White House confident Supreme Court will uphold health care law
September 28th, 2011
04:31 PM ET

White House confident Supreme Court will uphold health care law

The Obama administration is putting on a confident face when it comes to the debate being waged in federal courts over the health care law.

In a blog post explaining why the Justice Department is formally asking the Supreme Court to take up the matter this term, Deputy Senior White House Advisor Stephanie Cutter writes she is confident the high court will overturn a recent federal court’s decision that held the law’s mandate unconstitutional:

Opponents of reform wrongly claim that Congress exceeded its authority in regulating when and how people pay for health care. Those who claim that the “individual responsibility” provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes “inactivity” are simply wrong. People who make a decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market. Their action is not felt by themselves alone. Instead, when they become ill or injured and cannot pay their bills, their costs are shifted to others. Those costs – $43 billion in 2008 alone – are borne by doctors, hospitals, insured individuals, taxpayers and small businesses throughout the nation.

Entire blog post HERE.


Topics: The News

soundoff (44 Responses)
  1. EdwardCA

    That assumes that the Supreme Court doesn't have its own agenda. Remember how they decided that the United States should no longer be a democracy in the Citizens United decision?

    September 28, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  2. jerry

    we shall see in 2013 when there is a power change... the courts can do as they wish.

    September 28, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  3. Rick McDaniel

    It is in the best interest of the people, if the law is found unconstitutional in its entirety, and the court sets it aside, in its entirety.

    Obama passed that bill, with under the table, favors for members of his own party to vote for it. It was hardly done in a proper and correct manner, in the first place. (Obama has done entirely too much, in questionable ethical conduct, in what he has done, overall.

    September 28, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  4. jean2009

    Those who have insurance are going to pay for insurance, but those who do not have insurance are paid for by the ones who do have insurance. The doctors and hospitals are going to bill someone. I would rather this be a country where those who do not have insurance could afford to have insurance, and would be required to have it. This would help defray the extra $1000 a year it costs a family of 4 for their insurance premium to also cover the uninsured. Then we must consider the uninsured who are denied insurance due to preexisting conditions, are whose insurance wants to drop them because they are in ill health.

    Every person runs the risk of a major illness happening to them at some point in their lives. Whether it be with the birth of child with multiple heath problems, or some unexpected illness like multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's, diabetes, are any of a number of things that can come out of left field.

    I would rather we find a better way where people will visit a doctor before they take a major illness to the emergency room because they couldn't afford to see the doctor.

    Obama-Biden 2012 ....or those for the Nazi gas chambers wins.

    September 28, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • Sonnie2

      There is some real problems with your thoughts. The right to freedom and liberty is far more important than mandateing what a person has to buy for health insurance. And by the way If I can't afford a new car they won't sell me one and so if I can't afford a certain medical procedure then I personally am not entitled to have someone pay for it for me. Bottom line is entitlements are the death of the FREE world. Get off the Government tit and make your own way is the American Way. To be a leach or blood sucker just don't cut it. You see to much fraud there

      September 29, 2011 at 5:48 am |
      • jean2009

        @Sonnie2 and bottom line...like it or not, if you are uninsured and pass-out from heat exhaustion on your morning run through the park and the emergency squad is called your emergency room tab is going to be paid for by the insured.

        People who don't have insurance are not going to the doctor's office because they can't afford the bill and they put off going simply because they can't afford to pay. Somethings left untreated only become worse which means eventually they will wind up in the emergency room.

        Living in a free society should not mean the uninsured have the right to push the cost off on others. No one should be denied insurance due to a preexisting condition, but we also have those who can afford insurance but choose not to because they think they are perfectly healthy and too young for anything serious to happen to them. That old manana I'll buy insurance when I'm old and need it...right now I want to buy this.

        Basically health insurance is a must ,and in my opinion it should be mandated, otherwise insurers will be allowed to cherry pick, deny insurance coverage, or even dump the insured when they do get ill. The only way to stop that is to require everyone have insurance, and that everyone not be denied.

        Civics 101....my individual rights only extend to the point that I do not violate the rights of another.
        Simply when my being uninsured imposes a financial cost on another who happens to be insured, then I do not have that right.

        October 2, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
    • BTLProd

      There is a major problem with your argument. Self Insured (There is nobody that s Uninsured in this Country) does not mean or even imply that a person is unable or unwilling to pay their bills. Health Insurance does not mean or imply health care. Remember a Health Insurance Contract is a contract between you and a Health Insurance Company. In that contract a Health Insurance company agrees to pay you based on your Medical costs. This bears repeating, they pay you, not a doctor or hospital, what you then do with the money is entirely up to you.

      September 29, 2011 at 9:33 am |
      • jean2009

        @BTLProd in what universe are you lost.

        According to statistics about 18.3 million uninsured are under the age of 34.
        More than 14 million of them earn over $50,000 per year and a percentage over $75,000 per year.
        About 14,000 people lose their health insurance every day.
        Currently we have about 44 million people who do not have health insurance, and another 38 million who are under-insured.
        All told that puts a big strain on the premium cost for those who do have health insurance coverage.

        October 2, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
      • BTLProd

        Jean: By definition there are no Uninsured. Insurance is, by definition, a transfer of risk. You can choose to transfer your risk to your employer, who can either raetain the risk or transfer it to an insurance company. You can choose to transfer your risk to an Insurance company by purchasing a policy (in both of those cases you are insured by a third party). You can transfer your risk to an HMO, in which case you are insured by your health care provider. Or you can choose to retain your risk, in which case you are Self Insured. That is the definition of Insurance.

        The biggest strain on the system is not those that choose to be self insured, but those that are covered by Medicare and Medicaid due to the percentage of the bill they pay. It is like me walking up to you, getting your house appraised for $200,000 then forcing you to sell it to me for $150,000 (Medicare before 2014) or $100,000 (Medicaid before 2014).

        October 3, 2011 at 1:28 am |
    • Jay in NC

      Why are they going to an emergency room if they do not have an emergency? Are you telling me that they do not have access to a county clinic or other place that gives free or reduced care to the poor? Hospitals should be given the right to turn a patient away, inform them of the local clinics. It is a crime that they would charge emergency room rates for a cold then pass that expense on to the rest of us. Insurance for all does not solve this problem. If these people are irresponsible now they will be irresponsible in the future.

      If thinking like this makes me a Nazi then all I can say is "Heil Hitler" lets lower the cost.

      September 30, 2011 at 7:13 am |
      • BTLProd

        Because of the fact that Medicaid only pays 50-60% of the going rates, many places will not accept Medicaid Patients. Because of the law though Medical Professionals must accept patients in Emergency situations, regardless of their ability to pay. Hence the ER use.

        September 30, 2011 at 10:26 am |
    • Txph

      It wouldn't be so objectionable if individuals were mandated to pay a tax for national health care. What is objectionable is a requirement for individuals to buy from private insurance companies. That's like mandating people to fund their retirements through private banks instead of SS. One of the judges in a recent case said he can see that if this law stands, that this is next.

      October 1, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
    • BTLProd

      BTW you do realize that Medicare A&B do not cover Preventative care, don't you? All your talk about how the Uninsured can't afford Preventative care is a joke when you realize that those on the Government plans don't have Preventative care coverage. (Medicaid will cover preventative care, if you can find a Doctor willing to accept the pittance that Medicaid pays as payment, I understand there are a couple left, but they are about as rare as Doctors that make house calls.)

      Medicare Part C, also known as Medicare Advantage, is an alternative to Medicare Parts A&B which does provide Preventative care and does provide low co-pays and low stop loss amounts so you do not need a supplement. Medicare Advantage plans are significantly less expensive for the Medicare Recipient and provide better coverage.

      Now also note that Medicare Advantage Plans are removed from the market by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This forces Medicare recipients to purchase new Medicare Supplements at their current age, instead of the age at which they became eligible for Medicare. (And you wonder why AARP backed this Obamanation of a law. AARP derives most of its income from Medicare Supplements.)

      The question is what do the Democrats have against Medicare Recipients that would make them pass a law that does this to our most vulnerable Citizens?

      October 3, 2011 at 1:59 am |
  5. SiriusVH

    "People who make a decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market. Their action is not felt by themselves alone. Instead, when they become ill or injured and cannot pay their bills, their costs are shifted to others. Those costs – $43 billion in 2008 alone – are borne by doctors, hospitals, insured individuals, taxpayers and small businesses throughout the nation." <===== EXACTLY .... But, of course, there just too many free-loaders who, in the name of 'freedom' would rather take a chance and shift the cost onto others when their gamble fails and they fall sick. It is the same specious argument used by banks when they claim that regulations stifle their ability to make money. All they want is to avoid having to put capital aside (and therefore have less money to gamble away). But, then, when their bets turn out to be idiotic, they go to the taxpayer to get bailed out. That's what TPsters call 'responsibility': the ability to shift onto others the cost of your mistakes, all in the name of 'freedom'!

    September 28, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
  6. Dale

    Outrageous costs for out-of-control medical service, if you do not have insurance Forget it, Go to the emergency room.
    If you have insurance, make appointment and weight days and then go to the doctor and pay your high dollar co-pay .
    The doctor will way you take your blood pressure and check your temperature, look in your ears and throat, listen to your heart and listen to you breathe, poke you hear poke you there.
    And then sometimes send you to the lab for blood tests.
    Without lab tests, 80 too $100 or more, for about 25 min. with the doctor.
    With lab tests 800 too $1000 or more.
    (( Millions of people do this each day,)) paying these amounts and it all goes to doctors high six figures yearly income and staffing salaries.
    And it's the same way in hospitals, Everything is fraudulently inflated to pay for the high administrator and executive salaries and staffing salaries.
    And the insurance companies are paying for all of this.The American medical system is broken just like everything else, it cost too much to get sick. And it's going to get worse if something is not done to put a stop to this out-of-control medical system.

    There's always going to be sick people and they know that, and charge whatever they want to.

    September 28, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • Sonnie2

      That is a big BINGO you got in your thoughts. Keep up the good work

      September 29, 2011 at 5:50 am |
    • Txph

      Not to worry. HCR will replace replace primary care doctors with nurses. Half the education and academic talent for half the price. If you want to cut 31 million more pieces out of the health care system pie, you have to decrease quality. Period. Medicare recipients will get letters in 2014 telling them they must report to their new government HMO, which the Affordable Care Act euphemistically calls "affordable care organizations" and the Rationing Will Begin. Obamas claim that" if you like your health care plan you can keep it" will come back to bite him, but of course this is after 2012. We needed insurance reform, not the worst combination of government/private insurance alliance. This just empowers Big Insurance even more with billions of taxpayers dollars going into their coffers with rationing and decrease in quality of health care.

      October 1, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
  7. jerome

    Perhaps we should instead change the laws that require doctors and hospitals to provide services to those who cannot pay. We don't require restaurants to provide meals, lodges ( hotels / motels ) to provide shelter, or department stores to provide clothing to those who cannot pay, and these are arguably just as important ( if not more so ) than health care.

    September 28, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • Sonnie2

      WOW/ Another Big BINGO, Your on the right track

      September 29, 2011 at 5:52 am |
  8. Liz Carter in Georgia

    I agree Jean. That's just common sense! The rich act like they don't want to be expected to bare the burdens of the poor and disenfranchised anyway...so what could be the big scoff about PRESIDENT OBAMAS' AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE BILL? I saw him attempting to take some of the burden off of me, you and the rich, by giving people an opportunity to purchase a more affordable medical insurance. HILLARY CLINTON even tried to do that as the First Lady. Is it that the CONS didn't want to accept it from OBAMA?

    September 28, 2011 at 9:40 pm |
    • Sonnie2

      Be it your rich or be it your not so rich, It don't matter/ The Government has no damm bussines in the manditory health insurance business. In the Constitution that is there to limit Government I see no place that says they are entitled to make health care decisions for anybody. The Supreme Court will soon rule that obocare is UN constitutional

      September 29, 2011 at 5:57 am |
      • Jorge

        Regardless of a person's ptiolical persuasion, what you say here makes sense. It IS all about insurance. As someone who is also uninsured (can't afford the Blue Cross private policy premiums anymore, plus the deductibles were killing us when we did have it), the only difference I see with this new bill is that now we will be forced to buy insurance or pay a horrendous fine (equivalent to the cost of the insurance) to Uncle Sam every year. Excuse me, HOW does that help me again?I think the legislators are in the pockets of the insurance lobbyists and I don't think I see that changing any time soon.Bob and I have actually considered moving our business to somewhere like Ecuador to afford healthcare and be able to have a decent life. How's that for the American dream? Whew. Maybe you just caught me on a bad day. Not sure. Thanks for starting this discussion, David.

        March 2, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • BTLProd

      Hillary's plan didn't pass either.

      What does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Which accomplishes none of what is suggested by the title of the law.) have to do with Rich vs. Poor? The Rich don't need Insurance, they can pay their own Health Care Costs. The Poor are already covered by Medicaid.

      September 29, 2011 at 9:50 am |
  9. BTLProd

    The White House's arguments are more of the same. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

    1. There are, by definition, 0 people in this country that are Uninsured. Insurance is a transfer of risk, by definition as well as in fact. In this Country you have choices, you can choose to transfer the risk that you will need medical care to a Health Insurance Company by purchasing a Policy. You can choose to allow your employer to accept your risk, and they can either further transfer that risk to an Insurance Company or Retain it. Or you can choose to retain your risk. If you retain your risk you are not Uninsured you are Self Insured.

    2. Not all people or companies that are Self Insured don't pay their medical bills. As the most famous example, before the bailout (I don't know the current status.) GM employees had great Health Care Coverage. Nobody will tell you otherwise. Yet GM was fully self insured. They paid for this Health Care of their employees, not through purchasing Insurance but by paying for their employees Health Care Expenses out of petty cash. That subjects you to a fine under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    3. The people that are Self Insured are a small percentage of your Health care costs. In fact that is roughly the same percentage as the cost to a health care provider as professional liability costs (which the Democrats dismiss as unimportant and too small to worry about.). The biggest driver of Health care costs is the costs themselves, but the second biggest driver is the fact that the Government doesn't pay their fair share. Every year the Department of Health and Human Services determines the "Usual and Customary Charges" for health care for each County in the US. Medicare, which covers the people needing the most health care, per capita, then proceeds to authorize 75% of that figure for payment for procedures. So Medicare Plus a supplement or co-pay only covers 75% of what the Government said was fair to pay for Health Care. (And under Obamacare that percentage goes down.) Medicaid pays between 50% and 60% or that same number, depending on the state. You really think that doesn't drive your costs more than those that are Self Insured and don't pay their bills? (Even after collections efforts.)

    4. Health Insurance is a transfer of risk when it comes to health care related costs. Health care is providing Medical Care to those that need it. Health care and health insurance are two different things. Neither one requires the other. And note that Health Insurance does not guarantee Health Care. Nor does Health Insurance, generally, pay for Health Care.

    Health Insurance is a Contract between you and the Insurance Company. Health Insurance Pays YOU for the Health care costs you incur. (Read your policy, it says so.) Only Medicaid and Medicare pay the Health Care Provider directly. (Hence the excessive fraud.)

    September 29, 2011 at 9:26 am |
  10. Liz Carter in Georgia

    @Sonnie2, the way I see it, we the people who have insurance, which by the way I do, pay anyway for the healthcare and those surgeries for those who don't! If they had some insurance, it would at least lighten the burden on our premiums! Furthermore, how can you compare buying a car or not being able to buy one to the basic human right and necessity in America to have health care insurance? Where is your rational thinking, when we're paying for those who don't have it anyway?

    September 29, 2011 at 9:33 am |
    • BTLProd

      You pay more for those that have health care and surgeries that are on Medicare and Medicaid than you do for those that are Self-Insured and refuse to pay their bills.

      September 29, 2011 at 9:39 am |
  11. KatR

    In a nutshell, the Affordable Care Act shifts health care COSTS from the government to the insurance companies in the free market where competition will, hopefully, drive down costs. Those who maintain that because the Constitution says nothing about health care then it means that the govt should keep their nose out of it forget that Congress has the power to tax us for, amongst other purposes, to provide for the general welfare of the USA. When the govt is running huge deficits and a large percentage of those deficits are caused by paying for health care for citizens who can't purchase health ins due to a preexisting condition, are dropped by their insurer because they've reached a lifetime maximum, or because a citizen chooses to run the risk and not purchase insurance at all the general welfare of the govt and thus our country is in jeopardy. The individual mandate is necessary to keep govt deficits down. It's not unreasonable to require that a citizen who chooses not to purchase health insurance pay a little extra in taxes each year. After all, the govt will be the one who has to pay for any health care that individual citizen will inevitably need at some point in their lives. BTW, The Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security Act of 1935 was constitutional based on the power of Congress to assess taxes to provide for the general welfare of the country. How is the individual mandate any different?

    September 29, 2011 at 9:43 am |
    • BTLProd

      It does no such thing. Well with the exception of cutting the percentage of Usual and Customary Charges that Medicare and Medicaid pays for provided services passing that additional cost to make up the difference on to the rest of us.

      The Congress can not levy fines without due process, which means trial by a jury of my peers. The fine is not a tax, it was intentionally called a fine in the law. The DOJ, under oath, argued that it was a fine. Therefore it is a fine.

      In 40 states there is no such thing as someone that can't buy health insurance because of Pre-existing conditions. (38 have a high risk pool, and then there is Massachusetts and Hawaii. ) Further HIPPA and COBRA limit the number of people that can be denied Health Insurance due to pre-existing conditions anyway.

      If you exhaust your benefits on your Health Insurance Contract, then HIPPA provides you the ability to immediately purchase a new Health Insurance Policy at healthy person rates.

      September 29, 2011 at 10:10 am |
      • jean2009

        Cobra insurance only lasts 18 months from being laid off then it expires.
        HIPPA can be expensive for a person who is unemployed $3000 for the individual $6000 for a family with a $2000 or $4000 deductible.
        Pre-existing pools are not available in all states, they are excessively expensive, insurers still cherry pick...and the deductible is very high. Just the wrong things for someone with a pre-existing condition.

        October 2, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
      • BTLProd

        Jean: COBRA includes a provision that after you pay for the insurance you can purchase Health Insurance from any provider of Individual Plans, in your State, and they have to give it to you at the normal healthy person rates.

        HIPPA has no cost associated with it. It simply states that if you have continuous coverage any provider in your state has to allow you to transfer your insurance at the normal healthy person rates. Further if you have a pre-existing condition it applies a lifetime limit on the amount of time you can be excluded based on that condition, even if you don't have continuous coverage.

        October 3, 2011 at 1:32 am |
      • BTLProd

        Jean: BTW in 40 states they can't cherry pick. In 38 of those there are State mandated High Risk Pools, which are reasonably priced for the Insured. Each Insurer that sells insurance in the state must participate. Then there is Massachusetts, which is both going broke due to the law and is the model for major parts of Obamacare and Hawaii, which has Socialized Medicine, sort of.

        October 3, 2011 at 1:40 am |
    • Txph

      KatR sorry but this is kind of a no brained. SS requires us to pay a tax into a governement program for retirement. The Affordable Care Act requires us to pay PRIVATE insurance companies for insurance. If you think This is OK,nthen you will be OK with the government abandoning SS and forcing us to invest with private banks for retirement.
      The truth is Democrats rather cynically and dishonestly passed HCR with full knowledge that the mandates in HCR would drive private insurance costs through the roof. They purposely left out cost controls to so that the electorate would scream for single payer when their premiums triple under the weight of the mandates. The infrastructure for single payer is in the Affordable Care Act and is being implemented as we speak, starting with government HMOs for Medicare startingnin 204. Eventually we will all be in government HMOs with truly lousy care. Don't smoke, keep your weight under control, pray for good genes.

      October 1, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
    • Txph

      And also much more US deficit is caused by Medicare recipients getting a 300 per cent return on what they paid into Medicare. We now have 7000 Boomers retiring every day who will get 3 times what they paid into Medicare back out as benefits. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS now account for 2/3 of our budget and more importantly will be ONE HUNDRED per cent if left as is due to aging population. We cannot get out from under deficits unless we reform entitlements. Just a little number crunching tells us that raising taxes on the rich will not even touch our entitlement problem. But Democrats not only insanely add another open ended entilement in HCR , they are running on a refusal to reform present entitlements that are going to bankrupt us. The "rich " would not mind paying higher taxes if there were a guarantee it would be applied to the deficit. It won't. Democrats will just SPEND MORE. We are on the Roqd to Greece.

      October 1, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
  12. sonny chapman

    Obama rolled the dice on giving the Green Light on Bin Laden. He's got guts.

    September 29, 2011 at 10:47 am |
    • BTLProd

      What does that have to do with this abomination of a Health Care Law? (Besides every President would have done that.)

      September 30, 2011 at 10:27 am |
      • jean2009

        We all will be thanking the president for the Affordable Health Care Act. Your turn is coming.

        October 2, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
      • BTLProd

        Jean: The only thing I will be thanking him for about this law is that it is so poorly written that the US Supreme Court will uphold the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and throw it out.

        October 3, 2011 at 1:34 am |
  13. C-Lo

    Trying to reduce medical costs by reformig the health insurance industry is like trying to reduce the price of cars by reforming the auto insurance industry. This plan attacks the wrong issue.

    My thoughts on a "cost effective" solution would be something like this:

    There are 355 million people in the US. Of those about 10-14 Million are considered illegal (sorry, undocumented). There are about 45 Million "uninsured" with about 5-10 mil being "short term" uninsured (those between jobs, not including long term unemployed). Figure the 10-14 Mill illegal are 90% uninsured (no data but a reasonable assumption) let's say low end of the 45 million 15 million would not need or should not "qualify" for "gov't" assistance through medicaid/over charged emergency room bills. That leaves about 30 Million truly "uninsured" ie no private or Medicare coverage, less than 10%

    High end, let's figure 10% based on these #'s. What I would propose is Dr's and hospitals "donate" 10% of their time, which would be "reimbursed" through tax rebates instead of Medicaid. Dr's would have to post 6 hours/week (10% of 60) they will accept patients without insurance. An average cost (based on medicaid records) per patient/hr would then be a tax credit to the Dr's. So, not knowing actual numbers but as an example, let's say a Dr. sees an average of 3 patients/hour. They would be tax credited the rate of 18 patients/week times number of weeks treating patients (say 50). No claims, insurance/medicaid reviews, reports etc. Huge reduction in paperwork, accounting etc.

    As a patient you are competing for the same amount of resources/needs as the insured population, but the insured population has more access by hours. If you want more access, you buy insurance. If more people choose to forgo insurance, that reduces the availability of resources because those times are limited. If 20% of the population chooses or can't afford insurance, there are twice as many people vying for the same 10% resources, so those who can afford it will buy it for necessity/convenience.

    Hospitals would operate similarly, specifying 10% of the beds as non-insured and would receive tax credits in lieu of medicaid payments.

    September 30, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • jean2009

      Udder nonsense.

      October 2, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
      • C-Lo

        Been on the "farm" too long "jean"? The term is "utter nonsense," not the underside of a cow. Assuming that you meant "utter" nonsense, that's quite an argument. I could pretty much make the exact same for the not-so-affordable healthcare act. However I can show factual evidence that the not-so-affordable healthcare act won't work.

        The goal of the act was to have larger pools of lower risk/cost individuals in the insurance pools to bring down the overall cost of insurance. One of the immediate effects was to bring 2.7 million young adults (children, apparently in the govt's eyes) in under their parents' insurance. Yet we have seen the costs of insurance RISE 9% far outpacing inflation. Yes I understand that 2.7 million is not a huge percentage, but these are the exact demographic that were supposed to solve this problem, and instead, look at the actual results.

        October 3, 2011 at 9:32 am |
  14. jean2009

    Massachusetts already has mandated insurance and has penalties for not people who are not insured.

    October 2, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
    • BTLProd

      Yes they do, and it is running into all sorts of issues. Thought your Health Care was expensive now? Just wait.

      October 3, 2011 at 1:35 am |
  15. Liz Carter in Georgia

    She got her point across though didn't she? She may have meant to say 'udder' as to describe the underside of right, meaning WRONG! C-Lo, I notice you have a very arrogant, haughty demeanor of responding to posters on the blogs, yet you've turned right around and called out people for name-calling, beligerent responses and demeaning positions. I have seen where you have done that for me a time or two...Thanks by the way! However, do be careful that you don't fall into those categories.

    October 5, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  16. thought empowerment

    Attractive part of content. I simply stumbled upon your blog and in accession capital to say that I get in fact loved account your weblog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing on your augment and even I achievement you access persistently fast.

    April 8, 2012 at 12:33 am |