August 04, 2009
How to hear what you want to hear at district meetings - Updated

Some congressmen and senators have had the insult of having to listen to people who disagree with their support of Obama's takeover of health care. Senator Jumpin' Arlen Specter

But Rep. Jay Inslee is taking no chances:

"Sorry for the late notice" - just a few hours. Oh, you didn't hear about it in time? That's OK all my supporters knew about it and called in. It's nice to get such support from "the public" for the takeover of health care.

Congressman Jay Inslee cancelled a telecon scheduled for July 23. I'm sure he had a good reason, but, how convenient, the wrong people might have known about it.

But he found time for one on July 29 just earlier the same day. So who knew about it?

Welcome - U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, WA-01: - Inslee to hold telephone town hall meeting on Wednesday, July 29:

Inslee to hold telephone town hall meeting - Wednesday, July 29

July 29, 2009

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) is hosting a telephone town hall meeting tonight so he can speak with his constituents about the health care reform bill. The call begins at 7:10 p.m. PDT and will last for one hour.

In the call, Rep. Inslee will give a update on the health care reform bill and its status. After that, he will then answer constituent's questions and listen to comments and concerns about the legislation.

Dial-in information is as follows:

-- Toll-free participant line: 877-229-8493 or 877-269-7289
-- Conference code: -----

Via NW Digest

Update: People say that Inslee is having another telecon Wednesday, Aug. 5, at 7:30. But his web site doesn't say so!

Update: There are reports that Rep. Brian Baird is having no face-to-face meetings, only telecons.

"You're at the wrong meeting if you're here to talk about health care." -- Rep. Rick Larsen to veterans.

Posted by Ron Hebron at August 04, 2009 06:33 AM | Email This
1. Maybe they don't want to answer the question about Obama saying that his plan will end employer-provided health insurance.

I know people on this board have denied that is what the plan will do, but they are now at odds with the President, and more recently, Barney Frank who tells us that this reform will lead directly to a single-payer system, as it's the only to get there.

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 07:16 AM
2. The whole Jay Enslee telecon was just a game-play to create the illusion of listening to the electorate. That he is willing to listen and represent the concerns and needs of the people. That the people come first before party and personal power. What a Joke! Jay Enslee is your typical Politician who is there to serve himself first and foremost and the people last and least. In fact, Politicians, with the exception of a very few, have displayed a Criminal Audacity in dealing with this Health Care bill, to not only steal your earnings and Liberty but, your Right to Life itself. Such a Deal!

Posted by: Daniel on August 4, 2009 07:17 AM
3. Rumor from the progressive side is that he will step down and not run for reelection in '10 and instead go after the '12 governorship.

Posted by: swatter on August 4, 2009 07:27 AM
4. The Representatives have their own luxury health care plans. They don't have to live with the consequences of their actions, so they are all for shoving single payer down our throats. Almost all of them are corrupt power mongers. Vote them all out. Term limits. End lobbying. It's time to start getting rid of the corruption. Jay Enslee would be a good place to start. Norm Dicks would be another.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 4, 2009 08:30 AM
5. The opposition to healthcare reform at these meetings just tends to recycle nonsensical conservative talking points. It's a unrepresentative and ill-informed sample of a larger electorate that actually might want some movement on this issue beyond some idiots baselessly whining about "socialism".

But it figures that conservatives would turn into obstructionist scaremongers when there is even the hint of public interest over profit.

Posted by: demo kid on August 4, 2009 09:49 AM
6. Hey, Demo kid:

Can I get some of what you're smoking?

Can you get your head any further up Obama's ass?

Posted by: Richard on August 4, 2009 09:55 AM
7. #5. The Democrats have the White House, the House, and 60 votes in the Senate. What are you complaining about?

And and:

"It's a unrepresentative and ill-informed sample of a larger electorate that actually might want some movement on this issue beyond some idiots baselessly whining about "socialism". "

Wrong. Haven't you seen the polls on this? If you think the people want this, what the hell is stopping your party from getting it done?

Not me.

Oh, and is this plan a ruse to get us to single-payer?

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 09:58 AM
8. Goodie, now we have this via the AP:

"The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate--or undercut--White House claims of the program's success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales."


"even as"... It's their M.O. Just cram stuff through with no data, no deliberation, no actual reading of bills, etc, etc. By all means lets borrow more money so that we can buy cars for people.
Revenues are down 18% from last year.

Good grief.

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 10:04 AM
9. Slavery Party Failed Abortion wrote:

It's a unrepresentative and ill-informed sample of a larger electorate that actually might want some movement on this issue beyond some idiots baselessly whining about "socialism".

Except that people like what they have and really don't want a public plan. The electorate really doesn't want a change, and doesn't like the public option, and the number one concern is NOT coverage but cost (something that Obama and his acolytes is ignoring).

Maybe if the Slavery Party would actually sit down and talk about it with the GOP we could get something that most would like? Nah, that would be bipartisanship, and that just is not tolerated by the Pelosi/Obama/Reid triumvirate!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 4, 2009 10:09 AM
10. What's obstructionist is the Obama administration's refusal to look at CBO numbers. As the new spending mounts, the gap between tax revenue and expenses become wider and wider. We already have multi trillion dollar liabilities in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. There's simply no way to make up that shortfall, and continue promises like Obamacare. Something will have to give way. It's very likely that it will be higher taxes for people well below $250 k per year, and / or some new blanket tax, that will be looked at as not being part of the taxes for the average middle class family, even though it will be, and will have a direct impact upon them.

You can give these leftists as many lessons in economics and accounting as you want, but they just won't see the writing on the wall.

Not to mention, all of the Democrats who have explicitly stated that their goal is single payer healthcare, Obama included. Your eyes and ears betray your mind that is still in the dreamy clouds of Hope and Change.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 4, 2009 10:29 AM
11. Uh-oh! The liberals are gonna tattle on us to the White House! Check out this idiotic thing from the White House web site:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to"


Please don't tell on me! I promise to be a good little Subject from now on!

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 10:53 AM
12. Full Text of Empowering Patients First Act (HR 3400)

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 4, 2009 11:13 AM
13. I asked Senators Cantwell and Murray, along with Rep. Larsen, this very simple question:

"I'm self-employed and pay for my own high-deductible, catastrophic health insurance. For my wife and I the best deal I can get is $248 a month. Will the legislation you support cause my premiums to increase?"

So far the silence is deafening. I would love to ask them this in person, but so far I haven't seen any opportunities to do so.

IMO, this doesn't represent "baseless whining" -- it's a practical, real world concern shared by many self-employed professionals and small business people across the country.

If the current plans to create baselines of minimal mandated services for ALL health plans come to fruition, then it's pretty much guaranteed my catastrophic plan will disappear and be replaced by a much more costly alternative.

Is it too much to ask for them to just leave us alone?


Posted by: Jack Turk on August 4, 2009 11:30 AM
14. Ron,
I disagree with your characterization of Spector's town meeting. The some, if not many, of the so-called concerned citizens voicing their disagreement were actually "brought-in" from the outside. It is a typical astro-turfing of a meeting.

I don't agree with what Inslee did. What I think should be done, however, is for the town meetings to only be open to the representatives constituents. The attendees should have to show they are registered to vote in the district/state being represented. This goes for both sides. I don't like it when either side astro-turfs a meeting. It gets between the representatives and their constituents.

Posted by: tc on August 4, 2009 12:16 PM
15. TC
I disagree with your characterization of Spector's town meeting. The some, if not many, of the so-called concerned citizens voicing their disagreement were actually "brought-in" from the outside. It is a typical astro-turfing of a meeting.

I see, and your proof comes from where?

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 4, 2009 12:25 PM
16. Jack @13,

I am in the same situation as you. Yes it is too much to ask for them to leave us alone. Because as Mike showed in the other thread regarding his solar power installation, the whole scheme is predicated on some people paying for others. In order to finance free insurance coverage for some of the right skin color, income level, health issue, age, or other that the Obama Health Czar deems deserving, other people will need to pay more.

As someone trying to make it on your own and adhere to a more individual structure, you don't fit the Obama plan. You pay more.

And don't complain too loudly, because now that Bush is gone, dissent is no longer patriotic, justified, or tolerated.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 4, 2009 12:42 PM
17. #14 "so-called concerned citizens"

I guess dissent is no longer patriotic.

tc, will this reform lead to single-payer?

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 12:49 PM
18. Pardon the off-topic but God Bless Bill Clinton for getting those two journalists pardoned in N.K. :)

Posted by: Duffman on August 4, 2009 12:51 PM
19. Duffman, what did we give NK for the release of the hostages?

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 12:54 PM
20. Medic/Vet @15
Easy, google the subject. What you will find is a couple outfits behind the so-called "locals" protest. A major one is Dick Army's FreedomWorks. This isn't happenstance. These disruptions are a coordinated attack meant to get between congressmen/senators and their constituents.

Ask yourself this, why is it that these protests only show up (mainly) at Democrat's town meetings.

Their purpose is not to ask questions. Look at the video of the Spector/Seballius town meeting. There is no respectful discourse. The protesters purpose was to disrupt the meeting and not allow anyone to talk.

