Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Kreutz wrote:

gunderwood wrote:You've made that claim every time we have this debate, but you have never provide the source and I've asked multiple times.

Its gone up since I last checked; its 60% of all bankruptcies are due to medical debt now.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/heal ... =PM:HEALTH

IMHO, that study is seriously flawed. Their is no way they can claim their sample space was statistically valid from this alone:

Between January 25 and April 11, 2007, we obtained from Automated Access to Court Electronic Records, a list of all 118,308 bankruptcy petitions filed in the US. We excluded
filings in Guam and Puerto Rico, nonpersonal bankruptcies, and cases missing a name or address. Within 2 weeks of their filings, we mailed introductory letters to 5251 randomly selected debtors; 275 were returned as undeliverable. We then mailed self-administered questionnaires to the 4976 debtors with valid addresses; 2314 (46.5%) were completed and returned; 124 were returned incomplete (2.5%) and 83 (1.7%) declined to participate; 2455 (49.3% of those with valid addresses) did not respond.

Shame is a powerful emotion and people who caused their own bankruptcy would be far more likely to not return a questionnaire asking them why they did it. With a response like that their error margins would be so large as to be meaningless. Also, from what I can gather about the funding for that study, it comes from a group with a long history of pushing government intervention into health care. Other studies refute theirs as unfounded and flawed. Here is a summary article, but the papers are out there. http://www.american.com/archive/2009/au ... uptcy-myth

Only one group funded by a pro-government intervention group is claiming that. All of the other studies I have found claim at most 27%, but most are high teens. Interestingly enough, despite not having high socialized health care our bankruptcy rate is lower than Canada's. While that quoted paper about the bankrupcy numbers between us and Canada is from a pro-market group, they used government numbers, not their own.

The source you reference is so flawed it is basically no better than a VOGF online poll, which is to say interesting, but hardly scientific. I'd love to see a real source.

Kreutz wrote:

gunderwood wrote:Again, you are setting up a false narrative. It is about control, not care. The government care is limited too, but you just don't have a say in it directly. Ultimately the care won't happen and can't exist unless someone pays for it. Doctor's won't get trained, medical machines won't get designed and built, R&D won't happen, etc. It all takes money. How exactly does giving government control of your choice reduce costs one penny? It hasn't yet and it never will because the basic logic is flawed.

Economies of scale. The current system is fractured and disorganized, and in all honestly giving the governemtn control isn't much of a change. Not many people know this but insurers usually follow Medicare anyway.

Why is it fractured? Oh wait, because government set up regulations which don't let me buy insurance across state lines. Also, they d*cked with the tax code so that employers would make the choice for me. The very thing you are pointing out as a problem is a direct result of government intervention for decades where there should be none.

(underlined) That is exactly what I've claimed. The only change it who is controlling what, the "solution" isn't a solution as it just perpetuates more of the same failed government regulated system. Nothing of substance will change with the singular exception that I won't have control over my health care decisions anymore (to what limited extent I have them now). Government will continue driving health care costs up, quality down and satisfaction will still elude us. In essence all they are doing is removing a lot of the charade and consolidating their power over the people. Perpetuating a failed system won't solve anything.

For a country suppose to be based on freedom we sure do give it up in a hurry.

Gunderwood....I swear I wish you were less intelligent. I NEVER HAVE TIME TO FULLY DIGEST YOUR POSTS. I'm just now getting to the last one! Now I'll have to read THIS one too.

gunderwood wrote:
The whole debate is about a fundamentally flawed understanding of praxeology, economics and government.

1. Praxeology is the study of human actions and the laws of social cooperation. Medical care can not and will not exist unless those who wish to provide it see some reward and return for doing so. I.e. Doctors must feed their families too. The cost of such care will be raised be many external and internal factors such as: standard of living of the country, quality of care, cost of training, cost of tools, regulation, risk, etc. The more quality and advancements you want the more it will cost. There is no way to get around the fact that the medical profession at all levels will not exist unless there is financial gain to be had for participating in it; this is no different than any other market. I.e. I don't work for free and neither do you, we all work to make gains so we can better fulfill our wants and needs...by doing so though we must, by the definition of being successful, do work which others value. In this way we are all doing things which "help" each other.

No one is suggesting doctors work for free(though many do donate services of their own volition). The core reasoning behind "Obamacare" was increasing access to healthcare; not making it "free". Irregardless there will still be co-pays and deductibles.

