The fact still remains the originally posted article is factually correct and has not yet been refuted, at this time the final version amended document is unavailable to most if not all people. You have in each posting elected to ignore the clear language of the originally posted article and instead have chosen to argue your interpretation of what your definition "of is is", admittedly not surprising.

Your self declared "win on the logic" is pharisaical at best!

Following your logic, had article posted presented facts showing there is no car capable of starting, stopping and safely traveling the reasonable distance between two points being delivered, you would argue that the some conglomeration of parts both good and bad in a distant section of some assembly area could in theory be effectively necessarily assembled and therefore "is" delivered.

Your contention "the numerous attempts to get you to actually click on a link before immediately dismissing it" is could only viewed as a feeble argument that if one would only view the conglomerations from some alternate view point and the task of assembly is not in fact an undeserved trial and tribulation but rather a sacred honor, then the scales would fall from that viewer’s eyes and they would at once behold your lie that what is plainly there before them "is" the same as a car delivered.

The reality is the final amended H. R. 3200 is still not available and only using a most tortured definition of “technicality", that 100% of the information is there.

I'm sure no one reading your "contributions" both here in this thread and in other threads you've graced with your participation, would doubt your lack of care for the opinions of others while at the same time spewing your own.

So by this "car" analogy you have here. So say a mint condition MB is sitting in your driveway with no fuel filter and you are a master mechanic, certainly capable of repairing the car. You have the fuel filter in one hand and a screwdriver in the other but you're unwilling to take the 5 minutes to put it on and make the car complete, so you junk the car. It won't run without the fuel filter, but you have everything you need to fix it. Does that mean the car is bad? Sure I guess its a slightly more cumbersome way to get the car running but it is still there 100%. See how ridiculous this is getting? Agree to disagree and call it a night.

Thank you for finally admitting it. Maybe inconvenient to you, but you're not going through the document as I had originally thought.

Same goes to you, my friend

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

Following your non-fact based fantasy analogy you must be arguing that the task this mechanic would need to accomplish is precisely the same task that the entire engineering team at Stuttgart is admittedly incapable of accomplishing thus far and which they have stated we should expect to take weeks at best!

You in this case once again attempt to equate the effort required by a single individual to make sense of all the parts and pieces of this information with the collective efforts of the legislative staffs who have not been able to accomplish the same in six days running and thus far have offered no hope of accomplishing in less than multiple weeks. You either have an extremely high opinion of such an individual’s capabilities or an extremely low opinion of the collective capabilities of the legislative staffs responsible.

Sweet dreams little one!

I continued your analogy, not my fault if its fantasy. Let me explain this more, maybe you will see my point of view: Engineers at stuttgart = legislators who made the original bill, which = MB. The bill is pretty much all there except for a couple small parts (= fuel filter). An individual has the tools (screwdriver = internet) and the parts missing (amendments = FF) and is just waiting for someone else to put it together. I guess there could be a mechanic introduced that would be the metaphoric legislative staff, to put the thing together.

Is an individual not capable of putting this together if he/she is reading the bill? I do have high opinions of an individual who goes out of his/her way to read 1000+ pages of legislation, regardless of amendments - you're right.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

"a mechanic introduced that would be the metaphoric legislative staff"

haven't been able to accomplish putting together the very parts they've created for six days and have said it will take them a couple weeks on the individual taxpayer's dime!

Only time will tell if there is an individual who after already paying for both the engineers and mechanics has the wherewithal to ultimately accomplish that which a legislative staff has not. I suppose that if such an individual exists that person should replace said staff which can't.

It's not that I don't, won't, or can't see and respect another's point of view; it is often that multiple individuals look at the same fact and register different perceptions. I understand and accept your right to your views, however unsupported.

^ word of warning to all, this guy is never refuted.

Take the shortcut. Read the Executive Summary, CBO style here.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10400/07-26-InfoOnTriCommProposal.pdf

July 26, 2009


Honorable Dave Camp
Ranking Member
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) recently completed a preliminary analysis of the specifications related to health insurance coverage that are reflected in the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, which was released by the House Committee on Ways and Means on July 14, 2009.
Among other things, those specifications would establish a mandate for most legal residents to obtain health insurance, significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid, regulate the pricing and terms of private health insurance policies, set up insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to reduce the cost of purchasing insurance, and offer a “public plan” option similar to Medicare through those exchanges. For reasons outlined in CBO’s July 14 letter summarizing that analysis—and in our letter of July 17, which took into account the other parts of the legislation that would raise taxes or reduce other spending—our analysis to date does not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation.
The attached analysis responds to your request for additional information about the effects of the specifications regarding health insurance coverage. In particular, you asked about the effects on enrollment in private coverage, in the new public plan, and in Medicaid; the effects on private-sector insurance premiums and the labor market; the longer-term cost of the plan; and the allocation of its net budget impact between outlays and revenues. Because of the complexity of the changes that have been proposed and their potential effects, we are unable to address all aspects of every question that you raised.
more ....................................