Page 1 of 282 123451151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 4227
  1. #1
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,347

    Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    It's coming.. It'll be mandatory.. it's gonna cost a f*cking fourtine... and he is looking to stuff it down our throats before the majority notice he has no way to pay for it other than raising taxes and cuts in Medicare and Medicaid which are also underfunded. Lets see what captain bullsh*t had to say about exactly what he is planning on doing during the election..



    Getting Punked On Health Care Reform

    Although the Democratic health care reform proposal currently in Congress is not final, two key elements are emerging as to how the government will pay for the trillion dollar plus price tag: Taxing private insurance benefits, and cutting hundreds of billions in Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

    Taxing private insurance and cutting benefits were the two things Obama said during the presidential campaign that he would not tolerate in health care reform, and he ripped into John McCain for supposedly planning just what the Democrats are about to propose:


    Legislation to be outlined next week in the Senate Finance Committee will likely include a new tax on workers with the costliest employer-provided health coverage, officials said Friday, but with implementation delayed until 2013 to minimize any political fallout.

    Officials familiar with internal deliberations said the leading option under consideration by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, would mean higher taxes for workers whose family coverage costs $15,000 a year or more in premiums paid by employer and employee combined.

    The provision could generate hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade to help pay the $1 trillion or more the Obama administration has estimated is necessary under its plan to extend health care to millions of Americans who lack it. Cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending are expected to make up much of the rest.

    If the final bill follows this formula, and if Obama signs it, Obama and the Democrats will have violated fundamental campaign promises. I know, you've been punked:
    How are they planning on getting it passed? They same way Mr. Hopenchange does everything else.. deception & lies:



    Video: The Public Plan Deception

    The guys at Verum Serum strike again with this new video of Democrats and their think-tank allies talking about the real goal of the “public plan” in ObamaCare, the new health plan getting rolled out in Congress this month. The White House says the plan will “keep private insurers honest,” but it seems the dishonesty comes from the Oval Office and Capitol Hill:

    The people who designed this approach were very honest about it, as you can see in the above video. None of them talk about “keeping private insurers honest”; instead, they’re openly scornful of private insurance and want to rid us of them as soon as they are politically able to do so. The one couldn’t even bring himself to call the public plan a Trojan Horse, so obvious is its intent.

    The entire premise of the public plan, as designed by its originators, was to crowd out the private insurers by undercutting them on price. After all, the government can take losses on the plan for as long as they need to drive everyone else out of the market. Once that process completes, voila! Single-payer remains as the only option.

    Time to get on the phones and start telling your Senators and Congressment to vote no on the public plan. We will start next week on The Ed Morrissey Show. Get ready for some activism.


    &

    House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes (Update2)

    June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.

    Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. The measure’s cost is reaching well beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a 10-year down payment for the policy changes.

    Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.”
    Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.

    House Democrats plan to release their legislation next week. Obama is working with Congress to get legislation to his desk by October.

    Democrats in the House and Senate are crafting legislation that would require all Americans to have health insurance, prohibit insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions and place other restrictions on the industry.

    The legislation would establish online exchanges for individuals to purchase insurance and would require employers to provide health benefits to workers or pay a penalty. Some Democrats also are backing creation of a government-run program to expand coverage to the uninsured. The issue is the subject of bipartisan negotiations with Republican who oppose the so-called public option.

    Rangel said Democrats are still considering options for tax increases that might be in the bill, including a possible end to the income tax exclusion for employer-paid health benefits.

    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is considering a proposal to apply income taxes to health-care plans if they are significantly more expensive than the basic health plan for federal employees -- $13,000 for a family of four.

    Rangel said House Democrats want to avoid the deeper cuts to projected spending under Medicare and Medicaid that Obama has been putting forth. House Democrats want to achieve cost-savings by cuts in payments to private insurance plans under Medicare.

    Covering the Costs

    Obama has pledged that health-care changes won’t add to the deficit. To accomplish that, he’s proposed getting about $600 billion by reducing tax deductions available to the wealthy, and by trimming Medicare payments to insurance companies.

    That won’t be enough to cover the overhaul costs. Obama said this week he plans in the coming days to disclose more proposals for raising “additional sources of revenue.” In a letter last week to Senate Democrats drafting legislation he said he will be proposing between $200 billion and $300 billion in further Medicare and Medicaid cuts.

    Obama plans to give a speech Monday in Chicago to the American Medical Association as part of his campaign to build up support for what could be the biggest changes to healthcare policy since Medicare was established in 1965.

    Rangel said that while House Democrats will likely release more details about health policy changes in their legislation next week, the package of offsetting tax increases and spending cuts likely will come later. Democrats, he said, want to put forth the more-positive aspects of an overhaul first. Rangel also wants to let lawmakers have time to study and weigh in on proposed offsets.

    “We have a problem in not wanting to attract enough negative attention to the bill in terms of the pay-fors,” he said. “Let them get a good feel for the coverage.”

    To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net
    I wonder if that bucket of KY we're all gonna need will be covered by the "new" plan..
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #2
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,678

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    ^^^ And Baucus (D) [spl?] has a bill that will tax health insurance EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED BY UNIONS.

    On the selfish side, yeah, our health insurance is from the teachers' union, but come on, how friggin' phony is that?

    Its just like selective car dealers getting the shaft, bond holders getting stiffed over unions, etc., etc. The list of this crap is getting far too long.

  3. #3
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,347

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ And Baucus (D) [spl?] has a bill that will tax health insurance EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED BY UNIONS.

    On the selfish side, yeah, our health insurance is from the teachers' union, but come on, how friggin' phony is that?

    Its just like selective car dealers getting the shaft, bond holders getting stiffed over unions, etc., etc. The list of this crap is getting far too long.
    Ya.. I posted that BS up about unions being exempt yesterday. I'll have to find the link and get it in here also... here we go..

    Health Care: “Special Interest Democracy”

    It may be hard to believe [/snark], but it appears when Democrats speak of “fairness” they define it in their own special interest kind of way.

    Take the talk about taxing your private health care benefits (something adamantly opposed by Obama during the campaign).

    Originally it was going to be everyone. But other Democrats complained mightily to Senate Democrats who were considering such a tax to pay for the conservatively estimated 1.5 trillion necessary to pay for “health care reform” (PAYGO? HA!). So they modified it a bit - tax the “rich” - those who had the best of coverage. Always a popular populist fallback, Sen. Dems were sure that would work.

    Alas it was soon discovered that a huge number of those holding “Cadillac” health care policies were unions. Yes, the special interest group in the pocket of the Dems (and vice versa) would be heavily hit by such a tax. As you might imagine, they were not happy.

    Solution - drop this bad idea?

    Of course not. Instead exempt the unions, you silly person:

    Mr. Baucus officially floated his plans for a tax this week, only with a surprising twist: His levy will not apply to union plans, at least for the duration of existing contracts. In other words, Mr. Baucus intends to tax the health-care benefits only of those who didn’t spend a fortune electing Democrats to office. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who is circulating his own health-care reform, has also included provisions that will exempt unions from certain provisions.

    The union carve-out is designed to allay the fears of many Democrats who remain outright hostile to a tax on health-care benefits, whether out of principle, political fear or union solidarity.
    This is not your grandfather’s America. Pay czars who arbitrarily set arbitrary pay limits based on what they “think” (according to presidential spokesperson Robert Gibbs) is “fair”, a government appointed CEO for an auto company who admits he knows nothing about cars and the government hijacking of health care.

    If you’re not concerned, you’re not paying attention.

    ~McQ
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #4
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    15,084

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    I’m puzzled. If they cut 400 billion out of the Medicare and Medicaid budget just how in the h3ll are they going to stay afloat?

    Me thinks old people are going to join old granny and Reverend Wright under the bus.



    One thing is for certain this country will move away from quality healthcare too quantity healthcare. After all it’s easier to handle sheep as a flock than it is to handle them individually.
    Last edited by tucker; 06-13-2009 at 08:31 PM.

  5. #5
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    9,625

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    http://www.healthreform.gov

    To place comments:
    http://www.healthreform.gov/communit.../comments.html

    I'm going to refrain from making a comment in response to posts.

    Healthcare needs to be reformed. Nothing is going to be perfect. Get involved.

  6. #6
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    I’m puzzled. If they cut 400 billion out of the Medicare and Medicaid budget just how in the h3ll are they going to stay afloat?
    Same way they do now. They overcharge the rest of us to make up for what they don't get from them. It's a hidden tax.
    Brian

  7. #7
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    15,084

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    Same way they do now. They overcharge the rest of us to make up for what they don't get from them. It's a hidden tax.


    In addition to that I think Medicare and Medicaid will probably start rationing treatment and procedures. Bean counters will be making decisions that doctors should be making.

  8. #8
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,678

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    In addition to that I think Medicare and Medicaid will probably start rationing treatment and procedures. Bean counters will be making decisions that doctors should be making.
    In January of 2012, no doubt.

  9. #9
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,347

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    I forgot to add this to my original post.. but we're going to see this mythical number resurrected and pimped a lot in the upcoming weeks and months so we might as well call out the "40~50 million uninsured" lie now. It's detailed in this story along with how the SEIU and ACORN along with their accomplices in the propaganda wing of the Obama administration (also known as the MSM) are pimping the "message" for the messiah. It's from April and you can see the effects it predicted since hitting right on que.

    The curious case of 200 nearly identical MSM headlines


    The following headlines have appeared in newspapers within the last 24 hours. This is not an inclusive list.

    • Third of Illinoisans went without health insurance in last 2 years: Sun-Times
    • Report: 2.5M in Michigan lacked health insurance: Chicago Tribune
    • Study: 29% of Ohioans have gone without health insurance: BizJournals
    • Report: More NJ residents lacking health insurance: Forbes
    • Study: Many Kansans are uninsured: BizJournals
    • Report tallies uninsured in Hawaii: KPUA AM 670
    • Study: 1 in 3 Alabamians have no insurance: BizJournals
    • 1 out of 4 NH residents lacked health insurance within last two years: WBZ
    • 1 out of 3 Coloradans lacked insurance in past two years: Denver Post
    • Nearly 1 in 3 Idahoans lack health insurance, study says: Idaho Statesman
    • One in four nonelderly Minnesotans has been without health insurance, study shows: Twin Cities
    • 1 in 3 are uninsured in Georgia, study says: Augusta Chronicle
    • 1.3 million Louisiana residents uninsured: Independent
    • Millions in N.C. lack health plan: Winston-Salem Journal
    • Uninsured are mostly working: Sun-Herald
    • Nearly one-third of Wyoming residents went without health insurance in past two years: Wyoming Tribune
    • Report finds health insurance lacking in W.Va.: Charleston Gazette
    • Nearly 1/3 Of Kentuckians Uninsured Says Report: WFPL Radio
    • REPORT: 254K Rhode Islanders Uninsured at Some Point from 2007-2008: ABC 6


    There are more. I just stopped listing them because I grew weary -- so weary -- of the physical labor associated with cutting and pasting.

    All of the stories were marketed by a liberal "advocacy group" called Families USA .

    According to Discover the Networks, Families USA is a member of the "Progressive States Network", which works closely with (you guessed it) ACORN and the SEIU. These ultra-partisan groups have truly one agenda: big government.



    During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama spoke to a conference of Family USA activists and promised, "I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country."

    Data from the Census Bureau debunks the lie continually promoted by the mainstream media of the legendary 47 million uninsured Americans:

    • 9.5 million people are illegal aliens
    • 8.3 million uninsured people are those who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and choose not to purchase insurance
    • 8.7 million uninsured people are those who make over $75,000 a year and choose not to purchase insurance


    This leaves approximately 20 million uninsured; less than 7% of the population. Why do some people choose not to purchase insurance? 60 percent reported being in "excellent health or very good health" and purposefully decided not to buy insurance.




    Further, 45% of the uninsured will have insurance within the next four months according to the Congressional Budget Office. Many are transitioning between jobs and purchase health insurance through their employers.

    So what is the true extent of the "health care crisis" continually marketed by the big government leftists? The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report and is also subject to "the 45% rule", wherein that percentage will transition to new jobs within a four-month time-frame.

    The mainstream media's willingness to act as an unthinking public relations arm for a tiny minority of left-wing radicals is truly despicable. But it's not unexpected for an industry destined, in large part, for the black hole of bankruptcy.

    * * * * * * * * *

    Update: A tipster who wishes to remain anonymous writes:
    ...I was struck by the promotion of this material by Families USA. When I was involved with [group] a few years ago, we checked out Families USA and found that they had almost no individual contributors to their non-profit organization. We obtained their 990 from IRS and found that we were totally funded by Big Labor and served as a "front group" in every sense of the term...

    ...Unlike the Heritage Foundation [for example], that proudly talks about grass roots financial support from 300,000 Americans, Families has no such support. All they get is a fat check from Big Labor.

    ACORN, the SEIU and Chicago politics. What a wonderful web they weave, America.

    Update II: Ace cuts to the heart of the matter.

    Isn't it odd that the moment a hardcore liberal group sends out a study to the media, 200 headlines blossom?

    I'm not sure that happens when Heritage or the AEI sends out a study.

    I sorta think it doesn't.
    Update III: JR points out that 60 Minutes -- which, as part of CBS, is nothing more than a discredited public relations arm of the Democrat Party -- aired a related story a few days ago. On 5 April, it featured "Bad Economy Leaves Cancer Patients Without Health Insurance In Dire Straits".

    In October, just before election day, CBS Sunday Morning aired its own Obama infomercial. Entitled "Perils of American Health Care", it recited all of the Democrat talking points: from "47 million uninsured Americans" to "20,000 die annually because they don't get care."

    And in December, the CBS Evening News tried its hand hawking the same, tired leftist propaganda. "Don't drop universal health care" included the missive Dear Barack - Now Is The Perfect Time To Splurge On Universal Health Care.

    Quoting all of the discredited statistics ("the U.S. is 75th in health care" or some such tripe marketed by the U.N.), CBS treats its viewers like hypnotized schoolchildren. Come to think of it, that describes most Democrats I know.

    Funny how no one thinks to ask why patients aren't jetting to the UK or Canada when they require serious medical attention.

    Update IV: Wow. Chris Muir of Day by Day:



    While I do declare, Charlotte... I think I'm blushin'. What an honor!

    Update V: Writing at Red State, EPU ties the entire story together in beautiful fashion. It's a must-read.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #10
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    18,678

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    ^^^ Of all the examples of bias presented to us by the MSM, that's probably the shiniest example. The journalists who write these stories are clearly aware of the debunking of the numbers, most especially the "46 million uninsured" one that's been with us for well over a year now. The politicians are no doubt equally aware. The insurance companies and medical concerns are certainly well aware of the numbers.

    Their problem is that the entire premise of government run medical stuff falls flat on its face without these phony arse numbers, so all involved push the bull dung forward.

    If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshlt.

    And the lemmings follow. Hey, he's almost god-like.

  11. #11
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,347

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    ^^^ From the same author as the above story...



    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #12
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,347

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Ronnie's spot on prediction. Listen to the methods described. Then compare it to the rhetoric from Obama.. his cohorts in the Congress the unions & MSM.



    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #13
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Crazy AZ USA
    Posts
    3,516

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    http://www.healthreform.gov

    To place comments:
    http://www.healthreform.gov/communit.../comments.html

    I'm going to refrain from making a comment in response to posts.

    Healthcare needs to be reformed. Nothing is going to be perfect. Get involved.
    You are going to pay for it one way or another. Moreover, you are going to pay more for privately insured healthcare because they wouldn't be in the business if they couldn't make money at it. And I mean a LOT of freakin' money.

    After having been through it, I can safely say that they will attempt to minimize payout and cap how much they are willing to go. After that, you are on your own and knocking on doors and hitting up the government anyhow.

    Finally, companies, including mine, would just as soon turn over their health benefit plan to a nationalized system anyhow. This public and private business and options for basic, necessary and emergency care is something my company does not want to do. Either take it or don't. I'm involved with it, so I know.

    Insurance then becomes the option of the wealthy for more exotic and cosmetic care. And when you get to that point, they're likely to go overseas for their procedures anyhow.

    So if private medical insurance goes out of business because of it, good riddance. The system is only a true fair-weather friend and is really a freakin', sinful sham.

    So, yeah, I've been fortunate and I'm not going to sell plans like the VA or Medicare short. It's all my mom has and I can only hope that it will do more some day. All I can say is, it's likely all you'll have sometime anyhow.

    So, whether I like or trust Obama or not, what I know is that my bit*ching about it doesn't fix it and I will put my 2 cents in if just so I can say I did.
    "We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government....

    Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

    William Jennings Bryan.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,347

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Lieberman opposes public plan in ObamaCare

    Joe Lieberman has had plenty of experience in enraging his fellow Democrats by maintaining an independent if still liberal viewpoint on policies from national security to war. Harry Reid will have yet another headache after Lieberman’s interview with Bloomberg, in which he firmly opposed the public plan in ObamaCare, which Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama have pushed hard. Lieberman says he sees no need for government to enter into this market, as The Hill reports:

    Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said this weekend that he opposes a public option plan for consumers in a healthcare reform plan to emerge from the Senate.

    “I don’t favor a public option,” Lieberman told Bloomberg News in an interview broadcast this weekend. And I don’t favor a public option because I think there’s plenty of competition in the private insurance market.” …

    “We have a unique opportunity, a real opportunity to do this year what we’ve been trying to do for years, which is to reform American healthcare,” Lieberman said. “I think the one thing that will stop that is pressure on the so-called public option.”
    Other Democrats in the Senate, mostly from the red states, have also retreated from the public plan. Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ben Nelson (NE) have not quite announced opposition to it, but have sounded skeptical notes. Even if Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins join the Democrats, it would not take more than the three Democrats to uphold a filibuster on the entire bill, and we have yet to hear an explicit stand from other red-state Democrats such as Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor (AR), as well as Max Baucus and Jon Tester (MT).

    Lieberman is right that a public plan would harden opposition to the health-care reform effort and give opponents a real lever for obstruction — and for good reason. Most people believe that the health-care system in the US needs some sort of reform, although opinions vary widely on what form that should take. Most people oppose a single-payer system and would not want a Trojan horse like the public plan included in the bill, and stopping single payer would give the Republicans a big issue in the midterms, even those Republicans in favor of more modest reforms.

    For that reason, it might be better for the GOP if Reid and Pelosi keep the public plan option in the final bill, as long as we can get enough votes to block it in the Senate and keep it bottled up for the rest of the year. The public plan option is a gateway drug for socialized medicine, and its inclusion makes the underlying motives of Democratic leadership that much more transparent. Lieberman’s opposition gives that transparency a big boost, and if history serves as any judge, Reid, Pelosi, & Co will demonize Lieberman instead of listening to his wisdom.

    Blowback
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #15
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    15,084

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    I’d say some sort of a Universal/Public Healthcare Plan is almost a certainty now. I sure hope they deliberate and make wise decisions. This blindly rushing into shit like they did with the stimulus plan just ain’t going to cut it. We are going to be stuck with whatever they decide to do for the rest of our lifetime. It really gives me an insecure feeling when we have a bunch of idiots that can’t grab their a$$ with both hands deciding what kind of medical care we should or shouldn’t have.

    Whatever they come up with you can be sure they won’t be participating. They’ll still have the same primo insurance they’ve always had at our expense.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •