Comments


  • Mike this bill is just to unpopular and to big. It needs to be scrapped and broken into 4 or 5 smaller bills dumping the worst of both sides and use the best from both to put together 4 or 5 bills (passed as a package) that truely solve the problems without giving the federal gov't to much power but enough oversite to keep the private secter honest. The federal govts job is to pass national guide lines to make sure the laws are over all the same in all 50 states not to dictate to the states what they have to do. The true power was to be held by the states not the federal govt. This was set up this way because although the laws need to be compatible nation wide they need to be developed by each state to best meet it's needs. One bill to fix all problems will not work as each state is very different in the real needs they have. This bill will cause different problems in every state due to the differences in size, racial make-up (each racial group has varied healthcare needs and problems), regional issues, diet habits and income levels. What works here in Texas might not work in Maine for example. So it's time for both parties to do whats best for the country and pass true healthcare reform without handing to much control over to the federal govt. Eliminate pre-exsisting clauses and other restrictions to getting coverage and make it truely affordable for everyone. It must also include tort reform, portability, and the elimination of waste and fraud. More clinical visits to doctors for preventitive medicine and cheaper drug costs would also help reduce the overall costs to the taxpayer. So let's kill this bill and pass 4 or 5 good bills that truely address the needs of the entire country.

    March 21, 2010 at 2:26 a.m.

  • Hello Bighorn, what’s it been, a year or so since our last disagreement?

    That's what's great about the English language, we can all twist and spin and make the word what we interpret it to be… I would guess insurance means that you pay someone (insurance company) a monthly premium, just in case you have a procedure or loss in the future. The insurance companies stipulate their coverage and policies in the contract. This bill will eventually add 32 million new Americans to coverage and many will have new private insurance plans. Those on the right call that a government health care program.

    If the public option was part of the plan then I would agree that would be the first step to single-payer universal health care, paid by the working taxpayer. It’s no different than Social Security and Medicare whereby at some point of time we become recipients of services supported by the working taxpayer. Being 65 years old, I have been on both sides; taxpayer now recipient, for the most part.

    Talk about spin, I just heard the Democratic House whip, tell a pundit that the "deem & pass” wasn't really in play because they will staple the administration's fixes to the Senate bill and make it part of the same bill.

    An old dear conservative friend of mine called me yesterday because he felt he had the goods on me. He said "Why are we spending $940 billion to save $130 billion in the future.”.. That's a pretty good question considering he gets all his news from one source... I told him the CBO made a pretty good calculated projection that will take time to generate. When it does, it would ease the burden on the emergency room, save billions, lower costs and most importantly stop the rise in costs of insurance premiums. What cannot be shown in that CBO analysis is the savings from preventive care. I didn’t convince him but perhaps his blood-pressure came down a few points.

    March 19, 2010 at 9:40 a.m.

  • Please discontinue the use of the word "insurance". The word should be COVERAGE, not insurance. The misuse of this word implies that IF we need a Doctors (or hospital, or therapist, etc, etc) then a risk is able to be calculated. IF is not in the mix, it should be WHEN.

    The true goal of all of this is FREE HEALTH COVERAGE for all, at a cost to the few. Taxpayers, that is.

    March 18, 2010 at 9:06 p.m.

  • The Party of NO! GOP!

    March 18, 2010 at 8:55 p.m.

  • Waywardwind

    Nothing I type will ever penetrate the talking points that have been put out by Fox news and others; it's time to vote, up or down. You're not going to convince me that 31 million people that will soon (in three years) have insurance and the parents that have children with pre-existing illnesses, will not like this Health Care Reform bill.

    The CBO numbers came in today saying that the bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years, and potentially by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years but CBO did warn that projections into the second decade are extremely unpredictable. This will help been some wavering blue dog Democrats; make up their minds.

    Any bill that is passed can be repealed or improved upon, as was Social security and Medicare.

    To be truthful you had zero confidence in Barack Obama & Nancy Pelosi, prior to the election; that will never change. I believe that's why you responded; just so you could reemphasize that. You make it all about Obama and Pelosi but there's a good chance that the Republicans will pick up a lot of seats in the House and the Senate, so this issue will go away and the premiums will continue to rise. Don't expect the Republicans to go after the insurance companies; try to do something about insuring those without health care or do anything about closing the donut hole for prescription drugs...It has never been their issue.

    You must not have kept up with legislation this year because you said “there is nothing magic about it in any bill, passed before the end of the month.’ Have you been paying attention? Making small fixes will not do anything to curb the cost, making it deficit neutral or do anything to insure those that do not have health insurance…. 48,000 people a year, die because they did not get the preventive care they needed to treat their diseases in early stages.

    Is it a perfect bill? Absolutely not, but the Democrats are trying to fulfill a two year campaign promise...They won,they should be allowed to govern. They are passing what they can,this time, try and sell the actual bill come back and improve it as the years go by.

    You would have made a better argument, if you would have said the “Slaughter rule” was unconstitutional according to a 1998 Supreme Court decision that said the congressional and senate version must be identical in text. You could've made an argument about the Republicans not given a chance to cast their usual “NO.”…This bill has Democrats against Democrats Catholic nuns against the Catholic bishops, Tea Party protests, Fox on a 24/7 anti-Health care Bill infomercials disguised as news, and right-wing blogs using all their bandwidth to distort the issue ,but it will all come to an end Sunday.

    Have a good one

    March 18, 2010 at 3:31 p.m.

  • Mike...With so many people so strongly opposed and the congress doing such backhanded things -- vote for the rule to fix the bill which would mean the bill is "deemed" to be passed -- should tell anyone that the bill is seriously flawed. A good bill wouldn't need such things. It could be shown to the citizens and honest debate could ensue. That's not possible with this bill. BO and Pelosi just say, "trust me."

    I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some changes in the American health care system, but to COMPLETELY trash what we have in favor of something that no one even understands and few have read, just because the president and speaker say they know better than the rest of us is more arrogant than anything I EVER heard before. This attitude of "be reasonable, do it MY way" is a load of what Farmer Brown spreads on his garden.

    There is nothing magic about getting any bill, even a bad bill, passed before the end of the month. You say that if we do nothing, costs will continue to escalate. Yeah, they will. But I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying don't do something that we can't undo if it turns out to be a disaster. I'm saying start small and build on what works and toss what doesn't. I have zero confidence in this administration that they could design a porch swing that wouldn't be dangerous. To give them control of the health care system for the entire nation is beyond dangerous.

    March 18, 2010 at 2:16 p.m.

  • Waywardwind

    You have a valid point and I agree with you in theory and principle but Congress has a 17% approval because it does not operate on principle… Nice guys finish last but I will expand with my own theories.

    1. The health-care reform bill has passed the Senate and House.. If the speaker and the Senate majority leader wanted, they could submit that bill for the president's signature.. That's not gonna happen.
    2. Nancy Pelosi has the votes…. But about 10 or 12 conservative Democrats in districts that John McCain won; don’t want to be the vote that kills Health care but they would rather have Joe from Georgia vote yes.
    3. Some naive blue dog Democrats think “deem passed” will give them cover in November, Pelosi doesn't believe that, but if that's all they want.
    4. Every time there is a close vote, you will have about 10 or 12 legislators (Republican or Democrat) wavering; just see what they can bring back home to their district.
    5. Las Vegas gives odds of 70% on the democrats.
    6. In the end voters never ask “How did you win” they ask “did you win”
    7. Finally it’s almost baseball season so I will use the intentional walk analogy… For the purposes of speeding up the game; in high school baseball; the picture just points to first-base and tells the home plate umpire that he intends to walk the batter intentionally. In the majors; just in case that once in a lifetime event, where the pitcher might throw an errant throw, they're required to actually throw four pictures outside the strike zone for the intentional walk. It's still an intentional walk…

    Please don’t remind me that Rollie Fingers struck out Johnny Bench in the 1972 World Series on what was supposed to be an intentional walk.:-)

    March 17, 2010 at 9:44 a.m.

  • Mike.

    What I mean is corruption of the political kind. The President should had lead this thing instead of allowing Reid and Co to do so.

    March 16, 2010 at 11:48 p.m.

  • Mike..."When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)."

