Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Bricks Through Windows

Did you see the video where the Texas Republican, Randy Neugebauer, yelled out "baby killer" while Bart Stupak was speaking in the House of Representatives? It is fascinating to call Stupak, of all people, a "baby killer," after he held up the whole legislative process in order to force Congress to accept his anti-abortion viewpoint. There are plenty of pro-choice members of Congress, it just seems weird to yell this that at the one guy who insisted until the last minute that there should be some draconian anti-abortion wording in the health reform bill.

You wonder how much uglier things will get. Now you have Republicans and teabaggers spitting on elected officials, calling them racial and homophobic names, threatening to shoot people, you have them interrupting the President and Congressional speakers with insulting name-calling and schoolyard accusations. Meanwhile the party in power is working to do what they were elected to do. Primarily they need to un-do eight years of Bush incompetence and greed. But beyond that, they have to put new programs into place to reposition America as the world leader we like to think we are. And they have to do it by themselves -- you will have noticed that not one Republican in the House had the courage to defy peer pressure and support health care reform. Not one. For them it's about power, it's about banding together to win the next election, never mind that people are dying without medical attention in our country.

From the Wichita Eagle:
Authorities in Wichita and some other cities across the country are investigating vandalism against Democratic offices, apparently in response to health care reform.

And on Monday, a former Alabama militia leader took credit for instigating the actions.

Mike Vanderboegh, of Pinson, Ala., former head of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, put out a call on Friday for modern "Sons of Liberty" to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide in opposition to health care reform. Since then, vandals have struck several offices, including the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita.

"There's glass everywhere," said Lyndsay Stauble, executive director of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party. "A brick took out the whole floor-to-ceiling window and put a gouge in my desk."

Stauble said the brick, hurled through the window between Friday night and Saturday morning, had "some anti-Obama rhetoric" written on it.

Vandals also smashed the front door and a window at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' office in Tucson early Monday, hours after the Arizona Democrat voted for the health care reform package.

Over the weekend, a brick shattered glass doors at the Monroe County Democratic Committee headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. Attached to the brick was a note that said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" — a quote from Barry Goldwater's 1964 acceptance speech as the Republican presidential candidate.

And on Friday, a brick broke a window at Rep. Louise Slaughter's district office in Niagara Falls, N.Y. Slaughter, a Democrat, was a vocal supporter of the health care reform bill passed by the House on Sunday. Democratic offices in Wichita, elsewhere vandalized

Here in Montgomery County, Maryland, we faced a challenge from these people a few years ago. Rather than debate the merits of various approaches to sex education, rather than reason and compromise, the Citizens for Responsible Whatever took the low road. They misconstrued the sex-ed curriculum, made up things, attacked officials personally, they did what they could to disrupt the process of curriculum development. They weren't trying to improve it, they were trying to stop it. The school district would have been supportive of more or less conservative views in the curriculum, but the CRW made negotiation impossible. They simply opposed everything.

When the county considered a bill extending nondiscrimination considerations to gender identity, we saw the same thing, from the same group. They made up their perverts-in-the-ladies room stories and said the most terrible things they could about transgender people, ignoring the focal topic of discrimination and instead fighting against change.

I think those people have been well dealt with in our county. It makes sense to mock them and oppose them with humor and knowledge, with facts and reason and a healthy, cheerful, positive attitude. They aren't serious about improving our society, they only want to oppose changes. They tried to stop progress in our county and they failed, but they got a foothold in less fortunate communities around the country, and now we are seeing their true colors as they organize on the national level. Throwing bricks when you don't get your way, that's making a statement, all right.


Anonymous if reconciliation fails, unions are taxed said...

President Obama on Tuesday is expected to sign into law the health care overhaul, but the battle over alterations demanded by House Democrats is just beginning in the Senate.

Republicans are preparing a series of amendments and objections to the secondary bill designed to force Democrats to take difficult political positions.

Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa said Monday he plans to introduce an amendment to require the president, Cabinet members and White House staff to buy their insurance through the government exchanges. As written, the overhaul prevents them from going to the exchanges because they get their insurance.

Senate Democrats are expected to have the 51 votes they need to pass the package of changes under reconciliation rules. So the drama will rest with the Senate parliamentarian, who will decide whether the Republicans' objections are legitimate.

Any change the Senate makes to the legislation would force the House to take another tough vote to pass the plan and possibly kill it.

Top Senate Democrats have said that they have asked the rank-and-file to vote against every amendment to the bill -- even if they agree with them.

Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, was expected to introduce an amendment to establish a public insurance plan.

The package of changes passed the House on Sunday after the primary bill passed. It would decrease the impact of a tax on high-cost insurance plans, eliminate state-specific deals that critics say were crafted to "buy" votes and insert a new Medicare tax on investment income. Thirty-three Democrats joined all Republicans in opposition.

"Let's hope the Senate passes our reconciliation bill," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Democratic Congressional Twerp.

"In the event that it would happen to come back to the House, we will would have to vote all over again."

The Senate will debate the bill through Thursday and then start voting on the amendments in a "vote-o-rama." Lawmakers stay in the Senate chamber all day working through votes on the amendments with only a few minutes to debate the merits of them or read them.

Republicans also say they plan to raise many objections to the Byrd rules that restrict what kind of legislation can pass through reconciliation. For instance, they plan to argue that the bill's tax on high-cost insurance plans would impact Social Security, which would be a violation of reconciliation rules.

Republicans said Sunday, shortly before the House voted, that they are confident the objection would hold up, but Van Hollen said he hopes not.

The parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, would decide whether the objection is legitimate. If the objection is deemed legitimate, Democrats would have to corral 60 votes to override the decision.

But all 41 Republicans have said they wouldn't support such a move.

Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat, said Monday that he intends to vote against the reconciliation bill because it includes changes to the student-loan industry that would essentially ban private banks from issuing student loans. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas Democrat, has said she plans to vote against the bill as well because she doesn't agree with reconciliation.

March 23, 2010 11:06 AM  
Anonymous inquiring said...


if the recocncilition bill raises Medicare taxes 3.5%, isn't that increasing health care costs?

isn't Medicare tax a health care cost?

just curious...

March 23, 2010 11:12 AM  
Anonymous some people call me Maurice said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

March 23, 2010 11:13 AM  
Anonymous playing my music in the sun said...

They'll fight it in the courts.

They'll fight it in the states.

They'll fight it at the polls in November and in 2012. While Democratic leaders hailed the House vote Sunday night and the possible Senate passage of a companion "reconciliation" bill, Republicans insisted that the war over health care is far from over.

"This will not stand," a defiant Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker and architect of the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, said. "We should challenge every candidate in 2010 and 2012 to be for repeal."

"The people I represent in the state of Arizona are not going to sit still for this. They're going to want this repealed," said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. "We will challenge this in the towns, we will challenge this in the cities, we will challenge this in the farms. We will challenge this all over America."

President Obama on Tuesday morning is set to sign the bill approved Sunday night by the House, and plans a trip to Iowa on Thursday to explain why he ignored the American people's wishes.

Separately, the Senate on Tuesday formally takes up a second bill of "fixes" to the first bill, with the Democratic leadership hoping they can find a way to sidestep a GOP filibuster.

Republicans in Washington and beyond the Capital Beltway vowed to fight on.

In Utah, several governors met Monday to discuss ways to block the implementation of Obama's health care plan even if it becomes law. Among their options: a constitutional challenge to mandates in the bill that all citizens and legal residents must purchase health insurance.

"If Congress goes ahead with this financial and economic insanity, which is unconstitutional, then we'll sue," Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter said on Monday.

On Capitol Hill, GOP lawmakers in both the House and Senate introduced bills to repeal what Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota called "the Democrats' government takeover of health care."

A number of GOP strategists suggested that Republican candidates this fall will run on a platform of repeal. Polls were already projecting significant Republican gains in Congress and in statehouses even before health care reform was passed.

"Let's fire Nancy Pelosi," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele said to party donors Monday, suggesting that big GOP gains in November could cost the California Democrat the House speaker's gavel.

March 23, 2010 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here we go again...we're off and running as the various blog pirates attempt to take over this blog.

Does "Anonymous" (in his multitudinous guises) ever shut up? You would think that he actually believes that we give a fig about what he thinks and has to say.

Oh, well...it's the weakness of liberals in today's society. We still believe we should be charitable toward those who have nothing of value to say, who persist in constantly trying to change the topic to suit their own egotistical needs while being rude and loutish...all in the interest of open discussion of varying viewpoints.

The problem is (as President Obama has discovered) it is futile to try to engage deaf, blind, and dumb proponents of ideas who do NOT believe in debate or in compromise or in offering sensible alternatives.

"Anonymous" needs to create his own blog site to spout his nonsense and stop trying to take ownership of this one.

March 23, 2010 1:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(March 23) -- Few Americans would argue that today's signing of health care reform legislation into law wasn't a big deal. The choice of adjectives used to describe the passage of the new law, however, is a matter of fierce dispute.

Unfortunately for Joe Biden, an open mike at the White House signing ceremony captured the vice president's chosen adjective loud and clear.

In an aside to President Barack Obama after introducing him to the cheering audience assembled in the East Room, Biden let fly with a characteristic, off-the-cuff assessment of the moment:

"Mr. President, this is a big fucking deal," Biden said.

March 23, 2010 3:24 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Paul Krugman at the NYTimes agrees with you Jim. So do I.

Fear Strikes Out

The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.

But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)

And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.

Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing.

Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency.

March 23, 2010 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives.

And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”

Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?

And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.

This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.

Editors' Note: March 23, 2010
The Paul Krugman column on Monday, about the health care bill, quoted Newt Gingrich as saying that “Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation. The quotation originally appeared in The Washington Post, which reported after the column went to press that Mr. Gingrich said it referred to Johnson’s Great Society policies, not to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

March 23, 2010 3:28 PM  
Anonymous the bill crammed where America's sun don't shine said...

why did Repubs all oppose the bill?


In the House, Republicans were frozen out from the start.

Three Chairmen—Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman and George Miller—holed up last spring to write the most liberal bill they could get through the House.

Republicans were told that unless they embraced the "public option," there was nothing to discuss.

As for the White House, House GOP leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor in May sent a letter to President Obama "respectfully" requesting a meeting to discuss ideas.

The White House didn't respond.

Mr. Obama's first deadline for House passage was July, and only after public opinion turned against the bill did he begin to engage Republican ideas.

Yet in his September address to Congress attempting to revive his bill, he made no concession save pilot projects for tort reform.

In the Senate, a group of Republicans did negotiate with Finance Chairman Max Baucus for months, even as Senators Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy were crafting a bill that mirrored the liberal House product.

