Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
This month, the Environmental Protection Agency will propose standards that will establish stricter pollution limits for gas-fired power plants than coal-fired power plants, according to individuals who were briefed on the matter but asked not to be identified because the rule was not public yet.

The revised rule, which would impose greenhouse gas limits on power plants for the first time, will still require utilities to install costly carbon controls on coal plants.


The average U.S. natural gas plant emits 800 to 850 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt, and coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds. According to those familiar with the new EPA proposal, the agency will keep the carbon limit for large natural gas plants at 1,000 pounds but relax it slightly for smaller gas plants. The standard for coal plants will be as high as 1,300 or 1,400 pounds per megawatt hour, the individuals said Wednesday, but that still means the utilities will have to capture some of the carbon dioxide they emit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-to...


He promised to skyrocket your utility bills, and he's doing just what he promised......

Get set to see WV and KY and other states going into major depression (as if those states are not already there) as he kills another 2 million jobs in the coal industry and power plant business.

Better get set for using magic energy beads to heat/cool and light your house.....'yet to be invented'.....heh heh.....at 10 times the price.



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
Maybe I'll breathe a little better.

Donna
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Donna

I'm really sorry to hear you are so allergic to CARBON DIOXIDE, which is what the new EPA rule is about.

Probably with the 'skyrocketing' costs of electricity that Obama has envisioned in your future, you'll have to keep the windows open and the air conditioning off since you might not be able to afford it. Millions won't. So you'll have to put up with the pollen and other things that blow on the wind all the time, instead of using your house air filter to filter them out.

It's really nothing less than Obama's war on America's ability to compete and create jobs. High price energy is killing Europe and it's ability to compete. They talk of 'energy poverty' in Britain...rates there and in Germany are 3 times the US average.

But celebrate...you'll breathe easier knowing that Obama's flawed plan to put 2 million more workers out of work isn't going to do a dang thing. Those folks in WV and KY will sit around at home burning their old wood stoves, spewing 10 times the pollutants while they sit around and moan that they no longer have jobs. And you'll get to pay more taxes to give them food stamps and other welfare, instead of them being productive citizens.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Ahhh...political talking points....always fun to wade through.

Far be it from I to stand in the way of a good rant, but here are some additional points:

- Natural gas is far more efficient at producing energy than coal - both to build plants and equipment and also to run. It's by nature a cheaper fuel, so even with any increase, it is still well cheaper than coal.

- NG planst are far cheaper to build than coal plants - so capital costs are less (which get amortized over life and passed on to consumer).

- NG is still at only 50% of net generation as opposed to coal, so costs will go down as market shifts to NG from coal over time - as it will as it is cheaper and cleaner and also abundantly supplied by the US.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Liberals, Democrats and environmentalists have been waging war on the working class for forty years or more.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<- Natural gas is far more efficient at producing energy than coal - both to build plants and equipment and also to run. It's by nature a cheaper fuel, so even with any increase, it is still well cheaper than coal.

- NG planst are far cheaper to build than coal plants - so capital costs are less (which get amortized over life and passed on to consumer).

- NG is still at only 50% of net generation as opposed to coal, so costs will go down as market shifts to NG from coal over time - as it will as it is cheaper and cleaner and also abundantly supplied by the US.
>>



Environmentalists are using cheap natural gas as a hammer to get coal plants closed. When they succeed at doing that, they will then go on to the next stage of their plan which will be to shut down natural gas generating plants in order to force people to use their preferred "renewable" power.


In the Pacific Northwest, environmentalists were somewhat disadvantaged since most electric power was generated by renewable hydropower. How to get people to buy their VERY EXPENSIVE windmill power when they already had VERY CHEAP hydropower?

That was easy. They got initiatives passed which required reliaance on renewable power and the defined hydropower as not being renewable power.

What hypocrites!


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
telegraph: <<I'm really sorry to hear you are so allergic to CARBON DIOXIDE, which is what the new EPA rule is about. >>

Who said anything about allergies? My comment was that maybe I can breathe. Carbon Dioxide eats Oxygen.......No oxygen, no can breathe.

Donna
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
really points to ponder


-------

Ginko:" Natural gas is far more efficient at producing energy than coal - both to build plants and equipment and also to run. It's by nature a cheaper fuel, so even with any increase, it is still well cheaper than coal."


Yes and no.

Is it 'more efficient'? Based upon what? 39% of all power in the US is generated by coal. It wouldn't be in NG was and HAD been so cheap. It hasn't been.

You have a TEMPORARY glut of natural gas. The price will be double in less than five years.

Then, NG will no longer be 'competitive' with coal.