I don't agree with protests, but I feel it should be left outside. Let the citizens who come to the town meetings to discuss the issue face to face actually be allowed to discuss the issue.

Posted by: tc on August 4, 2009 12:56 PM
21. The time of day; which is basically all they've been asking for.

Posted by: Duffman on August 4, 2009 12:57 PM
22. #20 "Ask yourself this, why is it that these protests only show up (mainly) at Democrat's town meetings."

Uh... because it's Democrats who want to pass this load.

tc, will this reform lead to a single-payer system?

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 01:00 PM
23. Rick Larson held a veteran's meeting in Bellingham last night, but refused to take questions on helth care. This meeting was limited to Veteran's issues he told the crowd. Excuse me Mr Congressman, but for most veterans health care is an important issue.

Posted by: ChuckBerlemann on August 4, 2009 01:08 PM
24. Apparently, Bill Clinton apologized to NK for the journalist's "hostile acts".

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 01:12 PM
25. Inslee has a conf call scheduled for 7:30pm on Aug. 5th. I'm in his district and against Cap and Tax and the Health care debacle. Will I be given a chance to speak out? Hmmmm, odds anyone?

Posted by: Shovel Ready on August 4, 2009 01:16 PM
26. This whole new Internet Snitch initiative from the White House is quite aggressive. Conversations just like this one, will most likely get reported to the White House. What do they intend to do?

This reminds me a lot more of Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro than of a President of the US. Imagine if Bush had done anything this egregious? Keith Olbermann's head would have most certainly exploded. Any reporting on this in the Obama PR Brigade, I mean MSM? Heck no. Sins of omission daily.

This is Hope and Change.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 4, 2009 01:17 PM
27. Jeff, isn't it amazing? And not one voice of objection from the liberals on this board about it.
They're probably busy cutting and pasting our posts and dutifully snitching. Instead, they're criticizing people who object (and most apparently do) to this health care takeover.

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 01:25 PM
28. TC: Most people are loud in their dissent because they are "Mad as Hell and not going to take it any more". They are saying enough is enough. They are saying they do not want our nation bankrupted through another Ponzi scheme like Social Security and Medicare. They are saying they are not the stupid putzes progressive seem to think they are. And they are saying there is a need for reforms in the health insurance industry, a big one of which is tort reform which drives premiums up, and which is apparently a banned issue by progressives. Dick Armey is not organizing groups from outside respective districts to protest. He is urging people to show up at their local town meetings to be heard. And from what I have seen in clips of those town meetings, the Dem representatives are flustered, surprised, and sometimes even sneering and laughing at the people who are voicing their opposition to the proposed health care boondoggle. I certainly don't recall you ever voicing concern over Obama bringing in "ringers" to every single Town Hall Meeting he holds. Where's the outrage on that? And as stated above, the outrage is not being expressed at Republican representative Town Hall Meetings because they are steadfastly against this proposed plan, at least most of them.

Posted by: katomar on August 4, 2009 02:35 PM
29. tc - don't be ridiculous. Why can't they be just fed-up normal taxpaying citizens?

Did you ask the same question when Code pink, International Answer, Move-on, and all the paid stooges of the left disrupted every gathering under Bush?

And guess what, if the right is mobilizing like the left, good on them, it's about damn time!

Posted by: dan on August 4, 2009 02:35 PM
30. I just hope there's no correlation between this 'mobilizng' and rise in sales of ammunition in this country?

Posted by: Duffman on August 4, 2009 02:42 PM
31. #30

How come?

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 02:44 PM
32. Because the Democrats control the heavy artillary and armor. :)

Posted by: Duffman on August 4, 2009 02:48 PM
33. #32 Ha!

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 02:49 PM
34. that's right Duffman, they must all be right wing wacko fringe nutballs who carry guns, unlike the truly serious people who dress up as giant dove puppets of peace (or go naked), or wear pink feathers and pink hats. I wonder how many of those protesters actually pay taxes for all the goodies they demand?

Posted by: dan on August 4, 2009 02:49 PM
35. I don't know that I'd have all that much trouble with Obama's plan... the moment every member of congress, the empty suited bigot himself and his family would come under it.

Of course, hell would freeze over first, but hey, leftist idiots tell us this scam is "better" than what we have... and gee, those running the government are "special" so they NEED the medical care they get that most of us can only dream of... empty suit's plan or no.

Posted by: Hinton on August 4, 2009 02:52 PM
36. Yes, there are some that do that and others who do other things in airport toilet stalls, cheat on their wives, etc, et al. Works both ways; we are a homogenious bunch aren't we. :)

Posted by: Duffman on August 4, 2009 03:05 PM
37. Gary @22
Uh... because it's Democrats who want to pass this load.
No, it is the American public that want Health Care reform.

tc, will this reform lead to a single-payer system?
Incorrect. There is nothing in the current legislation even close to this. This is a falsehood being spread by those who don't bother to actually check out the facts. It is a myth. It is made up. It is a fairy tale. It is right up there with fake Kenyan Birth Certificates that are duplicates of Fake Australian Birth Certificates that one can purchase on the internet.

Katomar @28
You must not have researched the issue being reported. One, it is not most people at these town meetings. It is a small minority. Most of the people wanted a respectful meeting. Second, the mobs are being coordinated through special interest groups, like Dick Army's, who is getting paid by some Insurance Lobbyist groups. It isn't public uproar, it is coordinated astroturf. Look up the facts before jumping to conclusions. Your assumption is that everyone, or at least the vocal minority at these meetings, has the same feelings as you do. This is an invalid assumption not based on actual facts. These folks are not who they report to be. They are disrupting meetings and doing a disservice to democracy for not allowing normal, ordinary citizens to hold a town meeting with their representatives.

Dan @29
Did you read the facts regarding this astro-turf campaign? Did you read the FreedomWorks memo uncovered that outlines the strategy?

Yes, it is just as bad when the left did it. I don't deny it. One (or several) wrongs, don't make it right for the "right" (actually minority fringe of the right -- most on the right would be respectful) to do it.

I know many here don't want to research what is really going on and are only listening to a certain side of the story. Do yourself a favor, though, and look at the facts yourself. I don't care whether you agree or disagree with the need or scope of health care reform. I have let my opinion known in the past and many here have let there opinions known. My point on this matter has to do with whether this "astro-turf" campaign is good for democracy or not. I believe it is not. I believe we aren't going to solve anything with name-calling and disruption of meetings between ordinary citizens and there representatives. We need our representatives to sit down with us and listen to all of us, and not get shouted out of a meeting by a small minority that is part of a coordinated attack by lobbyists.

I get the feeling that some here may care. Others may feel that the end justifies the means. My question is do you care or not regarding the Dick Army coordinated astro-turf campaign's impact on democracy? If not, then why?

Posted by: tc on August 4, 2009 03:12 PM
38. Careful Duffman - you're slipping into the "your dog's meaner than my dog" routine. The list of congressional and senatorial failings, moral and ethical is endless on both sides, so best left alone, unless you want to talk term limits. People attending these town hall meetings don't need costumes or color coding or shock and awe tactics. They are every-day people showing up to voice their displeasure, and expecting their "representatives"
to listen. Fat chance that!

Posted by: katomar on August 4, 2009 03:14 PM
39. #37 "Incorrect. There is nothing in the current legislation even close to this. This is a falsehood being spread by those who don't bother to actually check out the facts."

You mean Barney Frank? You mean President Obama?
Ezra Klein? They all acknowledge that this reform *will* lead to single-payer.

"No, it is the American public that want Health Care reform"

You haven't gotten memo, they now call it "Health Insurance Reform".

Do you want single payer?

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 03:18 PM
40. #37 "...part of a coordinated attack by lobbyists."

Oh! There you guys go again. Thanks for reminding me to go pick up my check from the insurance company, because nobody can possibly disagree with this reform without being paid.

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 03:22 PM
41. tc - do you count the baseless smears against Sarah Palin in your moral outrage against organized dissent? Or are you only outraged because you finally realize that the right may actually be a threat to your hopey changey goodness?

Posted by: dan on August 4, 2009 03:23 PM
42. tc, what are you upset about anyway? If everybody wants this, and these protests are fake, why hasn't the President and Congress passed this thing yet?

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 03:25 PM
43. #1: too true. It's very clear that when you forbid new private policies to be written that what it all eventually leads to is---single payer. By the government, of course. They apparently think we're stupid.

Posted by: Michele on August 4, 2009 03:39 PM
44. Barney Frank:

"I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single-payer, and that's the best way to reach single payer."


Go ahead, snitch on me!

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 03:46 PM
45. By the way, for those in denial about what single-payer leads to--a close family member just came back from Canada, where she talked at length with canadians who are noticing the direction our country is trying to go with govt. medicine. The canadians are reporting to her that Canada is now starting to go somewhat away from its govt-only medicine, in that they see so many people going over the border to freedom (I mean, the USA) to get surgeries they must otherwise wait months for in Canada. The canadian doctors have looked at that and asked "why shouldn't WE make money doing those same things privately? Look at the money we are not making, due to this screwed-up system that poorly serves its citizens." So canadian doctors are reportedly teaming up to make private clinics and the head honchos in government are now reporetedly "looking away" on it, as they recognize the silliness of not letting canadian doctors do the same work american doctors are performing on canadians who come here (and they are many, report these canadians). So they are now moving in the direction of us. Private clinics who will give you what you need for fee for service. Sounds like freedom is trying to break out in Canada, and the pols are recognizing that by "letting" (what an insult that someone would have to "let" a doctor hang a private shingle!) private medical groups form in Canada.

Btw, these canadians described their socialized medicine system as "great, as long as you're healthy."
How terribly sad.

Posted by: Michele on August 4, 2009 03:50 PM
46. tc @ 20: Easy, google the subject.
I did tc and the Internet said that you were FOS.


Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 4, 2009 03:59 PM
47. Why do Democrat leaders so avoid simply and openly telling the truth?
What among the left is so stylish about defending the indefensible?
Why do "liberals" so covet authoritarianism and despise liberty?

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 4, 2009 04:05 PM
48. Democrat Keith Ellison - "let's save money by just letting mom and dad go":

ELLISON: We ought to all have a conversation with our loved ones, not about money, but about dignity. So what the bill says, what it calls for is that you have a conversation with your provider and encouraged to have a conversation with your family about things like living will, do not resuscitate, things like that. Now look, it happens to be true that a lot of expense is in end-of-life care, but some of that expense is associated with the fact that the family is in a guilt trap because they don't know -- they want to do everything they can to save Dad or Mom.


They're telling us exactly what they want to do, and that is to not spend money to prolong lives of elderly people. These Congress people *do not* have to attend these mandatory 'end of life' meetings with doctors.

Obama: "Just take a pain pill and save us all some money, please."

What do the liberals on this board think about the tattle-tale email at the White House?

I've already told on myself, so you don't have to bother.

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 04:12 PM
49. Obama 2008:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,"

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 04:17 PM
50. Gary @39
You didn't answer "where in the legislation." Instead, you threw out names. Names aren't legislation. Answer the question: Where in the legislation does it state single payer?

This is a hyperbole. This is a falsehood being spread to scare people.

Regarding your second part: The polls do indicate that the majority of Americans want some sort of Health Care reform. They may not want single payer, but as stated above, that isn't in the bill. Why don't you stick to the subject at hand.

OBTW, I am not keen on a single payer system. I also know that what is being proposed is not single payer. Therefore, I am not worried about this falsehood. I am sticking to what is actually being discussed, not some hyperbole.

Gary @40,
Where did I state that you are being paid for? Where did I state that all the opposition is being paid for?
What I stated was that there is a paid coordinated attack (Dick Army's group is one of the groups) and that this paid attack's gameplan of "astro-turfing" townhalls has been exposed. No where in this statement did I leap to the conclusion you assumed. Again, stick to the subject.

Dan @41
Two points on your post. One, I was not discussing the attacks on Sarah Palin. Those are not the subject of the overall post which deals with Healthcare and representatives (Congressmen and Senators) meeting with their constituents in Town Hall meetings. I learned from my run-ins with Pudge, not to stray off subject. Two, I did state that I didn't like the left "astro-turfing" any more than I like it from the right, and acknowledge in this statement that I believe the left is also guilty of this same action.

Gary @42
I already stated what I am upset about and that is the disruption of citizens meeting with their representatives by these outside groups (some of which have been documented to be the works of lobbyists like Dick Army's FreedomWatch group).

Gary @44
This post is off-subject and doesn't relate to what I am discussion, which is the "astro-turfing" of meetings between constituents and their representatives.

AS @46
False. Try googling "astroturfing healthcare."
Results 1 - 50 of about 717,000 for astroturfing healthcare

Posted by: tc on August 4, 2009 04:18 PM
51. muffman @ 32: Because the Democrats control the heavy artillary (sic) and armor. :)

You just go on believing that and we'll all be fine...

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 4, 2009 04:20 PM
52. tc: FALSE

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 4, 2009 04:22 PM
53. Hey, tc - how 'bout the parts in the bill that give the Sec. of HHS the power to set profit limits on insurance companies, and which companies get to join the exchange?

You don't want single-payer? You're gonna get it.

Posted by: Gary on August 4, 2009 04:24 PM
54. I'd like to add to Michelle's #45; I have a family member that manages an out-clinic for a large hospital. The latest refugee from Canada is woman who had a radical mastectomy (1) and has been admitted for breast reconstruction. Why here? Because she has to wait three years to get the same operation under their single payer system. Since first doctor contact she's waited a few weeks to get treatment here.

And these types of stories are not the exception if you are close to the health care industry. Large clinics have been opened in Bellingham and other border towns just to service Canadian clients who either can't get a procedure at all or have to wait huge amounts of time to get it.

So, Demo Kid, is having a heart attack and having to wait indefinitely for a bed in the ICU or sitting in an ambulance in the street for four hours because the hospital is full recycled "nonsensical conservative talking points"? Let me help you out. No. They are true stories of collapsing single payer systems. The same crap you advocate along with the Joker In Chief.

Another nice trick of the Canadian system is that the political class is exempt of it. They can go wherever the wish and pay whomever they want. They wouldn't dare subject themselves to the crap system they have there . . . just like the exemption that our political "leaders" will give themselves from that thing they are ramming down our throats.

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 4, 2009 04:43 PM
55. And don't be fooled by the rhetoric. If the government drives private insurance providers out of business due to restrictions then we end up with de-facto single payer. Many prominent voices in the insurance and healthcare industries have pointed to text and impossible regulations within the Obamacare bill that will lead to them going out of business.

And Obama and other prominent Democrats have intoned and in many cases outright stated that their goal is to head towards single-payer healthcare insurance. It's semantics if their plans require a multi-step process to get there, but make no mistake, that is their plan. Obama has begun a walkback in order to get his plan passed in the same way he walked back on much of his rhetoric during the campaign so that he could get elected.

Bush was taken to task when he made certain statements. Why would we ignore Obama's own words when he has explicitly stated on multiple occasions that his goal is a single-payer system.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 4, 2009 04:54 PM
56. tc - given the caliber of comments here should answer your question about why some of us do not need to be lead by the nose and told what to think. We on the right tend to think for ourselves and take a more cynical view of the world and especially of those who tell us they're doing us a favor. In other words - we don't need to be "astro-turfed." Please stop your projecting.

Posted by: dan on August 4, 2009 05:06 PM
57. TC are you freaking kidding me. I got just 3.330 hit for Armey, yet when I put local protest. YOUR libs groups come up 1.560.000 hits.

Yeah some big group there TC.

Talk about a LIAR.

Frankly many of you Armey hits are (hear say bud)

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 4, 2009 05:27 PM
58. Where in the legislation does it state single payer? This is hyperbole. This is a falsehood being spread to scare people.

Quit being disingenous, tc. You know damn well this "reform" is incrementalism on the part of Democrats and Obama, who've already admitted they WANT
a single payer system and are simply doing it by backdooring it through by lying to the American public through rhetoric (something he excells at). People are beginning to wake up to this administrations intentions, and I say "it's about time".

Posted by: Rick D. on August 4, 2009 05:40 PM
59. TC.... even better. I looked at more than one group who post OPINIONS!!!!
Here's a few, like say KOS..

Tom Synhorst, a former staffer to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Bob Dole, joined fellow right-wing operatives ( BOB DOLE a right wing??).Who knew.........LOL
You know how stupid comment this makes you fools look.
Kos and otherwise help viral it. This "interview with random citizen on street who just happens to turn out to be a paid (yeah KOS and the truth.. )

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office sent out a fact sheet to reporters this afternoon, calling recent demonstrations at congressional town hall events "Astroturf," the Washington euphemism for a corporate public relations campaign disguised to look like a grassroots citizen movement.

You notice they CITE Armey's group, yet never prove it.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 4, 2009 05:44 PM
60. tc at #37 and #50, I strongly look down on "comments" that are longer than the orginial post, either in inches top to bottom or # words. Get your own blog.

Posted by: Ron Hebron on August 4, 2009 06:05 PM
61. Now this is even better. I'm told the dem's are in control, yet! (-:

WASHINGTON -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner blasted top U.S. financial regulators in an expletive-laced critique last Friday as frustration grows over the Obama administration's faltering plan to overhaul U.S. financial regulation, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 4, 2009 06:13 PM
62. Medic/Vet: The Dems are in the majority, and say they are in control. The truth is, they have a hard time controlling anything, even with a majority. I could cite the state of Medicare and Social Security, which they are just allowing bleed to death, and today, the cream of the crop, the U.S. Postal Services, which is going broke and planning to close several offices in all states, and cutting back to five days a week, maybe less. If government cannot run these entities efficiently and stay in control, then what looms for health care? Right now, the Dems are dysfunctional, denying there is major opposition to spending and the health care bill and Cap and Trade, and are cannibalizing each other.

Posted by: katomar on August 4, 2009 06:27 PM
63. Score:

TC, MikeBoyScout, and Demo Kid = 0

All Others = 10

Oh - and I sent an email directly to with a simple sentence that I disagree with Obama's plans on health care! It is interesting on why Obama is trying to collect data from people that disagree with him! Is that an indicator of trying to stifle free speech? If it is Obama should be impeached much as Zelaya was impeached from being President in Honduras. (There was not a coup to remove Zelaya from Office. He violated his own constitution even though Obama thinks Zelaya was removed from office by a Coup!!!)

Posted by: Tim on August 4, 2009 07:49 PM
64. I emailed the congressman's office two days ago asking if he would be having an in-person town hall meeting to discuss health care and government spending. No response as of this evening.
Jay Inslee-- a great governor for Say WA!!!

Posted by: Willard on August 4, 2009 09:32 PM
65. Hi Willard!

Jay is too timid (or too cowardly) to face his constituents. His next-best offer is a phony telephone interview where he can control the outcome.

I found this elsewhere online:

Jay Inslee Telephone town hall meeting!!!!
Due to the popularity of last week's telephone town hall regarding health care reforms currently under consideration in Congress, I'm happy to tell you that I've scheduled another telephone town hall meeting on this Wednesday, August 5, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. PDT. I hope you'll join me for a broad discussion of health issues at that time.

As before, this forum will give you a chance to share your thoughts and ideas, as well as get an update on what Congress is doing to help solve the cost and coverage problems that afflict the American health care system - all from the comfort of your home.

To participate, dial 1-(877) 269-7289 and enter the conference number 13634. If you can't make this call, rest assured that I plan to hold more telephone town halls in the future. In the mean time, you can listen to a recording of last week's health town hall meeting here:

Just remember jay - you can run but you can't hide!

Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 4, 2009 10:40 PM
66. I also sent Inslee a request for a "REAL" townhall - in a hall in town with real voters there - but his office hasn't replied either. He likes to HIDE behind a "telephone" townhall instead of holding a legitimate townhall. It's easy in these telephone conference calls for the representative to prescreen the questions and only open the phone line to a few people's questions, the questions he "knows the answers to." A representative of the people cannot experience the mood, temperament, or concern of the crowd in these conference calls. A true townhall should allow anyone to stand and ask his question or share his concern, not just a select prescreened phoners.

By the way, Inslee's phone conference call is today - Wednesday - at 7:30.

To participate, dial 1-(877) 269-7289 and enter the conference number 13634.

Posted by: Dan on August 4, 2009 10:46 PM
67. I contacted Rep Inslee's office about the conference call town hall on the 5th. They said it was scheduled and asked for my contact information. They said they would contact me with the callin number etc. No word yet. I did ask if they would post it on his website, but they were non-commital. Let's see if they give me the information about the call.

Posted by: JerryR on August 4, 2009 10:46 PM
68. As society develops and grows more complex, we continually find that things which once it was desirable to leave to individual initiative can, under changed conditions, be performed with better results by common effort. It is quite impossible, and equally undesirable, to draw in theory a hard-and-fast line which shall always divide the two sets of cases.

For instance, when people live on isolated farms or in little hamlets, each house can be left to attend to its own drainage and water-supply; but the mere multiplication of families in a given area produces new problems which, because they differ in size, are found to differ not only in degree, but in kind from the old; and the questions of drainage and water-supply have to be considered from the common standpoint. It is not a matter for abstract dogmatizing to decide when this point is reached; it is a matter to be tested by practical experiment. Much of the discussion about socialism and individualism is entirely pointless, because of the failure to agree on terminology. It is not good to be a slave of names. I am a strong individualist by personal habit, inheritance, and conviction; but it is a mere matter of common sense to recognize that the State, the community, the citizens acting together, can do a number of things better than if they were left to individual action. The individualism which finds its expression in the abuse of physical force is checked very early in the growth of civilization, and we of to-day should in our turn strive to shackle or destroy that individualism which triumphs by greed and cunning, which exploits the weak by craft instead of ruling them by brutality. We ought to go with any man in the effort to bring about justice and the equality of opportunity, to turn the tool-user more and more into the tool-owner, to shift burdens so that they can be more equitably borne. The deadening effect on any race of the adoption of a logical and extreme socialistic system could not be overstated; it would spell sheer destruction; it would produce grosser wrong and outrage, fouler immortality, than any existing system. But this does not mean that we may not with great advantage adopt certain of the principles professed by some given set of men who happen to call themselves Socialists; to be afraid to do so would be to make a mark of weakness on our part.

Posted by: Torture Lawyer on August 4, 2009 11:53 PM
69. @ 68: Wow, that rambling, incoherent, convoluted mess above could be summed up with two words- Semantic masterbation. Why couldn't you just keep it pithy and simply say "I like communism. You should like communism as well because communism is good for us"?

As for Inslee, if he's cowering behind a speaker phone because he's afraid to listen to legitimate public concerns posed to him by his constituents at a live town-hall meeting venue, perhaps public service isn't the career path for him. My advice....Grow a pair, Jay

Posted by: Rick D. on August 5, 2009 05:24 AM
70. Hey guys. Now that I'm retired and have time on my hands. Could you point me in the 'right' direction to find out who's paying these people to protest. I could always use a few extra bucks. Hey duffie. care to going in. (-:

What ya say there TC you seem to know it all. Help a buddy out. LOL

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 05:51 AM
71. Hey Medic/Vet, I'm sure you'll join me in a big round of applause for Bill Clinton...politics aside he is a bit of a humanitarian hero. :)

Posted by: Duffman on August 5, 2009 06:25 AM
72. bubba is an opportunistic pig. I wonder what US treasure he has ransomed off in order to pull this off.


Posted by: Alphabet Soup on August 5, 2009 06:33 AM
73. #71. I'm not sure why. The U.S. apologized to NK to for the "hostile acts" of the journalists, and then sent Bill to go get 'em. It's not like he just flew over there and talked 'em into letting them go.

If you want to talk about humanitarian ex-presidents, how about what Bush did for Africa?

Anyway, to the topic, it looks like Larsen is against the public option in the reform bill. How 'bout that?

And Tortured Lawyer, your system is in place in Cuba and North Korea.

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 06:40 AM
74. I would certainly give former POTUS Bush credit for that - I'm not adverse to praising someone because they have a (R) or a (D) behind their name - are you.

Posted by: Duffman on August 5, 2009 07:06 AM
75. Ron @60
I am trying to make it short, but I was responding to multiple comments. Would you rather have each response in a separate post?

I am also trying to be civil in my discussion, despite the uncivil responses I am receiving. Do you want a discussion or not? Instead of chiding me, why not look at some of the characters who are responding to me and their tone of message.

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 07:12 AM
76. Tortured liar,

Thanks for reminding us to take out the garbage (that you know of).

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 5, 2009 07:13 AM
77. AS @52
What are you responding FALSE to? Please provide context.

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 07:14 AM
78. Don't forget, Clinton is North Korea's HERO! He's the one who gave North Korea all the help they needed to start their Nuclear Programs.

Posted by: Daniel on August 5, 2009 07:14 AM
79. tc - will you ask Inslee if he opposes the public option? The public option will lead directly to a single payer system which you and I oppose.

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 07:17 AM
80. Gary @53
You didn't state where the bill implements a single payer. Your statement only brings up one of many different down-the-road scenario's. Are you inferring that even though a majority of Americans want Health Care reform in some fashion or another that we shouldn't do it because a few individuals in Congress prefer a single payer? That's like saying we shouldn't build XYZ new Naval Ship because some in Congress may feel it will be used for war. The bill doesn't include single payer, but does provide some action to addressing Health Care needs. Is it perfect? Heck no. This is why I feel it is important for Congressmen and Senators to meet with their constituents and have a real discussion. It is also why the mobs that disrupt these meetings are really a disservice to democracy. Are they afraid of citizens having frank, real discussions with their elected officials?

Note: I also stated early on that I didn't agree with what Inslee did. It was disingenuous.

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 07:21 AM
81. @ #75,

tc writes to Ron Hebron about his silly rambling meaningless spams at #39 and # 50
"Hey, Hey Mom, what can I do ? . . . they are not being nice to me . . . "

Hey tc, at least boy scout and demo kid are entertainingly insipid. You are just a boring pointless liberal nitwit.

Go start your own blog and we'll all see you there, O.K.?

Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 5, 2009 07:24 AM
82. Dan @56
Did I say you were "astro-turfing?" No, I did not. That doesn't mean, however, that opponents of Health Care Reform aren't doing it. I have stated in previous posts that my "beef" (so to say) is not that people want to voice their opinions to their elected officials, it is with the coordinated "astro-turf" campaign that is targeting these meetings between citizens and their elected officials with the sole purpose of disruption of the meeting, so that the meeting can't take place. What they are doing is limiting your own voice from being heard (if you were at one of these meetings). Whether you agree with their points or not, their disruption and taking over of the meetings, which is part of the operating procedure provided by the lobbying groups to them, causes the meetings to be unproductive. Even if they have points, they are lost by the uncivil disruption they cause. I believe their point is for the meetings not to occur. Do you agree that representatives should not meet with their constituents to hear how the feel about the bill? This is what I disagree with in the "astro-turf" groups actions.

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 07:29 AM
83. tc - you heard the President, didn't you? This bill will not "eliminate employer coverage immediately", but will some years down the road. He said so. He knows, as well as anybody who knows what the government does, that this will kill the private insurers, and is the only political way to get to single-payer. He is *for* single-payer and he will get there using the public option.

They are *telling* us this, tc. You and I oppose what is they're trying to do.

Do you actually want the government to tell you that you must have periodic 'end-of-life' talks with your doctor? Why must you be told to do this? You're a free person, aren't you?

Why give them such power over you? Especially, when you don't make them live under the same conditions.

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 07:31 AM
84. Gary @79
Inslee is not my congressional representative. I have previously stated that I didn't agree with what Inslee did.

Norm Dicks is my representative. I will check his schedule and see if he is holding any meetings and if I can attend, I will ask him the following question:

Would you support removing the public option part of the bill in order to get broader support for the other important reforms in the bill, and if not, how will you ensure that the public option doesn't lead to a single payer system?

To me, the public option seems to be the lightning rod that is obscuring the other reforms outlined. If it needs to be dropped so the rest of the bill passes, then so be it. I am not convinced, in its current iteration that it will do much good. I am concerned about the growing oligopoly in the private insurance market. I think that should concern you too. I would assume that you would want lively private competition and not a few major companies controlling the entire market.

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 07:37 AM
85. Gary, Rick D and Amused by Liberals:

When people say you're unthinking, knee jerk reactionairies, this is what they mean.

That quote is from Teddy Roosevelt.

Not me.

It's from a famous speech, and if you had a basic historical education you would know of it.

That you don't know that and that you reject the content of it ... well that's pretty dumb. You are dumb.

The point isn't communism is good, btw, as you oversimplistically conclude it is saying.

So you get a FAIL on the basic reading comprehension test.

The point is there are individualist solutions and colelctivist solutions and it's idiotic to do what you do, which is laud the one and reject the other one out of hand; because in fact in different conditions of society at different times, and on different issues, the individualist solution or the colelctivist solution works better.

You seem unable to comprehend that that is what the point of the piece is.

Teddy Roosevelt. You do know him, right?

You can find similar quotes from Winston Churchill, too. He engineered MASSIVE intereference in the free market...a compulsory, single payer government run insurance scheme... with employer mandates.....I am sure you have no idea what it is, too.

Read the quote.

You guys actually agree with much of it and you are too bumd to realize it.

It says the "State, the community, the citizens acting together, can do a number of things better than if they were left to individual action."

You agree with that numbskulls.

You agree we have to colelcively have an army, and roads. Most conservatives also agree yes, we have to have the state tell people they must educatie their children and feed them. And that the state can define what marriage is, because otherwise there would be no law at all on marriage and no law saying this is what happens in a divorce and no state decisions in child custody and so on. YOU GUYS don't like a free market there.

Now read the next part. "The individualism which finds its expression in the abuse of physical force is checked very early in the growth of civilization, and we of to-day should in our turn strive to shackle or destroy that individualism which triumphs by greed and cunning, which exploits the weak by craft instead of ruling them by brutality."

Um, Teddy knew big economic actors were vile and greedy and needed heavy regulation.

This is what we are proposing to do with the health care reform...regulate the insurance companies.

Btw even single payer isn't a total collectivist solution as it means private parties own the medical equipment and get the medical educatoin and prescribe what to treat with, within regulation, and it doens't mean all doctors work for the government. Contrary to your uneducated views, a Cuban system isn't what they have in France and Canada.

Then read the part about how total collectivism is bad. You think that right? So do those of us you call liberals.

so we;'re united on that you morons, we don't want a USSR system or a NK system or a Cuban system.

This doesn't mean that just as we have mandatory auto liability insurance and single payer worker's comp insurance and single payer medicare insurance and mandatory landlord tenant leases as per the state law, it's similarly in the interest of the GENERAL WELFARE one of our founding father's dearest principles, to have a collectivist solution in the area of paying for medical care. The collectivist solution could be single payer, or as proposed here, a more limited measure involving massive regulation of insurance companies....just like we write what they must provide for auto insurance, and what they can exclude, we would do so for health...and a public option, just like with colleges and universities and transportation we have mixed systems of public and private (autos; public buses).

What's actually surprising to me is that not only did you not recognize aperhaps the most famous speech by a great GOP president you had no idea this wasn't my words and you couldn't even tell the tone and style is totally unlike what anyone writes today.

PS-- just think of the health care public option like a national park. You get to have your yard and your own private BBQ, and you can go to a private park for gold or for a KOA campground....or a private lake ...AND you get the public option of going to a public park owned collectivistically by your city, your county, your state and your national government.

I don't see you guys standing outside Decpetion Pass holding signs condemning "Socialist Parks" -- or is that your next jihad?

Next time you see a quote like that you ought to copy a big chunk of it and google it, you won't be tripped up.

You're not really that clueless, are you?

eral traitors, arg,arg, gnashing of teeth, etc."

Posted by: Torture Lawyer on August 5, 2009 07:38 AM
86. tc - excellent question for Mr. Dicks, thanks.

Oh, and Barbara Boxer said that she knows the protests are fake because the people "are too well dressed". Compared to her Code Pink base, she has a point!

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 07:40 AM
87. Rick D @58
You are not correct in your statement that Obama WANTS single payer. Go back and check the debate transcript. Obama stated that he PREFERS single payer, but knowing that we are starting from the current state (e.g., a system involving private health insurance companies) that his goal is a public option along with private insurance companies. He has stated numerous occasions that his intent is for individuals to be able to keep their private insurance providers. He has often referred to the FEHB as the model. The FEHB provides coverage via private providers who qualify for the plan. To qualify, the providers must meet the plan's minimum requirements. There are many companies, both nationally and regionally, that have no problems meeting these requirements. It is a hyperbole for opponents to state that private insurers won't meet the regional health board's requirements and that this will lead to their demise. The FEHB already proves that it is doable. In fact, if you look at the FEHB, most all of its requirements are almost exactly similar to most, if not all, corporate health plans. A more likely scenario, is that companies will base their own plans on the minimum standards set forth in the public option, but will be able to negotiate better pricing, since their pool of employees may not include some of the pool of individuals the government plan has to cover.

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 07:47 AM
88. Torture Liar,

At # 85, this is really deep and profound.


Posted by: Amused by BS on August 5, 2009 07:47 AM
89. tc at #87,

You are truly unbelievably obtuse.

You would believe anything so long as it has absolutely no facts or common sense associated with it.

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 5, 2009 07:53 AM
90. tc, this is so unlike you. Can you not provide a link between Armey and Specter's town hall?

I agree that the urban legend is that people were trucked in to protest, but give a good quote.

Medic, where you hanging out on the 'net?

Posted by: swatter on August 5, 2009 07:57 AM
91. Gary @83
You are incorrect on a couple of your points. These should be covered on the White House's facts page. The video in question regarding Obama does not agree with the interpretation you quoted (Context--you need to check the context).

Regarding the seniors issue. This has been widely discredited. The southern Congressmen (don't remember the state) was incorrect in his "scare" statement about the Medicare consultation. There is nothing in the bill that proposes euthanasia. All there is in the bill is a statement about Medicare providing consultation to seniors on what their future options are, so they can make informed decisions. It is a might huge stretch (jump) this congressman made to euthanasia. The requirement in the bill is no different than the current Medicare requirement that patients are notified in advance that certain tests may or may not be covered under Medicare and that if not covered, they agree to cover the costs (ABN check). To let seniors know what Medicare will cover in future needs is being proactive and allow them to choose the least costly options. Would you rather they proceed down a medical path that bankrupts them and their families?

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 07:58 AM
92. #87 "He has stated numerous occasions that his intent is for individuals to be able to keep their private insurance providers."


Actually, he flat-out states that I *can* keep my current plan and doctor. Of course, there is no way he can guarantee this, is there? is he right? Can I keep my current plan... period?

And, "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care plan." Obama's own words.

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 07:59 AM
93. tc - if the disruptions by the left at any meeting etc. during the Bush years were simply, according to the press, letting our elected reps know the will of the people, why is the same thing now considered a conspiracy?
Is it because liberals are so thin-skinned and don't have the true courage of their convictions that they have to demonize honest, hard-working citizens who take the initiative to inform themselves about issues more than the people they hire to do so?

Maybe it's because the leftists and progressives I know cannot tolerate criticism.

Posted by: dan on August 5, 2009 08:04 AM
94. dan, like Boxer said, the protesters are dressed too well to be real protesters. These people are just not used to protests by our side, therefore they get all conspiratorially-minded.

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 08:13 AM
95. right - if they are so well-dressed, why would they bother to waste their time for a few dollars pay to act as shills.

Posted by: dan on August 5, 2009 08:18 AM
96. And the amazing this is... it's not that they're very well dressed... they're just not dressed like freaks. They're what I like to call, "normal".

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 08:20 AM
97. Pray for the doctors and nurses. They are also trying to fight against this bill. Pray they have the courage and stamina to stand against the onslought of bribes and blackmail being thrown at them. Pray that if they stand firm, they will be able to withstand even the slander and public humiliation that will come from cable television.

Posted by: teapartygrandma on August 5, 2009 08:24 AM
98. Ron @60,
68 & 85 look like prime opportnities to test your comment moderation mettle.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 5, 2009 08:30 AM
99. You want conspiracy? Here's one - this isn't at all about health or insurance or taking care of anyone, it's about Obama's gov't wresting control of another 18% of the economy.

Posted by: dan on August 5, 2009 08:37 AM
100. tc wrote:

You didn't state where the bill implements a single payer.

OK, great! We know there is a public option - that's spelled out explicitly, correct?

So, tell me which private plan qualifies for inclusion in this Health Insurance Exchange. Please tell me just one plan that qualifies! Because right now, we have exactly ONE plan that qualifies - the public/Medicaid plan.

And that would be a single-payer solution (and single-option solution as well), would it not?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 5, 2009 09:01 AM
101. at #99,

Exactly. What Torture liar at #85 calls a "colelctivist solution"

Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 5, 2009 09:04 AM
102. You are not correct in your statement that Obama WANTS single payer.

False. You admit he "prefers" single-payer, yet he doesn't "want" single payer? What kind of retarded logic is that?

I let the video of Obama saying as much speak for itself (maybe you missed the link to youtube). Is that an Obama impostor saying he WANTS a single tax payer for healthcare? No. That's our own double speaking president saying that. You said in your previous posts that...This [move toward a single-payer is] a falsehood being spread by those who don't bother to actually check out the facts. It is a myth. It is made up. In the video, you'll see 3 prominent Democrats stating that is their desire including Obama, and they'll achieve it whether by lying to the American public or whatever underhanded chicanery is necessary to pull it off.

Posted by: Rick D. on August 5, 2009 09:06 AM
103. 71. Duffie

You mean Al Bores mess. We didn't screw up, he did! No thanks and no apology from me.
(typical libs)
"Clinton expressed words of sincere apology to Kim Jong Il for the hostile acts committed by the two American journalists against the DPRK after illegally intruding into it," the news agency reported. "Clinton courteously conveyed to Kim Jong Il an earnest request of the U.S. government to leniently pardon them and send them back home from a humanitarian point of view.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 09:07 AM
104. Speaking of Deception Pass, that's where the Left Political philosophy lives. Consider all the ways in which the left has to ofuscate, decieve, walkback, promise during election cycles, etc. to maintain their control. They know that if they were to just come right out and tell the truth, their days would be over.

For example:
Obama's pledge not to raise taxes. Many in his party, like Geithner are cracking because they've done the math, and they know it's not true.

Or the careful rewording of abortion as choice. Who wants to sell killing?

Obamacare. End goal is single payer. Obama said it, Barney Frank said it, and so on. They need to stifle the dissent and concoct this garbage about well dressed mobs to walk back the fact that some of their own are seeing behind the curtain.

Even the name Progressivism, is just re-branded Socialism. Progressivism seems more hip and likable, because its ugly business when you try to sell people that some will have to support others against their will instead of everyone pulling their own weight.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 5, 2009 09:10 AM
105. Well-dressed? What did they expect, a crowd of lower income "poorly dressed" folks? Apparently they think lower income don't have a decent outfit to wear when they know they will be on TV! Come on, get real. And who in the world wears Brooks Brothers besides the very rich and politicians? What a bunch of hooey. If they were paid protestors, they certainly couldn't have paid them enough to rush out and buy Brooks Brothers!

Posted by: katomar on August 5, 2009 09:12 AM
106. Medic, where you hanging out on the 'net?

Posted by swatter at August 5, 2009

Naaa, just cruised by to see what was going on. Just got back from San Diego for my B-day and fly to Catalina island for some diving.

I guess TC is having a hard time with protestors from the other side. Like say AARP & ACORN did.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 09:15 AM
107. Katomar

Yeah we all can't show up dressed up in stuff like this. (typical libs)
While volunteering Wednesday at a D.C. food bank, the First Lady sported her usual J.Crew cardigan, a pair of utilitarian capri pants and, on her feet, a sneaky splurge: trainers that go for $540.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 09:23 AM
108. Shangai Dan @100
I would point you to the FEHB, which has many private insurers that qualify on it as the model. It is what Obama always refers to as what he would like to see.

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 09:37 AM
109. Rick D @102
Incorrect. Go back and read what I stated. "Prefers" is different that "wants." It means if drawing it up from scratch this is the solution Obama would propose. However, Obama, the pragmatist, knows that we aren't starting from scratch and that we have to reform the system we do have, which is based on private insurers. There is a difference, even if you can't see it.

The video you allude to has been debunked as a composite of quotes edited together. It is like me taking random statements of your and cobbling together some statement you never made (let's say you praising Obama).

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 09:43 AM
110. The video you allude to has been debunked as a composite of quotes edited together. It is like me taking random statements of your and cobbling together some statement you never made (let's say you praising Obama).

Posted by tc at August 5, 2009 09:43 AM

Debunked by who TC? The White House?

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 09:53 AM
111. I wonder if tc, demo kid et al, have reported us as fishy to the official White House snitch line yet.

Posted by: Mike 336 on August 5, 2009 09:55 AM
112. #109 "The video you allude to has been debunked..."

No, it hasn't.

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 09:56 AM

"But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process."

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 09:59 AM
114. You've reached a new level of obtuse today, tc. How can a video be debunked when it's actual visual evidence of what they're actually saying? This isn't splicing one word here and there, it's complete statements and the context of the subject is very clear, as is the language they're using referring to it. It isn't my fault he is the Eddie Haskell of politics and prefers to say different things to different groups depending on the venue and that particular groups political slant. He wants a single-payer. As do most of the Democrat party phonies trying to push this "public option". They've uttered it out of their own pie holes that this legislation is the best means to achieve that end (of single-payer). To say otherwise is being a complete and utter liar, like the president.

Posted by: Rick D. on August 5, 2009 10:05 AM
115. The video has been debunked line is a White House talking point that has been dutifuly regurgitated.

If Obama called tc directly and said: "Uh, but let me be clear tc, my ultimate goal is single payer and the end of private insurance," tc still probably wouldn't believe it.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 5, 2009 10:35 AM
116. tc'd say nobama can't fool me, you be wantin sompthin else than single payer

Posted by: Amused by Liberals on August 5, 2009 11:05 AM
117. RE: Video Debunking

RE: Euthanasia falsehood

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 11:14 AM
118. I'm back for a second and seeing TC answer I just had to laugh.
TC. Factcheck that you used is owned by WHO?

Annenburg... who had what terrorist working for them (The three co-authors of Chicago's winning Annenberg Challenge $49.2 million grant proposal were:[17][18]

(remember this mess that didn't do zip for the kids)

William Ayers, associate professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago)
Plus Obama who isn't one but a good friend of Ayers.

Did you read the facts they put up? Bet you didn't because they say a bunch of stuff, but never debunk what Obama said.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 11:44 AM
119. Medic/Vet @118
Yes, I read the factchecks I linked to. Did you? Do you have evidence to refute what they ( wrote?

Also, ad hominem attacks don't provide a counter-argument. They just show how you don't have facts that counter what is written by

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 11:50 AM
120. tc,

I am sure this video will take your breath away.

I hope you can find time today to get whatever it is you need to get done in addition to sending all of the evidence on us, gasp, organized Republican, well dressed, wingnut mobs in to the Obama administration at

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 5, 2009 12:32 PM
121. tc - in Oregon, a elderly woman has cancer. Her and her doctor want to perform chemotherapy. The state says it's too expensive and has kindly offered either hospice, or suicide.

Which side in this dispute do you side with? Obama is on record saying that it might just be better to give an old person a pain pill instead of surgery.

Sounds like euthanasia to me.

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 01:05 PM
122. TC
Also, ad hominem attacks don't provide a counter-argument.

What attacks? What "evidence" TC?
Show (us) where that video was changed and they claimed (factchg) the meeting was about something else?
I see opinions only.
I noticed you left factchg's owner comment alone.

Dude take a breath...

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 01:05 PM
123. Gary @121
Please provide reference to where Obama is on record stating this. You are making this up.

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 01:09 PM
124. Medic/Vet @122
The ad hominen attack was non-proper association in your post between and Bill Ayers. You were discrediting by bringing up Bill Ayers.

If you are going to make that Kevin Bacon-like association, then I assume that Ronald and Nancy Reagan are also discredited for being friends with Anderberg.

FYI, Factcheck.Org is associated with the University of Pennsylvania and specifically its Annenberg Public Policy Center. Other than the fact that Annenberg gave to Univ of PA for this center and to Chicago school district for its school reform, do you have any evidence of any other linkage. Should we discredit all the philantrophic giving by Annenberg? What is your point for the association, other than ad hominem?

Posted by: tc on August 5, 2009 01:18 PM
125. TC... now your really becoming a fool.
When you bring up (Factchg) Annnenberg is on the front face. They had Ayers the "bomber" working for them. That is NOT ad hominen attack, it's the truth. Like it or not.
So everything Factchg post is question.

Just like Byrd and KKK.


Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 01:39 PM
126. #123. Here ya go:

Obama, with regard to a 105 year-old woman who received a pacemaker because her family, and doctor said she had great spirit:

"I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit," Obama said. ... "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers."

So, no, tc, I did not make this up. Do you not believe *any* words that come out of Obama's mouth?

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 01:57 PM
127. Oh, and tc I ask again... which side of the dispute in Oregon are you on, the patient/doctor side, or the state side?

Posted by: Gary on August 5, 2009 02:49 PM
128. Now tc insists that Obama was a flat out liar when he stated unequivocally that he happened "to be a proponent of single payer health care . . ."

This gets more hilarious with each lie.

Nice work tc

Posted by: Amused by Braindead Liberals on August 5, 2009 02:55 PM
129. TC wrote:

I would point you to the FEHB, which has many private insurers that qualify on it as the model. It is what Obama always refers to as what he would like to see

Really? So the private insurers in the FEHB will qualify under HR 3200? Willing to state that right now? Or is this just your assumption?

And if you say Obama refers to it and is what he prefers, well, he's also on record multiple times as saying he'd prefer a single payer. So why accept the former (FEHB) and not the latter (single payer)? Selective "preference" now?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 5, 2009 04:10 PM
130. O-man TC. post #128 just sank you!

To bad, you lose!

Also who was the guy running for Prez in 2008 who said (talk with your neighbors, friends and the other side. "get in their face"

Yeah we know who he is!

Posted by: Medic/Vet on August 5, 2009 04:58 PM
131. It seems like Reps. like Baird and Inslee think that telephone town halls will diminish the impact of the dissent. Why else would they shy away from that ? There is a building ground swell and the more the White House and Dems persist in using Chicago tactics (they have been called on this by several Senators and Reps. already), the more the people will turn against them and express displeasure.

tc - you are nothing more than a propaganda arm of single payer health care. Did you once claim to support Ron Paul ? If so, you are a mental midget - Paul is adamantly opposed to any type of Government control in health care.

Posted by: KDS on August 5, 2009 09:26 PM
132. #123. I provided the evidence in post #126. You accused me of having made it up.

Also, you say that this reform won't lead to euthanasia, and yet that is *exactly* what's happening to that woman Oregon, and has happened to others in that state. Don't you see how the two go together? When you combine the State paying for your medical care *with* an assisted suicide law in place, do you see (whether they explicitly write in into a bill or not) how this leads to euthanasia by default?

Well, the same goes for how they're going to implement single-payer on us. When the government gets to set the profit rates of its "competitors", what do you think will happen to its "competitors"? When the government is able to sell its product for half of what its "competitors" *must* sell it for, what do you think will happen?

Use your head. It doesn't have to say "THIS IS A SINGLE PAYER PLAN" in the actual text of the bill for the result to be the same.

Most Americans have now figured this out. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Posted by: Gary on August 6, 2009 08:03 AM
133. Medic/Vet@125
Ayers never worked for the Annenberg Public Policy Center at University of PA, nor has he ever been involved with that organization. He was on a separate Annenberg philanthropic initiative that the Chicago School District initiated. Univ of PA is not the Chicago School District, the last time I checked. These are separate philanthropic endeavors with the only common link being who funded them, and who was a personal friend of Ronald and Nancy Reagon.

Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 11:46 AM
134. Gary @126
How does your quote prove that Obama supports euthanasia? The quote you provided does even come close to mentioning euthanasia? Where did Obama actually state he supports euthanasia?

Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 11:49 AM
135. Gary @127,
I am against euthanasia. I voted against the WA state bill that was similar to Oregon's.

Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 11:51 AM
136. Amused @128
I can't check the video right now, but will get back to you on it.

No, I am not lying. I have not seen any "proof" that Obama actually stated the thing you and others are attributing to him, as far as his most recent (last two year's stance). I discount the six year old statement as being outdated. Peoples positions can adjust over a six year period. What he stated last year (or was it a 2007 debate) was that he "prefers" the single payer system (if starting from scratch). I have address this issue with Rick ad nauseum. Go back and read through that discussion.

Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 11:56 AM
137. Dan @129
Yes, it is my assumption that the FEHB model will be used, at least in what Obama wants. Who knows what the others Democrats on Capital Hill wants, but Obama has been consistent in pointing to the FEHB as a model he would like to see.

On your second part, I discussed this already with Rick. One may prefer a given solution, but realize it is not practical or doable given the current situation/starting point. This is exactly what Obama stated in the debate that is often referenced. Therefore, just because one prefers a given solution, and it is off-the table, doesn't mean there aren't other solutions that can't be pursued. By the AFL (I believe) speech that the video in question distorts, Obama lays out what the alternative solution is given the current starting point. It is in 10-15 years to have Health Exchanges (he has mentioned regionalizing the Health Exchanges at other points during the campaign).

Therefore, since the preferred solution is not practical or undoable given the current starting point, I will contend that Obama's long-term goal is exactly what he laid out in the presentation (which was distorted in the video), which is Health Exchanges (e.g., individuals buying insurance via a Health Exchange instead of through their employer). If his goal was single-payer, there would be no need for the Health Exchanges. Therefore, your contention and others here is in direct conflict with the transcript and unedited video from that meeting and is in conflict with the numerous other occasions on the campaign trail where he has promoted the Health Exchanges. Look at the transcript from the third Obama-McCain debate. He brings up the Health Exchanges.

How do you resolve the documented stance of Health Exchanges (which cannot be by definition single payer, since there would be no need for them if the government provided insurance) with yours and others stances that Obama WANTS single payer?

Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 12:08 PM
138. #135. But you see what the consequences of the health care stuff was in Oregon, right? They didn't write "THIS IS A EUTHANASIA BILL" in the Assisted Suicide law, did they? But it's now being used that way because the state doesn't want to pay to prolong the lives of the elderly.

Do you see even a glimmer of what we're talking about when we have concerns about this reform leading to single-payer? Any light bulb there at all?

As for #134... what the hell more do you need??? He said that perhaps a pain killer is better than a pacemaker! For cryin' out loud!

Why would a pain killer be better, tc? If you needed a pacemaker, would you opt for a painkiller instead?

I'm beginning to think it's hopeless.

Posted by: Gary on August 6, 2009 02:06 PM
139. Gary @138,
Maybe you need to include more of the quote. I did not read what you state @138. You start out (@126) by saying she already had the pacemaker. If so, your comment @138 about receiving a pacemaker surgery doesn't fit. You didn't say she didn't have a pacemaker or the pacemaker was failing. You statements seem out of place.

Additionally, in your post @121 mentions chemotherapy, not pacemaker surgery. Where are you getting the pacemaker surgery as it relates to Obama's partial fragment of a quote you provided.

No, if Obama's quote relates to the chemotherapy, then the traded off between chemo for a 105 and pain killers is still not euthanasia. What would be euthanasia would be prescribing drugs to end the lady's life at that time. I don't see Obama stating this in the fragment you provided.

Finally, let's take the case if she hadn't had the pacemaker surgery yet, then the trade off is have the pacemaker surgery or pain killers to ease the pain. It still isn't euthanasia. It is a decision to have a potential risky surgery (given the lady's age) and taking pain killers and living ones final days out until nature takes its course. How is letting nature take its course, if one choses it, euthenasia? Are you calling on doctor's to prolong life no matter what? There is a difference between dying naturally and doctor-assisted suicide.

Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 02:41 PM
140. TC,

How do you resolve the documented stance of Health Exchanges (which cannot be by definition single payer, since there would be no need for them if the government provided insurance) with yours and others stances that Obama WANTS single payer?

Moving all insurance to "Health Exchanges" is the first step needed to get to single payer. By first mandating which policies can be in the "Exchange", Government can eliminate the undesirable plans (like the catastrophic plans such as I have).

Then it can work to force people into Government plans - like HR3200 does if you carry individual insurance and need to make a change. You have no choice but to join the public plan.

Give this 4-5 years and you'll have no more individual plans - business and Government sponsored plans only.

Then, since the Government has final say on what is acceptable in a plan, and how much profit an insurance company can make, Government can start ratcheting up the coverage and reducing profitability, forcing insurers to drop all but the biggest, before finally declaring no company insurance plan acceptable.

Essentially, you get to single payer by eliminating choice, one step at a time. Forcing all insurance coverage into a Government-controlled and defined "exchange" is the first step towards that. Barney Frank knows it, Barack Obama knows it, and I'm sure you know it, too...

Think of it this way: how did we get everyone immunized for measles? By making it a standard immunization of children. After a generation, we had everyone covered.

Do the same thing with single payer; make it so that - if you're an individual payer (like me) - you have no choice but to join the Government plan if your insurance needs change.

After you've captured all the individual payers (in 5-6 years), then you start going after small businesses. If your group/business has fewer than 20 people, you apply the same rule (remember, the Commissioner gets to decide the rules about what plans are allowed; it's easy to say a plan under 20 people is not allowed). Give that 4-5 years and you've captured small business.

Keep on going up the scale, and you'll get there. It may take the 15-20 years that Frank and Obama talk about, but it will happen.

Here's one for you TC:

Would you come and support me and my choice to have individual insurance available? That I do not have to join the Government plan if my insurance needs change? Right now, I'm self-insured; HR3200 allows me to keep what I have as long as the plan doesn't change or I want something else. Then I have NO CHOICE but to go to the Government plan.

Would you be willing to support me and the other individuals in keeping our choices open? To eliminate this restriction on the idividual market?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 6, 2009 02:42 PM
141. #139. Look, he was asked about a 105 year old woman who received a pacemaker, and her son and doctor talked about her "spirit" for living. Obama said the government can't make decisions based on one's "spirit" (of course it can't, it's a faceless machine) and that perhaps a painkiller would have been better than a pacemaker. How does a painkiller fix a heart with an irregular beat?

And how did I "make it up"? You think I just make this stuff up? I listen to what the man says, tc.

"I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit," Obama said. ... "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers."

You you be better off if you needed a pacemaker and Obama offered you a pain killer instead?
Do you think he would propose this for a Michelle?
Or are the pain killers for the little people?

Posted by: Gary on August 6, 2009 02:52 PM
142. Gary,
@141, you still don't clear up the Obama quote. You repeat yourself that the lady already had the surgery. You repeat the Obama quote fragment (but not the entire context), which reads "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers." Note the present tense. If he was talking about the pacemaker surgery, it would have been in past tense. Either your quote fragment is not correct or Obama was talking about upcoming surgery (e.g., the Chemo, which is painful itself and many towards the end of life decide not to undertake).

Further, even given your argument, how does pain killers equate to euthanasia, which is where you started. It think we are not going to resolve this due to the lack of context provided in your posts. Maybe a fuller context (i.e., the full conversation record) is what is needed.

Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 03:33 PM
143. Dan @140
You do realize you and I are in the same boat as far as the Health Exchange? You are concerned about losing you private coverage. In my case, I would lose my employer coverage. So, in both cases, I would agree that Obama's goal is to move both employer provided and individual provided insurance to Exchange provided insurance. On this point, I will be more a loser than you will. You will most likely see your premiums drop, where my will rise (unless the employer picks up the payment -- i.e., right now, my plan costs $0, and the premium plan is around $100-150 per month).

What I don't agree is that this is (or even has to be) a stepping stone to single coverage. The FEHB has been around for decades. It doesn't have a single provider. If Obama's goal was single provider, then why even implement the Exchanges?

I also don't agree with the premise that the government (public) plan will drive out competition. From all I have seen, it will be a baseline (much like the state's own Basic Health Plan), but it won't provide the current additional benefits that many have come to expect in their health plans. Therefore, I would expect the government (public) plan to be a baseline and competition from private plans that provide the baseline minimum and more for a fraction more per month. Remember, part of the rationale for the exchanges is to provide broader pools of insurees, so the participants get the same benefits as the large group plans for same or less money than individual plans. Again, check out the variety of coverages available on the FEHB, which has a minimum standard and a wide variety of offerings, a lot with low and high options.

To me, it is simply fear mongering among those that assume private plans will not be able to compete. I trust the ingenuity of those running the private insurance companies to come up with ways to compete. If there are customers who won't be satisfied by the basic offering of the government plan, then there will be companies there to scoop them up. Look at all the supplemental Medicare offerings that exist in the private sector.

Posted by: tc on August 6, 2009 03:49 PM
144. "To me, it is simply fear mongering among those that assume private plans will not be able to compete. I trust the ingenuity of those running the private insurance companies to come up with ways to compete. If there are customers who won't be satisfied by the basic offering of the government plan, then there will be companies there to scoop them up. Look at all the supplemental Medicare offerings that exist in the private sector."

Ah, so tell me... how much profit can these companies keep? The Sec. of HHS gets to determine it arbitrarily. So, how much? Which ones qualify for the Exchange?

As for Obama and pain killers, watch him yourself:

It was on national TV. You didn't watch it? You didn't hear about it? It was quite newsworthy.

My gosh, pain killers equates to euthanasia because they would die w/o the pacemaker. Why is this so hard?

Are you so devoted to Obama that you just can't see it?

Posted by: Gary on August 6, 2009 03:56 PM
145. TC,

My premiums will increase, and more importantly, I will not have a choice about my coverage.

So you're fine with losing your options, and with me losing my options. If that's the case, just say so.

Trying to couch it as "well there will still be choice" is irrelevant when you admit both you and I will lose our choices. It's the first step to eliminating ALL choices.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 6, 2009 04:26 PM
146. The GOP has better ideas, but the Dems wlll not allow them to leave committee, which gives people the impression that they haven't contributed, which is prompted by Harry Reid, the Dem leadership and the White House ALL lie about it by saying they have not contributed any alternative plans.

TC has been Obotomized and he along with the rest of the left are the ones being the Brown Shirts. Same applies to you, Rep. Baird, who is out to minimize dissent.

Posted by: KDS on August 6, 2009 06:40 PM
148. Dan,
You state that your premiums will increase, however, will your overall medical costs increase? Premiums are just one factor. You have a low premium, high deductible plan. While right now you might be healthy and feel the plan is an acceptable risk, this won't be the case in upcoming years. I am not sure what age you are, but as you hit late forties and into the fifties, even preventative care increases. There are things like colonoscopies and other things that are practical preventative tests that men need to get. Early detection is a lot less costly than waiting for the result of an undetected sympton.

For myself, I am willing to take the risk with my coverage because of the greater good for society. To me the benefits of the Health Exchange Idea outweigh my own personal needs. I in no way believe the Health Exchanges will be single payer. I trust that there will be plenty of options available. In fact, my prediction is there will be even more options available than the current state.

Posted by: tc on August 7, 2009 07:59 AM
149. TC,

Tell me why my choice must be eliminated? I have successfully - and affordably - managed my own health insurance (and for a good chunk of this time, the health insurance of 12-20 people) for nearly 13 years. Why must I lose my options?

Tell me why my choices should be eliminated. I am aware of my costs, I manage them, and I plan for them. I am at a place where - because I have been actively involved for 12 years - I have saved enough money in an HSA that my copays and my dental cleanings are essentially free (interest on the HSA pays for them).

Under HR 3200, if you buy your own insurance like me, a self employed individual consumer, you will have ZERO choice. You either stick with what you have or you go to the Government plan. No other options exist. I cannot buy other individual plans. I cannot move between insurance plans as I can now.

So tell me, TC, how eliminating my choice is a good thing? How is me paying more for insurance I do not want is a good thing?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 7, 2009 10:08 AM
150. #147

Posted by: Gary on August 7, 2009 10:31 AM
151. Gary @150
Its an article you should read. Follow the link.

Posted by: tc on August 7, 2009 03:04 PM
152. Dan @149
First off, I haven't read HR 3200 in depth. Are you referring to Title II, Subtitle A, Section 202?

Also, what exact choice are you referring to?

Posted by: tc on August 7, 2009 03:19 PM
153. Dan,
Late today, I did find the following two items that compare the various options that have been proposed recently and/or are currently in works.

It looks like the two current Senate bills are the Senate Finance Committee Bill and the Senate HELP Committee Bill.

Posted by: tc on August 7, 2009 03:53 PM
154. TC,

Under section 102 I can maintain my existing insurance because I am grandfathered in. However, when I want to change as an individual I am limited to the plans described in section 202:

- Acceptable health plans being "Qualified Health Benefits Plan" (QHBP), Medicare, Medicaid, or the State Health plan. Grandfathered does not qualify as it is limited by section 102 (only valid as long as you are already in it). And if you're not a veteran, the VA or Tricare is out.

So we have the QBHP or the Government options. So what is a QBHP? Good luck finding that; it's not defined anywhere, nor even addressed. We find out what QBHP offering entities are, but there's no definition of what a QBHP is!

So, as the bill reads right now, I have the option of going to a Government plan, or a QBHP, except that a QBHP is not defined. Thus they cannot exist (per IRS regulations changed by section 401).

But you never answered my question, why should my choice of insurance policies be limited? Why should I have fewer plans to choose from?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 7, 2009 05:20 PM
155. uzKMOk zklhvildduil, [url=]sggnksdyqtqa[/url], [link=]tuupaezpawru[/link],

Posted by: lopiilbsqex on August 10, 2009 12:27 PM
156. uzKMOk zklhvildduil, [url=]sggnksdyqtqa[/url], [link=]tuupaezpawru[/link],

Posted by: lopiilbsqex on August 10, 2009 12:29 PM
157. uzKMOk zklhvildduil, [url=]sggnksdyqtqa[/url], [link=]tuupaezpawru[/link],

Posted by: lopiilbsqex on August 10, 2009 12:30 PM
158. uzKMOk zklhvildduil, [url=]sggnksdyqtqa[/url], [link=]tuupaezpawru[/link],

Posted by: lopiilbsqex on August 10, 2009 12:33 PM
159. uzKMOk zklhvildduil, [url=]sggnksdyqtqa[/url], [link=]tuupaezpawru[/link],

Posted by: lopiilbsqex on August 10, 2009 12:33 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?