"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:



"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

wrote:
My own opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, it that this
legislative victory is also a political victory for Democrats, for
two
reasons.

1. This is a more minor reason, but passage of this law removes the
factor of annoyance about uncertainty in the minds of voters and also
shows that Democrats are capable of accomplishing a large legislative
change. Just because the uncertainty is over, causes some relief in
the minds of voters and that is a favorable factor.

More briefly, now we cannot say that "Obama administration
accomplished nothing".

2. There is a large constituency of people, like parents of young
adults lacking coverage, people with substandard health insurance
policies, and so on, who would eventually realize the benefits of
this
change. When they do, they will, presumably, support its
sponsors.

Also, people like me, who have health insurance, but realize that
they
would likely lose it when they *really* need it, would also be
favorably inclined towards it.

3. The people negatively affected are those young healthy well paid
people who have to shoulder some of the costs. While some of them
might realize that one day they may become old and unhealthy and not
so well paid, even if they do not, extra taxes will be a drop in the
bucket and not a hot button issue like gun control.

The healthcare reform has every potential of becoming a sacred
political cow, like Medicare, and create a pro-Democrat constituency
where none previously existed.

Aside from elections, here's one more point that I want to make.

4. As Warren Buffett pointed out, our health care costs are 14-16% of
GDP and are much higher than for other industrialized nations, which
badly affects our competitive standing. The healthcare law has some
chances of reducing that percentage.

i

Oh hell yes.

And then those that are forced to buy insurance will simply kill
Leftwing Extremists that have been unconstitutionaly driven to force
others to pay for someone elses insurance.

But hey...Leftwingers are going to be killed in hummm about 2 yrs,
give
or take a little bit..so its a moot issue.

"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

/
/Are you saying that President Obama is going to be killed within 2
/years?
/
/Have you presented your evidence to the Secret Service?
/
/They would be very interested in knowing that you have guns too.
/
/TMT

I was hoping he would be assassinated before signing the Planned
Parenthood
health care abortion bill. But according to the good book, liberals
would
prevail, check, homosexuality would be rampant, check, and in the end
God
will come back and put them all in their place, hell, though his arms
are
open and willing to accept whoever repents and comes to him.

RogerN

\
\Still waiting for you to point out the exact wording in the bill that
\funds abortions.
\

I don't have the bill but here's something from a eMail I got from Planned
Parenthood and it confirms what I have heard from ACLJ.ORG . I sent a
"Thank you" letter to my Democrat representative from the Planned
Parenthood
link except I changed the content of my letter :-)

"Dear Roger,

Thank you for sending a message to your representative.

This truly is a historic moment for the American people. Thanks
to supporters like you, Congress passed a health care reform
bill that will extend coverage to tens of millions of women and
families, and we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out
of the final legislation!

...

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America"
/
/And still, all you have is hearsay. Yes, the "Stupack abortion ban"
/was kept out of the bill, but only because there was absolutely no
/need for it in the first place, as this bill does not fund abortions.
/But you already knew that.
/
/You've been duped by the right wingers, who have taken your religious
/beliefs and played them against your sense of right and wrong.

Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're claiming,
it's already there, "no need for it". Did you believe Nancy Pelosi's lies?
Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the bill, didn't he get what he
wanted instead of Obama signing an executive order, that he can remove any
time?

I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's the facts.
They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered by taxpayer money.
Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so there is no question. They
refuse to give it to him in writing, why? Why does Planned Parenthood say
it is a victory that it is without the Stupak abortion ban? Sorry to say
but I'm afraid that your party had duped you.

RogerN