Mandatory corporate insurance is NOT a "small step forward". It is a BIG step BACKWARDS.

[Faryn Balyncd]

Incrementalism is only a positive when the essential framework is sound (even if it is not optimally comprehensive).

This is not the case with this bill, which REJECTS any public plan, and REJECTS a Medicare Buy-in. In doing so, this bill REJECTS a strategy that would deal with the fundamental problem: out of control costs.

Since this bill entrenches the very forces which are at the heart of the problem - the predatory insurance corporations, is NOT a step forward, but backwards.

It is NOT the amount of reform that is the fundamental problem.

It is that, by choosing to mandate purchase of a corporate product, it is a move in exactly the WRONG direction.

Cemented with a mandate.

[Richardo]

1. Please tell us again for the 7,539th time.

It's like waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The first 387 times didn't work, maybe the 388th time will.

Spouting the same crap over and over again is not winning converts - quite the opposite, I imagine it's even boring the choir by now.

[coti]

2. Well, if you're not understanding it, we have to keep saying it.

Do you have a substantive response?

[HuckleB]

4. Something of substance would have to be posted in the OP first, I would think.

Obsessive repeats of rants that don't deal with the actualities of the legislation do not serve any purpose other than to inflame emotions.

[girl gone mad]

12. I see a lot of substance in the OP.

In summation:

The bill offers no public option or Medicare buy-in, thus automatically eliminates two of the best tools available to control costs.

This bill sanctifies the failed private health insurance industry by forcing all consumers to purchase their defective product, thus the bill is anti-competitive and, again, offers no means of reducing costs.

[bertman]

24. Indeed. ". . . thus the bill is anti-competitive" is quite correct and would be revealing

in itself if our corporate masters really wanted competition.

[HuckleB]

32. Repeating the same old, rehashed, rewritten routine is not substance.

We all know what the deal is, and this OP does nothing to further any discussion of the matter.

[coti]

17. How doesn't this deal directly with what is being passed?

It mentions the mandate and the lack of a government insurance option or expansion. Those are facts.

As far as I can see the only significant fact not mentioned is the very weak regulations being imposed, which won't be successful in controlling costs. In fact, because they're set up as cost-plus with the MLR, they will likely increase health costs and raise premiums further.

The extremely strong regulations that would be required to effectively co-opt the insurance industry, as in Switzerland, and control costs will never happen in this country because of the industry lobby and the "nationalization" spin.

In other words, to control health costs in this country you have to have the government compete with the insurance industry. This bill shows that our leadership is not taking the country in that direction at all. The framework isn't there. Many believe that it was deliberately left out.

So we're on the hook with the mandate but costs are going to keep soaring into the indefinite future. It's a step backward.

[laughingliberal]

28. Well said. Very weak regulation, indeed, and no enforcement mechanism even for those

Left to the state insurance boards who are, in some cases, sold out to the industry and, in other cases, too overloaded to make a dent in the industry abuses.

[HuckleB]

34. In the same old generic (& rewritten to serve a certain point of view) terms that 100 other OPs have

Get it?

:shrug:

[girl gone mad]

38. And yet you seem incapable of refuting any of these points.

[HuckleB]

39. What "points?"

The same old "points?"

:rofl:

[wolfgangmo]

60. You got something to add then add it ...

... if not, then shut your gob.

All you have posted here is cheap shots. If you have any substance, prove it.

[coti]

40. LOL- he seems to be saying, "But I KNOW this!"

I guess there's nothing left to discuss.

[fascisthunter]

59. playing Obtuse will not get you off the hook

answer the posters question.

[Ken Burch]

81. Which doesn't change the fact that those 100 other OPs are RIGHT.

It's never reform with corporations gain ground and the people lose ground.

[Ignis]

63. "obsessive" -- Really?

Speaking of not serving "any purpose other than to inflame emotion."

[2 Much Tribulation]

66. Often people need to be REMINDED more than they need to be (newly) INFORMED.

This applies most strongly with fundamental principles, on one of which the OP is soundly based.

[villager]

5. By their very nature, the Panglossians are incapable of a substantive response

Hence, their constant reliance on snark...

[2 Much Tribulation]

67. Dems liking this bill are like believers in fidelity staying married to Tiger Woods for chump change

It's not like staying married "for the kids" because kids are too substantial a motivation (essentially the #1 or #2 motivation in marriages with children) compared to the small pluses of eliminating discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, etc.

[Richardo]

9. Why should I? There's no substance to the OP.

I've seen the same ritual diatribe nearly verbatim innumerable times in the last few weeks. Give me substance, I'll give you some.

[2 Much Tribulation]

68. Lincoln: Some principles may and must be inflexible. (The OP is substantive principle)

[HuckleB]

3. It has become rather obsessive.

Which does bring up another matter...

[girl gone mad]

6. And snarky posts add nothing whatsoever to the discussion.

Can you defend the bill? Give us a substantive reason why you think the OP is incorrect? Do anything other than insult your fellow DUers?

[Richardo]

11. Neither does repeating the same mantra over and over again.

[girl gone mad]

13. Now you are simply repeating the mantra that a mantra is being repeated.

lol..

[Richardo]

16. ...and so the circle of life continues

:D

[wolfgangmo]

61. Irony is lost.

.

[HuckleB]

35. Can you tell me that the status is quo is better than this bill?

[wolfgangmo]

62. Yes, I can.

Fact: medical bills, most often from a covered individual paying "uncovered costs" is still the number one reason of bankrupcy and forecolsure in America.

Fact: this bill will MANDATE that more folks get insurance that doesn't cover worth a crap at increasing premiums in an unregulated market that has been granted immunity from anti-trust laws allowing these companies to get together and price fix.

Fact: this will result in more Americans losing their homes, jobs, and lives. And then the predatory investors will scoop up more realestate at firesale/dead-now-due-to-being-denied-contracted-coverage prices.

The problem I have with you is that you are looking at this from a place of innocence (let's just trust the insurance companies and their pet politicians and everything will be just SWELL) whereas some of us are coming from a position of experience with the very same Satan like companies that you think will behave. I run a medical clinic. The shit I see these companies pull EVERY DAY would make most people puke.

Stop being a snarky Pollyanna and at least engage in a conversation if you don't agree, but at least stop behaving like a bratty little shit who needs to be spanked with his lollypop and stop posting snark.

[HuckleB]

73. The only snark is coming from you.

And your facts are simply your own creations.

In the end, you are ranting against something that doesn't exist. You created it.

:eyes:

[SandWalker1984]

90. Obviously HuckleB has not had to deal with a serious medical issue...

...or they would know exactly how the insurance corporations scam you.

My spouse had a major medical event. We HAD, at that time, insurance. After a week in the hospital and 2 medical procedures, we went home. Then the bills starting rolling in.

Bills from lab techs, from doctors, from the hospital - because the insurance corporation's payments were based on some chart of theirs instead of the real bills, so the medical people came after us to make up the deficiencies. Then there were the charges the insurance corporation flat out denied payment on after the fact.

Almost 1 1/2 years later, the final tally was $76,000 OUT OF POCKET and WE HAD INSURANCE COVERAGE.


Where in this senate bill do you see anything to fix this?????

[eridani]

85. Yes. At least a 55 year old isn't a criminal for buying shitty overpriced

age-rated insurance and then deciding later that paying for insulin is more important than shitty barely more than catastrophic "coverage".

Death and bankruptcy continue as ususal, only now we get to live at a poverty level for awhile first.

[grahamhgreen]

18. K&R until you get it

[bvar22]

41. As long as low information DUers keep posting "Its a step forward",

The TRUTH about which direction this plan is headed is appropriate.

[HuckleB]

77. Speaking of low information DUers, and disinformation DUers.

Oh, wait, you don't actually care about that, do you?

[emilyg]

86. It's not boring me at all.

[RetroLounge]

89. Well keep reading it until you get it.

K&R

RL

[sendero]

92. It's not crap..

... it is a fact, one that you are apparently not comfortable with.

[leftstreet]

7. It's a step forward to privatizing SS & Medicare n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

8. I think you're on to them.

Hiring Zeke as "Healthcare Advisor" who openly advocates privatizing and phasing out Medicare, even as the president claimed to be for giving all Americans a public option, seemed to make no sense.

Now it does.

[laughingliberal]

29. Yes. A preview of coming attractions nt

[glitch]

48. You got it. Plus the added kabuki while the banksters and warmongers make their getaway.

It's win win WIN!

Looting the treasury is old and rehashed too. This particular rehash is quite spectacular though, FWIW.

[GreenPartyVoter]

93. Aw, dang. I hadn't even thought of that. *reaching for the Alka Seltzer*

[ipaint]

10. Some substance

"Private insurers lost an estimated 9 million customers between 2000 and 2007. In many cases, people lost coverage because they or their employers could no longer afford it as premium increases outpaced wage growth and inflation.
Recession job losses are adding to the toll. Some economists estimate that every percentage-point increase in the jobless rate adds 1 million people to the ranks of the uninsured.

The industry's real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors.

"The rate of aging far and away exceeds the birth rate," said Sheryl Skolnick, a CRT Capital Group healthcare investment analyst. "That's got to be very scary. . . . This is the biggest fight for survival managed care has ever faced, at least since they went bankrupt in the late '80s."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/business/fi-healthcare7?pg=2

The reform saves them not us. WE ARE SAVING THEM.
Not only that the shitty reform we are settling for gives up our only bargaining tool for future improvements- the mandate.

It's like paying the hospital bill of your abusive spouse so they can come home and beat on you again. Big step backwards.

[Laelth]

19. +1

Thanks for posting the truth.

Sadly, you'll still be ignored.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[leftstreet]

21. +1

Excellent find!

[laughingliberal]

30. Thank you! If you enjoyed the bank bailouts, you're gonna love this! nt

[NashVegas]

44. WOW. Thank You So Much!

For posting this.

[glitch]

49. Timely reminder (or do I mean rehash) - deserves its own thread. nt

[dpbrown]

58. Precisely

They get their bailout just in time.

[Ignis]

64. And posting substance gets you *crickets* for your trouble...

From your critics upthread.

But facts are important, nonetheless. Thanks for posting this! :patriot:

[ipaint]

74. Your welcome.

I've posted it at least a half a dozen times. It does shut up the pro-corporate authoritarian crowd.

I read this back in June and knew there wouldn't be a public option. Obama is a neo-liberal and has no intention of harnessing the power and support he received from Americans- involving us in our own government in a real way, he much prefers us as victims on the sidelines now that he doesn't need our vote. He has work to do that doesn't include standing on principle or promises.

He is a politician. And a liar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7300576

[2 Much Tribulation]

71. SUBSTANCE ALERT (see the post this post replies to) nt

[SandWalker1984]

91. Please post this LA Times story as a separate article!

[kenny blankenship]

14. This is a basic judgment that has to be made and understood

Why are we talking about HCR and insurance in the first place? Because private for-profit health insurance is crashing our healthcare "system".

There are two basic responses to this collapse and crisis that we can make as a society:

One is to acknowledge the source of the problem and to enact a PUBLIC, social, solution to the problem. We don't have to look far for excellent models to copy.

The other basic response is to ignore the origin of the problem, which is our private insurance co.s and their for-profit model of health care delivery, and to simply throw more money at them. In this case, there is no working model to point to that we can copy. Switzerland has a individual mandate to buy "private" insurance but that insurance is just as non-profit as Canadian or French national insurance. This keeps the costs of their system low compared to ours (but not compared to the rest of Europe, where they are the most expensive) We propose, then, to place private for-profit corporate insurance giants at the heart of the national health care delivery system -to establish their dominance by LAW- and then pretend like we'll control the cost of this arcane, inefficient, wasteful "system", even though we're putting corporations with a need for greater profits year over year in the driver's seat. This isn't just a Uniquely American arrangement, it's totally unique - it's also wishful thinking. Other countries don't do it because they know it can't work. "We'll keep them honest and oversee their behavior with strict regulation" say proponents. Really, you want to say that after these leeches were able to BUY your Congress and turn a vast majoritarian thirst for some kind of nationwide public health insurance into a govt. enforced law that makes everyone put money in their corporate pockets? We'll just see WHO ends up regulating WHOM in this relationship.

