Page 64 of 71 FirstFirst ... 14545960616263646566676869 ... LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,280 of 1405
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1261  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Hopeful? The only thing conservatives are hopeful about is that there will be no health care reform at all, or that it will do nothing for the uninsured, as the house republican bill demonstrated.
    Yes, given the choice between nothing or this total sham--I'll take nothing. Instead of considering that the reason that this is the fight it is, is BECAUSE there is so much lying and manipulation and unnecessary garbage in this, which is what is BLOCKING reform.

    The Congress is attempting to hold a gun to this Nation's head--threatening, that if you don't accept their schemes (filled with problems and damage), then we can't get something at all, and you are nodding along with them.

    That's not reality--that's simply a demand. THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS, and people who are too trusting of liars are keeping them from becoming reality.

    You just keep on blaming the Republicans, and ignoring that Actual reform could have been done in a bipartisan way (which is what was promised, and NEVER honestly pursued, and I suspect never intended), and real progress could have been made in many areas where there is agreement.

    Instead, the Democrats choose to use this as an excuse to do what they always do--gather more and more power, expand government, put more money in government hands. Its the same old story, different wedge.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 11/20/2009 at 12:11 PM.
  2. #1262  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    First--this person is a DEMOCRAT, not a Republican.

    Secondly, I'm a conservative and I want actual reform, so you are wrong. Why do you keep on forwarding this false premise? We don't agree with the politicians that are pushing a plan that we believe is more damaging than helpful. Why can't you understand this as a position, even if you disagree with it.

    Massive lobbying, influence peddling? Don't lie to yourself--the Democrats are ALL about lobbyists and influence peddling--they are just different from the ones you dislike. You've got a dangerously naive position if you think that Democrats are some champions of the people against "influence peddlers." Again--you aren't stupid, you can't believe this.

    The CBO...again, please be honest about this. The Congress delivers the CBO selective information in order to get the result they want, and then change it however they wish. Its not the CBOs fault, but they are being manipulated very plainly. Again--let's not lie to ourselves here. The CBO is only able to rate what they are given, and the bills can be amended at the drop of a hat (and have been).

    The Congress is putting in hundreds of pages of amendments (often in the middle of the night) and these RADICALLY change these CBO estimates. The problem isn't at the CBO--its that we have totally dishonest politicians.

    The "data" the CBO has is picked and chosen to give the result that they think is acceptable.

    Further--let's expose the "doesn't increase the deficit" distortion here too. Even if that were true (which is highly unlikely), it DOES NOT MEAN THE COSTS ARE LESS. You know as well as I do (because you've stated it here) that these plans are going to cost more--a lot more. That's what the Article points out--that this MASSIVE LIE regarding saving money is just that--a lie, designed to fool the citizens of this country.

    If these politicians were honest, and said "we aren't saving money--this will cost more" they've have even less support than they do now, given that this is a major concern. So, you can't rightfully sit there and tell me that these politicians are doing what's best, when they can't even be honest about a central premise of the whole "reform" plan.

    NONE of these plans SAVES money--it just shifts money around--including collecting more (via, taxes, fees, penalties) from the taxpayer. It would be extremely unwise to trust politicians who are lying about a primary element (saving money) that the rest will just magically work out.

    KAM
    I wasn't referring to the person. I'm glad that democrats are provided the freedom to express their own opinion and not some centralized dogma. It's the lockstepped republicans that are killing the bill. Yes, there are enough democratic votes if they get them all....but it's irrational to think that 100% of all republicans in their hearts feel this is a horrible bill, given some of the districts they represent in the south.

    Yes, I have been honest about the cost, but I think if people would understand some of the things we've been discussing here about how to use scientific evidence to make health care decisions, they would understand why it's possible to save a considerable amount of money by limiting therapies and testing that does not provide a proven benefit. And lastly, "just moving money around" is fine with me....because the byproduct is that millions and millions of people without health care will be eligible to get it.

