I Think This Speaks For Itself

[CuteOldGuy]

Same old, same old. You wanted change? You got the same old crap.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...ls-punish-foes

[catnipdipper]

I start to think you are maybe, maybe an ok guy and then "there you go again."

From the time of your posting I will assume you were drinking and in a sour mood.

C'mon man!

[swarmyone]

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

I start to think you are maybe, maybe an ok guy and then "there you go again."

From the time of your posting I will assume you were drinking and in a sour mood.

C'mon man!

Don't shoot the messenger. He's just pointing out that all the bs about hope and change was just that...bs. Those of us who didn't fall for the RockStar persona saw right through the snake oil salesman. All you had to do was look at his past to see that he was just like all the rest.

[catnipdipper]

I will just assume that you were drinking with COG and are grumpy too.

[Muffrider]

He promised he'd work for change in the healthcare system. He successfully made changes in the law. Whether they were good or bad, you can't say he didn't keep his promise.

If you don't like the changes, exercise your right to vote.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

I will just assume that you were drinking with COG and are grumpy too.

At some point are you going to get around to discussing the substance of the article, or are you just going to keep settling for the old standby Ad hominen defense?

[catnipdipper]

So I take it you were in a threesome with the other two grumps?

Ad hominem etat unum domino patri sanctum el popo

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

At some point are you going to get around to discussing the substance of the article, or are you just going to keep settling for the old standby Ad hominen defense?

How could catnip be expected to discuss the substance of the article when there is no substance in the article? What was the purpose of the waivers? A real journalist may have mentioned this. Hence, the article does not "speak for itself" as COG implied. Instead the "journalist" tries to compare the health care bill to a no parking sign. I guess he has never seen a no parking sign except for delivery, law enforcement vehicles, etc. There are always exceptions to the rule.

[sherm]

why were the waivers given? Quid Pro Quo - the unions supported Obama but didn't like how the healtcare law would affect their plans. Unions would have been subject to paying taxes on the plans because they are what have been referred to as "cadillac" plans. So Obama agreed to give them waivers in exchange for their money and support.

[CuteOldGuy]

It's universal health care, except for friends of the administration who don't want it. If it was what it was advertised to be, no one would be getting a waiver. It's all BS, and the article simply shows that.

[CuteOldGuy]

And I'm not saying President Obama is worse than any other President, he just isn't any better. Same song, different singer. And I predict: Our next President will be just the same, Republican or Democrat. I will vote, as I always do, because deep inside there is a glimmer of hope that this country can be saved. It's not looking promising.

[Muffrider]

Originally Posted by sherm

why were the waivers given? Quid Pro Quo - the unions supported Obama but didn't like how the healtcare law would affect their plans. Unions would have been subject to paying taxes on the plans because they are what have been referred to as "cadillac" plans. So Obama agreed to give them waivers in exchange for their money and support.

The cornerstone of the legislation was to require everyone to have insurance in order to amortize the risk among a much larger risk pool, thereby reducing the overall cost of the insurance to everyone. A basic principle of insurance.

These groups already have great insurance plans (with better coverage than most private plans) and so they were given waivers because they're already where the legislation wants them to be. The article fails to disclose this, which makes the bias self-evident.

[sherm]

Then why aren't coporations with similar plans granted waivers - - because the administration views them as evil compared to the actually more evil unions. The waivers have nothing to do with the "better coverage" unions provide. It's returning the favor - quid pro quo.

[Muffrider]

Originally Posted by sherm

Then why aren't coporations with similar plans granted waivers - - because the administration views them as evil compared to the actually more evil unions. The waivers have nothing to do with the "better coverage" unions provide. It's returning the favor - quid pro quo.

What favor? They're being given a waiver from providing that which they're already providing to their members (with much greater protection than most other plans offered in the private sector) and you think that's some kind of special favor?



They're not getting much "quid" for their "quo." And where in the article does it say that those "evil corporations" (your words) applied and were rejected waivers to the sole benefit of the administration supporters?

This is just an attempt to create a "conspiratorial connection" out of a non-event.

[sherm]

The favor is that the unions continued to support Obama in the election with the understanding that they would get healtcare waivers.