Swing Votes
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 28 Mar 2010 20:26 On Mar 28, 1:43 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: > amdx wrote: > > > Last chance to voice your outrage. > > Not the last chance. There will be an election this fall. And then again > in two years. > > Just like two and four years ago. Tne Democrats have made no secret of > the fact that health care reform has been at the top of their agenda for > many years. And yet they seem to get elected. But Democrats were swept in on economic fears--the wrong belief that Republicans caused the collapse, and the correct belief that Republicans failed to prevent it. On health care, just about everyone felt the system could be improved and should be changed. But that didn't mean Americans wanted any arbitrary destruction that could be paraded out under that amorphous, vague, weasel-word 'reform'. What we got is, according to Sen. Baucus, its author, an income redistribution bill, not anything that makes health care better or cheaper. Truth is that even now, most Americans polled report they don't know what the h*** is even in the health care law, and the more they learn, the more irritated they get. That's why Pelosi said "We have to pass the bill so we can tell you what's in it." (paraphrased) If Americans had known, it wouldn't have passed. James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 28 Mar 2010 21:58 On Mar 28, 7:38 pm, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:26:34 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >On Mar 28, 1:43 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: > >> amdx wrote: > > >> > Last chance to voice your outrage. > > >> Not the last chance. There will be an election this fall. And then again > >> in two years. > > >> Just like two and four years ago. Tne Democrats have made no secret of > >> the fact that health care reform has been at the top of their agenda for > >> many years. And yet they seem to get elected. > > >But Democrats were swept in on economic fears--the wrong belief that > >Republicans caused the collapse, and the correct belief that > >Republicans failed to prevent it. > > >On health care, just about everyone felt the system could be improved > >and should be changed. But that didn't mean Americans wanted any > >arbitrary destruction that could be paraded out under that amorphous, > >vague, weasel-word 'reform'. > > >What we got is, according to Sen. Baucus, its author, an income > >redistribution bill, not anything that makes health care better or > >cheaper. > > Exactly. And now American industry is reacting to the effect > on them, stating, like AT&T did ( and Caterpillar, and Verizon, and > many others, even in the few days since it passed ) that they will be > taking HUGE write-downs ( $ 1 BILLION for ATT ), laying people off, > cutting health benefits for employees and retirees, etc, because of > the expenses Brobama and the Dems have invented for them. Note: That $1B AT&T charge is against this quarter's profits. So, the new, better health care is costing them $4B a year, to start. The costs scream skyward later, as the plans start paying benefits. $4B, hmmm. At $100K / per job, that's 40,000 jobs, destroyed. <snip> > >Truth is that even now, most Americans polled report they don't know > >what the h*** is even in the health care law, and the more they learn, > >the more irritated they get. That's why Pelosi said "We have to pass > >the bill so we can tell you what's in it." (paraphrased) > > >If Americans had known, it wouldn't have passed. > > And if the Dems actually cared what the American people think. Ah but they did care, a lot. That's why they had to pass it quickly, on the sly, before people found out, before it could be analyzed, before members faced their constituents over the Easter break. I dug up the exact quote: But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy. -- Sen. Pelosi > The backlash is going to be AMAZING, as more and more people > find their insurance at work going up or being cancelled, their > premiums doubling, their taxes going up, prices of goods going up, etc > etc. All to pay for the multi-trillion dollar 'wealth redistribution > via health insurance' of the left wing lunatics and Brobama. True, but the worst of those things will happen slowly, and not for several years, i.e., after Mr. Obama's reelection. First the massage, then we get the bill. So to speak... -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 28 Mar 2010 22:16 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:58:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Mar 28, 7:38�pm, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:26:34 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Mar 28, 1:43 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote: >> >> amdx wrote: >> >> >> > Last chance to voice your outrage. >> >> >> Not the last chance. There will be an election this fall. And then again >> >> in two years. >> >> >> Just like two and four years ago. Tne Democrats have made no secret of >> >> the fact that health care reform has been at the top of their agenda for >> >> many years. And yet they seem to get elected. >> >> >But Democrats were swept in on economic fears--the wrong belief that >> >Republicans caused the collapse, and the correct belief that >> >Republicans failed to prevent it. >> >> >On health care, just about everyone felt the system could be improved >> >and should be changed. �But that didn't mean Americans wanted any >> >arbitrary destruction that could be paraded out under that amorphous, >> >vague, weasel-word 'reform'. >> >> >What we got is, according to Sen. Baucus, its author, an income >> >redistribution bill, not anything that makes health care better or >> >cheaper. >> >> � � � � Exactly. �And now American industry is reacting to the effect >> on them, stating, like AT&T did ( and Caterpillar, and Verizon, and >> many others, even in the few days since it passed ) that they will be >> taking HUGE write-downs ( $ 1 BILLION for ATT ), laying people off, >> cutting health benefits for employees and retirees, etc, because of >> the expenses Brobama and the Dems have invented for them. > >Note: That $1B AT&T charge is against this quarter's profits. So, the >new, better health care is costing them $4B a year, to start. The >costs scream skyward later, as the plans start paying benefits. > >$4B, hmmm. At $100K / per job, that's 40,000 jobs, destroyed. Does that pass the silly test? Are you sure this isn't a one-time charge against quarterly profits? A gigabuck is still a lot of money, but $4B/year forever is a bit high, no?
From: Don Ocean on 29 Mar 2010 00:06 The King wrote: > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:04:53 -0700, Jim Thompson > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:00:11 -0400, The King >> <Theking(a)homeonthethrone.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson >>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> In reality, we right-wingers _will_ eventually tip over the edge. If >>>> this socialism goes too far we're going to round up all you leftist >>>> weenies and have a big weenie roast :-) >>>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson >>> You have been tipped over the edge and were coming to get you. >> Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck >> drag-behind ?:-) >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > If you promise to wear your hood. I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods?
From: dagmargoodboat on 29 Mar 2010 01:41
On Mar 28, 9:16 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:58:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Note: That $1B AT&T charge is against this quarter's profits. So, the > >new, better health care is costing them $4B a year, to start. The > >costs scream skyward later, as the plans start paying benefits. > > >$4B, hmmm. At $100K / per job, that's 40,000 jobs, destroyed. > > Does that pass the silly test? Are you sure this isn't a one-time charge > against quarterly profits? A gigabuck is still a lot of money, but $4B/year > forever is a bit high, no? Can't tell--the news just came out Friday, with no press releases I can find. We'll have to wait for AT&T to explain. (Next quarterly report is due Apr. 21.) The change results from new tax rules under Obamacare for prescription benefits to retirees. AT&T has 283,000 employees, and who knows how many retired workers? If they've 1 worker per retiree, $4B would be $14K/worker, which seems unlikely. $1B would be $3.5K per. "AT&T said that it was also looking into changing the health care benefits it offers because of the law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul." --AP ---- Update: I downloaded their '09 report. Benefits are discussed in note 11. Yes, $4B looks silly. From footnote 1 on the Net Benefit Cost table, pg. 82, it looks like the Medicare Part D (prescriptions) tax change impact should only be $250M / yr. Apparently they foresee further adverse Obamacare impacts. Again, we'll have to wait for their explanation. |