>>>Wait about 9-12 months, when health care costs rise and the issue of capital expenditures put everything right back where it was (or worse)
>>
>>You have accepted the PR of the health care industry full blown. We have been paying 16% of our GNP on health care, which is more than any other developed nation and with no better care. This is the perfect illustration of the corrupting influence of well funded lobbyists. Wake up.
>>
>>The financial pirates, the Goldman Sachs and their ilk who took us to the brink of disaster, are no better. They sucked the public tit -- that's you and me -- and came through it with record profits. If you are not offended by that I can't help you.
>
>Rude. Very rude. I really hate to ask this, but this type of language usually is displayed when you are drinking. ?
>
>Regardless, what does that have to do with the health care bill? There are PLENTY of links here in history on it if you'd like to educate yourself. Since you don't like reading links, I'll post a snippet from the progressives on it right here:
>
>While it may seem like the wrong time for progressives to discuss what they do not like about the new health care legislation, it is essential that someone clarifies from the left why this bill is a very bad idea. The major problem with this reform is that it expands the number of people being insured without major cost reductions and containment. This not only means that in the near future, the cost of insurance plans will go up, but insurers and pharmaceutical corporations will continue to rake in huge profits. Although the Congressional Budget Office is predicting that this new plan will eventually reduce the budget deficit, this projection is based on many questionable assumptions and does not examine critically what will happen to many individuals who already have health care insurance and many companies that currently provide insurance.
>
>Not only does this bill attack the people who do have good employee-based health care plans by taxing them in the future, but also it undermines the efforts of unions that have often traded higher wages for better benefits. Moreover, while there are some good parts of the legislation dealing with pre-existing conditions, it looks like the insurance companies will be the biggest winners because they will be able to sign more people up and pass on the increased costs to workers by increasing premiums.
>
>You can read more here:
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-samuels/the-progressive-case-agai_b_508473.html
>
>Or how about physician's views?
>
>A poll by The Medicus Firm posted in the New England Journal of Medicine’s CareerCenter shows that, on virtually every count, physicians understand and don’t like the congressional legislation. 62.7 percent of physicians feel that health reform is needed but should be implemented in a more targeted, gradual way; just the opposite of the sweeping overhaul embodied in the massive congressional legislation. Indeed, 46.3 percent of primary care physicians feel that “the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.”
>
>http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/17/forget-doctors-support-for-the-health-care-bill/
>
>There. A link from the left and a link from the right...

Thank you for the links. No, I was not drinking. I get much ruder than that ;-( If there's one thing I hope we all learned it's that bankers are SOBs and always will be.