So when Obama says I can keep my doctor.....

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj


Republicans love corporate pork. For some reason, they hate government pork. I wonder why that is?

If you understood the foundations of the party you would already know the answer to your question.

They're war profiteers?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
I love how all the Obama and Democrats bashers' solution to health care still relies on Obama and Democrats to come up with one. At least you guys realize that the other party has nothing to offer on the subject.

[L=oh really?]

Yes really. Where was this plan when GOP was in position to pass it?
Instead they voted to spend $1T on Medicare prescription drug benefit with no cost controls.
Seems like a diversion that they are only interested in proposing when there is no chance of it passing.

And where are the cost controls in the Dems proposal, hmmm?

Are you for rationing to control costs? What kind of cost controls are you proposing beyond what's in the bill?

Rationing already exists...

So, is it OK if public option rations care to control costs or not? Simple yes or no answer please.

Its not a yes or no question. Rationing does NOT control costs. So I guess the answer is no, since public option rationing WONT control costs.

Utterly false. Rationing absolutely controls costs. I'm not sure where you picked up that nonsense.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp


And? What about 1994-2006? Where was the Republican health care reform, and what has it accomplished?

So basically - bu, bu, but Bush/GOP?

I'm using your own talking points against you that things have changed, you're talking 15 years ago. According to Obama we are now in a crisis and must act immediately to eliminate private insurance for a single payer government controlled plan.

The people do not want this. Flat out, what the house has proposed is being exposed and the people are fighting against it. Poll, after poll, after poll. DO NOT WANT.

Its not about what the people want...

..They (the Democrats) know what is best for you...

...just shut up and take it

Just like the Republicans knew that we all wanted to go fight a pointless war in Iraq, for no reason at all, since it's been proven there was no connection to 9/11. Right?

According to the polls and senate confirmations? Yes. Or have you forgotten?

I just think it's awful hypocritical to bitch about the Democrats in power "knowing what's best for you" and that you should "...shut up and take it", when, previously (back when the Republicans were in power), they were basically saying the same damn thing.

Unbelieveable that you couldn't understand this simple analogy.

Democrats :: "others should just shut up and take it" == bad
but
Republicans :: "others should just shut up and take it" == good

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I think the basis of the argument is this: Some people think a single payer option will force healthcare companies to increase efficiency and lower costs dramatically. Some people think this lowering of costs will mean poorer healthcare.

I think both are probably right. Single payer healthcare will lower costs, but will also lower our standard of care. Would you rather save money or live a healthier life?

I think the majority of those on this board have the mindset that those who HAVE, can afford to give up a little in order to give to those who dont. So what if "the rich" lose a little in the way of quality. At least "the poor" will have something. Its simply Robin Hood economics.

The assumption that healthcare quality would automatically decline under a government plan is purely speculation usually justified by pointing at other countries systems which have a totally different set of circumstances than in the US, or by claiming the government is incompetent to run anything. It is also possible that the quality of care would increase under such a scenario, but oh no we are expected to take this side effect of UHC as gospel

Rebpublicans would have you believe that there is a direct correlation between spending and quality of care, and that if you cut cost you will reduce the quality of care and thats just bullshit. There is so much pork in the current system if you cut 1/2 of it, + give healthcare providers a raise across the board you would still reap huge savings for the taxpayer.

That is unless you call private islands and jets and billions in bonuses for insurance co. execs, and 3x the regulatory and administration personell really necessary "quality health care"

That is absolute truth.

The rest of your post...well...what color is the sky in your world?

So, if I sell you a piece of shit for $1,000,000, will you therefore think it's a quality piece of shit?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: blackangst1
[I think the majority of those on this board have the mindset that those who HAVE, can afford to give up a little in order to give to those who dont. So what if "the rich" lose a little in the way of quality. At least "the poor" will have something. Its simply Robin Hood economics.

There may be some who think that way. Others think that those who HAVE are deluding themselves about what they "have" and the sustainability of the current system. Like Rick Wagoner, who told us a year ago that a GM bankruptcy was out of the question, they think that what they HAVE is somehow sacrosanct; that they companies will continue accept escalating medical costs. The GM board knew 15 years ago that it had a big problem with the continuing committment to health care coverage but they couldn't bring themselves to admit it; they stood by and let health care reform get buried by misinformation. Most UAW members didn't have a clue about how precarious their own benefits were until just a few years ago.

Now people here and elsewhere who have with employee-paid health insurance are arguing about about losing coverage because of a government plan -- completely oblivious to the fact that major employers have been saying for years that the current model is unsustainable. I haven't seen a single word in all this talk about keeping what you have that acknowleges the position of HR executives: major employers cannot afford to continue letting people do that. Most of the open enrollment brochures last November had fewer choices (and higher co-pays) than before and we can expect to see more of the same this year.

People bandy about terms like "free market" and "competition" with no understanding whatsoever of basic economics and the factors that have led every other industrialized country to conclude that they are inappropriate to the field of health care. They ignore the rationing practiced every day in the US and prefer worry about extreme --usually distorted in some way -- case somewhere else that proves that nothing is perfect. And while they bemoan the potential cost to the government, they seem to be insensible to the financial devastation visted upon millions of people who have insurance by medical bills, or the employees of the 60% of small business who offer no coverage at all because they cannot affortd. These are not temporary situations brought on by the current recession; these problems have been decades in the making.

Surveys indicate that the elderly -- who benefit from the larges "government run" health policy in the country -- are opposed to reform. They (and their children) are appareantly unaware that unless we make some very big changes, their healthcare is going to eat us all out of house and home.

Health care reform is not about the 40-50 million uninsured. It is about the security of every man, woman, and child in this country. It is not about the "haves" and the "have nots", it is about the financial viability of every company and our position in world markets. Health reform is not a poverty program.

Best post I've seen on the subject so far. Agree 100%.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: blackangst1
[ Nevertheless, so far as the bolded statement is concerned...all I can offer is anecdotal. I personally know (like Christmas card know) about 10 families who's net worth is well over 10 million. ...

I apparently didn't make myself clear. I wasn't referring to those who "HAVE" a lot of money -- this whole debate is largely irrelevant to them since no matter what happens, they will have the resources to get anything they want/need. When I referenced "HAVE", I was referring to those who currently have adequate health coverage.

And for the record: Althought I am definitely in favor of raising marginal tax rates on top earners, I am very troubled by the idea of financing health reform that way. As I said in my other post, health care is a national security issue...and each one of us should be as willing to contribute as we are to the military, education, or any of the other myriad uses made of our tax dollars. Other countries manage to do a much better job with far less than we are currently spending on health care here, we ought to be able to do better.

Fair enough :beer:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
You can also choose to take your ball and go to some other country to play, so that reason doesn't really cut it.

LOL - So the majority of the country that is fine should change to suite the minority of the country yet you are tell me, who is in the majority that I should get out?

Look, this should really be left up to the states. If I want single payer I can go to a single payer state like Oregon.

You're not the "majority", as evidenced by the last election. The people want the goverment to fix the health care issue. It seems nobody can agree on exactly what needs fixed let alone how to fix it, so the fucked up politicians will fix it whatever way works the best for them and gives them the most power over US.

We would be best served with a single payer system but everybody thinks they would be getting screwed somehow??

Dear god, read The Constitution. Your last sentence really is very scary "We would be best served..."

I'm not surprised really. You've bought the "OMG! Crisis! Crisis! Crisis!" mantra hook line and sinker.

"The goverment is the cause of, not the solution to our problems."

I missed reading that line of yours anywhere in the Constitution.

Regardless, what you willfully fail to understand is that the status quo system you are protecting is just as government-intertwined as the 'reform' system being proposed that you are fighting against.

The problem with your politics is that you believe a city-maintained cul-de-sac is the best possible representation of free market property rights.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
I love how all the Obama and Democrats bashers' solution to health care still relies on Obama and Democrats to come up with one. At least you guys realize that the other party has nothing to offer on the subject.

oh really?

Yes really. Where was this plan when GOP was in position to pass it?
Instead they voted to spend $1T on Medicare prescription drug benefit with no cost controls.
Seems like a diversion that they are only interested in proposing when there is no chance of it passing.

And where are the cost controls in the Dems proposal, hmmm?

Are you for rationing to control costs? What kind of cost controls are you proposing beyond what's in the bill?

I don't know about him, but I'm for reducing costs to a REASONABLE level to control costs, by any means necessary.

By reasonable, I mean that I am completely OK with paying the hospital 100 - 200% premium over their COST. That means they make 100 - 200% PROFIT. I would also extend the same to suppliers and pharma companies.


If a cotton bandage cost $1 to manufacture, I'm completely OK paying $3 for it. I'm not OK paying $25 for it.

If a pill cost $0.05 to manufacture, I'm completely OK paying $0.15 for it. I'm not OK paying $20 for it.

If a heart transplant costs $20,000, I'm completely OK paying $60,000 for it. I'm not OK paying $500,000 for it.

Make sense?



EDIT: Before someone says something about drug / device R&D. I would even be OK with a second 200% PROFIT (over manufacturing costs) for the first five to ten years that a device is available.

First of all you didnt answer the question. He asked if you were for rationing.

Second, it is widely known the profit margins in the healthcare industry are less than 10%. Why would you advocate 200%?

First of all, the question wasn't posed to me, ass clown. I was making a statement, loosely based on the theme of his question ("reducing costs").

I didn't say that I was arguing for a 200% corporate profit margin. I said I would be willing to pay REASONABLE costs for things. Note how I used a little phrases "to manufacture" or "over manufacturing costs".

Then maybe next time dont include a quote when you make raqndom postings. Generally it is thought you are responding to the last quote you quoted when you do.

OK so youre against a 200% profit margin. Got it. Next time dont say the opposite of what you mean.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Utterly false. Rationing absolutely controls costs. I'm not sure where you picked up that nonsense.

It doesnt. At least it hasnt in the medical industry. Thus far.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I think the basis of the argument is this: Some people think a single payer option will force healthcare companies to increase efficiency and lower costs dramatically. Some people think this lowering of costs will mean poorer healthcare.

I think both are probably right. Single payer healthcare will lower costs, but will also lower our standard of care. Would you rather save money or live a healthier life?

I think the majority of those on this board have the mindset that those who HAVE, can afford to give up a little in order to give to those who dont. So what if "the rich" lose a little in the way of quality. At least "the poor" will have something. Its simply Robin Hood economics.

The assumption that healthcare quality would automatically decline under a government plan is purely speculation usually justified by pointing at other countries systems which have a totally different set of circumstances than in the US, or by claiming the government is incompetent to run anything. It is also possible that the quality of care would increase under such a scenario, but oh no we are expected to take this side effect of UHC as gospel

Rebpublicans would have you believe that there is a direct correlation between spending and quality of care, and that if you cut cost you will reduce the quality of care and thats just bullshit. There is so much pork in the current system if you cut 1/2 of it, + give healthcare providers a raise across the board you would still reap huge savings for the taxpayer.

That is unless you call private islands and jets and billions in bonuses for insurance co. execs, and 3x the regulatory and administration personell really necessary "quality health care"

That is absolute truth.

The rest of your post...well...what color is the sky in your world?

So, if I sell you a piece of shit for $1,000,000, will you therefore think it's a quality piece of shit?

Ah...THAT argument.

Now youre arguing exceptions. Great plan :shocked:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Utterly false. Rationing absolutely controls costs. I'm not sure where you picked up that nonsense.

It doesnt. At least it hasnt in the medical industry. Thus far.

That is a pretty wild assertion that is completely at odds with all research and analysis that I have ever read. If you're going to make a statement like that, you're going to have to back it up.

Oh and no, more money spent does not necessarily correlate to better quality in this world or any other.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
I love how all the Obama and Democrats bashers' solution to health care still relies on Obama and Democrats to come up with one. At least you guys realize that the other party has nothing to offer on the subject.

oh really?

Yes really. Where was this plan when GOP was in position to pass it?
Instead they voted to spend $1T on Medicare prescription drug benefit with no cost controls.
Seems like a diversion that they are only interested in proposing when there is no chance of it passing.

And where are the cost controls in the Dems proposal, hmmm?

Are you for rationing to control costs? What kind of cost controls are you proposing beyond what's in the bill?

I don't know about him, but I'm for reducing costs to a REASONABLE level to control costs, by any means necessary.

By reasonable, I mean that I am completely OK with paying the hospital 100 - 200% premium over their COST. That means they make 100 - 200% PROFIT. I would also extend the same to suppliers and pharma companies.


If a cotton bandage cost $1 to manufacture, I'm completely OK paying $3 for it. I'm not OK paying $25 for it.

If a pill cost $0.05 to manufacture, I'm completely OK paying $0.15 for it. I'm not OK paying $20 for it.

If a heart transplant costs $20,000, I'm completely OK paying $60,000 for it. I'm not OK paying $500,000 for it.

Make sense?



EDIT: Before someone says something about drug / device R&D. I would even be OK with a second 200% PROFIT (over manufacturing costs) for the first five to ten years that a device is available.

First of all you didnt answer the question. He asked if you were for rationing.

Second, it is widely known the profit margins in the healthcare industry are less than 10%. Why would you advocate 200%?

First of all, the question wasn't posed to me, ass clown. I was making a statement, loosely based on the theme of his question ("reducing costs").

I didn't say that I was arguing for a 200% corporate profit margin. I said I would be willing to pay REASONABLE costs for things. Note how I used a little phrases "to manufacture" or "over manufacturing costs".

Then maybe next time dont include a quote when you make raqndom postings. Generally it is thought you are responding to the last quote you quoted when you do.

OK so youre against a 200% profit margin. Got it. Next time dont say the opposite of what you mean.

I included the quote because my post was an indirect response to his, about "controlling costs". I touched on "controlling costs" in my first sentence.

And throughout my post, I used the word "manufactur(-e/-ing)" 3 times, and gave examples. How was this difficult to understand?

I kind of get the feeling that you are being obtuse just for grins.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh and no, more money spent does not necessarily correlate to better quality in this world or any other.

It actually does correlate, to some degree, on most "products" / "items", up to a certain point, after which you get significantly diminishing returns for the extra money you put in.

For example, most people would be able to tell the difference in quality between $10 Wal-Mart jeans and $60 Gap jeans. Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in quality between $60 Gap jeans and $600 Diesel Denim Gallery jeans.

This doesn't hold true for "services" nearly as well.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Utterly false. Rationing absolutely controls costs. I'm not sure where you picked up that nonsense.

It doesnt. At least it hasnt in the medical industry. Thus far.

That is a pretty wild assertion that is completely at odds with all research and analysis that I have ever read. If you're going to make a statement like that, you're going to have to back it up.

Oh and no, more money spent does not necessarily correlate to better quality in this world or any other.

Ah OK. So overall, care at say University of Washington or Johns Hopkins...or maybe even Mayo clinic...is fairly comperable to care you would receive at some random hospital in the Bronx, for example.

Got it. Moeny doesnt buy good care. OK.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Utterly false. Rationing absolutely controls costs. I'm not sure where you picked up that nonsense.

It doesnt. At least it hasnt in the medical industry. Thus far.

That is a pretty wild assertion that is completely at odds with all research and analysis that I have ever read. If you're going to make a statement like that, you're going to have to back it up.

Oh and no, more money spent does not necessarily correlate to better quality in this world or any other.

Ah OK. So overall, care at say University of Washington or Johns Hopkins...or maybe even Mayo clinic...is fairly comperable to care you would receive at some random hospital in the Bronx, for example.

Got it. Moeny doesnt buy good care. OK.

No, money does not necessarily buy better care. More money spent doesn't necessarily buy you better anything, this is common sense. How many people have you known that have paid too much money for a piece of junk in your life? I know you're not this obtuse, so why are you trying to make this argument?

Also, I'm still waiting for evidence to support your assertion that rationing does not decrease costs.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
...I have had to pay just shy of 90% out of pocket...

So, who do you want to pay for YOUR health care? The tooth fairy?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Athena
...a health care model that is bankrupting individuals, companies, and government at all levels.

Lets see...

There were a total of 1,074,225 non business bankruptcies in 2008.
Even if we assume that every single person who declared bankruptcy in 2008 was due to some sort of medical care issue, that is only 0.3% of the total US population (304,059,724 total).

Yes, sure looks like the "every day man" is ending up in the street due to the "overwhelming cost" of health care.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Athena
...a health care model that is bankrupting individuals, companies, and government at all levels.

Lets see...

There were a total of 1,074,225 non business bankruptcies in 2008.
Even if we assume that every single person who declared bankruptcy in 2008 was due to some sort of medical care issue, that is only 0.3% of the total US population (304,059,724 total).

Yes, sure looks like the "every day man" is ending up in the street due to the "overwhelming cost" of health care.

Actually 62% are related to medical bills. That means you have about 620,000 medical related bankruptcies each year. Oh and 25% of the US population are minors, so they aren't really eligible for bankruptcy (outside of some fairly rare exceptions). We're all alive for 50 years or so, and if 0.2% of Americans are going bankrupt due to this each year, over the span of a normal lifetime that turns into a hell of a lot of people.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: ebaycj
...I have had to pay just shy of 90% out of pocket...

So, who do you want to pay for YOUR health care? The tooth fairy?

When I have Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO coverage that my employer is paying $600 per month to cover a single male in his twenties, That should be EXTREMELY good coverage. Like Gold-plated-platinum coverage.

So, to answer your question, I'm going to go with (b) my insurance company, who is paid to cover my health care. My employer pays said insurance company a shit ton of money to cover me, on the order of $7200 per year. With that much moeny changing hands, why should I pay anything other than $5/$10 (or whatever amount) co-pays per visit?

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah OK. So overall, care at say University of Washington or Johns Hopkins...or maybe even Mayo clinic...is fairly comperable to care you would receive at some random hospital in the Bronx, for example.

