Thursday, December 24, 2009

British Emergency Room patient has to wait 32 DAYS as NHS target time is exposed as a sham

Labour's A&E waiting-time target was exposed as a sham last night after it was revealed hospitals were fiddling the figures. No one is supposed to wait more than four hours in hospital casualty departments before being treated - but patients are waiting far longer and one was not treated for 32 days.

Evidence collected by the Tories shows that hospitals often put patients in curtained-off 'emergency assessment units' - where they are still waiting but do not count towards the A&E target because they are technically no longer on the ward. People are waiting an average of 17 hours in these units. Emergency units are mixed-sex and often do not contain proper beds: just trolleys. Critics say they are being used as dumping grounds so hospitals can 'stop the clock' and hit the admissions target.

The Tories have pledged to scrap Whitehall targets, but fear that this will lead to a return to long waiting times. While no one in the NHS waits for more than 18 weeks for treatment; under the Conservatives waits of 18 months were not uncommon.

Conservative health spokesman Andrew Lansley said: 'Labour complacently claim that they have abolished long waits for patients being admitted to hospitals, but these figures show that all they have really done is fiddle the figures. 'The reality is that in some cases, patients are being left in often inappropriate wards for days and weeks at a time. It is unacceptable and has to change. 'Labour's insistence on forcing doctors to focus on ticking boxes ahead of looking after patients means that more time is spent on devising elaborate schemes to satisfy the bureaucrats rather than making sure unwell patients get better. 'We need to get back to the drawing board and once again put patients at the heart of the NHS, not Labour's targets.'

The Tories used the Freedom of Information Act to find that in one case, a patient was kept for 32 days in an admissions unit at the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals NHS foundation trust. The trust declined to say why the wait lasted so long.

Other patients are shunted off the four-hour target clock by being moved to medical assessment units, which always have beds but are still usually mixed-sex. Average waits here are even longer, at 22 hours. One patient was held in one of these units for 24 days. The Tories say the scandals are occurring because the number of hospital beds have been slashed over recent years.

Health minister Gillian Merron said: 'The reality is that the overwhelming majority of patients are seen in A&E within three hours, well within the four-hour standard and a major improvement from 12 years ago. 'The figures presented are misleading and have been deliberately combined with those of assessment units - where patients who need further observation or investigation before a diagnosis can be made are treated.


British Coroner furious after a grandmother dies in 'burning agony' following NHS injection blunder

A grandmother died after 'gross failures' by NHS doctors who injected her lungs with a chemical that was ten times the recommended strength, a coroner ruled today. Rosemary McFarlane, 64, spent ten days in 'burning agony' after receiving the lethal dose during what should have been a routine procedure. The caustic chemical, phosphate buffered saline, burned the inside of her lungs.

The hospital's usual supplier had run out of the PBS fluid and a pharmacy was asked to provide the solution. It was bought over the internet by a junior pharmacist, who mistook '10x' on the label to mean ten bottles of the liquid rather than its super-strength concentration, an inquest heard. At that strength it is used for preserving tissue samples in laboratories and is unlicensed for use on the living.

Coroner Aiden Cotter launched a stinging attack on staff at Heartlands Hospital, in Birmingham. Addressing the workers at Birmingham Coroner's Court, he said: 'I have dealt with far too many deaths from NHS hospitals in recent years. 'We hold out our arms and trust medical professionals to inject things into us and the thought some people do not check something that could kill us is appalling. 'You hold our lives in your hands every day when you are at work when people need to act professionally. Too many people are unprofessional.' He added: 'There are many people working in the NHS who are hard working and professional, but there are a significant number who are not. 'The failures made by the doctors and the pharmacy team are gross failures. I consider they have sufficient causal connection to the death of Mrs McFarlane.' He recorded a narrative verdict with neglect as a contributing factor.

Mrs McFarlane, a mother of four and grandmother of five, from Kingshurst, Birmingham, was admitted to the hospital with pulmonary fibrosis, a lung condition which affected her breathing, on August 12 last year. The housewife's illness was serious but not life-threatening when medics decided to conduct a routine bronchoscopy to investigate the problem by pumping fluid into the lungs. It was then removed along with lung tissue samples to be sent for analysis.

A nurse administered the solution after asking the physician, Dr Aden Mansur, if it was 'OK'. Dr Mansur told the inquest: 'This was used as a mere replacement, I was not aware there are different strengths. 'I was under the impression there was only one bottle of PBS to be used.' He said he did not see '10x' on the front of the bottle and would not have known its meaning.

Mrs McFarlane's daughter Ann Marie Tranter said: 'The pain was so bad that she was crying with agony and she told us that it felt like her chest was burning.'


Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare

The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels

If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read. It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote. On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.

Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate. To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.

How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:

DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”

The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply. Senator DeMint responded:

DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

DEMINT: then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can redefine them. thank you. and I do yield back.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.

More here

Senate Set To Pass Medical Overhaul, But Hurdles Remain

Senate Democrats have achieved a major victory in the health care overhaul, yet major differences over abortion and the public plan option remain between the Senate and House. Just after 1 a.m. Monday, Majority Leader Harry Reid got the 60 votes he needed to end debate on the Senate health care bill. "The Senate took another historic step toward our goal of delivering access to quality, affordable health care to all Americans," he said.

Final passage of the bill requires 51 votes and is all but guaranteed. The vote is expected Thursday. The Senate and House bills then go to a conference committee in which House and Senate negotiators will try to iron out the differences in the two bills. "There are serious differences between the two, and not the kind that can be easily put aside by saying, 'This is such an historic moment, let's get health care done,'" said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

What makes the process more difficult is that some liberals are unhappy with what the Senate produced. "Speaking as a progressive voice in this debate, the House bill is superior to the Senate bill in almost every respect," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future. "We'd prefer to see the major shortcomings in the Senate bill rectified."

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., threatened to vote against ending debate until he struck a deal with Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., over abortion language. Under the compromise, government premium subsidies are segregated from private money so that no taxpayer dollars pay for abortion. Further, every state will have the option of banning insurance plans that provide abortion coverage from their insurance exchanges.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., called the compromise "unacceptable in a number of ways." Stupak succeeded in adding an amendment to the health bill with tougher language that prevents any federal dollars from going to pay for any part of any plan that covers abortion. He did suggest that there was room for a compromise with the Senate.

The House bill passed 220-215, leaving little margin for error. Forty-one Democrats who voted for Stupak's amendment also voted for the House bill, including Stupak. "I would certainly prefer Stupak over the Senate," said Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa. "But the only thing that will get me to vote against the bill is if it were to add to the deficit."

Altmire, a member of the moderate-conservative Blue Dog Caucus, voted against the House bill, but might change his mind. "The Senate bill is a much better bill on cost containment," he said. "I would be much more favorable toward that bill if it were the final product."

Some liberals thought the Senate abortion part went too far. "The language included in the Senate's manager's amendment still raises many questions. I am concerned that it appears to go beyond current law," Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said in a written statement. "I look forward to working toward a satisfactory resolution in the conference between the House and Senate."

"It will be a very long and contentious conference, given the fact that it has taken this long to pass separate bills in both the House and Senate over issues that are now at odds such as abortion, the public plan, and the financing source," said James Capretta, a senior fellow at the conservative Ethics & Public Policy Center.

The House bill contains a public plan that will negotiate rates with providers. It was the product of intraparty fighting between moderate Democrats who prefer no public option and liberals who want one base on Medicare rates. The Senate couldn't resolve such conflicts, so the Senate bill has no public plan.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., co-chairwoman of the House Progressive Caucus, has called the Senate bill a giveaway to private insurance companies. "It does not have a public option to control costs," she said in a news report. "By providing low-cost competition, the public option would have forced insurers to rein in the spiraling costs of premiums."

The Progressive Caucus has 81 members, all of whom voted for the House bill. Some observers think it won't be a crippling issue. "It's an ideological fixation that the left has," Cannon said. "They'll be upset, but they'll suck it up and vote for something without the public option."

The one Senate member of the Progressive Caucus, Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., threatened to vote against the Senate bill unless it included a public plan. He relented when Reid agreed to include an additional $10 billion for community health centers.