-----------

Gingko:"- NG planst are far cheaper to build than coal plants - so capital costs are less (which get amortized over life and passed on to consumer)."

Good NG plants still costs hundreds of millions, and new coal plants can be very cost effective. China would not have built 300 new power plants in the past five years if they weren't 'cost effective', now , would they?

Of course, they are paying more for NG....... as we will shortly


------



Gingko: - NG is still at only 50% of net generation as opposed to coal, so costs will go down as market shifts to NG from coal over time - as it will as it is cheaper and cleaner and also abundantly supplied by the US. "

No no and no

1) NG is NOW cheaper than coal....but has not been. See

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10771

It won't be long - maybe 18 months, until NG prices rise and rise and rise. BY 2018, NG will be at least double.

Then coal will be half the price to use for power. All you have is a temporary glut of NG that will have peaked out by 2018 and be dropping after that.

It's a 'bubble' and you have bought into it.

2) Abundand - yes at the CURRENT TIME, but in less than 5 years, those gas wells that drop at 90% output per year.....will hit the Red Queens situation where you can't drill enough new wells each year just to maintain production.

3) It is hard to store NG and have it in the right place at the right time for use. We've already seen winter situations with gas rationing to business during 'cold' winters..... and you'll see a lot more of it when not only are homes heated by NG, but folks get suckered into electric heat/heat pumps.....



-----

Back in the 1970s, maybe before you were born...there was a major natural gas shortage. Industry shut down and moved overseas. NG was $15/mcf...compared to $3 at the current moment. That spurred the construction of 40 new nuke plants. NG was seen as unreliable.

According to my reading...and I suggest you read up on Bill Powers

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1549032-exploding-the-natura...

So far, he's been right on the money. The Barnett Shale in TX is now struggling...just a decade into it's 'gas forever'......just to maintain production..and it isn't.....despite new wells.......and all the otherh 'shales' will follow the same very fast peak...then fall.

You're setting yourself up for massive fail in 15 years when all your coal plants will be shut down, and at night you are going to be freezing and in the dark because there won't be enough NG to go around, and worse, half of US industry will then move to countries with adequate NG supplies.

Enjoy it while it lasts. 10 years at the most.


t.








-----
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Donna:""Who said anything about allergies? My comment was that maybe I can breathe. Carbon Dioxide eats Oxygen.......No oxygen, no can breathe."



Let's see...we are talking about 300 CO2 molecules per million molecules of air.

If you took a pinch of sugar and went out to your Olympic size swimming pool and threw the pinch of sugar in the pool.....that would be about the 'concentration' of CO2. A very very small pinch......

That's about 1 part in 50,000

Now, imagine you fill your entire house up with golf balls. Exaclty one of them is a 'CO2' golf ball. Is it going to make a differrence
if I put in 1/10th more of a golf ball in hour house?

Really?

I know large numbers confuse people, but we are talking about 350 parts per million of CO2.....that means out of a million molecules
that 350 of them will be INVISIBLE, TASTELESS, ODORLESS carbon dioxide molecules.

And no...carbon dioxide 'does not eat oxygen'. CO2 is mostly inert.....add oxygen to it and it does nothing.

Let's see...maybe you can understand.

The percentage of Oxygen in the air is about 20%....

that is 0.2

the percentage of CO2 in the air is 350 parts per million

That is 0.000350

If you really think that the smaller number affects your breathing, you need a science/math refresher course!

Put another way.....stack up a pile of dollar bills....$3,000 of them in one pile. Now put a single dollar bill in another pile. Now mix that one dollar bill into the whole pile.......

REMEMBER ..>CO2 is a colorless, odorless,tasteless gas that helps plants grow..helps trees grow.....without it, you'd be dead as all the lving plant matter on earth , including your veggies, animal food, etc, would be DEAD.



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Ah, but we must multiply that by the number of coal plants, along with automobiles, trucks, and naturally occurring carbon dioxide emissions.

Donna (who is aware that plants ingest carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, but we are losing plant material also, i.e., old growth forests, etc.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Please go hug a tree
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Don't mind if I do. Someone must be concerned for our environment. We have generations to come who must live through our mistakes.

Donna
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Don't mind if I do. Someone must be concerned for our environment. We have generations to come who must live through our mistakes.

But what if yo are making the mistake but taking the action as described by the EPA?

Back in the 70s it was stated that using plastic bags were more Eco friendly than paper bags. That if you really wanted to "save the earth", switch to plastic. That was a big oops!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Carbon Dioxide eats Oxygen.......

---------

That is some unusual chemistry there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Donna (who is aware that plants ingest carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, but we are losing plant material also, i.e., old growth forests, etc.) "


No, just recycling it.


I take it you would prefer that humans stop breeding and increasing the population, and since you want to 'breath easier' would be 100% opposed to immigration? That increases the population, meaning more 'old growth' is cut down to provide wood for their houses, provide space to grow food for their kids, etc? Zero population growth? And of course, we'll just shut down all the National Parks so the critters can live in 'peace', right? Those parks just cause people to take long trips in fuel hogging travel trailers and motor homes, wasting fossil fuels and emitting CO2, right?

You do realize that 7 billion people emit all sorts of CO2? Including you! Please, don't breath so hard. No exercise for you since you're polluting the planet more!



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"
Back in the 70s it was stated that using plastic bags were more Eco friendly than paper bags. That if you really wanted to "save the earth", switch to plastic. That was a big oops! "


Depends...if you use paper bags, you cut down Donna's old growth forests to get the wood to make the paper

It takes LESS energy to make plastic bags. Plus, they are 100% recyclable.


t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
<<Don't mind if I do. Someone must be concerned for our environment. We have generations to come who must live through our mistakes.

Donna
>>



Personally I am concerned about the welfare of human beings, not an abstraction called "the environment."


Almost any crime against humanity can be justified by faith in vague abstractions like "the environment."

Liberals, Democrats and environmentalists have been waging war against the working class and human beings in the name of "the environment" for decades now.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Back in the 70s it was stated that using plastic bags were more Eco friendly than paper bags. That if you really wanted to "save the earth", switch to plastic. That was a big oops!

Were you an adult in the 70s? I was, and I never heard that petrochemical plastic bags were more environmentally friendly than paper. Perhaps you were listening to the supermarket industry who deflected their increased profits from using plastic as somehow advantageous to others.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It takes LESS energy to make plastic bags. Plus, they are 100% recyclable.

Plastic bags are seldom recycled. Many end up in the ocean as part of large rafts of garbage or individually killing sea life or slowly degrading in landfills. IMO we should be more conservative about wasting oil on bags...landfills are bursting with big plastic garbage bags that contain medium plastic kitchen garbage bags that contain smaller plastic shopping bags and ziplock or other very small bags.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
alstro:"Plastic bags are seldom recycled. "

Says who? 90% of mine are returned to the store. The other 10% are used to hold real garbage that doesn't go down the pig , err, garbage disposal, like meat soaked paper trays, paper towels used to clean up spills or wipe the floor or counters.....

Did you ever try to use a paper bag to hold garbage? try putting in a bunch of wet paper towels, the paper under raspberries in the box, etc, into your 'paper bag' for garbage. ha.....

I use plastic garbage bags.

------





alstro:"Many end up in the ocean as part of large rafts of garbage or individually killing sea life or slowly degrading in landfills."

those rafts of garbage are mostly plastic consumer crap and bottles. Not bags. And if they degrade in land fills, who cares? I'm more worried about all the chemicals you likely throw away...shampoos, old medicines, empty spray cans - hair spray, paint, canola oil for cooking, and who knows what.

YOu realize it can take hundreds of years for PAPER to degrade in garbage dumps?


-----





alstro:" IMO we should be more conservative about wasting oil on bags...landfills are bursting with big plastic garbage bags that contain medium plastic kitchen garbage bags that contain smaller plastic shopping bags and ziplock or other very small bags."

Right? Let's pay loggers to use FOSSIL FUEL powered saws to cut down trees, then transport those trees with FOSSIL FUELS to the lumber mill, likely running on FOSSIL FUELS, then hauling the pulp to the paper mill with FOSSIL FUELS, and running the polluting paper mill (likely on fossil fuels again), and then carrying the finished 'product' from the paper mill to the distribution centers with FOSSIL FUELS, then carrying the paper bags from the distribution centers to the stores with FOSSIL FUELS.

You realize that plastic bags probably weigh 1/10th as much as paper bags? So 10 times as much energy is used to haul them, and almost no one re uses paper bags since they rip so easy from carrying much in them, or food 'leaks' and ruins them (and maybe the back seat of your car as well)......

Paper bags are hardly eco-friendly.

Oh, and I forgot the energy needed to plant all the new seedlings to replace the cut down forest trees.

----------
------

I'll continue to use plastic bags.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
90% of mine are returned to the store.

Awesome! Alas, 90% of bags are not returned by others. The majority of consumers return none of them and toss them all in the trash.

I'll continue to use plastic bags.

Nobody's stopping you. I'll continue to use tote bags.

almost no one re uses paper bags

I do, although I rarely can get them these days. Didn't yu grow up in the 50s/60s using paper bags for garbage? I did. But it's a continuing battle with my husband, who keeps throwing them away (I store them in the laundry room sink, which is rarely used as a sink) since he doesn't use them. Perhaps it's a gender issue ;-) He's bothered by bags in the sink.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
almost no one re uses paper bags

I do, although I rarely can get them these days. Didn't yu grow up in the 50s/60s using paper bags for garbage? I did. But it's a continuing battle with my husband, who keeps throwing them away (I store them in the laundry room sink, which is rarely used as a sink) since he doesn't use them. Perhaps it's a gender issue ;-) He's bothered by bags in the sink.


We use paper bags to line the garbage bucket. The whole thing goes into the trash.

I try to avoid plastic bags, but the Countess sometimes forgets.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I guess we used paper bags way back when.....we kids didn't worry about that....and we had a small garbage can.....

now I've got a monster one and and I go 2 months before I need to put it out. Same for recycling of the papers and plastic stuff...and the few cans I throw out. That can go 2 months too....

Whole Foods offers you plastic or paper.... but I only go there 1 or 2 times a year. They stopped carrying my favorite pancake mix.....and now only sell it tiny boxes.... so it works out to be real expensive....well, just about everything there is 30 to 100% more than the other stores.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Whole Foods offers you plastic or paper.... but I only go there 1 or 2 times a year. They stopped carrying my favorite pancake mix.....and now only sell it tiny boxes.... so it works out to be real expensive....well, just about everything there is 30 to 100% more than the other stores.

Tell me about it ... that place is high as a cat's back. I don't see how they stay in business. All their customers are Yuppies so I'm guessing price dosen't matter to them.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<<I'll continue to use plastic bags.

Nobody's stopping you. I'll continue to use tote bags.

>>



Actually, they do.


In Seattle several years ago the city council adopted an oridinace prohibiting retailers from giving customers bags when purchases were made.

A referendum challenging the law was circulated and the law was repaled by a lopsided majority of voters.

A couple of years later the city council passed a similar law again. Too bad people didn't throw that one out too, but I guess it's easy for city paid politicans to pass laws than for citizens to circulate petitions to have such laws thrown out.

So around here, people ARE stopping you.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In Austin TX there's no bags provided by the stores. Well, HEB made some sort of deal that they could sell bags ($1 each, I think) for a limited time. But once that's over, that's it. And I think it's all stores, not just grocery stores.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you go to Aldi's here - the cheapie store....you need to bring your own bags....or else buy them for 5c for plastic or 10c for paper.....

I went there once...was not the least bit impressed. All the fruit is in plastic covered trays....same for veggies....

It's all generic brands.....in smaller sizes..... yeah..it's priced less but you are getting less.

Dallas keeps talking about banning plastic bags in grocery stores. Silly, but Dallas is like Austin...run by a bunch of liberals...except there isn't enough money to make Dallas a yuppie city...unlike Austin.....



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Plastic bags have been banned here in our small town in CA. Most shoppers use reuseable cloth bags or paper bags are used by the merchants.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I recently visited Hawaii, and plastic grocery bags are banned in the entire state. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, paper grocery bags are as well!

We went to a supermarket for a few items, and everyone was either loading purchases into shopping bags they'd brought from home, or just wheeling their carts out to their cars and loading their purchases into their cars.

Here in NY, Costco and Ikea are the only stores I know that don't supply bags.

Trini
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
After liberals require everyone to be rag pickers, I'm expecting they will move on to sorting out undigested grains of corn and such from feces before they are allowed to be flushed into the sewer.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
After liberals require everyone to be rag pickers, I'm expecting they will move on to sorting out undigested grains of corn and such from feces before they are allowed to be flushed into the sewer.




Oor bring back chickens to do the job,ek :-(

TB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<I recently visited Hawaii, and plastic grocery bags are banned in the entire state. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, paper grocery bags are as well!

We went to a supermarket for a few items, and everyone was either loading purchases into shopping bags they'd brought from home, or just wheeling their carts out to their cars and loading their purchases into their cars.

Here in NY, Costco and Ikea are the only stores I know that don't supply bags.>>>



And has Armageddon struck yet? Why do we waste time on such issues?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<And has Armageddon struck yet? Why do we waste time on such issues? >>


Because liberals, Democrats and environmentalists have a limitless inventory of ways they want to control the behavior of people, so they do things just like they do.

In Washington State this November, an initiative to require that food be labeled with if it's genetically modifed or not is on the ballot.

Of course, pretty much ALL food is organic, genetically modified chemicals. But our liberal friends want to promote public prejudice and fear of food that isn't just like what they, the wealthy upper middle class and wealthy, eat.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
<<<Because liberals, Democrats and environmentalists have a limitless inventory of ways they want to control the behavior of people, so they do things just like they do.

In Washington State this November, an initiative to require that food be labeled with if it's genetically modifed or not is on the ballot.

Of course, pretty much ALL food is organic, genetically modified chemicals. But our liberal friends want to promote public prejudice and fear of food that isn't just like what they, the wealthy upper middle class and wealthy, eat.>>>

And how is it that you know what "they" eat? If pretty much "ALL" food is organic (not true, by the way, as I will not pay extra for it and it amounts to a very, very, small percentage of food in my local supermarkets), what's the problem? People are buying it. According to free market theory, it is those choices that count.

I think extensive informational labeling is a waste of effort, but who cares? How can people object to descriptions of what they are eating? It would seem to me that choices in a free marketplace are essential to freedom. Why do conservatives object to people knowing what they are consuming? They can always just ignore it.

BTW, if anyone doubts what I am saying, I will be happy to invite you to my local supermarket and we can roam the aisles. Take notes- let's see what the percentage of "organic" foods is. It would not amount to 1%!

I am really puzzled on this one. It seems to be an issue that exists only in imaginations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Unfortunately for all of us, fear mongering is a common sport in the US. Media, advertizers, and promoters spread the idea about some minor hazard. They then exaggerate it, and try to stampede innocent citizens into spending extra money on goods and services that are of dubious extra value.

This works mostly because the public does not know much science and are easily duped.

Should the public be protected from the fear mongers? Or should fear mongering be facilitated?

By modern definitions, the opposite of "organic" is IPM, which stands for integrated pest management. If it is labeled organic, it does cost more. Is it really organic? I'd wash it anyway.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<<I think extensive informational labeling is a waste of effort, but who cares? How can people object to descriptions of what they are eating? It would seem to me that choices in a free marketplace are essential to freedom. Why do conservatives object to people knowing what they are consuming? They can always just ignore it.

>>



Such labels are used to promote public prejudice against products of which some liberals don't approve.


Just as an example, liberals, Democrats and environmentalists proposed an initiative on the Washington State ballot a few years ago that would require that a heavy percentage of electric power be "renewable."

However, 90% of power used in Washington state was ALREADY "renewable" power ----hydroelectric power. These groups decided that renewable power would not include hydro power, which is hardly rational.

All foods are "organic." All foods are composed of "chemicals." Pretty much all foods are "genetically engineered" one way or another.

We should not be using government to impose the fashions of an elite on everyone.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Should the public be protected from the fear mongers?
Or should fear mongering be facilitated?


Ask the Republicans in Washington. There’s a reason Republicans have been rushing to try and defund the Affordable Care Act before October 1, when major sections of the law took effect.

Republicans know what polls show — that most Americans don’t know what’s in ObamaCare, but when told what the law actually includes, a strong majority support the law.

Jimmy Kimmel asks pedestrians: Do you prefer Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act? As you might have expected, Kimmel's team found plenty of uninformed pedestrians who seemed to prefer the latter.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
"Jimmy Kimmel asks pedestrians: Do you prefer Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act? As you might have expected, Kimmel's team found plenty of uninformed pedestrians who seemed to prefer the latter. v"

That's because they think it is going to be 'free' for them !

Many will learn, much to their dismay, they can't keep their current low cost policy, they can't keep their doctor, and they are going to pay a lot more for ObamaKare coverage. Oh, and their small business employer will dump them into the exchanges, eliminating their health care through the company....

It's just starting.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
"Many will learn, much to their dismay, they can't keep their current low cost policy, they can't keep their doctor, and they are going to pay a lot more for ObamaKare coverage."

This happened to us often through the 90s and 00s, long predating Obama. Employer switches plans, your doc/medical group is suddenly not on the approved list.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"This happened to us often through the 90s and 00s, long predating Obama. Employer switches plans, your doc/medical group is suddenly not on the approved list. "


Never ever happend to me.

They always kept a PPO plan. In some cases, you could elect an HMO plan but that locked you into your local area - horrible if you travel.

We had a cafeteria plan.....you got XXXX dollars in your account. Health care (PPO) and dental and vision and life insurance (basic) would easily fit into your amount of money. If you wanted family coverage, you had to pay a good part of the extra cost.

I always had the same doc/dentist...until, of course, they retired...and I had to go hunting for new ones although they usually just had arrangements with a new doc so the transition was seemless.

Now, folks are finding out that MOST of the ObamaKare plans are restricted to 'in network' doctors and hospitals and it probably isn't their choice or current doc.



t.
Print the post Back To Top