Daily news sites: health care| Find Breaking World News

Home » health care

Tampilkan postingan dengan label health care. Tampilkan semua postingan

Do Social Security and Medicare show that Obamacare can be successful?

The loyal defenders of President Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) keep pointing to Social Security and Medicare as examples of successful government programs whenever someone points out that government doesn’t do anything very well. The nearly perfect record of dismal performance in federal programs is a key reason that critics doubt that the massively flawed rollout of health insurance reform lovingly referred to as “Obamacare” will eventually turn into a success.

Liberal commentator Juan Williams proudly notes how “popular” both Social Security and Medicare are, citing them as having received 70 percent support among those asked whether they like the programs or not. But just because lots of people like a given federal program doesn’t mean it is a beneficial or successful program.

It is certainly true that Social Security and Medicare are very popular and proponents vigorously oppose balancing the budgets of the two programs by reducing benefits. But, again, by the “popularity” standard, programs that create dependency like welfare, food stamps, and free cell phones are successes, too.

However, reality paints a far different, and much less rosy picture of Social Security and Medicare.

These programs are not giveaways funded by taxpayers, they are funded primarily by payroll taxes on employers and the employees who benefit from them. Even so, because of mismanagement and a failure to adapt to changes in demographics, both programs are broken and broke, running annual deficits.

This is the typical sort of success we find in “successful” government programs, and we have to wonder if there isn’t a better solution to most problems the government thinks it can solve. And the answer is, “yes, there is.” The private sector can do it better, as evidenced by multitudes of successes over our 230-plus-year history.

What too often happens is that when government sees the private sector not completely solving a problem, it thinks it can do better, and a new federal program is born. But the ultimate result is that the federal government does no better at trying to solve the problem than the private sector, and often does much worse.

In contrast to the self-funding process involving the beneficiaries of Social Security and Medicare, other programs give handouts to both those who need help and to those who really don’t need it, and these recipients pay little or nothing in taxes to support the giveaways.

These programs are rife with waste, fraud, and abuse, because government does not manage them efficiently. You can make a very good argument that government is inherently unable to manage these expansive programs competently.

Giving people money is one of the first priorities of politicians; it’s how they buy popularity, which translates to votes.

But as examples go, Social Security and Medicare, while intended to be self-sustaining without support from general tax revenue, are not examples of good government programs because they have been mismanaged and neglected.

Social Security began running a deficit in 2010, will run a deficit near $75 billion this year and the projected deficit will reach $344 billion in 2035 if something isn’t done. Social Security is beginning to fail in its ability to take care of seniors because government has failed to properly operate the program.

A panel determines Medicare reimbursements, a panel that meets in secret and relies heavily on the recommendations of the American Medical Association. Many doctors already do not treat Medicare patients because the low reimbursements don’t cover costs. Medicare providers have to balance low Medicare payments by shifting lost dollars to insured patients.

So that’s a brief glimpse into Juan Williams’ idea of successful government programs. Is this what the ACA also promises, or will it somehow be different?

Even if we believe the ACA is a good idea, even if it had been competently designed and implemented, and even if we overlook the disgraceful manner in which it was created and jammed through Congress before being read by the Democrats who enacted it, it is still a government program that supposes it will be more effective at running 18 percent of the nation’s economy, and one of the most important personal concerns Americans have, than the private sector.

And now $716 billion will be taken out of Medicare to fund Obamacare, meaning reimbursements and senior care will suffer, or the deficit will increase.

Obamacare attempts to do by force what Republicans attempted to do by choice through initiatives focused on the problem areas of the then-current system, and Democrats opposed and defeated those efforts.

Despite Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ phantasmagoric redefining the fines imposed by Obamacare as taxes, the U.S. Constitution did not intend for, and does not authorize government to commandeer one-sixth of the economy.

Those who think government is the answer to everything need to remember that the only reason there is a government of the United States of America is because the people – remember “of the people, by the people, and for the people?” – created it by assigning government limited powers in certain specific areas.

It is perverse in the extreme for the people now to be controlled by that which they voluntarily created.

