NCBCBS dropped my policy and foisted a new one on me with a with a 30% increase. I can't even now justify purchasing one of the cheap BCBS policies because our local hospital will not take them...(BCBS Blue Value). Im going with my wife's plan with our County slightly less expensive (650.00) than the one BCBS wanted to make me take. Thus far since the ACA was enacted my insurance costs have risen 41%. I thought the ACA was supposed to reduce costs? The fact is...The ACA is nothing but a giant welfare program. It sickens me.

I'd like to continue to sh*t upon ObamaCare some more.

So I went to the doctor with some symptoms that I thought were just indicative of high blood pressure. My blood pressure at the doc was alarmingly high, and one of the symptoms I had was very troubling to him. He was worried about stroke, aneurysm, or brain hemorrhage.

He did a CAT Scan, Chest Xray, full blood work, and urine work immediately. CAT Scan came out negative, so he scheduled a MRI as soon as possible to make absolutely sure he could rule out the more serious conditions.

I get a call today from the MRI company. Blue Cross Blue Shield placed a hold on authorization pending their own internal investigation of whether or not it's necessary. I dunno, but I kinda deem stroke, aneurysm, and/or brain hemorrhage a pretty *** **** good reason for MRI.

ObamaCare: Paying nearly three times as much for your premium? Check. Getting a four times higher deductible? Check. Being denied critical services when you actually want to collect for once in your life? Check.

You know ... at first I looked upon ObamaCare supporters as merely grossly incompetent, totally ignorant of even high school level economics, and utterly unable to rationalize moral hazard and personal responsibility. Now, in light of my situation and what must be much much worse for some others, I think I'll have to upgrade that to accessories to manslaughter and gross negligence.

(12-24-2015 04:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'd like to continue to sh*t upon ObamaCare some more.

So I went to the doctor with some symptoms that I thought were just indicative of high blood pressure. My blood pressure at the doc was alarmingly high, and one of the symptoms I had was very troubling to him. He was worried about stroke, aneurysm, or brain hemorrhage.

He did a CAT Scan, Chest Xray, full blood work, and urine work immediately. CAT Scan came out negative, so he scheduled a MRI as soon as possible to make absolutely sure he could rule out the more serious conditions.

I get a call today from the MRI company. Blue Cross Blue Shield placed a hold on authorization pending their own internal investigation of whether or not it's necessary. I dunno, but I kinda deem stroke, aneurysm, and/or brain hemorrhage a pretty *** **** good reason for MRI.

ObamaCare: Paying nearly three times as much for your premium? Check. Getting a four times higher deductible? Check. Being denied critical services when you actually want to collect for once in your life? Check.

You know ... at first I looked upon ObamaCare supporters as merely grossly incompetent, totally ignorant of even high school level economics, and utterly unable to rationalize moral hazard and personal responsibility. Now, in light of my situation and what must be much much worse for some others, I think I'll have to upgrade that to accessories to manslaughter and gross negligence.

A blockage in the renal artery can cause all of the symptoms that you had and it won't show up without a dye test. While uncommon they frequently go undetected because the physicians that are trained to find the causes of hypertension usually focus on the cardiovascular system and seldom think to check the kidneys (as it is not part of their discipline). The urinalysis was to check for chemicals that might have caused a spike in the blood pressure or for signs of renal failure.

That aside Obamacare was used to end the life of a person I knew who had ample funds, contracted MRSA during a routine gall bladder surgery, and was denied dialysis, which she had had most of her life because of a genetic kidney disease. The rationale was that the drugs that were needed for the MRSA were too strong for her kidneys so that the dialysis was no longer indicated due to her low rate of survival from the infection because of the complication of her fibrocystic kidney disease. Her husband protested and offered to buy a dialysis machine only to be told that care that was not available for the poor was not available for those who could pay. As with all patients that go into kidney failure she was gone within 72 hours.

It was a panel of three doctors from the state of Virginia that made the call and they were not employees of the hospital, nor were they her physicians. No death panels.......right!

To understand the Affordable Care Act (first sponsored by Mitt Romney) one must first understand it's connection to the financial collapse which began in 2006 and peaked in 2008-9. When the intraday lending rate spiked due to the lack of trust among banks it was the major insurance giants that quietly assisted the banks that were (too big to fail). This gesture was largely self serving since the insurance companies had a lot to lose with a banking collapse. But the governmental payback for this was to promise the insurance companies that their exposure to aging Boomers would be reduced. The Affordable Care Act establishes a cap on what can be charged against those insurance companies by everyone thereby reducing potential payouts for late life Boomer health care.

That's act 1 of a 3 act play to bail out big crooks everywhere. The 7 years of no interest rates coupled with the suppression of commodities is the beginning of the second act. Expect the stock market to go through a whipsaw in the not too distant future. The second major problem created by the poor management of the economic anomaly created by the Boomers is that our economic system rode the crest of their swell everywhere it could but for decades squandered the taxes they produced and forestalled correcting government spending blunders due to the spike in revenue that they received during peak earning years of that group. They did this by robbing the Social Security System (a mandated government "savings" plan) by permitting the Johnson administration the right to raid that fund for the "Great Society Program" and by creating derivative bubbles in most forms of investing to give management institutions like banks the opportunities to leverage deposits into ledger sheet souffles. Now with retirement outlays facing those banks and investment companies where the assets will be withdrawn in record numbers by those Boomers (and Busters) they are looking to collapse the market it is based upon.

By collapsing the markets and in a nanosecond converting that wealth into under priced commodities or treasuries which are re inflated, due to taking the long held cap off of interest rates, they will be able to decrease their exposure to retirement investments (which in most cases are invested in equities) and then reestablish the wealth of the investment firm by selling spiking commodities and then reinvesting in the collapsed stocks. The timing for this will be tricky but the mean will likely fall between 2016-7.

The NET effect will essentially be the disinheriting of children of Boomers which will place even more of the nations wealth in the hands of still fewer of the super wealthy. Which is what is happening across the world and not just in the U.S.

The third act will be the global downsizing of the population to increase resources for those with power.

Arguing Democrats versus Republicans and Liberals versus Conservatives is a total waste of time and is merely an illusion for the masses to feel like they have expressed themselves. But in reality both sides are owned and backed by the same conglomerates. They don't care about social issues as long as it is business as usual. Money is the tool to acquire the means to production of food, to acquire the political power to regulate health care, to establish the political power to enforce laws and regulations you didn't want or vote for, and to eventually have the control over life itself.

I pray for your diagnosis and the resolution of your health issue. But like your blood pressure spike, Obamacare is merely the symptom of a greater underlying systemic problem the eradication of which will need all of our support. Take care, JR

Pretty chilling analysis, JR.

The way to make social security solvent is to kill more people before they get old.

(12-24-2015 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Pretty chilling analysis, JR.

The way to make social security solvent is to kill more people before they get old.

Some people have been hinting at that for a while... once you're no longer cost-efficient... that's what this has been leading to. You're a drain on society, so you're just s.o.l

Welcome to Logan's Run...starring you and me.

An aside: Romeycare was never Obamacare (to start). It is a cautionary tale. Romeycare was essentially two parts: (1) individual mandate and (2) restructuring of federally provided funds to provide access to lower income people. This plan was never going to work nationally unless our government had some benefactor to get funding from. After that sucker was passed, the Dems in that state had a party with tons of amendments to it...all passed through veto overrides. It was the final beast that was used as the model for Obamacare.

But, moving on... Obamacare is essentially the NHS (UK) with one exception...it is dressed up as private insurance. It is not private insurance, it is a tax. Essentially, the great majority of Americans can choose from about four plans plus Medicaid and CHIP. It is paid for through premiums that are reimbursed to some. They literally could have just done universal health care and raised taxes (premiums). Basically the feds dictate doctor payments and coverage based on outcomes and likelihood of outcomes.

