Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 7:37:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 14:47:07 GMT -5
the medicaid side is going to explode in numbers especially for those states that took the feds money and changed the requirements to get on medicaid and yes....this is going to be a budget buster for a lot of states dj doesnt agree.....he thinks it is no big deal....especially for california it is no big deal. your high end projection for 2020 was $1.3B. that might be a lot of money in Wyoming, but it would not run California for FIVE DAYS.some of the red state governors were thinking ahead imo thinking? doubtful, imo.maybe not popular now, but come another 5 years, and they will be the ones smiling i am in good health. i hope you are too, so i can remind you of the fact that you said this in 5 years. my prediction: most, if not all, of the red states will be on the ACA medicare expansion by 2018. IF the feds change the statute to 100% reimbursement, i would agree if they leave it alone...i dont dj...states cant pay their damn bills now......what 15 out of 50 are running a surplus? maybe in the liberal world, running never ending deficits works....... as an accountant, i just see trouble brewing as we pile debt upon debt county, state, federal......everyone is having issues paying bills and it is getting worse.....not better
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Oct 25, 2013 14:59:21 GMT -5
Good point Angel. This is a similar reason affordable housing exists. When there are free market solutions, for example landscaper immigrants living in dorm style housing in Long Island, many in society don't like the noise or other issues so there are actually laws that prevent some not so desireable "free" market solutions from existing.
And the free market does nothing and can not for those who do not have any money to pay. We know people at certain income levels have to choose between medicine and food. Its not logical that any free market solution in health insurance can work for people who don't have the income. (Employment is never 100%, nor is a certain level of income ever gauaranteed so free market employment pretty much guarantees free market solutions will fail for a certain segment of the population always.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 7:37:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 15:06:22 GMT -5
Because not all goods are private goods, hence the real value of a social contract. Precisely.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Oct 25, 2013 15:06:41 GMT -5
But it ISN'T true. You can only get treated for things that are emergencies in nature or one time occurences. I can't go to ER to allergy shots because I can no longer afford them. If I go to the ER because it turns out I can no longer afford dialysis, at best you get some dialysis and get discharged.
NO ON GOING CARE IN THE ER. Therefore, no ongoing or preventive care for poor folk whose only option is the ER.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 15:20:03 GMT -5
because it's at least a 90 minute commute, and even though Mark can be ornery, he does have a few good points he believes in a constitutional republic he believes in a lot of the same ideals i do and i may actually hear or learn something i didnt know and it sure in the hell beats listening to top 40 music nowadays i am with you on most of these points. thanks for the explanation.
|
|
AGB
Familiar Member
Joined: Jun 9, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
Posts: 745
|
Post by AGB on Oct 25, 2013 15:21:20 GMT -5
I am not asking for free, I am asking how the ACA fixes your earlier concerns: "How does your plan help a single mom with 2 kids that makes 30K/yr? I understand that your plan would make insurance somewhat cheaper, but now you aren't covering well visits, vaccines, flu shots, ear infections. So insurance is slightly cheaper, although likely still not affordable to someone of that income level and it has tons more out-of-pocket costs. Suppose one of the kids has asthma. Does your plan cover the $400/month needed in asthma meds? Or does your plan only cover when the kid needs to be rushed to the ER and hospitalized for several days after the mom couldn't afford the maintenance medication that would work best and had to settle for cheap rescue inhalers?" And yes, it is too bad that my company isn't dropping my insurance, so instead of me paying for me and my child, taxpayers can subsidize us... What's worse is that I think that not only you are serious, but that you believe it is actually a good idea. Fyi, I wasn't complaining. We are managing. I am not looking for a handout, subsidies, free healthcare; I am proud of how far I have come, please do not drag me into dependence. I was simply stating some facts you didn't take into account. The ACA does not provide the fixes you think it does, and affordable insurance is not the same as affordable healthcare. Well, in my scenario the Mom isn't getting insurance through her work. Which is why she can't afford insurance. The ACA helps her because she will be eligible for subsidized premiums, much like your workplace provides you with subsidized premiums. It puts her on equal footing as those with jobs that provide insurance. As long as we're clear that the ACA only fixes things for certain people in your specific scenario.And yes, I am serious about your workplace dropping your insurance. I am really confused how you supposedly have a cadillac plan, but pay so much out of pocket. Regardless, you would be eligible for lower deductibles and such on the exchange. I guess it is all how you look at it, but I don't really consider it a handout. I think healthcare is a right, not only for those that can afford it. Kind of like schools. You don't pay an equal amount towards public schools, but your kids still get an education, basically subsidized by the richer taxpayers. I think healthcare should be similar. Everyone pays what they can afford, but all have access to at least basic healthcare. The excise tax on cadillac plans is based on the cost of coverage, not the benefits it provides. Maybe you have heard, but premiums have gone up; what my employer pays for my premium has increased about 30% within the last year. I am eligible for plans with lower deductibles now, they are just not affordable, nor will they be on the exchanges from what I have seen. I get that you believe healthcare is a right, and again, affordable premiums is not the same as affordable healthcare.
I mean do you beat yourself up over your subsidized schooling? Or subsidized roads? At your income you are paying very little in taxes compared to most, so you aren't technically paying for your fair share of many govt provided services. Most see schooling and roads as something that should be available to everyone. I see healthcare in the same way. I think it is sad when people suffer because they can't afford to go to a doctor or take the medication they need. I don't beat myself up, I am stating how things are. Roads and schools are used by the public, not individuals. For your analogy to work, taxpayers would have to chip in to subsidize my private driveway.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 15:23:40 GMT -5
i am in good health. i hope you are too, so i can remind you of the fact that you said this in 5 years. my prediction: most, if not all, of the red states will be on the ACA medicare expansion by 2018. IF the feds change the statute to 100% reimbursement, i would agree if they leave it alone...i dont dj...states cant pay their damn bills now......what 15 out of 50 are running a surplus? the number was 20: 1. Alaska No NA NA NA NA 1. Arizona No NA NA NA NA 1. Arkansas No NA NA NA NA 1. Delaware No NA NA NA NA 1. Idaho No NA NA NA NA 1. Indiana No NA NA NA NA 1. Iowa No NA NA NA NA 1. Kansas No NA NA NA NA 1. Michigan No NA NA NA NA 1. Montana No NA NA NA NA 1. New Mexico No NA NA NA NA 1. North Dakota No NA NA NA NA 1. Oklahoma No NA NA NA NA 1. Rhode Island No NA NA NA NA 1. South Carolina No NA NA NA NA 1. South Dakota No NA NA NA NA 1. Tennessee No NA NA NA NA 1. Utah No NA NA NA NA 1. West Virginia No NA NA NA NA 1. Wyoming Nomaybe in the liberal world, running never ending deficits works....... red herring. i have already told you at least 10x that i am not for running deficits in the long haul.as an accountant, i just see trouble brewing as we pile debt upon debt county, state, federal......everyone is having issues paying bills and it is getting worse.....not better in many places, yes, in some, no.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 15:41:58 GMT -5
Well, in my scenario the Mom isn't getting insurance through her work. Which is why she can't afford insurance. The ACA helps her because she will be eligible for subsidized premiums, much like your workplace provides you with subsidized premiums. It puts her on equal footing as those with jobs that provide insurance. As long as we're clear that the ACA only fixes things for certain people in your specific scenario.Of course. It helps the people that need help the most. You already have decent insurance through your workplace. This law is geared towards people who don't. Interesting. My premiums haven't budged in 3 years. Wonder what made yours take a 30% leap in one year, especially when premiums are going up at a far lower rate than they have historically over the past 2 decades. Affordable premium does not equal affordable healthcare. However, having insurance is a huge first step towards even having access to healthcare. And I believe healthcare should be used by the public - which is really just a bunch of individuals. I believe your son should have just as much of a right to go to a doctor and get treatment as he does to go to a school and get an education. If you want to view it as somehow different you can.. There is no actual reason that schools have to be public except we decided it would be for the greater good for everyone to have an education. Schools could just as easily be all private and only for the wealthy. I believe it would be for the greater good if everyone had access to healthcare, not just for those with the right job or high income. Which is why I don't see that getting a subsidized education is any different than getting subsidized healthcare. Both give you access to something on someone else's dime. But, I believe what you are getting access to is important enough and should be a right for everyone, so I am ok with this.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 7:37:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 15:45:20 GMT -5
maybe in the liberal world, running never ending deficits works.......
red herring. i have already told you at least 10x that i am not for running deficits in the long haul.
as an accountant, i just see trouble brewing as we pile debt upon debt
county, state, federal......everyone is having issues paying bills
and it is getting worse.....not better
in many places, yes, in some, no.
how about if i say TOO MANY places.....will that work?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 15:49:30 GMT -5
maybe in the liberal world, running never ending deficits works....... red herring. i have already told you at least 10x that i am not for running deficits in the long haul.
as an accountant, i just see trouble brewing as we pile debt upon debt county, state, federal......everyone is having issues paying bills and it is getting worse.....not better in many places, yes, in some, no.how about if i say TOO MANY places.....will that work? i am not sure that is right, either, but like you, i am getting tired of discussing it. i think deficit spending in a downturn is a good idea. i think that surpluses should be run during good times, tho. the problem is that every time we are in good times, we ramp up spending, give tax cuts, or both. we need to stop doing that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 15:51:37 GMT -5
PS- i think that, generally speaking, the states do a pretty good job with their budgets. the fed? not so much.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 18:10:18 GMT -5
Nope. We've NEVER had free market healthcare, because the government has always skewed the market- I've explained this countless times in other threads, I'm not going to re-hash it here. This is about the ObamaCare meltdown- and since you don't seem to be capable of acknowledging the fact that the wheels are coming off, it keeps none of the key promises, and it will have to be delayed and radically altered to ever hope to be implemented- I really don't know why you're here. On the ObamaCare meltdown thread, if you are going to argue against the meltdown, you have to make the case that it's working, or will work, and why.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 18:18:03 GMT -5
Not substantive? Imagine "housing reform" where the homeless were promised "access" to homes, but the rest of us were promised that if we have a home, and we liked it- we could keep it.
Then, on Monday morning millions of people get notice that they can keep their home, but they must comply with a mandated list of improvements, and their monthly payment on their house doubled or trippled?
In addition, the homeless are told- well, you have "access" to a home IF you can AFFORD it? By the way- housing is two to three times more expensive.
This is the ObamaCare effect. The spin is that you can keep your plan, and the "dropped" coverage is really just perfunctory because all the policies had to be updated to comply with the law.
Would you say in my hypothetical that the change is not substantive?
The reality is that the problem is substantive- and that's WHY it's politically toxic.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 18:21:26 GMT -5
Again- no substantive argument. Just another personal anecdote. Premiums are UP. It's a fact of life. You can deny this and supply data, or you can accept it. Personal anecdotes are really not an option.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 25, 2013 18:27:04 GMT -5
If government really wanted to solve the problem of the uninsured- pre-PPACA, then there are government models that are still bloated, costly, and which have problems- but they "work" to some extent. I already used, in another thread, the example of FEMA and in particular NFIP; but there are other programs, too- take for example community block grant programs administered by state and local authorities for catastrophic situations where people are under-insured, or uninsured. The trouble there, however, is that there are hard limits- but that, frankly, is life. There's no magic wand anyone can waive no matter how much you tax and spend that will suddenly provide a person a limitless sum of money to provide for the absolute premium top tier healthcare as much as may be required or desired. The PPACA attempts to treat insurance companies as if they have a limitless sum of money by removing caps, and requiring coverage for pre-existing condition- but the fact is that the premium increases that are taking place nation-wide (personal anecdotes notwithstanding- and by the way- post here in two years if you still have a job and insurance- let alone at the same rate) are a result of pricing these ridiculously unrealistic policies into the market.
|
|
AGB
Familiar Member
Joined: Jun 9, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
Posts: 745
|
Post by AGB on Oct 25, 2013 18:28:11 GMT -5
Of course. It helps the people that need help the most. You already have decent insurance through your workplace. This law is geared towards people who don't. I take it you no longer want my place of employment dropping my insurance then... Interesting. My premiums haven't budged in 3 years. Wonder what made yours take a 30% leap in one year, especially when premiums are going up at a far lower rate than they have historically over the past 2 decades. Affordable premium does not equal affordable healthcare. However, having insurance is a huge first step towards even having access to healthcare. Not sure why, all I know is that they have. But yes, affordable premiums does not equal affordable healthcare, we definitely agree on that, and i don't see the ACA changing that. I'm guessing it will be discounted as anecdotal evidence, but my ex chooses not to carry insurance... when he needed surgery, he received a rather nice discount, the hospital, docs etc. wrote off the majority, and I fully support their choice to do so. I don't support forced charity. And I believe healthcare should be used by the public - which is really just a bunch of individuals. I believe your son should have just as much of a right to go to a doctor and get treatment as he does to go to a school and get an education. My son has access to healthcare, he's never been denied seeing a doctor or receiving treatment. If you want to view it as somehow different you can.. There is no actual reason that schools have to be public except we decided it would be for the greater good for everyone to have an education. Schools could just as easily be all private and only for the wealthy. I believe it would be for the greater good if everyone had access to healthcare, not just for those with the right job or high income. Which is why I don't see that getting a subsidized education is any different than getting subsidized healthcare. Both give you access to something on someone else's dime. But, I believe what you are getting access to is important enough and should be a right for everyone, so I am ok with this. I'm glad you're okay with me having a different opinion lol. I don't have high income, and my job was open to anyone who applied. I had no experience in the area, and my educational level was HS drop out with a GED. Maybe I was lucky, but I did not experience any magical barriers for single mothers. I fully acknowledge that times are different right now, finding employment has become a lot harder in the current economy, but this is temporary. I feel the need to point out that I am not against assisting those in need, even through taxpayer money, I just find myself frequently disagreeing whether or not something is a need.
FYI... I am in favor of public education (hate the DOE though), so I guess that makes me a hypocrite, since I'm not able to express adequately how the two are different.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2013 18:31:54 GMT -5
This is about the ObamaCare meltdown- and since you don't seem to be capable of acknowledging the fact that the wheels are coming off, it keeps none of the key promises, and it will have to be delayed and radically altered to ever hope to be implemented- I really don't know why you're here. Yeah, I'm not sure why I'm on here either. No point in arguing with someone so focused on one thing that they can't see the forest through the trees. I'm having a hell of a bad time right now, so at your request I'll just stay away from your thread. No need to further stress myself arguing with you. Enjoy watching the "meltdown".
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 25, 2013 18:32:53 GMT -5
To revisit one area- what exactly is wrong with charging young people the same as older people? Those young people will be old one day and the tables will be turned. That's the whole idea of a modern healthcare system- everyone is in the risk pool from day one and everyone pays.
I think why this is bothering people right now is because it is a transition with people that were left out of the previous system due to expensive or risky conditions are getting in, and at the same time we are requiring younger people to sign up. Somehow it doesn't seem fair- and of course to some people it is a horrific dose of government run amok.
I don't see how since everyone is becoming a part of the new system. I can see how SS was originally unfair as a lot of retirees got benefits that had never paid into the system- that is not the case here- the younger people are paying in, and when they are older they will be part of this system where they will never face things older people in it now or are joining into it have faced.
The only unfair argument- which is a real bullshit one at that- is that the law is bypassing medical underwriting in favor of community rating/guarantee issue. Sure, on an individual level at one snapshot in time it is not fair at all to treat an 18yo and a 60yo with heart failure the same- but that is the old way of viewing things- it has to viewed as the new way- where there will never be a 60yo having to sign up because they will have had insurance since day one.
(And this law is flawed in this area as it currently allows a certain level of price difference due to age, etc.- that shit needs to go away- but is limited and nothing like what it was)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 7:37:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 19:10:07 GMT -5
Again- no substantive argument. Just another personal anecdote. Premiums are UP. It's a fact of life. You can deny this and supply data, or you can accept it. Personal anecdotes are really not an option. "Personal anecdotes are not really an option"?!!!~ LOL! call the Poster nazis!
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 25, 2013 19:32:52 GMT -5
Personal anecdotes are perfectly fine when bashing Canada and their outrageous wait times, however. "One of my friends had a heart attack and had to wait 6 months for a defibrillator...."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 25, 2013 20:29:30 GMT -5
While I would agree that Washington state is doing pretty well, I think your numbers are a little understated. My recollection from what I read a week or so ago was that there were around 35,000 actually enrolled at that point but also an additional tens of thousands (I don't recall the number and wasn't able to quickly find either it or an update again) who had completed applications that were lacking only the initial premium payment (which is not due until December 23) to be classified as officially enrolled.
And to an earlier poster's contention that the majority of Washington's enrollees are on Medicaid, that is true, but also makes perfect sense at this point. Those are the people with the most urgent need so will naturally enroll early. They also do not have to choose a plan so that removes a delay. But also, the way the system works is that those people are immediately classified as enrolled. Those others who have completed applications but not yet made their premium payment are all on the "metal" plans. Some are assuredly subsidized, but none of those are going to be on Medicaid.
ETA: The latest number I found for the completed applications is an additional 56,000 that are only lacking their first payment to be officially enrolled. That would put the number around 9% of the previously uninsured.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Oct 25, 2013 20:46:31 GMT -5
It's all over. Hitler is even pissed!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 25, 2013 20:49:00 GMT -5
he is using "Gish's Gallup" rhetorical technique. the same one Romney used in the first debate. however, in the internet age, the facts will eventually catch up with you, no matter how voluminous your diarrhea. Funny. I have never heard that before and had to look it up. Yes, that does seem to be exactly what he is doing. *chuckle* Precisely. I was a bit surprised to see dj use the term. It's not one that's a part of common knowledge, so to speak.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Oct 25, 2013 20:50:59 GMT -5
Seriously... I get an email today that our employees HRA will not be available after 12/31/2013 due to Obamacare. There is no one happy at my place of business tonight. Elections have consequences folks!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 25, 2013 20:57:04 GMT -5
Again- no substantive argument. Just another personal anecdote. Premiums are UP. It's a fact of life. You can deny this and supply data, or you can accept it. Personal anecdotes are really not an option. I'll enlighten you, paul. Angel is here because Angel chooses to be here. She has as much right to make that choice as you do and one heck of a lot more right to make that choice than you have to question her choice. She doesn't "have to" do anything just because you say so. You don't tell others what they can or cannot do. You're a poster. You're nothing more.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 25, 2013 21:02:44 GMT -5
It's all over. Hitler is even pissed! So, is there ANYONE willing to sacrifice the four minutes from their life to tell us if this is in fact as ridiculously stupid as it appears it must be?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 25, 2013 22:51:15 GMT -5
Again- no substantive argument. Just another personal anecdote. Premiums are UP. It's a fact of life. You can deny this and supply data, or you can accept it. Personal anecdotes are really not an option. I'll enlighten you, paul. Angel is here because Angel chooses to be here. She has as much right to make that choice as you do and one heck of a lot more right to make that choice than you have to question her choice. You don't tell others what they can or cannot do. You're a poster. You're nothing more. my premiums were unchanged at two of my companies this year. the third does not offer coverage.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 25, 2013 23:00:47 GMT -5
After reading through most of this, am I the only one that thinks the thread title is off? Shouldn't it be, "ObamaCare: MY Full-Blown Meltdown Thread"
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 25, 2013 23:13:27 GMT -5
I think dj called it with the "Gish Gallop".
|
|
Jaguar
Administrator
Fear does not stop death. It stops life.
Joined: Dec 20, 2011 6:07:45 GMT -5
Posts: 50,108
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IZlZ65.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Text Color: 290066
|
Post by Jaguar on Oct 26, 2013 1:03:46 GMT -5
After reading through most of this, am I the only one that thinks the thread title is off? Shouldn't it be, "ObamaCare: MY Full-Blown Meltdown Thread"
This is my POTD
|
|