Planned Parenthood spends $1M+ to defeat pro-life VA gov candidate
Planned Parenthood Votes reported Friday that it spent nearly $1.1 million on a new anti-[Ken] Cuccinelli ad purchase that left the [federal] SuperPAC with only $73,746 to pay its remaining bills totaling $59,919.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, has called Cuccinelli’s defeat her “top priority.”
Working closely with Democrat candidate Terry McAuliffe, who last week told students at George Mason University that he will be a “brick wall” against any limits on late-term abortions in Virginia, Planned Parenthood has produced ads and mailings that have characterized Cuccinelli as an extremist for his pro-life position and his determination to end public funding of the abortion giant.
Planned Parenthood’s mailings have referred to Cuccinelli as “extremely dangerous for women” because he sought restrictions on abortion-on-demand as attorney general, and for his vote, as a state senator, to overturn former Democrat Gov. Mark Warner’s veto of the partial birth abortion ban.
Cuccinelli also drafted Virginia’s parental consent law and demanded that the state’s abortion facilities meet the same health standards as other surgical centers….
[PP and McAuliffe’s] website also makes the statement that “access to safe and legal abortion” would be in “danger” if Cuccinelli is elected governor. While abortion in the United States is “legal,” it is arguable that the current standards are by no means “safe.” Evidence of this includes… a report less than two weeks ago of an abortion facility in Falls Church, Virginia that was forced to send two women to the hospital following botched abortions.
Falls Church Healthcare filed a challenge in June to Virginia’s new health and safety standards for abortion facilities. Last year’s inspection report of the facility described safety violations that included bloody, reused vacutainer holders, blood-stained walls and operating tables, and no policy for reporting patient deaths.
~ Dr. Susan Berry, Breitbart.com, October 22
Note: Terry McAuliffe is a former Democratic National Committee Chair and held leadership roles with Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election and Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaigns. He has vowed to be a “brick wall” against any restrictions whatsoever on abortion, even through the ninth month.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It is sad that Cuccinelli is contributing to his own demise, as Maggie Gallagher described in WashPo on Oct 17 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cuccinelli-is-paying-the-price-for-the-gops-truce-strategy-on-abortion/2013/10/17/3c1ac994-3743-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story.html):
“The one lesson Republicans probably will not learn from Ken Cuccinelli’s troubled campaign for Virginia governor is the most important: Politically, the ‘truce strategy’ on abortion fails. If it is not abandoned, it will drag down the GOP.
“Democratic charges of a Republican ‘war on women’ are predicated on the GOP’s self-imposed truce on social issues: Republican candidates pledge not to run ads on topics such as abortion. When social subjects arise, GOP candidates go mute, retreat and change the subject….
“The truce strategy demoralizes the GOP base and makes it hard for the grass roots to care about Republican candidates. Conservative candidates are advised to deflect or retreat when social issues are raised, and their refusal to speak clearly and hold the line allows Democratic candidates to adopt more extreme positions, energizing their own base and unleashing a flood of money at no political cost. Democrats are confident that their opponents will not make an issue of their positions. Republican candidates’ apparent discomfort discussing such issues makes it look like they have something to hide, confirming to many voters Democratic suggestions that GOP candidates’ positions are extreme.
“On an issue such as abortion, about which Americans are fundamentally ambivalent, victory depends on how ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ are defined. Republicans’ self-imposed silence allows Democrats to define pro-life in ways that help them politically. Thus, Democrats do not have to justify their positions on infanticide, late-term abortions or permitting unborn baby girls to be killed just because of their gender…..
“What will it take for Republicans to realize that this ‘truce’ is one-sided? Rather than running ads attacking McAuliffe’s positions, the Cuccinelli campaign’s pathetically ineffective response has been to run ads featuring career women who look into the camera and say things like, ‘Ken’s a nice guy. Really.'”
Elections matter, and we need to be involved. But we should not put our faith, hope, and trust in the Republican Party.
We need to be the Pro-Life Party, and work with any establishment politicians who will cooperate with us.
Let Ken run his “nice guy, really” ads, if that is all the imagination he has.
Pro-lifers need to run the ads that educate the public about the slimy business of abortion, and how that business owns McAuliffe. And then even if McAuliffe wins, the public will be more aware of how much the abortion industry has their elected leaders wrapped up in abortion.
Remember how devastated we were when Obama won — TWICE? And yet, we have seen more advances in pro-life legislation and safe healthcare for women than we ever saw under any Republican regime.
Pro-life can win, even when Republicans lose. Remember this, and be filled with hope!
It’s really scary that an organization as evil as Planned Parenthood has this much money to throw around. Nothing good can come from this.
The more money they throw around to lobbyists and crooked politicians, the less they have to use to kill babies. Cue the violin music, pink ads, and “give generously.”
Brick wall, aye? Well certain gates will not prevail against us. Just sayin’.
Planned Parenthood and the DemocRATs are a blight on society.
Del,
I would love to start an American Life Party that has an outspoken 100% pro-life platform and as well promotes the American way of life for peace and prosperity. The ALP could peal away pro-life Republicans and Democrats.
Possible Slogans: We’re in it for Life, Life is Good, The Good Life, Life Matters, True to Life
New poll out puts McAuliffe up by 17. Could be an outlier as most polls have been in the 8-12 range, though this is one of the first after the shutdown, which hit Virginia pretty hard.
That’s a fine idea MoJoanne.
Split the conservative ticket.
Big wins for the democrats.
I like your plan :-)
Which ‘American way of life’ are you referring to?
The way I see it “reality” the American Way of Life entails taking responsibility for one’s existence, which the dems/libs seem not to grasp. You must be enjoying the strong arm of the Big Brother so….
Out of curiosity, EGV: if the poll which you cite is actually accurate, would its results (of McAuliffe being ahead by 17%) please you, or would they dismay you, or are you utterly apathetic on that point?
Paladin -
I don’t know much about either candidate – haven’t followed the race as I don’t live in that state – just saw the poll numbers. Mostly interested to see the effects that the shutdown is going to have on the races – though by the time next November rolls around (the full house elections), the effect could be pretty much gone.
Paladin – looked into a bit more – and I will say I’m always excited about the possible defeat of a tea-party darling.
There is no singular ‘American way of life’ “thomas r.”
What you really mean is ‘thomas r.’s way of life’.
Greetings Paladin.
I posted a response to you on the other thread at 7:34pm on Oct. 24th.
It subsequently went into ‘awaiting moderation’.
It has since disappeared.
I have just attempted to repost it only to be informed that comments are closed.
I’m not yet sure how I’ll now choose to proceed.
And now I can see it again Paladin!
But you can’t.
Not because I wrote it in invisible ink.
Not because you can’t see the truth ;-)
It’s awaiting moderation.
Looks like the ability to comment there has expired though.
Have a wonderful weekend. Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do :-)
It would split the Democratic Party as well. There are those in the Democratic Party who are uncomfortable with its unlimited abortion on demand platform.
We aren’t seeing the sort of ‘changing of the guard’ take place within the democrats that we are seeing in the gop MoJoanne. We don’t see the wholesale turfing of the traditionalists in favor of the extremists.
I think the democrats tend to a little less self-destructive than the gop.
Less destructive overall in fact.
To paraphrase Paladin – terribly sorry for “hijacking” this thread for a moment… but earlier threads seem to have been locked down, and I wanted to get a reply back to Paladin. Please scroll past this, if you’re not interested.
This is my response which failed to land a few days ago Paladin, I’ve split it in two.
Paladin, back at the start you said What, you don’t think there are any objective standards by which a moral action may be judged, apart from emotional hysteria?
(as I subsequently pointed out, morals are formulated by much more than
just ’emotional hysteria’)
and
We are not moral relativists (as you seem to be); we believe that there is such a thing as an objective moral standard by which actions may be judged
(we? Who is we? ‘believe’, as distinct from ‘know’. Why do you believe so?)
This is a hurdle you have yet to overcome.
Since then you have pretty much persisted in repeating two main themes.
You claim that your ‘belief’ that there are objective morals and that you have been somehow ‘handed’ these objective morals therefore means that your argument itself is objective when really all this means is that you ‘believe’ that you argue from an objective position, not that you actually do. It fails your logic algorithm.
In an attempt to add to your argument you tell me that I cannot objectively argue that something is subjective, that my argument itself is subjective because I argue that something is subjective. If that’s the case then bother, after all these decades of thinking that television viewing preferences, clothing choice, favored music and which sporting team people support were subjective I find out I must be completely wrong!
You also claim that if morals are subjective they can be of no more importance than food preferences. This is despite the fundamentally obvious evidence that we all demonstrate such is not the case.
I have stated that morals are subjective. This is demonstrated by the fact that morals vary between people, cultures, religions and societies. They even vary within cultures, religions and societies. They also change over time. This is factual. It has been observed. It is objective.
There is no identified source for a set of objective morals. There is no definition of what would constitute these objective morals. There is no path by which they could have come to be. If you consider this wrong then please identify a proven source of objective morals and evidence of how they are defined.
I am not troubled by your dislike of anchovies. It has no real impact on myself or larger society. Is your dislike a matter of taste or morals?
I am troubled by your disapproval of homosexual behavior and society’s increasing acceptance of it. It has a real impact on me, even though I am not homosexual myself, and on larger society. Is your disapproval a matter of taste or morals?
(maybe I need to split part two in two)
Since I do relish corresponding in regard to your postulations rooted in the subjective claim of objectivity for your subjective position –
Rather, I’m trying to show you that your own system is fatally flawed (by being internally inconsistent); that fact doesn’t need any positive defense of my own position (which, again, is much longer and a bit tedious, and I’ll address it after this matter is settled, if you still wish) in order to be effective. – my my, doesn’t that trip off your tongue so easily. Oh it so puts me on the back foot. You wish. It is you who displays internal inconsistency. You say that you ‘believe’ there are objective morals therefore your argument is objective. Your claim is based on nothing more than your ‘belief’, that’s not objective. To claim that I am unable to argue objectively that something is subjective is facile. Would you tell me that I cannot argue that taste itself is subjective because I can’t be coming from an objective perspective? Why? If there were objective morals, on what basis do you ‘believe’ they have been handed to you? How do you know that it is not I who has been ‘handed’ this objective set, even though I state they are subjective?
The fact that you deny any objective moral standards neutralises your own ability to talk of “equivalence” or “non-equivalence” at all, in that regard. – balderdash. Do you like or dislike some foods more than others? Isn’t that subjective? Is there no equivalence or non-equivalence there?
Surely you know that this is a mere appeal to the gallery? – no, its a direct application of your argument.
And I trust that you’re talking only of the fringe groups who are actually “anti-gay” [i.e.they hate homosexuals], and not about those who love homosexuals while fighting the political agenda of “homosexual normalisation” and maintaining the disordered nature of homosexual activity? – no significant difference between them then is there. Same basic drivers.
I hold to an objective moral code (yes, which I haven’t proven–all that’s necessary for this example is the fact that I believe it to be objective, and that my personal moral code was formed by it – this does rather undermine your entire argument. You comprehensively fail to demonstrate that you don’t come from as subjective a position as I. You would need to do that to display anything more than ‘belief’, which simply is not objective.
You’d have to specify “these choices” in order for me to answer. – I did. I asked if you thought where you choose to live and in what form of accommodation you choose to reside is no more important to you than which socks you wear on any particular day.
You have mentioned. You have not proven, or even demonstrated, yet. – so you dispute that morals vary and change across cultures and time?
I have seen examples both of subjective standards (to the extent that such a phrase makes sense at all) and of objective standards, in my lifetime… which seems to differ from yours. – so when presented with evidence that morals are subjective you suddenly decide they are ‘standards’ rather than ‘morals’. So all those folk who declared things such as non-marital cohabitation and mixed race marriages immoral until more recent times (and those who still do) were misguided were they? What a load of ducking, weaving and sophistry you flesh out your discourses with.
And you cannot possibly prove that claim [i.e. your claim that “there is no source for objective morals] in any coherent way. – what, you think there is a proven source of some sort? I’ve not seen any evidence of any. Morals have been formulated over tens of thousands of years within and across cultures, societies and time. History shows us this. Things within history demonstrate it.
Oh, honestly! Forgive me, but: have you not grasped this idea, yet? If I deny the existence of negative numbers, then I render myself incapable of answering questions such as “What is 10 – 15?” That is quite objective – indeed, but it has nothing to do with morals. Nor does it demonstrate anything in regards to morals being objective or subjective.Why do you keep tossing basic arithmetic into this as if your claim is fait accompli and this is an equivalent example.
Well it would appear that two thirds of my response to you is visible now Paladin.
Given what has happened each time I’ve tried to load, I’m wondering if the last third contains a ‘trigger’ word or something.
The DemocRATic party is cooked. I thought it should have come last election but I gave too much credit to the general voting public because I expected them to see through Obama’s lies. But the Obamacare implementation will be the gift that keeps on giving as millions of people lose their health care they had and see that they are mandated to ante up to increased deductibles and out of pocket for less care. It is a shame they had to get bit before they saw through the snake oil salesman but it will be the demise of the DemocRATic party. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Cute post truth
And you say it with almost as much passion as when you predicted a big Romney victory.
How did that one work out for you?
Probably as good as this prediction will work out for you.
Is that your bit of wishful thinking for the day truthseeker?
“I will say I’m always excited about the possible defeat of a tea-party darling.”
Ex-RINO, ask yourself why you don’t get excited when you see a pro-life candidate win? Serious question for you; what Christian denomination are you?
E-free.
I don’t have much of an issue with more moderate GOPers – those who don’t seem to root for the crash of the American economic system. If the GOP officially gets the crazy right wing out of the party, I could see myself back in the camp of moderate, voting for the two parties equally. The tea partiers are nuts – great that they are pro-life for babies – they sure seem anti life for everyone after birth.
You’re catholic, right truth?
E-free? And as a denomination do they support the choice to kill babies in the womb or do they have no stance at all on it?
Yes – E-free – never heard of it? Not a huge denomination, but over 1500 congregations out there.
Ex-RINO, you posted that you don’t believe the tea-party candidates care as much about born children. Do you say that just to try and perpetuate a lie? Cause every survey or statistic I have ever read says just the opposite; that conservatives are in fact much more generous then their liberal counterparts. Did you know that? Do you need me to give you links to the tax data posted by the IRS? You could just google ‘charitable giving by political affiliation’ for yourself and you would see the truth; that is if the truth really matters to you.
Yes – I’d like to see tea party information, charity giving, and how you feel that means they support life through life. I mean, Bill Gates gives a heck of a lot of money – do you feel that this data proves anything regarding generosity and life? Or George Soros?
The tea party gets a lot of credit for health care reform – if they hadn’t kept Reid in office in Nevada, who knows what would have happened. Regardless, I think their lack of general economic understanding, their love of guns over people, their lack of understanding of consensus and compromise – I think that they are bad for this country, and it’s interesting to see how the GOP has half realized that, but doesn’t know quite what to do about it.
Ex-RINO, you are a hoot. You show you have a seriously shallow view of the tea-party when you perpetuate such BS? Their love of guns over people? And I have no idea what you are trying to say when you said “how do you feel that means they support life through life? And mentioning the names of Bill Gates and George Soros in order to attempt to perpetuate your lies and BS about pro-life people not caring about born…..what can I say to such a moronic post? I will just let it speak for itself.
Reality, imo there will be millions of previously loyal DemocRATs (those of the entitlement mentality) who will revolt against the DemocRATic party as Obamacare gets implemented and they lose their health care policies and find out they are mandated to ante up to the IRS fines and increased out of pocket expenses. This includes the ones who get their bronze health care policies for $100 a month and find out that they also need to pay a $6000 deductible before their coverage kicks in.
I completely and utterly disagree truthseeker.
More gop’s will revolt (as if they weren’t revolting enough already) when they see what a marvellous concept obamacare is.
The next push will be to advance to a universal healthcare system, like other advanced nations have had for decades.
I also think EGV will be quite happy to let his post speak for itself.
And yes, he is a hoot. You on the other hand, are hilarious.
“More gop’s will revolt (as if they weren’t revolting enough already) when they see what a marvellous concept obamacare is.”
yeah….ok…sure
I am glad to hear you disagree “Reality”. It is reassuring. And the universal healthcare is what it will take to get the DemocRATs off the hook and the freeloaders back on board.
If you look historically at the number of Democrats and Republicans in Congress since FDR, you will see that Democrats held a sizable majority for a long stretch of time. However, that lead shrunk and the gap between the two parties narrowed. Then with 104th Congress, the Republicans had a majority in eight out of the last ten terms in the House and five out of nine in the Senate. While defections from the Democratic Party started earlier, they really took hold almost 20 years ago. Set the Executive branch aside since it has pretty much alternated between the two parties over the same time period. Given that Senators and Representatives are closer to their constituents than the President, they are more reflective of the mood of the country. So what is it about the Democratic Party that has caused voters to switch allegiance?
MoJo,
The DemocRATs have won the presidency because of the heavily populated dependency class that they have created in the urban areas who vote for handouts. The poor in rural areas don’t have that same entitlement mentality and would rather work for minimum wage then suck from the government teat. Geographically over the entire US the map is 90% GOP. That is why Obamacare is going to kill the DemocRATs. Their loyal base of dependents will revolt when they have to pay for their mandated health care policies.
Your words are starting to sound like the last gasp of the clinging desperate truthseeker.
MoJoanne.
Redistricting.
The GOP has done a better job lately of stacking the deck in states where they are able to do it. The dems got more house votes last election, but are in the minority because of new district lines.
truth -
The states that get the most federal money are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Virginia, and Kentucky.
Most are GOP controlled.
Who is looking for handouts?
I read that mcauliffe and cucci-coo are polling almost level on the male vote but poles apart on the female vote. Something to do with abortion and gay rights apparently.
“The states that get the most federal money are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Virginia, and Kentucky.”
I think you need to step back and put down that shot of Obamacare kool-aid and tell me how much California gets in federal assistance programs for it’s population….include food stamps; subsidized housing; medicaid; aid to illegals, government grants for education and all the other government welfare programs.
California spends less federal welfare dollars per capita for its citizens than the states that Ex mentioned. California spend more as a dollar amount overall, but that’s simply because they have a humongous population. Per person, they get less federal dollars.
Sorry that doesn’t fit into what you want to happen truthseeker.
And again with the poor people bashing truth, you seriously are one of those bullies.
You literally cannot support a family on a single income of minimum wage, you simply can’t do it. You’ll end up needing assistance in some form or another (usually something like health insurance is far, far out of your price range). But then you complain about government grants to education, that help people get out of that hole, along with subsidizing healthcare so they don’t have to worry about illness and bankruptcy while trying to climb out of poverty. Yawn, heard it all before from you. If it were up to you people who don’t have money and don’t have close family to take care of them would end up starving.
Here truth, this is from FOX, California isn’t even on it. http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/08/03/states-that-get-most-federal-money/
Better start slashing the military budget, lol. And farm subsidies.
Jack, if you are poor and have a hard time hearing other people speak honestly about the fact that there are people on the government dole for handouts, then you might call such honest discussion bullying or bashing because it offends you. So be it.
And thanks for the link Jack, it confirms what I said about California receiving more federal dollars then any other state.
Here is another link for you:
http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/total-medicaid-spending/
Truthseeker, what do you not understand about per capita? California is HUGE. There are millions more people there than other states, they have the highest population in the union. Of course they take more money as a dollar amount. They take LESS money per person, though. Sorry you don’t seem to understand what words mean.
California is also among the top ten of states that pay the most income tax into federal coffers, just for your information. But, I’m sure you’ll disregard that as well.
Truth, you’re the party that wants to get rid of minimum wage and slash benefits for struggling families, so yes, I do think you’re a bunch of bullies. You’ll ignore massive corporate welfare and our ridiculous “defense” budget in favor of making it hard to feed, educate, and provide healthcare to poor children. I find your whole philosophy sick.
“Sorry that doesn’t fit into what you want to happen truthseeker.”
Don’t feel sorry Jack. The per-capita numbers don’t effect what I said. How will these parents of families making between 20k and 50k a year react when they go onto healthcare.gov and find out that the bronze policy they are getting for $100 or $200 a month actually costs them an additional $10k out of pocket annually before the insurance company pays anything towards the birth of their child?
Jack,
I understand per-capita but that is irrelevant because a small fraction of the people in California are paying the lions share of the federal taxes for everybody else so the large numbers of people on entitlements are in fact there and they will not like the government mandating how they use their earned income and they will not like getting fined by the IRS. They are used to paying no taxes at all.
“You’ll ignore massive corporate welfare and our ridiculous “defense” budget in favor of making it hard to feed, educate, and provide healthcare to poor children. I find your whole philosophy sick.”
I’ll ignore massive corporate welfare? Obama and the Democrat’s are bigger offenders then the Republicans in that respect; but they are both guilty. Ever hear of Jeffrey Immelt and GE; billions of dollars in revenue and paid zero dollars federal taxes while he was employed under the Obama regime.
I just want accountability and our bloated government is a cesspool of fraud and waste: “IRS Sent $46,378,040 in Refunds to 23,994 ‘Unauthorized’ Aliens at 1 Atlanta Address” http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-sent-46378040-refunds-23994-unauthorized-aliens-1-atlanta-address.
I don’t mind feeding the needy but it makes me sick that you can buy EBT cards on Craig’s list.
I am happy to provide education assistance. In fact my children home school so my property taxes contribute to the education of children other than my own.
“How will these parents of families making between 20k and 50k a year react when they go onto healthcare.gov and find out that the bronze policy they are getting for $100 or $200 a month actually costs them an additional $10k out of pocket annually before the insurance company pays anything towards the birth of their child?
”
You have been informed, with sources, multiple times, that people who are under or within 138% of the poverty line (which includes a lot of the poor families you are oh so worried about) will qualify for Medicaid in states that actually expanded Medicaid and didn’t cruelly leave a lot of us to rot. The rest, up to 400%, get subsidized to make their premiums affordable. This has been explained to you multiple times. If someone chooses a Bronze plan, knowing that their out of pocket expenses will be high, then that’s their ‘choice’, since you’re all about making your own healthcare choices. They could choose a plan with a lower deductible if they wish. Regardless, paying 10K is certainly better than paying 30K, which is what my daughter’s birth would have been if my wife hadn’t been insured. We ended up (still paying) with about 8K out of pocket expenses for her birth.
And honestly, if you have like two children and can’t afford $100 a month for health insurance when you make 50K a year, you aren’t living within your means. Unlike you, I DO believe everyone should contribute to their own healthcare, which includes not skipping out on health insurance if it’s within your means to get it, so everyone doesn’t end up with the tab when you inevitably require expensive healthcare.
“You literally cannot support a family on a single income of minimum wage, you simply can’t do it.”
I know. And it was possible for previous generations to make a livelihood on minimum wage. The government subsidized housing raises the median cost of houses. I repeat, government subsidized housing raises the cost of housing. And gas would be $2 a gallon this winter if Obama hadn’t decimated the value of the dollar with his five years of spending madness.
I DO believe everyone should contribute to their own healthcare, which includes not skipping out on health insurance if it’s within your means to get it, so everyone doesn’t end up with the tab when you inevitably require expensive healthcare.
Jack, a part of that responsibility is making life choices to live within your means. You seem to think people who make more money should have to live more responsibly then the poor. In your benevolence you deem that families who make $50k annually should not be eligible for government funded maternity care but poor people should get Medicaid to pay for the delivery of their children. I think that is unjust. This ‘fairness’ doctrine of entitlement for the poor is patently unjust. Justice would be when a person making $50k is entitled to the same government assistance as the person making 20k a year. That is fair. That is equality.
Good luck Jack – same old same old. It’s like arguing with a bumper sticker.
Lol truthseeker! So now you agree with universal healthcare like I do! Success! People ARE entitled to the same healthcare, which is why I think we should all pay into it and all be able to access it. I’m glad we agree.
But seriously, you don’t seem to understand what “live within your means” means. I make 19K a year, there is simply not $100 or even $20 a month left after I pay bills and buy food. Absolutely no discretionary money to pay healthcare insurance. A different single parent with two kids who makes 50K a year has much more discretionary income. Everyone should pay as much as they possibly can to take care of themselves (and poor people DO that, as well as everyone else), and we as a society should help them with what necessities they can’t afford. That’s the basis of universal healthcare and social programs in general. The problem is that you guys for some odd reason want to do it in the most expensive way possible.
So overnight, not truth is a flat taxer? Reagan and those progressive taxation folks are all bums, right truth?!?
Ha – love it.
Nah, Ex, he’s pro-universal healthcare, don’t you see? He thinks everyone should be able to get the same healthcare, regardless of income. :)
And I know, it’s the same thing over and over, but sometimes I like tilting at windmills.
Now it’s become quite the moving target.
In a year’s time, we’ve gone from an advocate of Ryan’s plan, which leaves 30 to 40 million uninsured, to a universal healthcare advocate! Though without progressive aspects of it, which will be tricky to pull off.
I swear some conservatives think that low income people sit around sipping Cristal and driving Cadillacs or something. Um, no, when you’re in poverty everything you make or “get” goes to necessities, basically.
Come on Jack – I know a lot about poor people from facebook. You steal from the system, use all food stamps on junk food, and should get a drug test weekly to make sure you don’t use drugs.
We’re just here to help Jack…just here to help.
You forgot about how we use our ridiculous amount of gubmint money on expensive clothing and have free smart phones provided personally by Obama. And don’t forget to compare health insurance to having a nice car, that’s always a riot of laughs.
Livin’ large Jack…too much livin’ large. You’ve gotta tone it done – leave a few bucks for the rest of us.
Sorry, I’m way too busy living the American dream. Subsidize my drug addiction and Pepsi!
On a side note on October 12th it has been seven years clean from heroin for me, everyone congratulate me. Or, you know, accuse me of stealing people’s taxes. Either/or.
Congratulations Jack :-)
I’m waiting for truthseeker to explain how he’s smarter than the Duggars because he keeps his grocery bill lower than they do.
Um Reality, I think your phone auto-corrected “You should have died in a gutter because you couldn’t afford rehab by yourself” into “Congratulations”.
Honestly, I think my ex father-in-law is a true Christian, because he doesn’t even like me and never has, yet he lent me enough money to pay for a very expensive (the effective rehabs always are astronomically expensive) rehabilitation program. Obviously, the conservative Christian thing to do would have been to send me to a cheap methadone clinic and watch me overdose at age 18. But some conservatives like my FIL have realized that keeping a permanent underclass by not letting them access good healthcare is a bad idea for the whole country.
You seem to have forgotten that I’m not exactly a republican supporter Jack ;-)
Jack, living within your means would be keeping your pants on until after you had a home for your kids.
I agree everybody is entitled to some kind of health care but do you agree that everybody should be entitled to the same government entitlements regardless of income? If you are entitled to help with child care or maternity care then so should everyone else be entitled to the same. I think things like food stamps and/or housing assistance should be available to everybody equally; for a limited time; as way for them to cope when they need a helping hand. As Dennis Miller said; I don’t mind helping the helpless but I do mind helping the clueless.
“Obviously, the conservative Christian thing to do would have been to send me to a cheap methadone clinic and watch me overdose at age 18.”
Jack, you claim to ‘want’ to be responsible for yourself and say ‘of course’ you wish you had the money to pay for things yourself but you still arrogant enough to throw insults at ‘conservative Christians’. Will the real Jack please stand up.
I see no dichotomy in Jack’s statement truthseeker.
Jack, you can buddy-up to people like Ex-RINO and Reality and they will never ‘bully’ you with examples of people milking the government teat. You can buy one another’s friendship….they won’t say anything bad about you and you don’t say anything bad about them…you can just get along together…exchange their support for your entitlement mentality for your support of them while they continue to support the kiling of unborn children other than yours. It is an unholy alliance.
“Jack, living within your means would be keeping your pants on until after you had a home for your kids.”
Oh hell no, you aren’t directing that at me personally. Lol. But you conservative Catholics are so ridiculous and contradictory. Don’t have sex before you’re married! But don’t get married too late, if you get married too late you’re selfish and stupid. Don’t have kids too late either, you selfish hedonist! Don’t use birth control or a condom! But don’t deprive your spouse of sexual affection! If you get pregnant when you’re young and poor don’t abort it! But if you have kids too young to have a good financial set up, too bad for you, you should have kept your pants on! You people, I swear.
And, you’re forgetting I don’t take government help for anything other than my children’s health insurance (I’ve never in my life had food stamps, as I’ve said multiple times, or any other assistance) and we didn’t get help with maternity care when my wife was pregnant either, but let’s pretend you were using the generic “you” there. Yes, everybody should be entitled to the same help below a certain income level. I don’t see where we are disagreeing.
Truthseeker, the “conservative Christian” dig was directly at you, if it weren’t obvious. Since you’ve told me several times (but have changed your tune on this thread, for some reason) that poor people deserve worse and minimal healthcare, I assumed that you would have not wanted me to go to a good rehab and would instead want me to have minimal treatment.
“And, you’re forgetting I don’t take government help for anything other than my children’s health insurance”
This from the guy who was just whining that he was left to rot because his state didn’t put him on Medicaid as part of Obamacare…..Well Jack, it’s time to pay up. $100 bucks a month out of your minimum wage and a $10k deductible. Not thanks to me; but thanks to every DemocRAT you know. I wouldn’t have mandated it on anybody. That has always been my position. It is un-American to force anybody to purchase a product.
“That poor people deserve worse and minimal healthcare,”
You have it backwards Jack; look back and quote what I said…. that people who have money should be able buy whatever health care they can afford. There is a difference and you are dishonest to twist what I said.
You have either a selective or defective memory truthseeker. Jack and I have had some strident disagreements. Not just on abortion either.
There’s plenty of corporate ‘entitlement mentality’ out there too.
And wasn’t it Warren Buffet who said he paid less tax than his secretary?
“Not just on abortion either.”
Supporting the killing of unborn children is more than just a disagreement. It is a sickness; a psychosis; a derangement and a complete lack of moral compass. It is one of the most hideous, unnatural and uncivilized things a person can do.
Did I mention unloving and evil and that it should disqualify any person from getting your vote as a representative in government?
It is a sickness; a psychosis; a derangement and a complete lack of moral compass.– you’ve got substantiated evidence from unbiased and appropriately qualified sources for this? We all have a ‘moral compass’, some just point in a slightly different direction on some things.
It is one of the most hideous, unnatural and uncivilized things a person can do. – evidently not.
Did I mention unloving and evil and that it should disqualify any person from getting your vote as a representative in government? – no you didn’t. But you have now. Opinion noted.
Lol Reality and I argue all the time, we obviously disagree on a ton of stuff, the most important of which is that he refuses to agree that unborn babies should be legally protected. Ex and I tend to agree more, but we don’t even have the same religion so we obviously don’t agree on everything, at all. It’s only you, truthseeker, who doesn’t seem to understand that you can agree on some issues and disagree quite fervently on others.
“This from the guy who was just whining that he was left to rot because his state didn’t put him on Medicaid as part of Obamacare…..Well Jack, it’s time to pay up. $100 bucks a month out of your minimum wage and a $10k deductible. Not thanks to me; but thanks to every DemocRAT you know. I wouldn’t have mandated it on anybody. That has always been my position. It is un-American to force anybody to purchase a product. ”
All right, I’ll pony up a $100 a month for health insurance and get on food stamps. Happy?
You deliberately pretend that you don’t understand what I think about healthcare. I believe a public insurance system, available to all and paid through taxes, is the way to go, with options for private insurance if someone has the means to do so. Obamacare is a band-aid on a crappy system, and that’s because of you guys, not the Dems. I don’t believe in making it impossible for low income people to access affordable quality healthcare. If someone can’t pay for their basic necessities (which is what healthcare is, a necessity), then everyone can help. We’re a civilized nation, we shouldn’t have anyone starving, anyone homeless, or anyone unable to access quality healthcare. It’s much cheaper in the long run to provide these things, it reduces poverty-dependent crime and helps with social mobility. And it would be a good idea to make affordable university education possible.
“You have it backwards Jack; look back and quote what I said…. that people who have money should be able buy whatever health care they can afford.”
I believe people should be able to get private insurance if they have the means. Where we differ is you’d rather people leech off of insured people by racking up thousands of dollars in ER bills they can’t pay because they got pneumonia and couldn’t see a primary care doctor, while I believe (and I’m backed up by actual data) that it’s cheaper, more efficient, and healthier for the populace to provide preventative and maintenance care, as well as catastrophic care, through a public health insurance option.
You DO believe that those with less money shouldn’t be able to obtain good care, you’ve said it in a million different ways a million different times. Using the ER for stuff that should be taken care of cheaply by a primary care doctor is poor healthcare, and that’s what you believe should be available to those who can’t access health insurance. I don’t know why you’re denying it all of a sudden, because you’re usually proud to stick it to those evil poor people who want to get some antibiotics. You’ll let them get meds they need, but in the most expensive and poorly planned way possible. I find it absolutely asinine.
Truthseeker you’ve obviously never seen Reality and I argue about late term abortion if you think that we always agree and hold hands and skip off into the sunset, lol. Now there were some nasty arguments.
Gosh Jack, don’t talk about two males holding hands and skipping off into the sunset, he’ll just get more outraged :-)
Jack, you have it backwards…. where we differ is that you don’t see forcing people to pay for your healthcare coverage up front is as much if not more ‘leaching’ then going without health care and using EMTALA if you need major care. Using either way is using other people’s money; but one of those ways at least has a chance of not leaching.
Truthseeker, it’s MUCH less expensive to allow people to access healthcare in the first place than force them to rely on EMTLA. It just is. I know conservatives don’t like to admit it, but it’s simply truth. I don’t understand why the party that whines about money nearly constantly wants healthcare to be more expensive for yourselves!
And EMTLA doesn’t help you if you need mental health or addiction healthcare unless you attempt suicide or OD, and then it’s only temporary, and it doesn’t help you if you have a non-fatal but chronic condition that needs monthly or so check ups.
Jack,
more or less expensive depends on if the person needs care. A healthy 21 year old could go 30 years easy without ever needing to use EMTALA and saving his own money here or there for routine care. That person is not a leach. But if the same person has other people pay for full coverage for them then it is a lot more expensive and they would be leaching. In your way the person is a leach no matter what. In my way the person is not a leach but may end up needing help if they run into hard times. Your way definite leach; my way not a leach and may not even ever need a dime of anybody else’s money.
That’s a pretty long bow you draw with that scenario truthseeker.
Don’t forget that close to 50% of those who are about or slightly beyond 21 may well go through a pregnancy at some stage.
As you would agree, prevention is better than cure, so even 21 year olds should have at least annual check-ups with a doctor rather tham wait for something to emerge which may then need a whole lot more resources to deal with – it’s what’s known as preventative medicine.
I’d bet that the people who run those numbers probably use what it costs a person to get preventive care through private health care systems as opposed to ER’s. If they used what it costs for people to get the care from government even the preventive care plan would probably be more expensive then sick visits to private clinics would be; AND the care from a government run plan is never as prompt or efficient or as cost effective or as high quality as the care you get through private practice. It is what it is and government is never as good. look at healthcare.gov as an example. Almost four years and they couldn’t even get a web-site to work. Get ready for month long waits to see specialists and rationing and palliative care for the elderly. It is the way things get done in the UK and Canada and our government is just as incompetent.
“As you would agree, prevention is better than cure, so even 21 year olds should have at least annual check-ups with a doctor rather tham wait for something to emerge which may then need a whole lot more resources to deal with – it’s what’s known as preventative medicine.”
I know I never went to those checkups when I was in my twenties; but even if I had wanted to…almost everybody could afford a single annual check-up w/o government help.
Yes they could. But what if it is discovered that surgery or a treatment program is required.
You’re doing the desperate clinging thing again.
Jack,
one other thing that I would like to pint out to you is that ER’s are not the only option for the uninsured these days. Most towns now have what are called urgent care clinics that are designed to keep ER visits to a minimum and they can effectively reduce that cost curve people used to calculate when comparing ER visits to primary/preventive care. I imagine those types of clinics are a fundamental part of government run health care systems
“A healthy 21 year old could go 30 years easy without ever needing to use EMTALA and saving his own money here or there for routine care. That person is not a leach. But if the same person has other people pay for full coverage for them then it is a lot more expensive and they would be leaching. In your way the person is a leach no matter what. In my way the person is not a leach but may end up needing help if they run into hard times. Your way definite leach; my way not a leach and may not even ever need a dime of anybody else’s money.”
Truthseeker, you don’t seem to understand that even routine care is getting out of the reach of even single people of low income households. When is the last time you went for a simple primary care visit without insurance? It’s over a hundred dollars or more here just for little routine things, and god forbid you need tests, medication, or anything like that. And if you get referred to a specialist? You don’t even want to know what a single appointment would cost. And they won’t even see you if you can’t pay for it, you end up in the ER anyway. Speaking of meds, if Wal-Mart or another program doesn’t cover your med in their low cost programs, you are screwed. Even my son’s insured meds cost almost a hundred a month out of pocket, and that’s just the copay. There aren’t generics for everything, and depending on the med even generics can be fantastically expensive. I don’t get why you don’t understand this. Routine care is something that’s out of the reach of a lot of Americans, that’s why they end up in the ER for something that a primary care doctor could take care of, and then they have to pay for medications out of pocket as well. That’s not even taking into account the fact that not having preventative care basically takes away your chance of catching stuff like the early signs of cancer, and things like that really, really need to be caught early.
So, basically, in truthseeker’s wonderful healthcare plan, we’d basically just do things the same. Around 45,000 Americans would die every year because of lack of insurance to take care of their healthcare needs before they get impossible to treat, people would go without needed medications, and people end up disabled from not being able to access “non-EMTLA” type of stuff like physical therapy after an accident or severe illness. And this isn’t even getting into the social problems that all our untreated mental illness is causing our society (addiction, suicides, general issues with social interaction, inability to work properly, etc), which you’re fine with not helping with because in the majority of cases people won’t die from untreated mental illness.
And PS even healthy people in their twenties can get in a horrible car wreck, or get cancer, or any number of expensive emergencies that end up burdening the system because they haven’t been paying into it and can’t pay the astronomical bill that results from it.
“I’d bet that the people who run those numbers probably use what it costs a person to get preventive care through private health care systems as opposed to ER’s
Some do, but many more look at other factors such as healthcare in countries where universal public insurance has been implemented, among other things.
“If they used what it costs for people to get the care from government even the preventive care plan would probably be more expensive then sick visits to private clinics would be; AND the care from a government run plan is never as prompt or efficient or as cost effective or as high quality as the care you get through private practice. It is what it is and government is never as good. look at healthcare.gov as an example. Almost four years and they couldn’t even get a web-site to work. Get ready for month long waits to see specialists and rationing and palliative care for the elderly. It is the way things get done in the UK and Canada and our government is just as incompetent.”
You can say this all you want, but it’s just blatantly false propaganda. Every single country with universal types of healthcare has better overall health outcomes than the US and they pay less for it. We pay much, much more than anyone else, and like a quarter of the population isn’t even getting sufficient care.
And don’t worry about it truth, if we implemented something like Australia you could still get your precious private insurance (and even get a tax break for it!) while not screwing over all your countrymen who need healthcare but who haven’t gotten to the financial place you are in life.
“one other thing that I would like to pint out to you is that ER’s are not the only option for the uninsured these days. Most towns now have what are called urgent care clinics that are designed to keep ER visits to a minimum and they can effectively reduce that cost curve people used to calculate when comparing ER visits to primary/preventive care. I imagine those types of clinics are a fundamental part of government run health care systems”
Urgent care is generally a good idea, but there are flaws. The one near me requires a $75 upfront fee to see you, the overall bill you eventually get is cheaper (I think my neighbor paid around $500 for a visit for strep throat, which probably would have been $1500 or more at the ER) but if you don’t have $75 and are too sick to wait, they just send you to the ER. They won’t treat you without the fee or insurance. Same deal as primary care doctors except you don’t need an appointment or to be their patient.
“I know I never went to those checkups when I was in my twenties; but even if I had wanted to…almost everybody could afford a single annual check-up w/o government help”
Well, first, aren’t you in your fifties (I’m genuinely sorry if you aren’t that old, I could have sworn you are though)? If you are, you’re talking about healthcare twenty to thirty years ago versus now. The prices are so much higher it’s not remotely comparable. And then there is the fact that not all people in their twenties are healthy, especially when it comes to mental health (actually, the late teens and early twenties are the most common times for mental illness to manifest).
And you do realize many doctors won’t see a random non-patient, especially if they don’t have insurance? Maybe it’s just my state, but the doctors here don’t have to take patients if they don’t feel like it. They turn down Medicaid patients and those without insurance all the time (amusingly they seem to be fine with opiate addicts though, we were the pain pill prescription capital of the US for a while before we cracked down on it). So if a healthy twenty-year-old gets ill and needs a doctor, it’s not such a simple matter to just get an appointment if they don’t have insurance.
The last time I paid cash for a doctors office visit without insurance it was $80 and that was 3-4 years ago.
“Every single country with universal types of healthcare has better overall health outcomes than the US and they pay less for it”
No Jack, they do not. I went for an ankle replacement surgery and it was scheduled and done by a doctor who had designed and installed the ankle and it is far better than any that are available outside the US and it is more stable and lasts longer than the one’s they use in Europe and elsewhere. If this were government run I would have never even gotten the chance.
Lol yes Germany, etc, are well-known for their crappy physicians and subpar care. Ha.
Do you know the difference between something you believe because of a personal anecdote and what a fact is?
Jack,
do you? I researched it cause I lived through it. I know every kind of artificial ankle out there and the average life expectancy and stability etc. In Germany and Europe I would have gotten the ankle brand made by STAR and they don’t even last an average of five years without needing more surgery or replacement again. The one developed by my doctor here in the US is a much better product and he has a smashing success rate. You can LOl all you want but it doesn’t change your crap into fact.
Okay wait so your particular doctor developed his/her own artificial ankle? If there was a better one developed by some doctor in like France or something would you have flown out there and had it done? Just wondering? There are brilliant developers literally everywhere in the world, regardless of where you are, but the facts are that healthcare outcomes in developed countries with universal healthcare are overall better by every indicator than what we have here. Life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality, etc, all better. And costs less. What the US DOES have is more specialists, which if you look at the actual outcomes overall doesn’t seem to help us much (probably because a lot of people who need these specialists can’t ever see them because of what it costs). Your positive outcome doesn’t change the overall facts.
One swallow doesn’t make a spring truthseeker.
LOL
The fact is the US health care system worked has always been exceptional. Government mandates and control will only have adverse effects on the quality of health that is being offered. You should lobby the UN next and insist on German doctors and access to European markets instead of pissing on the Americans with health care access that you could never get because you couldn’t afford it.
Yes Jack, my doctor was involved in developing his own ankle. No Jack, I would not have flown to France cause I couldn’t have afforded to but unlike you I wouldn’t be envious of somebody who could fly there or feel entitled to having rich people subsidize trips to France for me.
“I wouldn’t be envious of somebody who could fly there or feel entitled to having rich people subsidize trips to France for me.”
Nah, you’d be upset if you couldn’t access your ankle replacement at all, and ended up disabled because of it. I know you would, so don’t bother denying it. Your type always looks down on the less fortunate until you’re actually in that position.
truth -
The US health care system is very good at emergency care, and things like you had done – though we’re typically a lot more expensive than anyone else.
It is tough to find other measurable items that are we better at though – I’d challenge you to look at numbers.
I would be very interested to know though what an ankle surgery like yours cost in various countries. Better quality – sure. I’ve heard that about our system compared to others. Universal systems, quick emergency care and preventative stuff – but things that are manageable take longer. There’s both good and bad to that – sometimes in this country, we over treat people – back surgeries for instance.
There is no perfect system – we have aspects that are good, and aspects that are bad. For what we pay though, we don’t get our monies worth.
Ex-RINO, take out the WE part and stop judging. What is best for one person is not best for everyone else. Obamacare is a colossal failure no matter how you slice it cause it deprives people of policies they like and forces them to pay for policies that you and Obama determine are better for them.
Truth – what is/was a bigger failure:
a) 1999-2008 – the nation went from about 36 or so million uninsured to 46 million uninsured – people lost their coverage and got no other coverage.
b) 2013 – many (millions?) are shifting from one plan to another, and millions more are now getting insurance for the first time.
a or b truth?
Most of these people getting insurance for the first time are getting put on Medicaid. We could have done that without Obamacare. For example in Oregon ZERO people have gotten policies on the state exchange but tens of thousand have joined the Medicaid rolls. In hindsight wouldn’t it have been easier just to have dropped Obamacare all together and just expanded the Medicaid rolls?
Isn’t it just another lie (thinking ‘If you like your plan you can keep your plan period!’) that everyone will be covered in Obamacare? How many people are expected to be without insurance in 2015? Under Obamacare what happens to the people who opt out of their Bronze plan and do not get insurance but then need major medical but can’t afford a policy at the time they get sick?
truth
Many universal health care folks have floated out what you just did, but with Medicare – saying you could expand that out and cover everyone. The more you talk health care, the more of a progressive you become!
There will still be about 30 million uninsured – some folks would rather pay a fine. Many are in states that didn’t expand medicaid.
Obamacare is decimating the private insurance market. At least expanding Medicare would not include the thousands of pages of mandates and regulations that are destroying the private health insurance market. Under Medicaid expansion if people liked their plan they could keep their plan. What do you think of Senator Ron Johnson’s “If you like your plan you can keep your plan Act’?
What is happening to these people?
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/17/unitedhealthcare-drops-medicare-advantage-doctors
There’s plenty of corporate ‘entitlement mentality’ out there too.
And wasn’t it Warren Buffet who said he paid less tax than his secretary?
He wanted to point out the dishonesty of the tax code methinks “reality.” . Nothing more and nothing less. Nomenclature allows for all sorts of abuses even..pause…to be committed by the dems. Read: there are inumerable number in your camp of those that take advantage of the loopholes and “allowances” or just flatly committ tax fraud…
Lay of the Republicans on this as your beloved dems own this fiasco as well…
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=9309161
truth -
Sometimes you take two steps forward. Other times, two steps back.
What is unique in this law for private insurance companies that hasn’t been around forever? Saying this law decimates that market would be appropriate if you were saying that they were getting shut down and medicare was expanding. Or you’d be correct if the law was giving them LESS customers. But the law is INCREASING their business. It’s just illogical to make those sort of statements. Do you mean that it is hurting them because a higher percentage of money has to be spent on care? If that’s what you mean, say it. These other statements just make no sense.
Medicare advantage – the government was paying 12% more through medicare advantage than it was for comparable care under medicare – so the new law ends subsidies and is working to get people into traditional medical cares. Do you have an issue with this truth, and believe that the government should subsidize the care at a higher rate? If so, say it.
On Johnson’s plan – sure, look at it – I’d have to see the bill though – do you have a link to it? I’m happy to see a GOPer actually with a suggestion – it’s been a long time since that happened. It’s time for everyone to say “here’s the law – here’s the situation in America – let’s tweak and refine and work the law and make it work better for people. For MANY, the situation has gotten better. For SOME, the situation has gotten worse. The GOP yells and says “let’s make it worse for a lot of people because a few are disadvantaged”. We need the change in thinking to say “let’s tweak where it isn’t working and make it better”. Do you disagree truth?
He wanted to point out the dishonesty of the tax code methinks “reality.” – indeed “thomas r.”, as constructed and perpetrated by the gop. So no, I won’t lay of the Republicans on this as it is only your beloved gop who own this fiasco…
“Saying this law decimates that market would be appropriate if you were saying that they were getting shut down and medicare was expanding.”
Ex-RINO, The insurance market where plans are not subsidized by the government are getting decimated because they are not allowed to raise the size of their deductibles by more than five dollars or they lose their grandfather status and can no longer be offered. The plans in the free market where people could customize the things their insurance covered based on their own wants and needs are getting decimated cause they now all plans must offer what government determines they must have. The plans in the free market (plans outside the exchange) are getting decimated because they are excluded from government subsidies that are given to plans in the state exchanges and that creates an unfair market advantage to the subsidized insurers in the exchanges.
As far as your ‘tweak’ theory goes. How do you ‘tweak’ Obamacare so that it doesn’t destroy a health care system where 85% of the people were happy with what they had?
Senator Johnson will be putting the plan out next week. Here is what he had to say about it:
truth – what insurance companies are suffering?
The health care sector of the S&P 500 is up 32% for the year?
Who specifically is getting decimated?
truth -
So are you saying that you would like millions who were going to get insured, or have gotten insured, to go back to being uninsured because there were hundreds of thousands, maybe even a million people that had to shift policies?
Seriously? Is that your logic?
And on Johnson – he’s a US Senator – he’s allowed to submit bills and try to bring them to law. I’m not sure what your point is – are you saying you support the bill and wonder if I do? Are you simply stating a fact that he’s bringing it up? What’s the point here? Senator Johnson can bring bills for consideration? If that’s your point – yes truth, he can.
“truth – what insurance companies are suffering?”
the ones that are being forced to cancel the policies of millions of customer’s who were completely satisfied with their policies.
Ex-RINO, do you support Ron Johnson’s idea to amend Obamacare so that ‘people who like their plans can keep their plans’?
Lets bring this discussion over to the Sebellius gearing thread cause this line is off the menu and archived> I will post this over on that thread and direct it to you.
good call truth on the transfer – posted on the hearing thread.