Pending Health Care Reform

“Fair enough.”

“Sadly...Vile you are so correct about the Republican party. They had a brief flirtation with true independence and limited government in the early 80s and following the 94 take over. But on the rule they are mostly run by bluebloods who see government as a great way to make a profit for their buddies.”

“I agree....Now about the giant redistributive power grab disguised as a government takeover of your healthcare;

House health care bill over $1 trillion for decade

Oct 23, 7:48 PM (ET)

By DAVID ESPO


WASHINGTON (AP) - Health care legislation taking shape in the House carries a price tag of at least $1 trillion over a decade, significantly higher than the target President Barack Obama has set, congressional officials said Friday as they struggled to finish work on the measure for a vote early next month.

Democrats have touted an unreleased Congressional Budget Office estimate of $871 billion in recent days, a total that numerous officials acknowledge understates the bill's true cost by $150 billion or more. That figure excludes several items designed to improve benefits for Medicare and Medicaid recipients and providers, as well as public health programs and more, they added.

The officials who disclosed the details did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.

Some moderate Democrats have expressed reluctance to support a bill as high as $1 trillion. Last month, Obama said in a nationally televised address before a joint session of Congress that he preferred a package with a price tag of around $900 billion.

Obama also said he would not sign a bill that raised deficits, and the CBO estimates the emerging House bill meets that objective. Officials said the measure would reduce deficits by at least $50 billion over 10 years and perhaps as much as $120 billion.

Democrats also said the bill would slow the rate of growth of the giant Medicare program from 6.6 percent annually to 5.3 percent.

"The bill will be paid for over 10 years. It will reduce costs but also will not add a dime to the deficit" in future years, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at a news conference.

Still, Obama's speech provoked enough concern among House Democrats that senior presidential aides were called to a meeting in the Capitol to explain precisely what the president had in mind when he set the $900 billion target.

The figure of $871 billion "is a coverage number. I think the White House has made that very clear. It is a number about coverage," Pelosi said recently when asked about the size of the measure.

Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for the White House, said, "The speaker is working on a plan that meets with the president's price tag of around $900 billion for health insurance reform and will not add a dime to the deficit."

House Democrats took steps to fulfill another of Obama's goals during the day, announcing their legislation would completely close a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage within a decade, five years faster than originally contemplated.

In addition, Pelosi said, "as of Jan. 1, 2010, our legislation will give a 50 percent discount for brand-name drugs to recipients in the donut hole and it will reduce the size of the donut hole by $500."

After months of delay, Democrats in the House and Senate are aiming for votes next month on legislation to fulfill Obama's goal of expanding coverage to millions who lack it, banning insurance industry practices such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and slowing the growth in health care spending nationally. The House bill will also lift the insurance industry's exemption from federal anti-trust laws, a provision under consideration in Senate negotiations as well.

With time growing short, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are struggling independently with the most controversial of all issues involved with health care, proposals for a government-run insurance option to compete with private industry.

In the House, Democrats have tentatively concluded they cannot win passage of the provisions favored by most liberals, one calling for a nationwide government-run plan with payments to doctors and hospitals linked to rates paid by Medicare. It was unclear what fall-back plan was under consideration, but the internal disagreement cast doubt on plans to publicly unveil legislation early next week.

Across the Capitol, Reid, D-Nev., assessed support for a nationwide government-run insurance option that would allow states to opt out of the system. While the plan evidently enjoys a clear majority, it is uncertain whether it can command the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster.

Democrats hold 60 votes in the Senate, but one, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has spoken out strongly against a so-called public option. A few other members of the rank and file have been non-committal.

One, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., met with Reid during the day and later issued a statement saying she was encouraged that a compromise might be possible. She also added pointedly that she had told Reid about "the unique challenges Louisiana is facing in terms of Medicaid and the special concerns I have about teaching hospitals," a possible signal that easing home-state concerns could influence her vote on the larger, national question of a government-run insurance option.

Also opposed is Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the only Republican this year who has voted for a Democratic-drafted health care bill in committee. As an alternative, she favors allowing the government to step in only if there is insufficient competition in the private insurance industry.

Nor was it clear whether Democrats would be able to enlist additional Republicans. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, frequently mentioned by Democrats as a potential convert, said in an interview, "We can't afford the health care system that we have right now. And if we can't afford the one we have right now, how are we going to afford another one that's going to cost more money."

For Reid, the question of a government-run option is one of a many thorny issues to be settled before he can bring health care legislation to the Senate floor. He and senior committee chairmen have been meeting with top White House aides in recent days to produce a bill, and hopes of largely wrapping up the work by the end of the week went unfulfilled.

---__

Eds: Associated Press writers Chuck Babington, Laurie Kellman and Erica Werner contributed to this story.”

“FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

Oct 25, 8:37 AM (ET)

By CALVIN WOODWARD


WASHINGTON (AP) - Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers:

THE CLAIMS

_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers'"obscene profits."

_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.”

“Health Care Bill Is About Control, Not Health Care
By Doug Patton
October 21, 2009

The entire Declaration of Independence, including all 56 signatures, is contained on a single hand-written sheet of paper.

The full and complete original Constitution of the United States of America is printed on six pages. The first four pages contain the basic text of the founding document. Page five is the letter of transmittal to the British government. And the sixth and final page contains all ten of the initial amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

Karl Marx laid out The Communist Manifesto in a mere 23 pages.

The English translation of Dostoevski's Crime and Punishment is 718 pages, while Tolstoy's War and Peace weighs in at 1,225 pages. And try as she might, even Ayn Rand could manage only 1,069 pages in her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged.

My personal, large-print New King James copy of the Bible contains 1,426 pages of text, a 64-page concordance and six pages of maps.

What do these momentous documents have in common with each other? They all contain fewer pages than the bloated Senate health care bill, S. 1796, which totals a ridiculous 1,502 pages.

In other words, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, the father of modern Communism, three of history's most prolific Russian writers and even God Almighty Himself didn't need as many words to get their entire message across as the self-important blowhards in Congress trying to express themselves on one single issue: health care.

But let's be honest. What's going on in Washington right now is not really about health care; it is about control. The Senate leaders, in conjunction with the White House, are doing the same thing they did with the stimulus bill, the omnibus bill, the budget bill and the cap and trade bill. Thousands of pages of rules, regulations, restrictions and, most of all, astronomical spending. They believe that if they so overwhelm the American people with mind-numbing legalese, we will simply take their word for it that this poison pill isn't going to hurt us.

On top of the already burdensome language of this monstrosity, they have made it a moving target. It started with House Resolution 3200. Now it has morphed into the Senate version. But they are not even close to being finished with it. In fact, the current, so-called Baucus bill, with its "moderate" approach to health care reform, is merely the framework for the shell game Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is playing with our health care system. Even if S. 1796 were acceptable in a free society -- which it isn't -- it in no way reflects how the final bill will read.

President Barack Obama and the domineering Democrat leadership in Congress never talk about freedom. They whine about "fairness" and "security," but the word "liberty" is not in their vocabulary. The Founders would have considered the current "reform" going on in Congress as nothing short of criminal. They would rebel against this tyranny as surely as they revolted against the despotism of King George.

One thing on which we can depend: this process will not improve the bill. If this piece of statism passes, the federal government will eventually tell us what we can or cannot eat or drink, how much exercise we must do to stay fit, what we can and cannot smoke (pot yes, tobacco no), whether or not we can have guns in our homes (they're dangerous, you know, and therefore affect our health care costs) and how many children we can have.

And they will do it all in the name of "health care reform."”

“good point.”

“Which word processor did Dostoevski use and didn't he get a triple bypass?”

“


”

“"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. �To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don�t think we need it now."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html”

“When will our HCInsuranceCo's send us to India for surgery?”

“Insurance Stocks Plunged As Reid Announced Public Option, Spiked After Lieberman Vowed To Filibuster It

”

“NOPE ...no death panels....

