SCOTUS-HealthCare Reform

[Ibanez]

Everyone will as costs rise. No, it won't be a "tax" tax, but it will function as a tax from an economic perspective.

That is the point. If a private insurance company can't turn someone down for a pre existing condition that costs say 50-100k a yr to treat on avg, yet can only charge that person 10k a yr in premiums (or whatever the cap is) then that insurance company has to make up the loss from elsewhere- and that is by charging the younger (20s,30s) healthier folks more in premiums than they cost as a whole.

The younger healthier folks are the ones really being screwed in this- they are going to be forced to pay more $ (be it taxes or premiums) towards health care than they consume as a whole in order to subsidize the older, less healthy that use far more health care resources than they pay in.

The younger folks tend to be more for Obama, but they should realize they are the ones being screwed the most by Obamacare.

I am already paying for those people, as well as the ones that don't have insurance. Whats your point? Are you saying that now, with more people and money inthe pot, rates will increase?

[OL FU]

Is it working in Massachusetts..?
This is actually a sincere question - I mean what if it actually is better than what we have now..?
Is that possible..?

It'll be interesting to see it unfold
Frankly I never thought it would get this far - but - here we are
And Romney delivering the message about the evils of this is going to be prime-time-comedy
How do you reconcile that in a debate..?

I chuckle and not in a good way when Romney opens his mouth about this. I have never seen a politician change their minds (purposely plural) on so many issues over a 20 year period. Guess it is the difference of being a repub in Mass and a repub in the rest to the country

[BDKJMU]

Is it working in Massachusetts..?
This is actually a sincere question - I mean what if it actually is better than what we have now..?
Is that possible..?

It'll be interesting to see it unfold
Frankly I never thought it would get this far - but - here we are
And Romney delivering the message about the evils of this is going to be prime-time-comedy
How do you reconcile that in a debate..?

I chuckle and not in a good way when Romney opens his mouth about this. I have never seen a politician change their minds (purposely plural) on so many issues over a 20 year period. Guess it is the difference of being a repub in Mass and a repub in the rest to the country

Are you kidding me? Obama has gone for being for gay marriage (IL legislature) to being for keeping marriage between a man and a woman (US Senate, POTUS) to now being for gay marriage. Romney has had 1 partial flip flop on health care - a state level mandate isn't the same as a fed one. Obama has had 2 flip flops on gay marriage. They both are flip floppers but Obama is a bigger one than Romney. Look at all the positions Obama has flopped on just since 08'. Obama tries to attack Romney on flip flopping. It will backfire on him as he has a worse record on the issue.

Edit: Typos trying to type on a GD smart phone.

[DSUrocks07]

So how bout that Health Insurance Industry Stimulus Plan that was just upheld by SCOTUS

[BDKJMU]

Again.....the penalty is in the tax code. Roberts didn't pick it up and move it there.

As Kennedy and the other dissenting justices pointed out, it never referred to as a tax. It is always referred to as a penalty.

Yep. From an abridged version of the Kennedy/Scalia/Thomas/Alito dissent, they think Roberts rewrote the statute instead of interpreting it:

“It is important to bear this in mind in evaluating the tax argument of the Government and of those who support it: The issue is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so.
“In answering that question we must, if ‘fairly possible,’ Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than unconstitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. “ ‘ “[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . .” or judicially rewriting it.’” … In this case, there is simply no way, “without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words used”…to escape what Congress enacted: a mandate that individuals maintain minimum essential coverage, enforced by a penalty.”
….
“In a few cases, this Court has held that a ‘tax’ imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act ‘adopt[s] the criteria of wrongdoing’ and then imposes a monetary penalty as the ‘principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,’ it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax.”
….
“That §5000A imposes not a simple tax but a mandate to which a penalty is attached is demonstrated by the fact that some are exempt from the tax who are not exempt from the mandate—a distinction that would make no sense if the mandate were not a mandate.”
….
“And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s ‘Revenue Provisions.’”
….
“For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Man- date merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.”
….
“Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.”

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available. The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.
The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union. Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.
The values that should have determined our course to- day are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.
The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court to teach otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.
For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act in- valid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/dissent-s ... le/2500927" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[danefan]

So you agree with the dissent.

Not an unreasonable interpretation. Just the interpretation of the minority of the Court.

And no longer the law until another version of the Court in the future decides to overturn it.

[BDKJMU]

That is the point. If a private insurance company can't turn someone down for a pre existing condition that costs say 50-100k a yr to treat on avg, yet can only charge that person 10k a yr in premiums (or whatever the cap is) then that insurance company has to make up the loss from elsewhere- and that is by charging the younger (20s,30s) healthier folks more in premiums than they cost as a whole.

The younger healthier folks are the ones really being screwed in this- they are going to be forced to pay more $ (be it taxes or premiums) towards health care than they consume as a whole in order to subsidize the older, less healthy that use far more health care resources than they pay in.

The younger folks tend to be more for Obama, but they should realize they are the ones being screwed the most by Obamacare.

I am already paying for those people, as well as the ones that don't have insurance. Whats your point? Are you saying that now, with more people and money inthe pot, rates will increase?

They already have!

According to a Kaiser Family Foundation study of employer-provided health insurance plans, the ObamaCare health reform law could have accounted for as much as 50 percent of the spike in insurance premiums in 2011.

The Employer Health Benefits Survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which specializes in health care issues, found that health insurance premiums had jumped by 9 percent in 2011, up from a 5 percent annual increase since 2007.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamaca ... foundation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

That is the point. If a private insurance company can't turn someone down for a pre existing condition that costs say 50-100k a yr to treat on avg, yet can only charge that person 10k a yr in premiums (or whatever the cap is) then that insurance company has to make up the loss from elsewhere- and that is by charging the younger (20s,30s) healthier folks more in premiums than they cost as a whole.

The younger healthier folks are the ones really being screwed in this- they are going to be forced to pay more $ (be it taxes or premiums) towards health care than they consume as a whole in order to subsidize the older, less healthy that use far more health care resources than they pay in.

The younger folks tend to be more for Obama, but they should realize they are the ones being screwed the most by Obamacare.

I am already paying for those people, as well as the ones that don't have insurance. Whats your point? Are you saying that now, with more people and money inthe pot, rates will increase?

YES!. One of Obamacare's architects, MIT economist Jonathon Gruber, stated before the bill was passed that the bill would lower premiums. Now he is stating they will increase significantly under Obamacare. Oops.

".....His words were trumpeted by the law’s advocates, and were critical to persuading skittish Democrats to vote for the bill.....

Gruber then: Obamacare will “for sure” reduce insurance costs

Before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law, Gruber published a widely-cited analysis, using his Gruber Microsimulation Model, in which he asserted that in 2016, young people would save 13 percent, and older people 31 percent, on their insurance premiums. Gruber’s numbers were used to rebut an October 2009 analysis from PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which projected that non-group (a.k.a. individual-market) premiums would increase by 47 percent over the same period.

Ezra called the PwC report “deceptive.” Jonathan Cohn, noting that the report was commissioned by the insurer trade group, AHIP, described it as “the insurance industry declaring war.” After Obamacare was signed into law, Cohn described the Gruber-led counterattack against PwC as a turning point in the fight to get the bill passed....

Gruber now: Obamacare will increase premiums by 19-30 percent

As states began the process of considering whether or not to set up the insurance exchanges mandated by the new health law, several retained Gruber as a consultant. In at least three cases—Wisconsin in August 2011, Minnesota in November 2011, and Colorado in January 2012—Gruber reported that premiums in the individual market would increase, not decrease, as a result of Obamacare.

In Wisconsin, Gruber reported that people purchasing insurance for themselves on the individual market would see, on average, premium increases of 30 percent by 2016, relative to what would have happened in the absence of Obamacare. In Minnesota, the law would increase premiums by 29 percent over the same period. Colorado was the least worst off, with premiums under the law rising by only 19 percent.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch

Gruber’s Microsimulation Model, which he felicitously abbreviates as GMSIM, attempts to project how Obamacare will affect insurance premiums by taking into account certain provisions of the law. “GMSIM is able to carefully integrate all of the key features of enacted federal law,” Gruber promises in his report to Colorado.

Gruber’s model focuses on six specific aspects of the law:

1. The requirement that all insurance plans cover “certain essential benefits;”

2. The mandate that all plans meet a “minimum actuarial value” of 60 percent (i.e., that beneficiaries bear out-of-pocket responsibility for a maximum of 40 percent of their benefit costs);

3. The requirement that insurers spend 80 percent of individual-market premium costs on health expenses (medical loss ratio);

4. The law’s high-risk pools being folded into the exchanges;

5. Competitive efficiencies brought about by the exchanges; and

6. Requirements that insurers charge similar rates to the young and the old (community rating).

In the case of Colorado, as I noted above, Gruber now projects that Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by 19 percent on average. The biggest drivers of the increase, according to Gruber, are the new insurance regulations (especially the ones forcing upward a plan’s minimum actuarial value and mandating minimum essential benefits), and also the law’s insurance subsidies, which will incentivize “individuals [to choose] richer insurance with their tax credits.”

That is to say, Obamacare forces insurers to offer more benefits, requires them to spend more money on health expenses, and subsidizes the consumption of richer insurance packages. The laws of economics dictate that these costs will get passed down to consumers. It shouldn’t take a microsimulation from MIT to know there’s no such thing as a free lunch—but now you have one for good measure.

Gruber neglects Obamacare’s pre-existing condition provision

The money paragraph in Gruber’s report to Colorado comes on page 14. It’s there that he admits that his model doesn’t take into account Obamacare’s biggest change to the insurance market: its requirement that insurers take on all comers irrespective of pre-existing conditions, a.k.a., “guaranteed issue.” Here’s what he has to say about that (emphasis added):

"It is important to recognize some limitations in our modeling of prices. In particular, given publicly available data we cannot incorporate the effects of the ban on pre-existing conditions exclusions. This ban will cause a rise in premiums as insurers are forced to cover conditions that they had previously excluded. In addition, there are new premium taxes on insurers that will raise premium rates…Overall, we cannot predict the net impacts of these factors on premiums without more analysis."

It is precisely this aspect of the law—its requirement that insurers cover those with pre-existing conditions—that is central to the analysis conducted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the analysis that Gruber and other PPACA advocates criticized back in 2009.

The whole reason that Obamacare includes an individual mandate—the controversial requirement that everyone buy health insurance—is that the law requires insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Without an individual mandate, people could wait until they were sick to buy insurance, because their illness would now be a “pre-existing condition.” This, in turn, would drive up the cost of insurance, leading to the infamous adverse selection death spiral in which nobody bothers to buy insurance, except for the very ill, because it is too expensive.

The adverse selection death spiral

The problem, as PwC points out, is that the individual mandate is too weak. “While the new market rules [regarding pre-existing conditions] are implemented in full in [2014], the individual coverage requirement is…phased in gradually.”

The fine for not purchasing health insurance under PPACA is $95 per person in 2014 (or 1% of taxable income, whichever is greater), $325 in 2015 (or 2%), and $695 in 2016 (or 2.5%). Thereafter, the mandate is indexed to inflation.

In addition, many people are exempted from the mandate, such as those for whom premiums exceed 8 percent of household income. Hence, as premiums increase, more and more people will be exempted from the mandate.

The size of the mandate’s penalty is puny in comparison to the cost of health insurance. According to the government’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the average premium for an individual plan in 2010 was $4,940. If we assume that premiums increase by 6 percent a year—the historical rate—the maximum $695 mandate will account for only 10 percent of average premiums.

Because the mandate is weakly enforced, small in size, and gradually put into place, whereas the pre-existing condition mandate takes effect immediately, Obamacare creates the recipe for an adverse selection death spiral. “We would anticipate significant adverse selection to occur in the existing market,” reports PwC, “increasing premiums for those who have coverage today. Higher premiums will result in more individuals being exempted from the coverage requirement…the penalties will be phased in, so that they will not reach full effectiveness for several years. This lack of coordination increases the likelihood of a premium spiral that ‘gets ahead’ of the coverage requirement which…may further reduce the incentive for those who are healthy to buy coverage. This may then cause an increase in premiums for those with coverage today.”

Community rating increases insurance costs for the young

Many of the people who go uninsured are young people. The young are just entering the work force, and therefore typically have below-average incomes. In addition, the young are healthy, and have much less use for expensive health insurance.

Obamacare forces insurers to charge their eldest beneficiaries no more than 3 times what they charge their youngest ones: a policy known as “community rating.” This, despite the fact that these older beneficiaries typically have six times the health expenditures that younger people face. The net effect of this “community rating” provision is the redistribution of insurance costs from the old to the young.

According to my sources, this was a favor that Democrats did for the AARP, which was advocating for its older members. Democrats were happy to help out their ally, whose members are active at the voting booth, compared to younger Americans, who vote less often. The AARP actually wanted Obamacare to have a community rating ratio of 2:1—that is, insurers could charge their eldest beneficiaries only twice what they charged their youngest. But they had to settle for 3:1.

The real problem is how the community rating provision interacts with the individual mandate. As I described above, the individual mandate is too weak. Hence, the young—who will face the steepest increases in their health insurance premiums—will be further deterred from buying coverage, which will in turn enhance the adverse selection death spiral......"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/0 ... g-workers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Article was before the SCOTUS decision, so the next 2 pages is news/speculation on that

[dbackjon]

Alito/Scalia/Thomas are the most partisan hackj udges the court has seen since Taney.

All three have no business on the court, especially since morons that watch Fox think they are gods.


They have gotten very little right since they were appointed - and the sooner they die or retire, the better our country will be.

[BDKJMU]

Breyer & Ginsburg (and possibly Kagan & Sotomayor) are the most partisan hackj udges the court has seen since Taney.

Both have no business on the court, especially since morons that watch MSNBC think they are gods.


They have gotten very little right since they were appointed - and the sooner they die or retire, the better our country will be.

FIFY

[DSUrocks07]

Alito/Scalia/Thomas are the most partisan hackj udges the court has seen since Taney.

All three have no business on the court, especially since morons that watch Fox think they are gods.


They have gotten very little right since they were appointed - and the sooner they die or retire, the better our country will be.

Breyer & Ginsburg (and possibly Kagan & Sotomayor) are the most partisan hackj udges the court has seen since Taney.

Both have no business on the court, especially since morons that watch MSNBC think they are gods.


They have gotten very little right since they were appointed - and the sooner they die or retire, the better our country will be.

[BDKJMU]

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57 ... ontentBody" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[danefan]

Why not just post a few lines? No one reads 1,000 word essays on a forum and its a nightmare to quote.

[BDKJMU]

Why not just post a few lines? No one reads 1,000 word essays on a forum and its a nightmare to quote.

Done (although I'd only posted about 1/2 the article, I agree was long).

[BDKJMU]

The case was heard in March and Roberts according to the article switched sides in May. Is that that common, for a justice to decide on one side of a case, then a couple of months later switch to the other side?

[AZGrizFan]

They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on - nothing in prior Supreme Court cases - to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.

The case raised entirely new issues of power. Never before had Congress tried to force Americans to buy a private product; as a result, never before had the court ruled Congress lacked that power. It was completely uncharted waters.

To strike down the mandate as exceeding the Commerce Clause, the court would have to craft a new theory, which could have opened it up to criticism that it reached out to declare the president' health care law unconstitutional.

No shit, sherlock. There was no doctrinal background because never before had Congress done something so egregious. Roberts wanted something to be able to remove the responsibility for determining the constitutionality of the law, and the chickenshit didn't have it. God forbid the Court actually do what it was appointed to do.

This proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: Roberts is a gutless wonder.

[Ibanez]

Perhaps we can learn from the Japnanese model.

[GSUAlumniEagle]

They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on - nothing in prior Supreme Court cases - to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.

The case raised entirely new issues of power. Never before had Congress tried to force Americans to buy a private product; as a result, never before had the court ruled Congress lacked that power. It was completely uncharted waters.

To strike down the mandate as exceeding the Commerce Clause, the court would have to craft a new theory, which could have opened it up to criticism that it reached out to declare the president' health care law unconstitutional.

