The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for March 19th, 2010

Video: 90 Seconds to Gov’t Run Healthcare

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2010

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

New England Journal of Medicine: 46% of physicians will consider leaving practice if ObamaCare passes – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2010

UPDATE II – The IBD Poll from September 2009 showed 45% would consider leaving the practice if ObamaCare passed.

UPDATE – A reader notified me that NEJM pulled the article with this survey off its web site and replaced it with a short piece and indeed they have. I wonder why they did that… Here is the link where it was published – – After doing some searches to find the old text I found that copied some of the text that was originally on the NEJM page HERE. As we have seen with climategate, academics are greatly influenced by peer pressure. In journalism this is what we call scrubbing. NEJM does not even have the ethics to put an editor’s note saying the article was scrubbed.

[Editor’s note – if a reader finds any other posts with broken links are links to info that look nothing like the quotes please let us know, scrubbing is becoming a bigger problem now that blogs and Matt Drudge can draw so much attention to hidden pieces of big news, we may have to implement a policy that we screenshot any page we link to in order to archive it just to combat the scrubbing problem.]

Here is the full survey that New England Journal of Medicine article referred to:

What if nearly half of all physicians in America stopped practicing medicine? While a sudden loss of half of the nations physicians seems unlikely, a very dramatic decrease in the physician workforce could become a reality as an unexpected side effect of health reform.

The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, conducted a survey of over 1,000 physicians to determine their expectations as to the impact of health reform on their practices, income, job satisfaction, and future career plans. In discussing career plans as part of the recruitment process, physicians have increasingly expressed apprehension and uncertainty regarding health reform’s impact on their practices, and The Medicus Firm wished to investigate this trend further. Additionally, the firm wanted to determine how doctors anticipate health reform to affect physician supply and the quality of medical care nationwide, as these are issues that will directly influence the physician recruiting industry. These factors are in addition to health reform’s more obvious impact on patients and providers of health care services. A total of 1,195 physicians from various specialties and career levels in locations nationally completed the survey.1The results from the Medicus Firm survey, entitled “Physician Survey: Health Reform’s Impact on Physician Supply and Quality of Medical Care,” were intriguing, particularly in light of the most recently published career projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS predicts a more than a 22 percent increase in physician jobs during the ten-year period ending in 2018. This places physician careers in the top 20 fastest-growing occupations from 2008 to 2018. Meanwhile, nearly one-third of physicians responding to the survey indicated that they will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented.

“What many people may not realize is that health reform could impact physician supply in such a way that the quality of health care could suffer,” said Steve Marsh, managing partner at The Medicus Firm in Dallas. “The reality is that there may not be enough doctors to provide quality medical care to the millions of newly insured patients.”

It’s probably not likely that nearly half of the nation’s physicians will suddenly quit practicing at once. However, even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to expand by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system. Based on the survey results, health reform could, over time, prove to be counterproductive, in that it could decrease patients’ access to medical care while the objective is to improve access.

Furthermore, even if physicians are unable to act upon a desire to quit medicine, there could be an impact in quality of care due to a lack of morale in physicians who do continue to treat patients despite feeling significantly stressed.

Skeptics may suspect that physicians exaggerate their intent to leave medicine due to health reform. Some experts point to the malpractice crisis of years ago, when many doctors also expressed a desire to leave medicine. Some did quit; many did not. However, health reform could be the proverbial “last straw” for physicians who are already demoralized, overloaded, and discouraged by multiple issues, combining to form the perfect storm of high malpractice insurance costs, decreasing reimbursements, increasing student loan debt, and more.

Do physicians feel that health reform is necessary? The survey indicates that doctors do want change. Only a very small portion of respondents — about four percent — feel that no reform is needed. However, only 28.7 percent of physicians responded in favor of a public option as part of health reform. Additionally, an overwhelming 63 percent of physicians prefer a more gradual, targeted approach to health reform, as opposed to one sweeping overhaul. Primary care, which is already experiencing significant shortages by many accounts, could stand to be the most affected, based on the survey. About 25 percent of respondents were primary care physicians (defined as internal medicine and family medicine in this case), and of those, 46 percent indicated that they would leave medicine — or try to leave medicine — as a result of health reform.

Why would physicians want to leave medicine in the wake of health reform? The survey results, as seen in Market Watch, indicate that many physicians worry that reform could result in a significant decline in the overall quality of medical care nationwide.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

CBO Updates and Reverses: ObamaCare will add to deficit – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2010

Kudo’s to Hotair for finding this explosive update so soon.

Via directly from

The exciting conclusion to yesterday’s post about what a shameless fraud the CBO numbers are. How do you slap a $940 billion pricetag on what’s actually a multitrillion-dollar bill? Well, as we’ve seen, the first thing you do is make sure not to start the program until almost halfway through CBO’s window of time for measuring how much it’ll cost. That cuts a trillion or two right off the top. But what if that still leaves you with budget deficits, thus crippling your sub-moronic talking point about how this massive new federal entitlement will save money over time?

Simple. You break the bill up and pass one of the expensive parts separately later. It’s come to this:

You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

Under current law, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services will be reduced by about 21 percent in April 2010 and by an average of about 2 percent per year for the rest of the decade. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and would restructure the sustainable growth rate mechanism beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost about $208 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (That estimate reflects the enactment of two short-term extension acts, which lowered the cost in 2010 by about $2 billion compared with CBO’s estimate of November 4, 2009.)…

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961 together with those two bills would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $10 billion less than the figure that would result from summing the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $10 billion difference occurs primarily because H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would modify how the government’s payments to Medicare Advantage plans are set.

Still waiting to find out that if that memo urging Democrats not to talk about “doc fix” is real or not, but you can see why it’s good advice either way. Not only are they hiding another $208 billion in costs, but their dishonesty in passing doc fix separately will cost another $10 bil that could be avoided by passing everything together. Except, of course, that trying to pass everything together would send “fiscally conservative” Democrats fleeing for the hills — not because they care about a trillion-plus pricetag, but because they care that you might care. Or maybe they don’t even care about that, given the way the votes are falling today. Add Suzanne Kosmas to the roll of the shame.

More to come tonight, no doubt, in a very special edition of the Friday evening news dump.

Update: Oh look, some more hidden costs discovered by CBO. Who’s up for another $50 billion on the hook just to administer this thing?

In its March 11, 2010, cost estimate for H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate, CBO indicated that it has identified at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of discretionary spending that might be involved in implementing that legislation. The authority to undertake such spending is not provided in H.R. 3590; it would require future action in appropriation bills. The attached table provides additional information about those authorizations.

Discretionary costs under PPACA would arise from the effects of the legislation on several federal agencies and on a number of new and existing programs subject to future appropriation. Those discretionary costs fall into three general categories…


UPDATE Associated Press weighs in:

On Friday March 19, 2010, 6:33 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget scorekeepers say a Medicare fix that Democrats included in earlier versions of their health care bill would push it into the red.

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.

The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately. Republicans say the cost should not be ignored. Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Busted: Democrat Memo Proves They Lied to Trick CBO on ObamaCare. UPDATE – Paul Ryan comments!

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2010

UPDATE – CBO Updates & Reverses: ObamaCare will add to deficit! – LINK

We always said that there was no way that they could reduce reimbursements by the numbers they are saying in the ObamaCare bill and have enough doctors to meet demand and now we have discovered this.

Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform. The plans undercut the party’s message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.

Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.

UPDATE IIAssociated Press weighs in:

On Friday March 19, 2010, 6:33 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional budget scorekeepers say a Medicare fix that Democrats included in earlier versions of their health care bill would push it into the red.

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.

The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately. Republicans say the cost should not be ignored. Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Health Care Bill Expands IRS

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2010

The Hill Magazine:

House Ways and Means Republicans on Thursday assailed a provision in the proposed health care reform bill under consideration this week. 