LOL

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/treating_seniors_as_clunkers_AoV9xo6kjCZHHI4sNh6ZjM

The Senate Finance Committee health bill released last week controls doctors by cutting their pay if they give older patients more care than the government deems appropriate. Section 3003(b) (p. 683) punishes doctors who land in the 90th percentile or above on what they provide for seniors on Medicare by withholding 5 percent of their compensation.

This withhold provision forces doctors to choose between treating their patients and avoiding government penalties. HMOs used the same cost-cutting device in the early '90s until it was deemed dangerous to patients and outlawed. Now, lawmakers want to use it against the most vulnerable patients, the elderly. This bill and four others under negotiation also would slash about $500 billion from future Medicare funding.

President Obama and his budget director, Peter Orszag, have told seniors not to worry, claiming that Medicare spending could be cut by as much as 30 percent without doing harm. They cite the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare 2008, which tries to prove patients who get less care -- fewer hospital days, doctors' visits and imaging tests -- have the same medical "outcomes" as patients who get more care. But read the fine print.

The Dartmouth authors arrived at their dubious conclusion by restricting their study to patients who died. They examined what Medicare paid to care for these chronically ill patients in their last two years. By definition, the outcomes were all the same: death. The Dartmouth study didn't consider patients who recovered, left the hospital and even resumed active lives. It would be important to know whether these patients survived because they received more care. ”

“Okay here is the hilarious part.

In discussions of "Standing Orders" it is now being bandied about as to "who will make "NO TRANSPORT" decisions in case of elderly or limited survival patients.

LOL...lets say we get a "MAJOR FLU Crisis" so EMS responds to some house, and walks in. Jim bo is laying on the floor wheezing and gasping, obviously suffering from effects of severe respiratory infection.

The powers that be are creating "Standards" to be used to evaluate patients for "Survivability". LOL

One of the "grading factors" is roundly worded to mean 'potential life productivity".

So essentially the higher ups will be giving Paramedics the decision (after online consultation) to NOT transport if in the Medic's opinion the patient may not be "cost effective" to treat.”

“Okay I heard this morning that the Government Plan will be "just like the Private Insurance plans"...meaning they must like what the Private Companies do...so um Why change?”

“Thursday, October 29, 2009
NANCY'S HEALTH BILL
By
Neal Boortz
@ October 29, 2009 8:43 AM

Princess Nancy is going to unveil her healthcare bill today. I'm absolutely giddy with excitement. Just what we need ... another competing blue-print for a government takeover of healthcare and 18% of our economy. It also represents a huge shift in government entitlements ... a shift that will be impossible to reverse. Once you get the people hooked on government, there is no way to end it. This may the strongest and most addicition we have in this country .. and unfortunately it's legal. In fact, addiction to government could very well be the most dangerous addiction America has to deal with. Give me a good old fashioned coke addict any time. What's more, this is an addiction that is openly promoted by many politicians ... politicians who generally, an with inexplicable pride, call themselves Democrats.

The Aging Hollow-eyed Hippy from Haight-Ashbury says her government takeover of health care will cost over $1 trillion over the next ten years. That's a lie. She knows it's a lie. Our government has never introduced an entitlement program that didn't cost at least twice as much as the politicians who forced it on us said it would cost. And just how will this monstrosity be paid for? Taxes, that's how. Taxes levied by the looters on the producers to buy votes from the moochers. That's the recipe for government growth. Pelosi also plans to cut payments to Medicare providers. Medicare providers are, in case you haven't figured this out, are doctors. Under Nancy's plan more and more doctors will certainly decide to opt out of treating Medicare patients. Then the government will come along to tell them they can't. Then the doctors will tell the government to go pound sand and will simply retire. This will mean a shortage of doctors that will come at the exact same time demand for services will increase. This will mean waiting lines. This will mean rationing. And all of this will come along because the Democrats steadfastly and absolutely refuse to consider any private sector options in their health care reform plan. Why not private sector options? Simple ....

... because this has everything to do with controlling you and nothing to do with improving your health care.

So what exactly is she proposing to do with your tax dollars?

