Powered by TypePad

« 'Sister Souljah' Slated For Springtime | Main | A Great Shining Blog »

September 18, 2007

Comments

Terrye

BTW Barney, if you can not afford car insurance or home insurance you don't drive or you don't buy a house. It is not the same thing as Chemotherapy.

And I am not talking about Sue paying anything, but when they get done taking everything that person has and they end up on welfare Sue will be paying for the Medicaid.

I have client who survived a broken neck. He was working, self sufficient etc. There were surgeries, therapy, more surgery, he was in the hospital for months. When he left the hospital his bill was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, he was 23 years old.

Right now the government is paying him disability, they are paying hundreds a month for the medication he needs for spasms etc and they helped pay for a lift in his van and to purchase his power chair.

So, the idea that the government is not involved in health care right now and that taxpayers are not paying right now is just not true.

clarice

When the hospital workers are willing to work for less, the malpractice insurance premiums go down, the number of defensive measures reduced, the defensive bookkeeping and insurance bureaucracies stop, when electricity and heating for clinics and hospitals go down, the price of care will go down. And, of course, if we stop dreaming up expensive cures...we can go back to unpaid nuns, hospital wards instead of semi private rooms, essentially whiskey and salt treatments..or not.

clarice

BTW many hospitals are doing poorly--insurance companies negotiate very hard terms and then the law requires them to stabilize whoever walks in the door regardless of means--that means, ta da, people with means and no insurance pay an inflated bill.

boris

the idea that the government is not involved in health care right now and that taxpayers are not paying right now is just not true

Since most taxes are paid by the "rich" let's use the term "rich taxpayers".

Most healthcare is not paid for by rich taxpayers. You may want to change that but I don't. Nor do I want rich taxpayers to pick up the tab for an extra month of dying slow.

You say rich taxpayers already wind up covering the outliers. So? That's not an excuse in my book for increasing their burden. Whether it is the "perfect" solution or not, I prefer a system that favors individuals taking care of themselves. Not generational co-dependence administered by the government.

If you don't want to move in that direction I don't want to move at all.

Terrye

clarice:

Doctors are not exactly starving.

I am saying the system is broken, the costs are out of control.

When people get bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, something is out of whack.

Terrye

boris:

I did not say anything of the kind and in fact I did say that I did not like Hillary's plan and I do not support nationalized medicine.

What I am saying is that if people can not afford health care insurance and if they can not afford to come up with the money on their own then the state will pay and that is the taxpayer.

I work for a health care agency. I know people who get Medicaid who have relatives living in nice houses with comfortable life styles. I am saying that if the government did not help defray those costs, those families would not be able to afford to maintain their lifestyles.

It would make more sense to help more people get health insurance in the first place.

And even then we are still dealing with the fact that the costs are just outrageous. Nothing else can come close and it is not the aide or the orderly that is driving up those costs either.

Terrye

And boris:

If you have a sick child and not a lot of money, you can not just let them die. That is not an option, legally or morally.

People seem to think life and death are elective, that they are just lifestyle choices we all have the choice to make or not make.

hoosierhoops

What's the matter? Hit and Run try to fix a chain saw?

Terrye

This is from the WaPo, grain of salt and all that.

Rising health care costs, already threatening many basic industries, now consume 16 percent of the nation's economic output -- the highest proportion ever, the government said yesterday in its latest calculation.

The nation's health care bill continued to grow substantially faster than inflation and wages, increasing by almost 8 percent in 2004, the most recent year with near-final numbers.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt urged reducing the disparity for health care among ethnic groups.

Spending for physicians and hospitals shot up considerably faster than in recent years, while drug costs grew at a slower rate than over the past decade.

Even as health care costs continue to escalate, however, many Americans -- especially minorities and the poor -- still do not receive high-quality care, according to two other federal reports yesterday. The quality of health care is improving slowly and some racial disparities are narrowing, the reports found, but gaps persist and Hispanics appear to be falling even further behind.

"We can do better," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said at a Washington conference on racial and ethnic disparities in health care. "Disparities and inequities still exist. Outcomes vary. Treatments are not received equally."

Political, medical and economic leaders and experts have long warned that health care cost trends will gradually overwhelm the economy, and many companies now complain that employee and retiree health costs are making them less competitive. Yesterday's report added new reasons to worry.

The overall cost of health care -- everything from hospital and doctor bills to the cost of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, insurance and nursing home and home-health care -- doubled from 1993 to 2004, said the report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In 2004, the nation spent almost $140 billion more for health care than the year before.

In 1997, health care accounted for 13.6 percent of the gross domestic product.

"Americans rejected the tougher restrictions of managed care in the late 1990s, and yet they want all the latest advances in medical technology," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which researches health issues. "Since government regulation of prices and services is not in the cards, the inevitable result is higher costs."

The health care increase of 7.9 percent in 2004 was almost three times the overall national inflation rate, which was 2.7 percent. The average hourly wage for workers in private companies was essentially unchanged that year, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

clarice feldman

When Edwards and Hillary start talking about tort reform and limiting trial lawyers' salary, I'll liste to people who say that doctors (whose training and jobs are far more taxing) are earning too much.

As a matter of fact, doctors' earnings are down relatively speaking..As evidence, almost half or more of the new doctors I know are women.

boris
if people can not afford health care insurance and if they can not afford to come up with the money on their own then the state will pay and that is the taxpayer

Since the people are the taxpayers your logic is fubar. If people can't afford health insurance as buyers why can they afford it as taxpayers?

Seems like what you want is rich taxpayers paying for everybody with government as the middleman.

"they want all the latest advances in medical technology ... since government regulation of prices and services is not in the cards, the inevitable result is higher costs."

It is better for everybody else to have less than the latest that's available to "the rich" as long as the latest continues to advance.

Do the math. Suppose now everybody can afford the "latest" 10 years later. Change that so that everybody can afford the latest right away, but advancement slows by half. How many years until people actually are worse off in terms of access to advanced medical treatment?

In 50 years the current system has 40 years of advancement available to everyone. In 50 years the Terrye system has only 25 years of advancement available to everyone. Is that better because nobody "wants" that 25 years of advancement BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER DEVELOPED?

It it better to have 25 instead of 40 because at least the "rich" don't have 50?

BarbaraS

It is a fallacy to say that nursing homes are getting rich. I worked as accountant controller in one for 14 years before retirement and I can tell you they are not getting rich. The nursing home association has rules that cannot be ignored. They will close you down if you fail to follow them. For instance, there has to be 1 nursing assistants for every 4 patients. If you have 50 patients that means 12 nursing assistants each shift. There are of course 3 shifts. That's 36 nursing assistants per day and since there is an acute shortage of these people there is a lot of overtime. You also have to have 2 lpns for each shift, 1 RN a day plus an RN Director of Nursing. Then you have to have 2 activities people to keep the patients entertained. These are all required. Not to mention maintenance of building and grounds, housekeeping, clerical, accounting and don't forget dietary who produce 3 meals a day for 250 people not including employees. You are also required to have an administrator and since these people are scarse the make big bucks. They are scarse because a candidate has to have a working administrator nominate you and his license is at risk if you mess up. Consequently most administrators do not want to nominate anyone. Nursing homes barely break even. I know. I had to do the budgets and help figure out how much rent to charge for each level of care and these charges were based on expenses. Our goal was zero profit. But the rates were astronomical and gave us all a pain to charge them but we had no choice. This was Alabama and the rules were stringent.

BarbaraS

And the reason there were 250 people instead of 50 is because I described only one level of care -the nursing part. There was also intermediate care and independent living that made up the balance.

Terrye

clarice:

Doctor's salaries are down? I don't think so. When I was a kid doctors were upper middle class. Now they are far more likely to live in a gated community than a middle class community, upper or otherwise.

My brother does refinishing work, he says the one group of people who never worry about the costs are the doctors wives.

I don't want to turn America into Cuba where bartenders out earn doctors, but people with starting salaries averaging in the 6 figures are not doing bad, they are not suffering.

Terrye

boris:


So, if you had not been able to afford health care insurance should your wife have gone without chemo?

Is that what you are saying?

My point is boris, is that in a market there tends to be some competition of some kind. There is not here, there is just a steady upward climb in costs that is quickly getting beyond the means of ordinary people to pay and sustain.

I am not a communist because I take note of this.

And your remark about taxpayers being fubar makes no sense. When the average costs of health insurance premiums reaches $11,000 a year for a family of four there will be millions of working people who can not afford those costs. Do the math.

When the cost of a procedure is more money that you will make in a half a lifetime then what good does it do someone if they are denied health insurace?

As for regulation boris, this system is already regulated. The administrative costs are one of the reasons the costs are so high.

If Republicans really believe that the market can take care of everything, then they need to bring some market reforms to the system to help restrain prices...treating people who are concerned about this as if they were socialists is only going to alienate more people and in the end someone will do it for them.

Terrye

boris:

And what the hell is the Terrye system? I made a point of saying I did not support nationalized medicine.

Terrye

Barbara:

People also do not understand what is required to look after 250 people who need 24 hour a day care. Most people don't understand what can happen to people when they get older or just fall apart.

Then of course there is the liability, the turn over of staff and the constant complaints. I worked in a facility like that for awhile years ago and that call light never stopped going off. Not for a minute.

Bostonian

This doesn't get said enough:

"Insurance" for routine costs is not insurance at all. It is a PAYMENT PLAN. The insurers can and do figure how on average how much each person is going to cost them for routine exams, and so they have to charge AT LEAST THAT MUCH. Plus more for all the people who are kept to deal with paperwork.

The argument is made that without the help of this payment plan, people would forgo exams and the net costs would be higher. That might be true for some people, but the opposite is also true: people avoid having exams that would cost them out of pocket but that would detect conditions that emerge rapidly. It's crazy to put the timing for exams in the hands of a third party rather than the patient and doctor.

Anyway, I personally detest arguments of the form "but people won't do the right thing unless they have external help." Such an argument shows a complete lack of respect for the individual.

Bostonian

Terrye,
One of the things that is driving up healthcare costs must be the fact that the costs are only indirectly revealed to the people making the final choices.

That, and the fact that health insurance (apart from that for catastrophes) is a payment plan, which guarantees that people are buying a whole lot of services that they don't truly need. I refer to the vast numbers of people in this country dealing with the paperwork.

Sue

No it is not the market. The costs of health care has outpaced inflation by an alarming degree, there is no denying that. The increase in the costs of health care has been staggering in recent years, there is nothing else in the market than can even come close.

I suggest you look south of the border for some of those staggering increases in health care costs. They charge those of us with insurance more in order to recoup the costs of those of us who don't have insurance. Of course, they do that with legals as well as illegals, but think about the costs on county hospitals that illegals alone cost. 20,000,000, give or take, most without health insurance and visiting your county hospital for every medical ailment.

clarice feldman

Terrye, I said "relatively" about doctors' salaries. Some specialists--esp those with very difficult training--make a great deal, but family and general practitioners and ob/gyns, for example do not. When I was young, doctors could count on making very comfortable livings...right now they often make less than first year associates at big law firms even though they have undergone longer, far more rigorous and demanding training.

Terrye

Sue:

How did I know you were going to say that?

Yep, let's blame it on the Mexicans. If not for them the average American would have no problem coming up with $360,000 for a surgery.

My understanding is that the powers that be state we can not just let people die, besides that there is the worry of epidemics etc. I do not doubt that the costs of taking care of poor people, no matter where they are born is an added burden to the system.

However, blaming the poor for being poor, blaming people for making poor choices, blaming people for not being able to deal with rising health care costs does not change the fact that the system is way out of control. It is not as if the prices for health care are low where there are no Mexicans.

But, hey, cut them off or force them to pay up front if you can get it past a court. Refuse to vaccinate the kids, go ahead. See how much that helps.

You know I remember when the whole thing with Schiavo was going on I felt awful for her parents. I thought they should be able to take care of her. My agency had people just like her on Medicaid that we took care of and it just seemed so wrong to let her starve.

And the prolife people felt that way. Conservatives said that life was life and we could not just let people die.

Unless of course they are poor or indigent or hispanic.

Life is sacred, sometimes.

Sue

Terrye,

I get lost trying to follow your strawman arguments. You have no idea what I, a conservative, thought about Schiavo.

You are unwilling to acknowledge the costs of being pro-amnesty. I understand that and note it when presenting my argument. It changes nothing that I said when I point out the costs of healthcare have increased because people are using ERs for non-emergencies. And please note who foots the bill for county hospitals.

clarice

If you look at the unenforced immigration laws, there are provisions requiring good health, ability to support oneself and sponsors who pledge to take on that task if the immigrant is unable to. Why is that? I say it's a recognition that people who are unhealthy and unemployable (or barely so) are a drag on the resources of others and the state is perfectly within its right to limit their immigration. I think it is one of the most galling things for people in border states--that they are forced to diminish services to those in need who are here legally. (In a related note,Sen Durban was just forced to back down from his proposal that young illegal immigrants be afforded college educations at in-state tuition rates.His office must have been swamped with irate calls.)

If you cannot see how this raises the costs of everyone's medical care, Terrye, I don't know how else to do so.

boris

the fact that the system is way out of control

That is an opinion not a fact.

Admin costs are not a reason for increases above the rate of inflation. New technology, treatments and drugs are. Fact is most Americans can afford them and want them.

The only way then to control costs without rationing is to reduce the rate of advancement. Since countries like UK and Canada can't slow down the rate of US medical advance they are forced into rationing. You don't seem to understand this dynamic at all.

clarice

And then there is the way that people use services they don't pay for. My husband is managing partner of his firm and the firm has always provided very generous health insurance coverage. This year they tried an experiment. They took out a plan that has a higher deductible ($1,000 per person, IIRC) --the premiums for the firm were far less exorbitant. At the same time, they set aside that sum of money ($1k per covered person) and offered reimbursement of that amount to anyone who had paid it out. Result--very few have applied for a reimbursement even close to that amount. When in earlier years, they had no deductibles and the plan paid for everything, people were taking their kids in for CAT scans everytime they had a headache.
It's human nature.

Terrye

Sue:

Speaking of strawman I am not proamnesty. You do not know that, you simply assume it because I did not agree with you. And besides that you brought the subject up, not me.

My point is that a prolife position should be consistent, and a lot of conservatives are prolife.

And I also realize after hearing it over and over again there is no problem this country faces that some people on the right do not blame it on the Mexicans. Why we could shut down the prison systems if not for them. Poverty? Why everyone in America would make more money if not for them. Rising health care costs? Why if it were not for the Mexicans health care would be cheap. Disease? Why we would be disease free if these nasty people were not here pooping on the lettuce.

I got it, I have heard it time and again. The stock answer to every problem: stop the Mexican invasion.

Sue

My point is that a prolife position should be consistent, and a lot of conservatives are prolife.

Your pro-life position, and Terry Schiavo, has what to do with what illegal immigration? Please draw the map for me, Terrye, because I can't follow it on my own.

And for the record, your point on pro-life is your opinion on what pro-life is to you. It certainly isn't my position that I can't be pro-life and pro-death penalty.

And besides that you brought the subject up, not me.

I know I brought illegal immigration. I didn't bring up Terry Schiavo.

Sue

I know I brought up illegal immigration.

Sue

Speaking of strawman I am not proamnesty. You do not know that, you simply assume it because I did not agree with you.

You don't like being lumped into a category you don't feel you belong simply because you supported Bush's immigration policy? I would feel sorry for you, but since you lump anyone into a racist bigot who doesn't support it, my sympathy factor is kind of non-existent.

Terrye

clarice:

I am not saying it does not have an effect, however, blaming this problem on illegals is a way to avoid dealing with larger issues and institutional problems within the system.

There are 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance, Americans.

Is this what we are going to hear in the election? Hillary is going to be talking about a new program that even Charles Krauthammer says is not just another government program and Republicans are going to blame everything on illegal immigration?

I just think that is demagoguery. We could just as easily say that the decline of the unions and the higher wages they guaranteed were responsible for people not being able to afford health insurance. We could blame it on NAFTA. We could blame it on the tax cuts.

But there are institutional problems and I really do not know what the answer is. I know I don't want Hillary Clinton to win using this issue to ride into the White House.

Terrye

Sue:

Oh please. Spare me. You are pissed at me because I disagreed with you on this issue and because of that you never miss an opportunity to jump on me, no matter what the subject at hand.

For someone who feels like they are being picked on you sure don't have any trouble getting in my face.

clarice

A great many of the ininsured are so because they are young and don't find it necessary. For the same reason that people in their 40s and 50s knowing that long term care insurance will cost them about $600 bucks a year and see most thru the last 5 difficult years of life more easily, choos not to buy it.

As for the high costs, most of the discussion has been spot on as to why--technological and pharmaceutical advances which prolong life but are costly and huge malpractice awards . Any system you devise as an alternative will be unlikely to alter this absent tort reform and people being shrewder consumers--As much as one loves one's ninety year old mother, hospice and palliative care not a heart transplant seems in order when her heart starts failing.

As I've said I would support a pool for the uninsured who have preexisting conditions making it hard for them to get affordable insurance.

I don't think any amount of sad stories--and I know there are some--will change my view. Not becaus I am cold hearted, but because I've paid attention to more elaborate state intrusive systems and believe we'd all be worse under one of them.

Sue

You are pissed at me because I disagreed with you on this issue and because of that you never miss an opportunity to jump on me, no matter what the subject at hand.

No, Terrye, I am not pissed at anyone, and certainly not you. And never because someone disagrees with me, on this or any other issue. I will not ignore illegal immigration, and especially when I feel it is a contributing to factor to the subject at hand. That you don't is your prerogative, but argue on the points I raised instead of bringing up pro-life conservatives.

For someone who feels like they are being picked on you sure don't have any trouble getting in my face.

I don't feel picked on. I apologize if you think I am getting 'in your face'. I am merely voicing my opinion on a subject we both passionately disagree on.

Terrye

clarice:

I think a pool like that would be helpful, it is a good idea. Some people just can not get insurance at any price.

And I know that a lot of young people do not even think about health insurance, they would rather have new car.

I don't dispute any of that.

The problem is the basic costs are just so high. Even with insurance, people can face bankruptcy.

Administrative costs and liability costs are factors as well.

I remember when you could go in a doctor's office for a sore throat or something, get a shot, pay the man, go home.

Nothing is that simple anymore and that is part of the problem.

And it is not about being cold hearted or anything else. I have watched people go from being tax payers with insurance to bankruptcy to Medicaid, all because of health care costs. And once they get to Medicaid, the government pays for everything, and the higher those cost get more and more people will find themselves in that situation and that in turn will cost the government more money.

It is like a cycle.

Terrye

Sue:

Yeah right.

clarice

Well, I can tell you that retired doctors here tried to run a voluntary free clinic to provide elementary care to those in need but when informed that they needed malpractice insurance and the cost was prohibitive.
The free or low cost clinics of my youth could exist in large part because suits against physicians were rare and hard to win.

So, everyone's looking for the big rock candy mountain--patients unhappy with their treatment (often without warrant); lawyers looking to clean up;politicans happy to exploit the issue without doing anything sensible; and consumers/voters who support pols who promise them the moon at someone else's expense.

Gmax

Actually I took out a high deductible Health Savings account two years ago. My faily deductible is around $5000. That means that I have a catastrophic lealth care plan but it does allow me access to the same rates that my insurer has with providers for other plans. As a consumer I decide when I need health care and discuss any treatment plan with the provider and provider the only approval, not pre approval from the insurer.

Since my county has a County hospital which is supported by my property taxes I will say that its dubious to claim that the uninsured have no access to health care. Its also dubious to claim the uninsured are driving up health care premiums. Property taxes perhaps, less direct evidence on insurance premiums.

The number of folks who are uninsured includes a huge chunk of folks who decline the coverage not because they cant afford the premiums, but because they think the cost benefit for them is out of whack.

We have made health care a very cheap commodity. The copays are too low to provide any incentive to avoid excessive service. Insurers as has been said before price in the expected costs of routine care. It is a payment plan.

Folks who have access to Health Savings Accounts should strongly consider them. The money is treated the same as an IRA, tax deferred, and can grow to decent sums if left in the account through the miracle of tax deferred compounding.

clarice

**"but when informed that they needed malpractice insurance and the cost was prohibitive WERE FORCED TO ABANDON THE NOTION********.

Terrye

clarice:

I saw a special on TV some time ago about a Doctor who tried to open a clinic and was forced to shut down because the AMA said he was charging too little.

They run a tight ship.

In truth the idea of high deductibles is not bad either. If the government was going to help anybody get health insurance it would make more sense if it were catastrophic insurance and the deductible was high.

I have insurance through my job, they take money out of my check to pay for it. I have not even made a claim in 3 years.

It is the big stuff that really costs and the chronic conditions like diabetes etc that get costly.

I have a client now that says he can not get a job because he is a quad and his medication costs him hundreds a month and of course he has lots of complicating factors with his condition. He said that if he could just get help getting up and going in the mornings and help with his meds and tests he would rather try to find a job, but he is afraid he will lose that help and won't be able to replace it.

Terrye

And Sue I never lumped everybody into a racist bigot category. Never. That is a lie.

I did say that there was some of that out there and not enough people tried to distance themselves from the remarks. It is ridiculous to deny it. Just like it would be ridiculous for antiwar people to deny that there are people on their side of the debate who are disrepectfull of the military.

But you know what? I am not the one who was making the comments in the first place and I am not going to pretend that some of the things I heard and read did not offend me, nor am I going to apologize for it.

If that bothers you so much that you can not treat me with civility too bad.

BTW, I did support Bush's policy. I am not ashamed of that. I did not think the people calling him Jorge Bush when he was trying to fight a war did themselves or the country any good. It is just another example of Republicans hurting themselves.

Bush did not deserve that just because he stuck to a policy that he had always supported even when his approval rating was 70%.

So let's just end this here. I do not want to discuss it with you again.

Sue

So let's just end this here. I do not want to discuss it with you again.

Then do a better job of ignoring my posts, Terrye, because I have no intention of remaining silent because you want to drop your point of view on everyone and prefer I not engage.

clarice

You're booth so nice..this squabble is unfortunate. I think the truncated communications online without being able to see the "speaker's" face or hear any inflections often lead people to think others are being more critical than they meant to be.

Terrye

Sue:

I will do a better job of ignoring your posts, after all it is the same thing over and over, so it is no great loss.

Besides I was not upset about your point of view, I just don't like people making crap up about me. I never said that everyone who did not support immigration reform was a bigot and I am not going to just let that stand.

Did you ever hear of the Anchoress?

She is a woman of faith, a center right kind of person, does not like Hillary Clinton one little bit.

She took the side of Bush in that debate and people were calling her Mexicali Rose. She said that after years of supporting the war in Iraq the most vicious mail she got came from people who disagreed with her on immigration. Really stupid stuff from people who had to take the time to target her just because she disagreed with them.

I know how she feels. I have seen a lot of that kind of thing in this debate and I can honestly that I have come to the conclusion that the left does not have a monopoly on bad behavior.

Terrye

The Anchoress would not forgive me if I did not get her link right, so let me try that again. She deserves a working link.

Sue

Did you ever hear of the Anchoress?

You continually bring up stuff that has nothing to do with me or what I said. I have not resorted to calling people names in order to make my point. That, Terrye, is my beef with you. Address my points and leave the larger argument you continually want to make out of it, unless, of course, I am personally guilty of whatever offense you ascribe to the "far right".

Terrye

Sue:

Your beef with me is that I did not kiss your ass honey.

As for the Anchoress I mentioned her because a post she did recently came to my mind int he course of our exchange.

Believe it or not you are not the center of the universe, everything is not about you personally. Whatever the voices in your head might be telling you.

So what you seem to be saying here is that it is ok for you to claim that I said that everyone on the hardliner side of the increasingly tiresome immigration issue is a bigot when I did not, but when I respond that the Anchoress had heard the same kind of thing from other people who had no compunction about jumping all over her....well then I am doing a bad thing. After all Sue was not specifically talking about the Anchoress ergo I am not allowed to bring her up.

If it bothers you Sue, ignore my posts.

And believe it or not I am not responsible for the high cost of health care or illegal immigration either.

Sue

Your beef with me is that I did not kiss your ass honey.

My beef with you is exactly what I stated it was.

Believe it or not you are not the center of the universe, everything is not about you personally. Whatever the voices in your head might be telling you.

Damn. I'm heartbroken to learn that. Those voices were so clear.

After all Sue was not specifically talking about the Anchoress ergo I am not allowed to bring her up.

Of course you are allowed.

Terrye, anytime I make a statement about illegal immigration you go down the path of Jorge and Schiavo and Anchoress. None of which has anything to do with me or my view of illegal immigration. What reaction are you expecting from me when you do that? I personally can't help what others have said to the Anchoress. It wasn't me and I am only responsible for what I've said. And I have never resorted to a level of name calling. Not even honey. ::wink::

If you are not claiming all who opposed the immigration bill are bigots, then possibly you should think about how to word what you mean without making the blanket statement that always begins "those on the far right" and then go down some path of Jorge or name calling at a blog I've never been to. Some of us opposed it and remained loyal to Bush. After all, he didn't pull that one out of his pocket without prior warnings. It has, after all, been his stance since he was governor of my great state of Texas.

kim

Who got mo?
Friend or foe?
Who's a ho?
Have some Joe.

Here's what we ought to try. Sock puppet in and really try to make a leftist point.
===============

wow power leveling

wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
codeheart article
Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
cheap wow gold

wow power leveling

wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
codeheart article
Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
cheap wow gold

asdwdasd

cheapest, best service have it on wow gold

. so many wonderful things you can enjon it not only cheapest price, best

distrubition,all from wow leveling ,

warcraft gold promptly,best service only

get it from wow power leveling

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame