ChairMan wrote:
>> George wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link
>>>>> to a paper
>>>>> that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
>>>>> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
>>>>> we are following Europe , have you noticed?
>>>> No, I haven't noticed. Even if we are following
>>>> Europe, I haven't seen any compelling argument
>>>> to believe that's a bad idea. It might be a bad idea;
>>>> it might be a good idea. Running in circles
>>>> screaming "The sky is falling! We're following Europe!"
>>>> does not form a reasoned argument.
>>>>
>>>> Look, if the health care bill is going to
>>>> do the things you say, then it says so somewhere in the
>>>> bill. Quoting unrelated journal articles doesn't support your
>>>> position. Find where in the health care bill that it says
>>>> "government will have access to citizen's bank accounts",
>>>> and you will be more believable. Otherwise, you're just
>>>> fear-mongering.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>> Hardly fear mongering. It is a critical comment on how bureaucratic,
>>> inefficient and insulting the Federal government is. Congress should
>>> be totally absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for
>>> creating a work product that absolutely no one can understand.
>>>
>>> There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
>>> document with tables that clearly define the scope.
>> Have you read this, or for that matter, any bill?
>>
>> Every bill has the same format, with wide margins and 24 numbered
>> lines per page of perhaps 5 words per line.
>>
>> It's not hard to read. Really. Not quite a picture book, but not
>> complex. Much easier to read than a mortgage agreement.
>>
>> As far as length, George W Bush's last budget bill ran far longer.
>> Were you complaining about that?
>>
>> You guys take some one else's opinion instead of actually looking at
>> the product. Try thinking for yourself instead of taking someone
>> else's opinion. Unlike any of George W Bush's legislation, you can
>> actually find drafts of this online. Easily.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>
> bottom line is, if it's good enough for us, why is obammy and congress
> exempt?
You believe everything you hear on wingnut radio?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/491
If you guys stop running on myths and fear we can get somewhere. But
maybe that's all you got?
Jeff
> And not only exempt , but also exempt from the "cadillac plan" tax.
> wanna buy a bridge?
>
>
jeff wrote:
> You believe everything you hear on wingnut radio?
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/491
>
> If you guys stop running on myths and fear we can get somewhere. But
> maybe that's all you got?
>
> Jeff
>
>
"much like the one Congress has enjoyed" What are the differences? And
why are there any differences?
Marsha
XML site map
>>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarc ...
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a link to the health care bill, dumbass. It's a link
>>>>> to a paper
>>>>> that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
>>>>> I did not state it was the healthcare bill link
>>>>> we are following Europe , have you noticed?
>>>> No, I haven't noticed. Even if we are following
>>>> Europe, I haven't seen any compelling argument
>>>> to believe that's a bad idea. It might be a bad idea;
>>>> it might be a good idea. Running in circles
>>>> screaming "The sky is falling! We're following Europe!"
>>>> does not form a reasoned argument.
>>>>
>>>> Look, if the health care bill is going to
>>>> do the things you say, then it says so somewhere in the
>>>> bill. Quoting unrelated journal articles doesn't support your
>>>> position. Find where in the health care bill that it says
>>>> "government will have access to citizen's bank accounts",
>>>> and you will be more believable. Otherwise, you're just
>>>> fear-mongering.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>> Hardly fear mongering. It is a critical comment on how bureaucratic,
>>> inefficient and insulting the Federal government is. Congress should
>>> be totally absolutely embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for
>>> creating a work product that absolutely no one can understand.
>>>
>>> There is absolutely no reason why the health bill can't be a 20 page
>>> document with tables that clearly define the scope.
>> Have you read this, or for that matter, any bill?
>>
>> Every bill has the same format, with wide margins and 24 numbered
>> lines per page of perhaps 5 words per line.
>>
>> It's not hard to read. Really. Not quite a picture book, but not
>> complex. Much easier to read than a mortgage agreement.
>>
>> As far as length, George W Bush's last budget bill ran far longer.
>> Were you complaining about that?
>>
>> You guys take some one else's opinion instead of actually looking at
>> the product. Try thinking for yourself instead of taking someone
>> else's opinion. Unlike any of George W Bush's legislation, you can
>> actually find drafts of this online. Easily.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>
> bottom line is, if it's good enough for us, why is obammy and congress
> exempt?