Employers would be required to offer health insurance to workers
Employers will pay fines for not offering health insurance
Americans will be fined for not purchasing insurance coverage (no word yet on enforcement)
Subsidies will be provided to poor people who can't afford health insurance
Insurance companies will not be able to discriminate against older people or pre-existing conditions
A government option will be available to "compete" with the private sector

(Can any of you figure out just where these actions are authorized in our Constitution? Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Our Constitution doesn't count anymore. K bye!)

Now these are all of the things that Nancy and the Democrats want us to know right now about Nancy's bill. But like any piece of legislation, there are hidden gems that are impossible to decipher without two lawyers, a psychic and the 3rd floor ward of your local mental institution to help make sense of it all.”

“I can just see boortz slobbering all over his keyboard as he typed that...”

“That turns you on doesn't it?”

“'(Can any of you figure out just where these actions are authorized in our Constitution? Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Our Constitution doesn't count anymore. K bye!)'

Where in that constitution does it tell the USGov. to ignore protecting our borders? I hope that helps.”

“Oh my.
T*lty will be shooting up his house now.”

“problem, Corporations running health care so that Doctors don't have to worry about ridiculous Jury verdicts in malpractice cases.

SOLUTION: Tort Reform”

“yes, he mentioned that and a lot of other things in the video”

“'SOLUTION: Tort Reform”

Yes, among so many others to many to list.”

“Section 2531, entitled "Medical Liability Alternatives," establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]...... a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys' fees or imposes caps on damages.”

“I'm sick of these commarxialists trying to take over every part of out lives.”

“AP sources: House health bill totals $1.2 trillion
AP

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent – Mon Nov 2, 6:31 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan.

While the Congressional Budget Office has put the cost of expanding coverage in the legislation at roughly $1 trillion, Democrats added billions more on higher spending for public health, a reinsurance program to hold down retiree health costs, payments for preventive services and more.

Many of the additions are designed to improve benefits or ease access to coverage in government programs. The officials who provided overall cost estimates did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has referred repeatedly to the bill's net cost of $894 billion over a decade for coverage.

Asked about the higher estimate, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the measure not only insures 36 million more Americans, it provides critical health insurance reform in a way that is fiscally sound.

"It will not add one dime to the deficit. In fact, the CBO said last week that it will reduce the deficit both in the first 10 years and in the second 10 years," Daly said.

Democrats have been intent on passing legislation this year to implement Obama's call for expanded coverage for millions, curbs on industry abuses and provisions to slow the rate of growth of health care costs nationally.

"Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years," the president said in a nationally televised speech in early September.

Whatever the final cost of legislation, the calendar is working increasingly against the White House and Democrats. While a House vote is possible late this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., may not be able to begin debate on the issue until the week before Thanksgiving. Additionally, the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has hinted at efforts to extend the debate for weeks if not months, a timetable that could extend into 2010.

One casualty of the time crunch and threatened Republican delaying tactics may be formal House-Senate negotiations on a final compromise. An alternative is a less formal hurry-up final negotiation involving the White House and senior Democrats.

Pelosi and her lieutenants worked on last-minute changes in the measure to ease concerns among opponents of abortion and a contentious provision relating to illegal immigrants. Conservative Democrats have expressed concern about the cost of the bill, and an evening closed-door meeting gave Pelosi and her lieutenants their first chance to hear their response.

The bill includes an option for a government-run health plan.

The leadership can afford more than two dozen defections and still be assured of the votes to prevail on the bill, one of the most sweeping measures in recent years.

Republicans put the cost of the bill at nearly $1.3 trillion.

"Our goal is to make it as difficult as possible for" Democrats to pass it, House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at a news conference. "We believe it is the wrong prescription."

One day after announcing Republicans would have an alternative measure, Boehner offered few details. He said it would omit one of the central provisions in Democratic bills — a ban on the insurance industry's practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. Instead, he said the Republicans would encourage creation of insurance pools for high-risk individuals and take other steps to ease their access to coverage.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the third-ranking leader, said that Democrats looked at their bill as a way to advance universal coverage. In contrast, he said, Republicans "believe the real issue back home is cost" of insurance, and said their alternative would be designed to tackle it.

