Quote :

"Time and time again, your position has been against people getting coverage for a condition that they developed if they're uninsured."

That, too, would be a strawman. I have never claimed such a thing. I've never even strayed in to that territory. Rather, I've said that insurance companies should be able to take in to account pre-existing conditions.

Quote :

"This one? Yes? You're getting caught up in semantics"

Absolutely not. You put words directly in to my mouth. Again, textbook strawman.

Quote :

"You're JUST NOW bringing that up. You're JUST NOW bringing up a stance that is IRRELEVANT to the discussion."

Bullshit, I said it a while back.

Quote :

"We're talking about people getting coverage for a condition they developed while uninsured."

Well, you have flipped between two points, as I've already shown. But, I have always been talking about payment.

Quote :

"Uhhh... You can't even determine what type of fallacy it is."

Ummm. You might want to look up the definition of tu quoque. it is a form of ad hominem. Nice try, though.

Quote :

"And just a second ago you were accusing me of using the two wrongs don't make a right fallacy."

That's cause you were.

Quote :

"All I'm trying to do is get you to explain why you're against a tax penalty for people who CHOOSE to go uninsured?"

All you are trying to do is goad me in to defending a position that I never took.

Quote :

"I think that under 1337's plan they will keep a balance on each sick person and try to retain them to try to minimize the loss they took on them."

And why is that? Why would an insurance company change how it operates in this way? Knowing that there is nothing they can do to change the fact that are paying the expense, why would they then focus attention on someone, when they should instead be focusing on getting as many customers as possible? Seriously, it's like you think the company wants revenge or something.

Quote :

"The overall loss is made up of individual losses. Minimizing the individual loss would minimize the overall loss."

Likewise, more customers means more money. The amount of micromanaging would make such an attempt prohibitive. it would be, and is, much simpler to just continue competing for customers as normal, instead of trying to exact budgeting revenge.

Quote :

"Care to expand upon why it won't work? If you make the tax penalty high enough, to the point where it makes no sense to go uninsured, I don't see what the problem is."

Maybe because the tax penalty isn't the only thing in this bill? I've already said, as have others, why this bill won't work: it is worried about getting people insurance, when insurance is the problem in the first place.

Quote :

"Or gut insurance companies completely and go to a single provider, which by default reduces prices across the board because that provider would have such immense bargaining power."

Yes, because monopolies always drive down prices

1/13/2010 8:45:26 PM

1/13/2010 8:58:51 PM

^ Again, such figures are worthless without information about controls for lifestyle and treatments. A better set of comparisons would be life expectancy of different disease states with similar treatment processes compared to costs.

1/13/2010 9:19:13 PM

yes, data showing we spend 3x as much, go to the doctor less, and live shorter than average is absolutely worthless without qualifications. Nope, no conclusions, and I mean none, can be drawn from these facts. completely worthless

1/13/2010 9:28:22 PM

you are correct. The conclusion is that we need more information to make sense of those numbers. They are worthless in such a vacuum.

1/13/2010 10:04:49 PM

a vacuum?
There are at least 4 datapoints for 21 countries all succinctly displayed in one graph:
1) the average yearly cost of healthcare per capita, in US dollars
2) the average number of doctor visist per year
3) the life expectancy
4) the style of healthcare each country provides

how many more datapoints are necessary for that to not be considered "a vacuum" or for you to be able to draw some basic conclusions? I'm not saying at all that that chart, or any single chart or table, is the end-all be-all needed in any health debate. But to look at as much data that is provided in that simple chart and to claim that no conclusions, or even reasonable hypotheses, can be drawn from it is just being obtuse

1/13/2010 11:42:00 PM

Does the information control for the fact that we have a violent crime rate in major metro areas more akin to countries at the bottom of that list than the top? I mean we're talking less than 2 years difference between us and their listed average. Our murder rate alone could be a huge factor in that graph which not only would bring our life expectancy down, but bring our medical costs up (ICU is expensive). Like I said, a better comparison would be specific health states and treatment regimens compared to costs.

Then of course there's lifestyle factors including exercise, eating habits, smoking habits, sexual habits, as well as medical compliance (you would be amazed at the number of people who buy very expensive medical treatments that go to waste because they aren't following the procedures).

Also note that this talks about spending on more than just the actual care, it includes infrastructure. Hospitals aren't cheap to build, and we have a lot of them, and we mostly keep them up to date (Walter Reed not withstanding), all of that costs money. Do they have any comparison for relative infrastructure costs?

Really the only conclusion that you can draw from that graph is that how much money you throw at healthcare is not at all correlated with how long you will likely live.

1/14/2010 12:01:03 AM

Quote :

"That, too, would be a strawman. I have never claimed such a thing. I've never even strayed in to that territory. Rather, I've said that insurance companies should be able to take in to account pre-existing conditions."

What the fuck? Are you now rescinding what you previously said of talking about people who choose to go without health insurance:

Quote :

"And what deterrent is there to making the mistake if you don't actually suffer the consequences of making said mistake? What is there to keep other people from doing the same stupid thing?"

To which I replied IN RESPONSE TO IT:

Quote :

"Time and time again, your position has been against people getting coverage for a condition that they developed if they're uninsured."

It's fucking CLEAR that we're talking about uninsured people who DECIDE to go without insurance, you fucking twat. I thought it was clear that I understood that you're are sympathetic to some degree to people who are without coverage because they can't afford it.

Quote :

"Absolutely not. You put words directly in to my mouth. Again, textbook strawman"

No, it's a translation, similar to what you did previously. Unless of course you were putting words in my mouth when I previously said this:

Quote :

"Your analogy IS NOT RELEVANT! Ergo, I'm not addressing it."

And you said:

Quote :

"I'll translate that for everyone else: "I can't address it, because I don't understand how insurance works, so I'll try to claim insurance is not relevant to insurance.""

Putting words in my mouth or simply translating? I'll let you decide.

PROTIP: You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Quote :

"Bullshit, I said it a while back."

If it was before I entered the thread, then I didn't see it. I've re-read everything after I entered the thread, and I really can't see anything to that tune. Either way, it's irrelevant to what I've been talking about.

Quote :

"Well, you have flipped between two points, as I've already shown. But, I have always been talking about payment."

Well, this has been a part of the discussion since the very beginning, and it's been a point that I've maintained since the beginning. How about you keep up, son?

Quote :

"Ummm. You might want to look up the definition of tu quoque. it is a form of ad hominem. Nice try, though."

Well, you said:

Quote :

"Ah, then it's tu quoque / ad hominem, as originally stated. Take your pick, dude. it's still a fallacy."

If you're sure it's specifically a "tu quoque," then why even include "ad hominem?" Not only that, why would you tell me to "take your pick, dude?" Hmmm. Again, it seems like you're just trying to pull shit out of your ass to keep me on the defensive.

Quote :

"That's cause you were."

*sigh* Your asshole must be pretty large by now.

Quote :

"All you are trying to do is goad me in to defending a position that I never took."

Then why did you say:

Quote :

"Bullshit. How about Congress passes a law that says you have to give me a blow job every day or pay me 100 bux every day. Is that ok? the government isn't "FORCING" you to give me a blow job, right? Come on."

In response to:

Quote :

"Lets be honest here. The government isn't "FORCING" anyone to do anything. They can either pay for health insurance or pay a tax penalty."

It seems to me that you're against it, or are you still enlarging your rectum with the amount of shit you pull out of it?

Quote :

"And why is that? Why would an insurance company change how it operates in this way? Knowing that there is nothing they can do to change the fact that are paying the expense, why would they then focus attention on someone, when they should instead be focusing on getting as many customers as possible? Seriously, it's like you think the company wants revenge or something."

The laws would change. They would HAVE to change to adapt to the added expenditure added to them by the sick people. Why would their focus NOT be on keeping the sick people, and why would they not want to keep them on board? You and I both said it, they're a fucking loss. There's no way around it. So why the hell would they not want to keep them away from other insurance companies by enticing them with lower rates? After all, they're not really losing anything by keeping them on, are they not? In fact, they would lose MORE if they lost them. So even if they took a cut by giving sick people a lower rate, they're still not losing as much if they had lost them completely as a customer.

Meanwhile, they hadn't lost anything on a healthy person. If they lose them, they can get other people. Competition for healthy people will be unchanged as it is now, especially with company group plans. With group plans covering the majority of people who are insured, having to worry about losing an individual isn't too much of a concern.

Really, I don't think you're able to wrap your head around the influence group plans would play. And I've already explained why I think getting rid of group plans would be a bad idea that would do nothing to lower prices.

Quote :

"it would be, and is, much simpler to just continue competing for customers as normal, instead of trying to exact budgeting revenge."

It's not budgeting revenge. It's maximizing profits. The sick are already a loss, so why not keep them on to minimize that loss if the insurance company is having to pay for their bills anyhow?

Quote :

"it is worried about getting people insurance, when insurance is the problem in the first place."

I could have sworn that health care costs were the problem, and the reason why insurance premiums kept climbing? I've already conceded that this plan is not really reform for health care. It does implement a few changes that I like, but in many areas, I, probably like you and many people as well, find the bill lacking.

1/14/2010 1:26:45 AM

Health Reform Drags Obama's Poll Ratings Down
January 12, 2010

Quote :

"It's an odd turn of events for something that was the Democrats' signature issue during the 2008 presidential campaign. Survey after survey led politicians in both parties to conclude that healthcare reform was something the American people were demanding but, as has been the case before, they clearly do not like what they are being offered. Partly, the process is to blame. Rather than focus on maintaining, even improving, the quality of care available in the United States, the White House and the Democrats who control Congress have labored to produce a hodgepodge of reforms that threaten the continued existence of the system as we know it while providing little in the way of guarantees that the parts of the current system people like will not be adversely affected by the proposed reforms. This last piece likely explains why so much of the healthcare negotiation has been conducted in secret and behind closed doors. Rather than wave the victory flag, the White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are all behaving like, when it comes to healthcare, they have something to hide. Which no doubt explains why the public's support for reform is dropping like a stone. They will not buy what they cannot see."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/12/health-reform-drags-obamas-poll-ratings-down.html

1/14/2010 5:13:29 AM

Quote :

"They will not buy what they cannot see."

Unfortunately, we bought what we could not see when we voted for inspecific "hope and change" in 2008.

1/14/2010 7:37:18 AM

No one reads the bottom of the page.




^^ And his handling of healthcare is lowering his approval of his handling of healthcare. Not his overall approval.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

[Edited on January 14, 2010 at 9:08 AM. Reason : ]

1/14/2010 9:00:31 AM

Quote :

"yes, data showing we spend 3x as much, go to the doctor less, and live shorter than average is absolutely worthless without qualifications."

1) Our costs are more because we subsidize the medical innovation which the rest of the world free-loads off of. This bill will do nothing to alleviate that particular issue.
2) Our costs are more because we've got a bastardized quasi-government health care system which is massively bureaucratic and inefficient for a number of reasons. This bill will do nothing to alleviate that particular issue.
3) Our piss poor diet is largely due to over-consumption of processed foods made cheap by government corn subsidies. This bill will do nothing to alleviate that particular issue.

The fact that the Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts special election, the swing seat in the US Senate right now, is being massively funded by the exact "big bad HMOs and Pharma" companies that this bill is supposed to bring into check should make anyone with a shred of understanding of politics and who has any desire to actually reform the health care system back away from this bill. (Or technically, these bills which will attempt to become a horribly deformed bastard child of legislation)

1/14/2010 10:17:13 AM

Quote :

"And his handling of healthcare is lowering his approval of his handling of healthcare. Not his overall approval."

1/14/2010 10:23:05 AM

great post cash.

And take out auto accidents and homicides and we rank the highest as far as life expectancy. But people arent really interested in comparing apples to apples if it refutes thier opinion.

1/14/2010 10:43:08 AM

STRONGLY

RASMUSSEN

1/14/2010 10:52:29 AM

^LOL. Every other poll has obama's approval at 70%

1/14/2010 11:16:14 AM

huh?

1/14/2010 11:52:50 AM

It was a joke.

This is the best one I think. You can take a look at the different ones.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

1/14/2010 12:20:48 PM

And so you can look at the chart in your link and still cite Rasmussen with what I assume is a straight face?

1/14/2010 1:00:33 PM

and where did you see me cite it? They ALL show the downward trend. Earthdogg's point is still valid. he just used the one that most illustrated his point. imo

Iagree, rasmussen is usually the most radical poller.

1/14/2010 1:41:24 PM

Way to cave in to the unions, Obama... Union members don't have to pay the Cadillac tax now until 2017. It's good to see what the real important things are when it comes to health care: political constituencies

[Edited on January 15, 2010 at 9:26 AM. Reason : ]

1/15/2010 9:26:29 AM

I can't believe he pulled that stunt.

1/15/2010 9:42:00 AM

Quote :

"The White House has reached a deal with labor leaders to tax expensive health insurance plans to pay for health reform, but would exempt union plans from the tax through 2017, labor leaders announced Thursday. The deal averts a standoff on one of the most contentious issues standing in the way of a compromise. Democrats now hope to send key parts of a compromise bill to the Congressional Budget Office for cost estimates by Friday or Saturday. “We have been fighting for health care over 60 years, and we find ourselves on the threshold of a milestone despite determined opposition," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said on the call to announce the deal. Negotiations in recent days had focused on raising the threshold at which the tax on so-called “Cadillac plans” would kick in — and the deal increases the threshold from $23,000 a year for a family policy, to $24,000. The threshold is even higher for certain plans with older workers and women, a move to benefit unions with a high proportion of female membership. The tax wouldn't kick in until Jan. 1, 2018, for collective bargaining agreements, and state and local government workers. But unions fell short in their efforts to increase the threshold faster in coming years. The index remains the same as it was under the Senate bill, which is inflation plus one percent. The deal came together over more than 12 hours of negotiations Wednesday between the key labor leaders and top White House aides, the source said. To help make up for the lost revenue, Democrats are targeting at least two industries that already put up contributions to health reform’s bottom line. The hospital industry has been asked to offer another $15 billion in concessions on top of a $155 billion deal last summer with the White House, according to one source. And the pharmaceutical industry has agreed to provide an extra $10 billion to their already negotiated $80 billion deal over 10 years. Democrats are also negotiating further adjustments to the Medicare payroll tax rate, which was already increased under the Senate bill. Lawmakers and the White House are looking to apply the tax to investment income for high-income earners."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31506.html#ixzz0ch1ZKKrR


The discussion in here has largely been stuck on whether or not we need health care reform. What I want, is someone to tell me with a straight face that this bill is remotely capable of doing it.

This bill is designed to fail. It has practically every provision possible for making health care insurance more expensive for anyone not specifically favored by the Democratic Party leadership in order to provide cover at a later date for a more comprehensive overhaul when health care companies are blamed for increasing rates to cover the $180B in concessions they've agreed to during the process of formulating this bill.

Pandering is a fact of political life, but with such consistently blatant pandering to favored groups by the DP, it should be no surprise that the GOP is so unified in opposing this plan.

1/15/2010 10:02:23 AM

^ Surprised? That is the Chicago way.

1/15/2010 12:40:31 PM

Quote :

"Pandering is a fact of political life, but with such consistently blatant pandering to favored groups by the DP, it should be no surprise that the GOP is so unified in opposing this plan."

And it should be no surprise that Democrats call this "obstructionism."

1/15/2010 12:43:01 PM

A friend of mine used to do some campaign work and was telling me about a conversation he had with his old boss, it is worth relaying:

Him: "This bill is not going to work if it gets passed, like that it wont be a success"
Boss: "Well, actually it will be a success for Obama and the House members and Senators who can go back and say they got healthcare reform passed"
Him: "No, it won't be a success in the sense that it won't help me nor will it really help the people who actually need it"
Boss: "oh"


Which pretty much sums up the current mentality in Washington.

1/15/2010 3:30:04 PM

Why not make it easier and just exempt anyone who gave money to Obama's campaign?

[Edited on January 16, 2010 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2010 10:40:56 AM

F him

[Edited on January 16, 2010 at 8:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2010 8:10:32 PM

Fred Barnes gives us some hope in killing this health-care no-reform bill...