They kept the Public Option around in the debate ONLY TO KEEP YOU IN LINE. They had to have BUY IN from voters to string the negotiations out for the time required for the real deal to be set. There will never be a public health insurance option is something they couldn't come right out and say from the start although they surely knew it. They had to keep up the pretense of making an honest Public sector response to the disorderly collapse of private insurance until they could spring IT'S THIS OR NOTHING! on us. When they had the real details worked out for fleecing the public, they dropped the public option like a warm turd.

It's not like we had 7 demands in this legislative fight and only got 2 of them. We got creamed. They took the public's declaration that This Has To Change! as an opportunity to craft a HISTORIC giveaway to big corporate donors. This bill "is a step" and it's a big one, but it's in the WRONG fucking direction. You'll have one hell of a time trying to move it back in the right direction once it goes through.

[coti]

22. Nice post. nt

[GreenArrow]

26. Pretty nice summation.

I think for too many the issue has become more about some perceived political victory than actually looking at the problem and trying to find real solutions for it. The main problem is the for profit insurance based health care system itself.

[laughingliberal]

33. Right. It's like one big football game. Only goal is to win. Don't stop and look at what the results

will be.

[laughingliberal]

31. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Should be an OP.

I watched the takeover of a mostly not for profit health care delivery system in this country by the private, for-profit industries. I can say, without one reservation, that not one thing about our system improved with privatization. At every step health care suffered. Patient care suffered. Health care workers suffered. People's rights suffered. Non-health-care related businesses suffered. It is a beast and we are about to feed it what is left of our economy.

[Waiting For Everyman]

37. Exactly. Put the PO in, justify mandates, then remove PO.

We're left with the onerous provisions without the good which supposedly justified reluctantly accepting them. There was an "if clause" about the PO being included, and then the condition wasn't met, but we pay for it anyway as if we got our side of it.

It was classic - just like Lucy and the football on Peanuts.

Now, it's just another adhesion contract only on a national scale. Just like predatory lending is, only bigger. What's really remarkable is that they're PROUD OF IT. Wow, that's amoral if I ever saw it.

[area51]

43. +1, great analysis. (n/t)

[glitch]

50. Another excellent post deserving its own thread. nt

[rockymountaindem]

83. You're exactly right. Keeping things up to the private health insurance industry

will allow them to continually exploit loopholes, lobby for less stringent regulation and create a revolving door between their executives and regulatory boards. This is setting us up for failure while creating a path-dependency which locks us into this system for even longer.

I will also join those who replied to this post in pointing out that those who decry the lack of "substance" in the OP seem to be avoiding this post like the plague.

[eridani]

88. Solid. Make it an OP? n/t

[cliffordu]

15. Captain obvious has been to your house again, eh??

Keep posting the same shit, please. I ain't annoyed yet.

[grahamhgreen]

20. No pay or punish crapsurance

[cliffordu]

25. Tough shit for all of us.

Suck it up, walk it off.

[grahamhgreen]

53. Not yet - John Lewis is my congressman and the progressive causcus aint gonna let it happen without

a public option. Or Medicare expansion. Or kill the mandate.

[Cleita]

23. I think they know that.

This is the reason the bill won't be enacted until 2014. By that time we will have a new President or the second term of Barack Obama, who will be a lame duck, and another Republican dominated Congress. That's how it will be unless we really demand change. Pitchforks and torches times, folks starting right after the holidays.

[FarLeftFist]

27. But the mandate isn't mandatory.

[regnaD kciN]

36. Indeed, for the majority of the American people will be exempt from it...

The income levels for an individual to be earning too much for an exemption is more than the average household income in the United States. The income level for a family to become subject to penalties is more than double that. And those who earn enough to be subject to it generally receive employer-supplied health insurance anyway.

That's one thing that's rarely mentioned in the simplistic discourse we've seen here over the past few days...just as one never mentions that, under the proposed bill, more than half of American households would be eligible for government subsidies to help pay for insurance, should they choose to obtain it.

[newspeak]

45. those government subsidies are our money

so, the for profit industry gets government money (ours) and we get to pay them the rest, for what? My in-laws just got a notice that their secondary insurance just went up by more than one hundred dollars (which they must pay because of *'s screw the elderly pharma bill). Senior citizens on a fixed income having to fork out almost one thousand dollars for secondary insurance!!!! The health insurance industry has become nothing but greedy bloodsuckers. Hey, but congress (you know those people who are suppose to represent us) can give them even more of our money--and I wonder afterward, while decent jobs are still scarce and people will be attempting to scrounge money for this FUBAR--the government will be telling us how great the economy is doing because wallstreet and the fatcats are doing just swimmingly swell!

I am against privatization--I see how well it has worked in our military and I also see how it has worked in our prison system. It is a doorway to corruption, it leaves us less representation, and I doubt the industry will have strict accountability (look at S&L debacle, look at bank deregulation). When I was employed at SSA, if a file was red flagged it meant a congresscritter was concerned--it got immediate attention. Claimants were represented by their congresscritters to see that they were treated fairly--let me know if you think a corporation is going to have as much accountability and if we are going to be judiciously represented. Another thing, as in the prison system that's been privatized--they cut corners to make bigger profits-that means hiring employees who may not be qualified and paying crappy wages. Look how companies like KBR and Halliburton cut corners in Iraq? Some things should not be left up to privatization.

[bvar22]

42. It IS a "Uniquely American Solution".

Wall Street threatens to blow up the Economy?
Give them a Trillion Dollars.

The Health Insurance Cartel says they will keep killing 40,000+ Americans per year?
Give THEM a Trillion Dollars.

SEE!
Obama's "Post Partisanship" in action.
Isn't America wonderful.

I fully expect all the other Civilized Nations with workable/Humane Universal Health Care systems to adopt the "Uniquely American" version as soon as they see how well it works!
:party:

[Echo In Light]

46. Slippery, Orwellian, & deceitful, the American way

[Common Sense Party]

47. How do the public plan or Medicare buy-in reduce COSTS?

They may have some effect, short-term, on immediate PRICES, but I haven't seen anything to reduce health care COSTS.

[librechik]

51. they would have to change the non-negotiating for prices rule

then they are quite effective over time. The Government can get material and services costs way down if it wants to--overhead at Medicare is 3% as opposed to the entire private insurance system average of 20%. But the Senate is inclined to help business rather than the people, so that is our fight.

[Common Sense Party]

69. Medicare acts like Wal-Mart. they force suppliers to artificially reduce

prices on what they provide to the big conglomerate. Those suppliers just raise prices elsewhere to try to recoup profits.

I think everyone is way off base here. The insurers aren't driving up health care costs. Supply and demand are.

We as consumers demand more and more health care, more tests, more procedures, and since our employers and our insurance policies pay for much of it, we could care less. As demand increases, prices increase.

There aren't enough trained doctors, specialists, and hospitals to meet all this increased demand. Unless supply increases, prices increase.

I'd still like to see someone address the root of the problem, rather than the symptoms.

[bread_and_roses]

96. "Insurers aren't driving up costs" -?- guess what? PROFIT drives up costs

Not to mention that 20 -30% administrative/overhead "driving up costs?" Of course, that includes profit, but in their demand for profit they've created hellish complicated systems that eat up the time of doctors, RNS, thousands and thousands of clerks....oh, hell, why am I bothering? Those are really Free-Marketeer talking points you are spouting.

"Supply and demand" - does it ever occur to you to wonder how poor, tiny Cuba can turn out so many doctors they send them all over the world? You think we couldn't have more doctors if the "supply" were not kept artificially low?

And those pesky patients, wanting more and more health care! If they only had to be "responsible" they would "choose" not to use all that health care, eh? Like the uninsured daughter of a woman I know, who "chose" to ignore a chronic but bearable problem, hoping it would go away - she died, leaving three young children. No $$ wasted on "unnecessary" tests for her, too bad it turned out to be something that could have been cured early.

The ROOT of the problem is a profit-making industry that puts profit ahead of health and considers actual health CARE an expense to be minimized and avoided totally if at all possible.

I don't know what planet you are living on, with "insurers don't drive up costs" but it sure ain't the one I live on.

[Common Sense Party]

97. I realize you don't know the planet I'm living on. My planet is called reality.

Your planet is nothing but hyperbole and a stunning ignorance of economics.

[bread_and_roses]

100. You dispute that profit adds to the cost to consumers and call ME ignorant of economics?

and what hypberbole? Look up insurers overhead. talk to doctors about how much time they and their staff spend on the phone with insurance companies and how much time is spent with the paperwork. talk to people with medical bills about the confusing paperwork the insurance company sends them. The health insurance companies are known to try to avoid paying benefits by every and any means possible - including calling acne a "prior condition" for refusing cancer treatment, in one famous case among millions of cases. The example I gave of the uninsured woman is one personally known to me and the mother of the woman has testified to NY State legislature in one of the many battles here over expanding various state insurance programs like "family health plus." And btw, I've been in this battle for years and years, so go teach your g'mother to scramble eggs, why don't you? The only ignorance I see here is yours, "stunningly" displayed by both your OP and your substanceless response to me.

[Exultant Democracy]

52. they reduce cost by reducing overhead. For profit insurance companies spend at least 33%

of premiums on overhead, while scooping up huge profits at the same time. Medicare has something like 2% overhead.

[grahamhgreen]

54. No excessive CEO pay or money shifted from care to shareholders.

[HuckleB]

55. I don't buy the OP.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/what-has-health-care-reform-ever-done-for-us/

[2 Much Tribulation]

72. Not everything is a balancing of pos and neg. Like, do you want free speech EVERY OTHER DAY? nt

Think of the positives in free speech every other day: At least 50% of the time you can speak freely and with a little scheduling you can probably make sure all your speech falls on the appropriate days. The good thus outweighs the bad in this case.

THe good really pales in comparison to the bad of forced corporate insurance. Who that's poor can afford even a subsidized $50 a month? WE HAVE FOOD LINES/FOOD PANTRIES everywhere because of hunger...

If the Republicans advocated forced corporate insurance of the same flavors as what we're getting the whole thing would have been dead on arrival. they couldn't get away with feeding the corporate fat cats in such a disgusting manner at any time, much less after multiple-trillion dollar bailouts.

[HuckleB]

82. Talk about an attempted analogy that is off in la la land.

If you can't defend a stance against HCR, bringing up free speech isn't going to help you.

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2360&query=home

[FiveGoodMen]

56. A-FUCKING-MEN!

There is a republican in the oval office.

He calls himself a Democrat -- so far -- but there is no truth in that.

And his followers are traitors.

[Vidar]

57. K&R.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. Our only hope is that it collapses really fast and forces us to start a public system

I may be dead or too old to care by that time, though.

Seriously, if a young person asked me, I'd tell them to emigrate and go to a more humane and sensible country.

[girl_interrupted]

70. K&R

[DKRC]

76. Preparing my daughter to emigrate to a civilized country

I don't want her trapped here when she can live where the citizens are valued for more than their consumption of cheap crap.

[clear eye]

80. My teenaged niece loved New Zealand when she visited.

But you'd have to go, too. It's too far to visit back & forth.

[DKRC]

94. She's got a plan

She says she's going to emigrate to Scotland, bring me over & then hand me off to the first Scotsman she sees at the airport. :rofl:

If she follows through you know where I'll be ... stalking Gerry Butler through the Glasgow airport. :evilgrin:

[madrchsod]

75. you forgot bankruptcy

it does nothing to stem the rise in medical bankruptcies. like me and others we have to file bankruptcy on medical bills the insurance companies did`t cover...2500 deductible and 20% adds up to over 15,000 for me.my wife and i gross around 35,000 and have around 25 or so net.half of one years net is owed in medical bills. i should have two more operations but can not afford to.

there`s other things that these bills have overlooked. our great leaders are blind to the facts or the money has blinded them to what ordinary people have to decide each day...

[bc3000]

78. George Bush never made me buy insurance

just sayin

[AllyCat]

79. And yet calls to my Senators today state that they will vote for it because

it covers 30 million more people. Feingold staffer said he hopes to fix it later in either conference or some years down the road.

I am done voting for anyone who sells us out on this bill. And that looks to include my Rep after a call to her. And NO I'm not voting for Repukes either.

[emilyg]

84. k/r

[Nikki Stone1]

87. Kick and rec

!

[Crzyrussell]

95. And the worse

part is that some parts are illegal to change and others need a 2/3 rds majoity soo... if those items don't work we are screwed.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

98. K&R

The mandate all but sells my future to the insurance industry. :( And once they have all those new clients and government money flowing in the billions to them, does anyone think there is a chance in hell they will ever allow it to be taken from them?

[Echo In Light]

99. Kick