Re: OT: Youth In Asia


"Bernie Woodham" wrote

So what? They are not immune to a worldwide
economic recession so that means they are holy?
Is it really a surprise that their stocks would be falling
with the health care debate having America's central focus.
Forget stock prices, how about their profits?

<snipped some insurance company info>

1) I WANT the insurance companies to be profitable.

Hey, Bub. I don't care what you want. You accused me of making
generalziations and asked for specifics. I gave you specifics. Now
you're having a *** fit about it.
-----------------------------------------------------------

WHAAAT? My my... I snipped your info for brevity..
Do we have our panties in a wad? I'd like to see where
I've EVER had a '*** fit' over anything. Touch are we?

NO ONE in this group details every post as well as
I do.. I answer virtually every sentence/question asked.
You have come nowhere near close to giving me the same
courtesy.

I read your info, I'll not argue the facts, what does that
accomplish? What I'm saying quite clearly is two things..

pertaining to bonuses and such.. I've addressed the need
for insurance reforms, as in not dropping the ill, or pre-
existing conditions, etc.. What I WILL NOT support, is
government telling people how much they can or cannot
make. That is up to shareholders, demand, etc. Gov't
has NO ROLE in setting pay limits. What I would agree
to is required openess to stock/shareholders.

pertaining to insurance being for profit -- they should
be. They are solvent, as compared to the gov't, which
btw, IS NOT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't care if they make a profit or not. I don't think they should
be allowed to make profits by cheating people.

No one should make a profit cheating people, tho many
take that risk.. that's what and why are prisons are there.

You seem to think if it improves the bottom line, it doesn't matter.

I'd like you to quote me as to where you get that inference from.

2) The snipped info contained what a few CEOs made..

Of course. You can't handle that.

Oh, I can handle it, I just don't care.. this whole debate
you've only addressed two issues that you can throw
a link up and say 'see, i told you so'... you've argued
about 'death clauses' and what they may or may not
imply. Secondly, you couldn't wait to throw out some
CEO pay, which is totally irrelevant to the issue of
whether we need another huge social program. I say
THAT'S the bottom line, and I don't think we need
another SS, VA, Medicaid/care that becomes nothing
more than another endless hole for the taxpayer to fill.

I am against government intervention in business,

Which is why we had things that huge deregulation that led to the
financial crisis. The one which ended up with Wall Street looking for
the government to intervene.

There are many many many many reasons for the stock
market crash, recession, whateveryawannacallit..
but in the end, it all faulted when home owners who were
in over their head started losing their homes. Dominoes
from there on out.. and lotsa people lay the majority of
THAT blame at the feet of Frank & Dodd... but we'll not
whip that dead horse here.

<snip>

Tired of reading your bull***, too. How's it feel?

I feel fine, and don't force anyone to read my OT
political rants... you're here by choice.. I've answered
ever detail in your post.. You can unwad yer knickers now.


.

Loading