Even some on the left think the politics in the Senate will cause House liberals to fold. "I don't want to admit that it's impossible to get a public plan," said one prominent liberal activist who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I've been fighting and will continue to fight for a public option. But in order for a bill to get 60 votes in the Senate, it will be very difficult if a public option is in the bill."


A Parody of Leadership

By Robert Samuelson

Barack Obama's quest for historic health care legislation has turned into a parody of leadership. We usually associate presidential leadership with the pursuit of goals that, though initially unpopular, serve America's long-term interests. Obama has reversed this. He's championing increasingly unpopular legislation that threatens the country's long-term interests. "This isn't about me," he likes to say, "I have great health insurance." But of course, it is about him: about the legacy he covets as the president who achieved "universal" health insurance. He'll be disappointed.

Even if Congress passes legislation -- a good bet -- the finished product will fall far short of Obama's extravagant promises. It will not cover everyone. It will not control costs. It will worsen the budget outlook. It will lead to higher taxes. It will disrupt how, or whether, companies provide insurance for their workers. As the real-life (as opposed to rhetorical) consequences unfold, they will rebut Obama's claim that he has "solved" the health care problem. His reputation will suffer.

It already has. Despite Obama's eloquence and command of the airwaves, public suspicions are rising. In April, 57 percent of Americans approved of his "handling of health care" and 29 percent disapproved, reports The Washington Post-ABC News poll; in the latest survey, 44 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. About half worried that their care would deteriorate and that health costs would rise.

These fears are well-grounded. The various health care proposals represent atrocious legislation. To be sure, they would provide insurance to 30 million or more Americans by 2019. People would enjoy more security. But even these gains must be qualified. Some of the newly insured will get healthier, but how many and by how much is unclear. The uninsured now receive 50 percent to 70 percent as much care as the insured. The administration argues that today's system has massive waste. If so, greater participation in the waste by the newly insured may not make them much better off.

The remaining uninsured may also exceed estimates. Under the Senate bill, they would total 24 million in 2019, reckons Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But a wild card is immigration. From 1999 to 2008, about 60 percent of the increase in the uninsured occurred among Hispanics. That was related to immigrants and their children (many American born). Most illegal immigrants aren't covered by Obama's proposal. If we don't curb immigration of the poor and unskilled -- people who can't afford insurance -- Obama's program will be less effective and more expensive than estimated. Hardly anyone mentions immigrants' impact, because it seems insensitive.

Meanwhile, the health care proposals would impose massive costs. Remember: The country already faces huge increases in federal spending and taxes or deficits because an aging population will receive more Social Security and Medicare. Projections made by the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 suggested federal spending might rise almost 50 percent by 2030 as a share of the economy (gross domestic product). Since that estimate, the recession and massive deficits have further bloated the national debt.

Obama's plan might add almost another $1 trillion in spending over a decade -- and more later. Even if this is fully covered, as Obama contends, by higher taxes and cuts in Medicare reimbursements, these revenues could have been used to cut the existing deficits. But the odds are that the new spending isn't fully covered, because Congress might reverse some Medicare reductions before they take effect. Projected savings seem "unrealistic," says Foster. Similarly, the legislation creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program that's supposedly paid by private premiums. Foster calls it "unsustainable," suggesting a need for big federal subsidies.

Obama's overhaul would also change how private firms insure workers. Perhaps 18 million workers could lose coverage and 16 million gain it, as companies adapt to new regulations and subsidies, estimates The Lewin Group, a consulting firm. Private insurers argue that premiums in the individual and small group markets, where many workers would end up, might rise an extra 25 percent to 50 percent over a decade. The administration and the Congressional Budget Office disagree. The dispute underlines the bills' immense uncertainties. As for cost control, even generous estimates have health spending growing faster than the economy. Changing that is the first imperative of sensible policy.

So Obama's plan amounts to this: partial coverage of the uninsured; modest improvements (possibly) in their health; sizable budgetary costs worsening a bleak outlook; significant, unpredictable changes in insurance markets; weak spending control. This is a bad bargain. Benefits are overstated, costs understated. This legislation is a monstrosity; the country would be worse for its passage. What it's become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama's self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of "universal coverage." What it's not is leadership.


Legislating Discrimination - One more reason to oppose Obamacare

What’s the worst bill ever seriously considered for passage by the U.S. Congress? Certainly both the House health-reform bill and Sen. Harry Reid’s health bill are leading contenders.

Both proposals are obscenely expensive. Both limit our freedom to choose our families’ health care. And both would legislate racial and other forms of discrimination — making them not only unconstitutional, but immoral, counterproductive, and dangerous.

Within the last three months, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has twice sent letters to the president and the leaders of the House and Senate warning them of discriminatory provisions in both bills. But those warnings have been ignored, and the problems remain.

Take Reid’s bill. It directs the secretary of health and human services to award federal grants worth billions of dollars to educational institutions that train medical-service providers. However, “priority” for federal dollars is to be given only to those institutions offering “preferential” admissions to underrepresented minorities (according to race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and religion, depending on which section of the bill you look at). Thus, schools will be unable to compete for essential federal funding unless they adopt admission policies that intentionally and deliberately discriminate. It guarantees the institution of racist and sexist quotas sanctioned and encouraged by the federal government in what Linda Chavez of the Center for Equal Opportunity correctly calls “a new racial spoils system.”

The bill also declares that institutions training social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, behavioral pediatricians, psychiatric nurses, and counselors will be ineligible for federal grants unless they discriminate. According to Section 756, these programs must enroll “individuals and groups from different racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic, religious, linguistic, and class backgrounds, and different genders and sexual orientations” and demonstrate “knowledge and understanding of the concerns of the[se] individuals and groups.” If the schools fail to abide by these requirements, they will be liable for “liquidated damages.”

The Senate bill even creates a federally funded and administered medical school called the United States Public Health Services Track to “grant appropriate advanced degrees.” Priority in admissions is to be given to “students from rural communities and underrepresented minorities.” (“Underrepresented minorities” is liberal code for “Asians need not apply.”)

Naturally, other sections of the bill require lots of data collection regarding race, ethnicity, sex, and so on. Those data will be used to implement quotas of all kinds and put providers at risk of being sued. For example, the data will help trial lawyers pursue “disparate impact” cases against physicians and hospitals — even if the differing health outcomes of patients have nothing to do with actual discriminatory treatment by providers. One provision even requires the secretary of health and human services to consult with “representatives of racial and ethnic minorities” about the content of promotional labels or print ads for drugs. Racial politics is poised to trump scientific accuracy in drug labeling.

In general, the bill reflects two articles of faith prevalent on the left: (1) that discrimination is perfectly acceptable when practiced in favor of certain minority groups; and (2) that racial disparities in health outcomes arise because doctors and patients don’t have the same racial or ethnic or cultural background. The latter is, of course, nonsense. As the Civil Rights Commission said succinctly, the assumption that “racial health disparities are caused by a shortage of medical professionals of particular races misdiagnose[s] the problem and may well exacerbate it.”

Ethnic and racial disparities in health outcomes are caused by a variety of factors, including minorities’ greater dependence on Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, which is notorious for providing poor-quality care. For blacks, disparities also emerge because, in the words of the Civil Rights Commission, “as a population, black patients use different doctors, clinics and hospitals than white patients.” Unfortunately, “the doctors who treat black patients . . . are less likely to be highly credentialed.” One study found that “blacks tend to live in parts of the country that have a disproportionate share of low-quality providers.” At those hospitals, “both whites and blacks tend to receive low-quality care, but since blacks are overrepresented in such areas, the quality of the hospital will cause an overstatement of the role that race plays.”

In, sum, the kind of care you get — and your individual health outcome — is determined by your doctor’s skill, not by his race or “cultural sensitivity.” Unfortunately, the Democrats’ health-care legislation will force medical institutions to hire based on race and sex, not qualifications, and to lower their admission standards, which will lead to even more “low-quality” doctors. Medical students admitted based on lower qualifications generally perform more poorly on licensing exams.

Race-based admissions end up endangering patients — such as those treated by Patrick Chavis, one of whom bled to death due to Chavis’s medical malpractice. Chavis was the black applicant admitted to the University of California at Davis Medical School even though he had much weaker academic qualifications than Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was rejected from the school and subsequently was the plaintiff in a famous Supreme Court case. Chavis eventually lost his medical license because of his gross negligence, incompetence, and “inability to perform some of the most basic duties required of a physician.”

Instead of helping ensure all Americans access to high-quality medical care, Harry Reid’s bill seems intent on populating the medical community with more bad physicians like Patrick Chavis. The bill’s discriminatory provisions are both unconstitutional and immoral. Over time, they will erode the quality of patient care. That’s no way to “reform” our health system.


Obamacare Slaps $15,000 Annual Fee on Middle Class Families

The Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the final Senate health care bill indicates it would slap a mandatory annual fee of about $15,000 on middle-class families that earn an annual income greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) and are not provided with health insurance by their employer.

On Dec. 19, the CBO sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., analyzing the fiscal impact of the bill the Senate is poised to vote on before Christmas. The CBO analysis cites five basic facts about the bill that acting together would deal a devastating financial blow to many middle-class families if the bill is enacted and enforced as written. Here are these facts:

Fact 1: You will be forced to buy health insurance.

Page 1 of the CBO's letter to Reid says, "Among other things, the legislation would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance"

Fact 2: You will be eligible for a federal subsidy to help you buy health insurance, but only if you earn less than 400 percent of the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four), your employer does not offer you coverage and you purchase a government-approved plan in a government-regulated insurance exchange.

Page 7 of the CBO's letter to Reid says: "The bill also would establish new insurance exchanges and would subsidize the purchase of health insurance through those exchanges for individuals and families with income between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. ... As a rule, full-time workers who were offered coverage from their employer would not be eligible to obtain subsidies via the exchanges."

Fact 3: Your employer will not be required to offer you coverage, and will face a maximum fine of $750 per worker per year if it does not.

Page 7 of the CBO letter to Reid says: "In general, firms with more than 50 workers that did not offer coverage would have to pay a penalty of $750 for each full-time worker if any of their workers obtained subsidized coverage through the insurance exchanges; that dollar amount would be indexed."

Fact 4: Your insurance provider will face new federal mandates that will increase its cost for any plan it offers you.

Page 7 of the CBO's letter to Reid says, "Policies purchased through the exchanges (or directly from insurers) would have to meet several requirements: In particular, insurers would have to accept all applicants, could not limit coverage for pre-existing medical conditions, and could not vary premiums to reflect differences in enrollees' health."

Fact 5: Your family insurance plan -- if your employer drops your coverage and you are forced to buy it on your own -- will cost about $15,000 per year when the legislation is in full force in 2016.

Page 19 of the CBO letter to Reid says the average premiums for insurance plans under the final version of the bill should be "quite similar" to the estimates the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation made in a Nov. 30 letter to Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.: "Although CBO and JCT have not updated the estimates provided in that letter, the effects on premiums of the legislation incorporating the manager's amendment would probably be quite similar." Page 6 of the CBO's letter to Bayh said: "Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal."

The Senate health care bill gives employers two powerful incentives to stop offering health insurance coverage to their workers. First, if an employer does offer coverage, its lower-wage workers will lose the federal insurance subsidy they would otherwise get. Secondly, if an employer does not offer coverage, the $750-per-worker fine it faces will be far less than the premiums it would pay if it did offer coverage.

Where does this leave a mom and dad with two children and an annual income greater than $88,200? It leaves them without employer-based health insurance and facing a federally mandated $15,000-per-year insurance bill.

If this legislation is not stopped now, there will surely be a popular rebellion when the insurance mandate hits in five years.

When that happens, the liberals will not say: We made a mistake. We never should have forced families out of their employer-based health insurance and required them to purchase a $15,000 policy. They will say: We told you so. We cannot trust these greedy insurance companies. We need a single-payer system so the government can provide everyone with health care. Just like they did in the Soviet Union.


No comments: