What is Medicare for All?

So the increase in taxes would be less than the portion of premiums that a typical employee pays for employer-based insurance?

Do you have any numbers to support that? That is, the amount that a typical employee (non-union, if you prefer) pays — not including the company contribution — compared with that employee’s expected tax increase under M4A?

I think everything I’ve seen so far has been comparing the tax increase with the full cost of premiums (employee and employer contributions combined).


PVW said:

nan said:


 I think you win their majority support by fully informing them about Medicare for All. I really feel the big problem with getting people board with Medicare for All is misinformation.   The insurance lobby spends enormous bucks spreading lies and misinformation. The mainstream news, including the New York Times, manufactures consent against it. As the polls that I have shown indicate that when people understand that their benefits will increase and they will pay less and keep their doctors/hospitals, they want Medicare for All. How could they not?  Seriously, if you take away the insurance talking points about reduced care, waiting lines, not being able to see the doctor they want, etc.  there is no way people will not want M4A over what they currently have.  It's just so much better.  It sells itself. 

...


So, it's just a matter of informing people and having political leaders who believe in in hard enough? I'd find this line of reasoning more convincing if you could point to some actual instances of this happening. Again, since you're fond of citing other countries that are single payer, perhaps highlighting how one of them managed the transition would boost your case. After all, entrenched interests and misinformation are a feature of all societies, not just ours. How did other countries do it, and what lessons can we draw from that?

BTW, you made a factually inaccurate claim here:

As the polls that I have shown indicate that when people understand that their benefits will increase and they will pay less and keep their  doctors/hospitals, they want Medicare for All.

You have not shared a single poll that shows this, if "Medicare for All" is defined as "eliminate private insurance."

 In Canada, they have a bronze statue of the guy who brought them universal-care, Lester B. Pearson, which was later expanded further.  Pearson was able to do this despite not having a majority in the House of Commons.  I'm not an expert on the Canadian government, but here are some links on their healthcare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_B._Pearson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Canada)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine_in_Canada

As for a poll, I showed you the Morning Consult poll multiple times:

https://morningconsult.com/2019/07/02/majority-backs-medicare-for-all-replacing-private-plans-if-preferred-providers-stay/

I think we do need another poll where people are provided the big picture and detailed factual information. I would predict under that scenario, that the majority would be in favor of Medicare for All and would easily give up their private health plans.

The fact that there is little attempt to honestly inform citizens on Medicare for All, shows how invested the mainstream media is in keeping the status quo.  


nan said:

As for a poll, I showed you the Morning Consult poll multiple times:

FWIW, this is an example of your pattern. It has also been explained multiple times that a poll that asks about a plan “if it diminished the role of private insurers” is not the same as asking about a plan if it eliminated their role.


DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

As for a poll, I showed you the Morning Consult poll multiple times:

FWIW, this is an example of your pattern. It has also been explained multiple times that a poll that asks about a plan “if it diminished the role of private insurers” is not the same as asking about a plan if it eliminated their role.

 but I bet if we explain it one more time....


DaveSchmidt said:

FWIW, this is an example of your pattern. It has also been explained multiple times that a poll that asks about a plan “if it diminished the role of private insurers” is not the same as asking about a plan if it eliminated their role.

 The Morning Consult poll asks about both:

According to a Morning Consult/Politico survey conducted after the first Democratic presidential primary debates, support among voters for Medicare for All falls to 46 percent from 53 percent when respondents are told the government-run health system would diminish the role of private insurers — but rises back to 55 percent when voters learn that losing their private plans would still allow them to keep their preferred doctors and hospitals.

Now I know you are going to rub my face in this and say "Oh, nan, you did not read the fine print in the poll itself and see how they phrased the question and this is your pattern and everyone else always answers every question thoroughly except you because you are [insert something to make me seem unreliable]. 

And, in fact, in the poll it does say the question was framed,  "As you may know, during the Democratic presidential primary debates some candidates advocated for installing a ’Medicare for All’ that would diminish the role of private insurers but allow people to keep their preferred doctor and hospital. Would you support or oppose ’Medicare for All’ if it diminished the role of private insurers but allowed you to keep your preferred doctor and hospital?"  But, the writer of the article seems to feel people understood they would lose their insurance. 

Most importantly, as I explained in my last post,  this is as good as it gets because the corporate media has no interest in polling people in a very clear way so they will be more likely to vote for Medicare for All.  We are not going to get major polls that spend time educating people truthfully about Medicare for All vs. the current system and then asking them which one they prefer.  We have to take the best polls we have as a guide, but realize the phrasing of the question might well change the answer, so these polls, like all polls, need to be taken with a grain of salt.  

You can still make the case for Medicare for All because it offers the most coverage at the lowest price. and continue to get the message out.  


drummerboy said:

 but I bet if we explain it one more time....

 I thought you were for Medicare for All.


nan said:

We have to take the best polls we have as a guide, but realize the phrasing of the question might well change the answer, so these polls, like all polls, need to be taken with a grain of salt.

So when PVW says: “You have not shared a single poll that shows this, if ‘Medicare for All’ is defined as ‘eliminate private insurance.’” ...

... There’s no reason to reply: “As for a poll, I showed you the Morning Consult poll multiple times.”


nan said:

Most importantly, as I explained in my last post, this is as good as it gets because the corporate media has no interest in polling people in a very clear way so they will be more likely to vote for Medicare for All.

What about independent polling options outside corporate media? Do none exist, or are they, too, somehow motivated not to ask questions in a very clear way?


DaveSchmidt said:

What about independent polling options outside corporate media? Do none exist, or are they, too, somehow motivated not to ask questions in a very clear way?

 Interesting question.  How do these polling organizations work anyway?  Does someone pay them to run these polls?  Who forms the questions?  What is the background of the people who write the poll? Is an "independent" polling source really independent?

These questions and implied issues become immediately apparent when you look at the poll on the insurance industry lobby page (The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future’s (PAHCF) ). Surprise, surprise - they find that no one wants Medicare for All or even a public option.  Everyone loves their healthcare plans and just wants them to be a bit cheaper!  Wow, so glad this "objective" source found the truth. (Here's the full poll: https://americashealthcarefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PAHCF-LSG-Voter-Vitals-Survey-Analysis-FINAL.pdf

Here's the press release:

https://americashealthcarefuture.org/voter-vitals-new-national-health-care-tracking-poll/

VOTER VITALS – New National Health Care Tracking Poll

August 15, 2019

MEMORANDUM

TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Lauren Crawford Shaver, The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

RE: VOTER VITALS – New National Health Care Tracking Poll

DATE: August 15, 2019

Voter Vitals – a new poll conducted nationwide and in 2020 battleground states by Locust Street Group for the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future – finds that “[h]ealth care will be the defining issue of the 2020 presidential election. However, a clear majority of voters nationwide are primed to reject new government-run systems that will cost voters more to expand coverage like Medicare for All, the public option, and Medicare buy-in. Most voters want candidates to lower costs, build on what’s working and fix what’s broken – not start over.”

“A majority of Democratic, swing, and Republican voters are clear that they are not willing to pay any more in taxes for universal coverage. They’re looking for health care policies that lower rising health care costs more than anything else,” said Phillip Morris, Partner of Locust Street Group.

Key findings of the survey, which is the first edition of Voter Vitals, a new quarterly national tracking poll commissioned by the Partnership, include:
  • 60% of voters believe lowering COSTS for everyone is more important than providing universal coverage.
  • 64% of voters would be UNWILLING to pay ANY more in taxes for universal coverage.
  • More voters support FIXING what we have today (57%) than Medicare buy-in (48%), public option (44%), and Medicare for All (40%).
  • 68% of voters would rather BUILD ON our current health care system than replace it with something new.
  • 63% of voters believe PRIVATE COVERAGE should continue to exist and have a role in our health care system.
  • 70% of voters age 18-64 with private coverage would rather KEEP their plan than buy coverage through a public option.
Methodology:
  • N=1,000 voters nationwide plus n=500-voter oversamples in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio.
  • Balanced to U.S. demographics by gender, age, race, income, political ideology and health coverage.
  • Fielded online from July 19-25, 2019.
  • National MOE: +/- 3%; State OS MOE: +/- 4 percent.
To see Locust Street’s executive summary of the survey findings, CLICK HERE.

To read Locust Street’s complete survey analysis, CLICK HERE.


nan said:

Interesting question. How do these polling organizations work anyway? Does someone pay them to run these polls? Who forms the questions? What is the background of the people who write the poll? Is an "independent" polling source really independent?

What’s interesting is that you have those questions after already posting more poll results in support of your views than anyone else on MOL.


nan said:

drummerboy said:

 but I bet if we explain it one more time....

 I thought you were for Medicare for All.

 how you ask that question based on my post is way beyond me.


DaveSchmidt said:

What’s interesting is that you have those questions after already posting more poll results in support of your views than anyone else on MOL.

 I don't have those questions about the insurance company lobby. The results were just so predictable.  You have to worry though about how much of that is going on when the poll is said to be more objective. My research into public perceptions of Medicare for All has been quite the eye-opener. 

This is why I am always skeptical about polls Your statement about me "posting more poll results in support of my views than anyone else on MOL" is way off base, however,  That's more smearing, along with the you have a "pattern" pile on. I hardly post poll results unless specifically asked to, as I was above. Lots of requests for polling on the Medicare for All thread, though, so I am more apt to post it there.  My search for these has led me to know more about lobbying efforts against Medicare for All, which I have posted above.  It seems I am the only one doing actual research to support Medicare for All.  The rest of you seem to be fine with just doubting anything I post, even if you support it. 


drummerboy said:

 how you ask that question based on my post is way beyond me.

 Because you seem to be only interested in personally attacking me, not in discussing a topic. 


nan said:

drummerboy said:

 how you ask that question based on my post is way beyond me.

 Because you seem to be only interested in personally attacking me, not in discussing a topic. 

 Does "persecution complex" seem appropriate here? It's really getting out of hand,


At this point I'm starting to feel that we've raised the horse from the dead and sent it back. I don't see any evidence, in polls or otherwise, that a majority supports eliminating private insurance and Nan disagrees. Moving on.

Nan, you're pretty strongly opposed to the public option, and I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. I get that you think it is not as ambitious or comprehensive as single payer, but as I understand it you see it as actively harmful? Public option is the way forward that makes the most sense for me, so here's your chance to put me on the defensive (though as I've noted, it's less that I'm opposed to single payer and more that I don't see a political road directly from here to there, so no need to compare it to single payer; looking more to discuss the merits/demerits of the public option on its own).


Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Does "persecution complex" seem appropriate here? It's really getting out of hand,

Well, if you look over on the 2020 Candidate thread, drummerboy is posting speculation about my cerebral cortex, so there are two examples of his personal attacks.  Your personal attacks on my are also well-known.  How are you feeling about Medicare for All these days, by the way?  Care to contribute to the actual topic of this thread?  


PVW said:

At this point I'm starting to feel that we've raised the horse from the dead and sent it back. I don't see any evidence, in polls or otherwise, that a majority supports eliminating private insurance and Nan disagrees. Moving on.

Nan, you're pretty strongly opposed to the public option, and I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. I get that you think it is not as ambitious or comprehensive as single payer, but as I understand it you see it as actively harmful? Public option is the way forward that makes the most sense for me, so here's your chance to put me on the defensive (though as I've noted, it's less that I'm opposed to single payer and more that I don't see a political road directly from here to there, so no need to compare it to single payer; looking more to discuss the merits/demerits of the public option on its own).

There is other evidence for Medicare for All besides polls.  There is the number of people who remain uninsured under other plans, the number of bankruptcies due to medical costs, the poverty level, etc.  Also, rising costs, combined with healthcare profit.  Are the public option advocates able to say how much it will cost and how people who have lost their jobs will be able to pay for it?  With the public option, you are dealing more with "access" to healthcare, rather than healthcare being a granted right.

 The public option is also opposed by the insurance lobby, which surprised me, because I thought they would "settle" for that, given that the current system is undefendable, but no, when it comes to their bottom line, they have not problem defending it.  The PO was supposed to be included with Obamacare, but got dropped at the end. Lots of people who were for it then are not for it now when we have the possibility of Medicare for All. The biggest fear against it is that it is set up to fail and will act as a trojan horse.  Medicare for All creates one network with all doctors/hospitals.   The public option creates at least two networks, so people who want to keep their doctor/hospital might be disappointed there. The network for the option group will be burdened with the sickest patients; the pool itself will not be able to realize the costs from a one network system.  The theory is that this pool will overburden the option system and cause it to fail.  The failure will be picked up and publicized by the insurance company lobby as proof that the government can't run healthcare and that they are the only ones to trust.


nan said:

Are the public option advocates able to say how much it will cost and how people who have lost their jobs will be able to pay for it? With the public option, you are dealing more with "access" to healthcare, rather than healthcare being a granted right.

 I think that's exactly the kinds of details we'll see being debated if the public option becomes the Democratic policy strategy. I'd imagine the floor would be about where Medicare is now, and the "shoot for the moon" would be to have everything fully covered, and that there would be some pretty vicious fighting over what gets covered (though that would also be true in a "medicare-only" world too).

The PO was supposed to be included with Obamacare, but got dropped at the end.

Yup -- I find it notable that an idea that was on the left vanguard of the Democratic party in 2008 is now seen as the moderate or even right vanguard.

The biggest fear against it is that it is set up to fail and will act as a trojan horse.

You've made this claim before, and I confess I don't actually understand it. More details?

The network for the option group will be burdened with the sickest patients; the pool itself will not be able to realize the costs from a one network system. The theory is that this pool will overburden the option system and cause it to fail.

I would have found this a more compelling argument in 2008. After seeing how despite the delay (and final elimination of) the individual mandate the health insurance markets still largely stabilized, I'm less convinced. Also, I would expect that because both private and public health insurance would have the same requirements, cost rather than access would be a significant driver in whether people chose the public option. Ie, more expensive patients with private health insurance through their employer would by and large remain on that health insurance. People who are younger and healthier but are, for instance, free lancers, would choose the public options whereas previously they might have forgone insurance. I think that the PO population would probably be somewhat less healthy (and so more expensive) than the private market, but not prohibitively so.


PVW said:

I would have found this a more compelling argument in 2008. After seeing how despite the delay (and final elimination of) the individual mandate the health insurance markets still largely stabilized, I'm less convinced. Also, I would expect that because both private and public health insurance would have the same requirements, cost rather than access would be a significant driver in whether people chose the public option. Ie, more expensive patients with private health insurance through their employer would by and large remain on that health insurance. People who are younger and healthier but are, for instance, free lancers, would choose the public options whereas previously they might have forgone insurance. I think that the PO population would probably be somewhat less healthy (and so more expensive) than the private market, but not prohibitively so.

 Obama took lots of money from the insurance companies and so did lots of others and we ended up adopting Rommneycare rebranded as Obamacare.  Under Obamacare, 30 million people were still without healthcare and many more had deductibles so high, it was barely unusable.  Now that same care would cost even more and continue to rise.  That is not "largely stabilized."   That is a failed system.

In 2008, the public option was thought to be the best we could achieve.  We now see that differently and realize how duped we were.

The trojan horse claim is explained by both of us below.   The sicker group with the less desirable network overloads the PO, sends the price up too high to be affordable and fails.  The insurance companies say, "Oh look, we told you the government could not do this--it's a total failure.  You need US!"

The price of healthcare is already prohibitively high, so how is it not going to be that in the future?  It's going to be "access" to healthcare, not healthcare as a right.

And to think, instead of this mess, under Medicare for All we could have the entire country covered for way less money.  That's why I'm voting for Bernie Sanders.   He's on the side of ordinary people, not the big insurance companies.



nan said:

Obama took lots of money from the insurance companies and so did lots of others and we ended up adopting Rommneycare rebranded as Obamacare. Under Obamacare, 30 million people were still without healthcare and many more had deductibles so high, it was barely unusable.

Are you making any distinction between those covered under medicaid expansion and those under the individual market? It seems in talking about the public option, the more relevant comparison would be to the ACA's expanded government-provided insurance.

In 2008, the public option was thought to be the best we could achieve.

I agree it's a very different landscape than in 2008. The Public Option was the ambitious reach goal at the left vanguard of Democratic policy, and now it's the right edge of it. I think we can thank public advocacy for M4A (including Sanders), and ironically the GOP sabotaging of the ACA that revealed their utter bad faith in engaging in health care policy.

The sicker group with the less desirable network overloads the PO, sends the price up too high to be affordable and fails.

I get how that dynamic exists under the ACA, which is why there was the individual mandate, but I don't see how that applies with the public option. Why would only the sicker group go to the PO? Wouldn't PO be just everyone not receiving health care via their employer? I'm not seeing why that would necessarily skew strongly toward a sicker population.

The price of healthcare is already prohibitively high, so how is it not going to be that in the future? It's going to be "access" to healthcare, not healthcare as a right.

Since the PO would be medicare, the answer is the same as it would be under M4A -- ie, that will depend on what our legislators can agree on for what is covered and what co-pays or other fees will be charged.


PVW said:


nan said:

Obama took lots of money from the insurance companies and so did lots of others and we ended up adopting Rommneycare rebranded as Obamacare. Under Obamacare, 30 million people were still without healthcare and many more had deductibles so high, it was barely unusable.

Are you making any distinction between those covered under medicaid expansion and those under the individual market? It seems in talking about the public option, the more relevant comparison would be to the ACA's expanded government-provided insurance.

In 2008, the public option was thought to be the best we could achieve.

I agree it's a very different landscape than in 2008. The Public Option was the ambitious reach goal at the left vanguard of Democratic policy, and now it's the right edge of it. I think we can thank public advocacy for M4A (including Sanders), and ironically the GOP sabotaging of the ACA that revealed their utter bad faith in engaging in health care policy.

The sicker group with the less desirable network overloads the PO, sends the price up too high to be affordable and fails.

I get how that dynamic exists under the ACA, which is why there was the individual mandate, but I don't see how that applies with the public option. Why would only the sicker group go to the PO? Wouldn't PO be just everyone not receiving health care via their employer? I'm not seeing why that would necessarily skew strongly toward a sicker population.

The price of healthcare is already prohibitively high, so how is it not going to be that in the future? It's going to be "access" to healthcare, not healthcare as a right.

Since the PO would be medicare, the answer is the same as it would be under M4A -- ie, that will depend on what our legislatures can agree on for what is covered and what co-pays or other fees will be charged.

 Some people covered by the ACA got government subsidies that helped quite a bit.  Those people were the happiest with ACA, but lots of people were not able to get those because of income qualifications or the availability in some states.  The people who did not get the subsidies were the most unhappy, especially when they ended up with high deductibles, premiums, and co-pays.  Some people paid the penalty rather than get healthcare they could not afford.

The PO will be a less desirable option.  According to this article (https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/07/on-medicares-54-birthday/) it will just add another network on and not control costs (misses out on 84% of the savings).

Here is a summary of problems with the PO (https://bangordailynews.com/2019/08/22/opinion/contributors/public-option-plans-wont-fix-american-healthcare-system/?fbclid=IwAR1ODvh_THTFfS4M_1P7Homp5HrIxYPc7Wh4peuAukAnAxeXBIJFS9LAgTU):

Access: Most Americans feel that everyone should have access to good health care. There is no guarantee that a public option would do that, or expectation that existing “thin” plans would be improved. A single-payer plan funds good health care equally for everyone.

Health expenditures: As just one of many commercial, state, and federal plans, a public option cannot achieve the large-scale cost controls of a single-payer plan (provider and drug price negotiation, global hospital budgets, overhead reduction, bulk purchasing, etc.).

Waste: All the waste of our present system ( over $500 billion a year) would remain with an added public option. There would be duplication of competing plans with their own sets of benefits, eligibility requirements, and individualized premiums requiring sophisticated provider billing departments and a public option would not address run-away drug prices.

Cost: To make premiums low enough that people with individual or employment-based plans will switch to a public option, subsidies and tax credits would need to be generous. Because, savings will be few with public options, those funding their own health care individually or through work will have to pay additional taxes to fund others’ care. In addition, absent savings, benefits such as eye, hearing, and dental care could not be added to a public option plan without increasing taxes.\\

Point of service costs: Unlike the situation in single-payer plans, public options will still entail cost sharing (out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles), which have been shown to discourage care.

Complexity: Only the most sophisticated of health care consumers will be able to compare a new public option to their existing options and choose wisely.

Business burdens: Businesses that offer a health insurance benefit will find benefit management yet more complicated, and worker morale harder to maintain.

Job lock: Workers, in the case where their company chooses the public option and largely funds it, would still be victims of the job lock that keeps workers in a job for fear of losing their health care benefits.

Provider costs: With public options, provider and hospital billing departments will still have to deal with uncompensated care and collections, and will have their work further complicated by the addition of yet another payer. With single-payer plans, all bills would be paid; and billing costs would be greatly reduced from the current 20 percent of the budget.

Choice of provider: The number of providers participating in a public option will depend on the generosity of reimbursements, which requires generous funding. Therefore, the choice of providers may be limited. In a single-payer plan, thanks to reduced provider overhead and major savings system-wide, most providers would see little change in net income and would therefore participate.

In summary, public options not only do not address many of the problems in our multi-payer health care system, they actually aggravate them.

As you can see from this list, single-payer would be less desirable and therefore attract the neediest patients, driving costs up further.  It would eventually fail and be used as an example against government-run healthcare.

Here is a comparison sheet for Medicare for All vs The Public Option:

https://pnhp.org/system/assets/uploads/2018/06/sp_vs_publicoption.pdf

]


nan said:

 The PO will be a less desirable option. According to this article (https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/07/on-medicares-54-birthday/) it will just add another network on and not control costs (misses out on 84% of the savings).

It wouldn't be just another network, it would be a nationwide, government-funded network. And I don't see why it would be less desireable -- if you don't currently have insurance, or are currently purchasing your own insurance, then an affordable taxpayer-funded network seems like it could be pretty attractive.

On the article from the Bangor Daily News, I feel it takes the most optimistic case for M4A and compares it to the least optimistic case for the PO. I haven't read much about how different proposal for the PO would handle medicaid or other existing state or federal plans, but I'd expect the more ambitious PO plans to offer a national network. If that came to pass, then most of the points in that article seem to irrelevant -- you'd have a network large enough to drive cost savings and efficiencies of scale, and I don't see why it's reasonable to believe M4A would manage to offer higher quality care but Medicare under the PO would not.

Some of the other points there I don't understand their reasoning. Wouldn't "job lock" be less of a concern if you always have the option of getting the PO? Why would businesses find benefit management more complicated? Why are they so concerned about taxes with the PO, but somehow don't see that as a concern with M4A?

Maybe it'd be most constructive to choose what you think are the most important points and focus on those.


A preview of the general shape actual legislation might look like (assuming Democrats take the Senate):

4 Senate Dems shaping the future of health policy explain what they’re thinking

(Vox)


Family Medicine MD & Bernie Surrogate Debunks Med4All Myths



Oh good. Another video from a fringe source that nobody will watch.


jimmurphy said:

Oh good. Another video from a fringe source that nobody will watch.

 No, the woman being interviewed is a Sanders Surrogate, which means she is authorized by the campaign to present information truthfully. 

The fringe source for information on Medicare for All would be CNN/MSNBC/FOX/NPR/NYT/WAPO/PBS, etc.  These sources just spew insurance company talking points from the insurance companies that advertise on their sites.  

If you don't like propaganda then listen to someone who actually works for the guy who wrote the damn bill. 


nan said:

jimmurphy said:

Oh good. Another video from a fringe source that nobody will watch.

 No, the woman being interviewed is a Sanders Surrogate, which means she is authorized by the campaign to present information truthfully. 

The fringe source for information on Medicare for All would be CNN/MSNBC/FOX/NPR/NYT/WAPO/PBS, etc.  These sources just spew insurance company talking points from the insurance companies that advertise on their sites.  

If you don't like propaganda then listen to someone who actually works for the guy who wrote the damn bill. 

 she's "authorized" to speak "truthfully"?

You talk funny.


drummerboy said:

 she's "authorized" to speak "truthfully"?

You talk funny.

 It's better than saying she's Licensed to Shill.


drummerboy said:

 she's "authorized" to speak "truthfully"?

You talk funny.

 Yes, she will speak truthfully about what the Sanders' Medicare for All Bill says.  The mainstream media distorts what the bill says.  

I'm not saying she will speak universal truth for all, as you want to imply.


nohero said:

 It's better than saying she's Licensed to Shill.

 Again, you support a candidate who supposedly supports this bill.  Does not make me feel like you believe she does or that you want her to.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.