Consider this, there are a limited number of MRI appointments that can be given out. Under the old system, if you had insurance, you could get one of those appointments. If you were denied, you simply provided documentation from your doc putting them on notice of your condition and needs, and usually, the insurance company relented. Under the new system, we have added many more people to the demand while not increasing supply. So, we now we have to create a method to figure out who gets access to that machine. If you pay out of pocket or have a Cadillac plan, you are golden. For the rest of people, insurance companies are now forced to give out slots NOT based on YOUR actual need, but based on a cost/benefit analysis of how much more effective your life would be compared to another person if you got this service. For example, in another area of medicine, if you get too old, they might recommend the Band-Aid of pain management, while in the past, they would have solved the issue through surgery.

Moreover, if your doctor is very good, look forward to the implementation of concierge care. If you live in a major city and see a top doc, you probably have started to see these things crop up. Docs are also starting to ask for payment up front and leaving you to deal with the insurance company for reimbursements.

Plain and simple, Obamacare sucks. All people had to do to see how this was going to work would be to look at the VA, Medicare, and the NHS. IMO, this monstrosity needs to be eliminated.

Quote:omeycare was never Obamacare (to start). It is a cautionary tale. Romeycare was essentially two parts: (1) individual mandate and (2) restructuring of federally provided funds to provide access to lower income people.

Pharoah, I made that argument MANY a time prior to the Romney/Obama election campaign ,particularly about how much GARBAGE got added to the Romney plan by the Massachusetts legislature _after_ it was passed and I got "dumb founded" stares and "But, but.. it's ROMNEYOBAMACARE!"

(12-24-2015 04:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'd like to continue to sh*t upon ObamaCare some more.

So I went to the doctor with some symptoms that I thought were just indicative of high blood pressure. My blood pressure at the doc was alarmingly high, and one of the symptoms I had was very troubling to him. He was worried about stroke, aneurysm, or brain hemorrhage.

He did a CAT Scan, Chest Xray, full blood work, and urine work immediately. CAT Scan came out negative, so he scheduled a MRI as soon as possible to make absolutely sure he could rule out the more serious conditions.

I get a call today from the MRI company. Blue Cross Blue Shield placed a hold on authorization pending their own internal investigation of whether or not it's necessary. I dunno, but I kinda deem stroke, aneurysm, and/or brain hemorrhage a pretty *** **** good reason for MRI.

ObamaCare: Paying nearly three times as much for your premium? Check. Getting a four times higher deductible? Check. Being denied critical services when you actually want to collect for once in your life? Check.

Serious question because I honestly don't know, so please don't jump my ****, but...

How do you know this had anything directly at all to do with Obamacare? Have you had an MRI for this in the past before the ACA that didn't require a hold?

MRI's are extremely expensive are they not? Sounds more like BC/BS trying to save some coin. I suppose you could say that's because they make less now with the ACA, but how do you really know?

Aside from that...I pray that it's nothing serious and that you're feeling better.

(12-24-2015 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question because I honestly don't know, so please don't jump my ****, but...
How do you know this had anything directly at all to do with Obamacare? Have you had an MRI for this in the past before the ACA that didn't require a hold?
MRI's are extremely expensive are they not? Sounds more like BC/BS trying to save some coin. I suppose you could say that's because they make less now with the ACA, but how do you really know?
Aside from that...I pray that it's nothing serious and that you're feeling better.

You're asking the question in a way that, intentional or not (and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt), will produce an answer that is misleading.

There is not a DIRECT causal link in that there is no line in the Act that says, "GTS cannot have an MRI.'

What there is are very strong indirect causal links. Obamacare forces insurers and docs and hospitals to do business in different ways (Hambone can explain this better than I). What you now have is more people lining up to get care (which is a good thing) but no increased capacity to provide care (which is a bad thing). So insurance companies have to ration scarce resources differently. And the odds are very strong that this is what is catching GTS. This will get worse as controlling costs becomes a larger part of the mission.

This is exactly what Hambone and I and a lot of others have been saying from day one will be an eventual outcome of Obamacare. We may do a better job of keeping well people well. We may not, but either way it will be cheaper. Because won't be treating sick people.

(12-24-2015 07:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 04:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'd like to continue to sh*t upon ObamaCare some more.

So I went to the doctor with some symptoms that I thought were just indicative of high blood pressure. My blood pressure at the doc was alarmingly high, and one of the symptoms I had was very troubling to him. He was worried about stroke, aneurysm, or brain hemorrhage.

He did a CAT Scan, Chest Xray, full blood work, and urine work immediately. CAT Scan came out negative, so he scheduled a MRI as soon as possible to make absolutely sure he could rule out the more serious conditions.

I get a call today from the MRI company. Blue Cross Blue Shield placed a hold on authorization pending their own internal investigation of whether or not it's necessary. I dunno, but I kinda deem stroke, aneurysm, and/or brain hemorrhage a pretty *** **** good reason for MRI.

ObamaCare: Paying nearly three times as much for your premium? Check. Getting a four times higher deductible? Check. Being denied critical services when you actually want to collect for once in your life? Check.

You know ... at first I looked upon ObamaCare supporters as merely grossly incompetent, totally ignorant of even high school level economics, and utterly unable to rationalize moral hazard and personal responsibility. Now, in light of my situation and what must be much much worse for some others, I think I'll have to upgrade that to accessories to manslaughter and gross negligence.

A blockage in the renal artery can cause all of the symptoms that you had and it won't show up without a dye test. While uncommon they frequently go undetected because the physicians that are trained to find the causes of hypertension usually focus on the cardiovascular system and seldom think to check the kidneys (as it is not part of their discipline). The urinalysis was to check for chemicals that might have caused a spike in the blood pressure or for signs of renal failure.

It's a ct angiogram that you're referring to for renal artery stenosis.

(12-24-2015 12:25 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 07:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 04:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'd like to continue to sh*t upon ObamaCare some more.

So I went to the doctor with some symptoms that I thought were just indicative of high blood pressure. My blood pressure at the doc was alarmingly high, and one of the symptoms I had was very troubling to him. He was worried about stroke, aneurysm, or brain hemorrhage.

He did a CAT Scan, Chest Xray, full blood work, and urine work immediately. CAT Scan came out negative, so he scheduled a MRI as soon as possible to make absolutely sure he could rule out the more serious conditions.

I get a call today from the MRI company. Blue Cross Blue Shield placed a hold on authorization pending their own internal investigation of whether or not it's necessary. I dunno, but I kinda deem stroke, aneurysm, and/or brain hemorrhage a pretty *** **** good reason for MRI.

ObamaCare: Paying nearly three times as much for your premium? Check. Getting a four times higher deductible? Check. Being denied critical services when you actually want to collect for once in your life? Check.

You know ... at first I looked upon ObamaCare supporters as merely grossly incompetent, totally ignorant of even high school level economics, and utterly unable to rationalize moral hazard and personal responsibility. Now, in light of my situation and what must be much much worse for some others, I think I'll have to upgrade that to accessories to manslaughter and gross negligence.

A blockage in the renal artery can cause all of the symptoms that you had and it won't show up without a dye test. While uncommon they frequently go undetected because the physicians that are trained to find the causes of hypertension usually focus on the cardiovascular system and seldom think to check the kidneys (as it is not part of their discipline). The urinalysis was to check for chemicals that might have caused a spike in the blood pressure or for signs of renal failure.

It's a ct angiogram that you're referring to for renal artery stenosis.

Thanks.

(12-24-2015 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question because I honestly don't know, so please don't jump my ****, but...
How do you know this had anything directly at all to do with Obamacare? Have you had an MRI for this in the past before the ACA that didn't require a hold?
MRI's are extremely expensive are they not? Sounds more like BC/BS trying to save some coin. I suppose you could say that's because they make less now with the ACA, but how do you really know?
Aside from that...I pray that it's nothing serious and that you're feeling better.

You're asking the question in a way that, intentional or not (and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt), will produce an answer that is misleading.

There is not a DIRECT causal link in that there is no line in the Act that says, "GTS cannot have an MRI.'

What there is are very strong indirect causal links. Obamacare forces insurers and docs and hospitals to do business in different ways (Hambone can explain this better than I). What you now have is more people lining up to get care (which is a good thing) but no increased capacity to provide care (which is a bad thing). So insurance companies have to ration scarce resources differently. And the odds are very strong that this is what is catching GTS. This will get worse as controlling costs becomes a larger part of the mission.

This is exactly what Hambone and I and a lot of others have been saying from day one will be an eventual outcome of Obamacare. We may do a better job of keeping well people well. We may not, but either way it will be cheaper. Because won't be treating sick people.

I'm asking the question because, as you're well aware, some people blame every thing even remotely negative that happens with their insurance or doctor on Obamacare. And while some are true, many are not.

My sister-in-law even thought a minor change in her net pay on the first pay of the new year a couple years back was because of the ACA.

But as long as we're providing anecdotal evidence...

My wife had knee pain earlier this year. We directly called a orthopaedic surgeon, no referral needed...got an appointment in a week...got some shots...pain got worse...surgery recommended...surgery scheduled and done in less than 2 weeks...her pulse-ox was low so we got in home oxygen immediately upon discharge...home therapy received...physical therapy received...went to family doctor...home sleep study approved for possible sleep apnea issue causing the low oxygen...second knee giving problems...surgery scheduled and knee replaced immediately...more home therapy received...more physical therapy received.

Through all of that, I had not one issue with a doctor, the hospital, the home therapy, the physical therapy, the oxygen company or my insurance company in relation to not covering something or making me jump through any more hoops than I've ever jumped through dealing with health care before or after the ACA.

Sure, our experiences were probably not typical, but you can't just keep blaming everything on the ACA if you're being honest.

(12-24-2015 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sure, our experiences were probably not typical, but you can't just keep blaming everything on the ACA if you're being honest.

I agree that some people are blaming things on Obamacare that probably shouldn't be blamed on it. But there are lots of things for which Obamacare should get the blame, and it's supporters are carrying water for it instead of looking critically.

I've said from the start, there are going to be winners and losers. It can't be more than that when there have been no steps to increase supply (and in fact, the reduced reimbursements and greater number of hoops to jump through to get them and the rules that as Hambone explained penalize providers for nothing related to quality, will all reduce supply over time). Your wife's a winner if Obamacare helped her get treated, GTS is a loser. That's the way it goes when you have winners and losers. And the media will continue to point out the losers (if it's Fox) or the winners (if it's anybody but Fox) for years to come.

(12-24-2015 02:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sure, our experiences were probably not typical, but you can't just keep blaming everything on the ACA if you're being honest.

I agree that some people are blaming things on Obamacare that probably shouldn't be blamed on it. But there are lots of things for which Obamacare should get the blame, and it's supporters are carrying water for it instead of looking critically.

I've said from the start, there are going to be winners and losers. It can't be more than that when there have been no steps to increase supply (and in fact, the reduced reimbursements and greater number of hoops to jump through to get them and the rules that as Hambone explained penalize providers for nothing related to quality, will all reduce supply over time). Your wife's a winner if Obamacare helped her get treated, GTS is a loser. That's the way it goes when you have winners and losers. And the media will continue to point out the losers (if it's Fox) or the winners (if it's anybody but Fox) for years to come.

I don't think anything that happened in my wife's case was because of the ACA. I'm just saying that I didn't see anything negative to come from it.

And my argument with HB from Day 1 is that I never said...nor do I think the architects of it really did, that the ACA was designed to increase doctors. And nobody said this was all going to happen overnight either.

And then there's this:
U.S. Medical School Enrollment Soars

Quote:Enrollment in U.S. medical schools is on track to jump by 30% within five years after universities opened more programs and made other changes, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The association, which represents all 141 accredited U.S. medical schools and nearly 400 teaching hospitals, said first-year medical school enrollment will reach 21,304 in the 2019-20 school year. It’s just 130 positions short of a goal the association, known as the AAMC, called for in 2006 as one of the nation’s leading advocates to address a doctor shortage.

AAMC said more medical schools have opened while existing universities have expanded programs or tweaked curricula to get students interested in certain medical disciplines. For example, 72% of medical schools told AAMC they were planning “at least one initiative” to increase interest in primary care specialties.

Primary care professions of all kinds are needed as insurance companies and government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid emphasize paying for value over reimbursing doctors for volume of tests and procedures in the traditional fee-for-service medicine. Insurers like Aetna (AET), Anthem (ANTM), Cigna (CI), Humana (HUM) and UnitedHealth Group (UNH) reported in their first quarter earnings that they are ramping up payments for care coordination, which emphasizes primary care and outreach to patients.