There is a legitimate problem with access to care in this country, and the results which I mentioned before are a tangible negative in shifting ever increasing costs further onto us who do pay.

I am moralizing it to some extent (as I believe healthcare is a right), but in reality hospitals and clinics would be more solvent if this were to happen. Solvency would also be increased by refusing care to illegals, which is not currently permissible unfortunately.

Of course in the end government will foot the bill, which means we (or China) will. Again, this is a matter of priorities for fiscal spending; I consider health care as vital a national resource as infrastructure, you consider it a privilege. That is a moral argument and unresolvable.

The logical flaw here is that we can keep high quality and pay these people less at the same time. If you want to attract more and better people than we have today so we can increase quality it will require paying them more, not less. The amount of money you are willing to pay is directly related to how good the talent you can attract.

In all honesty...we can do it. Current payment methodologies do not encourage preventative care. Ergo we pay more for unnecessary care that could have been avoided altogether.

There is merit in medical tort reform I admit, as "defensive medicine" is also a contributor to these unnecessary tests which raise costs higher.

2. Economics. The fact is we have limited resources and so does the government. No one can get away from the fact that we must make choices between things we want. E.g. Do I want to eat bread and water for a month so I can afford to buy the new <insert firearm here>? We all make these decisions every day and we each have different priorities. I could live in the country on a nice piece of property if I was willing to give up certain things I have now because the jobs pay less out there...I choose not too. I choose to drive a Honda when I could be driving a much nicer car, but I would rather spend my money on firearms or computers or whatever. Because we have limited resources we all make these decisions at the exclusion of others.

The logical flaw here is that by giving that power of choice to the government that somehow we will not be resource limited. The government loves to make promises it knows it can't keep just like SS. It never was a workable system, it always was flawed, but that doesn't matter because it worked long enough for those to implemented it to benefit from it. If you don't pay more and you add more government overhead care must go down. Socialized health care or what ever you want to call it only transfers power to the government, it does not address any of the underlying issues which are the reason health care is so expensive. Some of which are unavoidable as they are directly related to the quality of care we choose to have.

Again, what you say is true, nothing is free. Its a question of allocating resources.

The second logical flaw here is that government has a better way to promote efficiency than the free market does. Please note that what we have today in health care is hardly a free market solution, it is a government one and has been so for generations.

It can promote efficiency through its sheer size. If we gutted the special interests of say, big drug companies, our government could (gasp!) negotiate lower drug prices. Currently forbidden to do so, has been for ages.

Our government is the only one in the world paying retail for drugs. Medicare would save boatloads if it could just use its size for bulk discounts, but due to special interests, it cannot.

Is that a free market solution? Probably, but I am not so ideologically hidebound as to have a knee jerk reaction when I consider one choice more efficient than the other.

The free market alternative promotes choice and optimization. Good choices and optimizations make for better outcomes than bad choices. If I blow all of my money on a house and can't afford to put up blinds or change the oil in my car or buy food we generally agree that that is a bad choice. Health care is just like food, water, shelter, and everything else. We must make choices which provide for our needs and wants the best. For some people that means buying a high cost insurance plan that covers nearly everything. For others it means that they only buy a plan which covers rare events that could bankrupt them. For others it could mean none at all. This act of choosing promote optimization by making sure that only the insurance models people want can exist (employer health care distorts this, but government regulations always do). It also promotes optimization by making sure that people only take care when they deem it valuable. If I don't have to pay for something I'll take all I can get and so does everyone else. Only when I have to evaluate what it will cost me do I sometimes choose not to partake of everything.

No arguments there.

The government model is far worse. It makes the choices for you and applies an "equal" standard. Everyone gets the same regardless if they want more or not. This promotes everyone wanting to get their "fair share" which always is the maximum of what the rules say they can take

.

Not really. I can only use Medicare as an example, but not all treatments are the same at all. The usual course of treatment for an ailment is most conservative tried first, getting progressively more invasive until "cured". Private insurers are identical as there is an incentive to save money by avoiding the moist expensive treatment. Your above assertion has no real world equivalent of forced "equal" care.

Not everyone on medicare for breast cancer gets a mastectomy after all. Least invasive is the way it is. For some its chemo and antineoplastic drugs, for some its a lumpectomy or a full on mastectomy is the previous two failed. Thats just good medicine and sound financially.

3. Government is the legalization of force, nothing else.

They do have an awful lot of firepower at their disposal don't they?

The obviously logical flaw here is that somehow by giving government the power to control health care that they can change the fundamental laws which are making it expensive. By what force of action is the government going to accomplish that? Shall they make force people to be doctors or researchers or nurses and mandate that they only make $30k a year? Without forcing people into those professions, mandating $30k will only result in insufficient doctors, nothing else. Shall they decree that no treatment or medical machine shall cost more than $100k? Guess what, that only results in treatments and machines which cost more than that never coming into existence in the first place. Who would invest in a new treatment when they know they could never charge enough to make it profitable? (i.e. worth the resources and risk) The government can not change the very nature of why somethings are expensive because force can not accomplish that goal.

Medical folks that bill (doctors and hospitals) unlike salaried folks like nurses or phlebotomists aren't paid like that though, so the above example also has no real world example outside of the actual socialized medicine countries like England where the government sets a salary as the doctors are government employees.

@ChicagoGuy - several things that should be done...

1. Identify why the cost of health insurance is high. And its not because the health insurance companies make billions of dollars. They do have big revenue streams but their costs are high. The profit margin for this industry is around 3% average. So, they charge high for premiums because their costs are high. The left piled all over the evil health insurance companies but never once engaged in meaningful discussion about what drove their costs. That discussion needs to happen. Their costs are high for us because they deal with doctors and hospitals who carry malpractice insurance (very expensive), doctors with big student loans (medical school is long and very costly), and fancy equipment (very expensive).

2. Tort reform. We need to fix the legal system so some fat waterbuffalo driving thru McDonalds cant sue for $10M because she spilled coffee on herself and no one warned her it was hot. Lawyers love stuff like this cause they get a cool 33% or more for doing essentially nothing. Lets get some sensible tort laws in place. Fix it so doctors arent scared to do proper treatment. Make it so they are willing to do their job that they spend countless dollars on at some fancy university and stop writing prescriptions and ordering expensive tests. Let them practice medicine without fear of having their future sued away by some court happy lawyer and chump patient.

3. Address the high cost of education in general. Also, fix the system so there are more slots at schools for medical students. Competition just to get into med school is fierce. The degree is so prized and expensive that is gives more excuse for stupidly high charges passed on to patients. Lets get that out of there. I do not want to see a doctor who is in it for the money. I want to see someone who is genuinely concerned about me and willing to sacrifice whatever they have to in order to save my limb and/or life. Do no harm...

4. Break the tyranny of big business hospitals. They arent there to make money. They are what I consider one of those things covered by the Constitution...for the welfare of the public. If you arent familiar with that phrase study your Constitution and see what is specifically laid out that Congress can collect taxes for. Fix it so the management of hospitals have oversight...make them all be doctors rather than MBAs.

So, here are some really good ideas that specifically addresses what obama and his band of commies failed to do but said they did - bring down the cost of medical care which in turn will reduce the cost of health insurance. I've read the PL for obamacare and nowhere does it provide any means - none - to lower the costs of medical care or insurance. The only thing it does is shift the cost from the havenots to the haves.

zephyp wrote:4. Break the tyranny of big business hospitals. They arent there to make money. They are what I consider one of those things covered by the Constitution...for the welfare of the public. If you arent familiar with that phrase study your Constitution and see what is specifically laid out that Congress can collect taxes for. Fix it so the management of hospitals have oversight...make them all be doctors rather than MBAs.

Your other points are solid, but I wanted to address this one specifically. Before I studied health information management (my field), I got a business degree. My rational was, "Healthcare is a business, better learn about business first".

It paid off hugely. Opened alot of doors. Gunderwood is 100% correct; healthcare is a business, my whole job is to increase revenue streams by generating faster turn around of claims.

I typically bill out at least 250k a day by myself-I am one of several contractors doing this-though the hospital network probably sees closer to 80k after insurance adjustments and non payers. If i told you my per day compensation pre-recession you'd want to shoot me (more than you may want to as it is lol).

Also...the most successful healthcare executives are doctors first, MBA's second. Some are even CPA's to boot. Now those are some student loans! Some of these guys have titles that run on for sentences.

Kreutz wrote:No one is suggesting doctors work for free(though many do donate services of their own volition). The core reasoning behind "Obamacare" was increasing access to healthcare; not making it "free". Irregardless there will still be co-pays and deductibles.

There is a legitimate problem with access to care in this country, and the results which I mentioned before are a tangible negative in shifting ever increasing costs further onto us who do pay.

How do we have an access problem? Access is a word that Democrats made up because they wanted to redefine the issue, but it means the same thing.

Who is restricting or not allowing some people access to health care? Is anyone blocking the entrance to hospitals with armed guards like a certain Democratic governor did for schools? Nope. Is anyone being denied care because they are Black, Hispanic, White, Asian, etc? Nope. Who and how is access to health care being denied?

There are only two ways access is somewhat denied. The first it the ability to pay and the second is the government regulations. The government has already dealt with the unable to pay issue with disastrous results and now wants to double down. They also restrict and limit what is consider "health care" much to the benefit of "traditional" providers. The Obama health care bill doesn't address either of these "access" issues. Access is nothing more than a Democrat code word for can't afford.

You are correct though, there is no way to cover people who don't have access because they can't pay for the services rendered without negatively impacting the costs for those who do pay.

Kreutz wrote:I am moralizing it to some extent (as I believe healthcare is a right), but in reality hospitals and clinics would be more solvent if this were to happen. Solvency would also be increased by refusing care to illegals, which is not currently permissible unfortunately.

You don't have to create a massive bureaucracy to accomplish that. All you have to do is give hospitals back the liberty to deny care. Technically, it is a better solution because it has none of your government overhead and if an illegal needs care and the hospital wants to provide it as charity, they get care. Again, they caused the solvency problem by denying the liberty of hospitals to make their own decisions and now they want more power to "fix" it...yeah right.

I do find it interesting that you have no qualms about legislating your morality even though it requires restriction of liberty and ethical violations to implement, but take issue when say a Christian wants to implement theirs. You are the first person to cry foul when someone else wants to government to implement their morality, but yours is fine. Consistent much? The government should not be in the business of legislating morality no matter who's it is. It always fails.

I also find it interesting that you consider it moral to use force to make other humans do what you want them to do. That usually is consider unethical and immoral.

Kreutz wrote:Of course in the end government will foot the bill, which means we (or China) will. Again, this is a matter of priorities for fiscal spending; I consider health care as vital a national resource as infrastructure, you consider it a privilege. That is a moral argument and unresolvable.

The first flaw is that the federal government only has the ability to promote the general welfare, not provide for it like they can for national defense. If you look at the historical context of what promote meant it really was intended to keep the states from restricting it outside their boarders. E.g. the interstate commerce clause wasn't intended to restrict interstate commerce, but rather to keep the states from doing so.

Second, the resource is a flawed analogy. When health care is provided to me you can not use it which is very much unlike roads, etc. Public resources or infrastructure has always been things anyone can use, not services rendered to a private individual. It is bad enough to use force to build a road which everyone can use, but worse still to use force to make others provide a service to one person.

It isn't that I consider it a privilege so much as it is the basic laws regarding ethical human interaction an social cooperation prohibit your scheme from being successful. We created modern America by promoting incentive's for people to do things better of their own volition. That drove innovation and competition so that new things were created, bad ideas were eliminated efficiently, and costs came down so everyone could eventually afford the service or product. I can not create a better tomorrow by putting a gun to someones head. It's been tried and it never works.

The false narrative again is that we can continue to progress and have what we have today through force rather than incentives. You paint the picture of you can have health care and pay for it or you can have the government provide the same thing for less. The real world doesn't work that way. You can either have the health care for a high cost initially where only a few people can afford it or you can not have that care at all because there are no incentives to create the next best thing. You are mortgaging our future because you are satisfied with care today, I am not. I want treatments and technology we can't even imagine today that some genius will create because there is a reward for doing so. Yes, they will get rich off of doing it and it will cost a bloody fortune at first, but at least it exists at all. Your economics always ends up destroying that which it wishes to protect. Such is the flaw with communism, socialism, etc. They all remove the social incentives which promote progress.

Kreutz wrote:In all honesty...we can do it. Current payment methodologies do not encourage preventative care. Ergo we pay more for unnecessary care that could have been avoided altogether.

