(UPDATED) Trying to stay out of the Obamacare debate...

rgambs · February 2014

yeah i apologize, i could have simply said that i meant it in a very broad way, not in the "govt knows best so take it" way.
i didn't because i am in a general pissy mood lately at my shitty job forcing me overtime to the tune of 60 hrs/week...also, i guess now that i think about it, the whole "big govt" deal just sets me off. you don't see paul ryan or the like suggesting that we build fewer bombs or drop them on fewer foreign babies, the mere mention of defense cuts is anathema. they only want a smaller government in regards to supporting the people of this nation. rant over.
again, i'm sorry..

Change would be easy, if it were possible lol
Repeal Citizens United and end campaign contributions? naw the corps would simply flood the media with unsponsored ads.
Viral candidacies? get politicians from outside the money machine...nope i'd bet it all that they wouldn't let them onto the ballots.
Shorter Terms? wouldn't matter, the money would just flow faster in response.
Ed Vedder for president? now maybe, just maybe, we have an idea there...

EdsonNascimento · February 2014

rgambs said:

grooveme said:
. The insurance compaines are passing the cost of their care onto the rest of us.
this is a good point.
i get people being angry at the government, that makes sense, i am too. but not holding the ins company to blame when they choose to drop you rather than add a few inexpensive items to coverage, this makes no sense. in this country the slave takes up for his master when the abolitionist comes to help him. be mad at welfare moms and not welfare billionaires, mistrust black/white people but trust the people who steal your money. we mistrust the govt which, ostensibly at least, is there to take care of us, and we trust in "the market" which corrupts the govt. we are the worst.
but PJ fans, even blind ones, now theres some hope as long as theres some PJ

Why is the Insurance Company to blame?

Look up the definition of the word INSURANCE as it pertains to monetary transactions.

Whether it's the Goverment covering you or a company, it's still insurance. There is no Insurance money tree.

The government is to blame wholy because they put into place a system that hurts the consumer/insured/provider that not only doesn't "bend the cost curve" like they promised, but ADDS cost to the system.

There are ways to fix the system. Unfortunately, the media (and most liberals) won't allow it to happen.

hedonist · February 2014

No need to apologize, rgambs...but thank you

Shawshank · February 2014

I think the lesson to be taken from all this is...if you make yourself poor enough you'll be ok. Got my insurance cards in the mail yesterday. @-)

cp3iverson · February 2014

Shawshank said:
I think the lesson to be taken from all this is...if you make yourself poor enough you'll be ok. Got my insurance cards in the mail yesterday. @-)

that's kind of how the welfare system works sometimes. Social workers in my immediate family have told me many times that you're better off being a single unemployed mom rather than someone trying to scrape by working two jobs. Kind of goes against how we're told this nation was founded but that's how it goes i guess. lol

rgambs · February 2014

I have an insurance money tree in my backyard. No sarcasm, it's true I literally do. I was referencing it and I'm surprised you caught that, how astute.

how is the insurance company NOT also to blame????

they could easily add the required coverage and charge the additional cost.

im not saying the government didn't drop a turd on us, it totally did. what i am saying is that we have to stick together against those who actually run the world (clearly not the politicians) and not fall for the sad old propaganda that instructs us to support our oppressors.

b>"The government is to blame wholy because they put into place a system that hurts the consumer/insured/provider"

who was "wholly to blame" before the ACA when 40 million were uninsured, they could deny you if you were already sick, premiums skyrocketed every year, costs were out of control, and it hurt the consumer, provider, and insurer? who was to blame then??

know1 · February 2014

We are to blame for allowing a system to develop that makes it incredibly difficult to acquire any medical treatment - no matter how small - without insurance being involved.

EdsonNascimento · February 2014

rgambs said:
I have an insurance money tree in my backyard. No sarcasm, it's true I literally do. I was referencing it and I'm surprised you caught that, how astute.

how is the insurance company NOT also to blame????

they could easily add the required coverage and charge the additional cost.

im not saying the government didn't drop a turd on us, it totally did. what i am saying is that we have to stick together against those who actually run the world (clearly not the politicians) and not fall for the sad old propaganda that instructs us to support our oppressors.

b>"The government is to blame wholy because they put into place a system that hurts the consumer/insured/provider"

who was "wholly to blame" before the ACA when 40 million were uninsured, they could deny you if you were already sick, premiums skyrocketed every year, costs were out of control, and it hurt the consumer, provider, and insurer? who was to blame then??

Except before Obamacare you were covered - it's called indigent care. And if you wanted preventative care, you could pay (a lot cheaper than the insurance they are forcing you to buy) for that, also. So, technically there weren't 40 million unINSURED. Maybe, they lacked sufficient insurance coverage. But they weren't in fact UNinsured.

And BTW, how do you answer the millions that lost coverage, no, got it back, no lost it anyway because of the fubar, even though they were promised from the word go they could keep their coverage? they don't matter? The insurance companies had zero, count that - zero - control over terming those coverages. And then when Obama and his band of idiots realized - jeez- that didn't work so well, the insurance companies actually attempted to step BACK into that abyss to re-install coverage they had not filed rates for and not time to do any sort of proper annual coverage review b/c it was 5 months past when they normally do that so the gov't has enough time to oversee them (get the pattern here on who's the problem?).

As for easily adding the coverage - Insurance companies are more than happy to add every coverage you want including pre-existing conditions. As a matter of fact, there are policies that exist that do just that. Of course, there are either (or both) basic requirements or appropriate pricing for that type of clause. The issue is - pre-exisiting conditions clauses outside of group coverage are extremely UNAFFORDABLE!!!!!! That's why Obama and his band of idiots tried to put in mandatory coverage (the only way it becomes SOMEWHAT affordable) except then gave exclusions to their friends, families and co-worker. Not quite as effective that way. The issue is - due to the agreed upon non-existence of the insurance money tree - someone(s) has to pay for it!!!!!!

So, again, I re-iterate - there is a solution that already exists that even liberal administrations have taken advantage of on the State level that for whatever reason the Federal Gov't is unwilling to go to (here's a hint: Look up Andrew Cuomo, New York State and Medicaid). If they are really interested in bending the cost curve, they would reduce (though maintain) regulation and seek out clinically based insurance programs that have proven to lower the cost of care in a clinically appropriate way. Because until you make care affordable, you have no hope of "covering" everyone. But, that is up to the public. Not the Insurance companies. They'll gladly take your money in exchange for whatever coverage you want.

EdsonNascimento · February 2014

know1 said:
We are to blame for allowing a system to develop that makes it incredibly difficult to acquire any medical treatment - no matter how small - without insurance being involved.

What system do you refer to? The one in which doctors get paid?

Ask a doctor what he gets paid for Medicaid patients. Then you'll begin to understand why Commercial/private based visits to doctors cost so much.

Or, the system where everyone wants everything anytime they want regardless if they need it or not? Or, the system where folks eat and smoke themselves into oblivion? Or, the system where folks get their car's oil changed on a quarterly basis, but then forget to see the doctor? Or, the system where folks are buying stuff they don't need (concert tickets, posters, expensive cars, you name it) instead of buying stuff they do need like proper care?

Which of those systems are you referring to? Not saying there's not stuff wrong with insurance companies. But, understand that the root of the problem is not there. You could eliminate insurance companies. You could have nationalized coverage (which, by the way is still insurance). And the same problems would exist. They'd just be hidden if tax payer's bills instead of us each, you know, actually being responsible for our own decisions. I guess out of site, out of mind?

If you want to go to a doctor - go!!! No insurance transaction is stopping you.

rgambs · February 2014

Mr. 'Mento you seem to be a self proclaimed authority on how insurance works and how doctors get paid. Are you a physician, or do you work with physicians? My wife is a physician and I work in surgery so I doubt you have some precious inside knowledge to which I am not privy.
there are some contradictions in your opinions
"What system do you refer to? The one in which doctors get paid?" your sarcasm here is without merit, know1 may have been alluding to the very points you made. instead of asking him/her to clarify you just piled on as if you know what they had meant and you could crush it.

"Except before Obamacare you were covered - it's called indigent care."
"They'd just be hidden if tax payer's bills instead of us each, you know, actually being responsible for our own decisions."
Obviously taxes pay for indigent care, which is extremely expensive and drives the general cost of healthcare through the roof. BTW indigent care did not pay for chronic treatment, only emergent services. Prior to 2014 if you lost your job and then were diagnosed with cancer or something similar you had two options, death or govt provided care, which of course is still on the taxpayer dime.

"The issue is - pre-exisiting conditions clauses outside of group coverage are extremely UNAFFORDABLE!!!!!!"
"If you want to go to a doctor - go!!! No insurance transaction is stopping you."
Obviously some conditions require treatments which are not feasible for a profit driven company to cover, which is why we have an insurance pool to begin with.

"Ask a doctor what he gets paid for Medicaid patients. Then you'll begin to understand why Commercial/private based visits to doctors cost so much."
I can tell you, though I doubt you will credit me. that many doctors are very disingenuous about their ability to maintain a practice with Medicaid reimbursement. You would be surprised how many doctors work under contracted salary, and don't directly receive Medicaid reimbursements. Now, I am not claiming that Medicaid pays well, and the fact remains that it underpays in nearly every scenario, but depending on the field of practice the effect is variable. When Obamacare was yet a rumor I had anesthesiologists (salaried under contract) chicken littling that it would be the end of their practicing medicine.

"Not saying there's not stuff wrong with insurance companies." sounds similar to what I was saying, that insurance companies carry blame also, and it isn't wholly the government. Or am I misreading this?

Finally I will point to what I said, as you seem not to have noticed it.
"im not saying the government didn't drop a turd on us, it totally did."
also I didn't say anything at all remotely related to the idea that I don't care about the people who lost their coverage. I think it is a tragedy the same as everyone else, but I am also glad for them that they had coverage to begin with as I know plenty who never have. I also know their coverage will return eventually and I hope the nightmare they face in the meantime is not insurmountable.

the fact remains that for-profit insurance companies have an incentive (profit) to deny, reduce, and eliminate coverage as often as possible. Should a company be permitted to profit from human suffering? Historically, yes, but in the future hopefully not.

again, before somebody has a stroke, i think the ACA is a big steamy turd.

EdsonNascimento · February 2014

rgambs said:
Mr. 'Mento you seem to be a self proclaimed authority on how insurance works and how doctors get paid. Are you a physician, or do you work with physicians? My wife is a physician and I work in surgery so I doubt you have some precious inside knowledge to which I am not privy.
there are some contradictions in your opinions
"What system do you refer to? The one in which doctors get paid?" your sarcasm here is without merit, know1 may have been alluding to the very points you made. instead of asking him/her to clarify you just piled on as if you know what they had meant and you could crush it.

"Except before Obamacare you were covered - it's called indigent care."
"They'd just be hidden if tax payer's bills instead of us each, you know, actually being responsible for our own decisions."
Obviously taxes pay for indigent care, which is extremely expensive and drives the general cost of healthcare through the roof. BTW indigent care did not pay for chronic treatment, only emergent services. Prior to 2014 if you lost your job and then were diagnosed with cancer or something similar you had two options, death or govt provided care, which of course is still on the taxpayer dime.

"The issue is - pre-exisiting conditions clauses outside of group coverage are extremely UNAFFORDABLE!!!!!!"
"If you want to go to a doctor - go!!! No insurance transaction is stopping you."
Obviously some conditions require treatments which are not feasible for a profit driven company to cover, which is why we have an insurance pool to begin with.

"Ask a doctor what he gets paid for Medicaid patients. Then you'll begin to understand why Commercial/private based visits to doctors cost so much."
I can tell you, though I doubt you will credit me. that many doctors are very disingenuous about their ability to maintain a practice with Medicaid reimbursement. You would be surprised how many doctors work under contracted salary, and don't directly receive Medicaid reimbursements. Now, I am not claiming that Medicaid pays well, and the fact remains that it underpays in nearly every scenario, but depending on the field of practice the effect is variable. When Obamacare was yet a rumor I had anesthesiologists (salaried under contract) chicken littling that it would be the end of their practicing medicine.

"Not saying there's not stuff wrong with insurance companies." sounds similar to what I was saying, that insurance companies carry blame also, and it isn't wholly the government. Or am I misreading this?

Finally I will point to what I said, as you seem not to have noticed it.
"im not saying the government didn't drop a turd on us, it totally did."
also I didn't say anything at all remotely related to the idea that I don't care about the people who lost their coverage. I think it is a tragedy the same as everyone else, but I am also glad for them that they had coverage to begin with as I know plenty who never have. I also know their coverage will return eventually and I hope the nightmare they face in the meantime is not insurmountable.

the fact remains that for-profit insurance companies have an incentive (profit) to deny, reduce, and eliminate coverage as often as possible. Should a company be permitted to profit from human suffering? Historically, yes, but in the future hopefully not.

again, before somebody has a stroke, i think the ACA is a big steamy turd.

Anesthesiologists are the only ones that have somehow escaped any governmental pricing scheme (Medicare/Medicaid). Don't get me wrong - if you need them for a surgery - they are invaluable. However, more times than not, they get paid more than the surgeon. Maybe, that's correct. Seems weird to me. I would assume the surgeons think it is.

As for the rest of the Medicaid payment - it really depends on where you live. Pretending NYC costs the same to live/practice as East Podunk is naïve. And, while, yes, you are probably technically correct you can live on that (and there are docs and practices that do), I do not begrudge doctors that limit acceptance of such. That being said, my point was - due to the lower reimbursement here, doctors/providers/facilities jack up commercial rates to compensate.

The first thing that really needs to happen and could have a quick and immediate impact is TORT REFORM. Malpractice rates for some specialties is ridiculous due to the coverage needed. OB's work 2/3rds of the year for their insurance/taxes/fees/other sundry things taken out of their pockets. Anyone else work that much of their year just so they can start to pay the electric bill?

It is awful when mistakes happen. But, I'm not sure we need the awards that are provided in most cases. It doesn't even penalize the individual doctor anymore b/c it comes out of malpractice insurance that ALL doctors pay into. So, who are the punitive damages punishing? Everyone involved in the healthcare system NOT the doctor involved. How does that make sense?

And, yet, somehow the lawyers that run the Executive and Legislative branch barely breathe a word of this.

As for this nugget:

"the fact remains that for-profit insurance companies have an incentive (profit) to deny, reduce, and eliminate coverage as often as possible. Should a company be permitted to profit from human suffering? Historically, yes, but in the future hopefully not."

I find it hysterical that people really think that's how insurance companies operate. Paranoid much? If this were REALLY true, how long would they stay in business? As a doctor, I'm sure you're aware of the level of oversight that goes into Medicare and Medicaid plans. If this was running rampant there, I guess you assume there is a big governmental conspiracy/bribery/whatever going on to ignore this. As for Commercial coverage - if you knew how much insurance companies bent over for their bulk purchasers, you would find this supposition foolhardy. All you need to do is have your HR folks bitch and moan, and away it would go. I don't mean on tiny stuff like - oh, woe is me, I need to get a referral - but on the real misery of denied cancer treatments you seem to be referring to. I mean the need to get a referral does not result in "human suffering." If you need something badly enough - go get it - even if it hasn't been "approved." There are all sorts of safety nets in the system to make sure it gets taken care of. If you think the government RUNNING things instead of OVERSEEING things is a better idea, you haven't seen any Government at work.

Here's a "funny" story for you that happens every day - We direct patients to the best Cardiology facility. Maybe, it's an extra half hour from their home (maybe an hour!) than the nearest hospital. Nope. We're the bad guys. So, they go to the facility they want (and their doctor insists) and get readmitted the avoidable but now necessary and expected 3 times for a treatment that could have been taken care of once at the facility we directed them to. So, who in the healthcare system is the problem here? The one that directed to the better performing health care provider (who is more expensive, BTW, on an individual hospital stay, but cheaper and more clinically sound on the overall episode of care), or the patient who insisted on going to the poorer performing, less clinically astute facility that winds up costing the system 3 times as much and creating much more pain and anguish for the patient?

I could go on, but if you think there are corporate executives sitting around rubbing their hands together saying - ooh!!! What human suffering can we wreak today and hope to stay in business for very long today? - I think you've been reading too many newspapers.

Though the alternative is a government running things and just not giving a shit.

brianlux · February 2014

First off I have to admit to not really having kept up on all this very well. I handle most of our budget, my wife takes care of the medical side of things and she says it's covered. (Phew!) But we have extended family kids so I try to keep up on this a bit. Here's an article that seems to indicate mostly good news regarding the Affordable Health Care Act and that perhaps some of the bad rap the law has gotten may not be so accurate after all. Wondering what some of your thoughts are about this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/obamacare-enrollment_n_4855954.html

Obamacare Enrollment Reaches 4 Million

WASHINGTON -- Approximately 4 million individuals have now signed up for health care plans under the newly created Obamacare insurance exchanges, a senior administration official told The Huffington Post on Tuesday.

The numbers mean that roughly 700,000 people have signed up for health care plans since the end of January. And with five weeks before the enrollment period deadline at the end of March, they put the administration on pace to come close to the Congressional Budget Office's initial projection that 7 million individuals would sign up for insurance coverage during the period.

"With individuals and families enrolling in coverage every day, we continue to see strong demand nationwide from consumers who want access to quality, affordable coverage," reads a statement from the administration, passed in advance to The Huffington Post. "Consumers are shopping and enrolling in plans on HealthCare.gov every day; system error rates are low and response times are consistently less than half a second. Our call center has handled more than 12 million calls so far and is open 24/7 to assist consumers in English, Spanish and more than 150 languages."

But with the good news remain some questions. The number of people who have signed up for plans and paid their first month's premium remains unknown, though insurers have suggested about 20 percent of individuals have not paid. Moreover, it is unclear how many of those individuals who signed up in February were young and healthy -- the population demographic that the administration needs to ensure that the exchanges have a stable balance of healthy and sick consumers. A senior administration official said that a more detailed report about the enrollees would be released in mid-March.

Nevertheless, supporters of the law will cheer the news that 4 million people have now signed up for the Affordable Care Act, after having watched the botched launch in October in horror. Back then, it was unclear if the enrollment period would have to be delayed in order to accommodate the slow start. There is little such talk today.

The new enrollment number does not include the millions of individuals who have signed up for Medicaid, though it's not known how many of those individuals renewed their prior coverage or how many are new Medicaid recipients.

The news seems likely to get better for supporters of the law in the next month as well. With a looming enrollment deadline, the administration anticipates a rapid increase in people signing up for coverage. They also expect the number of young enrollees to rise rapidly. That was what happened when the state of Massachusetts implemented similar reform in 2007.

According to Bloomberg News: "By November of that year, the last month to sign up to avoid a penalty, the portion of enrollees age 35 or younger had more than doubled to 36 percent from February, one analysis showed."

UPDATE: 6:28 p.m. -- This article has been updated to note that the enrollment number does not include people who have signed up for Medicaid.

hedonist · February 2014

Doesn't that seem like a small percentage to you, Brian? And the last part - one analysis showed? I do admire how you question certain aspects of life and living and I just ask you do the same here.

(and I have to wonder if signing up means actually being enrolled)

(and hopefully not at a life-breaking cost)

Also, as a partner in your business and handling the majority of your budget as you said - I hope you can look into this more.

Lots of people are getting fucked, and not in a "hey, it's like pizza - always good" kind of way.

My husband may be in that sinking boat pretty soon along with lots of others.

brianlux · February 2014

hedonist said:
Doesn't that seem like a small percentage to you, Brian? And the last part - one analysis showed? I do admire how you question certain aspects of life and living and I just ask you do the same here.

(and I have to wonder if signing up means actually being enrolled)

(and hopefully not at a life-breaking cost)

Also, as a partner in your business and handling the majority of your budget as you said - I hope you can look into this more.

Lots of people are getting fucked, and not in a "hey, it's like pizza - always good" kind of way.

My husband may be in that sinking boat pretty soon along with lots of others.

Oh, for sure, it seems like a very small number to me but the article goes on to talk about how the numbers are more than expected with numbers growing quickly and fairly well on target for the numbers that were projected. I was just wondering if the whole issue was not as fucked up as it seems (wishful thing, perhaps). Personally I don't understand all of this whole issue and I'm not even sure anyone one does so, yeah, I definitely question this aspect of life. I'm pretty sure this is yet another gov clusterfuck but maybe it's going better than was expected. I dunno.

I appreciate the reminder about keeping up on all this stuff. It's a lot of shit to keep track of. Like 99% of us, we're not immune from being dumped into that sinking boat either, that's for sure. Self employment is risky business. I mainly try to make sure my wife is happy, work hard, and try to stay healthy and reasonably happy. We're fortunate to have built a fairly good network of people we can consult but no one will bail us out if things fall apart- and we're no spring chickens so we have to stay on top of this shit. And it's not always fun. We spend a hell of a lot of time working on keeping our heads above water. But we also make time to enjoy life. Gotta do that.

I don't see any kind of social movement that is going to change the way health care is going. Not in this country of mostly passive citizens. As far as I can tell, the best things to do under the circumstances is to get what ever kind of coverage you can possibly afford, live as healthily as possible, manage your finances as best you know how, keep the mind in check, learn to deal with stress as well as possible, and build up the best support group around you as you can.

Fuck, I wish I had better answers.

gimmesometruth27 · March 2014

not at all trying to stir the pot, and i have not read the last 2 pages of this thread, but i have one simple question.

where is the official republican alternative to obamacare that they have been talking about for years? they keep talking about these "obamacare alternatives", yet i have not seen anything formal. all i have seen from the republicans is 50+ votes to repeal obamacare, with no alternative brought to the floor to be debated or voted on. if anybody has any concrete links, i would love to check them out.

brianlux · March 2014

gimmesometruth27 said:
not at all trying to stir the pot, and i have not read the last 2 pages of this thread, but i have one simple question.

where is the official republican alternative to obamacare that they have been talking about for years? they keep talking about these "obamacare alternatives", yet i have not seen anything formal. all i have seen from the republicans is 50+ votes to repeal obamacare, with no alternative brought to the floor to be debated or voted on. if anybody has any concrete links, i would love to check them out.

It's a complicated, convoluted affair, that's for sure, gimme. If you get tired of watching the Oscars, here's a good article that tries to untangle the vicious cycle:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/02/republican-alternative-to-obamacare_n_4877100.html

A Brief History Of The Republican Alternative To Obamacare: Your Sunday Morning Conversation

How to explain the history of the "Republican alternative to Obamacare?" It seems to reside in a realm where time elongates and reality warps. I cannot remember a time in which Republicans weren't fervently offering an "Obamacare alternative." Simultaneously, I cannot remember a time in which Republicans weren't fervently urging the creation of new "Obamacare alternatives." To borrow a line from Christopher Durang, I don't know if this is the trick of memory, or the memory of some trick.

At times, the "Republican alternative to Obamacare" seems to be forever on its way, but never arriving -- as if it were the public policy embodiment of Zeno's dichotomy paradox. New York magazine's Jonathan Chait, who's spent many a day navigating this Beckettian wilderness, suggests that the "Republican alternative to Obamacare" exists in a quantum reality, where they "reside in a state of quasi-existence, and any attempt to summon them into political reality will cause them to disappear."

More often than not, the history of the "Republican alternative to Obamacare" reveals itself as a cyclical set of traditions, repeating themselves over the years in political press conferences and pundit sparring. It goes something like this:

1. Republicans propose "alternatives" to Obamacare that don't go anywhere.
2. Allied partisans urge them to finally get serious and come up with a replacement.
3. They make new promises to keep at it.
4. Their return to the drawing board prompts columns from liberals about how the GOP lacks an alternative.
5. Allied partisans then criticize liberal pundits for saying there is "no alternative plan," citing the many plans that have been proposed, that went nowhere.
6. New alternatives are proposed and/or promised nonetheless, and the cycle repeats.

This cycle resembles Rust Cohle's "membrane theory" from the HBO show "True Detective." Time is a flat circle, in which Republicans have always been proposing alternatives to Obamacare, their proposals just cycling through their lives like carts on a track. The "Republican alternative to Obamacare" exists in an eternity where there is no time, nothing can grow, nothing can become, nothing changes, and everyone is reborn, but into the same effort to replace Obamacare that they've always been born into.

How many times have we had this conversation? I went back to the beginning to find out. By the end, I was ready to crush some Lone Star tallboys.

Jason P · April 2014

Well, Obama made his goal of 7 million signups ... in the same manner I used to beat Contra using the Konami Code (although his Konami Code included a bunch of previously self-insured people who lost their plans and using a pen to change laws and spend god knows how much) ... but he did it.

gimmesometruth27 · April 2014

GOP alternative??

repeal and replace?

of just repeal since they have no plan or replacement?

the gop should just concede defeat on this one. they would be fools not to at this point.

rgambs · April 2014

gimmesometruth27 said:
GOP alternative??

repeal and replace?

of just repeal since they have no plan or replacement?

the gop should just concede defeat on this one. they would be fools not to at this point.

their constituents are fools so they will probably sweep the midterms again and we will have bachmans, gohmerts, and huckabees running around yelling about how jesus was a capitalist and the earth is flat

mikepegg44 · April 2014

rgambs said:

gimmesometruth27 said:
GOP alternative??

repeal and replace?

of just repeal since they have no plan or replacement?

the gop should just concede defeat on this one. they would be fools not to at this point.

their constituents are fools so they will probably sweep the midterms again and we will have bachmans, gohmerts, and huckabees running around yelling about how jesus was a capitalist and the earth is flat

thank whichever God you may pray to that Bachmann is no longer a representative.

(UPDATED) Trying to stay out of the Obamacare debate...

Comments

Categories