PDA

View Full Version : Economics The Republican Health Care Plan


Direckshun
07-03-2012, 12:52 PM
... exists? Maybe?

Romney's website is an unfortunate series of platitudes, not a cohesive plan of any sort.

The Romney candidacy was supposed to be substance based. I'm having a hard time tacking him down on about anything.

Maybe this is why. At least on this issue.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/will-romney-pretend-to-have-a-health-plan.html

Will Romney Pretend to Have a Health Plan?
By Jonathan Chait
Today at 12:41 PM

The health-care ruling has exposed a delicate dance within the Republican Party. Romney does not want to run on the health-care issue. To the extent that he wants to invoke the issue, it’s to flay Obama for having focused on it as a distraction from the economy, not as an ideological crusade against Big Government. But conservative activists want to be sure that, if Romney wins, he will commit his political capital to repealing the Affordable Care Act. Thus their current focus on demanding that Romney pledge to repeal the law (see Avik Roy, Keith Hennessey, Rich Lowry, and David Brooks, among many others).

The interesting thing about these conservatives' arguments is that they are all committed, to varying degrees, to upholding the pretense that the Republican Party really wants to impose a more technocratically sound version of health-care reform. To be sure, they insist they are advocating a vastly different philosophical vision centered around self-empowerment and free markets and other wonderful things. But all of them say, or imply, that they share the basic goals of the Affordable Care Act, which is to make coverage available to all Americans and to control cost inflation. So, for instance, Lowry argues, “The two central selling points of the law — insuring millions more people and keeping people with pre-existing conditions from getting locked out of insurance — can be addressed with policies that are cheaper and less disruptive (a tax credit for purchase of insurance and high-risk pools, respectively).”

I see two problems with this hopeful scenario, both fatal.

The first is that the mythical Republican reform plan is really hard to pass. Conservatives may think they have a cheaper way to fix the system, but it still costs money. And Republicans have never appropriated any money to cover the uninsured. Indeed, all their plans divert money that already exists to cover people who need health care for other purposes. Conservatives hopefully propose turning the health-care tax deduction into a more progressive tax credit. Great idea! Except the plans put forward by Romney and Paul Ryan plow the savings from eliminating that tax deduction back into lower tax rates. And it leaves no budgetary provision for high-risk pools or any other mechanism to subsidize coverage for the poor and sick.

Now, you could suppose that maybe this is all one giant oversight. Republicans failed to craft an alternative plan during the health-care debate, then voted to just straight repeal Obamacare with no replacement, then voted for a budget that just straight repeals Obamacare with no replacement, but when they have power, then they’ll really come up with a plan.

But where is the evidence that they have any desire to do so? Sunday, the two most powerful Republicans in Congress appeared on interview shows and were asked what they plan to do for the uninsured. Mitch McConnell hilariously danced and weaved, admitting that covering the uninsured is “not the issue”:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QvZvNSKrOZ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Paul Ryan, as he is apt to do, offered a much smoother take, couching his position in philosophical abstractions:

What — what Mrs. Kennedy and others were saying is this is new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights.

Those are ours. Those come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence, a huge difference in philosophy.

What this blather actually means is that he does not accept that the government has an obligation to ensure that all Americans have access to health care.

If Republicans really wanted to replace Obamacare with some more “market-friendly” alternative, then there’s a simple way they could go about it. They could promise to repeal the law only if they packaged the repeal with a replacement that did not increase the number of uninsured. But they’ll never do that, because the magic, cheaper free-market alternative does not exist, and the GOP has no interest in diverting resources to cover the poor and sick.

Hennessey, who lays out the most specific vision for repealing Obamacare, asserts, “Repeal and replacement should be separate legislative efforts.” This means, of course, that the actual plan is first to get rid of Obamacare, then pretend to work on a replacement before eventually discovering that it’s expensive and unpopular. Oh well. The only interesting question here on any level is why so many conservatives feel bound to pretend that the Republicans really are going to formulate some other plan to care for the poor and sick.

Donger
07-03-2012, 12:55 PM
What this blather actually means is that he does not accept that the government has an obligation to ensure that all Americans have access to health care.

I don't believe that it is the obligation of the federal government to ensure that all Americans have access to health care.

And, for those who can't afford it, we have Medicaid.

mlyonsd
07-03-2012, 01:50 PM
We don't have an obligation to provide health care for everyone.

vailpass
07-03-2012, 01:56 PM
We don't have an obligation to provide health care for everyone.

Period. We do have an obligation to facilitate the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness to whatever extent is feasible.

CoMoChief
07-03-2012, 02:08 PM
The government

does not need

to run HC.

vailpass
07-03-2012, 02:11 PM
The government

does not need

to run HC.

A bi-partisan good-faith effort to create a true solution with the eye toward minimized government involvement would be refreshing.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2012, 02:51 PM
Republicans don't need a stinkin' plan. Socialists and communists devise plans from command central. Get the govt off the backs of the industry.

I am sick and tired of left-wing central planners setting the framework for the debate in a way that sets only themselves up to win. It's the opposite of what this country was founded on and THAT should be the framework.

CoMoChief
07-03-2012, 03:05 PM
A bi-partisan good-faith effort to create a true solution with the eye toward minimized government involvement would be refreshing.

LMAO.......puh-leeeeeease

www.whenpigsfly.com

mikey23545
07-03-2012, 03:08 PM
We should all know by now the only plan you need is "Hope and Change".

suzzer99
07-03-2012, 03:27 PM
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5092/uhcr.jpg

Do any of you ever ponder that the next 30 or so wealthiest countries after us all have some form of UHC? Do you think they're all just stupid and USA #1? Or do you just avoid thinking about it all together? I'm sure Fox never brings it up.

vailpass
07-03-2012, 03:38 PM
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5092/uhcr.jpg

Do any of you ever ponder that the next 30 or so wealthiest countries after us all have some form of UHC? Do you think they're all just stupid and USA #1? Or do you just avoid thinking about it all together? I'm sure Fox never brings it up.

The US doesn't set our standards by those of any other countries. Never have, never will.
The fact that you want us to is not surprising in the least.

suzzer99
07-03-2012, 03:51 PM
Yeah and we spend twice as much on healthcare per capita than them and marginalize 10s of millions of other-wise hard-working people.

But hey at least we don't look to other countries for examples. That would make us pussies. Or something.

Why exactly can't we look at other countries to see what they're doing right?

vailpass - you are everything that's wrong with this country - racist, xenophobic, war-mongering, ignorant, America-first blind patriotism. You make my skin crawl. The fact that the republican party needs people like you to vote for them to stay in power should tell any objective observer a lot. The fact that CP tolerates your racism also says a lot.

CoMoChief
07-03-2012, 04:09 PM
Yeah and we spend twice as much on healthcare per capita than them and marginalize 10s of millions of other-wise hard-working people.

But hey at least we don't look to other countries for examples. That would make us pussies. Or something.

Why exactly can't we look at other countries to see what they're doing right?

You wanna look at europe as a good example for nationalized HC? ROFL

patteeu
07-03-2012, 04:14 PM
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5092/uhcr.jpg

Do any of you ever ponder that the next 30 or so wealthiest countries after us all have some form of UHC? Do you think they're all just stupid and USA #1? Or do you just avoid thinking about it all together? I'm sure Fox never brings it up.

None of them have militaries capable of defending the free world like we do either and many of them are in even worse fiscal/economic states than we are. If they're so great, why aren't we seeing major emigration?

BucEyedPea
07-03-2012, 04:18 PM
Yeah and we spend twice as much on healthcare per capita than them and marginalize 10s of millions of other-wise hard-working people.

But hey at least we don't look to other countries for examples. That would make us pussies. Or something.

Why exactly can't we look at other countries to see what they're doing right?


Like Europe? European socialist states are imploding. There's bank runs across southern Europe even. Yeah, let's look at those countries. This thing is going to go global. Be very worried about the second half of 2012.

As for the "we" spend—we is a collectivist notion. The only reason "we" spend more is because we've adopted a patchwork socialist system already and intervene in HC markets. It is the cause of our spending more.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2012, 04:20 PM
Do any of you ever ponder that the next 30 or so wealthiest countries after us all have some form of UHC? Do you think they're all just stupid and USA #1? Or do you just avoid thinking about it all together? I'm sure Fox never brings it up.

