A lot of us could have expected something like this from Romney, and we have been warned about when he would go into ‘etch-a-sketch’ mode. Well I think we’re seeing it emerge.

Romney promises end of health care law (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/06/romney-health-care-repeal-virginia/1)

"If the court upholds it ... it is still bad policy and that means that if I'm elected we are going to repeal it and replace it," Romney said this afternoon at a rally in Sterling, Va.

This is first time I’ve heard Romney talk about Obamacare with a ‘replace’ clause in there. Considering his history in Massachusetts, what does he have up his sleeve? I don’t trust this guy too much more than I trust Obama. Are we really going to get better results with him? Seems more of the same to me.

This is first time I’ve heard Romney talk about Obamacare with a ‘replace’ clause in there. Considering his history in Massachusetts, what does he have up his sleeve? I don’t trust this guy too much more than I trust Obama. Are we really going to get better results with him? Seems more of the same to me.

This is Romney being politically correct. The Dems, having whined all week about how unjust it is for a duly passed law to be declared unconstitutional and oh how political the court has become - have also made a big stink about how the Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer in its place and that we nonetheless still need health care reform.

Of course, there are plenty of liberals who believe Obamacare and healthcare reform are completely equivalent - that, to have one you must have the other.

This is Romney being politically correct. The Dems, having whined all week about how unjust it is for a duly passed law to be declared unconstitutional and oh how political the court has become - have also made a big stink about how the Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer in its place and that we nonetheless still need health care reform.

Of course, there are plenty of liberals who believe Obamacare and healthcare reform are completely equivalent - that, to have one you must have the other.And there are more than plenty that believe Obamacare will solve all their healthcare needs. :lol: It's scary the amount of idiots out there that will still vote for that azz.

And there are more than plenty that believe Obamacare will solve all their healthcare needs. :lol: It's scary the amount of idiots out there that will still vote for that azz.

My frustration was that, when I indicated that I didn't want Obamacare I was immediately set upon with all kinds of variations on how I was against health care reform, or we need health care reform, or why didn't I want health care reform - as if the choices were Obamacare - or nothing.

It was a false dilemma - and to me it was like telling people I didn't want fruitcake and them asking me why I don't want dessert.

A lot of us could have expected something like this from Romney, and we have been warned about when he would go into ‘etch-a-sketch’ mode. Well I think we’re seeing it emerge.

Romney promises end of health care law (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/06/romney-health-care-repeal-virginia/1)



This is first time I’ve heard Romney talk about Obamacare with a ‘replace’ clause in there. Considering his history in Massachusetts, what does he have up his sleeve? I don’t trust this guy too much more than I trust Obama. Are we really going to get better results with him? Seems more of the same to me.

If Obamacare is nullified/repealed, it needs to be replaced with something. The status quo isn't working. Business as usual isn't the answer.

I'm still waiting to hear the Republican plan to improve the healthcare system. What's the plan?

Those in favor of the status quo are actually in favor of free healthcare. Well, not "free" for those of us who do pay for health insurance, only "free" for those who don't.

If Obamacare is nullified/repealed, it needs to be replaced with something. The status quo isn't working. Business as usual isn't the answer.

I'm still waiting to hear the Republican's plan to improve the healthcare system. What's the plan?

And thus my statement is proved - one of the most oft quoted complaints - and patently false propositions - is that the Republicans have no alternative plans. They have at least a half dozen alternatives that I've seen, and they HAD about two dozen amendments to the PPACA when it was going through votes. Most of them were shot down, and to my knowledge the only rational reason was the Democrats didn't want to share the byline. Well PPACA is their own polished turd of a bill and they get to wear it proudly.

I find it strangely ironic that Romney is both pilloried for authorizing Romneycare - and at the same time ridiculed for not having an answer. Another irony is the Democrats claim that their bill is patterned after Republican ideas (for instance, the Heritage Foundation's plan from years ago) but that Republicans jumped ship and voted against their own ideas. Oh really? So the Republicans don't have any ideas - well, except the one you plagiarized from them? Which is it?



Those in favor of the status quo are actually in favor of free healthcare. Well, not "free" for those of us who do pay for health insurance, only "free" for those who don't.

That doesn't make any sense. The PPACA does mandate purchase of healthcare, but only for those who are able to. It provides more healthcare free of charge. In fact, that was the point of it all, and the reason for the mandate. They can't afford it otherwise.


We do need reform. Right now, health care is 18% of GNP. And we have lousy health. That's ridiculous. To me that's like the data on the diet industry that makes billions and yet people are fat - it makes money on the product, not the results it delivers. That's our health care - it siphons billions out of our economy but fails to deliver good health.

But for what we have now - it does a decent job for about 85-90% of all Americans. And that's mostly shown in the polls. Most Americans are satisfied with the health care they're getting. They're only really getting angry at paying a lot more for less choices and less care just to provide more for those who can't be bothered to take care of themselves.

Compared to nations like France, Canada, Australia - nations that have some form of national health care - we spend twice or more than twice per person. And we still aren't the best in general health care.

For some reasons, it's because of economy of scale - you hear about small nations managing a health care system adequately. With the exceptions of France and Germany, you never hear about large nations accomplishing it. I know this doesn't explain it well, but some problems don't scale well. You don't just do twice as many people for twice the cost.

For others - there's the argument that we ARE getting better care than we paid for in the sixties and seventies, we just have higher expectations from what level of health our doctors can deliver. As one observer on economics I heard put it, you have to compare comparable products to get a fair indicator of value - and what we have now is far superior than what we received forty years ago. There's some truth in that, but in some areas of industry, it makes a cheaper product - every decade we've built a superior television than previous ones, yet ironically the price stays stable - or goes down. Computer desktops with 386 processors used to run over a thousand dollars. Now, machines a thousand times more powerful cost half that.

We need to find a way to drive down the costs of healthcare.

Here are some ideas I've had over the years -

1. Lower the cost of medical school somehow and make more and better schools. School is exceedingly costly and this does play into the cost of medical care. The result is we import doctors from other nations, because somehow, their doctors don't arrive on our shores with a million bucks of debt.

2. Find a way to simplify insurance. There's no reason why a medical clinic should have to have a whole cadre of staff just to figure out and chase down claims.

3. Find a way to allow them to compete, just as we do for other insurance companies. From a practical standpoint, there's often not much difference between insurance companies, since they often are told what they have to cover.

4. Find a way that allows individuals to purchase insurance with the same advantages that companies do.


Some of the proposals Republicans have mentioned -

1. A national care for catastrophic coverage. Yeah. Really. Government coverage for the really bad stuff. Hard to believe, but they've considered it.

2. Medical savings accounts with high deductible insurance plans. These accounts can be paid by employers, and the high deductible plans have low premiums that are affordable.

3. Break health benefits into taxable income - your health care benefits are considered income, and you purchase your health care outright - and then -

this is the part that got ignored the last election

- you get a tax benefit for the health care you purchase. What this does is breaks the connection to your employer, but encourages you to purchase what you want. Don't want to buy it at all? Ok, but you get taxed on it as income. It's your money.

And so on . We do need more ideas, but I also think this law was hastily cobbled together to be a Monty Hall kind of giveaway and people worried about costs afterwards. COSTS are the problem. Make it cheap enough and people will find a way to buy it.

A lot of us could have expected something like this from Romney, and we have been warned about when he would go into ‘etch-a-sketch’ mode. Well I think we’re seeing it emerge.

Romney promises end of health care law (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/06/romney-health-care-repeal-virginia/1)



This is first time I’ve heard Romney talk about Obamacare with a ‘replace’ clause in there. Considering his history in Massachusetts, what does he have up his sleeve? I don’t trust this guy too much more than I trust Obama. Are we really going to get better results with him? Seems more of the same to me.

Actually he already stated that what he did in Massachusetts is the job of a governor.. and healthcare like Obamacare should be done at the state level, the fed and the President have no business meddling in what should be a state concern.

If Obamacare is nullified/repealed, it needs to be replaced with something. The status quo isn't working. Business as usual isn't the answer.

I'm still waiting to hear the Republican plan to improve the healthcare system. What's the plan?

Those in favor of the status quo are actually in favor of free healthcare. Well, not "free" for those of us who do pay for health insurance, only "free" for those who don't.