    Addendum: you must be kidding about any possible chance of reform as long as any republican control exists in any house. Have you seen any attempts at reform from the republicans in the past thirty years? They will never favor substantive reform. Ever. The "reform" the republicans offer is a joke, an absolute joke. It does nothing, and they will never agree to what needs to be done.
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1263  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I wasn't referring to the person. I'm glad that democrats are provided the freedom to express their own opinion and not some centralized dogma. It's the lockstepped republicans that are killing the bill. Yes, there are enough democratic votes if they get them all....but it's irrational to think that 100% of all republicans in their hearts feel this is a horrible bill, given some of the districts they represent in the south.
    Yes, this is how this works, they need to keep their majority, so they allow a certain number of their members to oppose something, while holding others feet to the fire (and increasing the chances these blue-dog types aren't booted next year). They don't care if they win by 1 vote or 100, as long as they win. This is politics, and the citizens just pay.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yes, I have been honest about the cost, but I think if people would understand some of the things we've been discussing here about how to use scientific evidence to make health care decisions, they would understand why it's possible to save a considerable amount of money by limiting therapies and testing that does not provide a proven benefit. And lastly, "just moving money around" is fine with me....because the byproduct is that millions and millions of people without health care will be eligible to get it.
    I don't have a problem with that, BUT we must understand that these are (and must remain) individual choices, even if it disagrees with statistical analysis, because as you know--you don't treat statistics, you treat patients. I'm sure we agree on that.

    As far as "moving money around." If this were restricted to the massive amount of money they already collect for Healthcare, I'd relent. If it would lead to long term reductions in cost I'd be on board even. That's not likely, and not really the goal.

    Moving money around is probably too generous a term--using money they don't have (and we don't have) is likely more accurate. Even with the current level of spending we are headed for broke, so the ABSOLUTE costs MUST come down. Again, it is highly unlikely (in my view) that the costs are even going to remain level, so we're going the wrong direction financially.

    If all this was, was the government rearranging how money is currently spent in government run healthcare, and the result was that they could use the same resources to help more people, I'd say fine. Not optimal, but no additional damage, but that's not what this is.

    I'd even be satisfied if they said, Government spending on Healthcare is X% GDP (take a 10 year average or something), and that's what it will be, period. That's what they have to work with, and that's it. Then, I say, go to town. Having a Budget that they need to keep would likely lead to efficiency. Not as good as a fully functional free market, but good enough for me. I should note--that as GDP grows, so do the actual dollars for these programs.

    If they are telling the truth, and can be more efficient, and effective, then this should work just fine. If they aren't, then of course it won't. Why not build in this "keeping them honest" function? This should go for ALL government spending--cap the Government budget as a percentage of GDP, and make them live like every other entity--on a budget.

    The alternative--which is what is being proposed--no limits and the illusion that they can just keep printing, or borrowing or taxing to get more money without consequences.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 11/20/2009 at 12:29 PM.
  4. #1264  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, this is how this works, they need to keep their majority, so they allow a certain number of their members to oppose something, while holding others feet to the fire (and increasing the chances these blue-dog types aren't booted next year). They don't care if they win by 1 vote or 100, as long as they win. This is politics, and the citizens just pay.



    I don't have a problem with that, BUT we must understand that these are (and must remain) individual choices, even if it disagrees with statistical analysis, because as you know--you don't treat statistics, you treat patients. I'm sure we agree on that.

    As far as "moving money around." If this were restricted to the massive amount of money they already collect for Healthcare, I'd relent. If it would lead to long term reductions in cost I'd be on board even. That's not likely, and not really the goal.

    Moving money around is probably too generous a term--using money they don't have (and we don't have) is likely more accurate. Even with the current level of spending we are headed for broke, so the ABSOLUTE costs MUST come down. Again, it is highly unlikely (in my view) that the costs are even going to remain level, so we're going the wrong direction financially.

    If all this was, was the government rearranging how money is currently spent in government run healthcare, and the result was that they could use the same resources to help more people, I'd say fine. Not optimal, but no additional damage, but that's not what this is.

    I'd even be satisfied if they said, Government spending on Healthcare is X% GDP (take a 10 year average or something), and that's what it will be, period. That's what they have to work with, and that's it. Then, I say, go to town. Having a Budget that they need to keep would likely lead to efficiency. Not as good as a fully functional free market, but good enough for me. I should note--that as GDP grows, so do the actual dollars for these programs.

    If they are telling the truth, and can be more efficient, and effective, then this should work just fine. If they aren't, then of course it won't. Why not build in this "keeping them honest" function? This should go for ALL government spending--cap the Government budget as a percentage of GDP, and make them live like every other entity--on a budget.

    The alternative--which is what is being proposed--no limits and the illusion that they can just keep printing, or borrowing or taxing to get more money without consequences.

    KAM
    I honestly believe that Medicare is one of the most efficient ways to provide care to large numbers of people. It maintains patient choice, the reimbursements are reasonable, the patients who use it are very positive about it. The problem with Medicare is not inefficiency, it's fraud and the reluctance to crack down on excessive costs by providers who game the system. The overhead, regardless of the fact that it may be difficult to describe accurately, is no doubt considerably less than private insurers, by as much as half, and they pay on time more than many private insurers do. While you may complain about the costs making it unsustainable, remember that to some extent, the budget was dramatically impacted by a drug benefit that refused to allow the government to negotiate with drug companies. I believe that expansion of Medicare is the best solution to our health care problems. I believe I said that in the first post I ever made on this forum, and I still believe that. When control of the program is handed over to professionals and not career appointees who are reluctant to change anything, I am confident a lot of money can be saved. Does that mean no more money will be needed? Probably not....but that is not my major issue.
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1265  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I honestly believe that Medicare is one of the most efficient ways to provide care to large numbers of people. It maintains patient choice, the reimbursements are reasonable, the patients who use it are very positive about it. The problem with Medicare is not inefficiency, it's fraud and the reluctance to crack down on excessive costs by providers who game the system. The overhead, regardless of the fact that it may be difficult to describe accurately, is no doubt considerably less than private insurers, by as much as half, and they pay on time more than many private insurers do.
    About patients being positive...not surprising--its "free," except it isn't of course. I'm not saying they hate the care and only like it because it is free, rather, not paying for something is a pretty strong benefit in judging it.

    I am not sure what the costs of Medicare administration are, because the government doesn't follow the rules everyone else is held to. Is it less? How can we tell, when they aren't following the same rules.

    Fraud yes, and given that for all these years this has not been successfully addressed, that makes me skeptical about whether they will be.

    Also, don't forget that Reform proponents are telling us how much money we are wasting, and again I ask--if we know about it and can fix it, then why hasn't it been fixed. Likely, the answer is that it isn't all that easy.


    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    While you may complain about the costs making it unsustainable, remember that to some extent, the budget was dramatically impacted by a drug benefit that refused to allow the government to negotiate with drug companies. I believe that expansion of Medicare is the best solution to our health care problems. I believe I said that in the first post I ever made on this forum, and I still believe that. When control of the program is handed over to professionals and not career appointees who are reluctant to change anything, I am confident a lot of money can be saved. Does that mean no more money will be needed? Probably not....but that is not my major issue.
    For the record, I wasn't for that drug benefit either. I'm well aware that you prefer the medicare model and if that works for those who want it, and it doesn't cost more, then go ahead. Again--that's not all they are proposing.

    KAM
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1266  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    How can Repubs continue to support pouring trillion dollars into two wars (without ONCE considering the cost) yet go against health care reform which will bring insurance to millions of Americans and talk about how much it's going to be about cost.

    Could it be that's it's not about cost at all--it's about how much money the backers of Republicans make on the war and stand to lose with healthcare reform....hmmm, now it's all clear.
    You forgot to bring up the "Bush lied, people died" part. Try to stay on message?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. #1267  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    NEW GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY TO TAKE OVER AND RATION HEALTHCARE:

    The latest recommendation on PAP smears, from the INDEPENDENT American College of OB/GYNs, is now recommending PAP smears much less frequently.

    Let's see how the Republicans twist this into a Government conspiracy to kill us all!
    Well not men, just the women. Not sure why the Government is targeting women though.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  8. RPFTW's Avatar
    Posts
    11 Posts
    Global Posts
    13 Global Posts
    #1268  
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1269  
    Health care and illegal immigrants in America: why Mexico is the key | csmonitor.com

    ...there's something that might help solve part of the problem, satisfying both Democrats and Republicans: a campaign by Mexican officials to improve the state of healthcare in their own country.

    Mexico's healthcare system is corrupt, unwieldy, and grossly underfunded – and it's costing American taxpayers big-time. Consider this: The Mexican government spends $535 per capita on healthcare, yet American taxpayers fork out more than $1,100 in healthcare for the 12 million-plus illegal aliens in the US – most of whom are Mexicans who are uninsured or on Medicaid illegally.

    Mexico's poor quality of healthcare is a forgotten factor that drives so many Mexicans across the border. As things stand now, illegal immigrants – like all who show up – cannot be turned away from hospital emergency rooms, for anything from a broken bone to illness and pregnancies. Each year, about 1 in 10 births in this country are to illegal aliens.
    More lessons to learn...

    The Health Workers' Union has gained one benefit after another since its founding in 1944. Not only do union members boast tenured positions, relative high salaries, free medical care for themselves and their families, generous Christmas bonuses, and additional compensation for arriving at work on time, but their retirement plan is one of the most attractive in the country. The lion's share of the nation's 374,000 union members can retire with pensions in their mid-50s compared with the minimum retirement age of 65 for most other Mexicans
  10. #1270  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well not men, just the women. Not sure why the Government is targeting women though.
    Congrats on the win yesterday. Now if you can just pay attention: nobody is targeting women. There are no recommendations to even screen men for prostate cancer at all by the task force. Science changes. Recommendations need to change. The task force recs are based on science, not politics and especially not related to gender.

    In fact, the 16 members of the task force happen to be 8 women and 8 men. You really think the 8 women, leaders in American medicine, are going to change recommendations for women's screening recommendations if there weren't good scientific reasons to do so?

    Members: US PSTF
  11. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1271  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    In fact, the 16 members of the task force happen to be 8 women and 8 men. You really think the 8 women, leaders in American medicine, are going to change recommendations for women's screening recommendations if there weren't good scientific reasons to do so?
    I don't get what you're implying here. Are women morally superior when dealing with women's health issues than men? If that's what you're saying, how far can we take that logic?
  12. #1272  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I don't get what you're implying here. Are women morally superior when dealing with women's health issues than men? If that's what you're saying, how far can we take that logic?
    Everyone, Clemgrad included, seems to think that this decision is oppressive to women. His post stated that "the government seems to be targeting women, not men". "The government" is the task force and for that to be true, the 8 women members of the task force are targeting women for cost-savings reasons. That is irrational. In fact, it's ridiculous. And even calling the task force "the government" is ridiculous. Not one of the members work for the government, or even live in the DC area. All are prominent academic physicians who are only interested in what is best for the population....not what is best for any political party, believe it or not.

    Now do you understand?
  13. #1273  
    Dr. Susan Love is one of, if not the most prominent breast cancer specialist in the US. Author of a number of books and running a foundation dedicated to breast cancer, she had this to say about the screening issues. She is 100% correct.

    Dr. Susan Love, a nationally recognized expert who heads a foundation dedicated to finding the cause of breast cancer, said on her blog that the original decision to routinely screen women under 50 was not based on evidence and "never unanimously supported."

    Mammography in women under 50 "doesn't work very well," she wrote. Not only does it miss many cancers, thus "giving a false sense of security," it also detects "many things that are not cancer" that must be checked.

    "I hear your anger," she wrote. "I'm angry too. But not for the same reason. I'm angry because we've oversold the benefits of mammography to the extent that there is no longer room to look objectively at the evidence....We need to put our efforts to finding something better."
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1274  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Everyone, Clemgrad included, seems to think that this decision is oppressive to women. His post stated that "the government seems to be targeting women, not men". "The government" is the task force and for that to be true, the 8 women members of the task force are targeting women for cost-savings reasons. That is irrational. In fact, it's ridiculous. And even calling the task force "the government" is ridiculous. Not one of the members work for the government, or even live in the DC area. All are prominent academic physicians who are only interested in what is best for the population....not what is best for any political party, believe it or not.

    Now do you understand?
    No, not really. You've only confounded the issue further by implying that its more irrational for female members of the panel to target woman than it is for male members to target women and, in the same breath, state that all of these people are "prominent academic physicians who are only interested in what is best for the population..." If the former were true it can not be used as a basis on which to claim the latter.
  15. #1275  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    No, not really. You've only confounded the issue further by implying that its more irrational for female members of the panel to target woman than it is for male members to target women and, in the same breath, state that all of these people are "prominent academic physicians who are only interested in what is best for the population..." If the former were true it can not be used as a basis on which to claim the latter.
    Actually, if I wanted to pretend I was Toby, I would continue the discussion of the semantics of what I was implying, which seems quite clear to me. I was simply stating that it is unlikely the panel is "targeting women". Take that and do what you want with it.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1276  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Actually, if I wanted to pretend I was Toby, I would continue the discussion of the semantics of what I was implying, which seems quite clear to me. I was simply stating that it is unlikely the panel is "targeting women". Take that and do what you want with it.
    Got it. I thought you were saying its unlikely precisely because half the panel is female. If that's not what you're saying then its my mistake.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1277  
    Health Care Reform
    Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low
    Monday, November 23, 2009

    Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Thatís the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

    Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.

    Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

    Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nationís health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

    Rasmussen Reports is continuing to track public opinion on the health care plan on a weekly basis. Next weekís Monday morning update will give an indication of whether these numbers reflect a trend of growing opposition or are merely statistical noise.

    Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.

    As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 73% of those in the presidentís party. The plan is opposed by 83% of Republicans and 70% of unaffiliated voters.

    Other recent polling shows that Democrats consider health care reform to be the top priority for the president. Republicans and unaffiliated voters see deficit reduction as most important.

    Among the nationís senior citizens, 34% favor the health care plan and 60% are opposed. A majority of those under 30 favor the plan (Comment: This speaks volumes.. the most inexperienced group), but a majority of all other age groups are opposed.

    Support for health care has declined along with President Obama's approval ratings. For the first time in the Obama era, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days.

    Despite the decline in support for the health care plan, 50% still say it is at least somewhat likely to become law this year. That figure includes 17% who say passage is Very Likely.

    While Senate Democrats this weekend assembled enough votes to begin debate on the plan, many challenges remain. All Republican Senators and several Democrats, for example, have expressed opposition to the so-called ďpublic option.Ē Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a "public option" government-run health insurance company. Most liberal voters say giving people the choice of a "public option" is more important. But most moderates take the opposite view and say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance is the top priority.

    Overall, 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. However, if the plan encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.

    As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: ďThe most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. Ö Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.Ē

    Other challenging issues in the Senate debate include abortion and illegal immigration. Ever since the House's passage of the Stupak Amendment which says the "public option" would not cover elective abortions and that recipients of federal insurance subsidies could not use them to buy abortion coverage, the divide among Democrats has been visible.

    Earlier polling showed that 48% nationwide favored the abortion ban, but most supporters of health care reform didnít want to address the issue. Just 13% of all voters wanted abortion coverage mandated in the legislation.

    On immigration, 83% say that proof of citizenship should be required before anyone can get health care assistance from a government program. Most Democrats while claiming the plan will not cover illegal immigrants are opposed to including a proof-of-citizenship stipulation. (Comment: Classic liberal lip-service!)

    Other polling shows that 47% trust the private sector more than government to keep health care costs down and the quality of care up. Two-thirds (66%) say an increase in free market competition will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs.

    While voters are skeptical of the plan working its way through Congress, 54% say major changes are needed in the health care system. Sixty-one percent (61%) say itís important for Congress to pass some reform.

    Only 31% believe Congress has a good understanding of the proposed health care reform.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1278  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    You hate big government? You hate lots of money spent by government? You can't just blame this one--THEY ALL DO IT.
    Yeah, that's why I said "just like always." So much for "change" huh? I'd bet those people who believed that empty mantra feel stupid.

    KAM
  19. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1279  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Health Care Reform
    Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low
    Monday, November 23, 2009
    ...
    Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nationís health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.
    Interesting. That new number means the current proposal has lost favor among many of those who pay no taxes whatsoever.

    On immigration, 83% say that proof of citizenship should be required before anyone can get health care assistance from a government program. Most Democrats while claiming the plan will not cover illegal immigrants are opposed to including a proof-of-citizenship stipulation. (Comment: Classic liberal lip-service!)
    It should be pointed out that even proof of citizenship means nothing. A citizenship requirement will never pass the Senate floor. At the most would be a proof of legal residency. And, as I've said before, if health care reform is passed and then followed by amnesty, most of those who are illegal immigrants now will be legal residents then. Nothing else about there situation will have changed.

    Only 31% believe Congress has a good understanding of the proposed health care reform.
    I'd be interested in seeing what percentage of people think Congress has even read the proposal, let alone understands it.
  20.    #1280  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Thatís the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
    You don't get it. The people are too dumb to know what is good for them. They are just being scared away by those right wing liars.

    Besides, it doesn't matter what the people want. Congress wants this passed and is willing to pay bribes to any congressman (or congresswoman) for their vote. I can't wait to get my $300 Million. Thanks Mary!

Posting Permissions