Subcommittee on Oversight ranking member Charles Boustany (R-La.) said the IRS provision in the bill “dangerously expands, in an ominous way the tentacles of the IRS and it’s reach into every American family,” he said today during a press conference. 

“This is a vast expanse of power,” he said. 

Boustany said the bill would allow the IRS to confiscate refunds if there are penalties for not buying health care. 

Lawmakers have questioned whether the IRS can handle the increased workload to oversee, administer and collect penalties for people who don’t buy health insurance. 

“This is increasing tax liability and tax scrutiny,” said Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.).

Ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said many Americans have already rejected the call for health care reform for other reasons and an expansion of the IRS should only add to call to “kill the bill.”

Taxpayers could be required to buy insurance under President Barack Obama’s reform proposal by 2014 or face penalties of roughly $325 per individual that the IRS would collect.

Assuming it becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform.

“We’re going to fight to the end to see that this does not pass,” Boustany said. 

UPDATE – CNS News confirms with their analysis – LINK

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Democrat Congressman calling Capitol Hill Police on constituents who oppose ObamaCare

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2010

So does Congress believe it is the peoples servants or our masters? Read this and you tell me.

Via Big

Yesterday, I decided to call Rep. John Garamendi’s (CA-10) office in Washington, D.C. He’s my representative and I wanted to voice my opposition to the Senate Health Care Bill. I spoke with a female staffer and politely told her that, while I support health care reform, I oppose the Senate Bill because it wasn’t true “reform.” She said the Congressman thinks it’s a good bill and that he campaigned on health care reform. I told her I knew that. I also mentioned that I voted for him. When I tried to give her specific reasons why the Senate Bill would harm our system rather than reform it, she refused to listen. She said she was very busy and hung up on me. Being the persistent person that I am, I kept calling back. Each time I tried to finish my point, she hung up.


I called one more time. This time she said, “If you call one more time, we will notify Capital Police.” I asked why my conduct warranted involving federal law enforcement agents. She said I was “harassing” her. I tried to explain that trying to convince a representative to change his or her vote didn’t constitute “harassment.” Before I could fully explain, she hung up again.

I called back. This time, I asked to speak to her supervisor in order to report her repeated hanging up as well as the threat she made. I was placed on hold. Thinking I was holding for her supervisor, I was shocked when a Federal Agent with the Capital Police picked-up the telephone.

At first, the Agent was curt with me. He claimed I was harassing Mr. Garamendi’s staff by continually calling after being told to stop calling. I asked him when it became a federal crime to lobby a congressman. He said that it wasn’t but it was a crime to “harass” congressional members and staff pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 223. I told him I was an attorney (which I am) and that I would research the statute he had cited.

After researching 47 U.S.C. 223, I called Mr. Garamendi’s office again and asked to be transferred back to the Capital Police Agent. The Agent picked up the phone and I explained to him that the statute he cited was not controlling since it only prohibits people from calling with the specific intent to harass. I further explained that I was simply trying to voice my concerns with the intent of getting Mr. Garamendi to change his mind, not to harass his staff. The Agent eventually agreed with my position and said he would call Mr. Garamendi’s office and instruct his staff that I was within my rights to call my congressman and voice my concerns.

After I hung up, I realized that this story should be told. Besides being an attorney, I’ve also had the privilege of serving this great country in the United States Marine Corps. Having seen the ugly legislative process the Senate Bill had been through, I saw this as not just another tactic to pass the Senate Bill at all costs, but also as an affront to our liberties.

While I’m fortunate enough to be able to legally challenge what happened today, others aren’t. The sad part is the democrats know this. They know that Americans unfamiliar with federal jurisprudence can easily be silenced when threats to involve federal agents are made. They know that most Americans don’t want trouble and they’ll go away rather than face the possibility of having to explain themselves to federal agents. That’s why I found this tactic appalling, as a Marine, as an attorney and as a proud American.

During my final contact with Mr. Garamendi’s staff, it was confirmed to me that he would vote for the Senate Bill no matter what. I was told that I was wasting my time by calling. Mr. Garamendi is a junior member of the House of Representatives. He was just elected via a special election last November. He has made it clear that he is willing to forsake his constituents in order to please the Speaker of the House.

Speaker Pelosi has said that she will stop at nothing to get the Senate Bill passed. She publicly stated that she would “pole vault over a wall” if barriers stood in her way. While that may be an amusing spectacle, it is indicative of what happened to me today. Apparently, threatening Americans with federal crimes to silence them is the latest tool in Speaker Pelosi’s dirty bag of tricks.

In the coming days, I’m sure more stories will develop illustrating the “win at all costs” tactics being employed by democrats. It’s these tactics that have appalled a majority of Americans to the point that the Senate Bill has overwhelmingly been rejected by the American people. When we try to explain that to Speaker Pelosi’s Caucus, we are threatened with criminal sanctions. We are told to shut up or face federal agents. Such treatment may be acceptable in the former Soviet Union, but it’s repulsive in the country I love and served. Is this hope and change?

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Caterpillar: Health care bill would cost it $100M

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2010

Chicago Trib, WGN, Dow Jones Business News:

Dow Jones Newswires | Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company’s health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan “because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees.”

Caterpillar, the world’s largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it’s particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.

The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

“We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors,” said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. “We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we’ve raised throughout the year.”

Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

“Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president’s proposal, meets these goals,” the letter said.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Budgeting Sleight of Hand On ObamaCare

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2010

Dr. John R. Lott:

At the beginning of the week, the Congressional Budget Office gave House Speaker Nancy Pelosi their estimates of the how much the health care reconciliation bill will cost. But Pelosi decided to wait days to release those numbers. For Democrats anxious to pass the bill, the delay has been extremely frustrating as Congress must wait 72-hours after the release of the CBO estimates before voting. They desperately wanted to vote before Sunday morning, when Obama leaves on his trip for Indonesia, Australia, and Guam. Naturally, Democrats want President Obama around to do any last-minute arm-twisting that might be necessary. Thus, the House would have had to release the CBO estimates by Wednesday night. They missed that deadline.

But, despite delaying the vote until after Obama leaves on his trip, Pelosi had good reasons for waiting to release the numbers. The CBO probably estimated the costs for the health care bill to be too high, probably over the magic one trillion dollar price tag, which she thinks means even more congressmen opposing the bill.

What is going on behind the scenes during this delay? Probably a lot of number crunching. Congressional Democrats have the CBO equations used to calculate expenditures and taxes and have spent the last few days changing different numbers in the bill to jimmy the total costs below a trillion dollars. Yet, no one really believes that the CBO equations accurately measure the costs of the health care bill to the government or to anyone else. Once one knows what costs the CBO counts and which ones are ignored, gaming these numbers can allow Democrats to hide huge parts of the bill’s costs.

Take the huge $500 billion cuts in Medicare. There is a big difference between the government’s costs and the costs for the system as a whole. Medicare and Medicaid already reimburse hospitals and doctors at rates that don’t cover their costs. Even lower reimbursement rates mean private insurers will have to offset those losses or hospitals and doctors will start losing money, with many going out of business. Cuts in Medicare pass the buck to private insurance companies, which pass the costs to private customers who pay higher premiums to cover the Medicare shortfall. And as costs rise, more and more of the insured will opt out of buying insurance. But the CBO estimates disregard this effect.

Even if the general public has not yet come to understand this cost shifting effect, doctors do. As private insurance will not pick up all the higher costs from government Medicare cuts, it means less money for doctors and hospitals as well. Basically everyone is going to suffer a little from the lowered Medicare reimbursements. This week, The New England Journal of Medicine released a survey of doctors, showing that 46.3 percent of “primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.” Not only will doctors leave medicine, but “27% [of physicians] would recommend medicine as a career but not if health reform passes.”

The health care debate has focused on reducing health care costs by reducing demand. In contrast, the supply side has largely been ignored. But health care is like other goods and services. Just as less gasoline means higher gas prices, fewer doctors and fewer hospitals means higher health care prices. But even if the reduction in the number of doctors is a fraction of 46.3 percent mentioned, say 5% or 10%, there will still significant increases in medical costs. Again, despite all the promises about how the health care bill will control medical costs, the CBO estimates completely ignore this impact of the health care bill on everyone’s costs.

The CBO also doesn’t deal with the ban on insurance companies charging different premiums based on pre-existing health conditions. This will raise the premiums for private insurance, too. Imagine what would happen if you could buy auto insurance right after you have had an accident and then be allowed to immediately drop coverage again once the car was fixed? People would wait until they got in an accident before they bought insurance, and insurance premiums would skyrocket. The “insurance” fee would be the price of what it costs to get the car fixed plus the administrative costs of handling the “insurance.”

The health care bill tries to fix this by fining people who don’t buy insurance. The fine will gradually rise so that by 2016 the annual fine will reach $750 per person without insurance. But this fine is way too small to make most people buy health insurance. In 2008, the average price of an individual insurance policy was $4,704 and it was $12,682 for a family of four, and it will be much higher in 2016. Thus most people will want to pay the $750 and then just sign up when they “need” insurance.

Despite repeated requests by Senator Tom Coburn and other Republicans, the CBO has not analyzed the effects of banning insurance companies from considering pre-existing conditions. There is a good reason Democrats do not want the effect to be known: the ban in the Senate bill will raise the cost of insurance and reduce the number of insured.

On Wednesday, in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, President Obama explained why he thought that his health care bill is necessary: “Well, if [the health care bill] doesn’t pass, I’m more concerned about what it does to families out there who right now are getting crushed by rising health care costs and small businesses who were having to make a decision, ‘Do I hire or do I fix health care?’ That’s the reason I make these decisions.”

Two things are certain. First, the health care bill is going to dramatically increase medical costs. Second, the CBO cost estimates, even if large, will not reflect the true total cost of the health care bill. The current political dance on gaming the CBO numbers so that Democrats can claim that the government health care takeover will cost less than a trillion dollars is a useless waste of time.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

ObamaCare Will Increase Costs, Reduce Benefits, Towers Watson Surveys Find

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2010

Business Wire:

“Although the status of legislative health care reform is currently in limbo, it’s clear that employers and employees alike are concerned over the potential impact reform could have on health costs and their benefit programs,” said Ron Fontanetta, Towers Watson Health and Group Benefits practice leader for Intellectual Capital Development. “While health reform could ultimately provide greater access to health care to more Americans, there is a fair amount of skepticism over whether health reform will be able to curb rising health costs.”

Some will have greater ACCESS to health insurance, some people will get some of their insurance paid for by the government and the young and those with preexisting conditions will be able to buy insurance only when they get sick, and drop it when done with hospital and doctor visits, but what will that do to the budget deficits, health insurance premiums and medical costs? Businesses see it already.

The Towers Watson – National Business Group on Health survey found that nearly three-fourths (71%) of employers believe health reform will increase the overall cost of health care services in the United States, while 69% believe it will increase the cost of their benefit programs. Additionally, more than one-third (35%) say health reform will lead to fewer employers offering subsidized benefits. Nearly half (46%) of employers believe it will decrease employer-sponsored offering of retiree medical benefits, while very few — only 5% — say it will increase, and just 27% of employers say it will cause no change.

“These survey data confirm quantitatively what many people — employers, employees and policy pundits — have been talking about for the past four months. That is, whatever else a health care reform plan might do, it is unlikely to control health care costs, which has everyone worried,” said Helen Darling, President of the National Business Group on Health.

Than there will be the race to the bottom, employers providing plans with good care now will be able to lower that care and say “see we are meeting the government required minimum coverage….

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Rep. Pence: “America, We Can Win This Thing”

Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2010

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »