Bob's on the radio (again!) in the morning (7:00 AM!!) to talk about today's court ruling outlawing "ObamaCrap." Click here and then hit the "listen live" button.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Breaking News: Judge Rules ObamaCare© Unconstitutional
The good news is that the US District Judge in Florida - you know, the 20+-state case judge? - has ruled the (Evil) Individual Mandate unconstitutional. Further, he found that it was such an integral part of "The Act" as to render the rest moot.
The bad news, if it can truly be deemed that, is that it is not dispositive; that is, the case will continue "upstream" to the Supreme Court, where it will join its sister cases before that august body.
As always, we'll keep you posted.
The bad news, if it can truly be deemed that, is that it is not dispositive; that is, the case will continue "upstream" to the Supreme Court, where it will join its sister cases before that august body.
As always, we'll keep you posted.
HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious in HD?
Maybe she just can't help herself; after all, when you're not the sharpest scalpel on the tray, you're not really expected to make a lot of sense. And, of course, Ms Shecantbeserious is rather dull, which may explain this little non-sequitor:
"[I]f I don’t have a 27-inch TV for the Super Bowl, I can’t demand on the day of the Super Bowl that somebody deliver that TV because I have a right to it. On the other hand, if I don’t have insurance, I come through the door of an emergency room and get treated and get cared for, and somebody else picks up the tab."
What Madame Secretary is referring to is EMTALA, a law that predates ObamaCare© by decades, and requires only immediate, critical care, not a long-term return to health. It should surprise no one, of course, that Kathy thinks that watching the Super Bowl is akin to saving someone's life; after all, these are the folks bringing us Death Panels.
Her point, so far as she actually has one, is that citizens should be forced to buy health insurance, whether they want to or not. It's not clear whether or not she also wants to make watching the Super Bowl mandatory; in such an event, perhaps the Death Panels don't look so bad after all.
It's almost amusing: having lost the "health insurance is the same as auto insurance" debate, the forces of ObamaCare© are reduced to "the Super Bowl is the same as health insurance." What's not funny, of course, is that these are the same folks granting waivers hither and yon, and who think that the public is stupid enough to buy their silly arguments.
Don't bet on it.
FACEPALM!
In the comments, Bob (correctly) points out that he'd made this call some ago. Timeless, and timely.
"[I]f I don’t have a 27-inch TV for the Super Bowl, I can’t demand on the day of the Super Bowl that somebody deliver that TV because I have a right to it. On the other hand, if I don’t have insurance, I come through the door of an emergency room and get treated and get cared for, and somebody else picks up the tab."
What Madame Secretary is referring to is EMTALA, a law that predates ObamaCare© by decades, and requires only immediate, critical care, not a long-term return to health. It should surprise no one, of course, that Kathy thinks that watching the Super Bowl is akin to saving someone's life; after all, these are the folks bringing us Death Panels.
Her point, so far as she actually has one, is that citizens should be forced to buy health insurance, whether they want to or not. It's not clear whether or not she also wants to make watching the Super Bowl mandatory; in such an event, perhaps the Death Panels don't look so bad after all.
It's almost amusing: having lost the "health insurance is the same as auto insurance" debate, the forces of ObamaCare© are reduced to "the Super Bowl is the same as health insurance." What's not funny, of course, is that these are the same folks granting waivers hither and yon, and who think that the public is stupid enough to buy their silly arguments.
Don't bet on it.
FACEPALM!
In the comments, Bob (correctly) points out that he'd made this call some ago. Timeless, and timely.
ObamaTolls©
PowerLine's John Hinderaker gets the WaiverMania impetus exactly right:
"[T]he vicious strategy at the heart of Obamacare [is to] pass terrible legislation, and then collect a toll by exempting your friends--those who pay you lots of money--from that legislation, while your enemies have to live with it."
In this case, the toll actually came before the legislation: look at how many of these waivers go to PresBo's union buddies, who so vociferously (and generou$ly) supported him and his policies. These organizations allegedly represent the interests of millions of workers, those for whom ObamaCare© was ostensibly designed to protect. One wonders how to reconcile these transparently contradictory goals.
I can, however, think of a term which describes it.
