|
Naga Warlord posted:Cultural capital? I'm pretty sure that's the term for it. 
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm not a partisan or a tribalist or even a stalwart PPACA defender, but you come across as bitter and hostile towards any attempts at improving health outcomes for people when you rag against the PPACA so hard. Read my very first post in this thread. Then read the rest of them. Perhaps you're thinking of another poster, because I've been assiduously pointing out the good as well as the bad in the law since it was a tiny baby in Liz Fowler's mind, right after the 2008 election. Or maybe it's just easier for you to fall back on ad homs and meta than contribute actual ideas as to how improve the law. I'm not talking about single-payer, which the insurance industry and Dem leadership thwarted at every step of the legislative process; I'm talking about which improvements you'd make to the bill as it stands now. What do you consider to be its flaws and its good parts? eta: It's extremely odious to read a post like yours 3 days after finding myself uninsured for the first time in 20 years, thanks to being told YOU'RE SUBSIDIZED. PSYCHE, YOU'RE NOT SUBSIDIZED. YOU'RE SUBSIDIZED. NO YOU'RE NOT. But I guess that's my fault, too, for not cheerleading hard enough, huh? vvv Thanks. As I said, I feel the same way Moore does: The ACA sucks, and the ACA is great. What I was pointing out was the reflexive kneejerk response by liberals to pointing out its flaws, which will work to erode faith in both the law and its supporters. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:What do you consider to be its flaws and its good parts? Good parts: Medicaid expansion (except for the red states that said no to free money just as a gently caress you to poor people). Removal of pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny coverage. Allowing people to stay on their parent's insurance till 26. Making preventative care covered. (Except if they actually find something, which is completely retarded and will incentive people to just stay away from the doctor's like they do currently.) Making birth control covered. (Hobby Lobby!  )Bad parts: Everything wrong with our half-measure private healthcare system. Deductibles, networks, etc. I should just be able to go to the doctor, I shouldn't have to jump through a million loving hoops to make sure I'm "in network." lovely government contracting procedures. The lack of IT talent in the Federal government. Willa Rogers posted:eta: It's extremely odious to read a post like yours 3 days after finding myself uninsured for the first time in 20 years, thanks to being told YOU'RE SUBSIDIZED. PSYCHE, YOU'RE NOT SUBSIDIZED. YOU'RE SUBSIDIZED. NO YOU'RE NOT. I'm sorry, I really am. The system failed you, and it's failing countless others. But at least millions who couldn't get insurance before now can, that's progress. I imagine your individual insurance situation will get resolved because you're pretty proactive about following up with your insurance and you're smart and know the law inside and out. E: My ultimate argument is that it's better that we tried something and failed, as long as we take the approach of "Well let's fix it or replace it with something better" and not the approach of "We shouldn't have put anything into place unless it was perfect and ready to go." I don't think there's a danger in Dems going "Well, we fixed healthcare, time to abandon that for another 10-20 years while we focus on other issues!" Social Security sucked when it first rolled out, too. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Didn't get a response on this earlier, but wouldn't the capitated payment structure Medicaid is well on its way in transitioning to make increased utilization of emergency care by enrollees a non-issue as far as federal/state budgets are concerned?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:
And my ultimate argument is by pretending ACA "reforms" health insurance or health care, rather than further privatizing public programs and subsidizing the privateers, will both further entrench the for-profit system we have and make it more difficult to achieve meaningful reform. I think Dems have a chance to turn this around by seizing on the massive success of (traditional) Medicaid expansion and by acknowledging and helping to fix the systemic flaws like those I've run into. Unfortunately, most Dems are taking the approach of rejecting all criticism as aiding and abetting the Enemy, or by falling back on intellectually lazy ad homs and meta. And Social Security didn't "suck when it first rolled out"; that's another kneejerk liberal trope one's only heard in the last five years as a Dem excuse for fellating its corporate sponsors. It didn't cover domestic employees, because those employees were not paid wages (wives) or were paid cash, and thus not paying taxes. I do wish people knew the background of these programs before tossing off a party talking point like this one. eta: Speaking of talking points (and this isn't directed solely to you), it's fascinating to read consultant Celinda Lake's focus-group-tested memes for Dems to use to sell the law, in light of the narrow discourse now that the program's rolled out. 
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jan 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Are you responding to someone or just shitposting? The argument is that Colorado's trial in expanding Medicaid hurts everyone. Medicare is only for the poor and disabled - the unlucky and the foolish. If we did not expand Medicaid, at least in the short term, government balance sheets would be improved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:eta: Speaking of talking points (and this isn't directed solely to you), it's fascinating to read consultant Celinda Lake's focus-group-tested memes for Dems to use to sell the law, in light of the narrow discourse now that the program's rolled out. I find it absolutely hilarious and yet not at all surprising that the government had access to this info and still Pajama Boy was invented. These are all the arguments I was making in the thread where we were discussing that whole mess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
baquerd posted:The argument is that Colorado's trial in expanding Medicaid hurts everyone. Medicare is only for the poor and disabled - the unlucky and the foolish. If we did not expand Medicaid, at least in the short term, government balance sheets would be improved. Whose argument? You're not making any sense. And you're confusing Medicaid and Medicare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
I have a question if someone here know. I have a friend who is right at the line for using the exchange to get a plan (he has a premium of $.01). The problem is there is something like a $5000 deductible with the plan. Is there some program that can help with the deductible or is he essentially signed up for a catastrophic coverage plan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
The plan, is it platinum, gold, silver, bronze, or catastrophic? The platinum and gold plans will generally have lower deductibles and out of pocket maximums. Would he be able to pay a higher premium to get the deductible lower?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Silver plans are the only ones that come with cost-sharing subsidies--and that's only for those with incomes up to 250 percent of the FPL. Otherwise your buddy's screwed under the new normal of high deductibles. *** CoveredCa is doing everything it can to cause me to have a stroke, for which I won't be insured. If you call the no. listed on the website, a message tells you to call 2 other numbers before disconnecting the call. When I called each of the 2 numbers, it was the same message telling me to call the same numbers before disconnecting the call. Someone on dailykos gave me a 4th number, which also has the same message about calling the 2 other numbers before disconnecting the call. If anyone's got a working number for CoveredCa that leads to anything other than a message to tell me to call the same numbers that lead to messages telling me to call the same numbers before hanging up on me, please share. 
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:vvv Thanks. As I said, I feel the same way Moore does: The ACA sucks, and the ACA is great. What I was pointing out was the reflexive kneejerk response by liberals to pointing out its flaws, which will work to erode faith in both the law and its supporters. I find a lot of progressives tend to have reflexive responses to ant-ACA sentiment(despite wanting UHC instead), but it's based on most of the attacks being nonsense talking points and nothing remotely related to the actual deficiencies of ACA implementation. We can find plenty of things wrong with the ACA, but when people argue using a terrible thing they heard from talk radio that doesn't actually apply or have merit I end up spilling over with rage. Not that you or some of the other posters are doing that, the arguments for the most part are grounded in reason, but I hoped to share some insight into the seemingly reflexive behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Silver plans are the only ones that come with cost-sharing subsidies--and that's only for those with incomes up to 250 percent of the FPL. Otherwise your buddy's screwed under the new normal of high deductibles. He really can't afford anything more, I'll have to check and see what kind of plan it was. If it was silver how do you get the cost sharing subsidies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
dalstrs posted:He really can't afford anything more, I'll have to check and see what kind of plan it was. If it was silver how do you get the cost sharing subsidies? They should kick in after the income calculations on the exchange website. (eta: And once you choose a plan. The cost-sharing subsidies are reflected in the lower deductibles listed under the silver plans.) Tell your friend to visit an in-person navigator or seek the help of an ACA-certified insurance agent. joeburz posted:I find a lot of progressives tend to have reflexive responses to ant-ACA sentiment(despite wanting UHC instead), but it's based on most of the attacks being nonsense talking points and nothing remotely related to the actual deficiencies of ACA implementation. We can find plenty of things wrong with the ACA, but when people argue using a terrible thing they heard from talk radio that doesn't actually apply or have merit I end up spilling over with rage. Yes, I understand that; it's part of a larger point I've been making in this forum for several years about the narrowed allowable scope of political discourse. That's why I was pleased to see a lefty like Moore articulate the reality about the ACA: It sucks, and it's also a godsend, depending on individual circumstances. I have friends for whom Medicaid expansion is life-saving. But I'm tired of the liberal tropes about "undermining" the law by pointing out its weaknesses, and earlier in the thread I challenged WampaLord for contending that criticism of the bad parts of the ACA were "niggling" or "chicken-littling," because as I said, these flaws are real, and will result in people dying. It doesn't do Dems a favor to pretend that all criticism of the ACA are right-wing tropes, and yet I see that allegation lobbed by Dems and liberals against critics to their left at every point. The Dems have put a shitload of money into corporate consultants telling them how to frame the more odious aspects of the ACA. Pardon me if I don't buy Celinda Lake's talking points and resent being lumped with right-wing nutjobs for not doing so. The bad parts won't change until there's constituent pressure to do so, and shutting up and taking one for ACA because… Republicans is not the way to amass that pressure. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
You know one thing I've noticed is when ACA enrollment numbers get mentioned whether by officials or news sources, it's often just the private enrollment numbers that are mentioned. I mean it'd make sense you'd only want to say 2 million something instead of 6 million something when you include Medicaid if you're trying to make the ACA look weak........but these are liberal leaning people/organizations only reporting the private enrollment numbers. I guess health insurance doesn't count unless you boot strap yourself to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
The truth is that all these numbers being lobbed about are as fanciful as the House minority report saying there's "only 10,000 people losing insurance" instead of the 5,000,000 whose policies have been cancelled. (Aside: That latter figure has also somehow become a "right-wing talking point," according to Dems, even though it's based on states' own cancellation figures.) With the massive Medicaid clusterfucks generated by healthcare.gov, and massive subsidy clusterfucks by states like Washington, and massive circle-of-hell clusterfucks by insurers like my own sending me various-priced statements depending on which day of the week it is, we won't have figures on enrollment till the feds set a drop-dead date for reporting and insurers spit out "actually paid, and continued to pay" figures. We might never know how many people enroll in private plans (on or off the exchanges), although we should have a better grip on Medicaid enrollment nos. once the clusterfucks are worked out. eta: In short, it's easier for the government to announce Medicaid enrollment figures because they're coordinated through CMS, a federal agency, whereas the feds have no way of tracking those who enroll in off-exchange private plans. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jan 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
tadashi posted:I'm glad some hospitals were thinking ahead. It's crazy to think that everyone who had always gone to the ER for a certain condition would just suddenly go out and find a primary care physician for the same condition just because they exist. You really do have to teach people to use the services available to them. I know Grady Hospital in Atlanta has been trying to open an urgent care center nearby for a while now. I'm not sure what the status is on that project but they were already trying to help as many people as possible get an alternative to the ER before the mandates took effect. Pure anecdote: not only do we need more Urgent Care centers, the ones we have really need to be better advertised; I had no idea it was even an option until I got referred to one while desperately calling around one Sunday trying to find anything open other than the ER (because that poo poo's expensive).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Grady was about to lose a bunch of their funding due to ACA. Now that everyone is supposed to be on medicaid or have insurance, there should be no more indigent patients. Thankfully that got fixed in the last budget deal. A lot of the urgent care centers have afterhours, but often that means that they're only open till 6. That's cutting it close even if you have a 9 to 5 job. Ones that stay open later aren't always very convenient to get to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:Oh god, Grady. I remember, back when I was pre-med, how many people were pushing me to apply for residency at Grady instead of any of the closer/better hospitals just because of how much more stabbing/GSW experience I'd get there. Kind of tempting as a student, much less so as a patient. Yup, I'm an ER doc who works at an urgent care on the side. The facilities are 10 min apart walking distance mind you and while I'm in the ER I'm busting my butt trying to see the >100 patients a day who come through. When I'm at the urgent care I see at most 20 a day. It's a combination of lack of effective advertising and an impression that urgent care is not as good as going to the ER and that may be due to the cases where a seriously ill patient shows up at the urgent care and needs to be sent over to the ER. (Obviously I do send more serious patients on over to the ER but I always call the staff over there and those patients don't languish in the waiting room long once they get to the ER.) Nodelphi fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jan 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Ezra Klein op-ed in Bloomberg News, he's sounding like Willa talking about Medicaid as biggest success of ACA:quote:Let’s Celebrate Medicaid’s Success
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
One would hope that after seeing the success of the Medicaid rollout in the states that took the money, the other states' citizens would demand the same for themselves, but ya know, conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
^^^ Actually, it's regulatory capture under Dems that's given us this warmed-over Heritage Foundation pap, as I've pointed out for the last five years. I spoke too soon about Medicaid success; the enrollment numbers look great, but the process has turned into yet another clusterfuck, as Klein's colleagues report: quote:More than 100,000 Americans who applied for insurance through HealthCare.gov and were told they are eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) remain unenrolled because of lingering software defects in the federal online marketplace, according to federal and state health officials. http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ca3b_story.html Some states are backed up 6-8 weeks on determining Medicaid eligibility. Also, lol at Dems' running away from the success of Medicaid expansion, yet another example of their snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by trying to echo conservatives. This graf from Klein's piece sums it up best: quote:The White House can’t really tout the Medicaid expansion because it’ll revive fears on the right that Obamacare is really a stealthy effort to create a single-payer health-care system, and it’ll arouse criticism on the left that the administration should have expanded Medicaid to all. eta: California's exchange has extended the deadline to Jan. 15 for payment for policies effective Jan. 1. Might have something to do with those 4 CoCal phone numbers with prerecorded messages telling you to call those same numbers before disconnecting callers. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jan 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:^^^ Actually, it's regulatory capture under Dems that's given us this warmed-over Heritage Foundation pap, as I've pointed out for the last five years. Other than the mandate + exchange, there's not much in common: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Other than the mandate + exchange, there's not much in common: I've tried to stay reluctantly positive about the ACA and even I can tell that this image is grotesquely biased.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:I've tried to stay reluctantly positive about the ACA and even I can tell that this image is grotesquely biased. For one thing, I don't see how someone can look at the "Cadillac plan" tax (or, for that matter, if true, the claims that the employer mandate will result in many employees being offered the new standard of high deductible/micro-network plans instead of what they are accustomed to) and not infer that PPACA does not include "tax changes intended to eliminate employer-provided insurance" But I guess this is another Politifact "end Medicare as we know it"-style "lie" because employers still have to offer (shittier) insuance. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Jan 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:For one thing, I don't see how someone can look at the "Cadillac plan" tax (or, for that matter, if true, the claims that the employer mandate will result in many employees being offered the new standard of high deductible/micro-network plans instead of what they are accustomed to) and not infer that PPACA does not include "tax changes intended to eliminate employer-provided insurance" The Heritage plan involved treating all employer-contributions as taxable income (as well as paying an employee's portion with post-tax dollars as opposed to pre-tax dollars). The cadillac tax is a 40% tax on premiums over $10k for an individual. e: A health plan could be "we'll pay for a gold plan plus all your out-of-pocket costs for the year" and still not get hit with the cadillac tax.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Is that counting employer contribution? Because if it is I definitely have over $10k in premiums. If not, my premiums are closer to $150. I probably wouldn't mind a tax though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
^^^ Yes, it's based on total dollar cost of benefits (not even the actual benefits themselves), which means it's another contributing factor for the eradication of employer-based insurance, given the annual compounded increases in premiums. Again: This is regulatory capture writ large.Oxxidation posted:I've tried to stay reluctantly positive about the ACA and even I can tell that this image is grotesquely biased. Not only that, it ignores Obama's campaigning on the ACA by pitching it as a formerly Republican plan. eta: The funniest part of that chart are the last 2 bits, since PPACA has essentially "voucherized" Medicaid, as well as providing $1 trillion over the next decade in direct taxpayer subsidies to private insurers, while cutting Medicare programs. And "most employer insurance" will not be preserved--particularly if the employer mandate is further deferred (or done away with altogether) while the individual mandate remains. Who's the source for that table, WJ? TPM or the White House website on healthcare, or another outlet? Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jan 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Other than the mandate + exchange, there's not much in common: Wow, you take this from huffpo or something? Obamacare's ultimately a great idea with a series of horrendous unforced errors but posting obviously biased poo poo like this doesn't help your cause either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Krugman points to this analysis of the evolution of a conservative healthcare plan to where we are today, and adds this commentary:quote:The essence of Obamacare, as of Romneycare, is a three-legged stool of regulation and subsidies: community rating requiring insurers to make the same policies available to everyone regardless of health status; an individual mandate, requiring everyone to purchase insurance, so that healthy people don’t opt out; and subsidies to keep insurance affordable for those with lower incomes. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/conservative-origins-of-obamacare/?_r=0 It's fascinating to see how Dems and liberals were defending the Heritage Foundation plan label a couple months ago (as did Obama and the administration at large), yet have contended the opposite since Michael Moore's op-ed in the Times last week. It's a great example of agenda-setting, and using arguments that contradict each other within short periods of time for the purpose of political expediency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Krugman points to this analysis of the evolution of a conservative healthcare plan to where we are today, and adds this commentary: It's fascinating to see how different people say different things and you conflate the people and the different things in the interests of muddying the debate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
When speaking to moderates and conservatives, it is useful to point out that the conservative attacks on Obamacare are obviously false because they endorsed those ideas as reasonable and good ideas when they didn't think they'd be implemented (as part of an attack on another health care plan). When speaking to leftists, particularly ones that are attempting to insinuate things about Obamacare by the mere fact that republicans once endorsed underpinning ideas, it is important to note how Obamacare is not conservative and differs strongly from Heritage Foundation goals. Sometimes people might fail to make those points clearly but the core arguments are both correct and trying to argue that they contradict each other is trying to use semantics to win an argument where you're wrong on the merits. I assume everyone is fully able to understand why Timothy Noah, author of an MSNBC article, and WhiskyJuvenile, a poster on Something Awful, can say different things without anyone contradicting themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
The issue isn't whether Noah and WJ say different things; it's that liberals and Dems are now trying to distance themselves from a conservative healthcare plan with its roots in the Heritage Foundation plan, as Krugman delineates, while a few months ago they were using that as an ACA selling point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The issue isn't whether Noah and WJ say different things; it's that liberals and Dems are now trying to distance themselves from a conservative healthcare plan with its roots in the Heritage Foundation plan, as Krugman delineates, while a few months ago they were using that as an ACA selling point. Do you honestly think anyone on this forum used the fact that the PPACA started as a Heritage plan as a selling point for it? If you don't, then why bring it up? You're not talking to your concept of "Dems and liberals" here you're talking to D&D posters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The issue isn't whether Noah and WJ say different things; it's that liberals and Dems are now trying to distance themselves from a conservative healthcare plan with its roots in the Heritage Foundation plan, as Krugman delineates, while a few months ago they were using that as an ACA selling point. Yeah and I addressed that as well. You're trying to imply something that's simply not true and you ignored my explanation because that would interfere with implying something that's not true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The issue isn't whether Noah and WJ say different things; it's that liberals and Dems are now trying to distance themselves from a conservative healthcare plan with its roots in the Heritage Foundation plan, as Krugman delineates, while a few months ago they were using that as an ACA selling point. You've sourced half of this - that they were calling it a republican plan. Even Obama pointed out the heritage roots (Politifact) but clicking on your links I don't see anyone running away from that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Willa what do the 26 states that didn't expand Medicare have in common?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
^^^ That they're pretty sure they'll eventually get HHS to approve "modified" Medicaid expansion, as it has to date in some of those states, that essentially voucherizes Medicaid or puts onerous responsibilities on recipients.Harik posted:You've sourced half of this - that they were calling it a republican plan. Even Obama pointed out the heritage roots (Politifact) but clicking on your links I don't see anyone running away from that. As I've said, the so-called "running away" has been in the last week or so, since Moore's op-ed came out. Prior to that Dems were always pointing out ACA's roots in the Heritage Foundation plan and other conservative proposals for healthcare reform. WJ's source (I'm assuming it's the Lawyers, Guns & Money blog, which is where I found the table he posted) is one; I've also seen similar memes on DailyKos and Dem Underground in the past week--but only in the last week or so, as a defense against critiques from the left such as Moore's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:^^^ That they're pretty sure they'll eventually get HHS to approve "modified" Medicaid expansion, as it has to date in some of those states, that essentially voucherizes Medicaid or puts onerous responsibilities on recipients. The nice thing about articles you've read in the last week would be that you could link them. So far the most "running away" I've seen is the un-sourced comparison image that was posted earlier. On topic, I got some great news about Obamacare: I'm not going to be fined for being a poor, hurray. I'm insured through my small business, but I can't afford to cover my wife. Unfortunately, I live in Florida, and while she "would" be covered my medicaid, and Rick Scott is an evil shithead who only "supports" expansion now that it can't possibly happen. So no medicaid, and no subsudy. But the website has assured me that I don't have to pay a fine, so yay, I just go bankrupt if anything happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Harik posted:and Rick Scott is an evil shithead who only "supports" expansion now that it can't possibly happen. That's hardly fair. He came around to supporting expansion as soon as someone informed him that he and his friends would make bucketloads of cash off of it. It was never possible to happen with the legislature stocked with frothing lunatics, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:48
|
|
