Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Way Health Care Legislation Should Be Passed.  
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

The Senate today demonstrated the exact way any health care legislation should be passed. Piece by piece, not one giant book filled with boondoggle after boondoggle. The only thing they did wrong was to no include in the amendment how exactly is it going to be paid for. Shame the House can't take a lesson from this. For reference it isn't so much the content as it is the structure in which they are doing this that I'm for. It forces the individual lawmakers to make a stand yea or ney on each individual component so they can't later claim, "shucks I missed that", or "had to take the bad to get the good".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

WASHINGTON – In its first vote on health care overhaul, the Senate Thursday narrowly approved an amendment to safeguard coverage of mammograms and preventive screening tests for women under a revamped system.

The 61-39 vote on an amendment by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, would allow the Health and Human Services secretary to require insurers to cover preventive health screenings free of charge.


24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1828 times:

How about a constitutional amendment to allow the federal government to get involved in health care to begin with?


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1799 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 1):
How about a constitutional amendment to allow the federal government to get involved in health care to begin with?

Don't need it. It's in the Preamble. "Provide for the general welfare."


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1782 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Don't need it. It's in the Preamble. "Provide for the general welfare."

An utterly dishonest interpretation which of course is convenient to progressives as it allows them to completely bypass the whole point of "enumerated powers".

Here is the actual text.

Quote:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What do you think that list was - just examples???

The idea according to all of the Founders' speeches and letters after the fact clearly explained that the meaning was "Serve the general welfare, specifically by:" (the following items)



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1778 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Don't need it. It's in the Preamble. "Provide for the general welfare."

They aren't providing you with anything.

They're requiring you to purchase insurance or pay a fine.


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5255 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Don't need it. It's in the Preamble. "Provide for the general welfare."

An utterly dishonest interpretation which of course is convenient to progressives as it allows them to completely bypass the whole point of "enumerated powers".

Just curious but you say the same thing, so it is enumerated:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Here is the actual text.

Quote:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Additionally, the Congress has the power from this element of their powers:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,

This is a form of regulating commerce between these United States when you get right down to it. The Commerce Clause has been used to impose many rules, laws, and regulation for many years (I know you know that, just stating the obvious).

Also, while I do support universal access to healthcare, I agree that a smaller packet by packet method is better than an incomprehensible omnibus bill.

Tugg

[Edited 2009-12-03 15:01:04]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1762 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 5):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,

This is a form of regulating commerce between these United States when you get right down to it. The Commerce Clause has been used to impose many rules, laws, and regulation for many years (I know you know that, just stating the obvious).

Great point. The states have all managed to restrict insurance companies from trading interstate - exactly what this particular clause of the Constitution was intended to combat. Why does Congress make up a right from the "general welfare" phrase, but ignore those that are specifically spelled out.

And by the way - this health bill does not promote the general welfare. General welfare activity would benefit everyone, more or less equally. A vast majority of the population will see their healthcare increase in costs, and only maybe 10% of the population will actually benefit, according to the Democrats themselves. That's redistribution, not general welfare,



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

The Senate also voted against continued excessive funding of Medicare Advantage.

Seems that the overcharge from insurance companies (who said they could do it "cheaper than government") will end. I'm still trying to figure out why Republicans want to keep a program that has a 15% premium on costs and yet would scream if taxes were raised to pay this excessive cost.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
What do you think that list was - just examples???

Well, the militia and Navy are mentioned, but there is no mention of the Air Force anywhere in the Constitution as I recall. Post Office? Yep. Air Force. Nope.

Can it be that there are things that can be done by the national government that is not specifically listed? How about the Health Department and their efforts to distribute vaccines? Do vaccines show up anywhere in the Constitution? Nope.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1756 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 5):

Yeah. What he said.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):

Well, the militia and Navy are mentioned, but there is no mention of the Air Force anywhere in the Constitution as I recall. Post Office? Yep. Air Force. Nope.

And there's no mention of the ATC system, either. Or the FAA. Or the FCC.


User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1756 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Don't need it. It's in the Preamble. "Provide for the general welfare."

You know, words have meaning. Let's look at the meaning of the word 'welfare'...from 1828, a mere 41 years from when the Constitution was adopted:


WELFARE, n. [well and fare, a good faring; G.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.


http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,welfare

Look at definition 2. It is applied to states...the government.

"general welfare of the United States", Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution.

It does not say general welfare of the people of the United States, but the "general welfare of the United States". Clearly, definition 2 applies.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5255 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1749 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 6):
And by the way - this health bill does not promote the general welfare. General welfare activity would benefit everyone, more or less equally. A vast majority of the population will see their healthcare increase in costs, and only maybe 10% of the population will actually benefit, according to the Democrats themselves. That's redistribution, not general welfare,

A key question then is: What do those 10% cause?
If people are sick they get other people sick, those 10% introduce more illness into the general population so the effect is greater than the 10% number indicates.

Also when people are injured they decrease the work that the USA can produce and additionally cause a drag on the state and others that have to 1.) make up for their missing work and 2.) support those people directly, reducing that persons (the caretaker) production. I know you have witnessed direct examples of this as it happens all the time, so it's not a question of the quantity of people in a certain condition but the amount of impact those people have on everyone else around them.

To me this is a business issue and to be more effective and productive and competitive in this global economy, we have to ensure that everyone is able to be as productive as possible. There are already people who "live off the system" and I don't want to add to that. I'd rather provide heathcare to all than pay welfare, get the people who want to work but are being prevented from doing so because of injury or illness and have more people working.

The real question is will improved access to healthcare increase the productivity of the USA by more than one-half of one percent? If it will then it will pay for itself. I do believe it will and for that reason I support universal access to routine healthcare.

Tugg

[Edited 2009-12-03 16:29:45]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1742 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Seems that the overcharge from insurance companies (who said they could do it "cheaper than government") will end. I'm still trying to figure out why Republicans want to keep a program that has a 15% premium on costs and yet would scream if taxes were raised to pay this excessive cost.

Because we don't care about how cheap it is (even taking you for your word that you think the government can do anything cheap)

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Can it be that there are things that can be done by the national government that is not specifically listed? How about the Health Department and their efforts to distribute vaccines? Do vaccines show up anywhere in the Constitution? Nope.

that's what Amendments are for, if you can get them passed.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Well, the militia and Navy are mentioned, but there is no mention of the Air Force anywhere in the Constitution as I recall. Post Office? Yep. Air Force. Nope.

That's a pretty obvious one - a technological advance. But actually this was not a problem until after WWII, since up until 1947 or so, the Air Force was part of the Army, not an independent service.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
And there's no mention of the ATC system, either. Or the FAA. Or the FCC.

Interstate commerce clause certainly comes into play with the FAA and ATC, and arguably the FCC as well, as all of them step over state lines. A radio transmitter in NYC can affect several states - that's what the FCC is for.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1732 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):

Interstate commerce clause certainly comes into play with the FAA and ATC, and arguably the FCC as well, as all of them step over state lines. A radio transmitter in NYC can affect several states - that's what the FCC is for.

And you don't think healthcare has anything to do with interstate commerce?

That would be why I had a mother of two who had been living in Virginia for EIGHT YEARS still officially a resident of NY and still with her kids on NYS medicaid. Yeah, nothing to do with interstate commerce my left gonad.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21106 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1731 times:



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 9):
ordinary blessings of society and civil government

Which could easily encompass health care.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1719 times:



Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 9):
You know, words have meaning.

If you look only at the era when the Constitution was written you find the Founding Fathers created a country that provided an environment we wouldn't want today. Slavery? It was there. (Didn't George Washington own slaves?). Women not allowed to vote. Actually, didn't men have to be landowners in order to vote?

Maybe that's why we need to look at today's definitions as well as what is written in a 200 year old dictionary.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Because we don't care about how cheap it is (even taking you for your word that you think the government can do anything cheap)

Medicare Advantage was supposed to be proof that the private sector could provide care for less money than the government. Today the "efficient" private sector is 15% more expensive than Medicare. The program is a failure in my mind - it's sucking money out of other programs and will be a core factor in increasing taxes to pay for Medicare in the future.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
That's a pretty obvious one - a technological advance.

And you don't think that medicine has advanced far more? The Founding Fathers were as unable to understand where medicine would be today as they were understanding that Americans would travel to the moon, or that there would be an Air Force. Don't you know they would have loved to see an aircraft carrier at peak operations?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1715 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
And you don't think that medicine has advanced far more? The Founding Fathers were as unable to understand where medicine would be today as they were understanding that Americans would travel to the moon, or that there would be an Air Force.

Defending the country was definatly one of the purposes of the federal government. But government was never, ever supposed to be caretaker to its citizens. That's the difference.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Medicare Advantage was supposed to be proof that the private sector could provide care for less money than the government. Today the "efficient" private seoctor is 15% more expensive than Medicare.

By what measure?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5255 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1695 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
Defending the country was definatly one of the purposes of the federal government. But government was never, ever supposed to be caretaker to its citizens. That's the difference.

It's not caretaking, it's providing the maximum opportunity for the citizen to access the tools and services needed to succeed and ensure a productive society.

Again this is not about the government PROVIDING healthcare, it's about ensuring that the population, the people of these United States, can get to their jobs jobs, provide for their families and themselves, and contribute to a successful society.

I don't agree with all the provisions contained within the bills plowing through Washington right now but unfortunately the Republican's are forcing the bills to be as "left" as possible as they can not negotiate for a better elements without being destroyed politically. The fact that one cannot support the concept of universal routine healthcare access without being labeled and attacked as not being a "conservative" or Republican, or being called a turncoat and a RINO. The legislators should be allowed to negotiate for the best bill possible and that does mean some level of compromise with those of differing political views.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1695 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 7):
Well, the militia and Navy are mentioned, but there is no mention of the Air Force anywhere in the Constitution as I recall. Post Office? Yep. Air Force. Nope.

Not quite.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings

The air force is based on land. The government is charged with organizing the militia which would include airplanes and missiles just as it included cannons in the revolutionary war.

Air Force bases would be included in other needful buildings.

The Marine Corp is not mentioned, yet it exists.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
The program is a failure in my mind - it's sucking money out of other p
rograms and will be a core factor in increasing taxes to pay for Medicare in the future.

The whole program, medicare, is a failure as it hasn't been financed properly for decades and is going broke whether or not medicare advantage remains.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Today the "efficient" private sector is 15% more expensive than Medicare.

Here we go again, you've been debunked before but I guess that doesn't stop you from continuing to post erroneous information. That 15% is translated into more benefits for the recipients. Dental, and eye care just to name a couple.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1659 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
By what measure?

The excess cash payments to Medicare Advantage Insurance companies - the 15% excess over the basic Medicare. Personally I would have no problem with Medicare Advantage continuing IF the private companies performed as originally promised and delivered care for LESS OR THE SAME COST.

Quoting DXing (Reply 17):
Here we go again, you've been debunked before but I guess that doesn't stop you from continuing to post erroneous information. That 15% is translated into more benefits for the recipients. Dental, and eye care just to name a couple.

Here we go again - Medicare Advantage was not supposed to be more expensive than Medicare. Remember the argument that the private sector can do it for less, or do more for the SAME amount of money?

So if you feel that the extra 15% costs is worth it for "some" old folks, why not simply increase Medicare taxes 15% and give everyone the extra benefits?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1658 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
The excess cash payments to Medicare Advantage Insurance companies - the 15% excess over the basic Medicare. Personally I would have no problem with Medicare Advantage continuing IF the private companies performed as originally promised and delivered care for LESS OR THE SAME COST.

But Medicare pays health care providers an artificially low rate, which in turn forces providers to make up for losses elsewhere, such as by increasing their prices to private insurers.

You can't compare Medicare to anything else. Let's say we put everyone in the country on Medicare, as a sort of single-payer system. Half the health care system would simply go out of business.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1647 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 19):
You can't compare Medicare to anything else. Let's say we put everyone in the country on Medicare, as a sort of single-payer system. Half the health care system would simply go out of business.

Well, Australia has a Medicare based program with funding from a Medicare Tax on earnings. They also have a very profitable private insurance industry - so profitable that even the government has gotten into the game. (I actually had a Medicare Private policy when I was traveling to Australia 3 to 5 times a year on business.)

Now, if private insurance programs in Australia are so profitable that the government actually gets into the game why would "half the health care system" in the US go out of business?

Would it be those hospitals who have to add a surcharge to your fees because of the number of patients without insurance they treat? Don't think so. What about the big time medical centers who have an international reputation and pull in major research dollars from the government? Not them either.

What I believe you might see is a shake up that has the best doctors focusing on private insurance patients, with either a limited or no Medicare patients. But we have that to some degree already.

I also see benefits of shifting research funds to public hospitals - especially those who have an open policy for patients. When I went to a famous cancer center in Texas for a second opinion I was advised that they didn't work with my private insurance company and I needed to bring $14,300.00 with me for my first appointment. And this joint gets major research grants from the government. Something wrong there.


User currently offlineMSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1644 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 17):
The Marine Corp is not mentioned, yet it exists.

Sure it is. They fall under the Department of the Navy. There's no Department of the Marine Corps unlike the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6485 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1640 times:



Quoting DXing (Thread starter):
The Senate today demonstrated the exact way any health care legislation should be passed.

If you do it this way, NOTHING will ever be achieved....which I'm sure is your goal. You'll pass tons of inefficient amendments that will just pile on top of each other without any consideration for how one amendment affects another.

Healthcare is a SYSTEM. Trying to fix a system with a thousand little patches, without addressing fundamental structural problems is a guaranteed failure.


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1596 times:

Another vote today underscores that that it won't just be medicare advantage that takes the hit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans forced Democrats to vote in favor of cutting billions from providers of home care for older people as partisan debate flared Saturday during a rare weekend session on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
Here we go again - Medicare Advantage was not supposed to be more expensive than Medicare. Remember the argument that the private sector can do it for less, or do more for the SAME amount of money?

If you toss in the extra benefits that the plan offers it's not. Perhaps that's why more and more seniors sign up for it every year.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
So if you feel that the extra 15% costs is worth it for "some" old folks, why not simply increase Medicare taxes 15% and give everyone the extra benefits?

I'm all for going back an refinancing the whole program. Because I'm absolutely sure that when the general public saw how much it was going to truly cost in taxes to not only support the program correctly but take care of it's debt they would blanche at the cost. Perhaps then I could keep more of my hard earned money to provide for myself.

Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 21):
Sure it is. They fall under the Department of the Navy. There's no Department of the Marine Corps unlike the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force

You are correct.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 22):
If you do it this way, NOTHING will ever be achieved....

No, it will get achieved, but everyone will know the true cost up front.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8711 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1570 times:

I found a perfect summary:




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The American Health Care System posted Sun Mar 13 2005 13:35:28 by Catatonic
Thank You Orbitz. The Way Business Should Be Done. posted Mon Jul 23 2007 21:48:48 by Vio
The Way The World Should Be! posted Sat Apr 21 2007 13:09:44 by Cedars747
The People Of Maine Should Be Ashamed Of Themselve posted Tue Nov 3 2009 23:11:44 by N104UA
Obama To Be On TV More - Health Care Reform posted Thu Sep 17 2009 12:48:00 by Homer71
Idea For Lowering The Cost Of Health Care posted Fri Oct 17 2008 08:21:13 by Dreadnought
The Person Who Devised The _____ Should Be Hanged posted Wed Feb 6 2008 15:59:54 by HickoryShampoo
People Who Should Be In The NFL HOF posted Thu Sep 20 2007 22:36:24 by HuskyAviation
People Who Should Be In The MLB HOF posted Thu Sep 20 2007 01:17:17 by N1120A
Who Thinks The British Monarchy Should Be Kicked O posted Mon Mar 28 2005 23:18:54 by Burberry753