"[T]he vicious strategy at the heart of Obamacare [is to] pass terrible legislation, and then collect a toll by exempting your friends--those who pay you lots of money--from that legislation, while your enemies have to live with it."
In this case, the toll actually came before the legislation: look at how many of these waivers go to PresBo's union buddies, who so vociferously (and generou$ly) supported him and his policies. These organizations allegedly represent the interests of millions of workers, those for whom ObamaCare© was ostensibly designed to protect. One wonders how to reconcile these transparently contradictory goals.
I can, however, think of a term which describes it.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Guess what! We're THIS MANY Years Old!
Yes, six years (and 4,000+ posts) later, we're still going strong. Thanks to our readers for sticking by us, and a Special Thanks to my co-bloggers for their great insights.
Shecantbeserious Channels Barney Fife
When she's not granting ObamaWaivers© to PresBo's minions, HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious manages to help an escaped convict elude Federal Marshals:
"While one federal agency was doggedly hunting a fugitive drug smuggler who fled the country 31 years ago, others arranged for his return to South Florida and even loaned him money for housing when he landed here."
And who were these mysterious "others?" Well, none other than "the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services" under the (ahem) watchful eye of Ms Shecatbeserious.
And these are the folks slated to run our health care system?
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
"While one federal agency was doggedly hunting a fugitive drug smuggler who fled the country 31 years ago, others arranged for his return to South Florida and even loaned him money for housing when he landed here."
And who were these mysterious "others?" Well, none other than "the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services" under the (ahem) watchful eye of Ms Shecatbeserious.
And these are the folks slated to run our health care system?
[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Obamacare - Another One Bites The Dust
Obamacare has led to one more health insurance company withdrawing from the market. This means less competition, fewer choices, higher rates. Aetna is pulling out of the Colorado market as of 2/1/2011. They will no longer offer health insurance for individuals, families or self employed in Colorado.
Aetna decided to withdraw from the small group health insurance market in Colorado last October (2010), so this is a natural progression.
Existing major medical policyholders will be offered one 12 month renewal before their coverage with Aetna terminates.
Aetna is still under a cloud imposed by CMS (Center for Medicare Services) and is enjoined from offering Medicare Advantage plans anywhere in the United States. This sanction has lasted for a year with no indication it will be lifted any time soon.
As for now, Aetna has not indicated they will withdraw from the individual major medical market or small group market in any other states, including Georgia. Given their relatively small market share we would not be surprised in seeing them systematically withdraw from other states over the next few months.
If you currently have Aetna coverage for individual major medical or small group coverage, now might be a good time to consider making a change.
Employer group health plans can move at any time without loss of coverage.
Individuals in GA and other states are not as lucky. Only those who can pass underwriting will be able to move to a new health insurance company. Do not drop your Aetna coverage until you have secured new coverage from a new health insurance company. Do not make application with a new health insurance company until you have had your medical conditions pre-screened by a competent health insurance agent.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Seeing through the MVNHS©
As we've long since noted, our country's cancer survival rates put those of our Cousins Across the Pond to shame. And it's episodes like this one which help explain why:
"At least one of four people whose cancer diagnosis was delayed at Londonderry's Altnagelvin Hospital has since died ... The delays happened after written assessments of 18,500 X-rays were not carried out."
Ooopsy.
Here's a poser:
"It is not yet clear whether the delay in diagnosis contributed to the death."
And yet:
"The huge backlog emerged last July when it came to light that important reports had not been completed by clinicians."
Move along, nothing to see here.
"At least one of four people whose cancer diagnosis was delayed at Londonderry's Altnagelvin Hospital has since died ... The delays happened after written assessments of 18,500 X-rays were not carried out."
Ooopsy.
Here's a poser:
"It is not yet clear whether the delay in diagnosis contributed to the death."
And yet:
"The huge backlog emerged last July when it came to light that important reports had not been completed by clinicians."
Move along, nothing to see here.
Seniors in the Crosshairs - Medicare and Social Security
Seniors are caught up in a financial heart attack over funding for Social Security and Medicare. Reports out of Washington, released AFTER the State of the Union speech, hold daunting news for seniors dependent on SS and Medicare to get by.
As reported by NPR, the CBO has this to say about Social Security.
Social Security will run at a deficit this year and keep on running in the red until its trust funds are drained by about 2037
Based on my family history, I figure St. Peter will call me home about the time Social Security runs out of money, so maybe I am in the clear.
This year alone, Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in retirement, disability and survivors' benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said. That figure nearly triples to $130 billion when the new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included.
That doesn't sound good. Wonder how our line of credit with the Chinese is holding up?
This year alone Washington is expected to spend $1.5 trillion more than they take in which means those extra dollars have to come from somewhere.
So how about Medicare?
Well Medicare is sick too.
Medicare's Chief Actuary Richard Foster (the green eye-shade guy) says Obamacrap won't live up to it's promise to save money.
Well, duh!
Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.
On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.
As for people getting to keep their coverage, "not true in all cases."
Blow me away!
Obamacrap will not reduce health care costs and if you like your plan and want to keep it, too bad.
Seems like the public is getting screwed and no one bothered to buy us a drink or bring us flowers.
And bad news for Medicare beneficiaries as well.
Costs could also increase if Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies turn out to be politically unsustainable over the years. The actuary's office has projected those cuts would eventually force about 15 percent of providers into the red. The health care law funnels savings from the Medicare cuts to provide coverage to uninsured workers and their families.
If the cuts cause Medicare providers to lose money, care to guess what happens then?
Do you suppose it will be harder to see a Medicare doctor?
Yeah, probably.
Doesn't sound good for those with Medicare Advantage plans either.
As for people getting to keep their health insurance plan, Foster's office is projecting that more than 7 million Medicare recipients in private Medicare Advantage plans will eventually have to find other coverage, cutting enrollment in the plans by about half.
Medicare Advantage plans will go poof.
We expect that to hit hard later this year (2011) when Medicare Advantage carriers send out notices of non-renewal.
Ceridian's 2-cent Moment
As you may have read, cancer patient Ron Flanagan lost his insurance coverage because his premium payment was $.02 short.
Problem is, that's only part of the story, and as we've seen before, the press rarely looks beyond the popular narrative to see if, perhaps, there's more to the story.
And there is.
First, a quick primer on how COBRA works: when one leaves a COBRA-compliant employer (generally, any company with 20 or more full-time employees) one is entitled to stay on that employer's group plan for up to 18 months, as long as one pays the premium (plus a nominal handling charge) fully and on time. Since tracking this can be a time-consuming (and potentially legally treacherous) course, many employers out-source COBRA compliance to one of the many services which specialize in it. Ceridian is one such service. They are required to follow the law, which they (apparently) did.
I spoke briefly with a Ceridian spokescritter yesterday, who told me that once they were informed of the situation by both Mr Flanagan and the press, they persuaded the employer to reinstate coverage. Unfortunately, the rest of our conversation was off the record. I had hoped to confirm several other pieces of information, but Ceridian doesn't appear anxious to "set the record straight."
Which is a shame, really, because there's some obvious problems that should be addressed by pretty much all the parties involved. I'll start with Ceridian, which really should have more human-centric systems in place to alert them that a "de minimis" (that is "short") payment shouldn't automatically trigger a cancellation. Perhaps this was at the request of the employer (as seems probable), but in this age of automation it doesn't seem far-fetched that this could simply generate an electronic "red flag."
The problem then becomes "what's a de minimis" payment: 2 cents? 2 dollars? 20 dollars? 200 dollars? When you start making exceptions, you open yourself up to a lot of litigation.
Next, let's turn our attention to the Flanagan's. One can certainly sympathize with their plight, and it's easy to make a simple mistake on a check. But they were notified of the shortage and apparently did nothing to confirm that their coverage was still intact until they got to the doctor's office. If someone's suffering a life-threatening illness, doesn't it make sense to make sure that all the i's are dotted and t's crossed? From the accounts that I've read, it appears that Ceridian attempted more than once to alert them to the potential loss of coverage.
It's still not clear to me how this all played out "behind the scenes." For example, was this a self-funded plan, and is that perhaps relevant? Was it fully insured, and thus the cancellation generated by the carrier? Certainly, Ceridian had no reason to arbitrarily cancel the policy: for one thing, they weren't paying any claims; for another, it cost them whatever fees they were being paid on Mr Flanagan's behalf.
Should Ceridian have been more pro-active before issuing the cancellation? Perhaps, but COBRA law and regulations are murky at best, and it's often prudent to simply follow the letter of the law. That's not to excuse anyone, but to acknowledge reality.
Problem is, that's only part of the story, and as we've seen before, the press rarely looks beyond the popular narrative to see if, perhaps, there's more to the story.
And there is.
First, a quick primer on how COBRA works: when one leaves a COBRA-compliant employer (generally, any company with 20 or more full-time employees) one is entitled to stay on that employer's group plan for up to 18 months, as long as one pays the premium (plus a nominal handling charge) fully and on time. Since tracking this can be a time-consuming (and potentially legally treacherous) course, many employers out-source COBRA compliance to one of the many services which specialize in it. Ceridian is one such service. They are required to follow the law, which they (apparently) did.
I spoke briefly with a Ceridian spokescritter yesterday, who told me that once they were informed of the situation by both Mr Flanagan and the press, they persuaded the employer to reinstate coverage. Unfortunately, the rest of our conversation was off the record. I had hoped to confirm several other pieces of information, but Ceridian doesn't appear anxious to "set the record straight."
Which is a shame, really, because there's some obvious problems that should be addressed by pretty much all the parties involved. I'll start with Ceridian, which really should have more human-centric systems in place to alert them that a "de minimis" (that is "short") payment shouldn't automatically trigger a cancellation. Perhaps this was at the request of the employer (as seems probable), but in this age of automation it doesn't seem far-fetched that this could simply generate an electronic "red flag."
The problem then becomes "what's a de minimis" payment: 2 cents? 2 dollars? 20 dollars? 200 dollars? When you start making exceptions, you open yourself up to a lot of litigation.
Next, let's turn our attention to the Flanagan's. One can certainly sympathize with their plight, and it's easy to make a simple mistake on a check. But they were notified of the shortage and apparently did nothing to confirm that their coverage was still intact until they got to the doctor's office. If someone's suffering a life-threatening illness, doesn't it make sense to make sure that all the i's are dotted and t's crossed? From the accounts that I've read, it appears that Ceridian attempted more than once to alert them to the potential loss of coverage.
It's still not clear to me how this all played out "behind the scenes." For example, was this a self-funded plan, and is that perhaps relevant? Was it fully insured, and thus the cancellation generated by the carrier? Certainly, Ceridian had no reason to arbitrarily cancel the policy: for one thing, they weren't paying any claims; for another, it cost them whatever fees they were being paid on Mr Flanagan's behalf.
Should Ceridian have been more pro-active before issuing the cancellation? Perhaps, but COBRA law and regulations are murky at best, and it's often prudent to simply follow the letter of the law. That's not to excuse anyone, but to acknowledge reality.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Email on Email: Retirees and HSAs
About three years ago, we answered a reader's email about HSA's and retiree medical coverage. Recently, we received a follow-up email from another reader:
"Hello,
I just read your ... entry on HSA's and those eligible for Medicare. We have a related question: If the employee is 63 and has an HDHP with an HSA, and his wife is 65 and has Medicare Parts A and B, can she still be on his HDHP? Can he make the family contribution amount into the HSA, ie $6150 plus his catch up contribution since he is the employee and is not on Medicare and he is the eligible employee and she is the dependent?
Or, is she just not able to participate in the HSA so therefore he can only make a single HSA contribution of $3050 plus his catchup contribution?
Thank you,
[Loyal Reader]"
We're always happy to answer our readers' questions, and sometimes (such as in this case) share them as a post (maintaining anonymity, of course). It seems to me that, as the Boomers come of age, a lot of folks will be asking these questions. So, I turned to our own on-call FlexBenefits guru, Alissa Culp of FlexBank. Alissa's graciously answered our questions (which I've already forwarded to our correspondent):
Q: If the employee is 63 and has a HDHP with a HSA, and his wife is 65 and has Medicare Part A and Part B, can she still be on his HDHP?