GOP Senators Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snowe and Orrin Hatch are hardly strangers to working with Democrats. In 2007, they helped Mr. Baucus expand the children's insurance program over President Bush's opposition.

Senate liberals kept tugging Mr. Baucus to the left, however, and eventually the White House ordered him to call off negotiations.

Senator Snowe still voted for the Finance Committee bill, though even she fell away on the floor as Majority Leader Harry Reid insisted on pushing the public option and tried, as Ms. Snowe put it, to "ram it" and "jam it" through the Senate.

In the end, Republicans couldn't, as a matter of principle, support even 50% of a bill that was such a huge and reckless expansion of government. If they had, they would have rightly lost the support of their own most loyal supporters.

In the end, too, the bill was so unpopular—59% opposed in a Sunday CNN survey—that 34 House Democrats voted no and Mr. Reid is resorting to reconciliation to get the "fixes" of more taxes and spending through the Senate.

March 23, 2010 3:30 PM  
Anonymous standing up to Big Brother said...

"This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform."

in America, we oppose dictatorship even if the dictators have good intention

on Sunday, democracy took a hit

in the worlds of Ahnald S, however:

we'll be back

March 23, 2010 3:38 PM  
Anonymous you lose yourself, you reappear said...

The newly passed overhaul of the nation’s health care system is expected to push expenses "out of sight" and cost the country "a couple trillion dollars," Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, told CNBC.

"Right now, people do get health insurance in a more expensive fashion through emergency rooms and the government supports that,” Welch said in a live interview. “It’s been supported for years and it's a well known phenomenon.”

Welch said that the cost of the new policy is going to be “out of sight.”

“I think we're talking about a couple trillion dollars…of overage, not savings," he said.

“Attacking this thing piece by piece would be a way to go at it."

March 23, 2010 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

if the recocncilition bill raises Medicare taxes 3.5%, isn't that increasing health care costs?

The reconciliation bill does not raise Medicare taxes to 3.5%.

The rich, that is, individuals earning more than $200,000 per year or families earning more than $250,000 per year, will pay a higher Medicare tax. People in those earnings brackets will see their Medicare taxes increase from 1.45 percent to 2.38 percent.

Also, if you are rich (as defined above) you will be taxed 3.8 percent on investment income such as dividends beginning in 2013, which will help pay the cost of expanding coverage for the now-uninsured.

March 23, 2010 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

“I think we're talking about a couple trillion dollars…of overage, not savings," he said.

He should check the CBO report for the facts about what this bill will cost and what savings it will generate.

March 23, 2010 4:10 PM  
Anonymous now could stupider than talking by computer with inane-B said...

thanks for clearing up that the Medicare tax is only to be paid by "the rich", inane

by your past comments, I assume "rich" refers to anyone who belongs to a health club

point is, it is part of the cost of health care

we don't live in a socialist country

the rich aren't obligated to pay the expenses for everyone else

"He should check the CBO report for the facts about what this bill will cost and what savings it will generate."

I know you probably already understand this but the CBO is limited to assuming that everything will continue as is.. even if they have good reason to believe it won't.

They had to assume that Congress would cut Medicare reimbursement to doctors by 21%, as is in the bill, when, actually, legislation has already been introduced to repeal this and Obama has already promised the AMA he will push the repeal.

But since it hasn't been passed yet, the CBO couldn't include it in their analysis.

The Medicare taxes will likely be repealed before enactment too although that's a couple of years from now.

Welch is right and everyone knows it.

March 23, 2010 4:55 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

by your past comments, I assume "rich" refers to anyone who belongs to a health club

LOL that's a good one. No, I don't think "rich" refers to anyone who belongs to a health club, but I will admit I do think a word that rhymes with "rich" refers to health clubber Theresa, who told me a few years back:

oh for goodness sake, Bea, you clearly have never belonged to an upscale gym with a steam room.

According to the legislation Congress and the President have just enacted, "rich" is defined as individuals who make more than $200,000.00 and families who make more than $250,000.00 per year.

Starting January 1, 2011, if you are on Medicare you will qualify for free annual wellness visits. Maybe that means "visiting a health club."

March 23, 2010 5:25 PM  
Anonymous duct tape don said...

great new entitlement, huh?

you think the government should pay for you to be like "rich" people and visit a health club?

why not have them cover other stuff that affects health, like food and shelter and, oh, what the heck, entertainment?

how to pay for it, though, hmmmmm...

I know,

let's just tax the "rich"

until there are no "rich" no more

it's a great idea

why hasn't anyone thought of it before?

March 23, 2010 6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Bea -- Suppose one person has six kids, a wife and his parents live with him, along with a developmentally disabled sister. His father is ill. He and his wife both work and make $260,000. They don't have time for a health club. I know a family in that situation.

I have another friend who's a single guy with no responsibilities and wealthy parents. He makes $125,000 per year.

How does our now socialist government deal with that?

The correct answer is: the government should NOT be involved. People have complex lives, they make complex decisions, and it's not possible to make everything fair.

Once the government's involved, there's just no end to the inequities....

March 23, 2010 7:06 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

you think the government should pay for you to be like "rich" people and visit a health club?

Oh brother, Anone, no I don't, and I never said that I did. Once again your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Years ago, Theresa thought I wanted an upscale health club membership like hers, but she was wrong too. I much prefer a good walk in the park enjoying the bounty of Mother Nature to lying around naked with other naked ladies in an upscale health club steam room in Bethesda.

You talk like only the rich deserve quality affordable health care. I couldn't disagree more.

let's just tax the "rich"

until there are no "rich" no more

Are you saying you think that upping Medicare taxes from 1.45 percent to 2.38 percent for individuals who make more than $200,000.00 and families who make more than $250,000.00 per year will cause there will be no more "rich" people??

< eye roll >

March 23, 2010 7:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Medicare were the only tax, then there would be no problem. When 45% or more of someone's income is taxed, then that gets to be a big problem to add on a "little" here and a "little" there.

Also, let's not forget that small businesses are included in those making over $250,000.

March 23, 2010 8:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, Congress has voted, the President has signed the bill. Your side lost. I'm getting a sadistic kick out of your whining but you must know you sound more desperate and pitiful every day.

March 23, 2010 8:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Congress could pass a bill which states that all dogs should have their vocal chords removed so that the world will be a more quiet and peaceful place. Does this mean we should simply accept it?

March 23, 2010 8:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a scary concept, Anon, the "rule of law." As citizens we agree to obey laws that are enacted by the government we elect. We agreed to give our privacy away under the Patriot Act, we sent our neighbors and children to die in Iraq, we watched on TV as the people of New Orleans drowned in their own houses and the government did nothing ... and now we are forced to accept the terrible fact that Americans will be able to get medical attention when they need it. I'm sorry, I know it's hard to take.

Here's what you should do. Have your guys elected next time, and they can repeal the reform. In the meantime, get your check-ups while you can.

March 23, 2010 8:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Americans will be able to get medical attention when they need it”

No they won’t.

There are not enough doctors and even today doctors ration how many Medicare patients they will see.

March 23, 2010 11:14 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The latest Gallup poll makes it easy see who's angry enough to throw bricks.

Gallup Poll reports:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Nearly half of Americans give a thumbs-up to Congress' passage of a healthcare reform bill last weekend, with 49% calling it "a good thing." [and 40% calling it a bad thing] Republicans and Democrats have polar opposite reactions, with independents evenly split.

The findings, from a March 22 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted one day after the bill received a majority of votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, represent immediate reactions to the vote.

Americans' emotional responses to the bill's passage are more positive than negative -- with 50% enthusiastic or pleased versus 42% angry or disappointed -- and are similar to their general reactions.

Although much of the public debate over healthcare reform has been heated, barely a third of rank-and-file citizens express either enthusiasm (15%) or anger (19%) about the bill's passage. However, only Democrats show greater enthusiasm than anger. Independents are twice as likely to be angry as enthusiastic, and Republicans 10 times as likely.

Bottom Line

Passage of healthcare reform was a clear political victory for President Obama and his allies in Congress. While it also pleases most of his Democratic base nationwide, it is met with greater ambivalence among independents and with considerable antipathy among Republicans. Whether these groups' views on the issue harden or soften in the coming months could be crucial to how healthcare reform factors into this year's midterm elections. Given that initial public reaction to Sunday's vote is more positive than recent public opinion about passing a healthcare reform bill, it appears some softening has already occurred.

The lifetime cap in benefits on my son's health insurance policy will be lifted and his policy will not be rescinded due to his chronic illness. Yay! Once Americans see how much better the health care system will operate for themselves and their loved ones, this softening will continue and support will grow.

March 24, 2010 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

There are not enough doctors and even today doctors ration how many Medicare patients they will see.

There are doctors in ERs.

If according to your logic, people without insurance (AKA poor people) can go to the ER and not be denied care, why can't people without doctors do the same thing?

March 24, 2010 9:28 AM  
Anonymous we've still got free speech, for now said...

I called to get a doctor appointment the other day and was told the next available appointment was in May. Adding 32 million more will now help.

This morning in the Post, Russia printed their periodic special section. They were boasting that life expectancy there jumped from 56 in the early 90s to 62 today.

Hey, they've always taxed the rich to pay for everyone else's health care.

"Here's what you should do. Have your guys elected next time, and they can repeal the reform."

You can count on it. You want to stop whining about our exercising free speech. That's how our democracy works.

In Canada, speech is subject to the whims of violent liberals:

OTTAWA (March 24) -- A protest by hundreds of students led officials to cancel a Tuesday night speech by American political commentator Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa.

A spokesman said Coulter was "advised" against appearing after about 2,000 threatening students crowded the entrance to Marion Hall, posing a security threat.

"It would be physically dangerous for Ann Coulter to proceed with this event," said an organizer. "This is an embarrassing day for the University of Ottawa and their student body . . . who chose to silence her through threats and intimidation."

A protest organizer, international studies student Mike Fancie, said he was glad they were able to stop Coulter from speaking.

"What Ann Coulter is practicing is not free speech, it's hate speech," he said.

About 10 Ottawa police cars were called to the scene.

Coulter expressed her outrage, calling the University of Ottawa a "bush league" institution.

"This has never happened before," she told the newspaper. "I go to the best schools, Harvard, the Ivy League and those kids are too intellectually proud" to threaten speakers.

University academic vice-president Francois Houle, had written Coulter to warn her that Canadian laws make provisions for hate speech.

"Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges," he warned her in the letter.

The university has refused to comment. Organizers said Houle's advice to Coulter had emboldened student protesters.

Coulter, a best-selling author and syndicated columnist, was in the middle of a three-city tour of Canada.

March 24, 2010 9:33 AM  
Anonymous let's do something helpful said...

"There are doctors in ERs.

If according to your logic, people without insurance (AKA poor people) can go to the ER and not be denied care, why can't people without doctors do the same thing?"

Studies have shown that when insurance coverage becomes universal, emergency room usage increases dramatically.

Now, people without insurance go when they have to. When they have insurance, they tend to go more for non-emergencies.

A doctor shortage is coming.

We can still take three important steps to reduce costs and increase quality:

1. Cap awards for pain and suffering to reasonable amounts.

2. Double the enrollment at medical schools.

3. Make all health insurance tax fully deductible, not just employer-payed, and require employers who pay for insurance to give employees the option of taking cash and buying their insurance elsewhere.

All three of these steps could be done regardless of whether the current bill is repealed or not and should be done immediately.

March 24, 2010 9:43 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"...university academic vice-president Francois Houle, who had written Coulter to warn her that Canadian laws make provisions for hate speech.

"Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges," he warned her in the letter, which Coulter quickly leaked to the media.

That's Ann Coulter. She's only too happy to play the victim, even when somebody's warning her and looking out for her.

March 24, 2010 9:48 AM  
Anonymous defying gravity said...

here's a recent entry in the kyria blog

if anyone would like to read the responses, here's a link:


"My husband, Brad, met Norman when Brad spoke at an interfaith Easter service. Norman approached him and asked if he could talk. In a short time, Brad learned that Norman had been a practicing homosexual all his life and was now suffering from AIDS. In further conversations, Brad found out that Norman’s mother was a Christian and had been praying that he would come to Christ before he died. He did.

Never was a man more radically changed. From the outset, Norman told Brad that he didn’t know if he could change his orientation, but he knew he could change his behavior, and that he would from now on. My husband honored that and concentrated on helping him in that battle, which we all have, to control his sin nature.

Norman became a part of our family. He came to a Bible study in our home each week and sang the songs with the vigor of a man who knew he would soon be meeting the One he sang about. He soaked in Scripture as if it were his last drink of water before entering a long desert journey. Some people thought that we were foolish to have an advanced AIDS patient so near our young children, since at that time little was known about AIDS and fears were rampant. But the things our family learned through Norm’s hunger and enthusiasm for God ended up being tremendous. Our kids saw his love for God’s Word, his concern for other people, and his grace in the midst of suffering.

Toward the end, we mostly saw Norm at the hospital. When he died, we felt such great loss. What we would have missed if we hadn’t known him! None of us had ever been around someone who had a fatal disease, which AIDS was at that time. We learned compassion for one who was slowly, painfully letting go of this life and preparing for the next. It helped us evaluate what was important to us as we saw him let go of all the trivial things in his life.

Before Norman, I had never known someone who claimed to be a homosexual and a Christian. He made me think about this issue a lot. I’m sure there are many reasons someone ends up in the homosexual camp. Some believe they were born that way, others end up there because of early sexual abuse, and still others because their moral compass is so completely skewed that they have no idea how to find direction.

But no matter the reason, we are commanded to love. That doesn’t mean we excuse sinful behavior, but it does mean we listen, understand, and sacrifice our own comfort and preconceived ideas to represent Christ well. Through Norman and our relationship with him, I discovered the importance of listening before condemning and of offering the same grace that Christ shows me in spite of all my faults and foibles.

What kind of experiences have you had with someone who claims to be a homosexual, and how have you seen God use you in their lives and vice versa?"

March 24, 2010 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

There are not enough doctors

One day, and the next day it's

A doctor shortage is coming.

As long as you're sure, Anone!

Along with the reform of health care in America, the health care reform bill that has just been signed into law also revamps the student loan process.

American Chronical reports:

...The bill eliminates the Federal Family Education Loan program, through which the federal government pays private lenders fees to offer college loans. The program has been criticized fairly as easy money, "corporate welfare," for banks to act as middlemen, assuming little of the default risk because the loans are federally guaranteed.

In place of the private banks, families would apply for student loans through the current Direct Loan program, which offers lower interest rates.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the switch to direct loans would yield about $61 billion in savings over 10 years. Amid the clamor for fiscal responsibility, the change promotes an efficient use of public funds. At least $36 billion of the savings is pegged to boost Pell grant awards. The remainder of the savings would be used for other priorities, among them increasing support for historically black colleges, Hispanic and native American institutions, and to reduce the federal deficit.

Under the bill, the maximum Pell grant would rise from $5,350 this school year to nearly $6,000 within the next 10 years. Beginning in July 2014, loan repayments would be limited to 10 percent of the discretionary income of borrowers, a relief for new graduates in low-paying professions...

This change will make it easier for students to afford the many years of education and training required to become medical doctors.

March 24, 2010 10:03 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Studies have shown that when insurance coverage becomes universal, emergency room usage increases dramatically.

Now, people without insurance go when they have to. When they have insurance, they tend to go more for non-emergencies.

Let's see the studies that have found this. Since HTML links seem beyond you, let's see some URLs for these studies you claim show ER usage increases when insurance coverage becomes universal.

March 24, 2010 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“If according to your logic, people without insurance (AKA poor people) can go to the ER and not be denied care, why can't people without doctors do the same thing?”

Who would they see? Going to the ER doesn’t produce more doctors to see! If more go to the ER it would only make the ER more congested. ER can’t handle the increased volume. You think the wait is long now in the ER, just wait.

The medical schools only have so much room to educate people who want to go into the profession. And potential doctors, at age 30+ with a $600,000 debt are not going to base their practice on only Medicare patients.
I see another bailout for student doctors! More tax increases.

March 24, 2010 10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This change will make it easier for students to afford the many years of education and training required to become medical doctors."

the cost is not the problem, Bea

there are more than enough qualified students willing to pay, or borrow, but they're turned away

the capacity of medical schools needs to be doubled

March 24, 2010 10:43 AM  
Anonymous let the games begin said...

Fourteen states, from Florida to Washington, have gone to court in an effort to block the new health care law, arguing that the federal government has no right to force their citizens to buy something that they may not want: medical insurance.

Thirteen of the states, led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, filed a joint federal lawsuit Monday in Pensacola, where they called the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of states."

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a mandate requiring citizens to have health coverage. The new law, which offers subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance, imposes financial penalties on those who do not comply by 2014.

Lawsuits challenging federal authority usually rely on the "commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "powers not delegated" to the federal government by the Constitution are "reserved to the states respectively."

In Virginia, conservative Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II went to the federal courthouse in Richmond with his own arguments. The Virginia case claims that a state law enacted earlier this month prohibits the federal government from forcing coverage on citizens and creates an "immediate, actual controversy" between the state and federal government, giving Virginia unique standing to sue.

The Obama administration does not appear to be overly concerned. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he doesn't care what the states say.

The other states involved are Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Utah.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

March 24, 2010 11:55 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Fourteen states, from Florida to Washington are seeking activist judges to permit insurance companies to return to their worst practices of capping benefits, denying coverage and rescinding policies.

March 24, 2010 11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ever wonder why China is doing so well?

did you that China, communist China, has a top corporate tax rate of 25%

America,land of free enterprise, has a top corporate tax rate of 39%

they have a built-in competitive advantage

tax the rich

more and more

til there are no

rich no more

we're killing ourselves

March 24, 2010 11:59 AM  
Anonymous b-b-b-b-bennie and the jets said...

"Fourteen states, from Florida to Washington are seeking activist judges to permit insurance companies to return to their worst practices of capping benefits, denying coverage and rescinding policies."

actually, those policies aren't part of the suit

it's the individual mandate that is the problem

besides, states can pass their own laws

March 24, 2010 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Does Gold's Gym count as a health club?

March 25, 2010 3:09 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"Fourteen states, from Florida to Washington are seeking activist judges to permit insurance companies to return to their worst practices of capping benefits, denying coverage and rescinding policies."

actually, those policies aren't part of the suit

You either haven't read the activist-judge-seeking-lawsuit Cuccinelli filed or that reading comprehension problem of yours is showing itself again. If his intent was only the single policy that says we will share the risk together by all of us buying insurance, then why did he write:

The Commonwealth additionally prays the Court to grant such further and additional relief as the ends of justice may require an injunction against the enforcement of Subsection 1501 in particular and PPACA as a whole.

This wingnut is not just going after Subsection 1501; he has asked for "relief" against Subsection 1501 "and" against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act "as a whole."

Cuccinelli wants a return to the old status quo where health insurers can drop anyone's coverage at any time to protect their profitability. Health insurance is supposed to be about protecting people, not profits.

March 25, 2010 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comrade Bea,

Should farmers not be allowed to make a profit, because it's all about feeding people.

Should hotels not be allowed to make a profit, since sheltering people is so important?

Who IS allowed to make a profit, Bea?


March 25, 2010 8:01 AM  
Anonymous oooo-wee, sea cruise baby said...

"Does Gold's Gym count as a health club?"

Robert, you're not going to use my taxes to pay for opportunities to go gawk at guys working out.

"Cuccinelli wants a return to the old status quo where health insurers can drop anyone's coverage at any time to protect their profitability. Health insurance is supposed to be about protecting people, not profits."

Inane, you idiot. The reason this type of arrangement persists is governmental tinkering with the economy. By making health insurance non-taxable only if your employer pays for it, they've ruined the market forces that would produce a better insurance product. The consumer is not the purchaser so we have these inane insurance policies. The answer is not more governmental intervention, it's less. The bill may force some changes but it also will vastly increase costs.

Capitalism works like this: companies try to make a profit. The way to make a profit is to meet the needs of consumers. Thus, profit focus is unleashed to serve the needs of people.

America has missed the boat here. Maybe we can get a copter ride out if we don't wait too long.

March 25, 2010 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Do you call all the tea baggers who wanted Obama and Congress to keep their hands off Medicare "comrade" too? How about Theresa's mother who didn't want her Medicare Advantage program touched -- is she a comrade too? How about poor elderly people who rely on Social Security in their retirement, do you call them "comrade" too? We have a long history of caring for those among us who are less fortunate, thanks to our Judeo/Christian heritage you're always talking about, Anone.

You are on the wrong side of this issue. You think health insurance companies should be able to rake in big profits and pay out big CEO bonuses while they deny coverage to people who pay them for insurance coverage and then get sick. You think insurance companies should be able to refuse to cover people and children with pre-existing conditions to protect their bottom line. You think it's a good thing those States Attorney Generals have filed suit to stop implementation of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.

Wrong! It's all about politics.

Moments after President Obama signs the health reform bill today, mostly Republican aspiring governors -- AGs -- er, attorneys general in at least 12 states plan file suit to prevent the legislation from taking effect. The chances of success in the Supreme Court are low, but the point of the lawsuits isn't legal -- it's political. It advances the politics of conservative jurisprudence, and the political ambitions of conservatives, and it keeps the legislation itself in a state of suspended political animation.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli plans to bring up the state's new law preventing the federal government from imposing mandates on its citizens. The supremacy clause, and virtually all recent precedent, should dispatch that argument easily.

The stronger argument is that the requirement for individuals to purchase insurance is an constitutional expansion of Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce.

It is true that no court has ruled on the specific question, but there is plenty of reason and case law to believe that courts will be initially skeptical of the challenge. Congress's latitude here is wide. And this health care legislation has an undeniably broad effect on the economy, even though the specific provision in question is inherently localized. So the question is: can the government regulate localized -- individual -- decisions if they collectively serve a purpose that Congress is constitutionally empowered to be concerned about -- AND if depriving Congress of this particular right would upend the regulatory scheme itself.
Click the link and read it all.

Profitable health insurance companies make big campaign contributions, especially now that the Supreme 5 Partisans have ruled that corporations have the right to "free speech" even as expressed by anonymous paid political advertising. But you think it's OK to let comrade granny try to compete to try to get her voice heard over that, right Anone?

March 25, 2010 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Maybe we can get a copter ride out if we don't wait too long.

Go enjoy the publicly funded single-payer health insurance in Costa Rico with Rush!

March 25, 2010 9:25 AM  
Anonymous can't wait to pay more for HC: thanks Barry said...

inane seems to think insurance companies are making huge profits

they're not

the bonuses may seem large but not paying wouldn't materially affect their ability to cover more claims

they are now required to cover all kind of things that will increase their costs and they can raise premiums as high as they want to cover their costs

thanks for the help, Barry

my problem was actually the cost, though:

"Democrats dragged themselves over the health-care finish line in part by repeating that voters would like the plan once it passed. Let's see what they think when they learn their insurance costs will jump right away.

Even before President Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone. Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers. Now Verizon joins the roll of businesses staring at adverse consequences.

In an email titled "President Obama Signs Health Care Legislation" sent to all employees Tuesday night, the telecom giant warned that "we expect that Verizon's costs will increase." While executive vice president for human resources Marc Reed wrote that "it is difficult at this point to gauge the precise impact of this legislation," the message to workers was clear: Expect changes for the worse to your health benefits as the direct result of this bill, as soon as this year."

March 25, 2010 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comrade Bea,

Of course Medicare and Social Security are big socialist programs too. We have all been comrades in these big scams, and now the socialist scams continue on a bigger and bigger scale, with a bigger, crazier socialist president and Congress.

Remember, Bea -- what the government takes, the government can take away. Let me tell you a personal story from my family.

My now-80-year-old mother worked in the private sector for some of her career, and the federal government for the other part. She paid into the Social Security system, and earned more than enough quarters to give her a Social Security retirement. She worked enough years in the federal government to get a government retirement. She was counting on both of these for her retirement years.

Guess what? The government ruled that getting a Social Security check AND a government retirement check was "double dipping" into the system. So, she gets ONLY her government retirement check. No Social Security for her.

It's the government, so she has no recourse, no one to turn to.

My dad also worked for the federal government, and when he died, his spouse (my mother) was supposed to receive a fraction of his retirement each month. It was a supposed "government benefit."

Well guess what? Since my mom gets a government retirement, too, they deemed that she was ineligible to get two government retirements, so she could pick the larger of the two. Again, they didn't want her "double dipping."

My dad was able to get Social Security and a government retirement, as he was older than my mom and the new "double dipping" rule had not yet applied. My mom was married to my dad for 40 years, but he had been married to someone else, before my mom, for 11 years.

Guess what? His first wife of 11 years now gets his Social Security check. The government decided this -- not my dad.

So do we trust Medicare for my mom? WE DO NOT! We have private insurance for her.

March 26, 2010 8:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correction - "what the government gives, the government can take away." Although, my original mistake was probably more accurate! LOL

March 26, 2010 8:13 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Wikipedia reports The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right".

All federal employees hired after 12/31/83 are covered by Social Security. Federal, state and local government employees who are exempt from SS are subject to the windfall elimination provision (WEP) of the Social Security Amendments Act of 1983 [signed into law by Ronald Reagan] which reduces first tier SS benefits by up to 50% to prevent double dipping.

Correction - "what the government gives, the government can take away."

Correction, "what the Democrats give, the Republicans take away"

March 26, 2010 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comrade Bea,

Are you that naive? The point of telling you my parents' story is that the government gives, the government takes away, the government makes arbitrary rules. Telling me about more rules and regulations only proves my point.

The government can never be trusted with things that should be controlled by individuals.

March 26, 2010 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, dear...all of these laments about us becoming a "socialist" country are beginning to give me a head ache!!
My suggestion is that those who think socialism is such an evil, or even anti-Christian, might want to beging packing up and moving.

But...another worry for those who do not believe in state-funded care for a country's citizens...where in the world could you move to?

Perhaps Antarctica?

Find me another country in this big world of ours that has not adopted and applied so-called "socialist" principles when it comes to taking care of the health, education, and general well-being of its citizens and you have my blessings to move there.

March 27, 2010 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Good heavens Fearful Anone --

You said your mom gets her government pension and not her Social Security pension, but a Social Security pension is what all federal employees got after Reagan changed pension rules back in the 80's. If you and your 80 year old mother voted for Reagan who signed the bill to end double dipping into law, you got what you voted for.

Unlike you and your mother, last summer in town hall meetings across the country, tea baggers demanded that Congressional health care reformers DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE and even DON'T STEAL FROM MEDICARE TO SUPPORT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

Medicare **is** socialized medicine but there aren't many seniors like your mom who oppose it. Tea baggers made it very clear they did NOT want Medicare touched or altered. Do you suppose that means they like what Medicare provides for them or fear it like you do?

No one is forced to sign up for Medicare, but Medicare is available for seniors who might want or need and trust it, as the approximately 45 million American seniors who are currently enrolled in Medicare apparently do. Some of us even support Bill 4789, which would open Medicare to all who want to buy into it. I support Bill 4789 because adding younger, healthier participants to Medicare will help make sure Medicare remains solvent.

Now that the health care reform bill has been enacted into law, your mother's private health insurance company will not be able to rescind her health insurance policy should she put in an expensive claim like they could before Obama signed the health care reform bill into law. You can put the fear of your mother's private health insurance company's death squad denying her care to rest now...unless of course some future President you and your mother might vote for manages to get legislation passed to take that away too.

"What the Democrats give, the Republicans take away"

March 27, 2010 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I go to the gym to exercise; what do you do? When one reaches a certain age one has to be aware of such things as conditioning and blood pressure, don't you think? Should this be subsidized? Maybe a tax break? My employer has arranged for a discount for us.

March 28, 2010 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Palm Sunday message from the Pope:

During his homily Sunday, the Pope directed himself to young people, as Palm Sunday is traditionally dedicated to the young. He reminded them that Christian life is a path, or pilgrimage, with Christ - "A walk in the direction that he has chosen and shows us."

Christ, he said, guides the faithful "toward the courage that doesn't let us be intimidated by the chatting of dominant opinions, towards patience that supports others."

March 28, 2010 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comrade Bea,

I don't care what the government calls it. My mom paid into the Social Security system when she worked for private companies, and if she had never worked for the government, she would have gotten a social security check for all of those years that she worked and paid her SS taxes. As it is now, she simply gets a government retirement. All of her private sector years were for naught.

I realize this isn't your life, so you can be cavalier, and that's fine.

Medicare is socialized medicine, and that's the problem with socialized programs. People pay into it, and then feel like they have the right to it. At that point, they do have the right to it, as they did pay into it.

The problem is, it's unsustainable and bankrupts a country. The only reason that the comrades in Canada and Europe get away with it is because of the crumbs that fall off of the US's table.

i'd vote for anyone who wants to make Medicare, Social Security and this horrible healthcare bill go away. Will I lose benefits? Yes, I will. But the lives of my children and grandchildren will be infinitely better.

March 28, 2010 5:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The lives of your children and your grandchildren will be infinitely better without Social Security and Medicare, "Anonymnous"?

I assume that means that you are planning on leaving them an immense inheritance so that they will be able to pay enormous sums to insurance companies to fatten their profit margins?

And what will they fall back on, what safety net will exist for them, when they have little if any money to pay for the exorbitant, unfettered prices set for "health insurance" and doctor's fees?

As if you care for their looming problems (Will I lose benefits? Yes, I will. But the lives of my children and grandchildren will be infinitely better:). No Social Security, no Medicare. Sounds like heaven to me.

Unfortunately you won't be around long enough to offer them your apparently unlimited charity. I wish them every bit of good luck...that is what it will take to survive.

March 29, 2010 10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comrade Circe,

Therein lies the difference between us.

You feel sorry for people who are not slaves to the government.

I feel sorry for people who are.

March 29, 2010 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

There's another glaring difference -- namely the fear you express in so many of your comments.

i'd vote for anyone who wants to make Medicare, Social Security and this horrible healthcare bill go away. Will I lose benefits? Yes, I will. But the lives of my children and grandchildren will be infinitely better.

Thanks for laying out the *logic* of one person who actually wants to return the right of private insurance companies to cancel coverage to paid up customers who dare to file claims and to deny coverage to children on their parents' health insurance policies until age 26.

You think cutting off health care reform, Medicare and Social Security will make life for your own offspring "infinitely better."

Wow, Fearful!

And you have not a *single* word to say about the lives of those millions of your fellow citizens who would get no health care except that which is provided in ERs and would be living in the streets if not for those programs.

A few months ago you complained bitterly that the health care reform bill was going to eliminate the Medicare Advantage program your mother relied on and now you want to eliminate all of Medicare and Social Security too!

Spiteful is as spiteful does!

Let me guess -- you found a private health insurance policy to replace your mother's Medicare Advantage and you like it now that it can't be rescinded and your mother's claims can't be denied. Since you and/or your mom make enough money to afford to pay for that private health insurance policy, the other 44,999,999 Medicare enrollees can just fund their own private health insurance policies like you did....and ALL Social Security retirees can somehow fund their own retirements so you can have Medicare and Social Security "go away" and your kids' and grandkids' lives will be "infinitely better."

Thanks for making your views so clear.

March 30, 2010 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comrade Bea,

You keep rattling on about my mother's Medicare Advantage. I have no idea what you're talking about. I told you that my mother has private health insurance, and she still does. I just called her to see if she ever had Medicare Advantage, as you seem to think she did/does, but she said "no, I never have."

So I'm confused -- huh?

March 30, 2010 8:51 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

So I'm confused -- huh?

That's easy to fix.

If you no longer wish to be "confused" with people who go by "Anonymous," then differentiate yourself from them as I have. Select an anonymous but identifiable name and use it.

March 31, 2010 8:10 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home