No wonder I despise big corporations and their defenders.


Senior Member
Aug 4, 2005
Got an email from a friend of mine in Charlotte, NC today. Most of it is pasted in below:

"On another note, on Charlotte Talks (local program) Thursday morning, a panel of local insurance/hospital systems folks talked about what the legislation would and wouldn't mean for both individuals and the standard "family of 4". One of the folks who called in was a guy in his 50's whose wife had worked for (and was still working for) a large manufacturing company (he wouldn't name it for fear of retaliation against his wife by her employer). They received an official letter from headquarters two weeks prior to the final vote informing them that their insurance would be cancelled if the bill passed. The company's logic being that it would cost them less to pay the per employee fine for not offering coverage than what it currently costs them to provide coverage. Bottom line, they will now have to find and pay for health insurance on their own, long before subsidies are available. He and his wife are the exceptions to the rule. Too bad the guy wouldn't name the company...shaming them might be enough to make them change their mind."

No frickin' wonder that I hate big corporations and the frickin' "conservatives" who defend them no matter what evil they do to the little guy.


Jokeroo Enthusiast
Jan 24, 2004
I'm *sorta* torn on this one, Pix.

On the one hand, they already provide coverage so what's so bad about continuing it?

On the other, I can't fault someone for wanting to maximize their profits.

I'd be curious to know the name of the company, as well, to determine if they fall in to the <50 or >50 category