A: Yes.
Q: Can he make the family contribution amount ... ie $6150 + his catch up contribution?
A: He can make the family contribution only if he has family coverage.
Q: Is she just not able to participate in the HSA ... he can only make a single HSA contribution of $3050 plus his catchup contribution?
A: His maximum contribution into his HSA depends on his coverage type. If he has family coverage, he can contribute the family maximum. If he has single coverage, he can contribute up to the single maximum.
Alissa also sent along a helpful guide that expands on some of this information; drop us a line if you’d like a copy.
Thanks, Alissa and [Loyal Reader]!
"Hello,
I just read your ... entry on HSA's and those eligible for Medicare. We have a related question: If the employee is 63 and has an HDHP with an HSA, and his wife is 65 and has Medicare Parts A and B, can she still be on his HDHP? Can he make the family contribution amount into the HSA, ie $6150 plus his catch up contribution since he is the employee and is not on Medicare and he is the eligible employee and she is the dependent?
Or, is she just not able to participate in the HSA so therefore he can only make a single HSA contribution of $3050 plus his catchup contribution?
Thank you,
[Loyal Reader]"
We're always happy to answer our readers' questions, and sometimes (such as in this case) share them as a post (maintaining anonymity, of course). It seems to me that, as the Boomers come of age, a lot of folks will be asking these questions. So, I turned to our own on-call FlexBenefits guru, Alissa Culp of FlexBank. Alissa's graciously answered our questions (which I've already forwarded to our correspondent):
Q: If the employee is 63 and has a HDHP with a HSA, and his wife is 65 and has Medicare Part A and Part B, can she still be on his HDHP?
A: Yes.
Q: Can he make the family contribution amount ... ie $6150 + his catch up contribution?
A: He can make the family contribution only if he has family coverage.
Q: Is she just not able to participate in the HSA ... he can only make a single HSA contribution of $3050 plus his catchup contribution?
A: His maximum contribution into his HSA depends on his coverage type. If he has family coverage, he can contribute the family maximum. If he has single coverage, he can contribute up to the single maximum.
Alissa also sent along a helpful guide that expands on some of this information; drop us a line if you’d like a copy.
Thanks, Alissa and [Loyal Reader]!
WaiverMania: Catch the Waive! [UPDATED & BUMPED]
By our most recent count, 222 plans had been granted waivers from all or part of ObamaCare©.
You just knew there'd be more, but who could have known just how many?
IB readers had a clue.
And they were right:
"President Obama’s health department made public new waivers for more than more than 500 groups."
Although I was told that there'd be no math, that figure is more than double the previous total. At this rate, we may not have to even worry about ObamaCare© at all: pretty soon, everyone will be waived.
We wish.
The current tally, by the way, stands at over 2 million participants whose plans are not subject to the draconian mandates set forth in the plan we had to "pass to see what's in it."
Never let it be said, though, that HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious has no sense of humor:
"HHS said Wednesday night that it wants to make the waiver process transparent."
Oh, it's transparent, Kathy: we can see right through you.
UPDATE: Well, well, well. Apparently, those Republican party-poopers in Congress aren't catching The Waive:
"The Obama administration’s waivers ... are a “perfect example of special interests” having influence in the administration and will be looked into by Congress"
Sen Charles Grassley of Iowa is calling the Obamastration on its early promise to eschew "special interests," citing the fact that so many of those granted waivers seem to be unions and their ilk. Although the investigations will take place in the House, the Senator has pledged to aid them in their quest to shed some light on the process.
Things could get interesting...
You just knew there'd be more, but who could have known just how many?
IB readers had a clue.
And they were right:
"President Obama’s health department made public new waivers for more than more than 500 groups."
Although I was told that there'd be no math, that figure is more than double the previous total. At this rate, we may not have to even worry about ObamaCare© at all: pretty soon, everyone will be waived.
We wish.
The current tally, by the way, stands at over 2 million participants whose plans are not subject to the draconian mandates set forth in the plan we had to "pass to see what's in it."
Never let it be said, though, that HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious has no sense of humor:
"HHS said Wednesday night that it wants to make the waiver process transparent."
Oh, it's transparent, Kathy: we can see right through you.
UPDATE: Well, well, well. Apparently, those Republican party-poopers in Congress aren't catching The Waive:
"The Obama administration’s waivers ... are a “perfect example of special interests” having influence in the administration and will be looked into by Congress"
Sen Charles Grassley of Iowa is calling the Obamastration on its early promise to eschew "special interests," citing the fact that so many of those granted waivers seem to be unions and their ilk. Although the investigations will take place in the House, the Senator has pledged to aid them in their quest to shed some light on the process.
Things could get interesting...
Sure beats the lizard!
Now this is a great car insurance commercial:
[Major Hat Tip to Russell at Chatswood Moneyblog for the vid]
California Gold Rush
First we were delivered from the evil health insurance companies by Obamacrap. As originally written and signed in to law, Obamacrap prohibited health insurance companies from excluding pre-existing health insurance conditions from coverage on children under the age of 19.
And the mob was pleased.
But the clowns that wrote the law, which they never read until after it was passed, left the insurance companies an out.
Essentially the way Obamacrap was written, IF a health insurance company issued a policy on a child under the age of 19 they would be required to cover any pre-existing medical conditions.
That was a big "if".
If a condition was overly expensive to treat, creating a situation where the carrier would lose money by issuing a policy, Obamacrap allowed them to just say no.
Enter the chief clown to the rescue.
HHS Secretary Shebullshits issued a decree which applied to all carriers throughout the land. Henceforth, by command of Shebullshits, health insurance companies could not refuse to issue a policy on a child.
In essence, she created a provision by fiat that did not exist in the law.
Carriers again reacted by agreeing to issue policies on children, but only if applied as a dependent of a healthy adult.
Again the mob complained that this was not fair. To deny coverage for sick children was bad, but to require parents as part of the package wasn't right.
Enter the California goon squad to save the day. California declared it was unlawful for carriers to require parents to buy health insurance if they wanted coverage on their children.
Think about the irony for a moment.
A key provision of Obamacrap, and one that has generated the loudest protest, is the individual mandate. Once fully implemented, all citizens of this formerly free nation, will be required to buy health insurance or else pay a tax unto Caesar.
But when an insurance company seeks to apply a mandate that adults purchase health insurance in order to also cover their children, this is also considered unfair.
California officials listened to the mob and henceforth declared a mandate for adults of minor children is unjust and passed a law making the parental mandate illegal.
Just like that, the parental mandate is illegal in CA but the Obamacrap mandate is legal . . . at least for now.
But the fire sale on children's health insurance in California is about to end. When the lefty state declared that carriers MUST cover children they conceded there MIGHT be adverse selection unless a window of opportunity was created.
And that window is about to close.
The LATimes reports Cali lawmakers are urging parents to act responsibly and secure coverage for their sick children, creating, in effect, a new kind of gold rush.
The law, which took effect Jan. 1, allows parents to apply for the coverage during an open enrollment period that runs until March 1, or in the month after their children's birthdays.
"The law is only effective if parents take advantage of it
Well, duh!
So parents of sick children, apply now before it is too late.
The carriers have agreed to comply with this mandate, as if they had a choice, but have come back with their own response.
Blue Shield of California has asked for a 59% rate increase on health insurance plans.
Somehow I doubt they will be the last to ask for a significant rate increase. There is also speculation that Blue Shield will bow out of the individual health insurance market.
And so it goes . . .
ACO's - How They Work
Yesterday we learned how an Accountable Care Organization might be set up. Today we will look at an ACO in practice.
Or maybe not . . .
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
This Just In: ObamaLied©
Not to put too fine a point on it, of course, but here's what the (ostensibly) non-partisan Medicare Actuary just officially announced:
"[ObamaCare©] probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it."
In other related news, the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow, and next month is expected to be February.
That is all.
"[ObamaCare©] probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it."
In other related news, the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow, and next month is expected to be February.
That is all.
ACO's - Accountable Care Organization
Accountable Care Organizations will deliver a more affordable health care system, save money, and allow Obama to be re-elected.
Well, maybe . . .
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)