• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Maybe they should have read it BEFORE PASSING IT

Tam

Well-known member
As time ticks on Obamacare looks more and more troublesome. It’s not just the right wing pundits saying this now, even the woman in charge of implementing the sweeping legislation seems concerned.

It’s probably fair to say that the American people are concerned but also befuddled by the health care law. Many will likely only get more befuddled as the hyper-complex law becomes reality over the next year and half.

Health care and pharmaceutical stocks are up though.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she underestimated how long the politics of health reform would last and didn’t anticipate how much confusion the slow rollout of the legislation would create.

I guess she figured it would take a month or so to take over One Sixth of the US Economy. :roll:

But again maybe the Dems should have allowed everyone to READ THE BILL BEFORE PASSING IT. :mad:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Tam said:
As time ticks on Obamacare looks more and more troublesome. It’s not just the right wing pundits saying this now, even the woman in charge of implementing the sweeping legislation seems concerned.

It’s probably fair to say that the American people are concerned but also befuddled by the health care law. Many will likely only get more befuddled as the hyper-complex law becomes reality over the next year and half.

Health care and pharmaceutical stocks are up though.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she underestimated how long the politics of health reform would last and didn’t anticipate how much confusion the slow rollout of the legislation would create.

I guess she figured it would take a month or so to take over One Sixth of the US Economy. :roll:

But again maybe the Dems should have allowed everyone to READ THE BILL BEFORE PASSING IT. :mad:

Well, it's not like Dear Leader said everyone would be privy to all the details while the legislation was being written. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Tam said:
As time ticks on Obamacare looks more and more troublesome. It’s not just the right wing pundits saying this now, even the woman in charge of implementing the sweeping legislation seems concerned.

It’s probably fair to say that the American people are concerned but also befuddled by the health care law. Many will likely only get more befuddled as the hyper-complex law becomes reality over the next year and half.

Health care and pharmaceutical stocks are up though.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she underestimated how long the politics of health reform would last and didn’t anticipate how much confusion the slow rollout of the legislation would create.

I guess she figured it would take a month or so to take over One Sixth of the US Economy. :roll:

But again maybe the Dems should have allowed everyone to READ THE BILL BEFORE PASSING IT. :mad:

Well, it's not like Dear Leader said everyone would be privy to all the details while the legislation was being written. :roll:

Oh do you mean Mr. Transparent putting everything on C Span. :?
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Tam said:
As time ticks on Obamacare looks more and more troublesome. It’s not just the right wing pundits saying this now, even the woman in charge of implementing the sweeping legislation seems concerned.

It’s probably fair to say that the American people are concerned but also befuddled by the health care law. Many will likely only get more befuddled as the hyper-complex law becomes reality over the next year and half.

Health care and pharmaceutical stocks are up though.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she underestimated how long the politics of health reform would last and didn’t anticipate how much confusion the slow rollout of the legislation would create.

I guess she figured it would take a month or so to take over One Sixth of the US Economy. :roll:

But again maybe the Dems should have allowed everyone to READ THE BILL BEFORE PASSING IT. :mad:


Ain't no body got time for that. Who has 2 days and 2 lawyers to find out what it means after you read it?

John Conyers on the Health Care Bill, which he voted for: "I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill ... What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?'"
 

cowman52

Well-known member
This thing has been sitting in some drawer somewhere for years, just waiting to find some liberals wet dream rise up and drag it out and have it pushed through into law.
You cant find all this crap conjured up in just the time it was supposedly in written.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
cowman52 said:
This thing has been sitting in some drawer somewhere for years, just waiting to find some liberals wet dream rise up and drag it out and have it pushed through into law.
You cant find all this crap conjured up in just the time it was supposedly in written.


:agree: :cry2: :liar: BUNCH OF :disagree: AND LIARS! :mad:
 

Tam

Well-known member
cowman52 said:
This thing has been sitting in some drawer somewhere for years, just waiting to find some liberals wet dream rise up and drag it out and have it pushed through into law.
You cant find all this crap conjured up in just the time it was supposedly in written.


Oh I agree the bill could not have been thought up during the time Obama was in office BUT when you have hundreds of Dems putting all their years worth of Dream list ideas in and not tossing out those that just will not work to streamline the bill to only those ideas that are workable you get a thousand plus page mess that takes years to implement and years more to understand.

If anyone had read the bill they might have noticed the problems with certain parts BUT NO THEY HAD TO PASS THE ASSININE BILL SO THEY COULD FIND OUT WHAT WAS IN IT. They were in such a Pelosi push to get it passed and stuffed done the throats of the everyone they had no time to amended the unworkable out and get a bill that they don't have to hire thousands of people to translate it for those having to live by it. :mad:

This bill is no different than the Stimulus bill where every friggin Congressman pulled out their porkus wish list and hid the items within it. And used the economic crisis to push it through WITHOUT READING IT to find these stupid donor paybacks.
Really does the government really need to pay for studies on Duck Penises and Monkeys on Cocaine. :?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
cowman52 said:
This thing has been sitting in some drawer somewhere for years, just waiting to find some liberals wet dream rise up and drag it out and have it pushed through into law.
You cant find all this crap conjured up in just the time it was supposedly in written.

Actually this has been a Republican/conservative wet dream for years- first being proposed by Nixon back in the 70's... It was the Republican answer in opposition of nationalized/universal health care...Orrin Hatch, Lugar, Alan Simpson, Grassley and several other conservative Congressmen have introduced versions on differing occasions... All based on the same proposition- the "mandate" and making irresponsible folks to take responsibility.....


Republicans Love Government

Examples of a love that cannot be spoken



#8. Government-Mandated Healthcare

July 27, 2011 by Curtis Below


So there’s an old Guns N’ Roses song called Used to Love Her. Its lyrics are, well, pretty straightforward:


I used to love her, but I had to kill her
I used to love her, but I had to kill her
I had to put her
Six feet under
And I can still hear her complain

So it goes on and on like this, with a few variations, but you get the point.

Before I break into my best Axl Rose falsetto (however, don’t let me stop you from doing so), I’ll get to my point: this song summarizes the way Republicans feel about government-mandated healthcare. At least for now. Until they change their minds. Again.

You see, Republicans have a fairly long and well-chronicled history of supporting different government-mandated healthcare systems. Similar to John Kerry’s infamous quote, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” Republicans were for government-mandated healthcare before they were against it. Let’s look at some of the suitors…

Richard Nixon
Back in 1974, President Nixon proposed the “Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan.” A key component of this plan was a government mandate. However, unlike Obama’s plan which has a mandate that every individual purchase health insurance, Nixon’s plan included a mandate that every employer purchase health insurance for its employees and pay at least 75% of the premiums. Pressure from the left and right — and a little thing called Watergate — derailed Nixon’s plan.

The Heritage Foundation
In 1989 and 1992, The Heritage Foundation published two reports laying the intellectual groundwork for individually-mandated healthcare, now known in some circles as “Obamacare.” Essentially, they argued that for the same reason it is a good idea for government to mandate that drivers carry liability insurance, it would be a good idea for government to mandate that individuals purchase healthcare insurance. Plus, they were searching for a more market-friendly alternative to single-payer or employer-mandated healthcare reform plans. (This idea was also kicked around by the George H.W. Bush Administration.) However, now that the concept is associated with a Democratic president, they spend their time arguing that this approach is unconstitutional.

Congressional Republicans (1993-1994)
President (and Hillary) Clinton’s healthcare reform plan introduced in 1993 included government mandates, healthcare security cards, regional alliances, interleague play, rock-paper-scissors, etc. Shockingly, despite its simple elegance, this plan died in late 1994 (with a little help from some devastating opposition commercials). However, during these debates there were three primary Republican alternatives, and one of the leading ones — the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 — included an individual mandate.1

Newt Gingrich
Staying in the 1990’s, then Congressman Gingrich was a big fan of individual mandates, stating, “I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance.” Fast forward to May 2011 and now Presidential candidate Gingrich stated on Meet the Press that “…all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care,” and described his position as a “variation” on the individual mandate. This is curious since on the campaign trail he refers to individual mandates — and “Obamacare” — as unconstitutional.


Mitt Romney
This is probably the most (currently) famous example of Republicans embracing government-mandated healthcare, recently summarized incredibly well by Ryan Lizza in The New Yorker. The brief back story is that when he was a more practical, moderate Governor of Massachusetts, Romney concluded that an individual mandate is “a Republican way of reforming the [healthcare] market.” (Interestingly, the program was initially funded with federal money from the Bush Administration.) Of course, Romney’s healthcare plan — passed in 2006 — eventually became the blueprint for Obama’s healthcare plan, even though he now opposes it. Obama’s plan, that is, not his plan. I think. It’s very hard to tell them apart, but Obama’s is definitely the evil twin. You can tell by the facial hair.

As you can see, this is a pretty long dating history. Until Obama stole their thunder,2 for the better part of four decades Republicans have been advocates for government-mandated healthcare. I tend to think that these two former lovers are just “on a break” and will eventually reconcile like Ross and Rachel. They just need to get rid of the foreign guy in the White House.


1.Ezra Klein wrote a nice summary of Republicans and individual mandates during this time. ↩
2.Interestingly, Obama was critical of the individual mandate during the 2008 primary when it was part of Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan. However, he quickly endorsed the concept when he wanted something that Congress would pass. Apparently, Democrats can also be temperamental lovers. ↩

In 1991, Mark Pauly and others developed a proposal for George H.W. Bush that also included an individual mandate. While others credit Stanford economist Alain Enthoven with the idea, Enthoven’s earliest published reference to an individual mandate was an indirect one in the 1992 Jackson Hole paper.

In 1992 and 1993, some Republicans in Congress, seeking an alternative to Hillarycare, used these ideas as a foundation for their own health-reform proposals. One such bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, or HEART, was introduced in the Senate by John Chafee (R., R.I.) and co-sponsored by 19 other Senate Republicans, including Christopher Bond, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, and Arlen Specter. Given that there were 43 Republicans in the Senate of the 103rd Congress, these 20 comprised nearly half of the Republican Senate Caucus at that time. The HEART Act proposed health insurance vouchers for low-income individuals, along with an individual mandate.

Newt Gingrich, who was House Minority Leader in 1993, was also in favor of an individual mandate in those days.
Gingrich continued to support a federal individual mandate as recently as May of last year.


Nixons Feb 6 1974 letter to Congress promoting a "mandate" health care law:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
 

Tam

Well-known member
Don’t Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate


Stuart Butler

February 6, 2012 at 1:40 pm

Is the individual mandate at the heart of “ObamaCare” a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.

The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage’s health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare “adopts the ‘individual mandate’ concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation,” Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate “has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation.” Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through “adverse selection” (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid “with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy.”

My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So Nixon didn't write the letter or none of those Congressmen sponsored and backed "mandate" laws :???:

The got snookered by Obama when instead of backing universal health care- he jumped on their long touted plan-- and got left with egg all over their face... :wink: :p :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
he jumped on their long touted plan

Can't you read? There was no "Mandate" in their plan. :roll:

While they are trying to back water now-- many sources including even FAUX News reports that the Heritage Foundation backed a mandate health care insurance plan....


Individual health care insurance mandate has roots two decades long


Published June 28, 2012

FoxNews.com



The controversial individual mandate that was upheld Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court stems back more than 20 years, believed to have originated with a prominent conservative think tank.

The mandate, requiring every American to purchase health insurance, appeared in a 1989 published proposal by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation called "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," which included a provision to "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance."


The Heritage Foundation "substantially revised" its proposal four years later, according to a 1994 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. But the idea of an individual health insurance mandate later appeared in two bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993, according to the non-partisan research group ProCon.org. Among the supporters of the bills were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who today oppose the mandate under current law.

In 2006, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was then governor of Massachusetts, signed off on a law requiring individuals of the state to purchase health insurance. American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic opposition research group, on Wednesday released a 2006 video in which Romney says he is “very pleased” with the mandate.

“With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate. That is essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need," Romney says in the video.

In 2007, a bi-partisan Senate bill authored by Senators Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, contained a mandate. In 2009, however, Republican senators declared such a provision “unconstitutional.”



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/individual-health-care-insurance-mandate-has-long-checkered-past/#ixzz2Q5emhf5Y
 

Mike

Well-known member
Column: Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate
By Stuart Butler Updated 2/6/2012 10:40 AM
Comments
Is the individual mandate at the heart of "ObamaCare" a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.


By Kate Patterson, USA TODAY

The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage's health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.
The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.
My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid "with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy."
My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.
But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.
So why the change in this position in the past 20 years?
First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn't needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage. For example, the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer or nonemployer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement.
Also, advances in "risk adjustment" tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees' coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s. That's why we believe that President Obama and others are dead wrong about the need for a mandate.
Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.
And there's another thing. Changing one's mind about the best policy to pursue — but not one's principles — is part of being a researcher at a major think tank such as Heritage or the Brookings Institution. Serious professional analysts actually take part in a continuous bipartisan and collegial discussion about major policy questions. We read each other's research. We look at the facts. We talk through ideas with those who agree or disagree with us. And we change our policy views over time based on new facts, new research or good counterarguments.
Thanks to this good process, I've altered my views on many things. The individual mandate in health care is one of them.
Stuart Butler, Ph.D., is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org), where he is the director of the Center for Policy Innovation.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So Nixon didn't write the letter or none of those Congressmen sponsored and backed "mandate" laws :???:

The got snookered by Obama when instead of backing universal health care- he jumped on their long touted plan-- and got left with egg all over their face... :wink: :p :lol:

First Oldtimer just because you and your girlfriend Pelosi claimed something doesn't mean it's so. I think I will believe what the Heritage Foundation supported when the man that was in charge at the Heritage Foundation during the time frame in question releases a press release that debunks your crap comments. :roll:

Second what the hell does your post have to do with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying she underestimated how long the politics of health reform would last and didn’t anticipate how much confusion the slow rollout of the legislation would create? We are not talking about what the Republicans supported or DIDN'T SUPPORT we are talking about the problems implementing the horrible bill that was passed on a VERY PARTISAN VOTE. A vote that was bought and paid for with dirty backroom Democrat deals. DEALS THAT WERE NOT BROADCAST IN C-SPAN like Obama promised. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
So Nixon didn't write the letter or none of those Congressmen sponsored and backed "mandate" laws :???:

The got snookered by Obama when instead of backing universal health care- he jumped on their long touted plan-- and got left with egg all over their face... :wink: :p :lol:

First Oldtimer just because you and your girlfriend Pelosi claimed something doesn't mean it's so. I think I will believe what the Heritage Foundation supported when the man that was in charge at the Heritage Foundation during the time frame in question releases a press release that debunks your crap comments. :roll:

Second what the hell does your post have to do with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying she underestimated how long the politics of health reform would last and didn’t anticipate how much confusion the slow rollout of the legislation would create?


cowman52 wrote:
This thing has been sitting in some drawer somewhere for years, just waiting to find some liberals wet dream rise up and drag it out and have it pushed through into law.
You cant find all this crap conjured up in just the time it was supposedly in written.

Just informing cowman52 that he is correct- this has long been around (40 years)- and often sitting in drawers... But no matter what you refuse to admit-- it wasn't some liberals wet dream- unless you want to call Nixon, Hatch, Grassley, Romney, Lugar, Simpson, Dole, Bond, Chafee, etc. etc. all Liberals... :roll:
Maybe Dole gave old Tricky Nixon the Viagra to come up with this wet dream- eh? :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
So Nixon didn't write the letter or none of those Congressmen sponsored and backed "mandate" laws :???:

The got snookered by Obama when instead of backing universal health care- he jumped on their long touted plan-- and got left with egg all over their face... :wink: :p :lol:

First Oldtimer just because you and your girlfriend Pelosi claimed something doesn't mean it's so. I think I will believe what the Heritage Foundation supported when the man that was in charge at the Heritage Foundation during the time frame in question releases a press release that debunks your crap comments. :roll:

Second what the hell does your post have to do with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying she underestimated how long the politics of health reform would last and didn’t anticipate how much confusion the slow rollout of the legislation would create?


cowman52 wrote:
This thing has been sitting in some drawer somewhere for years, just waiting to find some liberals wet dream rise up and drag it out and have it pushed through into law.
You cant find all this crap conjured up in just the time it was supposedly in written.

Just informing cowman52 that he is correct- this has long been around (40 years)- and often sitting in drawers... But no matter what you refuse to admit-- it wasn't some liberals wet dream- unless you want to call Nixon, Hatch, Grassley, Romney, Lugar, Simpson, Dole, Bond, Chafee, etc. etc. all Liberals... :roll:
Maybe Dole gave old Tricky Nixon the Viagra to come up with this wet dream- eh? :wink:

You know as well as anyone the Republicans had no say in what was in this bill you can blame anyone you want but Obama was not buying support for Obamacare from the Republicans as he didn't need a single Republican vote to pass this horrible bill and Didn't GET ONE. He was buying off the Dems. in those dirty backroom NOT ON C-SPAN deals. It was not a Republican that was pressing the flesh with the media saying "We need to pass the bill to find out what is in it". THAT WAS ALL DEMS. SO PLEASE STOP BLAMING REPUBLICANS PAST OR PRESENT FOR THIS FRIGGIN MESS.

ANd you really need to see a doctor about your Viagra problem :roll:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Neighbor was just here today...just he and his wife...Blue Cross Blue
Shield insurance($5000 deductible) went up to $1400/month. Their daughter is a nurse--
she said it could double by next year. :shock:

He is 64, as of this year can't get SS unless they PROVE they don't
have control over their ranch OR cattle. They are a corporation and he can't even
be President of the corporation and get Social Security!! Their place
isn't big enough to lease out and get anything close to making a living,

Are they missing something here, or is this what SS and
medical insurance has turned into
under Obama? If is true, how disgusting that they LOSE so the money
can go to take care of illegals! :mad:

Reminds me of "remember what the government gives they can also
take away."
 
Top