No ****, sherlock. There was no doctrinal background because never before had Congress done something so egregious. Roberts wanted something to be able to remove the responsibility for determining the constitutionality of the law, and the chickenshit didn't have it. God forbid the Court actually do what it was appointed to do.

This proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: Roberts is a gutless wonder.

Hi folks! Long time no see. Just popped in for a brief visit to see how all you fear-mongerers were doing. I see you're all doing well, at least in that department.

Congress had never mandated that citizens purchased a private product? That's interesting. I could have sworn that in 1792 Congress mandated that all able-bodied men purchase a firearm. And that in 1798 Congress mandated that all seamen purchase health insurance for themselves.

Seems the founders weren't against mandates at all, really.

[AZGrizFan]

No ****, sherlock. There was no doctrinal background because never before had Congress done something so egregious. Roberts wanted something to be able to remove the responsibility for determining the constitutionality of the law, and the chickenshit didn't have it. God forbid the Court actually do what it was appointed to do.

This proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: Roberts is a gutless wonder.

Hi folks! Long time no see. Just popped in for a brief visit to see how all you fear-mongerers were doing. I see you're all doing well, at least in that department.

Congress had never mandated that citizens purchased a private product? That's interesting. I could have sworn that in 1792 Congress mandated that all able-bodied men purchase a firearm. And that in 1798 Congress mandated that all seamen purchase health insurance for themselves.

Seems the founders weren't against mandates at all, really.

Pathetic attempt, really...

In 1792, Congress required all able-bodied men to buy firearms (Are liberals so attached to Obamacare that they are willing to argue that not only do we have the right to bear arms but the government can require us to buy guns?!).

But this mandate wasn’t based on some expansive reading of the Commerce clause. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Ordering Americans to purchase firearms to be ready to defend themselves and their nation is pretty essential to arming and organizing a civilian militia. You don’t need any verbal gymnastics to justify that.

Second, note that in 1790 Congress mandated that ship owners purchase medical insurance for their seamen. He claims this is a knockdown justification for Obamacare’s individual mandate.

But seamen were engaged in foreign commerce, thus subject to regulation under the Commerce clause power: a specific industry subject to specific regulation. You don’t have to be in that industry. There is a limiting principle—a principle that even Obama-appointed Justice Sonio Sotomayor said was required to justify Obamacare. There is not a limiting principle to “all Americans must purchase something.”

Wild swing and a miss.

[GSUAlumniEagle]

Ordering Americans to purchase firearms to be ready to defend themselves and their nation is pretty essential to arming and organizing a civilian militia. You don’t need any verbal gymnastics to justify that.

Ordering Americans to purchase health insurance so that they pay into a system that they are undoubtedly going to use at some point is pretty essential to ensure that the system doesn't go bankrupt. I don't need any verbal gymnastics to justify that, either.

[AZGrizFan]

Ordering Americans to purchase firearms to be ready to defend themselves and their nation is pretty essential to arming and organizing a civilian militia. You don’t need any verbal gymnastics to justify that.

Ordering Americans to purchase health insurance so that they pay into a system that they are undoubtedly going to use at some point is pretty essential to ensure that the system doesn't go bankrupt. I don't need any verbal gymnastics to justify that, either.

The difference is that healthcare isn't addressed in the constitution. Providing for and organizing a civilian milita is DIRECTLY addressed in the constitution. Is that REALLY that difficult to understand the difference?

[Ibanez]

Will Obamacare cover BieberFever or Cat Scratch Fever?

[Tod]

Will Obamacare cover BieberFever or Cat Scratch Fever?

Those are pretty rare, but personally, I often get a fever for the flavor of a Pringles. This affects millions.

[AZGrizFan]

Will Obamacare cover BieberFever or Cat Scratch Fever?

Those are pretty rare, but personally, I often get a fever for the flavor of a Pringles. This affects millions.

I got a fever. And the only prescription.....is more cowbell!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyV2cPLu ... ure=topics[/youtube]

[Tod]

Those are pretty rare, but personally, I often get a fever for the flavor of a Pringles. This affects millions.

I got a fever. And the only prescription.....is more cowbell!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyV2cPLu ... ure=topics[/youtube]

This just in, Big Pharma to raise prices for cowbell by 3000%.