Derrick's Progressive News
[Photo of Pioneer Courthouse Square]
Join Us at Portland’s Sidewalk Summit – Thursday 5:00 pm
Progressive News Contents
Pioneer Square Sidewalk Summit – Medicare For All, Thurs 2/24
News From Physicians for National Health Plan (PNHP)
Put Single Payer Back on the Table
Do Not Resuscitate the ‘Public Option’
The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game (VIDEO)
Wall Street Bonuses Up 17%, Profits Could Hit 'Unprecedented' Level, Says NY State Comptroller
Senator Merkley Coming to a Town Near You
Just For Fun: Grandpa and the IRS
Pioneer Square Sidewalk Summit – Medicare For All, Thurs 2/24
Peter Mahr provided this article/link.
We are having our own health care summit on Thursday to complement Obama's health care summit.
Come to Pioneer Courthouse Square at 5 -6 PM with white coats and signs.
The theme is that we are answering Obama's state of the Union message that anyone with a better idea on how to provide access to all and rescue costs should come forward...
Peter Mahr
P.S I encourage all Physicians for National Health Plan (PNHP) members to take 15 minutes to write a letter to the Oregonian on 2/24 that essentially states that single payer national health insurance is the answer to Obama's request. It can be nice and short, just 4-5 sentences. The more the better. It would be nice to have a few letters in on 2/25...
News From Physicians for National Health Plan (PNHP)
Dear PNHP members and friends,
We have some bad news and some good news.
1. The bad news is that President Obama's health proposal, as expected, retains all the structural flaws of the Senate health bill: A mandate that individuals (but not employers) purchase private coverage; over $400 billion in subsidies to the private health insurance industry; and funding through a steep excise tax on comprehensive health plans. At best, the plan will leave over 25 million Americans uninsured and tens of millions more underinsured.
Additionally, PNHP's request to be allowed to participate in Obama's health summit this Thursday, Feb. 25, has gone unanswered.
2. The good news is that single-payer advocates are garnering media attention and planning a "Sidewalk Summit for Medicare for All" outside Obama's official health summit this Thursday (with related actions in several cities on the same day).
Dr. Margaret Flowers appeared on Bill Moyers Journal on Feb. 5. Today, Dr. Quentin Young's blog posting, "Put single payer back on the table," appeared at The Huffington Post. This weekend, PNHP President Dr. Oliver Fein had an op-ed in the Huntsville (Alabama) Times in anticipation of his visit there later this week to give several talks.
PNHPers Dr. George Jolly (Saratoga, N.Y.), Dr. Rob Stone (Bloomington, Ind.), Dr. Anne Courtwright (Pueblo, Colo.) and Dr. Elinor Christiansen (Denver), who was interviewed by Colorado Public Radio, have also helped garner media coverage for single-payer recently.
Last week in Denver, Obama was greeted by throngs of grassroots single-payer supporters from Health Care for All Colorado and Dr. Flowers with "Medicare for All" signs outside (and even inside!) his events.
PNHPers can help with the following actions:
- Call the White House at 202-456-1111 and ask that single payer, Medicare for All be "on the table" at the summit this Thursday and that PNHP congressional fellow and Baltimore pediatrician Dr. Margaret Flowers be admitted.
- If you live in the DC-area, attend the "sidewalk summit" in your white coat and be prepared to speak to media on site about single payer.
- If you live outside DC, please send letters and op-eds to your local paper or try to link up with one of the local actions (Healthcare-Now is keeping a list of these). A sample letter-to-the editor that you can modify is here and several sample op-eds are linked above.
In solidarity,
Ida Hellander, MD
Executive Director
Mark Almberg
Communications Director
Put Single Payer Back on the Table
By Dr. Quentin Young
The Huffington Post
February 22, 2010
One year after its much-ballyhooed launch, the Obama administration's approach to health reform is now in serious disarray.
The president's health care summit on Feb. 25 is being portrayed as a last ditch bid to find some common ground with his "just say no" Republican opposition. He also faces an increasingly wary group of disgruntled Democrats, whose memory of the Massachusetts massacre -- the election of a Republican to Sen. Edward Kennedy's seat -- remains fresh.
The summit proceedings, which will be televised in the name of "transparency," will no doubt be laden with a formidable amount of stagecraft. They will be preceded by the unveiling of the president's own legislative proposal -- presumably the odious Senate bill with some tweaks -- a few days before.
But it's almost certain that this latest White House initiative, undertaken with the stated goal of salvaging and passing at least some elements of the stalled congressional bills, is foredoomed.
The House bill, contrary to many who believe otherwise, is disastrous. And if such a thing is possible, its Senate counterpart is even worse. Both would shovel hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the private health insurance industry. Both would make it a federal offense, with fines, for a person to fail to buy the insurers' shoddy products.
Even so, at least 23 million people would remain uninsured under the new law. And those who have insurance would remain vulnerable to extort premium increases, not unlike Anthem Blue Cross' recently announced premium hikes of up to 39 percentin California.
While one could imagine the enactment of certain piecemeal measures that might ameliorate our condition -- e.g., a simple prohibition of insurance company denials of coverage because of pre-existing conditions -- these are precisely the stand-alone measures most stubbornly opposed by Republicans, conservative Democrats and their corporate patrons. Such concessions, in their eyes, must be linked to shoring up the very culprits who are most responsible for our health care mess.
The presence of the for-profit health industry -- the private health insurance conglomerate and the Big Pharma drug companies in the first place -- in the legislative process has certainly been "transparent" from the get go. Through their lobbyists and campaign contributions, they shaped a bill that would enhance their domination of our health system. They are at the root of the catastrophe that passes for health care financing in the United States today.
Of course, the conspicuous omission in the debate has been single-payer national health insurance proposal, an improved Medicare for All. This was assured on the Senate side when the powerful chairman of its Finance Committee, Max Baucus, D-Mont., informed the world that everything was on the table but single payer.
How the chairman of a congressional committee, however powerful, can set the terms of debate in a democratic society by excluding such a popular and well-substantiated solution is hard to rationalize. Baucus did, of course, prevail, and what came out of the Senate was execrable. Like the House bill, it fails the three tests of genuine reform: universal coverage, quality improvement and cost control.
One can reasonably suspect that President Obama now wants something -- anything -- to pass in Congress as evidence of the fulfillment of his campaign pledge to accomplish health care reform. But if he looks to the House and Senate bills as the starting point, his efforts will be in vain.
It's not too late for the president to re-embrace his earlier support for single-payer national health insurance and set the nation on the right path. Were he to lay out the facts to the American people and provide energetic leadership for this eminently rational proposal, he would get strong, grassroots support from the public.
We're now spending $8,000 per capita annually on health care, $2.5 trillion in total. That's nearly one-fifth of our GDP. Yet our health outcomes rank among the lowest in the industrialized world. Some 45,000 people die each year chiefly because they have no health insurance, and medical bills and illness are now linked to nearly two-thirds of personal bankruptcies. This reality in the richest country in the world is unnecessary and intolerable.
I suggest the president look to an improved and expanded Medicare program as the solution. Medicare, which was enacted in 1965 and which has served our elderly and the totally disabled so well, is a solid foundation to build upon.
Enactment of an improved Medicare for All would save our nation $400 billion annually by eliminating the bureaucracy and paperwork inflicted on our system by the private insurers. That's more than enough to provide universal, comprehensive care to everyone and to eliminate all co-pays and deductibles. A single-payer system would also allow us to rein in costs and better allocate resources.
We have a talented health care workforce. But to fully unlock their potential, we need to get out from under the greedy dictates of the health industry.
Mr. President, it's time to put single payer back on the table.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-quentin-young/put-single-payer-back-on_b_471811.html
Published on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 by CommonDreams.org VIA Steve Weiss
Do Not Resuscitate the ‘Public Option’
Michael Munk provided this link/article.
Like initiating CPR on a patient who was dead in the field and remained dead on arrival, the effort to resuscitate the “public option” is mistaken and futile.
Once upon a time, proponents of the “public plan option” sought a “Medicare-like” program that might enroll every other person in the nation and thus run private insurers out of business.
“A roadblock to reform” cried the insurance companies. In turn, nothing in the bills passed by the House and the Senate would erect a public insurer that could possibly influence the insurance market.
The House bill included a feeble government plan, to start in 2013, that would enroll perhaps 2 percent of the nation by 2019. The Senate bill simply nixed the idea altogether. Now the President, in his latest proposal, has also abandoned the "public option."
In reality the “public option” was never much more than a K-street phrase, a shadow-puppet, a political posture. All along proponents of adding a new government-sponsored insurer boasted “talking points” but never offered workable health reform.
But the insurance companies oppose the “public option” and that proves its virtue, its supporters exclaim.
Hello? Of course the insurers oppose it.
Why would the insurers want to yield even 2 percent of the market to a public plan (House bill) when they’ve been given the “option” (Senate bill) of keeping 100 percent of the market? Why would the insurance companies not fight for the whole pie when the White House let slip that it saw the “public option” as simply a bargaining chip in private deal making?
But there is something else here.
With its reliance on the magic of the marketplace, the “public option” is simply not a proposal for reform. In fact, it has already been tried, and failed: in Maine, a “public option” insurer known as DirigoChoice, was established in 2003. It has failed to enroll but a tiny percent of the uninsured, did nothing to reduce the costs of insurance or health care, nor did it reduced overall health spending, nor did disparities in care improve – and in the last year DirigoChoice has fatally tanked.
In the United States a corporate oligopoly of huge insurers, with near-monopoly control in most locales, dominate the market. A government insurer of any size would simply add yet another bureaucracy to the present byzantine insurance mess.
Does it really make any sense to think that a government plan could give the private insurance companies a run for their money – within the contemporary corporate marketplace – without draconian regulation upon the industry? Even with regulation, as former Cigna executive Wendell Potter explained at the PNHP annual meeting this year, insurance companies simply “flaunt regulations.”
The insurance market cannot be tricked into reforming itself. The health insurance company that wins at the marketplace avoids and jettisons sick and poor patients and enrolls the healthy and the wealthy – and a “public option” will not change this fact. The market that serves the private interests – profiteering at the expense of the sick – would continue to do so.
The proper name for this kind of “market magic” is the race to the bottom. Adding a public plan into the private mix can not and will not change the character of this cruel game.
Any successful “public option” insurance plan would wind up covering the sick and the poor. It would be designed to lose, not win, the market competition. It would not prove affordable or comprehensive. Worst of all, a highly successful “public plan option” could put our nation on a fast-track to permanent two-tiered health services, exacerbating deplorable disparities that plague us.
Regrettably, that the “public option” has been given attention at all is but a measure of how deeply our culture has surrendered to neoliberal ideology, the ideas popularized by Ronald Reagan. It is a lie that the market will always provide, most especially when it comes to health care. So why would some of our friends still seek to revive the false promise of the “public option”?
Marie Gottschalk, University of Pennsylvania Professor of Political Science, identified the psychology at work. In a remarkably prescient essay written in late 2009, she compared health reformers in the United States to victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, in which hostages identify with – and even defend – the hostage-takers.
We ought to reach out with sympathy to our friends who have fallen captive to Ronald Reagan ideology and say: Do not resuscitate the “public option.” It is time to let it go.
All along, adding a feeble public insurance plan to the insurance market has been but a very poor excuse to support “insurance reform” that will criminalize the uninsured, divert billions of tax dollars to subsidize unaffordable private insurance premiums and protect pharmaceutical industry super-profits.
Another world is still possible. It is called Medicare-for-all, expanded and improved.
Andrew D. Coates, MD is a leader of Physicians for a National Health Program and the grassroots coalition Single Payer New York. (An earlier version of this essay appeared at The Progressive Media Project in December.)
The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game (VIDEO)
By Glenn Greenwald | 2/23/10 | Link
Ray Kenny provided this article/link. Comment: For those who wonder just what the hell is wrong with the Dems since last year's election....here's a conspiracy theory to ponder.
Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it's played:
Politics Daily, October 4, 2009:
Jay Rockefeller on the Public Option: "I Will Not Relent"
Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. .. . . He's [] a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor -- and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.
"I will not relent on that. That's the only way to go," Rockefeller told me in an interview. "There's got to be a safe harbor."
President Obama often says a public option is needed to drive down costs and keep insurance companies honest. To Rockefeller, it's both more basic and more vital: The federal government is the only institution people can count on in times of need.
The Huffington Post, yesterday:
Rockefeller Not Inclined To Support Reconciliation For The Public Plan
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. .. .
"I don't think the timing of it is very good," the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. "I'm probably not going to vote for that" . . . In making his sentiment known, Rockefeller becomes perhaps the most unexpected skeptic of the public-option-via-reconciliation route. The Senator was a huge booster of a government run insurance option during the legislation drafting process this past year.
In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can't do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn't have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process -- which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option -- Rockefeller is suddenly "inclined to oppose it" because he doesn't "think the timing of it is very good" and it's "too partisan." What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn't pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he "would not relent" in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama -- while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary -- finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don't have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there's a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.
This is what the Democratic Party does; it's who they are. They're willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there's no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush's eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush's habeas and interrogation abuses ("Gosh, what can we do? We just don't have 60 votes).
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it's Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it's Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and "breaking with their party" to ensure Michael Mukasey's confirmation as Attorney General; then it's Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it's Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can't blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don't need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.
Basically, this is how things have progressed:
Progressives: We want a public option!
Democrats/WH: We agree with you totally! Unfortunately, while we have 50 votes for it, we just don't have 60, so we can't have it. Gosh darn that filibuster rule.
Progressives: But you can use reconciliation like Bush did so often, and then you only need 50 votes.
Filbuster reform advocates/Obama loyalists: Hey progressives, don't be stupid! Be pragmatic. It's not realistic or Serious to use reconciliation to pass health care reform. None of this their fault. It's the fault of the filibuster. The White House wishes so badly that it could pass all these great progressive bills, but they're powerless, and they just can't get 60 votes to do it.
[Month later]
Progressives: Hey, great! Now that you're going to pass the bill through reconciliation after all, you can include the public option that both you and we love, because you only need 50 votes, and you've said all year you have that!
Democrats/WH: No. We don't have 50 votes for that (look at Jay Rockefeller). Besides, it's not the right time for the public option. The public option only polls at 65%, so it might make our health care bill -- which polls at 35% -- unpopular. Also, the public option and reconciliation are too partisan, so we're going to go ahead and pass our industry-approved bill instead . . . on a strict party line vote.
This is why, although I basically agree with filibuster reform advocates, I am extremely skeptical that it would change much, because Democrats would then just concoct ways to lack 50 votes rather than 60 votes -- just like they did here. Ezra Klein, who is generally quite supportive of the White House perspective, reported last week on something rather amazing: Democratic Senators found themselves in a bind, because they pretended all year to vigorously support the public option but had the 60-vote excuse for not enacting it. But now that Democrats will likely use the 50-vote reconciliation process, how could they (and the White House) possibly justify not including the public option? So what did they do? They pretended in public to "demand" that the public option be included via reconciliation with a letter that many of them signed (and thus placate their base: see, we really are for it!), while conspiring in private with the White House (which expressed "sharp resistance" to the public option) to make sure it wouldn't really happen.
The only thing I wonder about is whether Washington Democrats are baffled about the extreme "enthusiasm gap" between Democratic and Republican voters, which very well could cause them to lose control of Congress this year. By "enthusiasm gap," it is meant that the very people who worked so hard in 2006 and 2008 to ensure that Democrats became empowered are now indifferent -- apathetic -- about whether they keep it. Even as crazed and extremist as the GOP is, is it remotely possible that the Democratic establishment fails to understand not only why this "enthusiasm gap" exists, but also why it's completely justifiable?
UPDATE: I didn't intend to make an argument here one way or the other about the desirability of the public option, but was merely highlighting the game Democrats play in general. But for those interested in that question, it has always seemed clear to me that -- no matter where one falls on the ideological spectrum (including conservatives and libertarians) -- once the Government is going to mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance, it is preferable to provide an option to purchase a public plan rather than forcing everyone to buy from the private health insurance industry. On both policy and political grounds, a public-option-free mandate seems distastrous for Democrats.
Libertarian/conservative GOP Rep. John Shaddeg explained this point perfectly in this January interview with Mike Stark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxuOfLtqczE&feature=player_embedded
Wall Street Bonuses Up 17%, Profits Could Hit 'Unprecedented' Level, Says NY State Comptroller
02-24-10 | By Michael Gormley, Associated Press | The Huffington Post | Link
Dick Quinn provided this article/link.
ALBANY, N.Y. - Wall Street bonuses were up 17 percent to over $20 billion in 2009, the year taxpayers bailed out the financial sector after its meltdown, New York state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said Tuesday.
Total compensation at the largest securities firms grew beyond that figure and profits could surpass what he calls an unprecedented $55 billion last year, DiNapoli said. That's nearly three times Wall Street's record increase, a rate of growth that is boosted in part by the record losses in 2008 of nearly $43 billion, the Democrat said.
"Wall Street is vital to New York's economy, and the dollars generated by the industry help the state's bottom line," said DiNapoli. "But for most Americans, these huge bonuses are a bitter pill and hard to comprehend. ... Taxpayers bailed them out, and now they're back making money while many New York families are still struggling to make ends meet."
DiNapoli supports reforms that require Wall Street bonuses to be tied to long-term profitability, to force more stability in the volatile markets and "make sure the securities industry thrives without driving the rest of us out on a fragile economic limb."
DiNapoli reviews tax collections each year and bases his annual projection of Wall Street bonuses on income and other taxes paid in New York City.
DiNapoli notes the bonuses help state revenues tremendously as it faces an $8.2 billion deficit, but they are a "bitter pill" to most taxpayers nationwide.
The bonus estimate doesn't include compensation that Wall Streeters chose to take in stock options and other kinds of deferred payment.
ALBANY, N.Y. (By Michael Gormley, Associated Press) - Wall Street bonuses were up 17 percent to over $20 billion in 2009, the year taxpayers bailed out the financial sector after its meltdown, New York state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said Tuesday.
Total compensation at the largest securities firms grew beyond that figure and profits could surpass what he calls an unprecedented $55 billion last year, DiNapoli said. That's nearly three times Wall Street's record increase, a rate of growth that is boosted in part by the record losses in 2008 of nearly $43 billion, the Democrat said.
"Wall Street is vital to New York's economy, and the dollars generated by the industry help the state's bottom line," said DiNapoli. "But for most Americans, these huge bonuses are a bitter pill and hard to comprehend. ... Taxpayers bailed them out, and now they're back making money while many New York families are still struggling to make ends meet."
DiNapoli supports reforms that require Wall Street bonuses to be tied to long-term profitability, to force more stability in the volatile markets and "make sure the securities industry thrives without driving the rest of us out on a fragile economic limb."
DiNapoli reviews tax collections each year and bases his annual projection of Wall Street bonuses on income and other taxes paid in New York City.
DiNapoli notes the bonuses help state revenues tremendously as it faces an $8.2 billion deficit, but they are a "bitter pill" to most taxpayers nationwide.
The bonus estimate doesn't include compensation that Wall Streeters chose to take in stock options and other kinds of deferred payment.
Senator Merkley Coming to a Town Near You
Senator Jeff Merkley has committed to visit every county in Oregon every year and meet with local residents to discuss issues ranging from how to help small businesses expand and hire more employees to restoring accountability on Wall Street. Coming up this weekend, Jeff will be holding his eighth, ninth and tenth town halls of the year, visiting Klamath Falls, Hood River and Sherwood. He will update constituents on what he's working on in Washington, D.C., answer questions, and hear his fellow Oregonians' ideas about the issues affecting them and their local communities.
Below are details for Jeff's upcoming town hall visits. We hope to see you there!
Klamath County Town Hall
Saturday, February 27, 2010 - 3:00 PM
Oregon Institute of Technology
Student Union Auditorium
3201 Campus Drive
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Hood River County Town Hall
Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 1:30 PM
Hood River Middle School Auditorium
1602 May Street
Hood River, OR 97031
Washington County Town Hall
Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 6 PM
Sherwood High School Commons
16956 SW Meinecke Rd.
Sherwood, OR 97140
For information about Jeff's upcoming visits to Oregon, visit the Oregon Town Halls page on his website.
Just For Fun: Grandpa and the IRS
Lori Schutt provided this article/link.
Grandpa and the IRS
The IRS decides to audit Grandpa, and summons him to the IRS office.
The IRS auditor was not surprised when Grandpa showed up with his attorney.
The auditor said, 'Well, sir, you have an extravagant lifestyle and no full-time employment, which you explain by saying that you win money gambling. I'm not sure the IRS finds that believable.'
I'm a great gambler, and I can prove it,' says Grandpa. 'How about a demonstration?'
The auditor thinks for a moment and said, 'Okay. Go ahead.'
Grandpa says, 'I'll bet you a thousand dollars that I can bite my own eye.'
The auditor thinks a moment and says, 'It's a bet.'
Grandpa removes his glass eye and bites it. The auditor's jaw drops..
Grandpa says, 'Now, I'll bet you two thousand dollars that I can bite my other eye.'
Now the auditor can tell Grandpa isn't blind, so he takes the bet.
Grandpa removes his dentures and bites his good eye.
The stunned auditor now realizes he has wagered and lost three grand, with Grandpa's attorney as a witness. He starts to get nervous.
'Want to go double or nothing?' Grandpa asks 'I'll bet you six thousand dollars that I can stand on one side of your desk, and pee into that wastebasket on the other side, and never get a drop anywhere in between.'
The auditor, twice burned, is cautious now, but he looks carefully and decides there's no way this old guy could possibly manage that stunt, so he agrees again.
Grandpa stands beside the desk and unzips his pants, but although he strains mightily, he can't make the stream reach the wastebasket on the other side, so he pretty much urinates all over the auditor's desk.
The auditor leaps with joy, realizing that he has just turned a major loss into a huge win.
But Grandpa's own attorney moans and puts his head in his hands~~
'Are you okay?' the auditor asks.
'Not really,' says the attorney. 'This morning, when Grandpa told me he'd been summoned for an audit, he bet me twenty-five thousand dollars that he could come in here and pee all over your desk and that you'd be happy about it!'
I keep telling you! Don't Mess with Old People!!
Thank You
Thank You for Subscribing to Derrick's Progressive News
Feel free to forward this email…
Contact Derrick at Derrick@Duehren.com to subscribe for free or to unsubscribe. Please put “Newsletter” in the subject line.
|
Publisher/Editor |
||
|
|
Derrick Duehren www.Duehren.com By day, I’m a technical writer/human factors Specialist for a local telecommunications company; by night, I’m a fire-breathing defender of liberal social policies. I’m a news hound and share with you stories and videos that I feel are worth sharing with you all (510 as of Feb 2010). I do not share my mailing list and all newsletters go out as blind copies, so everyone gets their own individual copy. |
~ YES WE ARE ~
Making single payer happen
one person one phone call/Fax
~ at a time ~ Regina Dobson |
Get information, resources, and more at our web site: SinglePayUSA.com.
Contact Congress Daily: Send a Free E-Fax at www.1payer.net/faxapp/.
Other Good Sites for Single Payer Information:
www.healthcareforalloregon.org
www.vancouverhealthcarenow.org
Recent comments
3 weeks 3 days ago
3 weeks 6 days ago
11 weeks 3 days ago
25 weeks 1 day ago
26 weeks 2 days ago
29 weeks 3 days ago
29 weeks 3 days ago
29 weeks 3 days ago
32 weeks 5 days ago
32 weeks 5 days ago