Got it. Moeny doesnt buy good care. OK.

Good care does cost money, there's no question about that. But quality care doesn't necessarily cost more than "okay" care. People flock to the Mayo Clinic because of its reputation for quality and yet its costs are significantly lower than those of highly touted Universites like Johns Hopkins or those in Boston. And studies of high-reimbursement areas don't show any healthier outcomes.

IOW, just because you pay more money doesn't mean that you get better care.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Utterly false. Rationing absolutely controls costs. I'm not sure where you picked up that nonsense.

It doesnt. At least it hasnt in the medical industry. Thus far.

That is a pretty wild assertion that is completely at odds with all research and analysis that I have ever read. If you're going to make a statement like that, you're going to have to back it up.

Oh and no, more money spent does not necessarily correlate to better quality in this world or any other.

Ah OK. So overall, care at say University of Washington or Johns Hopkins...or maybe even Mayo clinic...is fairly comperable to care you would receive at some random hospital in the Bronx, for example.

Got it. Moeny doesnt buy good care. OK.

No, money does not necessarily buy better care. More money spent doesn't necessarily buy you better anything, this is common sense. How many people have you known that have paid too much money for a piece of junk in your life? I know you're not this obtuse, so why are you trying to make this argument?

Also, I'm still waiting for evidence to support your assertion that rationing does not decrease costs.

Come on man nothing is 100%. But generalities are generally true. GENERALLY, money buys better things. Generally. How can you disagree with that?

As far as rationing...the current market has been rationing for quite some time, and costs continue to rise through ther roof. You can call it anecdotal if you wish. I would love to see a study how rationing DOES does costs. Not a theoretic one, but a real world example. In health care. Im not saying proof doesnt exist, Im just saying after 5 mins of Google searching I couldnt find it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah OK. So overall, care at say University of Washington or Johns Hopkins...or maybe even Mayo clinic...is fairly comperable to care you would receive at some random hospital in the Bronx, for example.

Got it. Moeny doesnt buy good care. OK.

Good care does cost money, there's no question about that. But quality care doesn't necessarily cost more than "okay" care. People flock to the Mayo Clinic because of its reputation for quality and yet its costs are significantly lower than those of highly touted Universites like Johns Hopkins or those in Boston. And studies of high-reimbursement areas don't show any healthier outcomes.

IOW, just because you pay more money doesn't mean that you get better care.

See my response to eskimospy. Generalities are generally true.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Utterly false. Rationing absolutely controls costs. I'm not sure where you picked up that nonsense.

It doesnt. At least it hasnt in the medical industry. Thus far.

That is a pretty wild assertion that is completely at odds with all research and analysis that I have ever read. If you're going to make a statement like that, you're going to have to back it up.

Oh and no, more money spent does not necessarily correlate to better quality in this world or any other.

Ah OK. So overall, care at say University of Washington or Johns Hopkins...or maybe even Mayo clinic...is fairly comperable to care you would receive at some random hospital in the Bronx, for example.

Got it. Moeny doesnt buy good care. OK.

No, money does not necessarily buy better care. More money spent doesn't necessarily buy you better anything, this is common sense. How many people have you known that have paid too much money for a piece of junk in your life? I know you're not this obtuse, so why are you trying to make this argument?

Also, I'm still waiting for evidence to support your assertion that rationing does not decrease costs.

Come on man nothing is 100%. But generalities are generally true. GENERALLY, money buys better things. Generally. How can you disagree with that?

As far as rationing...the current market has been rationing for quite some time, and costs continue to rise through ther roof. You can call it anecdotal if you wish. I would love to see a study how rationing DOES does costs. Not a theoretic one, but a real world example. In health care. Im not saying proof doesnt exist, Im just saying after 5 mins of Google searching I couldnt find it.

Just because costs increase in a system overall that happens to include rationing doesn't mean that rationing doesn't decrease the cost of care. It's common sense. There are literally so many examples that it's overwhelming. Any time someone is denied a procedure, ever, that does not lead to them requiring more expensive treatment in the future, you have saved money through rationing.

Yes, GENERALLY more money buys better things. Just as there are exceptions in goods, there appears to be a glaring exception in the national health care system of a particular country.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yes, GENERALLY more money buys better things. Just as there are exceptions in goods, there appears to be a glaring exception in the national health care system of a particular country.

Hey, quit picking on my favorite trust fund baby.

 

[piasabird]

O'Bamma is telling you what you want to hear even though the Bill may say something else. It is all about Government controlling you and making you work like a slave to pay for this plan. This is how all Government spending works. The more money they give away the more you become a slave.