>>>>>>Some interesting reading:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-winter/affordable-health-care-america-hr-3962.asp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” HR 3962, Actually Says:
>>>>>>10 questions are posed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. Will the plan punish Americans who do not carry the required insurance, or employers who do not provide it?
>>>>>>2. Will the plan make private insurance illegal?
>>>>>>3. Will the plan ration medical care through budgets?
>>>>>>4. Will this plan ration care through waiting lists?
>>>>>>5. Will the plan impose special, higher taxes on Americans who earn more than others?
>>>>>>6. Will the plan levy special taxes and surcharges on medical devices (such as wheelchairs, walkers, canes, etc.)?
>>>>>>7. How will the plan affect health insurance provided by employers?
>>>>>>8. Does the plan allow the government to set fees?
>>>>>>9. Can the government officials audit taxpayers, employers, and insurance plans to enforce compliance?
>>>>>>10. What limits are set to the powers of government officials?
>>>>>
>>>>>These questions sure sound like they were posed by a tiger ready to pounce. theobjectivestandard.com? Sounds more like one of those lobbying groups (both sides) who hide behind bland labels.
>>>>
>>>>I don't care where those questions came from. What I care about are the answers. Don't you want to know? Do we stop questioning our government now and stop receiving answers because we don't like who is asking the questions?
>>>
>>>There you go again with the straw man routine. I care about the answers, too. My comment was in response to a partisan attack couched in amiable terms A wolf in sheep's clothing, one might say ;-)
>>
>>Nonsense. Your comment didn't mention any such thing. It specifically called his statement invalid and you said providing a link to the information was validating his statement. You didn't even address the information in the link.
>>
>>(Oops wrong message) :o)
>>
>>What partisan attack? Regardless of the reason for the questions, the questions should be asked and answered. You are attacking the messenger in this case. Your comments astound me sometimes. "A partisan attack couched in amiable terms" ha ha ha You can't denounce valid questions simply because you personally tink the questioner has motives for asking the questions.
>
>Not playing. Have a nice afternoon.

I was simply pointing your own statements. You make plenty of insults and seldom address the facts. Hopefully you would have read the link and commented on it (the bill itself) instead of declaring the questioner with secret motives for asking the questions and insulting both the poster and the author of the link.