Democrats have made elimination of the industry's practice a linchpin of their drive to overhaul the health care system. The industry has said it would not fight the change, and an accompanying restriction on its ability to charge higher premiums for certain groups, as the legislation includes a requirement for individuals to purchase insurance. Lacking that, the industry says millions of relatively healthy individuals would refuse to pay for coverage until they became sick, and the cost of premiums would rise sharply for everyone else.

Republicans oppose any government requirements for individuals to purchase insurance or for businesses to provide coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office is seen by lawmakers as the arbiter of claims about the costs and effects of proposed legislation, and the agency has been under intense pressure in recent weeks to compete assessments on several bills circulating in House and Senate.

In a letter last week, the agency's director, Dr. Douglas Elmendorf, said the net cost of expanding coverage in the House measure was estimated at $894 billion over 10 years, a figure reflecting a gross total of $1 trillion in federal subsidies as well as other spending.

The letter contained no similar assessment for the balance of the legislation and it was not clear when or whether one would be forthcoming.

In a letter last week to Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., on the general subject of health care, Elmendorf cautioned that some provisions in legislation have elements that raise costs and elements that lower costs.

"Tabulating all of the aspects of the proposal that would, in isolation, increase federal outlays would be complicated and would require somewhat arbitrary judgments" about calculating overall costs, Elmendorf said.”

“
fvcking hilarious ----

Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments

A little-noticed measure would put Christian Science healing sessions on the same footing as clinical medicine. Critics say it violates the separation of church and state.


Reporting from Washington - Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the "Church of Christ, Scientist" (sic).

The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments -- which substitute for or supplement medical treatments -- on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against "religious and spiritual healthcare."


In a related matter the senators also declared that they were kooo-kooo for Cocoa Puffs.

”

“How many votes will that muster?”

“You know Tilty I tend to agree, but I have also seen where "what people believe" can be as effective as many drugs.

I am not saying it should be a "standard practice" but I am saying if this will help a patient (because of their faith level) why deny it? Heck if they pay for Psychology/Psychiatry Witch Doctors why not faith healing?”

“It's like introducing yoga.”

“It all starts with Santa...”

“When you consider the "success rate" of Pissychiatrists and Pissycologists...you gotta admit that witch doctors have the same rate.

Hell I fully believe that if the "fraud practices" were held to the same standard of real medicine most would not be able to BE in business.”

“Senate votes for cloture.”

“Damn that Reality thing again.”

“libs will only destroy america to a point - i garontee”

“i wonder if the Dems yelled BONZAI!!

isn't that was suicide bombers yell?”

“4 sAIL, 5 tons of tea bags cheap!”

“Blanch Lincoln is fired...I guarantee it”

“The HC lobbyist that couldn`t buy her is fired.
last edited: 11/22/09 9:02:53 AM”

“All those poor lobbyists fighting for their very existence (not like these amateurs at all ---).

Sad, isn_t it.”

“You meant, `Sad ain`t it`, isn`t that rite?”

“rite of passage?”

“Prune juice works.”

“You idiots think there aren`t lobbyist working in favor of this lunacy?

AARP stands to make billions from selling their gap insurance.

SEIU is up to their eyeballs in this power grab

How bout the sweet deal they gave Louisana just to buy another vote?

The ends: legal or illegal, moral or immoral, right or wrong....don`t matter to these people. As long as they can transfer power and wealth from the have`s to the have not`s

The means:legal or illegal, moral or immoral, right or wrong....don`t matter to these people. As long as they can transfer power and wealth from the have`s to the have not`s


You dumb a$$es think getting health care from the DMV is gonna be just fine...

Oh, and what`s another $TRILLION$ to the dept, who cares!

Oh sure, we gotta pay for 10 years to get 5 years of coverage but who cares? It`s Washington math, we can just hide it in a different set of books and the stupid, dependant voters won`t notice that we flim flammed them again...”

“Somebody needs a shot of prune juice.”

“Got common sense?


Nah, I didn`t think so....”

“Prune juice is a warrior_s drink.”