On Mar 23, 11:32*am, Larry Blanchard wrote:
My news server was down yesterday so I had to copy krw'S post from
Google. *Unfortunately, that caused the loss of one level of , so I
indented my responses below. *Sorry 'bout that.

Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
From: "
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:24:28 -0500
Local: Sun, Mar 21 2010 4:24 pm
Subject: OT - When I get home tonight ...

wrote:
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:52:09 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of the
US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy,
Nationalizing? *Last time I looked, the "public option" was dead.

You're delusional if you don't think that is the end game. *Controlling
insurance is the same thing with a different name.

* * * * Maybe so, maybe no. *But you're crying before you're hurt. *And
* * * * compared to what we have today, some version of universal health
* * * * care would be a great improvement.

Bull****. This bill has nothing to do with "health care" and
*everything* to do with control. If it were about "health care" for
30M (a phony number) people, it wouldn't need 2700 pages. It wouldn't
need 1600 new IRS agents. It wouldn't need all the new agencies. It
*is* about control of the economy. It *IS* unconstitutional.

destroying a
system with which most people are satisfied,
Oh, yeah? *The polls show 40 some percent for, 40 some percent against
the total bill. *When the individual parts are polled, support is well in
the majority.

When asked the right question, sure.

* * * * So when multiple polls show support for something that you
* * * * disagree with, the poll must be biased? *Yeah, right.

Nope. That's the way polls work. Sure, some will like aspects of
anything, when phrased one way and not so much when phrased another.
Some will like the idea of a free lunch, until they are told how much
that free lunch cost them. Yes, the polls were biased. They all
are. It's clear that the majority of the people don't like this bill
as it is.

and setting us on a road to
inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending spirals out of
control?
Rationed? *See the above reference. *Spiraling spending? *According to
the non-partisan CBO, the bill will save money.

Complete nonsense. *Have you looked into the assumptions the CBO was
REQUIRED
to figure in? *...including the estimates for the "recovery" and the $.5T
write-down of seniors?

* * * * Once again, the CBO is deemed non partisan only if it agrees
* * * * with you. *Of course, in your defense, you're not the only one
* * * * who does that - lots of folks in this group are uilty.

Bull**** again. I said nothing about "partisan". Its "analysis", by
law, was simply a turn the crank spreadsheet crunching of the
assumptions fed in; garbage in - garbage out. The assumptions were
*garbage*. They always are. Look at the cost of any government
program vs. what was estimated. GIGO.


*Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure 30 million people?
*This bill is not about health care, it is about complete, absolute
control over peoples' lives.
Watch out for those black helicopters!

No, you'd better watch out for Congress. *They've already stolen your
brain. *Your wallet is next (but you likely won't miss it).

* * * * LOL

The truth isn't funny.

And speaking of that "public option", the US is the *only* industrialized
country where people can go broke paying medical bills. *Every other such
country provides some sort of health care guarantees, whether private,
public, or a mix. *But you, and folks like you, keep repeating "Everyone
is out of step but me."

Japan?

* * * * For some strange reason, Japan wasn't included on the web page
* * * * referenced below. *But it does have universal health care, in
* * * * fact it's system is considered among the best. *See:

* * * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...ystem_in_Japan

If you'd care to see how those countries, and even some of the
"developing" countries handle health care, look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
But I doubt you care, you'd rather just keep on blathering falsehoods and
exaggerations.

No falsehoods or exaggerations at all. *We're broke and your children are
will be underwater for life.

* * * * I definitely agree with you that we're broke. *But it was 8 years
* * * * of Shrub that got us there.

You're full of bull**** today. Bush was an absolute piker compared to
Obama, Pelosi, and Reed.