March 11, 2010

Harry Reid (finally) shows some spine, basically tells Mitch McConnell and his insurance-company-funded henchmen to go F themselves

Maybe next he'll demand that the GOP actually fillibuster next time. You know, bring out the cots and see how long these coddled old white men can go. See if they can keep it up for a week or a month or a year.

Now THAT would be worth seeing.

Here's Droopy Dog Harry, giving corrupt piece of sh*t Mitch McConnell the bizness. And yes, even though I favor Reid on this one, I can't stand the both of 'em.

"Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class. Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority. Either way, we disagree.”

-Harry Reid, growing a pair, March 11, 2010


Dogcrap said...

Once upon a time you were once a man.

I'm sticking around to see what the elections do to you.

Charles said...

So Keith... Lemme gt this right...

You want the US Federal Government to FORCE every American to buy health insurance from a private entity? This is your idea of liberty? This jives with your Ron Paul supporting 2008 self?

Did you get kidnapped? Is their a gun to your head right now?

Seriously man... Whatever you think of the state of health care in this country, this is not a solution.

Especially considering the fiscal calamity that is far from over. I mean come on. Offer a reasoned argument at least.

edgar said...

There's no way in hell that Harry Reid gives a f$ck about the middle class. He is a fascist bankster maggot and billionaire brown noser.

Bukko Canukko said...

I seriously wonder whether the Repukes are playing the B'rer Rabbit "Oh please don't throw me in the briar patch" game, pretending they DON'T want something when actually they DO.

Because this "health care reform" bill is actually a fascist wet kiss for the ripoff health insurance industry. It will force tens of millions of people to pay their own money to insurance companies that don't do jack for them. The will give the health insurance vultures billions in subsidies to cover poor people. And there's nothing in it to prevent insurance companies from price-gouging BOTH of your eyes out if you have the balls to make a claim. Hey! Maybe they'll go after your balls instead of your eyes...

In short, it's EXACTLY what a Big Corporate Repiglickin' would like. And a Big Corporate Dimwitcrat like Reid and 2/3 of the other D-Senators would like too. I think ol' chinless McConnell is suckering the Dims with reverse psychology. Plus, when people twig to the "buy expensive insurance or the federal government will jump all over your ass" nature of this thing, it will be an excellent electioneering strategy for the R's this fall.

My question is, is Harry Reid stupid, or is he in on the game too? Either way, his ass is grass in the elections this year. Buh-bye, you wuss!

Mr Happy said...

"reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class

LOL - oh man Keith that's the funniest one I've hear in a while. I suppose technically you are correct. The immediate, higher taxes will reduce the deficit, for about ten milliseconds, then Congress will spend the money on more union payoffs and state bailouts. Middle class benefit? Sure, a good ass raping is something everyone needs to round out their life experience.

keith said...

So you complain that you have to buy car insurance?

You complain that you have to pay taxes?

Welcome to society. Anarchy isn't available, sorry.

Bukko Canukko said...

I don't complain that I have to buy car insurance. (Which, BTW, is offered by a government monopoly in the socialist province of British Columbia. The price ain't bad; it seems to pay off decently instead of trying to weasel out when you've had an accident, and because it's a monopoly, it doesn't subject me to endless inane TV commercials for different insurance companies.)

And I don't mind taxes. I'd prefer paying higher taxes for a socialized medical system like the ones in all other advanced Western nations besides the U.S. What I object to is when the government forces me to pay money to a private business that's not going to do squat for me. (Not me personally, since I'm outta there. Good luck, my formerly fellow Americans!)

Government using its power to help corporations, not the population -- that's Mussolini's idea of fascism. I'd rather take my chances with good ol'-fashioned socialism.

keith said...

And that's why there needs to be a public option in this debacle

Everyone should have insurance. If you can't afford it (i.e. poverty level), the government should provide it, like food stamps. If you can afford it, you must have it. If you choose not to buy it, then you get the government option, paid for via a tax when you file your return. If you bought private insurance, no tax. If you didn't, then you get hit with the tax, but you have the government option for the next 12 months. Or you could choose the government option up front.

And we're not talking premium insurance that pays for a tooth ache. We're talking low-cost catastrophic insurance, with a deductible of say $2000 or $5000. And the day-to-day health care that most people get today from an overpaid doctor or emergency room gets moved to private clinics in supermarkets and drug stores managed by nurses, paid out of pocket, but at such a low cost because of access and competition that in the end everyone saves.