Ah, the old preventive care argument. Yes, who created those payment methodologies? Government did. They pushed them with tax law, they regulated them, they are their creation. The government aided by the law of unintended consequences created the model you hate so much. Why give them more power when they have already demonstrated their incompetence at the task? American's use to pay for preventative care out of pocket and we also had a lot more of it. The government pushing insurance as a tax advantaged benefit has caused a serious distortion in how American's use health care. More of the same can't fix it.

Kreutz wrote:There is merit in medical tort reform I admit, as "defensive medicine" is also a contributor to these unnecessary tests which raise costs higher.

Yes, and try getting insurance to pay for a cheaper, but not standard care alternative is like pulling teeth for the same reason. Case in point. The US has a higher death rate for infants and mothers than Europe does. However, most of Europe uses midwives to perform their births at home. Only if you are high risk or run into complications do you go to a European hospital for birthing. There are lots of studies which suggest causal reasons for this such as a lot of our deaths are due to infection. While a hospital is fairly clean, what does live there is very resistant to treatment. On the other hand a home is less clean, but contains the same germs that the mother has been exposed along with the baby for 9 months. However, in the US we tend to C-sections ASAP to avoid any birthing risks. While hospital birthing is significantly more expensive than a home/midwife birth, insurance companies don't like to pay for that care in the US because they listen to the hospitals and assume there is more risk despite the statistics saying otherwise.

C-sections are being used as defensive medicine. Also, there are some links to physiological issues with all the drugs we use during the birthing process. e.g. we suppress the dopamine(s) which are responsible for mother/child bonding post birth.

Kreutz wrote:Again, what you say is true, nothing is free. Its a question of allocating resources.

Yes, and force is always the least efficient way to allocate any resource. The whole concept of a free market allocation is based on efficiency. In fact, that is the whole point of economics! Economists want to know not only how resources are allocated and why, but how to do a better job. The combination of the price system and the free market are theoretically and practically the most efficient mechanisms for all resource allocations. Information theory prohibits a centralized allocation scheme from ever knowing enough information to make the correct allocations without piggy-backing on a price/market system. It's called economic calculation and socialism can't do it. That's old hat and was settled long before your or I were born...doesn't keep the socialist from making false claims anyways. I.e. if the people are ignorant to the economic calculation problem, then socialism and other central economic schemes look real good on paper.

Kreutz wrote:It can promote efficiency through its sheer size. If we gutted the special interests of say, big drug companies, our government could (gasp!) negotiate lower drug prices. Currently forbidden to do so, has been for ages.

Why do big drug companies have those special privileges? That's right, our government gave it to them in exchange for monies!

Size doesn't mean efficiency. Look at GM, they were huge, but were horribly inefficient. You have the causal relationship backwards. Size doesn't cause efficiency, efficiency causes growth at the expense of your competitors so that you become large. Try again.

Kreutz wrote:Our government is the only one in the world paying retail for drugs. Medicare would save boatloads if it could just use its size for bulk discounts, but due to special interests, it cannot.

It's always more government power with you statists isn't it? How about the government not be doing Medicare in the first place! It has no such authority to provide for the common good.

Kreutz wrote:Is that a free market solution? Probably, but I am not so ideologically hidebound as to have a knee jerk reaction when I consider one choice more efficient than the other.

It's the kind of free market solution the fake capitalist have pushed for years. Nothing is free when you force it and government can only force things. I.e. the government doesn't create freedom, it restricts it in certain key, but limited ways.

My free market viewpoint isn't out of knee jerking or ignorance. I would have thought you would know that by now.

Kreutz wrote:

gunderwood wrote:The government model is far worse. It makes the choices for you and applies an "equal" standard. Everyone gets the same regardless if they want more or not. This promotes everyone wanting to get their "fair share" which always is the maximum of what the rules say they can take

.

Not really. I can only use Medicare as an example, but not all treatments are the same at all. The usual course of treatment for an ailment is most conservative tried first, getting progressively more invasive until "cured". Private insurers are identical as there is an incentive to save money by avoiding the moist expensive treatment. Your above assertion has no real world equivalent of forced "equal" care.

Not everyone on medicare for breast cancer gets a mastectomy after all. Least invasive is the way it is. For some its chemo and antineoplastic drugs, for some its a lumpectomy or a full on mastectomy is the previous two failed. Thats just good medicine and sound financially.

You completely missed the boat on this one. There are many ways to be equal and that isn't the one I meant. For example, being created equal and having different unalienable rights as the DOI states, is vastly different that government attempting to promote or provide equal outcomes.