Random thoughts on the passing scene

Some of those who think the American health care system needed to be trashed and reformed in the image of the Canadian system might be interested in the opinion of Bacchus Barua, a senior economist with Canada's Fraser Institute.

"Healthcare in Canada is anything but free," he states, noting that the average family of four pays more than $11,000 a year in taxes for hospital and physician care. However, he explains in an article for The American "surely such expenditure is justified if Canadians receive a stellar healthcare system in return for their tax dollars. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the case."

Specifically, he lists some problems with his country’s system:

** Canada has fewer physicians, hospital beds, and diagnostic imaging scanners, and performs fewer medical interventions than its American and European counterparts.

** Canada has one of the lowest physician-to-population ratios in the developed world.

** A recent survey found that Canadians must wait an average of about 4 1/2 months for medically necessary elective procedures after referral from a general practitioner.

** The wait for diagnostic imaging technologies like MRIs is over two months on average.

** Patients in Canada are likely to wait two months or more to see a specialist, six days or more to see a doctor when sick or needing care, and four hours or more in the emergency room.

** Due to the lengthy waits, about 40,000 Canadians leave the country for treatment elsewhere each year [like the U.S.].

** Public drug plans covered only about a quarter of the new drugs approved for sale in Canada between 2004 and 2010.

He concludes: "These realities serve to dismiss the mythical notion that a Canadian-style healthcare system" is highly desirable.

We are headed in that direction.

*****

During the mortgage banking crisis the federal government pressured large banks like JPMorgan Chase to take over the bad mortgage loans sold by failing banks Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns. Now the government is fining JPMorgan $13 billion for helping the feds deal with the crisis. Can you say “shakedown?”

*****

Planned Parenthood involves itself with topics other than planning parenthood on its Facebook page, discussing topics like why some types of sexual activity are painful, transgender issues, and promoting Obamacare. Not exactly family planning.

An article on the Internet site bighealthreport.com reports that on Planned Parenthood’s Facebook page for teens it answers the question: “Is promiscuity a bad thing?” and that the organization defended doing so with the statement, “there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a big number of sexual partners.”

Isn’t this the mentality that has led to 40 percent of our babies being born out of wedlock, and males with multiple children from multiple “baby mamas?”

This “advice,” such as it is, increases the likelihood of HPV and cervical cancer among females, in addition to STDs. “Even the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, considered ‘a person to be at direct risk for STDs if he or she had had two or more partners during the 12 months preceding the interview’ during one of their research studies,” Big Health Report said.

The article notes “a person with low self-esteem has been shown to engage in sexual relations earlier, and engage in riskier, unprotected sex with multiple partners.” Does that sound like “nothing bad or unhealthy” to you?

Seriously? This is what we get for $542 million in federal subsidies?

*****

The “government shut down” really amounted to about 17 percent of the government being “shut down,” and that is somewhat like going to a mall that has 100 stores and finding only 83 that are open for business. So, while things were uncomfortable for some folks, it bore no resemblance whatsoever to the government actually shutting down.

Of course, if the mall management blocked off stores that otherwise would be open, things would be more uncomfortable. No sensible businessperson would do that, but a petty, politics-dominated administration would, and did.

*****

The emotional push to raise the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour for those working the least skilled jobs in the fast food industry puts the spotlight on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics.

Advocates think the wage ought to be based upon concerns totally unrelated to the job and the business the job is a part of. “I flip burgers at Burger King, and can’t support my family on what I make, so raise the minimum wage,” is the mentality behind this ill-advised movement. In their mind, if a PhD. in English, mathematics, biochemistry, or any other field somehow ended up ringing up Happy Meals at MacDonald’s, the wage ought to be based upon his/her training, or some arbitrary “living wage” concept.

A job is worth whatever the employer says it is worth. Anyone who doesn’t like the wage is free to not take the job, or to look for a better one. If the employer can’t find people to work at the selected wage, he or she will have to raise it. Anyone who tries to find a better job, but can’t, needs to pipe down and do the job the employer allowed them to have until they can find a better one.

Happy “Deficit Day,“ America! The fiscal precipice grows closer

Each year the US Treasury Department collects trillions of dollars in taxes. Last year that amount was $2.449 trillion, and this year it is projected to bring in $2.902 trillion.

If we look at federal spending on the conventional Gregorian calendar instead of the fiscal calendar, as of last Wednesday the federal government had already spent all of this year’s income, and every dollar spent after Wednesday is money it doesn’t have and has to be borrowed. That is called deficit spending and Wednesday was Deficit Day, the day after which every government action is performed on borrowed money.

Since there was at the time more than three months left in the year, between last Wednesday and December 31 the federal government will spend about $10 billion each day that it doesn’t have, adding $900 billion more to the national debt. This is another year of profligate spending that bloats our already bloated national debt still further, pushing the total near the $17 trillion mark.

The Heritage Foundation created an example that puts our federal government’s fiscal irresponsibility in perspective: The median family income in the US is $52,000 this year. If the median family spent money the way the government does, it will spend $64,000 this year, meaning it would put $12,000 on a credit card, without any regard for the $312,000 in existing debt the family already has accumulated. Other than many politicians and bureaucrats, who thinks this makes any sense at all?

Our government has so much debt that it breaks down to just slightly less per American citizen than the aforementioned median family’s annual income.

President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress demand yet another increase in the debt ceiling, opening the way for even more debt, although they want you to believe it’s only for paying existing bills.

A recent Bloomberg poll shows that 60 percent of the participants believe Congress should require spending cuts before raising the debt ceiling, even if that puts the nation at risk of default, while only 28 percent think the increase should be granted without conditions.

But Congressional Democrats want no restrictions on spending, either now or in the future. That is the source of their influence with voters, hence their power to impose asinine laws like the Affordable Care Act on the American people, despite the people’s dislike for that law.

However, if spending limits do come about, projects like the $27 million to teach Moroccans to make pottery would have to go. And the highly important half-million dollar project to create a video game called “Prom Week” to enable Americans the relive their high school prom would be sacrificed. Maybe we don’t really need a $376 million renovation of the White House, and we will no longer be able to pay unemployment benefits to those 1,000 prisoners who collected weekly benefits over a four-month period, costing taxpayers $7 million.

You may argue that those examples of foolish spending and waste amount to pocket change, but the complete list contains many more examples, and we must remember that pennies here and there add up to dollars, and millions of dollars here and there add up to billions of dollars. More importantly: The government has no business doing any of these things, at any cost, ever.

And, with the end of the fiscal year upon them, federal departments, agencies and offices have been busy spending whatever is left in their budgets, fearing that if they don’t spend it all, they will get less next time.

Some examples from The Washington Post: “the Veterans Affairs Department spent more than a half million dollars for artwork, the Coast Guard spent nearly $200,000 on ‘cubicle furniture rehab,’ and the Agriculture Department spent $140,000 on toner cartridges in just one day.”

And, according to Fox News, “federal agencies last week spent money on junkets for Chinese wine connoisseurs, Christmas tree initiatives, radio ads promoting New Jersey blueberries, a maple syrup recipe contest and produced a YouTube video to instruct on the proper handling of watermelons.”

So much for putting the interests of the taxpayers first.

Raising the debt ceiling is tied to a government shut down: raise the debt ceiling and everything is fine. Don’t raise it and the government shuts down. By the time you read this, government either will or won’t have been shut down. Either way, the term “shut down” is so far from accurate that it’s dishonest to use it. The government will “slow down,” not shut down. Sure, it will be hard on some, and the longer it lasts the harder it will be, but it’s not the crisis the Democrats and the media want us to think it is.

But in order to make everyone think it will be the end of the world, they have sacrificed their elitist façade of “tolerance” in favor of name-calling. The same people who cringe at calling terrorists and jihadists “terrorists” and “jihadists” have no problem calling Republicans and conservatives terrorists and jihadists, as well as hostage-takers, extremists, anarchists, arsonists and racists.

It should be no surprise that yet again politics has elbowed out integrity and service.

Obamacare has been successful only in its ability to create chaos

Many people who have influence with President Barack Obama have gotten relief from the terrors of the Affordable Care Act we now know as Obamacare, but the great majority of the American people are still expected to follow the dictates of the healthcare “reform” law next month.

The administration’s announcement July 2 delaying the employer mandate was the first in a series of goodies provided to favored constituencies. And, about 20 percent of waivers went to gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, and fancy hotels in Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Cal.) district.

But as maddening as this discrimination is to us common folk, exempting Members of Congress and their staffs is far worse.

Under heavy pressure from Democrat leaders, Mr. Obama agreed to ignore the terms of the law that he pushed so hard for and now requires taxpayers to subsidize coverage for representatives, senators, and their employees to lessen the financial burden of Obamacare.

What a hardship these taxpayer-supported elected officials and employees suffer: The Office of Personnel Management reported that as of September 2012, the average salary for a full-time, permanent, non-seasonal government position was $78,467, and rank and file members of Congress make $174,000. The average American in the private sector makes less than $50,000.

It is possible for others to receive subsidies, too, and the key is income level. But, typical of this law’s rampant failures, there is no mandate to verify eligibility for a subsidy, virtually guaranteeing extensive fraud, and an additional expense burden on taxpayers.

Only about 36 percent of Americans have a positive opinion of the law, and now even Mr. Obama’s strong union supporters are calling for repeal or major repair of this debacle because it is decimating the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of unionized labor.

Throughout the debate over Obamacare, a major claim was that it would cover the 30 million people that at the time did not have some sort of health insurance, ignoring the fact that a significant number chose not to have insurance. However, the Congressional Budget Office says that over the next decade there will never be a point where the number of Americans who remain uninsured will drop below 30 million. In other words, the main reason for ramming Obamacare down the throats of 270 million people who were happy with their health insurance is a falsehood.

Other of the President’s promises also have been broken:

Promise: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”
Truth: As many as 30 percent of employers will stop providing their existing health care coverage, while many are reducing employee hours below the 30-hour/week full-time level, or are trimming total employees to fewer than 50 to escape the crushing costs imposed by Obamacare.

Promise: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.”
Truth: We now know that health care “reform” will cost a trillion dollars.

Promise: “I will protect Medicare.”
Truth: Obamacare ends Medicare as we know it by imposing, among other things, severe reimbursement cuts that threaten access to care for seniors.

Promise: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”
Truth: There are at least 12 ways that Obamacare will increase premiums instead of reducing health care costs.

Promise: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”
Truth: Obamacare includes tons of new taxes and tax hikes. One that began this year is the 2.3 percent excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices that will raise $20 billion by 2019.

It’s not that Barack Obama deliberately misleads; it’s just that so much of what he says isn’t true.

Few people now defend Obamacare besides the Congressional Democrats who participated in the dishonorable process of throwing it together, voting for a 2,700-page bill they had never read, and which had zero bi-partisan support.

Many believe that Barack Obama never really cared what was in the Affordable Care Act or if it ever makes it to implementation, and in fact wants it to fail miserably. And that’s because once it becomes law, replaces the prior system, and causes mass chaos, the stage would be set to move to a single payer, government healthcare system as the only way to fix the resulting mess.

In his worldview, socialistic/communistic systems are the solution to all the country’s problems, and that is how he wants to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

The best thing for the country is to repeal Obamacare and begin again to make the several relatively minor adjustments to the current system that should have been done several years ago. Short of that, delay implementation for everyone until the numerous problems can be addressed and repaired.

Neither is likely to happen, of course, because too many people can’t admit they made a mistake, or they truly want government controlled health care.

The New Modern Republican Party?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Perhaps the following is a big reason the Republican party, aka the Tea Party, is losing credibility.

Given Steve Lonegan's self identified "callous disregard" for presumably every conceivable (unfortunate) situation maybe the party of which he is a member should take a look at how the majority of Americans view his callousness, and by extension the callousness of the party he represents.

Only a blind person could shoot themselves (and their party) in the foot as thoroughly as this dunderhead.

Read the story HERE.

Via: Memeorandum

Gingrich Speaking Out, In Criticism Of His Own Party...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

I have not been a advocate of Newt Gingrich these past few years. I mean during his presidential campaign and all.

I guess though the guy deserves credit for having the capacity to work with Bill Clinton when he was Speaker of the House and Mr. Clinton was the President.

Now, during these times of rancor and discontent between brothers and sisters (conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats) Mr. Gingrich is advising his more recalcitrant Republican brethren to, well, can I safely say THINK?

The ex Speaker is sounding an quite a bit like, well, an elder Statesman chastising his own party for their lack of idea's nonetheless. Who would've thought?

I ain't no backer of the ACA has written and poured down our throats. But given the opposition party has come up with no alternative, other than repealing the ACA (and impeaching President Obama) I give the Speaker high fives for speaking out.

From CNN Politics here is some of what the Speaker had to say.

Former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich reprimanded his fellow Republicans in unusually harsh terms Wednesday, blaming GOP members of Congress for developing "zero" alternatives to President Obama's health care reform law.

Gingrich, who was speaking at the opening session of the Republican National Committee's summer meeting, fielded a question about "Obamacare" and recalled that Republicans were able to block Bill Clinton's health care reform effort in 1994 because they had "a positive alternative approach" to health care.

But Republicans today have nothing comparable to offer, Gingrich told nearly the 200 state party chairs, operatives and activists gathered in Boston for the conference.

"I will bet you, for most of you, you go home in the next two weeks when your members of Congress are home, and you look them in the eye and you say, 'What is your positive replacement for Obamacare?' They will have zero answer," Gingrich said.

Gingrich blamed the problem on Republican culture that rewards obstruction and negativity instead of innovation and "being positive."

"We are caught up right now in a culture, and you see it every single day, where as long as we are negative and as long as we are vicious and as long as we can tear down our opponent, we don't have to learn anything," Gingrich said, acknowledging the "totally candid" nature of his remarks..."

In a moment of candor that represented COMPLETE RATIONAL HONESTY, Mr. Gingrich summed up the MAJOR problem facing republicans and conservatives today. Whether or not it will have any impact remains to be seen. For all you reasonable conservatives, republicans, and libertarians now is the time to pressure your leaders in the House and the Senate as well as at the state level to do SOMETHING that can be seen as both POSITIVE and WORKABLE.

Continue reading Mr. Gingrich's remarks HERE.

Via: Memeorandum

Health Care vs. New-Autos

August 1, 2013
New-Car Sales Continue Strong Pace in July

“July car sales suggest that shoppers are willing to make their car purchases a priority over other goods,” says Edmunds.com Sr. Analyst Michelle Krebs.

But how far would shoppers be willing to go for a great deal? Let's compare how much shoppers are spending on health care and compare that to the amount shoppers are spending on new cars.

Click to enlarge.

The long-term trend is over! First, the exponential trend failed to the upside. Now it is failing to the downside! It can mean only one thing. Although shoppers recently made health care a priority (during the recession), they are finally permanently making new cars a new priority! It's about time! Hurray! Just say no to kidney operations!

Let's look to see just how much below the trend line we are. I'm using a 4-quarter moving average to smooth out the data.

Click to enlarge.

Oh, yes. That's totally sustainable. We're no doubt ushering in a whole new era of U.S. economic prosperity! I have never been quite so optimistic (except perhaps in 2000 and 2006 of course).

Reuters adds, “Monthly [car] sales are regarded as an early indicator of the U.S. economy's health.

In all seriousness, I'm just not sure that conventional wisdom has an accurate understanding of what it could mean. I'm not a well-respected economist with vast credentials, but I would argue that the hangover from binge buying could offer up some serious headaches again at some point. But hey, that's just me.

In related news, let's see if all this new found optimism will translate into more driving to JC Penney and Sears. The following chart shows long-term vehicle miles traveled per capita growth.

Click to enlarge.

Perhaps not.

Why do all the long-term charts I create look so painful? I must be very unlucky. I'll never get a guest spot on CNBC if I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong!

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart
St. Louis Fed: Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita Growth

Obamacare’s serious weaknesses driving even strong supporters away

Commentary by James H. Shott

Although Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) only recently acknowledged that the health care reform bill he helped create – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare – is a “train wreck,” most Americans suspected that at its creation.

Things are so bad that President Barack Obama, trying to prevent some of the disastrous results, did something he is not allowed by the U.S. Constitution to do: postpone implementation of part of the law by suspending the employer mandate until 2015 and leaving the rest of the law intact. The Executive Branch of our government is obligated to enforce the laws – all of them, and all of each of them – and does not have the power to choose which ones, or parts thereof, it will enforce.

The House of Representatives passed two measures delaying the employer and individual mandates for one year, with 35 and 22 Democrats respectively joining in those efforts, which Mr. Obama has curiously threatened to veto.

And more recently, one of Obamacare’s most devoted groups of supporters has jumped ship. In a letter to Democrat Congressional leaders, Teamsters union president James Hoffa, and the presidents of two other unions, said this: “Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

The law has already encouraged some employers to trim their staffs to fewer than 50 full-time employees to avoid the expense of the mandate, and in other cases to decide against providing insurance altogether, and pay a much cheaper fine.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama declared last week that "the law is working the way it was supposed to for middle-class Americans,” and criticized House Republicans for trying to dismantle it.

Polling data from five different polling organizations from mid-May through July 13 shows continuing disfavor among Americans, with the disparity of opposition-to-support running from as little as 5 points to as much as 15 points, and the Real Clear Politics average of the five polls at 10.2 points.

According to the Gallup poll from late last month, 42 percent say that in the long run the law will make their family's healthcare situation worse, and only 22 percent say it will make it better. And 47 percent believe the law will make the healthcare situation in the U.S. worse, while only 34 percent say it will make it better.

Republicans also are criticized for offering no alternatives while trying to dismantle the measure. “Three years after campaigning on a vow to ‘repeal and replace’ President Barack Obama’s health care law, House Republicans have yet to advance an alternative for the system they have voted more than three dozen times to abolish in whole or in part,” Sunday’s editorial in The Washington Post complained. That ignores, however, H.R. 3400 - Empowering Patients First Act, introduced in 2009 before Republicans campaigned for and won control of the House.

And now there is another, H.R. 2300 – the Empowering Patients First Act of 2013. Its principal sponsor is Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who sponsored H.R. 3400, and he has credentials for health care issues matched by few in the Congress. Rep. Price is also Dr. Price, a physician who actually delivered and understands patient care.

This measure allows patients, families and doctors to make medical decisions, not Washington, DC. That is an excellent place to begin improving health care. What a shame that wasn’t the driving factor behind the ACA.

“You can get folks covered, you can solve the insurance challenges, and you can save hundreds of billions of dollars in this health care system,” said the physician/Congressman, “all without putting Washington or health insurance companies in charge of those decisions that ought to be between patients, and families and doctors.”

How can H.R. 2300 – a bill of only 249 pages, less than a tenth the length of the monstrous Obamacare bill – accomplish this?

Rep. Price describes it as comprehensive legislation under which “every single American has the financial feasibility to purchase the coverage they want, either through tax deductions, or credits, or advanceable credits or refundable advanceable credits so that they can purchase the coverage they want for themselves or their families, not what the government forces them to buy.”

He says further that everyone owns their own coverage, like a 401k plan, so if they change their job or lose their job, they take their coverage with them, and it allows all of those with pre-existing conditions to pool together, giving them the purchasing power of millions so that no one person’s adverse health status will change the cost for anyone else, including that one person.

While H.R. 2300 has the great advantage of being properly focused on patients and physicians, trying to straighten out the voluminous failures of the ACA in one bill is a Herculean feat. Obamacare needs to be repealed in total, and as soon as possible, and then Congress must undertake a sensible approach to correcting the problems of the health care system without turning it over to the government.

Cross-posted from Observations

Daily news sites

Contact :

Histats

Do Social Security and Medicare show that Obamacare can be successful?

Random thoughts on the passing scene

Happy “Deficit Day,“ America! The fiscal precipice grows closer

Obamacare has been successful only in its ability to create chaos

The New Modern Republican Party?...

Gingrich Speaking Out, In Criticism Of His Own Party...

Health Care vs. New-Autos

Obamacare’s serious weaknesses driving even strong supporters away

Bitcon Trading

Postingan Populer

Blog Archive