HR 3590 Passes by a Healthy Margin 219-212
Posted by Joe Rivett on 03.21.2010
I take a look at if the passing of Health Care Reform will hurt the Dems plus my Real Time thoughts of Boehner and Pelosi's speeches.
I was channel surfing this morning and I came across "This Week" on ABC where the moderator asked a Democratic lawmaker if the passage of a health care reform bill would cause the Democrats to lose seats. I've yet to meet a person whose vote is hinging on whether or not their Representative is going to vote down health care reform. The Republicans have been whipped badly in the last two elections. They have midterm history on their side. The Democrats have a uniquely bad economy to deal with. There are a lot of Democrats in Republican districts. Republicans have the fact that Americas love divided government. Obama will not be on the ticket. No matter what the Democrats do, Republicans will win seats.
However, I believe this bill may save some seats because it will give a lift to dispirited Democrats. It will give them a chance to sell the popular provisions of the bill. It will also bring the media focus to something else and if it is immigration reform, that only helps the Democrats and divides the Republicans. In the end, Obama said it best when he stated his disgust for politics being judged as a sport. So what if a Representative loses their job as if they can't make tons of money in the private sector. If you are going to lose your job helping millions get access to health insurance, I guess that it is better than losing your job over some pointless gun bill.
Before I take off, here are my Real Time thoughts on Boehner and Pelosi's speeches.
Boehner just said I can't keep my health care plan. Wow, I'll send him a campaign check for 100 bucks if I lose my insurance because of this bill.
He is complaining about Medicare cuts even though he is against socialized medicine.
Do we really need to slow down after over a year of debate?
Boehner now believes that this Health Care Bill is against Moses. Forget Jesus, what would Moses do?
Boehner is now begging Congress to never let this happen again! Funny stuff.
He's really into the "Will of the American people," as if he knows how the American people feel. If the American people didn't want more government and health reform they would have never elected Obama.
Boehner would rather focus on jobs as if Congress can only do one thing at a time.
The Republicans love to defend the life of the unborn but I wish they cared as much for lives of the born and for the lives of the sick.
Pelosi thinks this bill is as important as Medicare and Social Security, I think that is a little dramatic too.
Pelosi talks about how difficult it is to change jobs when you have pre-existing conditions or children with them.
Apparently being a woman is a pre-existing condition. Apparently some insurance companies were considering Caesarian sections or DV victims as pre-existing. Considering my wife had one and changed jobs after having one, I'm glad this is over.
The Democrats are using stories on how people's lives will be better but I don't hear the Republicans saying whose lives will be ruined because of health care reform.
If 45,000 people die because of not having insurance, should that not bother those that freak out and want to destroy the Constitution because of 3,000 people dying during 9/11?
The bill is somewhat bipartisan because there are 200 Republican sponsored amendments. Also, liberals want single-payer so they gave up a lot in this bill too.
The final tally was 219 212 to pass the Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments to H.R. 3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
If 45,000 people die because of not having insurance, should that not bother those that freak out and want to destroy the Constitution because of 3,000 people dying during 9/11?
Wow, liberals really love using this number without reading the actual study and how it was done (http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study- finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage).
According to Business and media (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090925144231.aspx), "The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated... The subjects were interviewed only once and the study tries to link their insurance status at that time to mortality a decade later. Yet over the period, the authors have no idea whether subjects were insured or uninsured, what kind of medical care they received, or even cause of death."
Researchers of the Harvard based their conclusion upon national surveys participants filled from 1986-1994. After checking how many of the adults died by the year 2000, researchers proceeded to make the unbelievable leap in assumption and faith that the uninsured stayed uninsured for all those years - and died as a result. Further more, I read studies that showed that, yes, while the uninsured doe have a higher mortality rate than those who do, its only by three percent found and people enrolled in Medicaid have a much higher mortality rate than the uninsured. As Goodman put it, "In other words, Medicaid enrollment reduces life expectancy rather than increasing it!"
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:01 AM
If i had a nickel everytime i've read comments beginning with "wow, liberals.." since Obama was elected, i'd be able to afford healthcare. Woot!
Posted By: Acid (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:44 AM
ok history lesson for you, when social secuirty passed it passed with overwhleming bipartisan support over 300 + votes in the house, over 70 votes in the senate, the next two major pieces of legisation, civil rights, 300 + votes in the house and 77-6 in the senate, whoever the 6 who voted against had to be in the south, and steadfastly opposed to it, medicaid 300 + votes in the hosue and i think it was 69 in the senate, as comapred to this bill that only passed with a +3 majority, and with a exectuive order that even debbie wasserman said on tv this morning that has no teeth, you're really telling me that obama signing an executive order that supposedly bans fedreal funding for abortion, nevermind he's poed both naral and now, but nevermind the fact roe v wade already makes abortion legal, and remeber clinton had an executive order of a line-item veto struck down because the court deemed it unconstituiaol and oh yeah what else is not being talked about is in the senate reconsilliation bill, that most of the media has missed becuase they've focused on the healthcare debate, is how government is also not only gonna control health care, banks,gm and chrysler, but now there going to get in the student laon business, yes while everyone was so focused on the healthcared debate, in this omnibus healthcare bill, dems snuck in the fact, that government will control student loans, but you won't probably here that from most of the slobbering media, i mean we know this bill isn't going to cost 940 billion like the cbo said, heck look at the recovery act, the cbo miscsored it and it only cost us 825 billion, not the 787 billion origanlly said, and oh yeah with the health care bill, yeah some things might kick in right away, like kids being able to stay on parents plans until there 26, no more denial of health care coverage because of a pre-existing condintion, but how we pay ofr it, won't kick in until 2014, and some other things like the so-called caddilac provison of taxing those plans doesn't kick in until 2018 and oh yeah now the irs will have your insurance records as well, and if they don't like the insurance yoy have, they can fine you
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:57 AM
BKS,
You can't argue with them using facts. They only believe what they are told to believe...
And now when he takes his wife and kids to the IRS to ASK PERMISSION to go to some doctor I hope Rivett thinks of this day.
You liberals have just sold our freedom for someone to "protect" your health from yourselves.
Just like Aristotle warned us...A tyranny begins when someone promises to protect the rights you think you should have, but only if you agree to give up what you already have.
We will see what happens with the stock market tomorrow- we will see how much this helps the economy.
Posted By: Grant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:05 AM
Remember: Whenever Republicans or Conservatives say the word "Socialism" what they **REALLY** mean is "this favors INDIVIDUALS over BIG BUSINESS... Boo People! Yay Big Business!"
The left can get as socialist as they want as long as I don't have to hear any religious propaganda......
Posted By: Guest#6971 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 06:37 AM
Every IRS agent in the country can now add "health care cop" to their resume, and our country's financial reckoning day will now arrive sooner, because no entitlement program EVER comes in under budget. I weep for my children's future.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 06:58 AM
I was offended at the thousands of ILLEGAL immigrants marching on Washington for whatever the heck it is they want. Why didnt we take the opportunity to round a bunch up and send em packing?
Well I guess if we can make them citizens we can start taxing the hell out of them finally. That should help the economy, right?
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 08:20 AM
Okay, lets say 3,000 people die due to problems in the health insurance system, shouldn't that cause some outrage? Look at all the crap directed at Toyota for a few runaway cars
Posted By: BKS fan (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 08:22 AM
I hardly call 219-212 a healthy margin. It would have been more appropriate to call it by the skin of their teeth. The fact is that much like the presidency, half the people in this country do not support what has been layed in front of them. Bipartisanship does not exist, and it certainly does not exist in this bill. However, I hope for everybody's sake that this is a step in the right direction. Because if it is not, America is in some serious trouble.
Posted By: Kedrix (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 08:26 AM
I was watching some of this, found it amazing how every republican on the floor called this a "government take over" of health insurance. Its is NOT a government take over of health insurance.
Last i checked the bill that passed, you will still get your insurance from private insurance companies and these private companies will get 32 million more customers. So that seems like a win for the private sector. Republicans have NO argument here, seems like one more fear tactic to scare the crap out of their base and uninformed independent voters.
If they want to argue about costs they may have something. But the fact is nobody knows, democrat or republican what this is going to cost in the long run or the savings that will be had by passing this bill long term. You can get almost anyone to jungle the numbers in your favor, though if you want to take the non partisan health care audit people's word for it, it will help the deficit. Have to think they know more than us, but that is a very large crystal ball they are using.
Also heard alot about the will of the American people last night. Since when did republicans care about the will of the American people? Last I checked in the last 8 years it was the American people who got screwed which enabled Obama and the democrats to win the white house, so they don't have any argument here either. As an independent voter (who voted for Obama after the bush fiasco) I find it comical for them to even bring up. They have been the party of big business as long as I can remember its just more to the extreme now (democrats are getting there too and have become the new republican's in a sense), so they can spare me the "will of the American people" nonsense.
If they cared so much maybe they could have passes some health care in the last 8 years, or in the last 24 of 30 years they had the white house.
Last thing about this I will say, is that the more they come and their perceived followers come off looking like angry teenagers, the worse they look. From the group calling the black lawmakers names the other day, to that baby killer thing yesterday, if you are trying to rebuild your image that is not the way to do it. You can chalk up the group the other day to a couple of wacko's, but to have a lawmaker acting like a 15 year old, I mean is this going to end up turning into how they do it in asia where eventually people are going to be taking swings at each other? Its ridiculous and makes it hard for them to get any point across to independent voters because most of us are REALLY REALLY put off by that kind of stuff. It may play well to their base in the south but to the average person it's petty, childish and embarrassing to hear.
Posted By: natman (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 08:39 AM
Obama and Pelosi FTW!
Posted By: AFan (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 09:03 AM
Question an Australian for daring to comment on American politics if you will, but I have to comment on one of the absurd arguments that Republicans have been peddling around in a failed attempt to sabotage this bill. Now I understand some Americans take the free market ideal, let it smoke some crack, and watch it run riot completely unfettered from common sense but that notwithstanding, a speech I heard on our Newsradio, which broadcasts news the world over, from one of your Congressman, was laughable in its stupidity. Essentially, he was stating that this bill, 'removes the rights of all families to choose their doctors'. I'm assuming, and I dont know the particulars as I follow American politics only fleetingly however this bill has piqued the interest of the world, that this argument is based on then fact that health insurance will now come from an individuals employer (if I am wrong on this please correct me). As such the employer would choose the insurance company for an individual and by extention, the place of medical treatment. Again if I am wrong on the workings of the bill please correct me as I am intrigued, however this does not detract from point.
The point this congressman was making was that because of an inability for an individual to choose their own doctor, this bill was taking away a... FREEDOM. and here lies the point of stupidity. to this congressman, and anyone thinking like him, technically this bill takes away a freedom of choice, but how is an individual supposed to exercise this freedom WHEN THEY HAVE NO MONEY TO BUY AMERICA'S RIDICULOUSLY OVERPRICED, UNFAIR HEALTH INSURANCE FROM THAT MYRIAD OF CHOICE OF COMPANIES THIS BILL IS TAKING AWAY THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. seriously, why dont economic conservatives understand that broke people have no damn freedom, because they cannot afford to enjoy the fruits of freedom. Because its damn expensive. Again, your crackheaded culture of complete market freedom (which caused the global financial crisis, and a few years ago a cracking even called the great depression, thanks guys) will probably lead many to view me as a socialist (like that genius at a protest rally holding a picture of Obama with SOCIALIST stamped on the bottom) or indeed, a Communist. But no, im just a Common-Sensist. I'm sure my very basic understanding of the bill itself will lead some to deride me as a fool, concentrating on my somewhat limited knowledge of the bill whilst ignoring my point. Republicans, people are poor. Not just because they 'don't work' as I see written with such hate in the comment section so often. Hardworking, decent people are poor, and cant enjoy freedom, or indeed medical aid, so perhaps show some damn COMPASSION (and a brain) and help these people, rather than condemn them.
Posted By: KMac (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 10:21 AM
I am very proud of my country for finally doing something to mend a problem that's been brewing for the last 40 years. Say what you will but had the R's cared enough about this they had more than enough chances to do something about it. Many liberals are not happy with this bill and a good compromise leaves everyone annoyed- yet, it's a step in the right direction as a no vote last night would have effectively killed all chance of progress for who knows how long, possibly another 40 years and we would all have to suffer with a broken system. Let's find agreement in the concessions made as many points in this bill were endorsed by everyone and now work together to make this work in progress ultimately successful. I am proud of our government and the people for this debate and now the real work begins. USA!!
Posted By: The Weesel (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 10:54 AM
ahh the hypocrisy of republicans is in full affect today.
So what is an "acceptable" number of people to die each year because they dont have health care? What would make it O.K. for republicans? Let say its half of 45,000
So 20,000 people dying is ok? What about 10,000? is that ok? what is an acceptable number of deaths where you can morally say that the number is not high enough to justify spending money. So a person's life is not equal to some piece of paper with some colorful print on it? is that really the debate?
What to talk about abortion and pro-life, are you pro-life only when the child is in the womb? What about those who die because of not having health care? They dont count?
If your pro-life than be pro-life!! Not just pro-life when the person is in the womb.
Republicans like to say oh look at our alternative health care bill. Why now? They just got done being in charge for 8 years....this didn't cross their mind once?
They were to busy chasing the bogeyman in the middle east and spending trillions of dollars on getting those Weapons of Mass destruction than putting that money back into America and getting things fixed...like heath care or the economy that collapsed.
as others have mentioned before in these debates and forums but its worth mentioning again because of what grant posted -
"Just like Aristotle warned us...A tyranny begins when someone promises to protect the rights you think you should have, but only if you agree to give up what you already have."
So if this is your real argument, and this is truly what you believe, why did nobody complain about the patriot act when that got passed? That had and has the potential to take MANY more freedoms away than this does. But i see, because it was a republican president that makes it ok.
Can you imagine if Obama tried to pass something like this? I cannot even fathom the depths people would stoop too, it would be dangerous beyond belief.
Posted By: billy (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 11:17 AM
"The Republicans love to defend the life of the unborn but I wish they cared as much for lives of the born and for the lives of the sick."
Rather a paradox: defending the lives of the unborn but being in full support of the death penalty...
Posted By: idiot savant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 11:31 AM
We will see what happens with the stock market tomorrow- we will see how much this helps the economy.
Posted By: Grant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:05 AM
In early trading Monday, the Dow is UP 38 points, the NASDAQ is UP 14 points, and the S&P is UP 4 points.
You were saying?
Posted By: idiot savant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Stop MAKIN' stuff up!!
Posted By: Parah Salin (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 11:51 AM
I find it absolutely amazing how so many neo-cons that think national healthcare is the end of the civilized world and cringe at the government controlling it. Two points; 1. You didn't find it an atrocity when the Bush/Cheney regime stripped your Constitutional rights and didn't abide by the "will of the people" when they lied, committed war crimes, and illegally invaded two countries that is still costing the United States taxpayers billions every week? and 2. I'd rather have the government control healthcare where I can vote people out and have a say if I don't like the job they are doing as opposed to having greedy private insurance and pharmaceutical companies making health care legislation -- and I can't touch them.
Posted By: Guest#0406 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Grant, as of noon the DJI is up 37 points (.35%). Probably not what you were expecting, I would like to hear your analysis as to why. I mean if you're going to use the stock market as a gauge to the success of Obama, then surely you would concede that he has been a phenominal success at president. The DJI was at 8,228 when he took office, now it's at 10,779. (that's a 31% increase). But let's all agree that the daily fluctuations of the stock market are not a good judge of any political policies (although in this case the argument would work in my favor, so maybe I should just go with what Grant said and, yes let's look at the stock market!) It's so funny that republicans hammered Obama during his first month when there was a sharp drop in the market. But really there has been no talk of it's vast improvement over the year since then. Maybe his "socialist" stimulus bill didn't destroy the economy like they said it would and actually helped the economy, like the democrats said it would. And maybe his "socialist" health care bill will help just like the democrats say it will.
Posted By: stock market (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 12:29 PM
To the history lesson douche, why don't you look up what kind of majority the Dems had? Go ahead.
If today's majority is a "super majority" then FDR had an Omega-Super-Crazy-Gigantic Majority.
SIncerely, an educated human being.
Posted By: FDR Says Hi (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:06 PM
5,000 dead soldiers and an 800 billion dollar war is a-okay, but dangit nobody will get health care on my watch!
Vote 'em out!!
Posted By: Typical Republican (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:08 PM
Isn't it funny how people will praise this bill as a landmark and people will bash it but you want to know what both sides have in common... NOBODY HAS READ THE FULL BILL! Instead of bashing each other why not try and get your own copy so you can make an informed decision. People no matter what side you're on unless you have physically read over the bill you are nothing more the sheep to your side.
Posted By: Guest#6759 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:21 PM
Idiot and Stockmarket,
Going up right off the bat kind of scares me- because the day traders are moving into pick the meat from the bones before everything starts to rot.
The true test will be if American loses its AAA rating because it just dumped a trillion dollar shit bill on the American people and the rich have to pay for it.
The last time I checked poor people don't buy stocks. Once the rich start to feel the pinch we will see what it happens...
But I will say if I am wrong if I am.
And Billy I'm not for the patriot act- I never have been.
What scares me most is that some of you do not view this as loss of freedom- it is. The government just moved in and took away your ability to handle healthcare as a grown fucking person.
They are not giving away a trillion dollar bill for free- they are making us pay for it for other people who can't afford it.
You liberals did not get what you want either. There is no public option. And this bill never would have passed without the bribes and lies...
Yet you cheer. I thought you wanted "change"? This is the future of politics.
Wait until something else passes that you don't agree with- and you can only look in the mirror.
Obama is going to bleed us all dry with paper cuts...you're too stupid to understand. You keep waiting for some massive beheading, but he wont do that. He already took over the car industry, the banks and lenders, and now healthcare.
Wait for Cap and Trade...then immigration...then education...then what? Free speech, gun control, public demonstrations? All of these things can go away with this same process.
Obama did not have the votes so he bribed our leaders and you applaud him? I would take Bush lying about a Dictator so we can remove him every single time.
Sooner or later you will be left with nothing but what the government is offering- and understand that you sold your rights for the illusion of protection...but only the protection the government allows you to have. Some of you felt threaten because you could not afford healthcare, so you turned to the one man who promised to save you from yourself. And you could argue that he did- but you also gave up your rights (and everyone elses) in the process. If you are happy with that- fine, youre an idiot. You just let Obama determine what is right for you. You did not get your public option. You have to buy insurance or get fined. You destroyed free trade. Really good job- way to fucking go You should be proud.
Read "The Republic" by Socrates...it talks about this very situation.
Posted By: Grant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:23 PM
We will see what happens with the stock market tomorrow- we will see how much this helps the economy.
Posted By: Grant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:05 AM
Granted, its only 1:35PM EST, but at present the DOW is up 51.02. Given that I suspect you love your country, I wont presume that you want to see the stock market tank.
Posted By: Guest#4787 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:36 PM
45000? How many people die every day while being fully covered?
And Joe, perhaps being upset about medicare cuts has more to do with what they are being cut FOR, rather than anything to do with medicare itself? Just a thought.
Just remember, zero times anything is zero. Even zero x 940 Billion (and almost certainly more, as the CBO scores everything on the low end, we always end up paying more).
And if the wars were illegal, why didn't the Democrats stop funding them? Why didn't folks like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards vote to authorize Bush to do it? If the Patriot Act is so freaking bad, why did the Democrats vote overwhelmingly for it? Why did Barrack Obama vote to re-authorize it? Where was the outrage then liberals? Where is the outrage now? Two wars still going on. One of which Obama has escalated. Where is the outrage? Republicans already paid for their hypocrisy. In 2006 and 2008. Now it's time for Democrats to pay for theirs. Enjoy November.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:51 PM
"Obama is going to bleed us all dry with paper cuts...you're too stupid to understand. You keep waiting for some massive beheading, but he wont do that. He already took over the car industry, the banks and lenders, and now healthcare.
Wait for Cap and Trade...then immigration...then education...then what? Free speech, gun control, public demonstrations? All of these things can go away with this same process. "
If this is REALLY what you think is going to happen than you are totally delusional.
Last I checked it was during Bush that protesters were rounded up and called un-American for disagreeing with the war.
Last I checked it was Bush that wrote the No Child Left Behind Act.
You yourself said you didn't like the patriot act, did you have the same fear when Bush was in office? Or did it just happen without you are anyone else saying anything?
Like I said if you think this is some grand plan by Obama to have the government run our lives you really need to be committed.
Posted By: Frank (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:58 PM
I believe it was Plato that penned the Republic. The worlds first fascist.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:58 PM
Read "The Republic" by Socrates...it talks about this very situation.
Posted By: Grant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:23 PM
________________________________________
By Plato, actually.
And dude, please stop alluding to classic philosophical thought as if you're some high-minded intellectual and not an ignorant tool who's seen a bunch of quotes on the internet ascribed to individuals from places on Earth you're too stupid to even know of or about.
The world laughs at you Americans who have been turned into political fanboys by the exaggerated, self-serving, monetary-orientated divisions created by the fat cats that control your country.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:00 PM
Hard to top what Grant said but I will add this: Government has had their hands up the backs of the insurance companies for the last 20-30 years. Managed care (HMO's) were the creation of Ted Kennedy. Yet all of you who were in favor of this bill were of the same notion that somehow insurance companies were running amok. The big ones were, but that's because Big Daddy government allowed them to play in the yard in exchange for stifling any competiton from springing up due to unmanageble mandates and regulations that any new entrant would have had to overcome.
Now, you applaud more of the same and in greater doses, as this bill will be the first step toward single payer down the road as the insurance companies go out of business due to the intolerable regulations that are heading their way.
The answer is less third party payer (government or insurance company) involvement, not displacing the hybrid insurance company/government monopoly with more government/total government. Restore the patient-doctor direct relationship monetarily and give people more cost transparency so they can be better informed and make better educated health care decisions for themselves and their families. When a thrid party gets involved, costs are hidden to the ultimate consumer of these services and as any economist will tell you, when you subsidize something, demand for it skyrockets.
What a shame. Happy Dependence Day!
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:16 PM
Republicans already paid for their hypocrisy. In 2006 and 2008. Now it's time for Democrats to pay for theirs. Enjoy November.
Really? REALLY?
Last I checked Obama said he was going to get Health Care done and he did. 1 down a few more to go.
Republicans haven't paid NEARLLY enough for the last 8 years. So your idea is you guys get 8 years to screw stuff up....dems get 1 year to try and fix it. Um ok then.
Republicans are the same people who will tell the little man that giving the big corporations a tax cut will benefit them, the same people who are pro-life (when it suits them), and the same people who are crying about health care now and DID NOTHING when they had power to fix it. You want to know why?
They use the uninformed little man, tell them that god is on their side and they can keep there guns and "freedo," all they have to allow is the republicans to give tax breaks to the rich, take kickbacks from corporations, and do nothing for the little man...EVER.
but hey gwpbrian keep drinking the cool aid from party that still thinks it's 1950's America and have no problem disrespecting the commander in chief, using racial slurs at lawmakers, or calling the only anti-abortion dem a baby killer!
Sounds like a good time to me, no wonder you love em!
Posted By: Republican are my heroes!! (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:20 PM
The bill is something like 2700+ pages, nobody is going to read that, and even if you did it doesn't matter unless you can enforce it. The only way to enforce it is if the statute has some method of enforcement written in, usually the AG and also a private statutory right to sue. Even if you have all that, you need to hire attorneys that are willing to take the case and work on it, and that's only worth it for class action or if the statute includes attorneys fees and a good penalty as incentive to bring a lawsuit. On top of that, if you do find an attorney that will handle it, and you do take it to court, you then have to wait a few years for it to resolve.
So the only way this thing works out is if the health care industry WILLINGLY follows the statute, and it's a well written statute. That is unlikely to happen. You're better off having the government take over if you're serious about it, but nobody wants that either.
So my solution is to just cut pretty much everything and lower taxes considerably, to give people a real shot.
Posted By: Guest#6585 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:20 PM
The health care bill is not even constitutional. There's already talk of about 30 states going to court to reverse this.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:23 PM
And if the wars were illegal, why didn't the Democrats stop funding them? Why didn't folks like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards vote to authorize Bush to do it?
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:51 PM
That's an easy one: Bush LIED
Posted By: idiot savant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:41 PM
And if the wars were illegal, why didn't the Democrats stop funding them? Why didn't folks like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards vote to authorize Bush to do it?
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 01:51 PM
That's an easy one: Bush/Cheney LIED to everyone about WMDs! If we get told that someone is going to use chemical and/or nuclear weapons against us, do you think we'd just sit there and let them do it? Bush/Cheney KNEW this but chose to lie to us instead, so a) Bush could get revenge for his daddy, and b) so Cheney could give all those no-bid contracts to Halliburton...who was STILL paying him when it happened.
I'm not really placing the blame on Bush. Cheney had him so fooled that he could get away with ANYTHING because Bush was in the dark so much of the time. Yes, Saddam is well gone, but we removed him based on a LIE...
Posted By: idiot savant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:51 PM
Yes, by Plato- about Socrates...sorry.
Posted By: Grant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:58 PM
More Rivett nonsense.
First, aren't those 45,000 people who are going to die supposed to "not get the surgery and take a pill instead?"
As far as goverment takeover, the goverment will have boards deciding weather my coverage is good enough. It gives a mandate REQUIRING coverage, backed up by 16,000 stormtropper IRS agents.
The patriot act was re-authorized by the dems. The mighty Obama voted FOR IT. You libs look ignorant when you keep bringing this nonsense up. Keep doing it, I love correcting you with the facts.
Finally, do you really think that your going to insure 32 million extra people and SAVE money? They said the same thing with social security and Medicare. They were supposed to help with the overall deficit. How did that work out?
Finally, how is 219 to 212 a comfortable margin? That four people changing their mins away from not passing. Take a Remedial math course.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 03:06 PM
Bush did not "lie" about WMD's.
The whole world thought that he had them...including Clinton. Saddam himself said during interrogation that he kept up the ruse of having WMD's because he feared another war with Iran...
Clinton bombed Iraq for not conforming to the rules of their own surrender.
When Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors the UN voted to allow military force- to maintain the rules of the surrender Saddam broke. Bush invaded on those terms.
Stop this "Bush Lied" nonsense.
Obama lied...he said this healthcare bill is not a take over, that it would be transparent, that it would be bipartisan...
The simple facts are he bought off Congress.
He paid them off to get their votes...
And he is still funding the wars, still endorsing the Patriot Act, still doing everything that Bush did that you all bitch about.
So what the hell?
It's not conservatives that are playing "go team"- its the liberals...
The problem is that this guy has not changed anything since being elected and you are all so dumb you cheer him because of his party.
Everyone who has voted for Obama should feel sorry for what just happened- not celebrate it.
None of this makes any sense. If Obama actually repealed the Patriot Act, closed GITMO, stopped funding the wars, whatever I would be pissed, but at least I could see change.
He hasn't. The only thing he has done was take control of the car industry, banks, healthcare and student loans in less than a year. And you celebrate?
Why? He has not addressed the economy, jobs, or anything else to put people back to work. Who is going to pay for all this?
Half of the States are broke and you want more welfair? Who is going to pay?
This new healthcare plan uses medicade and medicare and the States can't afford what they are paying right now. Again, who is going to pay for all this?
The "rich"? I bet Obama's tax cheating friends in Congress don't pay. Or the bankers that Dodd and Obama let get bonuses with the bailout. Or none of his movie star friends...
It will fall onto the middle class.
Obama has spent more in a year than Bush spent in 8 years for war to remove a dictator, and Obama's still spending.
You think you got healthcare- no, you got medicare...good luck with that. Good luck with pleading to the IRS to take your claim- because they are so easy to get in touch with when you need them.
Someone please defend bribing to pass this stupid bill. If it was good enough to pass why did at least six groups of Dems get paid off to support it? They voted against it before- the bill did not change- what happened? Obama happened, and he used our money to do it.
Makes me sick.
Posted By: Grant (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 03:19 PM
If Obama actually repealed the Patriot Act, closed GITMO, stopped funding the wars, whatever I would be pissed, but at least I could see change.
Really Grant? I thought you didn't agree with the patriot act...why would you be upset then?
Lie much?
Posted By: Guest#1020 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 03:29 PM
The patriot act was re-authorized by the dems. The mighty Obama voted FOR IT. You libs look ignorant when you keep bringing this nonsense up. Keep doing it, I love correcting you with the facts.
The "FACTS" are you republicans cry about freedom getting taken away but yet say nothing about this. Last I checked It isn't the democrats crying about freedom being taken away by the healthcare bill its the republicans.
Yes and the IRS has 16,000 people just waiting to turn you in for not having healthcare....there must be a special place in a mental ward for conditions like this
oh and DaMan says "Government has had their hands up the backs of the insurance companies for the last 20-30 years. "
Posted By: Republican are my heroes!! (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 03:34 PM
Let us summarize all of this...
The evil black man in charge is coming to take away all of our liberties. And we HATE HIM. even as commander in chief we cannot give him any respect (just look at the interview he gave to foxnews).
If I want to eat cake and fried chicken all day and end up in the hospital for months on end, screw you if I dont have insurance. screw you if im out of work and cannot afford my bills. It is my RIGHT as an American!!
And for all those other "people" who dont have insurance....well they clearly aren't american or from this country so who care about them. And if they are from this country, well they clearly must be a tree hugging socialist who isn't as american as me.
No you can all shut the hell up while I rub up against my gun, eat my apple pie, and get ready to rub one out to Sarah Palin
Posted By: What REALLY is going on (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 03:39 PM
"
Someone please defend bribing to pass this stupid bill. If it was good enough to pass why did at least six groups of Dems get paid off to support it? They voted against it before- the bill did not change"
uh. yes. yes, it did. sorry buddy. the anti-public option folks voted against the first one with a weak PO and voted for this one which had none at all.
Posted By: Guest#9495 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 03:40 PM
March 22, 2010. Another kick in the groin to those who value freedom.
Nothing I enjoy more than the government forcing me to buy health insurance or pay a f***ing fine.
"Pwease, pwesident Obama! Take care of me! I'm too stoopid to do it myself!"
Freaking ridiculous.
Posted By: Gustov (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 03:40 PM
And dude, please stop alluding to classic philosophical thought as if you're some high-minded intellectual and not an ignorant tool who's seen a bunch of quotes on the internet ascribed to individuals from places on Earth you're too stupid to even know of or about.
The world laughs at you Americans who have been turned into political fanboys by the exaggerated, self-serving, monetary-orientated divisions created by the fat cats that control your country.
So says the high-minded intellectual paraphrasing from ideas one would hear at a trendy coffee shop
Posted By: Ironic (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 04:02 PM
Grant, still wondering what your feelings are on the stock market performance today or since Obama took office and what the sharp increase in the performance of the market since his inaguration means as a reflection of Obama's fiscal policy? Or you can maybe just admit that suggesting the use of the short term performance of the market as a reflection of the general acceptance/ future performance of the democratic health bill was a poor suggestion on your part.
Also you just cited all the things that have not changed since Obama has taken office, and I will agree with you 100% there has been many policies still held over from the Bush years and I hope that will change in the future. But if both you and I can agree that not much has changed then will you denounce anyone who says that Obama, by following Bush's policies, is not taking the war on terror seriously (as suggested by many on the right)?
" Restore the patient-doctor direct relationship monetarily and give people more cost transparency so they can be better informed and make better educated health care decisions for themselves and their families. "
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 02:16 PM
I think this logic is severely flawed. Most people do not have the freedom to make health decisions based upon a standard cost/benefit analysis. Meaning even if they knew all the prices for all the procedures ahead of time that would not make a difference on what procedure they get. Say you get pancreatic cancer, and your only is to have your pancreas removed or you die. You don't have any choice in the matter, you have to get your pancreas removed, the cost is irrelevant. And that is true with most health care procedures. Most health care is not bought on a "want to" basis (like most consumable goods, where knowledge of price is important to do cost/benefit analysis) but health care is on a "need to" basis where you don't have the ability to shop for a cheaper alternative (ie. there is no cheap alternative to removing your pancreas, that is your only option... where with something like a tv, you can shop for a smaller tv or a less reputible brand as a cheap alternative). While I think informing the public of prices on medical procedures would be useful in terms of making more standerized rates across the country, in no way would it eliminate the need for health insurance.
Posted By: no change, still hated (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 04:05 PM
Wait, is the "Grant" that's posting Grant Muioc?
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 04:23 PM
When Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors...
________________________________________
"We expect them to accept what we have said and destroy the missiles as we have said. They have always done so in the past when UNSCOM or we requested them to do."
- Hans Blix, that faggy Eurotrash spy, 25 February 2003
"The Bush administration Friday dismissed Iraq's agreement to begin destroying prohibited missiles as a meaningless gesture designed to deceive the world about its intentions to disarm, and said it would have no bearing on U.S. determination to force a United Nations Security Council decision on going to war."
- Washington Post, 1 March 2003
During a UN briefing on Iraqi compliance with Hans Blix on March 5, 2003, he was asked if he thought inspections would last until June when his recently-renewed contract finished, to which Blix answered:
"Well, when we watch the Americans and others build up, we don't know what's going to happen. And people assume that there will be use of military force and whatever will happen with the inspection operations then, I don't know."
***
"we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by Unscom in the period 1991 to 1998.
Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome. This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."
- Hans Blix, 7th March, 2003
That being on the day the war-mongers issued an ultimatum to Iraq that effectively served as a pretext to war.
"We cannot accept an ultimatum as long as the inspectors are reporting cooperation. That would mean war."
- Dominique de Villepin, one of those pussy ass freedom-haters who got everything oh so right, 7th March, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...
The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it...
Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed...
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed."
- George W. Bush, 17th March, 2003
Invasion begins 20th March, 2003.
Don't rewrite history, dude. Shit all over the present to fuck it up for the future, but keep your misinformed mitts off the past.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 04:32 PM
For those who think the bill is too big:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019629.ph p
It equals a Young Reader book length or an Ann Rice book length. Or about an hour worth of Sean Hannity babble...what ever analogy works best for you Republicans that fear words.
Posted By: Reality (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 04:33 PM
How is goverment, who averages 80 percent adminstrative costs, going to save money by insuring 32 million new people?
Posted By: Guest#0247 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 04:46 PM
How is goverment, who averages 80 percent adminstrative costs, going to save money by insuring 32 million new people?
Posted By: Guest#1126 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 04:46 PM
Hey "Republicans are my Heroes",
Where's your evidence to the contrary that government DIDN'T have their hands up the backs of the large insurance companies for the last 20-30 years??? All I see from you is Rachel Maddow/Bill Maher-type snarkery but no ideas to support your condescension.
Man up, big guy. What you got? Besides an unhealthy desire for overeducated overlords to dominate your life. You wearing a gag ball with the Obama symbol on it as you type?
As for "No Change Still Hated" I wasn't advocating the abolition of insurance. The example you cite is a perfect example of why it's needed. But it's not needed for check-ups, blood work, sick vists, basic anti-biotics, x-rays, MRI's, most diagnostice tests, throat cultures, biopsies, flu shots, vaccinations, etc. that insurance is now forced to cover. Those are all commodity type services that free markets can lower costs of via price transparency.
There's always welfare for the dirt poor, and community hospitals/medical centers if even the basic stuff can't be paid for by them.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 05:07 PM
On one hand you have the debate over the actual value this new plan will have for our country, on the other hand you have the babykiller controversy. You know it's like, a quality buffet of grand debate vs the kid's table where they're lucky if there's any cranberry sauce left by the time it gets to them.
Calm down, settle down, stop being so damn arrogant. The best honest answer from the CBO in terms of medicare for instance and whether the 2 percent cut will be 'felt' be seniors- they don't know. And to be honest none of you know anything. This is not armageddon, nor is it peace on earth either. NOBODY got what they wanted but at least the debate is still alive.
And that in itself, a step in the right direction is a great day for America. Here are 10 things that actually will happen:
#Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool;
# Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans;
# Lower seniors' prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole;
# Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage;
# Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans;
# Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26;
# Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing;
# Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions;
# Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs.
Like I said, no it's not perfect but I'd take this than have nothing at all.
Weez
Posted By: The Weesel (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 05:50 PM
"Where's your evidence to the contrary that government DIDN'T have their hands up the backs of the large insurance companies for the last 20-30 years??? "
Point is 24 of those years were republican run white houses....so you can get off your high horse and get off blaming the "liberals" for the plight of the insurance industry and look into the mirror at your own leadership.
Got it "Big guy"?
Posted By: Republicans are my Heroes (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 05:59 PM
Only time will tell if the Republicans and the "Sky will Fall if this Passes" Tea Baggers are correct, or if the Democrats and the "This is the only thing that will keep the Sky from Falling" Crowd are right.
Posted By: Guest#8568 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 06:42 PM
How progressive to cheer the fact that the goverment for the first time is mandating your purchase of a good or service.
Hope and change......or fascism. Whichever gets Obama the love from the left. Keep selling your freedom for the comfort of living in a nanny state.
Happy dependence day.
Posted By: Guest#2078 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 07:42 PM
I can not wait for the look on these 20 somethings faces when the IRS sends them a 750 dollar tax bill for not having insurance.
Suddenly the big goverment statists won't look so good.
Meanwhile rates go up for the rest of us seeing everyone HAS to have care. Something Dems promised would not happen. You can't increase demand yet keep supply the same without rate increases or rationing. ANYONE who has taken a economics course could tell you that. Same number of doctors for 32 million new patients. Do the math.
Seems even intellectually dishonest people could see that could be a problem.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 07:56 PM
Reading this thread, I can understand why nothing productive in this country seems to get done these days.
Posted By: Guest#5295 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 08:53 PM
How progressive to cheer the fact that the goverment for the first time is mandating your purchase of a good or service.
Hope and change......or fascism. Whichever gets Obama the love from the left. Keep selling your freedom for the comfort of living in a nanny state.
Happy dependence day.
Posted By: Guest#2078 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 07:42 PM
________________________________________
God bless the United States of Glenn Beck.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 09:27 PM
How progressive to cheer the fact that the goverment for the first time is mandating your purchase of a good or service.
Hope and change......or fascism. Whichever gets Obama the love from the left. Keep selling your freedom for the comfort of living in a nanny state.
Happy dependence day.
Posted By: Guest#2078 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 07:42 PM
How about car and home insurance?
Posted By: Joe Rivett (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 11:43 PM
"Meanwhile rates go up for the rest of us seeing everyone HAS to have care. Something Dems promised would not happen. You can't increase demand yet keep supply the same without rate increases or rationing. ANYONE who has taken a economics course could tell you that. Same number of doctors for 32 million new patients. Do the math.
Seems even intellectually dishonest people could see that could be a problem."
aka
"Who cares if 30 million people don't have to worry about being denied coverage or facing bankruptcy if I might have to wait in line?!"
memememe.
Posted By: Guest#5564 (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 11:49 PM
Rivett,
Car insurance is a red herring and anyone with common sense could figure that out
One, driving is not a right, its a priviledge.
Two, I don't HAVE to have car insurance. I could not drive. I could take the bus, ride a train, take a cab, even you get the idea.
Under your thought, even if a choose not to drive or own a car, I would have to have car insurance. You do know that's stupid right?
If a choose not to have health care, its a fine.
If a choose not to purchase auto insurance, well, I just need to find other transportation.
Of course you know this, you just read the talking point on the daily Kos.
Nice try though.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 23, 2010 at 12:40 AM
also in all the hubub of the healthcare debate, guess who will be in charge of student loans once obama signs the bill tommorrow, yup that's right the government, becuase while you weren't looking and something that hasn't been discussed, as while the dems were rushing this bill to the house, they slipped in a government takeover of student loans, and most people probably didn't even know about it, and will finally know about it when the senate starts debate on the house reconsiliation bill, becuase ben nelson is going to vote against it, becuase of the government takeover of student loans, oh you probably didn't know about this unless you watched fox news, because they were the only media outlet to report this, so not only will government control banks, cars, health care, but now they'll also control student loans oh and al sharpton had the line of the night on geraldo at large last night when he came out and said it flat out "People who voted for Obama voted for Socialism" and that is not out of context it is something Sharpton did say
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on March 23, 2010 at 12:46 AM
screw this. in november i say we take the fight to the republicans and their twisted " we are all about the constitution " bullshit and they know it
Posted By: Guest#3860 (Guest) on March 23, 2010 at 12:50 AM
and i hope you like th irs, becuase they now control you're health insurance, and guess what they can control what insurance you get, becuase if they deem you're insurance is not good, the irs can issuse a tax form and dictate the insurance you get that's right, the irs are going to tell you what type of insurance you get and if you don't get the right insurance,well they can tax or fine until you get the right insurance, and so now not only will the irs have access to finacial records, but also your health insurance records, and if you don't have the proper insurance, well they'll make you change the health insurance you have, you might like it, but it they deem it unaccetable, well too bad you'll have to change plans
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on March 23, 2010 at 01:51 AM
"Two, I don't HAVE to have car insurance. I could not drive. I could take the bus, ride a train, take a cab, even you get the idea."
Just as the law requires anyone who drives to get car insurance, it will require anyone who will need medical care in their life to get health insurance. Think of it like this:
You are not forced to purchase any product. You may choose to purchase a product that will exempt you from paying a tax - because that product will mean that you will not use the product supplied by the tax. (Meaning, if you purchase health insurance, you're less likely to be going to the ER and getting expensive treatment on other taxpayers' dime. Since, you know, if you have insurance for the first time in your life, you won't have to wait until you're near death to get checked out. Your treatments will cost LESS.)
Posted By: Zack (Guest) on March 23, 2010 at 09:00 AM
Do you have a car? Because if you don't I'm guessing you live in NYC or have a drinking problem. Most Americans require automobiles to get to work, etc.
Posted By: question john (Guest) on March 23, 2010 at 09:37 AM
Whether it was Republicans or Democrats in the White House (and who was controlling Congress during this time? You know them right? The body that constitutionally is supposed to initiate laws, not the President) it sounds like you're agreeing with me that government was up the backs of the insurance companies. Thanks, that's all I needed to see. I never cared which party was up their backs.
If you're blaming Repubs for not taking the initiative on health care reform, that's fair, but that doesn't mean Obama's "solution" is the way to go. His idea of reform is government controlled single-payer and this was the first step.
Later, stud.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on March 23, 2010 at 10:11 AM
But it's not needed for check-ups, blood work, sick vists, basic anti-biotics, x-rays, MRI's, most diagnostice tests, throat cultures, biopsies, flu shots, vaccinations, etc. that insurance is now forced to cover. Those are all commodity type services that free markets can lower costs of via price transparency.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on March 22, 2010 at 05:07 PM
Ever had an MRI? X-ray? Any diagnostic tests? I have -- I just had my blood drawn YESTERDAY -- and those things are EXPENSIVE, and often one leads to another...and it doesn't take long to rack up a $5-10,000 bill. Maybe you can afford to drop $5K for these things, but many (myself included) can't. Insurance companies aren't "forced" to pay for them, IT'S WHAT THEY'RE IN BUSINESS FOR!!! People pay them premiums (if they can even GET insurance) and in return the insurance companies are supposed to cover their expenses. Or, in an ideal Republican world, people pay $1,000 a month in premiums, and when they make an insurance claim they have their policy TERMINATED or have their premiums increased by 40-50%. Is THAT what you want?
The right wingers. Those who support the wealthy and big business, and those who they scare into believing their tripe.
Posted By: idiot savant (Guest) on March 23, 2010 at 04:30 PM
Those 45,000 people dying will still do do until 2014. This thing is a steaming pile.
Posted By: Guest#4645 (Guest) on March 23, 2010 at 06:37 PM
Republicans are my heroes... Did the Democrats not win big in the Elections of 06 and 08? What more proof do you need to see that the republicans paid the price for their hypocrisy? As for the argument that the Democrats haven't been in power that long... so they should get what? Two more years to REALLY fuck things up? Quantity of time vs Quality of time? Either way you look at it, both parties suck.
And I'm told by the libs, that the Democrats are the smartest people in the world. So how is it that the smartest people in the world, couldn't see that Bush and the gang were lying to them when they gave him the authorization to go to war? Worse yet, how is it that the smartest people in the world accused him of lying to them, but never once did they turn him away when he asked them for more money to fund said war? Don't talk to me about Bush lies.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on March 23, 2010 at 09:44 PM
Hey idiot savant,
The whole point of my post was that those things are expensive because of the mandates on insurance companies to cover them. When those things are outside the scope of a third-party payer system, the prices will come down. That was my only point. But when you hide the costs of those things via insurance that MOST people pay for with paycheck deductions (their employers pay the rest) costs explode because there is no transparency to provide incentive for them to be lowered. If you disagree with that, fine. But I only suggest it so people like you and me (NOT RICH) won't have to pay such a high price for such things that really at this point should be commodities. Under the bill you seem to support, the costs for these things will not only remain high and go higher, but history shows that your access to them will also decline. In 15 years, you may look back wistfully on the days when you had to ONLY pay a few thousand bucks for a procedure that you didn't have to wait three months to have done.
We want the same things, my friend, but apparently my method means I'm out to see the poor suffer and die while your support of a method that has been proven to cause the poor to suffer and die (socialized medicine) apparently means you are better than me.
Whatever.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on March 24, 2010 at 12:55 PM
STAY CURRENT