what is this we you speak of, kemo sabe?
what is your definition of over-utilization?
I did not see that in the press conference, unless you are talking about
where he said "we are looking into that"?

But I will admit to my own brand of skepticism on this. I foresee an
unfunded mandate for individuals to buy coverage. This is not what I hoped
for. I found this amusing, and yes, I know it is on the Huffington Post.
Deal. I think you might agree with it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-unbearable-weakness-o_b_261651.html

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Dana   wrote:
>
> >
> > eh. I'd call the "flag" address a PR faux pas -- a gift to people who
> need
> > something to be outraged about.
>
>
> As I said, democrats, including the white house, have committed a bunch of
> unforced errors recently. the flag@ and email spamming go beyond unforced
> errors - not because of ill intent, but because of the very serious
> underlying legal issues involved.
>
>
> > I don't see anything in your other link that
> > says these emails are from third-party lists? If so that is also not a
> good
> > thing, but in the absence of any evidence that this si what happened, I
> am
> > remnding myself which party brought us swiftboating, and moving on.
>
>
> Gibbs admitted it in the press conference. Basically third party political
> organizations fed the White House email lists of people who had signed
> petitions or other such materials. I guess it's cheaper than using the Air
> Force to paper the countryside with leaflets.
>
>
>
> >
> > People dying for lack of insurance vs. (perhaps) a couple of people
> getting
> > unsolicited email.
> >
>
> people don't die for lack of insurance. they die for lack of care. millions
> of people in this country are uninsured by choice. but somehow that's a
> crisis, oh no! we can't have those people going without ... insurance?
> really?
>
> the underlying issue, and what has been driving the push for mandatory
> coverage is that by forcing young, healthy people to buy insurance they
> don't need and don't use, you can bring a huge new amount of capital into
> the system, capital that will be used to pay for the programs that are
> going
> broke because of over-utilization by the elderly and the infirm. it's a
> scam, yet another transfer of wealth away from the young and healthy to the
> elderly and infirm.
>
> i am all for reform, we made a very good list of things that could be
> improved in the current system without forcing people to have coverage.
>
>
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know 
on the House of Fusion mailing lists
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:302102
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5

Reply via email to