Status quo isn’t working for whom? For the vast majority of Americans it was working fine. There wasn’t a single person that needed care that would have been denied pre-Obamacare. For you libs business-as-usual is never good enough if the government isn’t somehow managing it. I am for a system that demands each person take responsibility for their own healthcare; not have the government determine and do it for them. THAT is the only mandate there should be.

Anyone for government managed healthcare is for repealing their own right as an individual in making your own decisions about your healthcare. With the exception of running a good military, there is nothing the government does that reaps success. Every social program is on the verge of failure and in need of some sort reform to save it. This is why these programs are wrong. Our form of government is not equipped to be an insurance company, a retirement plan company, and welfare provider on a large scale, etc… If you haven’t learned a damn thing from Europe in how they are collapsing from these same provide-everything-to-everyone governments then you can’t be helped. In light of all these failures if you still support such failing government-run programs then you are in support of collapsing nations. Because this is exactly what history is proving runaway expanding government does.

And thus my statement is proved - one of the most oft quoted complaints -//
.

Good post, and good ideas. :yay:

Now that the Supreme Court has done their thing, it would be nice if both sides would unite to tackle the healthcare problem. Not as two opposite sides trying to "win", but as Americans in search of improving a broken system.


Yeah.......right. Not in today's America. :ohwell:

Good post, and good ideas. :yay:

Now that the Supreme Court has done their thing, it would be nice if both sides would unite to tackle the healthcare problem.

Unlikely. Democrat in the White House, Democrat Senate.

Obamacare is the solution, accept it.

Don't think so? Racist.

If Obamacare is nullified/repealed, it needs to be replaced with something. The status quo isn't working. Business as usual isn't the answer.

I'm still waiting to hear the Republican plan to improve the healthcare system. What's the plan?

Those in favor of the status quo are actually in favor of free healthcare. Well, not "free" for those of us who do pay for health insurance, only "free" for those who don't.

Or there are the many folks like me who maintain cheap "catastrophic high-deductible" coverage and otherwise pay cash. I estimate that I've saved (avoided wasting on fancy health insurance premiums) well over 60 thousand dollars in the last decade alone.

Now I'll just add the fine to my annual budget too.

[QUOTE=SamSpade;4854865]I


Here are some ideas I've had over the years -

1. Lower the cost of medical school somehow and make more and better schools. School is exceedingly costly and this does play into the cost of medical care. The result is we import doctors from other nations, because somehow, their doctors don't arrive on our shores with a million bucks of debt.

2. Find a way to simplify insurance. There's no reason why a medical clinic should have to have a whole cadre of staff just to figure out and chase down claims.

3. Find a way to allow them to compete, just as we do for other insurance companies. From a practical standpoint, there's often not much difference between insurance companies, since they often are told what they have to cover.

4. Find a way that allows individuals to purchase insurance with the same advantages that companies do.


I would propose we accomplish #1 by having a government sponsored / run medical school. Students pay nothing as long as they maintain grades, graduate and work for the government, providing heath care to the public, for x (to be determined) number of years.

I would also add #5 which would suggest making it a lot harder to sue doctors. A portion of the cost of health care is the insurance doctors are required to carry to take care of all the frivolus (sp) law suits. Do away with the law suits, lower insurance costs to doctors, lower heath care costs for the nation.

A lot of us could have expected something like this from Romney, and we have been warned about when he would go into ‘etch-a-sketch’ mode. Well I think we’re seeing it emerge.

Romney promises end of health care law (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/06/romney-health-care-repeal-virginia/1)



This is first time I’ve heard Romney talk about Obamacare with a ‘replace’ clause in there. Considering his history in Massachusetts, what does he have up his sleeve? I don’t trust this guy too much more than I trust Obama. Are we really going to get better results with him? Seems more of the same to me.

This campaign rhetoric is expected (and will likely be somewhat effective), but where is he going to get the votes from? Unless the Republicans offer something that some Democrats like better than the PPACA that's in place, how are they going to get enough votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster? It seems extremely unlikely that they will get to 60 Senate seats in this election even if Mr. Romney is elected President and they keep a majority in the House.

The Democrats were only able to get this legislation passed because they had, for a brief period of time (only several months if I recall correctly), an effective 60 votes in the Senate. Without that, neither party will be able to substantially change the law - repeal it or replace it. I doubt they're going to be able to get many (if any) Democrats in the Senate to go along with what would amount to a repeal or with something that would replace the PPACA with substantially less government involvement in providing / subsidizing health care.

This campaign rhetoric is expected (and will likely be somewhat effective), but where is he going to get the votes from?

RealClearPolitics has 8 states it considers "toss-ups", but to my measure, it looks bleak for the Republicans. They will pick up Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and possibly Wisconsin. The remaining tossups don't look promising. This still leaves them with only 49 Senate seats. Enough to block, not enough to take it. Even if they get fifty, unless Romney wins, Biden casts the deciding vote - meaning Dems will still have the Senate with a 50-50 split.

I'm hoping that in these tight races - as worked for Scott Brown (who has a *chance* at re-election) they can campaign for Senate control. They can make more of an issue of it.

I think if the GOP has the balls, they stand to gain ground because people go to the polls when they're mad. They don't go, when they're content.

RealClearPolitics has 8 states it considers "toss-ups", but to my measure, it looks bleak for the Republicans. They will pick up Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and possibly Wisconsin. The remaining tossups don't look promising. This still leaves them with only 49 Senate seats. Enough to block, not enough to take it. Even if they get fifty, unless Romney wins, Biden casts the deciding vote - meaning Dems will still have the Senate with a 50-50 split.

I'm hoping that in these tight races - as worked for Scott Brown (who has a *chance* at re-election) they can campaign for Senate control. They can make more of an issue of it.

I think if the GOP has the balls, they stand to gain ground because people go to the polls when they're mad. They don't go, when they're content.

And they need 60 votes to repeal the PPACA. The Act is already in place. Republicans either have to take 60 Senate seats (along with the presidency) or get some Democrats to join them in repealing it.

There are likely some ways that they (e.g. Republicans and/or a President Romney) could affect the implementation of the legislation (mostly on the margins), but the core of it will still be in effect.

And they need 60 votes to repeal the PPACA. The Act is already in place. Republicans either have to take 60 Senate seats (along with the presidency) or get some Democrats to join them in repealing it.

I'm not sure what bothers me more - the reality of Obamacare, or the fact that the SCOTUS essentially said the government possesses the right to compel us to buy something.

I thought we kicked England out of here because we didn't want the government ruling over us. This goes back to a post I made on another thread about how laws just seem to get worse over time because precedent and subsequent rulings just serve to reaffirm things. In scientific circles, people challenge ideas all the time, and they re-examine previously established findings. And when they're wrong, they throw them out.

With law, it seems you can write good law, interpret it badly once or twice and before long, you've got something it was never intended to mean. It resembles the pattern of church dogma and Scripture, where Scripture is eventually contorted to mean something completely different, because dogma carries equal weight with Scripture.

When is someone going to just stand up and say, the Commerce clause does not grant all power to the government? Where does it end?

I'm not sure what bothers me more - the reality of Obamacare, or the fact that the SCOTUS essentially said the government possesses the right to compel us to buy something.

I thought we kicked England out of here because we didn't want the government ruling over us. This goes back to a post I made on another thread about how laws just seem to get worse over time because precedent and subsequent rulings just serve to reaffirm things. In scientific circles, people challenge ideas all the time, and they re-examine previously established findings. And when they're wrong, they throw them out.

With law, it seems you can write good law, interpret it badly once or twice and before long, you've got something it was never intended to mean. It resembles the pattern of church dogma and Scripture, where Scripture is eventually contorted to mean something completely different, because dogma carries equal weight with Scripture.

When is someone going to just stand up and say, the Commerce clause does not grant all power to the government? Where does it end?

Just to be clear, the Court didn't hold that the Commerce Clause (and N&PC) gives the government the authority to impose the individual mandate. The mandate was upheld under the Taxing power (which has, in my opinion, also been improperly interpreted over the years - something that has lead to Congress having much greater power than it should including, e.g., the power to implement the Social Security program).

For the sake of discussion, I have a question for you. Do you believe the federal government has authority under the Constitution to give you a tax credit for having a mortgage (it's only a deduction I suppose you could argue, but it results in a credit) - i.e., for buying a house and borrowing money to pay for it?

Ask any 20 something. If you need something, you earn it. It should be an individual choice. No insurance card, no Entry to hospitals. That simple. Money talks as well too.

For the sake of discussion, I have a question for you. Do you believe the federal government has authority under the Constitution to give you a tax credit for having a mortgage (it's only a deduction I suppose you could argue, but it results in a credit) - i.e., for buying a house and borrowing money to pay for it?

I never thought about it. I suppose it is free to write tax credits any way it wants. The way I see this is that it works like a tax, but functions like a negative tax credit - you do something and we DON'T levy the "tax" on you.

Insurance companies decide to cut you a break if you're healthy, you have a good driving record, go to the gym - you know, prove that your risk is lower. They "credit" you. They "penalize" you when you make a claim or get into an accident.

Some day I imagine they'll get this crazy idea that if I DON'T buy their financial advisor service, they'll penalize me. Or if I DON'T use their bank, they will increase my fees.

If that's the escape clause they use, it amounts to the same - they can now compel you to eat healthy, buy an electric car and so on.

Isn't there some part of PPACA that says the government has access to your medical records?

Just to be clear, the Court didn't hold that the Commerce Clause (and N&PC) gives the government the authority to impose the individual mandate. The mandate was upheld under the Taxing power (which has, in my opinion, also been improperly interpreted over the years - something that has lead to Congress having much greater power than it should including, e.g., the power to implement the Social Security program).

For the sake of discussion, I have a question for you. Do you believe the federal government has authority under the Constitution to give you a tax credit for having a mortgage (it's only a deduction I suppose you could argue, but it results in a credit) - i.e., for buying a house and borrowing money to pay for it?

So, if paying for insurance as mandated is considered a tax, does that mean that I can include my medical insurance payments towards my federal income taxes paid?

Question - Isn't Facist Socialism when the government dictates the market? You know - when they use regulation and taxation as a means of control vice out-right ownership?

I never thought about it. I suppose it is free to write tax credits any way it wants. The way I see this is that it works like a tax, but functions like a negative tax credit - you do something and we DON'T levy the "tax" on you.

Insurance companies decide to cut you a break if you're healthy, you have a good driving record, go to the gym - you know, prove that your risk is lower. They "credit" you. They "penalize" you when you make a claim or get into an accident.

Some day I imagine they'll get this crazy idea that if I DON'T buy their financial advisor service, they'll penalize me. Or if I DON'T use their bank, they will increase my fees.

If that's the escape clause they use, it amounts to the same - they can now compel you to eat healthy, buy an electric car and so on.

Isn't there some part of PPACA that says the government has access to your medical records?

There's stuff in the Act about modernizing medical records (i.e. putting them into digital format and making them easier to access), but frankly, it's been a long time since I read the bill and I don't recall many, many of its details.

But back to the point I was raising for discussion: Is the government compelling you to buy a house and borrow money by offering you a tax credit to do so (in practical effect, by causing you to pay more taxes if you don't)? That's one important aspect of this situation and the Court's ruling - that the only real consequence of not having the required coverage is having to pay more in taxes. There are no criminal consequences, there's no status change that affects other things. If you don't buy coverage (or have it provided to you by others, e.g. your employer or the government), you might pay more in taxes (depending, in part, on your tax situation otherwise).

So I'd ask this, if the government enacted additional income taxes (i.e. raised rates on income up to a certain level) and then granted a credit (that offset those increased taxes) to people that had coverage, would that be within Congress' Taxing power? Are credits for mortgage interest? Credits for having children? Credits for medical expenses? Credits for charitable giving? Is there a principled difference between those things that implicates their respective constitutionality?

There's stuff in the Act about modernizing medical records (i.e. putting them into digital format and making them easier to access), but frankly, it's been a long time since I read the bill and I don't recall many, many of its details.

But back to the point I was raising for discussion: Is the government compelling you to buy a house and borrow money by offering you a tax credit to do so (in practical effect, by causing you to pay more taxes if you don't)? That's one important aspect of this situation and the Court's ruling - that the only real consequence of not having the required coverage is having to pay more in taxes. There are no criminal consequences, there's no status change that affects other things. If you don't buy coverage (or have it provided to you by others, e.g. your employer or the government), you might pay more in taxes (depending, in part, on your tax situation otherwise).

So I'd ask this, if the government enacted additional income taxes (i.e. raised rates on income up to a certain level) and then granted a credit (that offset those increased taxes) to people that had coverage, would that be within Congress' Taxing power? Are credits for mortgage interest? Credits for having children? Credits for medical expenses? Credits for charitable giving? Is there a principled difference between those things that implicates their respective constitutionality?

Funny, I've always argued that a tax credit for some is the same as a increase in taxes for everyone else. I guess this is the manifestation of that argument.

I predict this decission will ensure Obama's defeat!!! :buddies:

I predict this decission will ensure Obama's defeat!!! :buddies:

I'm not so sure about that.

I'm not so sure about that.
I agree with you
what I would bet is that we see one of the largest voter turnouts ever recorded in this country.

There's stuff in the Act about modernizing medical records (i.e. putting them into digital format and making them easier to access), but frankly, it's been a long time since I read the bill and I don't recall many, many of its details.

But back to the point I was raising for discussion: Is the government compelling you to buy a house and borrow money by offering you a tax credit to do so (in practical effect, by causing you to pay more taxes if you don't)? That's one important aspect of this situation and the Court's ruling - that the only real consequence of not having the required coverage is having to pay more in taxes. There are no criminal consequences, there's no status change that affects other things. If you don't buy coverage (or have it provided to you by others, e.g. your employer or the government), you might pay more in taxes (depending, in part, on your tax situation otherwise).

So I'd ask this, if the government enacted additional income taxes (i.e. raised rates on income up to a certain level) and then granted a credit (that offset those increased taxes) to people that had coverage, would that be within Congress' Taxing power? Are credits for mortgage interest? Credits for having children? Credits for medical expenses? Credits for charitable giving? Is there a principled difference between those things that implicates their respective constitutionality?

I think SS is a perfect example. We are forced to pay in to the system.

I think SS is a perfect example. We are forced to pay in to the system.

A perfect example of what? The federal government overreaching its rightful constitutional powers (and/or the Supreme Court acquiescing to such overreach)?

If that's what you mean, I agree.

Choosing a $695 penalty over health insurance? That's a choice, not a denial of liberty.
OBAMACARES upheld!! suck it B##tches. ROBERTS is the swing vote F##king PRICELESS.

The only way to make healthcare more affordable is to reduce the cost of the "business", which means reduce the cost of labor, facilities, operating expenses, services, and products (inputs/outputs)...

Most of these all tie back to layers and layers of regulations and policies.

So fix (remove even) the current regulations and policies instead of adding more layers of BS that will only drive costs even higher and make everyone else pay more in taxes.

Choosing a $695 penalty over health insurance? That's a choice, not a denial of liberty.
OBAMACARES upheld!! suck it B##tches. ROBERTS is the swing vote F##king PRICELESS.

And the Liberal Morons are STILL repeating, "It's not a tax, It's a penalty" EVEN after the SCOTUS has told them EXACTLY what it is.

But in the end, it's a tax, taxes can be repealed.

If Obamacare is nullified/repealed, it needs to be replaced with something. The status quo isn't working. Business as usual isn't the answer.

I'm still waiting to hear the Republican plan to improve the healthcare system. What's the plan?

Those in favor of the status quo are actually in favor of free healthcare. Well, not "free" for those of us who do pay for health insurance, only "free" for those who don't.

It would have been nice to hear the Republicans ideas and thoughts back in 2008 when this peice of crap was ram rodded through and they were locked out. But alas this turd is all on the donks.

I'd like to know why people seem to think healthcare is now a social handout, and should be given to everyone. I'm sorry, but that's not the case. If you want to help the old, and poor, maybe it's time to think about Medicare and Medicaid, which is what those programs are for.

You pay for a lot of things on your own, including other insurances, to do just that, insure that if anything happens you're covered. you don't pay for everyone else.

A free market system allows companies to compete with each other. In turn, bringing down cost, drives up quality, and allows for constant research and development.

With the government being able to regulate things, does the complete opposite of what a free market system is best known for.

Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act is under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus or The Recovery Act).

The Act said they would reimburse a provider $44K-$64K of a EHR/EMR (Electronic Health Records/Electronic Medical Records) system over 6 years if at least 30% of their practice is Medicare/Medicaid.




As a Computer Tech / Integrator I would love to get some of this business ....

I would prefer a
Repeal and Restore.

what I had was working great for me and my family before the poverty crowd once again had to be appeased for votes.