We were one of the wealthiest when other countries had UHC. We usually led the way out of recessions because we had less govt involved in our economic sector and health sector. Europe's ideas, actually most of the world even, on liberty are not as expansive as Americas which is why certain people left those countries and came here. They are used to more authoritarian systems due to centuries of living under monarchies. America with her liberty was supposed to be the shining beacon of liberty in the world.

Pawnmower
07-03-2012, 05:38 PM
Period. We do have an obligation to facilitate the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness to whatever extent is feasible.

Please explain how you can pursue life and happiness if you are sick with a curable disease but cannot afford the treatment...

I used to agree with you , but the more I think about it....the more that I am coming to the conclusion that:

It is impossible to have a life without health.

patteeu
07-03-2012, 05:51 PM
Please explain how you can pursue life and happiness if you are sick with a curable disease but cannot afford the treatment...

I used to agree with you , but the more I think about it....the more that I am coming to the conclusion that:

It is impossible to have a life without health.

Maybe so, but that doesn't mean your neighbor owes you help with your medical bills. Our country existed as a land of opportunity with people pursuing whatever life and happiness they could manage a long time before modern medicine reached it's current heights and a long time before the government was transferring wealth for health care purposes.

I think it's good for our society to have some level of wealth transfer (aka insurance, aka socialization) to cover basic treatments for mostly catastrophic conditions, but we can't provide everyone with a level of health care that almost no one can afford on their own (which is what many seem to be demanding). The math just doesn't work out.

BigMeatballDave
07-03-2012, 06:00 PM
Its not so much a health care plan, as it is pandering to insurance companies.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2012, 06:13 PM
Its not so much a health care plan, as it is pandering to insurance companies.

That's what the entire patchwork intervention to allegedly make HC affordable has been since day one. It increases the demand curve.
You progressives have been doing what you did back in the 1920s and 30s creating problems that more govt is needed to fix. Lying about markets being unstable or not working etc. etc.

You've destroyed what made American unique and great, as an example for the rest of the world to copy—not the other way around. You've made most everything worse off, or more expensive with some of your leaders knowing full well where it leads—to govt taking over more and more until it's all taken over. You change the meaning of words to trick the people, you play on base emotions to mislead the people, you've taken over education to dumb people down so they can't figure it out and you deny your Marxism. It's no different than if someone having dropped a bunch of reds in business suits in this country pretending to be Americans even conservative Americans.

HonestChieffan
07-03-2012, 06:15 PM
Liberalism is a sickness not covered by government but by stealing from those who produce

tmax63
07-03-2012, 07:45 PM
The government does owe you life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't mean they're gonna hand it to you on a platter. They aren't responsible if you get sick with bad/no insurance because you thought the new 4-G cell phone and contract was more important or decided to drop out of school or any of a number of bad choices that many people opt for. That's the "liberty" part of the equation. Alot of people make bad choices then blame someone/something else. Personal responsibility is an overlooked factor since life/living isn't normally a mulligan style game.

Pawnmower
07-03-2012, 08:35 PM
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean your neighbor owes you help with your medical bills. .

Doubtful this argument holds up....

Single, childless, and infertile people have to pay taxes that go for kids they dont have to go to schools.....

People who don't drive pay taxes that go to fix potholes....

People pay taxes to fight wars they don't agree with...

ETC....

The government is the people.....It isn't about your neighbor "owing" you anything IMO. It is about having a functional Goverment (people), that actually does things that help the other people...

I think that universal coverage, like it or not, is the future. That is just my opinion.....this is just one more step toward making that less painful IMO.

Basically I think that 'life , liberty and pursuit of happiness must include basic health care. Couple that with the practical matter of the Hippocratic oath, where doctors are bound to try and cure patients, and I really don't think that the status quo will survive another generation.

No one has explained to me yet how you can have those things (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, & a hippocratic oath) when you are dying from a curable illness, or have an injury that needs treatment....and people suggesting that we just look the other way.

cosmo20002
07-03-2012, 08:53 PM
Period. We do have an obligation to facilitate the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness to whatever extent is feasible.

:facepalm:

You are to the left of most liberals if you really think that. I assume BEP hasn't seen this or she would have gone apeshit on you.

patteeu
07-03-2012, 09:01 PM
Doubtful this argument holds up....

Single, childless, and infertile people have to pay taxes that go for kids they dont have to go to schools.....

People who don't drive pay taxes that go to fix potholes....

People pay taxes to fight wars they don't agree with...

ETC....

The government is the people.....It isn't about your neighbor "owing" you anything IMO. It is about having a functional Goverment (people), that actually does things that help the other people...

I think that universal coverage, like it or not, is the future. That is just my opinion.....this is just one more step toward making that less painful IMO.

Basically I think that 'life , liberty and pursuit of happiness must include basic health care. Couple that with the practical matter of the Hippocratic oath, where doctors are bound to try and cure patients, and I really don't think that the status quo will survive another generation.

No one has explained to me yet how you can have those things (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, & a hippocratic oath) when you are dying from a curable illness, or have an injury that needs treatment....and people suggesting that we just look the other way.

I think we need to distinguish between what a person is owed as a matter of right (e.g. freedom to practice their religion without government interference) and what we collectively decide is good for society and therefore fund it with our tax system (e.g. the interstate highway system).

We might collectively decide that making sure that everyone has access to a certain minimum level of healthcare is a good idea for our society (indeed, we already have with medicaid and other government programs/mandates), but no one should think that we owe them that access. It's our benevolence at work, not a fundamental obligation.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2012, 09:19 PM
...since Vail is actually not talking about having the govt do things for you. It's about you the individual controlling your destiny without the govt harrassing you about it.

:facepalm:

You are to the left of most liberals if you really think that. I assume BEP hasn't seen this or she would have gone apeshit on you.

Now see, this is what I mean by changing the meaning of words or twisting them around from what they meant to the men of the time challenging their govt. This is what Pelosi said about the HC bill — that it was the "pursuit of happiness." It doesn't mean whatever you want as in freedom from want so you feel happier when it may not mean the person who has been taken from less happy. Jefferson originally wrote it as property. Franklin advised the word "happiness." Mason preferred the sound of the latter. So it's "happiness" is in the Declaration—BUT not in the Constitution. It became property in the Constitution. But it never meant to the colonists of the time for the govt to do things for them or to provide for them. People like that back then were called "levellers."

Jefferson also said in the same Declaration about the King: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." This is the exact thing your ideology advocates and been doing for 70 plus years and have even gone beyond what that king did.

cosmo20002
07-03-2012, 09:32 PM
So it's "happiness" is in the Declaration—BUT not in the Constitution. It became property in the Constitution.

No shit. I learned that in about 5th grade, which was my point. But JFC, if you're now saying that there is a right to have your "happiness facilitated" I'm going to assume you've suffered a head trauma sometime today.

BigMeatballDave
07-03-2012, 09:35 PM
That's what the entire patchwork intervention to allegedly make HC affordable has been since day one. It increases the demand curve.
You progressives have been doing what you did back in the 1920s and 30s creating problems that more govt is needed to fix. Lying about markets being unstable or not working etc. etc.

You've destroyed what made American unique and great, as an example for the rest of the world to copy—not the other way around. You've made most everything worse off, or more expensive with some of your leaders knowing full well where it leads—to govt taking over more and more until it's all taken over. You change the meaning of words to trick the people, you play on base emotions to mislead the people, you've taken over education to dumb people down so they can't figure it out and you deny your Marxism. It's no different than if someone having dropped a bunch of reds in business suits in this country pretending to be Americans even conservative Americans.

I don't consider my self a Progressive. Maybe on social issues.

I like small government. Very small.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2012, 10:31 PM
No shit. I learned that in about 5th grade, which was my point. But JFC, if you're now saying that there is a right to have your "happiness facilitated" I'm going to assume you've suffered a head trauma sometime today.

You simply cannot read.

Pawnmower
07-03-2012, 10:33 PM
I think we need to distinguish between what a person is owed as a matter of right (e.g. freedom to practice their religion without government interference) and what we collectively decide is good for society and therefore fund it with our tax system (e.g. the interstate highway system).

We might collectively decide that making sure that everyone has access to a certain minimum level of healthcare is a good idea for our society (indeed, we already have with medicaid and other government programs/mandates), but no one should think that we owe them that access. It's our benevolence at work, not a fundamental obligation.

Basically that is semantics, in my mind.....I wouldn't disagree though.

I also wouldn't spend a whole lot of time arguing about whether it was a "right" or whether it was "collectively good for society."

I would hope that the latter would become the former, eventually as society advances.

This has seemingly happened throughout history, and I have no doubt that it will continue.

That is the beauty of the constitution, it is a fairly flexible document that changes as society changes.

suzzer99
07-04-2012, 12:14 AM
You wanna look at europe as a good example for nationalized HC? ROFL

Er Germany has had UHC longer than any other country - and the strongest economy in the world right now. Yeah it's really holding them back. Who do you think the American work ethic and ingenuity more closely resembles - Germany or Greece?

Or if Europe really bothers you for some reason we could look at Taiwan, S. Korea, Australia, Canada, Japan, S. Africa, N. Zealand, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, Costa Rica, S. Africa, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. etc. Hell even Iraq and Afghanistan have UHC provided by the US.

But just keep living in your cloistered Fox News cognitive dissonance ignorance bubble railing about socialized medicine (lol but just try to take that same 'socialized medicine' away from a baby-boomer and watch how fast you get voted out of office).

suzzer99
07-04-2012, 12:15 AM
None of them have militaries capable of defending the free world like we do either and many of them are in even worse fiscal/economic states than we are. If they're so great, why aren't we seeing major emigration?

Great so how about we *don't* blow our money on decades long ground wars (IE don't invade Iran) and provide UHC instead. Deal? Or we can just keep sucking the military industrial complex's dick.

suzzer99
07-04-2012, 12:17 AM
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean your neighbor owes you help with your medical bills. Our country existed as a land of opportunity with people pursuing whatever life and happiness they could manage a long time before modern medicine reached it's current heights and a long time before the government was transferring wealth for health care purposes.

I think it's good for our society to have some level of wealth transfer (aka insurance, aka socialization) to cover basic treatments for mostly catastrophic conditions, but we can't provide everyone with a level of health care that almost no one can afford on their own (which is what many seem to be demanding). The math just doesn't work out.

It's called insurance - meaning you spread around the risk. Should my neighbor have to pay if my house burns down - well if we both have fire insurance with the same company than yes it does.

patteeu
07-04-2012, 05:26 AM
Great so how about we *don't* blow our money on decades long ground wars (IE don't invade Iran) and provide UHC instead. Deal? Or we can just keep sucking the military industrial complex's dick.

The Germany, South Korea, and even Taiwan you were touting just a post or two ago wouldn't be who they are if we refused to keep ourselves armed and fight ground wars in defense of the free world. Timely examples.

patteeu
07-04-2012, 05:31 AM
It's called insurance - meaning you spread around the risk. Should my neighbor have to pay if my house burns down - well if we both have fire insurance with the same company than yes it does.

Nope. The math still doesn't work out to provide unlimited, cutting edge treatments to everyone. Sorry, you'll have to be satisfied with less unless you can self-finance.

mlyonsd
07-04-2012, 07:38 AM
Nope. The math still doesn't work out to provide unlimited, cutting edge treatments to everyone. Sorry, you'll have to be satisfied with less unless you can self-finance.Not to mention the 20 some million at least that are put into the risk pool without having to help pay for it.

Iz Zat Chew
07-04-2012, 07:56 AM
I like small government. Very small.
Dave, you are in the wrong country.

BucEyedPea
07-04-2012, 10:01 AM
It's called insurance - meaning you spread around the risk. Should my neighbor have to pay if my house burns down - well if we both have fire insurance with the same company than yes it does.

This is no longer insurance if you want all your treatments covered. You don't understand insurance.

|Zach|
07-04-2012, 10:46 AM
If Romney embraces SCOTUS calling "corporations" "people" he ought to get how they call what's really a "penalty" a "tax."

patteeu
07-04-2012, 10:51 AM
If Romney embraces SCOTUS calling "corporations" "people" he ought to get how they call what's really a "penalty" a "tax."

I'm sure he get's it, he just doesn't agree with it. Neither did 4 out of 5 of the Justices who were in the majority on that "corporations" ruling, so he's in some pretty good company. Fail.

|Zach|
07-04-2012, 10:53 AM
I'm sure he get's it, he just doesn't agree with it. Neither did 4 out of 5 of the Justices who were in the majority on that "corporations" ruling, so he's in some pretty good company. Fail.

Good job propping up the only guy who looks like an idiot when hitting Obama on healthcare. *hat tip*

BucEyedPea
07-04-2012, 10:55 AM
...it's never been part of their governing philosophy which is based on limited govt. ( not no govt)

It's no different than the left getting their information from Huffington, NBC, CBS etc. etc.

Let's look at Germany more closely though:

Er Germany has had UHC longer than any other country - and the strongest economy in the world right now. Yeah it's really holding them back. Who do you think the American work ethic and ingenuity more closely resembles - Germany or Greece?
Citing German has the strongest economy in a world of stagnating economies doesn’t say very much for their economy. I guess everyone has their own standards, low or high. Still, it’s all relative.

For the past fifteen years they’ve actually had a bumpy ride and currently there are signs of their economy weakening. There are still doubts about the sustainability of their own welfare system.

Germany has had very high tax rate with many direct and indirect ones— income tax and VAT are the major ones. The Vat represents 31.5% of revenue collected. It is 19% to the taxpayer on goods. Income tax can be as high as 55%. Americans don’t go for that sort of thing.

Germany has what is the “third way”— in between capitalism and communism which traces back the welfare state of Otto von Bismarck. This is what the globalists are trying to impose on the world. ( and have made a mess of it ) Bismark thought this was a way prevent communism. Yet, it was this govt system that led to the idea of putting imbeciles to death and forced sterilization.

The one exception was after WWII when they went briefly with a more laissez-faire model where they performed brilliantly, far more than what is currently being praised, for a few decades until they killed their golden goose.

Germany's economic performance in the past decade [1995-2005] or so has been marked by slow GDP and productivity growth, weak job creation, high unemployment and low rates of return on investment.

Their economy staggered for a generation already, which lead them to question the social market economy, which led to reforms that would moved Germany toward a more free-market model. Their corporate income tax has gone way down. Still Germany needs to do more reform because they still have structural problems. They have the German Taxpayers Federation which aims to reduce taxation and public spending more, as well as public debt and bureaucracy.

One of the main things that help Germany is that they are hardworking despite barriers put in their way. Not all peoples are like that. Certainly not the southern Europeans. Germany's healthcare system is no longer what it once was though.





http://mises.org/daily/1932

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/

patteeu
07-04-2012, 11:02 AM
Good job propping up the only guy who looks like an idiot when hitting Obama on healthcare. *hat tip*

If you're talking about Romney, I think your biases are clouding your judgment.

1. There are quite a few people who look like idiots when they hit Obama on healthcare.

2. Romney isn't one of them.

3. Let's not lose sight of how foolish you made yourself look when you submitted post 39 in your rush to attack Romney.

|Zach|
07-04-2012, 11:05 AM
If you're talking about Romney, I think your biases are clouding your judgment.

1. There are quite a few people who look like idiots when they hit Obama on healthcare.

2. Romney isn't one of them.

3. Let's not let that make us lose sight of how foolish you made yourself look when you submitted post 39 in your rush to attack Romney.

There is no problem with that post. This whole election cycle has been a joy...watching a spineless GOP twist and turn not being able to prop up a conservative.

Trying to cast what used to be their own ideas as this big sweeping evil.

You guys are great. You aren't good at this but you are great to watch.

patteeu
07-04-2012, 11:08 AM
There is no problem with that post. This whole election cycle has been a joy...watching a spineless GOP twist and turn not being able to prop up a conservative.

Trying to cast what used to be their own ideas as this big sweeping evil.

You guys are great. You aren't good at this but you are great to watch.

It was a foolish post, unless you think the same criticism should apply to Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas and if that's what you think, you're making yourself look even more foolish.

Chocolate Hog
07-04-2012, 11:48 AM
Healthcare savings accounts is a better alternative.

BucEyedPea
07-04-2012, 07:02 PM
...because we our values are different from them.

You see this suzzer?

The American-Western European Values Gap
Just as I have said before.


http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2011/11/2011-VALUES0014.png


http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/11/17/the-american-western-european-values-gap/