Jim Thompson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:41:37 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:25:59 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

[snip]

In other words, all the part IBD quoted means is that to be
considered grandfathered coverage, it has to begin before the date
specified.

That's right. And this is how Obama manages to get his 'technically
correct' wording to fly. As long as you have it 'now' you can keep it
but after the bill is passed your 'choices' are "government
mandated."

That is the 'game' part to 'sell' it. You can 'keep' what you've got,
to fool people into thinking "this won't affect 'me'," but, according
to the people who 'favor' this strategy of deception, after about 10
years or so these will fade away by attrition because, should your
status change, you will have only one choice: the government dictated
plans which, themselves, will fade away because they will not, by
design, be able to 'compete' with a government that can, as has
already been demonstrated, regulate it's 'competitor', tax whoever it
pleases, including it's 'competitor', and infinitely deficit spend
whether it has the money or not.

To call that 'competition' is a farce and an even bigger farce when
Obama opines he just can't 'see' how private enterprise could have a
problem 'competing' with government. But, then, charlatan nonsense is
his modus operandi, unless you want to claim he's incredibly stupid.


You guys will fall for anything. lol


This "Ouroboros Rex" seems so ignorant I'm tempted to think he's
NymNoNuts in another disguise, but the originating IP doesn't match.

However he's certainly proved himself worthy of being ignored ;-)

You should certainly ignore me, now that your hoax has been exposed by
merely quoting the previous paragraph of the bill. lol