Though the interest in becoming a doctor somewhat addresses a physician shortage, it doesn’t solve the problem. After medical school, these potential future graduates still have to enter a residency program.

Also, I'm all for changes to the ACA to address this. But sadly, I don't see any R's making this case...they only want to **** can the whole thing instead of making it better apparently.

(12-24-2015 02:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And my argument with HB from Day 1 is that I never said...nor do I think the architects of it really did, that the ACA was designed to increase doctors.

But that's exactly the point. Without increasing providers, how do you provide more health care? That's been a large part of the criticism.

As for the med school statistics, that's very interesting, but the test will come with seeing how many of them actually choose to practice medicine. There are lots of lucrative careers available to somebody with a degree in medicine.

This is where leftist/Keynesian economists constantly miss the boat. We are the world's largest importer nation because we are not an attractive place to invest in production. We will have longer and longer queues for medical service because of the way Obamacare will attempt to go about cutting prices. It can't happen any other way. It just can't.

Agree with criticizing R's for not coming up with something better. Particularly since this is going to be so bad that something better should be easy. We even know what something better is--Bismarck. Heritage figured that out.

(12-24-2015 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And my argument with HB from Day 1 is that I never said...nor do I think the architects of it really did, that the ACA was designed to increase doctors.

But that's exactly the point. Without increasing providers, how do you provide more health care? That's been a large part of the criticism.

As for the med school statistics, that's very interesting, but the test will come with seeing how many of them actually choose to practice medicine. There are lots of lucrative careers available to somebody with a degree in medicine.

This is where leftist/Keynesian economists constantly miss the boat. We are the world's largest importer nation because we are not an attractive place to invest in production. We will have longer and longer queues for medical service because of the way Obamacare will attempt to go about cutting prices. It can't happen any other way. It just can't.

My son's girlfriend is going to med school but plans to go into research rather than patient care. Her dad's a general practitioner and he fully supports her move because he sees the direction of medical care in this country.

Quote:Also, I'm all for changes to the ACA to address this. But sadly, I don't see any R's making this case...they only want to **** can the whole thing instead of making it better apparently.

Well here's a few ideas:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Link 5

Link 6

That should keep you busy.

(12-24-2015 09:25 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Pretty chilling analysis, JR.

The way to make social security solvent is to kill more people before they get old.

Some people have been hinting at that for a while... once you're no longer cost-efficient... that's what this has been leading to. You're a drain on society, so you're just s.o.l

Welcome to Logan's Run...starring you and me.

QLY.

Quality of Life Years.

You're old? Meh, you've lived the bulk of your years, time to die.

Sick? Very sick? Well your QLY won't really be all that great, In Our Opinions, time to die.

Welcome to the new world, and guess what? As JR very adroitly put together, this is only the beginning.

Must say, while I wish no one ill-will, especially when it comes to their health or that of their families, we'll see how quickly this tune is changed once THEY'RE getting pinched.

Cause it's coming, "Universally"...

(12-24-2015 03:09 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 09:25 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 08:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Pretty chilling analysis, JR.
The way to make social security solvent is to kill more people before they get old.

Some people have been hinting at that for a while... once you're no longer cost-efficient... that's what this has been leading to. You're a drain on society, so you're just s.o.l
Welcome to Logan's Run...starring you and me.

QLY.
Quality of Life Years.
You're old? Meh, you've lived the bulk of your years, time to die.
Sick? Very sick? Well your QLY won't really be all that great, In Our Opinions, time to die.
Welcome to the new world, and guess what? As JR very adroitly put together, this is only the beginning.
Must say, while I wish no one ill-will, especially when it comes to their health or that of their families, we'll see how quickly this tune is changed once THEY'RE getting pinched.
Cause it's coming, "Universally"...

Yep.

This is the way single-payer/single-provider systems save money. Bismarck gives you an out through affordable private care. So why aren't republicans pushing Bismarck? What's sad is that they could have passed it in 1995 and Clinton would have signed it in a heartbeat.