Quote :

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finds herself in a precarious position. She cannot afford to lose a single Democratic defector. She’s already missing two of the 220 votes for Obamacare in November. Democrat Robert Wexler resigned two weeks ago and Anh (Joseph) Cao, the lone Republican to vote for Obamacare, is expected by Republican leaders to vote no this time. That leaves Pelosi with 218 votes. If she loses one more vote, the compromise bill could fail. “I believe there is an opportunity to prevent this bill from becoming law,” House Republican whip Eric Cantor said in a memo last week."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/could-house-kill-obamacare

1/16/2010 10:27:04 PM

Health bill may impose 'marriage penalty'
Both the House and Senate plans have higher premium caps for a married couple than an unmarried pair making the same money.

Quote :

"Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together if the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress is passed. The built-in 'marriage penalty' in both House and Senate versions of the health care bill has received scant attention. But for scores of low- and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say 'I do.'"

http://tinyurl.com/ydtxgxj

Yet another reason not to support this bill.

1/18/2010 9:08:50 AM

Posted this elsewhere, still relevant here:

Quote :

"The WH announced today that the State of the Union is going to be on the 27th. Originally, they were going to wait until after they got health care passed but from the rumors I've heard this pretty much means they're giving up on the health care legislation. The only way I can figure it, this means internal polling is pointing towards a Scott Brown victory tomorrow. We'll see."

1/18/2010 6:25:19 PM

^^ the only reason you ever needed is that evil democrats proposed it. Who are you trying to kid?

1/18/2010 6:51:56 PM

why are they still talking about a healthcare vote?

what happened on 12/24/09?

1/18/2010 7:17:43 PM

^ Well, the senate voted on their version of the health"care" bill. However, in order for it to become law, both the house and the senate have to agree on A bill. So now they're in a joint committee to hammer out the differences between the House and Senate version so that it can be voted on and passed to the President to be signed.

1/18/2010 8:00:36 PM

^^ see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

1/18/2010 8:03:02 PM

^ ahahahah 10/10

1/18/2010 8:06:06 PM

o i thought the house passed it months ago and then it went to the senate 2nd

[Edited on January 18, 2010 at 11:58 PM. Reason : and kennedys vote shouldnt matter since the senate already voted?]

1/18/2010 11:57:03 PM

^ Both the House and Senate have to vote and pass on the same bill for it to go to the President.

1/18/2010 11:59:53 PM

Democrats May Seek to Push Health Bill Through House
January 18, 2010

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The White House and Democratic Congressional leaders, scrambling for a backup plan to rescue their health care legislation if Republicans win the special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday, have begun laying the groundwork to ask House Democrats to approve the Senate version of the bill and send it directly to President Obama for his signature. A victory by the Republican, Scott Brown, in Massachusetts would deny Democrats the 60th vote they need in the Senate to surmount Republican filibusters and advance the health legislation. And with the race too close to call, Democrats are considering several options to save the bill, which could be a major factor in how they fare in this year's midterm elections. Some Democrats suggested that even if their candidate, Martha Coakley, scraped out a narrow victory on Tuesday, they might need to ask House Democrats to speed the legislation to the president's desk, especially if lawmakers who had supported the bill begin to waver as they consider the political implications of a tough re-election cycle. It is unclear if rank-and-file Democrats would go along, and House Democratic leaders said no final decision would be made until they talked to their caucus. But even as Democratic leaders pondered contingencies, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, insisted that the legislation would move forward, though she acknowledged that Tuesday's results could force a tactical shift. 'Certainly the dynamic will change depending on what happens in Massachusetts,' Ms. Pelosi told reporters in California on Monday. 'Just the question of how we would proceed. But it doesn't mean we won’t have a health care bill.' 'Let's remove all doubt,' she added. 'We will have health care one way or another.' Still, some lawmakers, aides and lobbyists described numerous obstacles to House approval of the Senate-passed bill."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/health/policy/19health.html

The Democrats in Congress are determined to ram this thing down our throats "one way or another." It's unforgivable.

And if the Democrats' proposed health-care reform is so damned good, why do they need to resort to greasing the palms of lawmakers and unions, cutting backroom deals, and rushing through bills?

BTW, moron, I have never voted a straight-party ticket in my life. Just shut the fuck up and don't get any of your stupid stereotypes on me.

1/19/2010 5:03:29 AM

Quote :

"Just shut the fuck up and don't get any of your stupid stereotypes on me."

But you're allowed to call us all foaming left-wing moonbats, right?