And then we move on to the ponzi scheme of medicaid and medicare...

keith said...

And don't forget, almost all of you are buying insurance today. You think it's "employer provided" but it's not. It's being bought by you, in the form of reduced wages, and purchased by your middleman, your employer.

And for those of you who are self-employed or similar and are buying insurance on the open market, you're screwed because you don't have buying power. You will in the near future.

And for those of you without insurance, you're screwed. For now.

patrat said...

All points are moot at this time. It will pass and we will see what is in it.

Why Haiti and not Chile said...

Fellow Sashers;

If the following article doesn’t outrage you all then we are in seriously bad shape..

In my entire living life I’ve been fed that the poor people in Africa living in such dire conditions on arid land are being saved with bags of rice from the ‘caring international community’ UNICEF and Bono etc.

Something did not feel right all along cause these same organizations are always the first to defend tyrants, homicidal maniacs and the most corrupt oppressive rulers, and mostly cause things haven't gotten any better since they began 'helping them'.

Well, it appears that those poor children of Africa were actually living on land fertile enough to more then just sustain themselves..
But why teach them how to fish when you can just give them fish for a day, profit from their struggle and assure they will never compete with you on a level playing field.

Europe will not survive the coming meltdown, how sad that so much precious life was lost in the horrible 2000 years of their reign.

casey said...

I call bullshit on the idea of requiring everyone to buy insurance from these fucking crooked ass insurance companies.they can kiss my @ss.I will not pay these sob's one dime.

Anonymous said...

your ideas on HCR are just terrible! full of common sense, a twinge of hope for a good idea that would make life better for everyone... it will never get past congress! what are u thinking?

Charles said...

So you complain that you have to buy car insurance?

You complain that you have to pay taxes?

Everyone should have insurance. If you can't afford it (i.e. poverty level), the government should provide it, like food stamps. If you can afford it, you must have it.

While I still enjoy your site this is absolute BS. The absence of FORCED health insurance ain't anarchy, it's liberty. And when the hell did food stamps become a goof idea?

here's some real world experience. My grandmother and other are welfare moms. You know what food stamps allowed them to do? Have more kids and be less responsible. My grandmother had one job her whole life. but welfare paid for her house here in SoCal. But those handouts came at a price. She pulled all the equity out of her home over the years and is now going to lose it. That's the mentality welfare breeds.

I you are intellectually honest you can't be against corporate welfare but for personal welfare. Please visit the inner city LA, NY or Atlanta and see what welfare hath wrought.

And seriously dude WHY did you ever support Ron Paul? Your basically pushing Big Gubment solutions to overblown problems.

Because %10 of the populace is uninsured you wanna blow up the system by letting the folks responsible for Katrina and Iraq run it. Tell me your kidding.

And for the record I don't have health insurance right now. It's a risk I have to take for right now. However I would by the catastrophic insurance but CA doesn't allow those plans. Your Big Gubment at work. But Harry says buying insurance across state lines isn't a solution...

Anyway you support a socialist president and believe in an over reaching coercive government. that's cool we can still have fun trashing the FED together. though when the Pro Lifers who i normally despise kill this bill and the will of the people done when the Republicans get back the house in Nov I'm gonna have to give you a big fat I told you so. :-)

Anonymous said...

Is the real Kieth being held against his will?

Deucebag said...

Everybody knows you never go full retard.

borkafatty aka the pig said...

“Many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support. We will not. We will finish the job.”


Anonymous said...

Anyone who supports this and/or supports paying more taxes is not apparently pulling their weight.

Seriously, I am already paying more than the median income in federal, state and local taxes and cannot even afford a home where I live because of the bubble. yet, you asshats want me to pay more so that "the government" can provide able bodied people "that cannot afford insurance," with more free shit? Seriously, were you all dropped on your fucking heads when you were little?

And, yeah, I know all about the bailouts and the wars - I was and never for any of that spending. And, I am not against helping the treads and disabled that cannot help themselves. But these able bodied people and grannies and families that have stashed away grannies' money to get grannie in a state funded home can eat a dick - and don't think they are not out there - they are WAY more prevalent than you think.

Finally, providing insurance, grants and monies under the guise of making things more affordable NEVER lowers the fucking costs, but only provides a larger pool of money from which providers raise their costs! "Hey look, even more available money!"

Just look at how college costs have risen as a result of student aid, grants and guaranteed student loans! Remember in Housing Panic, we learned that providing low cost loans and/or giving loans to people with no more than a pulse, or providing grants and other housing allowances/incentives had the opposite effect of increasing home prices by the amount of the incentive provided?

You know this shit, so why are you acting all retarded?

That said, if YOU want to be the retard and provide people with "free" healthcare or "free" insurance, YOU AND YOUR RETARDED COHORTS are more than free to do so! Seriously, you and your retarded pals can go and pool YOUR money and start your own little healthcare coop - you and your pool of money can pay for all those that cannot afford it - but leave ME and MY money the fuck out of it!

Fine&Dandy said...

Glad you're back Keith.

Fine&Dandy said...

Give 'em hell Harry.

Anonymous said...


Realtor at work

-Andy Duf

Prisoner No. 6 said...

Actually Keith, anarchy and complete freedom from taxes is available to anyone who wants it.

For all those glibertarians who think that no government is the recipe to paradise, I offer on my own expense, to fund their one-way tickets to Somalia. Or Liberia.

There, they'll be free as they want to be. No taxman, no intrusive government. Just the logical results of the "I got mine, Jack/everyman for himself" mentality.

I've been offering this option for a long time to the dimwit who parrot the "government is best that governs least" canard. Strangely, nobody seems to have taken me up on it.

Maybe you can put a PayPal button up on S&A for the Anonycowards here who think healthcare somehow equates to Stalinist forced collective farms and the Holodomor.

Charles said...

I'd rarely go this far but...

Prisoner ^ You are a total MFing idiot!

Liberia and those other Africa sewers aren't libertarian paradises they are dictatorships with crony capitalist economies at best.

Your use of the term Glibertarian likens you to the progressive twits on daily kos, Balloon juice and other BLOGs of stupidity.

The sad truth is most of the populace lacks the understanding of human nature or the ethical clarity to embrace practical libertarianism, which has nothing to do with anarchy or a coporat dictatorship.

What it does entail is personal responsibility, the maximum liberty in the context of a functioning society and (to succeed) the type of critical thinking that you apparently lack.

If 10,000 soldiers would lose there lives but the liberty of the nation would be protected the easy and correct choice is it must be done.

If 10% of the nation must not have health coverage, or 3% go hungry to protect economic and personal liberty (which are THE SAME)the hard (but equally correct) choice is it must be.

Their is no legislating of Utopia. people need to pull head out of ass and nderstand this before we truly do slide into some Orwellian nightmare. It wouldn't happen overnight, but these things rarely do.

Angry Leprechaun said...

Reid said, "Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority. Either way, we disagree."

I hate republicans and I am calling bullshit.

Keith this is a very interesting article, and is one I think anyone should read before they decide which side they are on during this healthcare debate.

Keith, you are claiming the Republicans are bought out by the insurance companies. Are you sure the Dems aren't?

Keith you used to search for more truths in matters, but since your hate for Republicans is so great, and rightfully so, you are relying too heavily on the Dems.

Read the article Keith it is fucking brilliant.

Angry Leprechaun said...

I don't complain that I have to buy car insurance. I complain that so many people do not. Why would i purchase something that cost so much money and not have insurance for it.

BTW Bukko you nailed it in your first post. These healthcare bills have been written by the insurance companies. They want to be paid for flu, abortion, cough, heart attack, prostate cancer as if you recieved treatment for every possible medical condition known to man every year. The insurance companies are going to make a killing on this.

Angry Leprechaun said...

"And don't forget, almost all of you are buying insurance today. You think it's "employer provided" but it's not. It's being bought by you, in the form of reduced wages, and purchased by your middleman, your employer."

And my wages are going to be further reduced when fucking idiots like Obama decide how I or my employer spend the hard earned fucking money.

keith said...

Angry Lep, arguing who is corrupt - the dems or the reps - is a moot point

our congress is bought and paid for. you name the group. trial lawyers, insurance companies, the reic, the military industrial complex, the cigarette companies, should i go on?

that said, I think it's pretty evident that the GOP is more corrupted by corporate interests than the Dems. Not that it matters much.

the solution? vote ALL incumbents out in 2010. And then do it again in 2012. And again in 2014. And again in 2016. And again in 2018...

No exceptions.


Angry Leprechaun said...


Read the damn article I provided. You said wich started this post that you agree with Harry. I am simply pointing out why you should not.

keith said...

Lep, read the article

I agree with Reid that the GOP is being hypocritical when it comes to reconciliation and also the fillibuster. They're a joke, and it's plain to see.

when it comes to healthcare, I don't see it as a "right". I see catastrophic health insurance as something everyone who can afford it must have, for the benefit of society. That's very different.

Similar to auto insurance. Anyone who wants to drive must have it. If you don't, you should be penalized. With health insurance, you should be encouraged to buy it, and if you don't then you should pay a higher tax to have it. No more freeloading.

but that's why there needs to be a public insurance option too, to true up the for-profit companies.

Anonymous said...

Blaming the insurance companies for this mess is as stupid as blaming Medicare.

These people want me to pay for their overpriced health care. If you want me to pay for your health care, you can go somewhere cheap. Forget this $180 every time you have a runny nose. It should cost less than getting the oil changed in the car.

I'd rather give everyone that needs money $2500 in a health savings account and a catastrophic care plan that includes a death panel.

Until the consumer feels the prices directly, they will never come down.

keith said...

Finally, a sane voice

Got a cold? Kid got the flu? Then go to Walgreens' nurse, get your $10 out of your pocket, and go home.

No more corporate health insurance plans paying $250 to a doctor to ask you to stick out your tongue and look in your ears.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Once people start paying for healthcare out of their pocket, things will change.

Agent #777 said...

Reduce the deficit how?

Benefit WHAT middle-class?

Give me the answers to those questions, and I will consider the remarks relevant!

'Ole Harry just wants to be remembered for something before he gets voted out this fall.

Anonymous said...

High deductible health plans with HSA's and a separate hands off account for the deductible.

If you don't gots one, then you don't gets no earned income creditses, welfares, grants, food coupons, etc.

Seriously, this shit has got to stop. Same with corps, no more bailouts or monies.

Think about this - 50% of the population is currently working to support 100% of the population.

Of those 50% that are actually working, less than 50% of those employed by the private sector.

So, what this means is that less than 25% of the population supports the remaining more than 75% of the population , i.e., the 25% in the private sector works to make money to pay for the other 50% not working as well as the salaries of the more than 50% of workers working in government.

This shit has to stop.

Angry Leprechaun said...

Ok, you read the article right, can you tell what you learned from it?

Dont make me call you a fucking idiot and don't put me in a position where I have to defend the damn Repubtards to make my point.

Your car insurance analogy is all wrong as well. The car insurance you are obligated to purchase is to protect everyone elses property and life should you cause an accident.

Let us apply this to healthcare now. If the auto insurance companies were to lobby to Washington for reform what do you think they would ask. They would ask that all insurance including insurance to cover your own property and ass needs to be purchased by every American. Why would they do this? To line their own pockets. This is exactly how the cards ore being played on health care and the Dems are the enabler. You are too hateful torwards the repubs, rightfully so, to see the truth abpout the Denms. Congrats you are now a lemming.

How does this sound familiar. The health insurance companies are pushing for this because they know they are going to get more money. This asshole Reid you defending, is bought and paid for so his buddies can get more money. I think the Repubs are bought and paid for as well, and they are putting on a good show so the rest of the public argues this like a bunch of lemmigs Keith.

I am not arguing that some of your ideas on health care are not good. What I am saying is you are defending Reid who is defending a bill that has no parallels to your line of thinking on the issue.

Time to wake up, and realize that the repubs mught not be the ones bought and paid for here.

keith said...

Very Angry Lep - this post was about Reid brassing up and calling McConnell out for being a hypocrite when it comes to using reconciliation

Then it morphed into healthcare

We can debate health insurance, and how we address the problem of the federal budget and family budgets being consumed by health care expenses, and the corruption of congress and the influence of insurance companies, but first and foremost, can we agree that the GOP leaders are hypocrites when it comes to reconciliation?

