The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I love it when people mischaracterize the opinions of a few nutjobs (i.e. "radical socialist") as the opinion of an entire movement or party. Very few play that card, though you'd like people to believe otherwise, but there are a lot of swing voters both independent and conservative who bought into the 'change' mantra and do expect some form of change from the status quo.

Here we go again.

YOU, MBBF, stated a few pages back that the insinuation was that the Dems were cancelling town halls under a faux-fear of threat and violence. Thus you insinuated that that wasnt the truth. Since then, death threats have been rampant and people have been showing up to these events with weapons. You generalized for your own gain and were patently wrong. You were shown to be wrong and instead of saying, "you know what? I was wrong," so that you could salvage a sliver of credibility you threw up your 'strawman' card and then moved on to other spin of the day.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's a BIG difference between calling a person a radical socialist and calling two of his policies socialist in nature. But don't let that get in the way of you avoiding the topic at hand. It's what you do and you do it well.

Please go back and re-address your comment about the canceling of town halls in the face of faux threat.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but is it going to provide any cost savings or would it just accelerate the Medicare-crisis that we're going to face?

There were a lot of Medicare reforms in the health care bill but Republicans didn't want to cut back on costs associated with it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Hint: They aren't interested in any healthcare bill if it means a win for Obama. Kyl and Grassley basically said as much yesterday.

Yeah, it really is time to go hand every obstructionist like Grassley a ball so they can go play in a corner while the adults negotiate a real bill.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

That strategy works relatively often (although usually after the other party has been in power for a longer period of time), but I think the GOP is probably choosing a bad time to use it because the economy is in such bad condition. Rather than present any new ideas, they seem to be (for lack of better terms) burning the clock, but that could pretty easily backfire for them if/when the economy rebounds (on its own or with the aid of gov't programs). If/when the economy improves, the Dems and Obama will, at least, have some "accomplishments" to point to (deservedly or not).

Here's where I disagree with your point. The economy is not as bad in the Heartland, where the major conservative voting base is located. There are houses being sold in the midwest for the same price they bought them for 4-5 years ago. Granted, it's no market gain, but it's certainly not a loss. The unemployment rates are lower than the national average.

Contrast this to the coastal cities where Democrat and independent voting blocks are large. They're getting hammered with large unemployment rates and property value losses of 50% or more in some cases. If that continues through summer/fall 2010, there's going to be a lot of questioning of 'what have you done for me lately?'. You can only blame Bush for so long.

[JPhillips]

Adding millions more to Medicare without tackling costs is a terrible idea, IMO. The big problem is cost containment, not extending coverage. Without serious new tax increases, in the next couple of decades Medicare faces two options, significantly reduce the growth of payouts to Pharma, hospitals, manufacturers and providers or significantly reduce coverage. We're already not focusing on tat reality clearly enough.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, it really is time to go hand every obstructionist like Grassley a ball so they can go play in a corner while the adults negotiate a real bill.

SI

But that's part of the problem. It's easy to negotiate with the Republicans and then point the finger when said negotiations falter. It's much tougher to point the finger when you turn to factions of your own party to negotiate out a bill and find that they're not willing to play ball either.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

New Poll on Health Care - NBC poll: Plurality opposes public option - First Read - msnbc.com

So, even with majorities in the poll believing every BS lie about the public option, it's still basically in a tie.

Well, yeah- that poll really hasn't moved. It's only gone 3% and that's with all the stupid going on. You get Obama out there with a clear message and a bill that people can get behind and suddenly that number goes up. A move from 46/44 to 43/47 isn't going to change a lot of Congressional votes.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

New Poll on Health Care - NBC poll: Plurality opposes public option - First Read - msnbc.com




Now, that sounds like bad news. But...





So, even with majorities in the poll believing every BS lie about the public option, it's still basically in a tie.



As a side note.







Oh, as far as the GOP comeback goes?






GRASSLEY/PALIN 2012!


[/indent]

You can't trust the change from the last poll because the changed the wording of the question. From Washington Monthly:

Respondents were asked, "Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?" Opponents outnumbered supporters.

In June, the same poll asked, "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance -- extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?"

There's still a lot of good info in the poll, but the big "news" of declining support really can't be measured when the question changes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Adding millions more to Medicare without tackling costs is a terrible idea, IMO. The big problem is cost containment, not extending coverage. Without serious new tax increases, in the next couple of decades Medicare faces two options, significantly reduce the growth of payouts to Pharma, hospitals, manufacturers and providers or significantly reduce coverage. We're already not focusing on tat reality clearly enough.

You going to be the one to assist Mr. Obama in trying to sell a significant tax increase? I'm not even sure that the rich would be able to cover that tab. We're all perfectly aware of the situation at hand regarding costs. The problem is that it's a good idea to fund those things until the government comes to ask you for a check to cover it yourself. And you've got a president who is strapped down with a promise to not raise taxes for the bottom 95%.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Adding millions more to Medicare without tackling costs is a terrible idea, IMO. The big problem is cost containment, not extending coverage. Without serious new tax increases, in the next couple of decades Medicare faces two options, significantly reduce the growth of payouts to Pharma, hospitals, manufacturers and providers or significantly reduce coverage. We're already not focusing on tat reality clearly enough.

Agreed. I just don't get the universal acceptance of lowering the Medicare age. Want to see the single largest contributor to the national debt over the next 50 years?

I guess this is why people are working so hard to get something done here. If it's already in place, it's harder to remove the plan.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Here's where I disagree with your point. The economy is not as bad in the Heartland, where the major conservative voting base is located. There are houses being sold in the midwest for the same price they bought them for 4-5 years ago. Granted, it's no market gain, but it's certainly not a loss. The unemployment rates are lower than the national average.

Contrast this to the coastal cities where Democrat and independent voting blocks are large. They're getting hammered with large unemployment rates and property value losses of 50% or more in some cases. If that continues through summer/fall 2010, there's going to be a lot of questioning of 'what have you done for me lately?'. You can only blame Bush for so long.

It's pretty equal. Red states haven't been hit as hard because they were not real prosperous before the election.

Here's a chart that really doesn't show me any trends between Red & Blue states. Seems a mix of who's being hurt.

State Unemployment, an Interactive Guide - Real Time Economics - WSJ

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You going to be the one to assist Mr. Obama in trying to sell a significant tax increase? I'm not even sure that the rich would be able to cover that tab. We're all perfectly aware of the situation at hand regarding costs. The problem is that it's a good idea to fund those things until the government comes to ask you for a check to cover it yourself. And you've got a president who is strapped down with a promise to not raise taxes for the bottom 95%.

We may all be aware of the situation, but hardly anybody wants to do anything to contain costs. Medicare, as it stands right now, is unsustainable over the next two or three decades. What's the plan to control costs?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

That's why in twenty years, this will be a one paragraph side strory in a history of Obama's first term. It's not the beginning of the end of Obama's Presidency. It's the Dog Days.

I disagree. Now maybe these couple of months are a side story. But the big picture of health care reform will be much more significant.

However, if he gets it done, it's a big paragraph looking back just as Medicare is big when you talk about LBJ. Similarly, if he doesn't get it done- it becomes a footnote but it does dog his presidency and substantially lessens what he can do moving forward in both an influence and electoral sense- think Clinton and the 1994 Congressional elections.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

New Poll on Health Care - NBC poll: Plurality opposes public option - First Read - msnbc.com

so essentially the majority of the electorate polled here is stupid?

If we're going to start denying healthcare to anyone I say we start with the percentage who apparently are unable to comprehend that shit stinks. (tongue-in-cheek).

Nice roundup - thanks Steve.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We may all be aware of the situation, but hardly anybody wants to do anything to contain costs. Medicare, as it stands right now, is unsustainable over the next two or three decades. What's the plan to control costs?

You don't want to talk to me about that. I'm the heartless bastard that would start making hard decisions in the current system to the point where people would finally bitch enough to make realistic reform a possibility. I agree that the current system has some flaws. But we're focusing on increasing coverage, not decreasing overall costs. When you see health care company stocks skyrocket after the public option is removed from the playing field, it's not hard to figure out who would win out. Fix the current issues before you propose new messes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I disagree. Now maybe these couple of months are a side story. But the big picture of health care reform will be much more significant.

However, if he gets it done, it's a big paragraph looking back just as Medicare is big when you talk about LBJ. Similarly, if he doesn't get it done- it becomes a footnote but it does dog his presidency and substantially lessens what he can do moving forward in both an influence and electoral sense- think Clinton and the 1994 Congressional elections.

SI

Agreed. This isn't nearly as much about Obama as it is about what could happen in the 2010 elections.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You don't want to talk to me about that. I'm the heartless bastard that would start making hard decisions in the current system to the point where people would finally bitch enough to make realistic reform a possibility. I agree that the current system has some flaws. But we're focusing on increasing coverage, not decreasing overall costs. When you see health care company stocks skyrocket after the public option is removed from the playing field, it's not hard to figure out who would win out. Fix the current issues before you propose new messes.

And my point is that increasing coverage is relatively easy to do, but containing costs is the more important and difficult problem.

edit: And without containing costs, expanding coverage only adds to the problem.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You don't want to talk to me about that. I'm the heartless bastard that would start making hard decisions in the current system to the point where people would finally bitch enough to make realistic reform a possibility. I agree that the current system has some flaws. But we're focusing on increasing coverage, not decreasing overall costs. When you see health care company stocks skyrocket after the public option is removed from the playing field, it's not hard to figure out who would win out. Fix the current issues before you propose new messes.

Isn't it your party who is running ads about how the government wants to ration health care and cut Medicare to scare old people? Seems hypocritical to talk about decreasing costs when actual proposals to do so have been met with massive resistance on the right side of the aisle.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You don't want to talk to me about that. I'm the heartless bastard that would start making hard decisions in the current system to the point where people would finally bitch enough to make realistic reform a possibility. I agree that the current system has some flaws. But we're focusing on increasing coverage, not decreasing overall costs. When you see health care company stocks skyrocket after the public option is removed from the playing field, it's not hard to figure out who would win out. Fix the current issues before you propose new messes.

increasing coverage is one part of decreasing overall costs (economies of scale, better bargining power, etc).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And my point is that increasing coverage is relatively easy to do, but containing costs is the more important and difficult problem.

edit: And without containing costs, expanding coverage only adds to the problem.

And I agree with you. Perhaps your hang-up is my comment regarding Medicare. I think it's a better option than what is being proposed, but it's still a lousy option and I think that's the point you're making.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

increasing coverage is one part of decreasing overall costs (economies of scale, better bargining power, etc).

You're a very naive individual if you believe that will be the result. It's all about more profits. Pure and simple.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Essentially, yes. I wouldn't call people stupid, just busy and uninformed. I'm lucky in that I have the time to geek out over stuff like this. The family with three kids, soccer practice, cheerleading, both parents working, and dinner simply don't.

Eh, I'd say stupid.

As I've heard numerous commentators say on many programs "don't you think if there were death panels out there in the bill to try to kill old people the media members who are old, or those of us with parents, would be out there in front leading the charge against it?"

It's really pretty simple when it comes to some of the more "radical" claims - does it past the "common sense" test? And the mainstream media is starting to do a better job now of highlighting when these crazy claims don't.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're a very naive individual if you believe that will be the result. It's all about more profits. Pure and simple.

profits for who? the government isn't going to make a profit on it.

as you said in your last post - with the public option removed, drug company stocks went WAYYYY up. That indicates that drug companies fear the public option because their profits would be LOWER if/when that comes about.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Isn't it your party who is running ads about how the government wants to ration health care and cut Medicare to scare old people? Seems hypocritical to talk about decreasing costs when actual proposals to do so have been met with massive resistance on the right side of the aisle.

LOL, which party is mine? I'm not running any ads and I certainly don't agree with any of those assertions.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're a very naive individual if you believe that will be the result. It's all about more profits. Pure and simple.

MBBF Credibility Measure:

12 / 100

Reason for the drop in score, is that he called another individual naive eventhough DT's statement is a guess as to the future thus MBBF is saying he knows the future and the outcome. This is exacerbated negatively by the fact that MBBF has almost exclusively been wrong since the campaign season and events thereafter even in the face of empirical data.

And the above comment about "which party is mine?" may not be topped in ridiculousness for post of the day.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

profits for who? the government isn't going to make a profit on it.

as you said in your last post - with the public option removed, drug company stocks went WAYYYY up. That indicates that drug companies fear the public option because their profits would be LOWER if/when that comes about.

Actually, that means that the investors fear the public option for those companies. Drug companies have little say in what the investors do.

Sure, the government doesn't run a profit. But there are a lot of hands on the various pieces of those payouts/coverage. There's still a ton of money to be had. It just changes the method to get ahold of that money. Even in a public option, the private sector plays a major part in it. And we're not even factoring in the increased tag that the large majority of Americans would have to pay to fund it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

LOL, which party is mine? I'm not running any ads and I certainly don't agree with any of those assertions.

Oh you don't have a party. Just post the daily talking points for one every morning by pure coincidence. The health care proposal you've been railing against has massive reforms for Medicare in it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not too sure how that's your interpretation of a none too subtle reminder that that the right to bear arms gives a certain amount (albeit woefully insufficient) protection against the tyranny of government but ... okay, whatever works for you I guess.

And my crack isn't about 2A either. I believe in it and wish I was allowed to own a handgun in my city.

Living here though, you hear on the news all the time about pointless deaths from gang shootings. These gangs literally drive through neighborhoods and just fire away to scare residents and rival gangs. They don't care if they hit someone innocent. They also never seem to actually get in physical fights with one another. It all has to be settled driving by in a car with a gun.

I guess I always just looked at it as a pussy way of fighting. Firing a gun at someone and driving away seems like a cowardly way to fight. Stepping up in front of someones face with nothing but your fists seems like a more honorable way.

So my gripe isn't with guns, it's with the glorification of them. I don't consider someone who carries a gun around to be tough. I consider the guy who can flatten someone with their fists to be tough. Brock Lesnar = tough, skinnny gangbanger with gun = pussy.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Actually, that means that the investors fear the public option for those companies. Drug companies have little say in what the investors do.

Really? You're really going to try to spin that?
The investors are better informed than you or I. Particularly to move the needle so much on companies with such large market caps - we're talking very large sums of money. If the sophisticated investors fear the public option for those companies then you can be sure the companies do as well, because that much $$ doesn't move until multiple people have talked to multiple CFO's and CEO's.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Sure, the government doesn't run a profit. But there are a lot of hands on the various pieces of those payouts/coverage. There's still a ton of money to be had. It just changes the method to get ahold of that money. Even in a public option, the private sector plays a major part in it.

valid, if obvious point.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And we're not even factoring in the increased tag that the large majority of Americans would have to pay to fund it.

completely irrelevent to the discussion we were having, but way to throw it in there.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Oh you don't have a party. Just post the daily talking points for one every morning by pure coincidence. The health care proposal you've been railing against has massive reforms for Medicare in it.

So if I'm for a particular policy and a party favors my stance, that means I'm part of that party? Interesting take. I'll play your game.

I'm against:

Current health care bill
Increased spending
Anything using 'global warming' as a basis

I'm for:

Pro-choice
Legalization of drugs
Pro-gay marriage
Stem-cell research

With those stances, I'm more likely to get invited to run as a Democrat than a Republican. But I'd probably not be accepted by either in the end.

[Flasch186]

62% (New NBC Poll as quoted on CNBC) of Congressional Republicans ALSO are getting a disapproval on how theyre handling healthcare reform. Obama's numbers arent good either but it, AGAIN, lets all know that MBBF is wrong in what he says about how this is effecting all involved.

Full poll:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...9/2036015.aspx

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Really? You're really going to try to spin that?
The investors are better informed than you or I. Particularly to move the needle so much on companies with such large market caps - we're talking very large sums of money. If the sophisticated investors fear the public option for those companies then you can be sure the companies do as well, because that much $$ doesn't move until multiple people have talked to multiple CFO's and CEO's.

completely irrelevent to the discussion we were having, but way to throw it in there.

I don't disagree with your first point. Just clarifying that the company technically does not make that money move.

It's not irrelevant. It's actually very important. I'm going to be footing the bill for other people under that system. I'm not very happy about it.

[Flasch186]

you already do.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't disagree with your first point. Just clarifying that the company technically does not make that money move.

It's not irrelevant. It's actually very important. I'm going to be footing the bill for other people under that system. I'm not very happy about it.

you're already footing the bill for countless government programs. If the cost savings accomplished by doing this keep your bill the same or simply result in a reallocation of where the money collected from you is going, what's the problem?

[DaddyTorgo]

lol i was quick but not quick enough.

sometimes i think if people don't want to live in a shared society we should just cut off their access to police/fire department/schools/public roads/etc and just let them live as hermits off in the woods

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Eh, I'd say stupid.

As I've heard numerous commentators say on many programs "don't you think if there were death panels out there in the bill to try to kill old people the media members who are old, or those of us with parents, would be out there in front leading the charge against it?"

It's really pretty simple when it comes to some of the more "radical" claims - does it past the "common sense" test? And the mainstream media is starting to do a better job now of highlighting when these crazy claims don't.

That poll wasn't about death panels, it was about the public option in general.

It's interesting to see the decreasing support. Do you think Democrats can change people's minds by calling them stupid? Good luck with that. It's stilll why I think Dems haven't even been more successful, and I especially think it cost them the election in '04. "We smarter than you, you're morons, hey come vote with us!".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You "foot the bill" for many, many things. That's the idea of a shared society. Schools, fire departments, police departments, roads, bus services, etc., etc., etc.

Hell, right now you're footing the bill for uninsured people because guess what, those unpaid bills? The hospitals and doctors and insurance companies are shifting the cost to people who are insured.

That's even ignoring the fact the current public option is funded by surcharges on the top 1% and cost savings built in to the system.

There's obviously a big difference between things like fire, police, roads, etc. and what we're discussing here. I realize I'm already footing the bill for some uninsured. I know exactly where it's going, probably far more than most people. The abuse of that setup is frightening.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

That poll wasn't about death panels, it was about the public option in general.

It's interesting to see the decreasing support. Do you think Democrats can change people's minds by calling them stupid? Good luck with that. It's stilll why I think Dems haven't even been more successful, and I especially think it cost them the election in '04. "We smarter than you, you're morons, hey come vote with us!".

The largest majorities since the Great Society isn't enough for you?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Where exactly are we going, oh wise one?

pretty sure he meant he was familiar with where the $$ was going...not the country

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You "foot the bill" for many, many things. That's the idea of a shared society. Schools, fire departments, police departments, roads, bus services, etc., etc., etc.

Hell, right now you're footing the bill for uninsured people because guess what, those unpaid bills? The hospitals and doctors and insurance companies are shifting the cost to people who are insured.

That's even ignoring the fact the current public option is funded by surcharges on the top 1% and cost savings built in to the system.

What's the logic there - if you foot the bill for one thing you have to want to foot it for anything else that anyone comes up with?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's obviously a big difference between things like fire, police, roads, etc. and what we're discussing here. I realize I'm already footing the bill for some uninsured. I know exactly where it's going, probably far more than most people. The abuse of that setup is frightening.

A serious question: why? In the nineteenth century most areas had private fire companies, but they were phased out in favor of a public setup. There are a number of private security firms that theoretically could take over all policing. Roads have privatized all over the country under toll models. Other than we're used to largely public roads, fire/police protection, what's the difference?

[DaddyTorgo]

you forgot to add in your example "total cost TO TAXPAYERS"

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's obviously a big difference between things like fire, police, roads, etc. and what we're discussing here. I realize I'm already footing the bill for some uninsured. I know exactly where it's going, probably far more than most people. The abuse of that setup is frightening.

What is the difference? I mean doesn't the police and health care have a lot in common? Both essentially are there to protect you. Don't see why one is treated so differently than the other. You do appear to be against socialism, so clearly you must feel that private law enforcement companies being paid on a retainer by citizens is a more ample solution.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

pretty sure he meant he was familiar with where the $$ was going...not the country

Correct.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Same basic question then. Right now, a guy w/out insurance gets a bad cough. He ignores it. It gets worse. He takes a few days off of work. It gets even worse. He finally goes to an ER. Waits eight hours. Get's diagnosed with bronhitis/pnuemonia/whatever. Has to stay in the hospital for a few days. Total costs = Thousands.

Under the public option, guy gets a bad cough. Goes to the doctor/nurse practitioner. He gets antibiotics. Total cost. Thirty bucks.

Yet, the second system is worse?

Geez, anyone can come up with one fictional anecdotal example to support their point.

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

-The guy is going to be able to see a public option doctor immediately for a "cough"? I can't even get into a private doctor that fast.
-What's his income level? If he's not poor and his premiums have to subdizide the poor for this thing to be "self-sufficient", how do you know he's only paying $30?
-Is he using the public option because his company dropped health care? Is he paying more out-of-pocket than he did previously?
-Will nobody in the U.S. ever put off going to the doctor anymore?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What is the difference? I mean doesn't the police and health care have a lot in common? Both essentially are there to protect you. Don't see why one is treated so differently than the other. You do appear to be against socialism, so clearly you must feel that private law enforcement companies being paid on a retainer by citizens is a more ample solution.

In an ideal situation, I would be for private law enforcement. I think my personal interests would be better served. But unlike Mr. Obama, I'm also fully aware that my ideal situation would never be realized. There's far too many opportunities for corruption that arise. It's not an option.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's far too many opportunities for corruption that arise. It's not an option.

sounds like you're talking about private healthcare

[Flasch186]

Holy Smokes

10:38am on CNBC Mark Haines eviscerated a bill opponent and bear in mind that I think Haines isn't a big fan of the reform bills.

He got the guy to admit that even with reform people with money will be able to afford whatever care they want because rationing already occurs by the bureaucrats at the insurance companies and that the opponent basically is making an argument that is easy...if you have money.

A brutal and awesome segment that, sadly, very few people saw

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

sounds like you're talking about private healthcare

How many times do I need to say it? I'm not crazy about the current setup, but the alternative being provided does not give a better option to the status quo.