The new health-care law wasn't supposed to undercut employer plans that have provided most people in the United States with coverage for generations.

But last week, a leading manufacturer told workers their costs will jump partly because of the law. Also, a Democratic governor laid out a scheme for employers to get out of health care by shifting workers into taxpayer-subsidized insurance markets that open in 2014

Bigger questions loom over the new insurance markets to be set up under the law.

They're called exchanges, and every state will have one in a few years. Consumers will be able to shop for coverage among a range of plans in the exchange, with a guarantee they can't be turned down because of an existing medical problem.

Bredesen said employers could save big money by dropping their health plans and sending workers to buy coverage in the exchange. They'd face a fine of $2,000 per worker, but that's still way less than the cost of providing health insurance.

yea sounds like they got it perfect? :zz:

http://www.suntimes.com/business/283...alth25.article

Absolutely needs to be stronger.

No I didn't, you fool. I dismissed Simon's silly straw man choices out of hand (the entire post), and I did the same to your entire post, too. My answer to both of you was essentially none of the above. You didn't get it. You wrongly attributed my answer to only part of your post. That's not my problem. That's your silly failure to make crap up and assume. Which fits with the limited choices you guys apparently live your lives by. You're talking to yourself. Your post was moronic. I didn't address it other than to say all your assumptions were wrong. Geeshus, buy yourself a brain.

Acting as though you are some kind of superior being with a totally unbiased view of the world and its people is the real joke. Or should i say an unbiased view of everyone except a conservative, Republician, Tea Party member or Christian. Those 4 groups seem to not have PC police protection.

That's your interpretation and assumptions, as seen through your narrow world view. Not my view or thoughts. Yeah, really.
No, I don't buy your "but everyone is a little bit racist" type of argument. Your declaration that everyone else feels like you do, or else is denying it, is pretty much the acme of "superior". Keep your own opinions. I don't share them.

The thought that anyone can be completely free of bias and not have any societal or other outside influence on them is ridiculous and more stupid than arrogant.

I haven't ever said that, have I? Keep fighting your own inner thoughts. Trying to attribute them to me isn't working.

being nervous of Muslims in Islam garb on a plane is not at ALL "racist". not even a tiny bit racist.

Not liking Muslims because of their religion is racist. And I am not ashamed to admit that I am racist towards 100,000,000 Muslims who support terror, and towards any Muslim who treats women like crap (basically the majority of the middle east). I have no problem with Muslims who practice their religion in peace and have respect for women and people who are not Muslim. I will never have respect for the religion of Islam.

You have implied that anyone who possibly would not have entirely poltical correct thoughts is "a little bit racist".

I believe that Rupert used extreme examples to prove that you would disagree regardless of how obvious the answer would be. You proved him right.

Riot, you are the definition of a Superiority Complex. You'd be a psychiatrists' wet dream.

No I didn't. Read. I said - see your own post about seeing Muslims on planes for an example.

I haven't discussed the contents of Rupert's post. I dismissed them. There you go being superior and assuming what I think, and making up what I "implied", again.

You have opinions. I don't share them. You and Rupert are jumping through hoops to attack me for that. It's not working.

But you aren't being racist if you are against muslims who support terror or treat women poorly. You are against terror and abuse of women and I'm sure you would be against any group of people who supported those things. And I don't understand why people feel the need to respect Islam any more or less than any other religion. Well maybe because disrespecting Islam can occasionally lead to murders, terrorism, assassinations, etc.

So you "dismissed" the content of Ruperts post and I am the one who is superior?

It really isn't that hard to assume what you think. Most of the time you just go ahead and tell us...

I dont have respect for the Qur'an or the Old Testament. I think Muhommad and Moses were equally barbaric.

I have more respect for the New Testament... it is a much more peaceful book than the other two books I mentioned... though it is still nothing more than a book of fiction to me.

All of them were written by humans

FTFY

They arent humans?

Yeah - I dismissed your straw man choices, and Ruperts, as not being mine.

And you think that is "superior"? LOL - ridiculous. No, it's just not sharing your opinions.

Naw. You guys mostly just assume and guess.

For example, I didn't even answer your post about Muslims on planes (I just said speak for your own views), nor did I answer Ruperts regarding the old lady or whatever it was about - yet look at all the stuff you guys have made up and posted about "what I think or said" regarding the content of posts I didn't even answer. :tro:

they are (I believe so at least)... but they didnt allow the intelligent division of humans (Riot not included) to contribute. ;)

So now you aren't even answering posts, just randomly replying?

Why would you be afraid to answer simple questions? You do realize that you aren't running for office right? Since when can you both "dismiss" someones post and yet still criticize them at the same time?

Why do you make crap up? You've proven you don't need me to actually say stuff in order for your to argue with things you think I mean. Carry on doing what you do best.

Paul dude (in the new T.) was a prick, too.......... Islam is not a race. It's a hate group. They accept members of all races into that hate group. What do they hate? Mainly freedom. Individual freedom. There are parts of the Phillipines that are badly f'd up, and those are the areas where Islam is at. They don't tolerate people of other religions very well. Soon as they get a majority they start to show this.

Here is what the Muslim leaders of Iran are against:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101024/...JhbnJlc3RyaWN0

The majority of thoose subjects are about freedom of thought. They don't want freedom. That's something GEEDUBBYA never could get in his head (ever.)

I especially like when flustered you try to deflect by saying I "make things up".

Especially when the post in question consists of 4 questions which were derived from your previous post.

Yawn.

Completely flummoxed now.

Yes. I'm completely flummoxed by your awesome debate skills. I gave up when you said,

Yes, everything thinks like you do. You know how everyone else thinks. If others say they do not think like you, you say they are denying.

Little superior of you, don't you think?

Well with an assist from Rupert I have debated you into one word posts and have you refusing to answer questions. I'd say that this would be considered a victory of sorts.

Well, when confronted with so much stupid, I just give up :(

Even the russian judge gave us a 9.6 after you started hurling the insults

Look out! A person in Muslim clothing!

Doubt it

Even I laughed :D

She deflects ALL questions. Just check out 1,000 different threads that she's involved in. This is common knowledge by now.

good one...

I just can't believe that the Giants got so far without Eugenio...

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...YouTube+Legacy

Just like that.

He was there..LOL...

Each time someone says something (good or bad) about him, he'll likely do the opposite of whatever they're saying will happen. He's as inconsistent as it gets.

You obviously are "completely flummoxed by our debate skills" and that is why you refused to answer my question.

You're not kidding anyone on this board. Every single person on this board knows that you are full of crap. That is why we all give you a hard time. We don't give you a hard time because of your views. I don't have a problem with the other liberals on this board. At least I can have a discussion with them. If I ask them a question, they will give me an honest answer, unlike you. You refuse to answer any question that will hurt your argument.

The reason you refused to answer the question was obvious. The question was going to expose you for the fraud that you are.

Any person with a brain knows that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by males rather than females. And anybody with half a brain knows that most violent crimes are committed by young people rather than by an 80 year old person. So the least likely person to be mugged by would be an old lady. The most likely person to be mugged by would be a young man.

That is why anyone with a brain would be more fearful of a young man in baggy pants than an 80 year old lady. Nobody would be afraid to admit it either. Being aware of a fact does not make a person prejudice. Knowing that men committ more violent crime than women does not make me a sexist. It is a fact that men committ more violent crime than women. So all things being equal, I would be in more danger if a man was approaching me than a woman. Being aware of this does not make me a sexist.

By the same token, being aware that the vast majority of terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims does not make someone a bigot. You love to accuse everyone of being bigots and racists. Yet the truth of the matter is that you make the same judgements as everyone sle does. Like everyone else, you would obviously be more fearful of a young man in baggy pants than an 80 year old lady, but you won't admit it because if you admitted it that would show what a hypocrite you are. I mean you can't say that it's ok to have a certain reaction to people based on their sex and age but not their religion.

Game, set, match!

And she doesn't understand why people give her a hard time. It's not because of her views. It's because of her dishonesty about her own views. When confronted with an inconsistency in one of her proclaimed views, she simply resfuses to answer the question.