1/19/2010 10:57:05 AM

Quote :

"NC REPUBLICANS TO FIGHT A FED TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE January 19th, 2010 Raleigh, N.C. — The Republican leaders of the State Senate and House were joined by the Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party today promising to fight the federal takeover of health care and protect an individual’s right to make decisions about their own health coverage. The Republican leadership promised a legislative initiative called the Health Care Protection Act (HCPA). “Republicans will not stand idly by and watch citizens’ rights to make their own health care decisions are taken from them by the federal government,” said Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger, “The people of North Carolina are overwhelmingly opposed to this blatant abuse of power. We are proud to be their legislative voice by putting forth this common sense initiative.” House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake) said the initiative should be supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. “This should not be about partisan politics; it should be about the individual freedom of our citizens.” Stam noted that either a general statue or a constitutional amendment will be presented during the short session in May. If the Democratic majority blocks the initiative, it will be submitted again the first week of next year’s session, when he believes Republicans will hold a majority. "

Is that a little back-bone I'm seeing there?

1/19/2010 2:47:53 PM

Here come the nullifiers again.

1/19/2010 3:15:10 PM

Nullification seems like a pretty great idea when the Democrats are going to force this disaster upon us. They don't care what people think about it. They're convinced that their way is the only way and they want to force everyone to accept it, because they are the elite, and they know what is best for everyone.

1/19/2010 3:25:38 PM

Nullification ... please, that is so 1850's.

Hooksaw:

Quote :

"The Democrats in Congress are determined to ram this thing down our throats "one way or another." It's unforgivable."

What I find unforgivable is the current system, where people are priced out of their health. Rammed down throats? This bill is 20 yrs in the making. Have I mentioned that the Republican had all the time they needed to do anything at all? They chose instead to solve other problems, like solving the WMD problem in Iraq.

And, in honor of MLK:

Quote :

"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."

1/19/2010 5:33:26 PM

Quote :

"where people are priced out of their health."

really? Care to explain? I am priced out of the home I want and the car I want too. And I cant eat the meal at Ruth's every night either, but some can. No fair

What we have is somewhat of a mixed system. WIth the bulk of dollars spent at the end of life. Most of that is being paid for by taxpayers anyway, and going bankrupt. The current system of hte govt collecting your medicare tax and pissing the surplus away for years on various projects is messed up. And where are the funds going from these new health care taxes? Oh, right back in the general fund. To be pissed away yet again on other projects. Awesome. Sorry, Ive seen this sorry movie many times already. I have no confidence in our govt pulling this off effectively.

1/19/2010 6:22:47 PM

owning a car and someone's health are TOTALLY different. imagine if someone was "priced out" of going to school. that would is totally unimaginable and unacceptable. EVERYONE deserves EQUAL quality healthcare

1/19/2010 6:29:02 PM

And you dont think there are varying levels of education. A degree from harvard vs a community college degree? Honestly folks.

1/19/2010 6:33:28 PM

Quote :

"force this disaster upon us. They don't care what people think about it. They're convinced that their way is the only way and they want to force everyone to accept it, because they are the elite, and they know what is best for everyone. "

well why did everyone vote for it back in 08?

1/19/2010 6:34:39 PM

because the people were given the choice of a giant douche and a turd sandwich, and they all picked the giant douche?

Quote :

"What I find unforgivable is the current system, where people are priced out of their health. "

And you don't think that will happen with this system? It is designed to be a stepping-stone to single-payer. Which will end up covering very little. With supplemental insurance picking up the rest. Guess who will get the best supplemental insurance?

Quote :

"Have I mentioned that the Republican had all the time they needed to do anything at all?"

Have I mentioned 500000000000000000000 times how that doesn't fucking matter and that you should shut the fuck up with that?

Quote :

"EVERYONE deserves EQUAL quality healthcare"

They can get it. As long as they have the pocketbook. Besides, there are ways to fix the current problem that don't involve the proposed monstrosity

1/19/2010 6:39:34 PM

They didn't. Even if they did, it's pretty easy to promise everyone free stuff with money that doesn't exist. People have to be waking up at this point, though. There is no money to spend. I can't hammer that point enough. You can try to wish these programs into existence, but it's going to be our downfall.

1/19/2010 6:41:14 PM