What? Did you miss the part where she said HR3200 requires the government to
have direct access to your bank account? How about the part where she talked
about how it would limit your choices for buying private health care?
There is no room for interpretation here.
I'm sorry, but that's alled LYING, and people who do that are LIARS.
Linda has wronged everyone on this list with her lies. That's not an
interpretation, that's a fact.
I don't have to be gracious to a proven liar, anymore than I have to be
gracious to muggers, junkies, or murderers. ESPECIALLY when they are so
completely sociopathic they don't even have the sense to apologise.
That is all.
--
/\ /\
<\ /> Indi
^
'v-v'
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 11:28:20PM -0400, Saralou wrote:
> Indi, you neutralize any credibility I could have ascribed to your
> arguments by resorting to name calling. Linda isn't a troll.......
> she's been posting to the Silver List for quite a while. My files only
> go back 9 months but she's there, contributing health related info.
> What you screamed was "lying", I saw as having a perspective different
> from yours. You apparently trust the government to do something
> correctly; Linda appears to trust the government to botch it
> completely.
> When someone who objects to the bill uses language that is not
> identical to the bill there is an assumption by supporters that readers
> can't possibly be able to interpret the bill language correctly. Much
> less analyze projected outcomes--especially since both voices have
> dramatically different projections for outcomes.
> Indi appears to think there's "no plan to wipe out private health care"
> and my guess is that Linda looked at the bill, saw the results of
> "qualified" plans and the logical end of a single-payer (government)
> plan and concluded the bill is hostile to making choices. Her
> conclusion regarding the section that specifying that any changes in
> current plans cause that plan member to be dumped into the allegedly
> now defunct "government option" reflects an understanding that down the
> road, no one will get to choose for themselves. That is IF, an employer
> continues to offer health insurance at all. There's much incentive in
> the bill as I last saw it for employers to pay the fine (tax) and let
> the government do it.
> Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the
> goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers,
> in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and
> billing. As Indi said, this does NOT say that the Health Czar has
> access to my bank account... but I find it a reasonable conclusion
> given the slippery slope of allowing the IRS to determine what an
> acceptable health care plan is. (the IRS has access to your bank
> account.) Yep. We need to expand the IRS and make it more intrusive.
>
> Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer
> identity information, including the filing status, the modified
> adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other
> information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will
> be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health
> programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability
> credits."
> Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details --
> there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to
> the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify
> "affordability credits."
> Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can
> obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a
> "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
> [1]http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry526
> 8079.shtml
>
> What a shame you couldn't carry on a conversation with Linda instead of
> screaming that she was "a LIAR and a TROLL" It's clear you disagree.
> Why get ugly about it?
> Saralou
>
>
> Indi wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 08:45:10AM -0700, Linda Ellis wrote:
>
> That pretty much explains why this is so difficult. The Democrats are all
> about moving toward single-payer, mandating "basic services," and having a
> lot of control centralized at the Federal level.
>
>
> That's a lie. People will be free to keep their current plan.
> There is no plan to wipe out private health care!
>
>
> A few weeks ago, I downloaded HR3200, which was the main bill in play at
> the time. There's a lot in it that I don't like.
>
> 8<-----8<-----cut to the chase----->8----->8
>
>
> Then there's the part about direct access to my bank account.
>
>
> You are SO BUSTED, woman.
> Shame on you for being such a bald-faced LIAR.
>
> THERE IS NO PROVSION TO GIVE ANYOE ACCESS TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT.
>
> THERE IS NO PROVISION TO LIMIT YOUR FREEDOM TO USE YOUR PRIVATE INSURANCE.
>
> These are the kind of lies perpetrated by the UNAMERICAN sour grapes club,
> the kind of wackos who go to town hall with the EXPRESS INTENT to disrupt
> democratic process.
>
> DON"T LISTEN TO THESE IDIOTS SPOUTING PROPAGANDA, READ THE BILL YOURSELF!!!
>
> Anyone can download the full text of HR3200 from:
> [2]http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
>
> Or if you prefer, read it online here:
> [3]http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
>
> Linda Ellis is a LIAR and a TROLL.
>
> I rest my case.
>
> References
>
> 1.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml
> 2. http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
> 3. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