Now, assuming we agree on that, the government won't be 'forcing' anyone to buy insurance. but they'll be incentivizing people to do that, for the overall benefit of not only the taxpayers (due to the expanded base) but to the individual as well (who will now have access to healthcare)

the BIG problem with this as you correctly state is that without a public option, this is a big wet kiss to the private insurance companies. and there you have the root of the problem

but the corrupt dems and the corrupt reps are combining to make sure a public non-profit option doesn't come about.

And that's one more reason to vote every incumbent out of office in 2010 and 2012.


VectorzSigma said...

Deadbeat realtors are pathetic. You know that idiot who hoaxed the Prius incident in San Diego? Yup - a realtor

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be nice to make your links clickable?

You just know nobody looks at that shit(who's not a masochist.)

Prisoner No. 6 said...

Their is no legislating of Utopia. people need to pull head out of ass and nderstand this before we truly do slide into some Orwellian nightmare. It wouldn't happen overnight, but these things rarely do. (sic)

Ah, Chicken Little raises his voice. Here's a thought: go back to watching Glenn Beck, and twisting and clenching your fists in fear and anxiety at the thought of the Great Big Bad Gummint coming to emasculate you by taking your guns away. For some reason, it seems to make you freaks happy to imagine doom & gloom scenarios; if we check in your shitter, will we find a tattered copy of "Left Behind" on the toilet tank?

What you dismiss as "dictatorships" are, in actuality - not. There is no central control of anything in Somalia. Dictators, by definition dictate. As in rule. As in, someone's in charge.

Somalia, Liberia, these other hellholes - nobody is in charge. It's Hobbes' Leviathan. Go ahead. Check it out on Wikipedia.

The point is, this is what the logical extension of your theories leads to. You don't want to pay taxes. But you want to enjoy the benefits of a free and safe society. You reconcile these conflicting desires by relying on the canard that government is inefficient, and misappropriates resources to the lazy and the unfit (more on this in a bit).

I won't attempt to argue from the point of view of making the correct, moral, humanitarian choice. Experience has taught me that that does not work, because libertarians really don't give a shit about anything or anyone else.

So here's something even an utter clinical narcissist can appreciate. From a purely utilitarian point of view: providing a minimum of catastrophic health insurance to all citizens of the U.S. will at least keep desperate people (many of whom used to be in the middle class, at least until the Reaganomics hollowing out of our economy via repeated tax cuts for the ultra-rich began to bear its long-term fruit) out of hospital emergency rooms.

Those same emergency rooms that will, some day, be used by you or some member of your family. A small amount of money spent on caring for a person at a critical juncture in their lives can keep them healthy enough to return to the work force, rather than becoming a net drain on the system. If you doubt the efficacy of such measures, I encourage you to look up and study the history of Kaiser health care. I assure you, big business did not start providing health care to its workers out of any sense of moral obligation. It was because doing so decreased the number of sick days and increased productivity.

I doubt that any sort of logic, however, will change your mind. Your frequent misspellings and tortured syntax betray your intellectual and educational level.

Your listing of the necessity of writing off 3 or 10 or any percentage "for the greater good" ... I wonder what color the faces are of the people you so blithely condemn as "excess population."

You are Orval Faubus, with a slightly different rap, Chuckles.

Randy said...

Keefer, you gotta admit that Reid is THE un-coolest guy to walk the earth in 100 years.
But he does deserve credit for his strict daily push-up regimen.

The most fun he ever had was that time when he ate a Tuna salad sandwich on Rye instead of Whole-wheat ……..what a rebel.

Look folks if you don’t want to pay for your doctors Mercedes and McMansion on the river,
Only competition can lower the cost and create incentive for advancing our understanding of the body.

Randy's rant

Bukko Canukko said...

First of all, Keith, do Poms really say "cheerio" any more? None of the Brits I worked with ever uttered the word. I thought that was like "G'day" was in Australia -- yesterday's slang that's as outmoded as "groovy" is in the U.S. now.

Secondly, I agree 100% with your prescription for a public option to compete with private insurance. It would set a floor under health insurance costs to keep the bastards at the corpos honest, and prevent poor people from dying of preventable sickness like they were living in some Third World dirthole.

