MANDATORY health insurance, part 2 - Page 44 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-18-2010, 06:15 PM   #646
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
But really, employer-provided insurance really isn't MINE to begin with. What assurances did I have that my employer wouldn't choose to drop coverage for me prior to this law?
About the same amount of assurance that you actually have a job with your employer. Many of us could be downsized tomorrow.

You asked why it would cost more to insure workers under the new law. I'd encourage you to look at the article I posted.
__________________

__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 06-18-2010, 09:43 PM   #647
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
About the same amount of assurance that you actually have a job with your employer. Many of us could be downsized tomorrow.

You asked why it would cost more to insure workers under the new law. I'd encourage you to look at the article I posted.
Which is my whole point. Employer-provided insurance is NOT guaranteed pre-Obamacare.

I did read your article, and I read the full text at the link you provided and it does not explain why costs to employers are going to skyrocket. It simply states that it will. I want to know where the increased costs are going to come from.

Also, on a more careful reading, the small business owner who spends about $8000 per employee appears to be spending that amount NOW. Its not a projected amount that the owner will have to spend when the Health Care Reform law kicks in. However, the owner will eventually be able to pay a $2000 fine and avoid having to spend the larger amount he or she currently spends. But right now the owner ISN'T required to provide insurance for his or her employees so why is the owner doing it? They could just stop providing insurance right now and it wouldn't cost them anything until the new law kicks in.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-19-2010, 07:33 PM   #648
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 09:56 PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Admin. Argues in Court That Individual Mandate Is a Tax

Quote:
Obama Admin. Argues in Court That Individual Mandate Is a Tax

By Philip Klein on 6.17.10 @ 2:04PM

In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax -- even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.

Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven't presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government's ability to collect taxes.

The Act, according to a DOJ memo supporting the motion to dismiss, says that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed." The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a "tax" or "penalty," because either way, it's "assessed and collected in the same manner" by the Internal Revenue Service.

But this is a characterization that Democrats, and specifically Obama, angrily denounced during the health care debate. Most prominently, in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama argued that the mandate was "absolutely not a tax increase," and he dug into his view even after being confronted with a dictionary definition:

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but...

OBAMA: ...what you're saying is...

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.


At the time Obama made that statement, the Senate Finance Committee had just released its own health care bill, which clearly referred to the mandate penalty as an "excise tax." But in later versions, the word "tax" was stripped, because it had become too much of a political liability for Democrats. The final version that Obama signed did not describe the mandate as a tax, and used the Commerce Clause -- not federal taxing power -- as the Constitutional justification for the mandate.
The individual mandate was absolutely not a new tax according to the president, but now it is?

This health care bill continues to be a debacle. The fuzzy-math finances, the alleged savings, and the annual doc fix bill that blows all savings out of the water. The process shows a complete lack of executive experience, over one year of an unconvincing campaign by the president. So, the bill had to be crammed down to us by a parliamentary procedure, unprecedented for this kind of sweeping legislation. The public was against this, and months later, is still surprisingly against it.

From the president's clear misrepresentations, to the administration's ridiculous congressional bribes and back-room deals, we should be ashamed of this government. It's not hope and change. It's hack Chicago politics on steroids.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 06-19-2010, 11:54 PM   #649
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
The fuzzy-math finances
Yes, speaking of that. Could you clarify how the new law will allegedly cause employers to spend more on health insurance for their employers?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-20-2010, 03:11 PM   #650
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post

This health care bill continues to be a debacle. The fuzzy-math finances, the alleged savings, and the annual doc fix bill that blows all savings out of the water. The process shows a complete lack of executive experience, over one year of an unconvincing campaign by the president. So, the bill had to be crammed down to us by a parliamentary procedure, unprecedented for this kind of sweeping legislation. The public was against this, and months later, is still surprisingly against it.

From the president's clear misrepresentations, to the administration's ridiculous congressional bribes and back-room deals, we should be ashamed of this government. It's not hope and change. It's hack Chicago politics on steroids.
I'm ashamed that a certain portion of the American public has shifted far right, remains uninformed and gets their talking points straight from Hannity and the like. It's a shame that these individuals couldn't even answer the simplest of questions regarding the current system of healthcare two months ago, yet now feel they are so informed. It's actually pretty damn scary.

We shall continue to ask, and we shall continue to have our questions skirted or ignored.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-20-2010, 03:26 PM   #651
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:56 PM
the long game.

Quote:
AP-GfK poll: Public thumbs up for Obama health law
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and TREVOR TOMPSON (AP) – 3 days ago

WASHINGTON — The vital signs are improving for President Barack Obama's health care plan.

The latest Associated Press-GfK poll on Obama's top domestic achievement finds support for the new overhaul has risen to its highest point since the survey started asking people about it in September — six months before it became law.

The results now: 45 percent in favor, 42 percent opposed. That's a significant shift in public sentiment considering that opposition hit 50 percent after Obama signed the health plan into law in late March and that in May, supporters were outnumbered 39 percent to 46 percent.

"I thought when people began to realize what was in the health care package that they would see it's a good, solid program and that would dispel some of the misinformation," said Brigham Young University English professor Claudia Harris, 72, of Orem, Utah.

Electrical contractor Kerry Eisley of Moscow, Pa., said he thinks people are starting to get nuts-and-bolts information on how the law affects them.

"If we can insure more people across the United States and get the cost of health care down, I think that's a better thing," said Eisley, 43, a Republican who supports the plan, which passed without the vote of any GOP lawmaker.

The poll found support increased since May among men (from 36 percent to 46 percent), people in their prime working years (from 35 percent to 49 percent among 30-49 year-olds) and Republicans (from 8 percent to 17 percent.) The uptick among Republicans comes even as party leaders are calling for the law's repeal.

The changes coincide with a concerted effort by the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and their allies to sell the immediate benefits of the law.

Among the selling points: coverage for young adults on their parents' plan until they turn 26; a $250 rebate check for older people with high prescription costs; tax credits for some small businesses that cover their employees; and federal money to train more primary care doctors and nurses.

"They are clearly making progress in convincing more Americans that this bill is the right way to go," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University public health school professor who tracks opinion trends on health care.

Despite the gains, the prognosis for Obama and the Democrats is guarded.

"In my view, they can claim victory if it gets a majority," Blendon added. "The country is so polarized, it just might not make it."

The $1 trillion, 10-year health care remake puts the nation on a path to coverage for all. Starting in 2014, everyone in the U.S. will be required to carry health insurance. The government will provide tax credits to help middle-class people not covered at work buy a policy through new competitive health insurance markets. Medicaid will be expanded to help low-income people. The plan is paid for through a combination of Medicare cuts and tax increases.

One complication for the president is that older people remain opposed to the law. Just last week, Obama answered questions at a televised town hall meeting in a senior center, but his assurances seem to be having little effect. The poll found that 56 percent of people 65 and older don't like the new law.

"I don't know if it's sustainable, and that's got us worried," said Audrey Guillot, 69, whose family owns a general store in Pierre Part, La. "How much can we borrow? How long before other countries start calling in our debts? Medicare is about to go broke — when do you address that? How many bridges to nowhere can we build?"

The poll found that 51 percent trust Democrats to do a better job of handling health care, an issue that more than three-fourths rate as personally important to them. By comparison, 38 percent said they trusted Republicans.

Daniel Lowery, 23, a shipper at a Lowe's distribution center in Ohio, said he thinks Democrats "are headed in the right direction, for the most part." But he complained they haven't clearly explained how the complex law works.

"I think people would be more for it if they actually explained what they're giving us, because I barely know, and I watch news every day," said Lowery, who lives in Fostoria, south of Toledo.

The AP-GfK Poll involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,044 randomly chosen adults and was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications from June 9-14. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.

The Associated Press: AP-GfK poll: Public thumbs up for Obama health law


i'm also not terribly concerned if the country goes back to Clinton-era tax levels so that 40m people can get health insurance. taxes are historically low after 8 years of slashing taxes, increasing spending, and starting wars.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-20-2010, 03:53 PM   #652
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
The poll found support increased since May among men (from 36 percent to 46 percent), people in their prime working years (from 35 percent to 49 percent among 30-49 year-olds) and Republicans (from 8 percent to 17 percent.) The uptick among Republicans comes even as party leaders are calling for the law's repeal.
Republicans? That's an interesting, and nice, surprise. I wonder how the Republican Party will deal with that tidbit of information?

I honestly think the reason opposition was so high at one point among many was because we got to watch the sausage-making process at work, if you will, and it got really tiring and frustrating and long. I think most Americans didn't care what resulted, they just wanted a result as soon as possible, and just got tired of watching the petty bickering and the long, drawn-out means of creating the bill. Some of the opposition is definitely from people who have personal issues with the idea, but I really believe that was the main issue for most people. And now that something actually resulted from all that, something with some very good ideas in it, most people are pretty happy.

As for taxes, yeah, as I understand it, again, the people who may see themselves paying more in taxes are generally going to be the upper-class folks. I know Obama and the Democrats were trying to make sure that middle-class and low-income families wouldn't have to be paying more than they could afford to pay. But regardless, I'll gladly pay in what I can afford to pay in if it means making sure people can actually be able to go to a doctor now and get the best treatment possible so they can live long, happy lives.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 06-21-2010, 09:01 AM   #653
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Yes, speaking of that. Could you clarify how the new law will allegedly cause employers to spend more on health insurance for their employers?
I've made the opposite suggestion. The new law could actually save employers money. Simply pay the fine and cut your workers loose to a government subsidized exchange. It's incentivized. Do I think every company will do that? No. Do I agree with internal White House rumblings that maybe 50% of workers will not be able to keep their current plan?

When I said "fuzzy math," I was referring to 10 years of revenue collection for 7 years of benefits. It's unsustainable.

Also, the idea that Medicare will be shored up by cutting it $480 billion, but then spending that same $480 billion on a new entitlement. It's double-counting. You can't have both, and it's half the financing for Obamacare! And speaking of the Medicare cuts, when it really comes time to slash it, do you think our congress will have the stones to do it? It's political suicide.

Not to mention the doc fix supplemental spending. Not included in 'comprehensive' reform because it didn't fit into the marketing campaign that the plan would come in under $1 trillion.

But Sean, back to your question about employers having to spend more. It's not something I've highlighted here, but you asked and I'll address it. Large companies have been writing down earnings in the hundreds of millions because some tax breaks are going away, particularly for drug benefits. It doesn't seem like a lot of money for them in the whole scheme of things, so it's not something I've pushed.

On a more indirect level though, health costs in general will surely go up, and insurance costs will follow, as a result of this bill. We're all familiar with supply and demand. We have strong new demand for services coming, and the supply of health providers is staying relatively the same. A doctor's time becomes even more scarce and expensive.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 09:02 AM   #654
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
oh, i see, a bunch of poors and minorities get health care, and now we're worried about federal debt, not when we were shipping off kids to go get TBI's in the desert so that we might see the continuation of the Bush Oedipal Complex.
That's a new one.
Quote:
from a debt perspective, the present system was far worse, a ticking time bomb.
Don't 'spose you noticed that as a condition of their bailout by the IMF that Greece is required to privatize their health care system. Seems they REALLY need to bend their cost curve down, not just pretend to.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 03:28 PM   #655
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
I've made the opposite suggestion. The new law could actually save employers money. Simply pay the fine and cut your workers loose to a government subsidized exchange. It's incentivized. Do I think every company will do that? No. Do I agree with internal White House rumblings that maybe 50% of workers will not be able to keep their current plan?

When I said "fuzzy math," I was referring to 10 years of revenue collection for 7 years of benefits. It's unsustainable.

Also, the idea that Medicare will be shored up by cutting it $480 billion, but then spending that same $480 billion on a new entitlement. It's double-counting. You can't have both, and it's half the financing for Obamacare! And speaking of the Medicare cuts, when it really comes time to slash it, do you think our congress will have the stones to do it? It's political suicide.

Not to mention the doc fix supplemental spending. Not included in 'comprehensive' reform because it didn't fit into the marketing campaign that the plan would come in under $1 trillion.

But Sean, back to your question about employers having to spend more. It's not something I've highlighted here, but you asked and I'll address it. Large companies have been writing down earnings in the hundreds of millions because some tax breaks are going away, particularly for drug benefits. It doesn't seem like a lot of money for them in the whole scheme of things, so it's not something I've pushed.

On a more indirect level though, health costs in general will surely go up, and insurance costs will follow, as a result of this bill. We're all familiar with supply and demand. We have strong new demand for services coming, and the supply of health providers is staying relatively the same. A doctor's time becomes even more scarce and expensive.
BW, can I just thank you for taking the time to answer the question I asked and put some thought into your answer. I mean that in all sincerity.

I understand what you're saying about the fine--that it's cheaper to just pay it than pay for insurance. But pre-health care reform there hasn't been any fine at all right. If you choose not to insure your workers, it costs you nothing, right? So wouldn't a company have even more incentive right now before the law goes into effect to drop coverage for their employees then they would once the law is in effect? The companies that I see that would lose out would be ones that are currently NOT providing healthcare to their workers. For example, the preschool my wife works for doesn't provide health benefits. For a company like that, yes, it would be cheaper for them to just pay the fine. The added expense of the fine is less than the added expense of providing coverage. But of course in this case, the new law isn't causing my wife to "lose her coverage" with her job because she didn't have any to begin with.

What your arguments seems to imply is that right now you CAN'T lose the coverage you have--you are guaranteed to be able to keep the plan you have, but under the new plan you will face the possiblity of not being able to keep the plan you have. And as I understand it, that's simply not true.

Finally, re: the supply and demand. I could see some increase in demand, in the sense that people who just didn't go to the doctor for preventative care or even when something (but not something debilitating) is wrong will now start going. However, the people who are really sick or injured have still shown up at the doctors doorstep. They just went to the ER and we--those with insurance--got stuck with the bill anyway. So I don't think doctors are going to be deluged with a whole bunch of people made sick by the new health reform law. (Unless you were arguing that all those people just died at home and now, dangit we have to treat them--but I don't think you were making that argument). They may get more people coming in at earlier stages in the game, but that could amount to a savings since earlier, preventative care should reduce the super expensive treatment for illness/conditions that have progressed. The one group that will see a huge increase in demand is the insurance companies, but I'm pretty sure they're quite confident and excited to meet that demand.

The one thing that I probably do agree with you on is that the cost of reform is definitely going to be higher than was advertised. I always thought that would be the case and I wasn't excited about it either. However, what's not clear, at least to me, is whether the cost of reform is going to be greater than the cost of doing nothing.

Where the Republicans really dropped the ball is that they failed to provide a viable alternative that would resolve the health care crisis in this country without the huge price tag. I would have been very interested in such an alternative (Despite what some might think--I'm not a "knee-jerk" Democrat or liberal or whatever). Something along the lines of "Hey Obama's plan is going to bankrupt the country--here's OUR plan to cut the cost of health care and make sure everyone in the country has access, and it won't cost near as much." Maybe they had such an alternative, but it was drowned by the tea party naysayers and fearmongers. Maybe the fear tactics made for better TV and the media didn't cover the Republican plan. Or Maybe it's because such an alternative doesn't exist? I don't know.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-28-2010, 10:57 PM   #656
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:56 PM
This is for AWanderer and BVS and is a continuation of our discussion on infant mortality rates and why statisics and comparisons can be misleading.

Quote:
The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.

Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of
emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive
in the world.
The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.


How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth.
That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

This is clearly what is happening in Cuba. In the United States about 1.3 percent of all live births are very low birth weight — less than 1,500 grams. In Cuba, on the other hand, only about 0.4 percent of all births are less than 1,500 grams. This is despite the fact that the United States and Cuba have very similar low birth rates (births where the infant weighs less than 2500g). The United States actually has a much better low birth rate than Cuba if you control for multiple births — i.e. the growing number of multiple births in the United States due to technological interventions has resulted in a marked increase in the number of births under 2,500 g.

It is odd if both Cuba and the U.S. have similar birth weight distributions that the U.S. has more than 3 times the number of births under 1,500g, unless there is a marked discrepancy in the way that very low birth weight births are recorded. Cuba probably does much the same thing that many other countries do and does not register births under 1000g. In fact, this is precisely what the World Health Organization itself recommends that for official record keeping purposes, only live births of greater than 1,000g should be included.

The result is that the statistics make it appear as if Cuba’s infant mortality rate is significantly better than the United States’, but in fact what is really being measured in this difference is that the United States takes far more serious (and expensive) interventions among extremely low birth weight and extremely premature infants than Cuba (or much of the rest of the world for that matter) does.
Cuba vs. the United States on Infant Mortality | Overpopulation.Com

I could also mention that Cuba has a much higher abortion rate than the U.S. Again, may factors could account for this but no doubt many "troublesome" pregnancies are terminated in Cuba that might not be in the United States.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:11 PM   #657
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Republican H.C. Bill

And no, I wouldn't recommnend reading the whole thing.

H.R. 2520: Patients' Choice Act (GovTrack.us)

Not perfect but a far cry better than Obamacare and at least a move in the right direction.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:19 PM   #658
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 08:56 PM
A rather odd site, that hasn't been updated in four years. It seems to have some weird conflicting agendas.

But I agree it's not going to be perfect, you simply can't compare these types of things side by side and get the whole picture. I also don't really think it says all that much.

But the argument you're trying to make with it INDY, it says quite a bit that both are so close to each. Maybe one has a higher number of abortions, maybe one counts mortality rates different(although the WHO defines what they consider and it's not stated if the global number used includes those), but there are other things to factor in. YOUR argument is that social medicine will decrease the quality of doctor and care, so no matter what by YOUR definition this number should be significantly different and not just slightly.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-28-2010, 11:21 PM   #659
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Republican H.C. Bill

And no, I wouldn't recommnend reading the whole thing.

H.R. 2520: Patients' Choice Act (GovTrack.us)

Not perfect but a far cry better than Obamacare and at least a move in the right direction.
What do you like about it?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-29-2010, 12:55 PM   #660
Acrobat
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 459
Local Time: 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Yes, I guess these are the smart Drs.

Of course you do would find it laughable, but you fail do acknowlege the AMA who is on Obama's side and touted often represents less than 20% of the nations's doctors.



thank you

It is less than 18 % now. AMA is done. Just like AARP
__________________

__________________
Benji2112 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Dog Lovers.... Part 3 U2Fanatic4ever Lemonade Stand 1019 05-19-2012 04:35 AM
Hell-th Insurance WARNING: LONG POST! BluRmGrl Zoo Confessionals 7 10-26-2006 10:04 PM
On (not) having health insurance wolfeden Zoo Confessionals 14 03-24-2004 12:15 PM
White House seeks control on health, safety Scarletwine Free Your Mind Archive 1 01-13-2004 05:54 PM
Bono today at the conference in Africa U2Kitten Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 9 01-15-2002 10:29 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com