Kreutz wrote:Medical folks that bill (doctors and hospitals) unlike salaried folks like nurses or phlebotomists aren't paid like that though, so the above example also has no real world example outside of the actual socialized medicine countries like England where the government sets a salary as the doctors are government employees.

Yes, in what is left of the free market they aren't, but it must come under the Obama system. Because Obamacare doesn't actually address the issue (my complaint and reason for bringing it up), people will be be disillusioned with it and wonder why it hasn't kept costs down (just like we have become for every previous reform bill which increased government control). At some point the politicians won't be able to demonize the insurance companies so they will find a new target. At some point the high salaries of the doctors and other medical professions will come under attack to promote the next round of government control and intervention. Just wait until when the people realize that their "access" hasn't gotten better because there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:4. Break the tyranny of big business hospitals. They arent there to make money. They are what I consider one of those things covered by the Constitution...for the welfare of the public. If you arent familiar with that phrase study your Constitution and see what is specifically laid out that Congress can collect taxes for. Fix it so the management of hospitals have oversight...make them all be doctors rather than MBAs.

Your other points are solid, but I wanted to address this one specifically. Before I studied health information management (my field), I got a business degree. My rational was, "Healthcare is a business, better learn about business first".

It paid off hugely. Opened alot of doors. Gunderwood is 100% correct; healthcare is a business, my whole job is to increase revenue streams by generating faster turn around of claims.

I typically bill out at least 250k a day by myself-I am one of several contractors doing this-though the hospital network probably sees closer to 80k after insurance adjustments and non payers. If i told you my per day compensation pre-recession you'd want to shoot me (more than you may want to as it is lol).

Also...the most successful healthcare executives are doctors first, MBA's second. Some are even CPA's to boot. Now those are some student loans! Some of these guys have titles that run on for sentences.

+1

Promote doesn't mean provide. Besides it isn't interstate commerce, so what can they actually do? E.g. They could allow you to purchase across state lines as that is a restriction which doesn't promote the general welfare and is interstate commerce.

I agree that health care is a business and hospitals (et al) need to make money, HOWEVER, to gouge those in need is ridiculous. When's the last time you had to go to a hospital for in patient or out patient care?

Young spent about 5 hours last winter at one of the local Inova hospitals for out-patient treatment. 5 hours = ~$7500. You should see some of the itemized charges for simple things like cups, tylenol, etc. ABSOLUTELY STINKING RIDICULOUS............and as a bonus they treat you like crap.

Pure unadulterated exploitation of a basic human need,, Catch 22 at it's best

VBshooter wrote:Pure unadulterated exploitation of a basic human need,, Catch 22 at it's best

allingeneral wrote:I just sent the following note to Senator Webb, and ask that some of you do the same (in your own words!). You can do so here: http://www.webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Senator,

I am extremely disheartened by your "NAY" vote to the repeal of the healthcare law. You have heard from "The People", and you have to know that the "Obamacare" law is one of the most unliked pieces of legislation that has ever been passed. I had hoped that you would vote "For the People" instead of falling in line behind the ideals of the Democratic party.

You will not be receiving my vote this year, no matter who runs against you. I'll write myself in as a candidate before I vote for you after your total disregard for the will of the people.

It's unfortunate that your career has to end this way, but you chose it, and God willing, The People will choose based on your voting record in November.

Respectfully submitted,
Rick S.

Here's the response that I received:

Senator Webb wrote:Dear Mr. S:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148). I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

The process of implementing the law, including amending its shortcomings is ongoing. My staff and I will monitor these efforts to ensure that the best interests of Virginians are taken into consideration.

As the Senate continues to address health care reform, please be assured that I will keep your specific views in mind. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me and my staff in the years ahead.

I also invite you to visit my website at www.webb.senate.gov <http://www.webb.senate.gov/> for regular updates on issues that are important to Virginia and our nation.

Thank you once again for contacting my office.

Sincerely,


Jim Webb
United States Senator

JW:kw

Yup, canned response which ignores the option of getting rid of the bill altogether. Senator Webb, working hard to make it worse than it already is!

Yes indeed , they can surely lay on the BS when they want to which is 100% of the time...Got one from NumbNuts Warner today along the same lines... He said he'd keep my opinions in mind,,, Sure ya will Mark,,When are you moving in with Obama to be on his wait staff?