• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The unofficial Obamacare thread...

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
I don't know why we wouldn't contract this out to a major company like Google or Amazon.

Maybe the Obama's didn't have any executive friends at Google or Amazon to award the no-bid contract to. :chuckles:



White House Logs Show Visits by CGI Official, Classmate of Michelle Obama

tonitowneswhitleywithobamas1-450x192.jpg



Toni Townes-Whitley, a college classmate of Michelle Obama and a senior executive at besieged Obamacare website contractor CGI Federal, has visited the White House several times for both personal and professional reasons.

Townes-Whitley visited the White House complex on four occasions earlier this year to meet with administration officials in her role as vice president for at CGI Federal, which secured a $678 million no-bid contract to build the Obamacare exchange web portal.

Townes-Whitley, a Princeton University classmate of first lady Michelle Obama, and her husband, John Whitley, who works as an engineer for CBS News, also attended a White House Christmas gathering together in 2010, posing for photos with the president and first lady.

The records from the White House visitors log show the CGI Federal vice president, who graduated from Princeton in 1985, the same year as Michelle Obama, had a deeper connection with federal business than simply a college connection to the first lady.

Three of the afternoon meetings, held in the Old Executive Office Building, were scheduled in advance, and one, on Friday, April 26, was not. Three of the meetings were held on Friday and one on Saturday.

The records show Townes-Whitley was alone in her visits.

The White House logs do not indicate the reason for the visits.

Townes-Whitley joined CGI in May 2010, less than two months after President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act
 
They lack any type of business acumen, and are very irresponsible when it comes to spending other peoples money. In the real world, when a website you've contracted out is jacked up this bad, you take specific measures to recoup monies spent, and heads are rolling. I have zero confidence the government will handle this screw-up as a major corporation such as Google or Amazon would. Mostly because it isn't their money they are spending so it's of little consequence at the end of the day. Sure, it looks horrible on the administration that their roll-out is a complete embarrassment at this point, but I have zero doubt more money will be the solution for the fix.

I agree that government organizations have certain inherent inefficiencies; however, you pretty deftly avoided my point - that Social Security and Medicare are examples of programs that work, but in the case of Medicare it is simply underfunded. These programs are extremely popular with the public and are completely government run.
 
Is social security really an example you want to use? It's going to be insolvement by 2037 unless they make dramatic overhauls to the program. I'd say social security is poorly run and another program Americans shouldn't have to pay into. I'd gladly take back my SS taxes and invest them how I see fit. I'm fully capable of planning out my life after my working years.

I don't think I'm out of line when I say the working Anerican would prefer not paying into SS. They'd rather keep those funds to themselves and invest privately.

And excuse my skepticism that I will see the returns I put into it. There's no way my generation is able to see SS at the same age current receivers do either. Seems rather unfair actually...
 
i cant believe people are actually surprised the website has been such a disaster. software is almost the number 1 thing that kills programs in the military anymore because the scope of work gets so absolutely routinely overlooked/out of control by people that have absolutely no fucking idea how software development worked. As a contractor imbedded at an army site I take a lot of the same training that the govt personnel take. Specifically there are classes (imagine week long classes), about program development and almost every single one of these things covers software and points out that if not properly scoped its going to kill the program. There are literally dozens of examples of this that have cost the tax payers of this country billions of dollars because the contractor couldnt get to the end goal (lots of blame on both sides). It is absolutely clear to me that that CGI fucked up their scope and promised something they either knew they couldnt deliver or were wildly optimistic. On the same side the govt kept changing what it is they wanted the website to do.

I was in a waiting room today, and had a chance to watch a small part of the Selibius hearing, and at one point a republican rep starting asking Selibius a question which neither fucking one of them had the technical background to be discussing. I wanted to kick both of them, the rep for asking a question he absolutely had no business asking, and selibius for trying to respond with anything other than "i dont have the technical background to answer your poorly constructed question, which you dont even understand".
 
Is social security really an example you want to use? It's going to be insolvement by 2037 unless they make dramatic overhauls to the program. I'd say social security is poorly run and another program Americans shouldn't have to pay into. I'd gladly take back my SS taxes and invest them how I see fit. I'm fully capable of planning out my life after my working years.

But with respect, your post seems to demonstrate that you don't really know what SSI is intended to do, or why it will "become insolvent in 2037." Social Security will be fine, it will be bolstered with likely tax increases, adjustments to the retirement age, chained CPI, and borrowing from the Fed. But this is, and has been, expected. We wouldn't need to take these measures if the Congress had acted far sooner and raised taxes, not waged two wars, and not raided the fund.

But again, Social Security isn't intended to be your retirement fund, it is an insurance program intended to protect against destitution. With so many baby boomers set to retire, that is why the program will require more revenue. But the program itself is functioning quite well, and for the most part, it always has.

I don't think I'm out of line when I say the working Anerican would prefer not paying into SS. They'd rather keep those funds to themselves and invest privately.

You'd be wildly out of the mainstream. 74% of Americans support Social Security, oppose cuts to the program, and do not want changes made towards privatization. This number has gone up by 13% since 2003's privatization proposal, likely due to the financial crisis.

Don't get me wrong, I, like you, am for some level of privatization. I want a 50/50 split, keeping the insurance portion of Social Security, while expanding the trust as well to have Americans invest in a guaranteed return system. The other 50% should be regulated investment accounts, very much like IRA's or 401(k)'s. This should be a complimentary program to one's employer-based 401k and pension programs. This money should also be available to borrow against, providing credit opportunities for the working class.

But the reason total privatization is a bad idea is that it eliminates the security of a guaranteed insurance program to protect against disability, widowship, or destitution. Private companies aren't capable of providing such a service, because it's difficult to assess risks the smaller the pool - hence the need for a mandate, and a very large insurance pool. By eliminating the social security trust, you further open the door to possible destitution for the elderly and the sick and remove the biggest portion of the social safety net. This isn't good for society or the economy.

And excuse my skepticism that I will see the returns I put into it. There's no way my generation is able to see SS at the same age current receivers do either. Seems rather unfair actually...

It's not unfair, you're paying a small portion of your wages to make sure that old people don't have to work, sick people can pay their bills, and widows don't become homeless when their husbands die. I think sometimes the feeling of invincibility while you're young can blind people. Social Security provides for tens of millions of households. And every single "American working" family will use Social Security benefits during their retirement. It's something that will always be there, no matter if you worked at McDonald's or at the Police Department.

I just can't understand how someone can argue against the existence of these fundamental programs. Social Security and Medicare are beloved, and for good reason. Yes, they need additional funding due to the retirement of the baby boomers. But these baby boomers we're talking about are our parents! How can we be mad about paying into their retirement and health care?
 
Maybe the Obama's didn't have any executive friends at Google or Amazon to award the no-bid contract to. :chuckles:

Is this at all surprising? This kind of bullshit goes on all the time in politics, and it sure as hell isn't restricted to one side of the aisle.
 
But with respect, your post seems to demonstrate that you don't really know what SSI is intended to do, or why it will "become insolvent in 2037." Social Security will be fine, it will be bolstered with likely tax increases, adjustments to the retirement age, chained CPI, and borrowing from the Fed. But this is, and has been, expected. We wouldn't need to take these measures if the Congress had acted far sooner and raised taxes, not waged two wars, and not raided the fund.

But again, Social Security isn't intended to be your retirement fund, it is an insurance program intended to protect against destitution. With so many baby boomers set to retire, that is why the program will require more revenue. But the program itself is functioning quite well, and for the most part, it always has.

I understand it isn't a true retirement fund even though many people treat it as such. Like a responsible person I plan on covering myself in my old age through insurance, retirement accounts, and other personal investments. But since you've said they'll prevent it from going insolvent by increasing taxes and delaying the age at which you can receive it, I've now done a complete 180 on this thing. I personally can't wait until they take more of my money because they certainly aren't getting enough already.

You'd be wildly out of the mainstream. 74% of Americans support Social Security, oppose cuts to the program, and do not want changes made towards privatization. This number has gone up by 13% since 2003's privatization proposal, likely due to the financial crisis.

I'd like to see the figures on that and the ages pulled. I can certainly see the 60+ crowd and those approaching social security in full support. I don't know a single salaried working person in their 30's that likes social security taxes or believe they can't handle their own issues later in life through their decisions today.

Don't get me wrong, I, like you, am for some level of privatization. I want a 50/50 split, keeping the insurance portion of Social Security, while expanding the trust as well to have Americans invest in a guaranteed return system. The other 50% should be regulated investment accounts, very much like IRA's or 401(k)'s. This should be a complimentary program to one's employer-based 401k and pension programs. This money should also be available to borrow against, providing credit opportunities for the working class.

But the reason total privatization is a bad idea is that it eliminates the security of a guaranteed insurance program to protect against disability, widowship, or destitution. Private companies aren't capable of providing such a service, because it's difficult to assess risks the smaller the pool - hence the need for a mandate, and a very large insurance pool. By eliminating the social security trust, you further open the door to possible destitution for the elderly and the sick and remove the biggest portion of the social safety net. This isn't good for society or the economy.



It's not unfair, you're paying a small portion of your wages to make sure that old people don't have to work, sick people can pay their bills, and widows don't become homeless when their husbands die. I think sometimes the feeling of invincibility while you're young can blind people. Social Security provides for tens of millions of households. And every single "American working" family will use Social Security benefits during their retirement. It's something that will always be there, no matter if you worked at McDonald's or at the Police Department.

I just can't understand how someone can argue against the existence of these fundamental programs. Social Security and Medicare are beloved, and for good reason. Yes, they need additional funding due to the retirement of the baby boomers. But these baby boomers we're talking about are our parents! How can we be mad about paying into their retirement and health care?

I will feel like I've failed as a person if I need my child/children to financially provide for me in my old age. My parents are that way today...I don't think they've even ever let me pick up the dinner bill and I'm approaching 31. I understand there are people out there who need the help and weren't as lucky as my folks, but at the end of the day, I just don't think the government needs to be the ones managing these programs. If they want to mandate it...Ok, they mandate it. But they suck at operating these things efficiently as evidenced by this Obamacare roll-out and the US Postal Service.

And BTW, this isn't a republican vs. democrat thing either. The gov't just sucks at running these programs because it comes at it from a non-impacted/non business centric position. While UPS and FedEX continue to run circles around our Postal Service, the government is largely content with watching 3/4th's of our Post Offices operate at a loss.

There were a lot of people shouting from the roof-tops that the government would botch this launch and that the program itself wouldn't be sustainable based on the figures the administration was pushing (amount of young people that would have to enter the exchange, the costs of running the program, the debate of taking the penalty vs. buying insurance). Obviously there's a long way to go to see how this all plays out, but I'm betting against the gov't everytime when it comes to managing a program as robust as this. My opinion is by 2016, Hillary Clinton is distancing herself from Obamacare as much as possible and the Republican Party is using it as a rallying call against the Democratic Party.

I have a family friend that works in Internet Consulting and the Government is his biggest client. He's essentially been living in Washington the last month and he says the problems are bigger than anyone even imagines at this point. He says the whole thing is a gigantic mess and it's going to take a long time to sort through. His position is the current problem is only getting started...they aren't anywhere close to a fix. And whatever they budgeted for the infrastructure of this program is peanuts compared to where it ends up.
 
I would gladly cut loose all funds I have put into SS if my employer and I could stop paying into it for me (others could choose if they want to stay in or not) and keep that 12.4% of my money in a private investment program that I control. That would equal hundreds of thousands of dollars I control, even at a $30,000 salary per year without raises with a low 5% annual simple rate of return. I don't get that with social security "insurance", and I don't control the money. I would even slowly withdraw paying into it over a period of 5 or 10 years at a 20% or 10% reduction per year. The SSI benefit can help the disabled, and should be there for people who have no other alternatives. You can keep charging the 2.9% Medicare rate and charge 1% for disability insurance to support those with no other options. I can buy disability insurance through a private insurer for less than $10 a month at 60% income support. Much more efficient than the government.

The problem with these programs are actuaries, especially government ones, always seem to overestimate revenues and underestimate expenses. The growth of revenues flat lines or decreases, and expenses grow. These is rarely a contingency plan for when revenues or rate of returns don't match estimates for a period of years. It is just shown as an unexpected occurrence or temporary deficit, while there is no change to benefits that correlate to revenues or rates of return received.

Just because a program is beloved in an emotional sense does not mean it is properly working or necessary in a functional sense, at least in its current form. SS should be keeping people from being destitute, but 50+ years after inception, is it really doing that? Over 1/3 of seniors by official standard measures and nearly half (48%) of seniors at supplemental standards are living at less than 200% of the poverty level threshold. http://kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/a-state-by-state-snapshot-of-poverty-among-seniors/. This doesn't include possible ramifications of Obamacare expenses.
 
But by this logic, the government shouldn't be running Social Security or Medicare, and both programs are wildly popular. Medicare has financing problems, but those could be solved simply by opening the program.

I think it's a mistake to make a blanket judgement that the government cannot operate the health care exchanges, simply because "it's government."

Nobody has an issue with them running the military either, but it's clearly not the done in the most cost effective manner either with massive amounts of waste in armament contracts that are probably unnecessary.
 
Nov 2, 10:45 AM EDT

Sticker shock often follows insurance cancellation

By KELLI KENNEDY
Associated Press

MIAMI (AP) -- Dean Griffin liked the health insurance he purchased for himself and his wife three years ago and thought he'd be able to keep the plan even after the federal Affordable Care Act took effect.

But the 64-year-old recently received a letter notifying him the plan was being canceled because it didn't cover certain benefits required under the law.

The Griffins, who live near Philadelphia, pay $770 monthly for their soon-to-be-terminated health care plan with a $2,500 deductible. The cheapest plan they found on their state insurance exchange was a so-called bronze plan charging a $1,275 monthly premium with deductibles totaling $12,700. It covers only providers in Pennsylvania, so the couple, who live near Delaware, won't be able to see doctors they've used for more than a decade.

"We're buying insurance that we will never use and can't possibly ever benefit from. We're basically passing on a benefit to other people who are not otherwise able to buy basic insurance," said Griffin, who is retired from running an information technology company.

The Griffins are among millions of people nationwide who buy individual insurance policies and are receiving notices that those policies are being discontinued because they don't meet the higher benefit requirements of the new law.

They can buy different policies directly from insurers for 2014 or sign up for plans on state insurance exchanges. While lower-income people could see lower costs because of government subsidies, many in the middle class may get rude awakenings when they access the websites and realize they'll have to pay significantly more.

Those not eligible for subsidies generally receive more comprehensive coverage than they had under their soon-to-be-canceled policies, but they'll have to pay a lot more.

Because of the higher cost, the Griffins are considering paying the federal penalty - about $100 or 1 percent of income next year - rather than buying health insurance. They say they are healthy and don't typically run up large health care costs. Dean Griffin said that will be cheaper because it's unlikely they will get past the nearly $13,000 deductible for the coverage to kick in.

Individual health insurance policies are being canceled because the Affordable Care Act requires plans to cover certain benefits, such as maternity care, hospital visits and mental illness. The law also caps annual out-of-pocket costs consumers will pay each year.

In the past, consumers could get relatively inexpensive, bare-bones coverage, but those plans will no longer be available. Many consumers are frustrated by what they call forced upgrades as they're pushed into plans with coverage options they don't necessarily want.

Ken Davis, who manages a fast food restaurant in Austin, Texas, is recovering from sticker shock after the small-business policy offered by his employer was canceled for the same reasons individual policies are being discontinued.

His company pays about $100 monthly for his basic health plan. He said he'll now have to pay $600 monthly for a mid-tier silver plan on the state exchange. The family policy also covers his 8-year-old son. Even though the federal government is contributing a $500 subsidy, he said the $600 he's left to pay is too high. He's considering the penalty.

"I feel like they're forcing me to do something that I don't want to do or need to do," Davis, 40, said.

Owners of canceled policies have a few options. They can stay in the same plan for the same price for one more year if they have one of the few plans that were grandfathered in. They can buy a similar plan with upgraded benefits that meets the new standards - likely at a significant cost increase. Or, if they make less than $45,960 for a single adult or $94,200 for a family of four, they may qualify for subsidies.

Just because a policy doesn't comply with the law doesn't mean consumers will get cancellation letters. They may get notices saying existing policies are being amended with new benefits and will come with higher premiums. Some states, including Virginia and Kentucky, required insurers to cancel old policies and start from scratch instead of beefing up existing ones.

It's unclear how many individual plans are being canceled - no one agency keeps track. But it's likely in the millions. Insurance industry experts estimate that about 14 million people, or 5 percent of the total market for health care coverage, buy individual policies. Most people get coverage through jobs and aren't affected.

Many states require insurers to give consumers 90 days' notice before canceling plans. That means another round of cancellation letters will go out in March and again in May.

Experts haven't been able to predict how many will pay more or less under the new, upgraded plans. An older policyholder with a pre-existing condition may find that premiums go down, and some will qualify for subsidies.

In California, about 900,000 people are expected to lose existing plans, but about a third will be eligible for subsidies through the state exchange, said Anne Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the exchange, called Covered California. Most canceled plans provided bare-bones coverage, she said.

"They basically had plans that had gaping holes in the coverage. They would be surprised when they get to the emergency room or the doctor's office, some of them didn't have drug coverage or preventive care," Gonzalez said.

About 330,000 Floridians received cancellation notices from the state's largest insurer, Florida Blue. About 30,000 have plans that were grandfathered in. Florida insurance officials said they're not tracking the number of canceled policies related to the new law.

National numbers are similar: 130,000 cancellations in Kentucky, 140,000 in Minnesota and as many as 400,000 in Georgia, according to officials in those states.

Cigna has sent thousands of cancellation letters to U.S. policyholders but stressed that 99 percent have the option of renewing their 2013 policy for one more year, company spokesman Joe Mondy said.

Cancellation letters are being sent only to individuals and families who purchase their own insurance. However, most policyholders in the individual market will receive some notice that their coverage will change, said Dan Mendelson, president of the market analysis firm Avalere Health.

The cancellations run counter to one of President Barack Obama's promises about his health care overhaul: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."

Philip Johnson, 47, of Boise, Idaho, was shocked when his cancellation notice arrived last month. The gift-shop owner said he'd spent years arranging doctors covered by his insurer for him, his wife and their two college-age students.

After browsing the state exchange, he said he thinks he'll end up paying lower premiums but higher deductibles. He said the website didn't answer many of his questions, such as which doctors take which plans.

"I was furious because I spent a lot of time and picked a plan that all my doctors accepted," Johnson said. "Now I don't know what doctors are going to take what. No one mentioned that for the last three years when they talked about how this was going to work."
 
Docs resisting ObamaCare

New York doctors are treating ObamaCare like the plague, a new survey reveals.

A poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation’s new health-care plan.

Another 33 percent say they’re still not sure whether to become ObamaCare providers.

Only 23 percent of the 409 physicians queried said they’re taking patients who signed up through health exchanges.

“This is so poorly designed that a lot of doctors are afraid to participate,” said Dr. Sam Unterricht, president of the 29,000-member organization. “There’s a lot of resistance. Doctors don’t know what they’re going to get paid.”

Three out of four doctors who are participating in the program said they “had to participate” because of existing contractual obligations with an insurer or medical provider, not because they wanted to.

Only one in four “affirmatively” chose to sign up for the exchanges.

Nearly eight in 10 — 77 percent — said they had not been given a fee schedule to show much they’ll get paid if they sign up.

The survey invited doctors to anonymously share opinions about the new health care law, and many took time out of their busy days to vent.

“Obama Care wants to start right away, but who will see all these new patients???? Not me,” e-mailed one doc.

Another said, “I plan to retire if this disaster is implemented. This is a train wreck.”

“I refuse to participate in the exchange plans! I am completely opposed to this new law,” said a third respondent.

One doctor recycled the mantra used to attack addictions: “The solution is simple: Just say no.”

One physician was so disgusted, he threatened to taken only cash patients going forward.

“I am seriously considering opting out of all insurance plans including Medicare because of [ObamaCare].”

Some physicians said the pressure on insurance carriers to control costs is leading to rationed care.

“OBAMACARE is a disaster. I have already seen denial of medication, denial of referrals,” one doc said.

And they worry that stingy payments for medical services offered by insurers could put some doctors out of business and force others into retirement.

“Any doctor who accepts the exchange is just a bad businessman/woman. Pays terrible,” argued one doctor.

Said another MD, “Can’t imagine any doctors would be willing to work for so little money? All doctors should boycott.”

Doctors complained they’ve gotten the shaft for years even before ObamaCare.

“I get screwed from insurance companies already. I refuse to get screwed any longer,” one doctor said.

Others said they don’t have enough information to make an informed choice.

“This is a joke. We are flying blind,” said one doctor.
 
Last edited:
why didn't you bold this line

Doctors complained they’ve gotten the shaft for years even before ObamaCare
 
why didn't you bold this line

Doctors complained they’ve gotten the shaft for years even before ObamaCare


Because it wasn't a quote from any of the doctors surveyed...which is all that I bolded. :dunno:
 
A physician’s ObamaCare confession -- you want to keep your doctor but will your doctor keep you?


By Dr. Marc Siegel


Don’t you wish we could roll back the clock to the time when ObamaCare was on the table four years ago and start the discussion about health reform all over again?

I know I do. And among doctors, I am far from alone in feeling this way.

In fact a new poll by the New York State Medical Society found that a full 44 percent of physicians say they aren’t participating in ObamaCare and 23 percent say they aren’t taking those few patients who manage to get their insurance from the state exchanges (I must confess I haven’t yet seen one of these patients yet).

Doctors have always known that health insurance is the problem with the health care system, rather than the solution.

Whether that number of doctors will actually be able to actually walk away from ObamaCare is unknown, but one thing’s for sure, it is a pretty good gauge of doctor discontent.

The question that the media is ignoring is, how can you keep your doctor, as the president repeatedly promised, if your doctor is not keeping you?

The new ObamaCare policies on the state exchange utilize narrow networks. These networks may not include your doctor or the specialists he or she refers patients to or the hospitals they admit patients to.

Your doctor may also choose not to participate in one of these plans if they don’t pay enough.

This is reminiscent of the HMOs of the 1990s, which restricted their networks to try to keep costs down but doctors found them unworkable.

I’m almost embarrassed to admit to you that as a physician, I am being forced to examine your insurance just as much as your insurance company is.

They need to know if it complies with the ObamaCare requirements and pre-requisites, I need to ask is your new insurance policy, which restricts the tests and treatments I can order and pays me too little to see you, still one I can still work with?

In many cases the answer is a resounding no.

Here’s another concern. As your premiums rise to cover the ObamaCare regulatory mandates do not expect these premiums to pay for the care you are used to receiving.

One of the major insurance companies is no longer paying me to give flu shots and only pays $5 for an EKG. How many doctors can still work with this reality?

Most doctors knew from the beginning that many patients wouldn’t be able to stick with us and that we wouldn’t be able to stick with you. We also knew that many of you wouldn’t get to keep your insurance plan. And if we knew all of this, I guarantee you that President Obama knew it, too.

In fact I reported on TV and in print as early as June 2010, when the first draft regulations of the new law came out, an 83 page document co-authored by HHS, IRS, and the Department of Labor, that most of the policies on both the employer-based and the individual market wouldn’t be grandfathered in under ObamaCare.

The draft's own estimates predicted that 66% of the insurance plans offered by small employers and 45% offered by large employers as well as from 40 to 67% of individual policies would no longer be legal by 2013. That’s close to 100 million people switching policies without knowing where their actual health care will come from.

What should have happened?

Doctors have always known that health insurance is the problem with the health care system, rather than the solution.

It creates an artificial interface between doctor and patient where neither is fully aware of the variable costs or the necessity of care. Instead, doctor and patient are both forced to spend most of their time dealing with the bureaucracy in the way of tests and treatments.

Most other industrialized countries utilize out-of-pocket expense as a disincentive for overuse, but in the U.S (where patients have less skin in the game) the focus is on providing coverage rather than addressing a real health care need.

If the federal government felt there was an underserved population that required health care, they should have provided the care directly, by hiring the doctors and nurses to treat them and building the clinics and hospitals to treat them in.

Expanding insurance to a one-size-fits-all standard without making sure the willing doctors and nurses were available was never the right answer, much as it isn’t the answer in Canada.Catastrophic insurance for all would have been sufficient to cover emergency treatments.

What to do now?

As the ObamaCare beast roars in pain, victim of its own unwieldiness, it is tempting to sit back and watch.

But that isn’t the American way.

Instead, now is the time to drive home the fundamental point that less is more, that comprehensive coverage doesn’t mean comprehensive care, that doctors concerns must be considered as much as our patients.

While the beast is weak and floundering, let’s strip away its skin; removing as many bullying mandates and choice-choking restrictions from it as possible.
 
how are doctors going to drop their patients and stay in business?

and this is a pretty absurd statement

Doctors have always known that health insurance is the problem with the health care system
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top