In Australia, they had all sorts of medical clinics where you could rock up and see an MD for a reasonable fee that you paid out of your own pocket. If you wanted to go to a fancy one, where you had your own doctor instead of getting the next one who had a slot free at a walk-in clinic, then you'd pay more. If you were a "battler" (Aussie slang for "working poor") you could go to one who did "bulk billing" (i.e. got only the low rate that the government paid him or her. Not the greatest doctors, not as good service, but sick poor people still could get medical care.) The system WORKED, and it was much like you recommended.

Taking it further, I think there should be "public options" in lots of things, to keep corporations honest. Like gasoline stations. Have the federal government run some no-frills operations, managed by low-paid bureaucrats. Then you'd know you were getting an honest price, not something that was jacked up by market-manipulating corporations who had to gouge in order to pay for the executive Learjets and CEO's $10.6 million salary.

It would set a price floor so people would know they were getting a fair deal. The government stations wouldn't be selling soda or offering car washes or "double airline miles" deals with purchases -- just selling straight petrol. For cash only. No point cutting the credit card bandits in on the action. The government could even set the prices so that the stations would make a PROFIT, which would reduce the overall amount of taxes the government would need to collect.

Similar things are already happening in the U.S. Several state governments run their own liquor store chains. North Dakota has its own bank run by the state government. That's where all the state tax payments go, and the government bank offers things like student loans at rates that beat greedy commercial banks. The state bank is one reason why North Dakota's budget isn't in the same
trouble as so many other states.

For any "free market" fanatic still reading this thread an screaming "unfair socialism!", you mean to say your vaunted private enterprise couldn't compete with the government? Private enterprise couldn't say "We'll have the quickest service, cleanest bathrooms, best locations for the stations" whatever? If corpos can't beat the government, they deserve to die.

Speaking of dying, I commend Charles for being honest enough to say what most Glibertarians won't admit. He thinks it's just fine if Americans get sick and die from sicknesses they could be cured of. They have the "liberty" to die if they're poor or they were too pig-headed to buy health insurance.

You call it "liberty" if 10% of the nation (that's 30+ million people) drops dead because they're uninsured, or 3% (that's 10 million people) die from starvation, eh Charles? Stalin labeled unwanted people as "enemies of the state" when he was letting the Ukrainian kulaks starve during his deliberate famines, Charles. What do you call the Americans who you'd glibly dispatch in the name of "liberty" -- perhaps "parasites of the state"?

With an American-hating philosophy like yours, I can see why your keep your Blogger profile hidden, mate.

Mike Hunt said...


I'd agree with you on having a catastrophic insurance option and offering a non-profit public option.

The other thing we need to to break the monopoly of the AMA setting the number of doctors who are minted each year. Let supply and demand set the number and don't have a monopoly body cap it.

And allow for the creation of the low cost clinics for minor ailments like a cold or flu.

Unfortunately the fix offered doesn't address the major problems. Therefore it's better to re-write it than try and compromise and vote on this leglisative pile of garbage.

No vote for this and vote out all the incumbents.


keith said...

Denninger on buying into medicare:

Anonymous said...

This HCR is not perfect, but it is a start in the right direction. There are VERY FEW systems that should lean 'social'. We already have a social education (K-12) system and parts of old age care (medicare, social security, etc). And, these are very good things (not perfect.) Health care is an area where we truly need government protection - I would rather have a bureaucrat looking over my health care than a for profit company with quarterly results on their minds.

Angry Leprechuan said...


Hold on! First you said, "the government won't be 'forcing' anyone to buy insurance. but they'll be incentivizing people to do that" Hugh?

And second you said,"the BIG problem with this as you correctly state is that without a public option, this is a big wet kiss to the private insurance companies." I never said I agree with a public option. We are obviously going in circles.

The bottom line is I do not want the government to and its corruption to be helping supply competition to anything.

keith said...

Angry - you don't get arrested if you don't buy insurance. The government isn't forcing you to do anything.

Like buying a house or having a baby - the government doesn't 'force' you to do it, but if you do you pay lower taxes

Comprendo, si amigo?

Anonymous said...

Single Payer Universal Coverage.

It should be a binding moratorium. Let the taxpayers vote on it.

Angry Leprechaun said...

Sorry Keith,

There is no way that is an incentive, and the fact that you are taxed if you do not buy it is not an incentive. Find a better incentive than fuckinmg with taxes , ding ding ding, get he governement out of the fucking way.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...