BK> it's pushed to match the Swiss most expensive national health
 BK> care in the world?

No Bob, I mean things like taking doc fix out of the program and making it
a separate issue, so it wouldn't be considered under Obama care. Things
like putting the college loan program under healthcare. The Democrats were
dishonest from the day they started this program. It's to be expected. The
fact that you believe them doesn't surprise me one bit.



 JM>> * They don't want to discuss the logic fining a young
 JM>> person 2.2% of their income if they refuse to buy an
 JM>> insurance policy they think they won't need that would
 JM>> cost them 10% of their income.

 BK> That does seem dumb to me. OTOH, the alternative is single
 BK> payer.

 JM>> * They don't want to have to explain just why ObamaCare
 JM>> will not follow the path of Medicare and the
 JM>> prescription drug benefit ... the path to actual costs
 JM>> over and above projected costs by a factor of 10 or
 JM>> more.

 BK> Yet still saving $1 Trillion/yr at 12% GDP vs 20% GDP.

 JM>> * They don't want to discuss Fidel Castro's glowing
 JM>> endorsement of ObamaCare yesterday.

 BK> IF that's what you have to reach for you just conceeded defeat.

 JM>> * They don't want to discuss just why Democrats
 JM>> absolutely refused to consider simple and easily
 JM>> enforced private sector options, such as allowing
 JM>> insurance companies to sell their policies across state
 JM>> lines, before moving toward healthcare nationalization.

 BK> Possibly because insurance companies already can and do sell
 BK> health care policies across state lines. So you have zero score
 BK> on that one.

Sorry Bob, you are just flat out wrong

 JM>> * They don't want to explain just where in the
 JM>> Constitution they found that nifty little clause that
 JM>> gives the government the authority to use its police
 JM>> power to force a free American citizen to enter into a
 JM>> contract to purchase something from a private company
 JM>> against their will.

 BK> Yeah, go to single payer.

 BK> I am just waiting to see that one brought to the supreme court.
 BK> Any ruling will either put medicare out of business, or lead to
 BK> single payer.

 BK> Oh, and the Swiss do *NOT* have single payer, which is where I
 BK> turned against single payer. Most of the National Health care
 BK> plans in the world are not single payer. At least among the
 BK> industrialized countries.

 JM>> * They don't want to have to explain why Caterpillar
 JM>> has already announced that as many as 1000 workers will
 JM>> lose their jobs after the passage of ObamaCare.

 BK> They didn't? Caterpillar increased their employment in North
 BK> America by 4000 from 2007 to 2008, then dumped 10,000 North
 BK> American Employees, in 2009. If they are going to dump another
 BK> 1000 they will use health care legislation as an excuse, but it
 BK> wasn't the reason last year, now was it.

 BK> Caterpillar announced a $100 million charge against earnings, on
 BK> a section that doesn't go into effect until 2014. They claim
 BK> they have to account for it immediately, but what they don't say
 BK> is the cost won't come due for years. And they also don't
 BK> mention the change is closing a tax loophole that let them
 BK> collect a subsidy from the govt on insurance benefits, then
 BK> deduct that subsidy as if they had paid the money themselves.

 BK> Now, do you support that fraud?

You're the one supporting fraud Bob. The benefits go into effect in 2014,
the taxes start coming out much sooner.
If you don't like the example of Caterpillar, then explain why AT&T
said they will lay off people because of Barack Obama's health care plan.
When you through defending AT&T and telling me how they're lying about
what they're doing, then you can move on to the whole list of other
companies that have come out and said this plan will cost jobs.



--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317