On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:43:19 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:08:48 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/22/13 10:55 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:02:18 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/22/13 9:56 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:51:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/22/13 9:45 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:37:51 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/22/13 8:50 AM, Eisboch wrote:
Looks like they will for many, despite popular claims to the contrary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html



Yet another reason to get rid of health insurance companies, who do
nothing but skim money out of the health care delivery system.

Isn't the socialist goal 'Medicare for all'?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.



Aren't you on medicare or some variation of it?

Yup, but I paid (and pay) for mine, without a 'tax credit'. That's the big difference, ESAD.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


So, you have no objection to a single-payer system. Good.

Isn't the socialist goal 'Medicare for all'?


Salmonbait



Is this another in your series of your moronic, oft-repeated mantras?


Did you answer the question?


Salmonbait

You answered your own question. You're for medicare unless it's also
for someone else. Keep the government's fingers off my medicare, right
****forbrains?

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:26:50 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:02:18 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:




So, you have no objection to a single-payer system. Good.

I am taking the medicare voucher that everyone on the left hates and
it seems to be working out well for me.


And because it works well for you, therefore it works well for
everyone? Same bull****, different subject.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:32:27 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Meyer" wrote in message
web.com...

On 3/22/2013 9:37 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/22/13 8:50 AM, Eisboch wrote:
Looks like they will for many, despite popular claims to the contrary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html




Yet another reason to get rid of health insurance companies, who do
nothing but skim money out of the health care delivery system.

Sorry. No need to pander to unions anymore. The votes have been counted
and he's a lame duck.
----------------------

Problem is the unions are government workers. Twice as many union postal
workers as union auto workers.

Well, why don't we fire them? Oh yeah, then you won't get your mail
for 50 cents.

On 3/22/2013 1:32 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Meyer" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 3/22/2013 9:37 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/22/13 8:50 AM, Eisboch wrote:
Looks like they will for many, despite popular claims to the contrary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html





Yet another reason to get rid of health insurance companies, who do
nothing but skim money out of the health care delivery system.

Sorry. No need to pander to unions anymore. The votes have been counted
and he's a lame duck.
----------------------

Problem is the unions are government workers. Twice as many union
postal workers as union auto workers.


Unions period... They won't give up anything even when the company is
bled out, look at Twinkies. Saw a story about Detroit I think it was.
The population has literally halved since the 80's but the Unions will
not allow the city to cut back based on the need. Only thing the Union
is thinking of is keeping the 20 bucks a week coming in...

In article ,
says...

On 3/22/2013 1:32 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Meyer" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 3/22/2013 9:37 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/22/13 8:50 AM, Eisboch wrote:
Looks like they will for many, despite popular claims to the contrary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html





Yet another reason to get rid of health insurance companies, who do
nothing but skim money out of the health care delivery system.

Sorry. No need to pander to unions anymore. The votes have been counted
and he's a lame duck.
----------------------

Problem is the unions are government workers. Twice as many union
postal workers as union auto workers.


Unions period... They won't give up anything even when the company is
bled out, look at Twinkies. Saw a story about Detroit I think it was.
The population has literally halved since the 80's but the Unions will
not allow the city to cut back based on the need. Only thing the Union
is thinking of is keeping the 20 bucks a week coming in...

You stupid idiot, do you REALLY think the unions are to blame for
Hostess's demise? What a fool!
\

http://tinyurl.com/be7o7qe

Eisboch was right, you barely make sense and if someeone can glean
anything out of one of your post that does make sense, then you are dead
wrong....

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:32:27 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"Meyer" wrote in message
web.com...

On 3/22/2013 9:37 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/22/13 8:50 AM, Eisboch wrote:
Looks like they will for many, despite popular claims to the contrary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html




Yet another reason to get rid of health insurance companies, who do
nothing but skim money out of the health care delivery system.

Sorry. No need to pander to unions anymore. The votes have been counted
and he's a lame duck.
----------------------

Problem is the unions are government workers. Twice as many union postal
workers as union auto workers.

Well, why don't we fire them? Oh yeah, then you won't get your mail
for 50 cents.


-----------------------

Another idiot statement by ****Head.

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:50:53 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Looks like they will for many, despite popular claims to the
contrary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html

Claims by who? The only claims have been to reduce the rate of the
increases. We need a system that can actually negotiate with drug
companies, and we need some laws that ban nonsense prices, such as
chargemaster.

----------------------------------------------

Do you consider a 100 percent (or more) increase a "reduction in the
rate" of premium increases?

In article ,
says...

Looks like they will for many, despite popular claims to the contrary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html

They guy you liked promoted this debacle.

On Mar 22, 8:50*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
Looks like they will for many, despite popular claims to the contrary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732455780457837476105449...

Better pay up, you rich stuckup ****.

F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/22/13 8:50 AM, Eisboch wrote:
Looks like they will for many, despite popular claims to the contrary:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682.html




Yet another reason to get rid of health insurance companies, who do
nothing but skim money out of the health care delivery system.
Like labor unions?

Did you pay you past due taxes, big mouth?