I can't believe what I'm watching

[Ratickle]

Let me get this straight. The new health care plan will be written by a committee whose Chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress which hasn't read it, signed by a President who smokes, funded by a Treasury Sec. who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed... by a....... country that is nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?

Sounds like a good plan to me.......

[Ratickle]

The second, and many of you may not want to hear this, is that the Dems are whispering about bringing back the public option at a later date, probably after the mid-term elections when they see if they still can do it. If customers have a government option with a reasonable price, then insurance companies will have to compete for the lion's share. Otherwise, if they focus only on the wealthier customers who buy Cadillac plans, they will turn into much smaller, regional type insurance companies and lose size and clout.

There will be nothing but a government plan in the end the way the bill is written. No company can afford to pay an additional 40% on their health care plans. McDonalds has figured an additional $7500 for every store. Catepillar has estimated $100,000,000 annual cost increases. My wifes company has already sent out the notice theirs will be changed, (I read cancelled), because of the 40% penalty they would have to pay.

The government has taken over, (Seized?), 51% of the private sector since November of 2008. They have most of what they want. We are officially a socialist country now by the description I was taught in school.

[phragle]

Joe McCarthy for president, J. Edgar Hoover for VP.... or is all hope gone?

[Tommy Gun]

Before this thread dies, I just wanted to say that I am glad we had a civil discussion about a heated topic. This is a major improvement over times past.

F.O.

[Tommy Gun]

I don't know about specific language. But there are two things to consider. One is that the HCR legislation removed the decades-old exemption for insurance companies from the Federal Anti-trust laws. This eans that any unfair or anti-competitve practices (like the insurance companies colluding to fix prices) is illegal. So fair competition will likely drive them down.

The second, and many of you may not want to hear this, is that the Dems are whispering about bringing back the public option at a later date, probably after the mid-term elections when they see if they still can do it. If customers have a government option with a reasonable price, then insurance companies will have to compete for the lion's share. Otherwise, if they focus only on the wealthier customers who buy Cadillac plans, they will turn into much smaller, regional type insurance companies and lose size and clout.

I'm not telling you how I necessarily want it, but this looks like the most realistic outcome on the horizon.

Duh, we all knew this was phase 1.

[LaughingCat]

ha

[Fanatic]

Have you ever had to make a course correction while boating because of unforeseen circumstances? Nitpickers.

Hey, whatever happened to those WMD's?

I don't know ask these guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

Hint: Bush didn't lie we went to war based soley on the 15 intel agencies intel and the NIE. Oh and 109 democrats agreed and voted for the Iraq resolution based on that same intel.

Oh and WMD's?

Wall Street Journal
October 14, 2004
After the release of the Iraq Survey Group's Duelfer report, the headlines blazed "No WMD Found." Most stories continued by saying that Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to the U.S. and thus the U.S. was wrong to eliminate that threat. This reflects the notion that Iraq was only a threat if it had military munitions filled with WMD. The claim "Iraq was not an imminent threat" was also expounded by pundits that seemingly crawled out of the woodwork as well as those opposed to President Bush. But have these individuals read carefully the report before engaging in such anti-Bush rhetoric?

While no facilities were found producing chemical or biological agents on a large scale, many clandestine laboratories operating under the Iraqi Intelligence Services were found to be engaged in small-scale production of chemical nerve agents, sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, ricin, aflatoxin, and other unspecified biological agents. These laboratories were also evaluating whether various poisons would change the texture, smell or appearance of foodstuffs. These aspects of the ISG report have been ignored by the pundits and press. Did these constitute an imminent threat? Perhaps it depends how you define "threat."

The chemical section reports that the M16 Directorate "had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayers and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe." Are we to believe this plan existed because they liked us? Or did they wish to do us harm? The major threat posed by Iraq, in my opinion, was the support it gave to terrorists in general, and its own terrorist activity.

The ISG was also told that "ricin was being developed into stable liquid to deliver as an aerosol" in various munitions. Such development was not just for assassination. If Iraq was successful in developing an aerosolizable ricin, it made a significant step forward. The development had to be for terrorist delivery. Even on a small scale this must be considered as a WMD.

Biological agents, delivered on a small scale (terrorist delivery) can maim or kill a large number of people. The Iraqi Intelligence organizations had a history of conducting tests on humans with chemical and biological substances that went beyond assassination studies. While many of these were in the 1970s and 1980s, multiple documents and testimony indicate that such testing continued through the 1990s and into the next millennium, perhaps as late as 2002. Do we wait until such weapons are used against our domestic population before we act? Is that the way that some people wish to have the U.S. protected from terrorist activity?

It is asserted that Iraq was not supporting terrorists. Really? Documentation indicates that Iraq was training non-Iraqis at Salman Pak in terrorist techniques, including assassination and suicide bombing. In addition to Iraqis, trainees included Palestinians, Yemenis, Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and Sudanese.

As for the U.N. inspection system preventing such R&D, why did Iraq not declare these clandestine laboratories to Unscom and Unmovic and why did these inspection agencies not discover these laboratories? Might it have been that there were multiple informants working inside Unscom and Unmovic that kept the Iraqi Intelligence Service informed as to what sites were to be inspected? Information collected by ISG indicates that this was the case. In late 2002 and early 2003, equipment and materials were removed from several sites 24 hours before U.N. inspections. Such informants were said to be active since 1993. Ergo, no surprise inspections.

Furthermore, sanctions were rapidly eroding. Unscom was aware of this erosion but not to the degree that apparently developed post 1998. The accounts of bribery of officials from several countries that were pushing for lifting or weakening sanctions are legend and have been extensively reported this past week. Inspections can not be effective without the full support of the U.N. Security Council. Such full support did not exist from late 1996 onward. Perhaps, now we know why. Iraq exploited the power of wealth in the form of oil to buy influence in the Security Council and within governments throughout the World. This has now been well documented.

Was Iraq an imminent threat? With the regime's intention and the activity of its intelligence organizations, and with the proven futility of uncovering its clandestine laboratory operations by the U.N. inspectors, it is hard to draw any other conclusion. Regretfully, terrorism is the wave of the future. The report by Charles Duelfer is unclassified and makes very interesting reading for those who really want to know. For those with a closed mind, it will be a waste of time.

Mr. Spertzel, head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom from 1994-99, just returned from Iraq, where he has been a member of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG).

[Buoy]

Hi Fanatic, welcome to the board.

What kind of boat are you running?

[Bobcat]

A rational boat !And he is not swayed by pedophiles and their handlers