    No argument from me about that. BUT, I do think that anything as expensive and has the potential for societal change like the health care bill SHOULD have a vote on the bill itself, not some back door vote for a rule that would "deem" the bill to be passed. I don't have a problem with the self-executing rule when the bill is about a post office in some representative's home district or even funding a new runway or a dam. But, those things don't affect then ENTIRE population and fundamentally change the way the country goes to the doctor. This is a big deal.

    Before it happens, I also think that immigration reform is something else that is important enough to deserve a real vote.

    March 16, 2010 at 8:41 p.m.

  • Legion357
    I apologize because after retyping your post; I now understand what you meant.... I get an "F" for reading comprehension.

    March 16, 2010 at 5:51 p.m.

  • In this context
    Legion357 said"So tough luck if your a Rep. or Senator and your constituents don't like the bill, it's going to get passed, good , bad or no matter the cost, according to Pelosi and Obama.

    That's the way a lot of felt when we could not get a change in direction for the Iraq war.

    I'm not as optimistic as you appear to be but I believe we're both getting weary over this issue...I have been at it for over two years and you are not far behind....Pass it or fail it but next week lets go to something else.

    March 16, 2010 at 5:48 p.m.

  • Ok, I am lost...

    Mike replied to my comment..."I think you exaggerated little bit because both have emphasized that the bill will reduce the deficit but your last sentence sounds like, staying the course(Iraq) even though Americans were against it…. As I said "right now, it’s all about politics.” The debate is over."

    Iraq??? WTH did that come from?

    If my post could be taken to "sound" like anything, it could be taken to mean one party wants their version passed, not matter what. But they will provide cover for their members so that said members have deniability to their constituents.

    Anyway, we can argue procedures all day long. It's kind of a mute point. If it helps get it passed, it will be done. "We will pass this bill"!!!!

    March 16, 2010 at 5:39 p.m.

  • Rasmussen could be right but there is a website that shows that Rasmussen will negatively poll Obama,Democrats,and their policies ,more than other poll. I use it as a worst case scenario but I don't discount it as being a legitimate source.

    I will grant that Rasmussen is one of two Polls that were correct in the last presidential poll. I think 538.com beat them because they were right on the money with the electoral votes.

    Thanks for the info

    March 16, 2010 at 5:20 p.m.

  • http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi...

    The March 15, 2010 Rasmussen poll has the numbers at 43% for and 53% against, Mike.

    March 16, 2010 at 5:12 p.m.

  • Writein

    As I recall you have never like Health Care Reform but those kick backs are supposed to be removed or modified in reconciliation but I don't really know what you mean by corruption...The criminal kind or the political kind?..One is illegal activity;the other stinks so bad it is assumed to be corrupt.

    March 16, 2010 at 5:02 p.m.

  • Sorry meant to post March 9,2010 Gallup poll

    In U.S., 45% Favor, 48% Oppose Obama Healthcare Plan
    Growing sentiment among opponents that bill would raise costs, not address real problems
    by Jeffrey M. Jones

    March 16, 2010 at 4:42 p.m.

  • Honestly, that phrase "socialized medicine" is a non factor but I don't think they had any real bill to talk about. Without a signed bill, they would be trying to promote something that might be changed when they get back to Washington... I've said more than once that the Republicans won the message war because the Democrats did not challenge soon enough... The polls started trending in their in their favor when the insurance companies started increasing their rates and raising their deductibles last month...President Obama giving over 53 speeches did not hurt...As I stated, the wavering Democrats might as well supported it ; if they voted yes in the first place.

    It's not exactly a surge, but a poll out this afternoon shows that Democrats may be reversing the downward trend in voter support for the health care overhaul.

    The CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted over the weekend shows that 42 percent of Americans support the Senate health care bill, up from 36 percent in early December. The poll shows support up 10 points among younger Americans, but only up two points among people 50 and older.

    But Democrats have a long way to go to really sell the majority of Americans on this bill — 56 percent still oppose the Senate bill, which is now expected to pass on Christmas Eve.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennth....
    html

    After this week end(if passed) the Dems can brag on the good points and give a lie of omission ,on the rest of the bill.:-)

    March 16, 2010 at 4:33 p.m.

  • You wondered "...why more Democrat senators and representatives were not out there on the stump making the case for health care reform..."? Could it be that the Democrat politicians are looking at the polls that show a growing majority of the population have taken a look at the legislation and rejected it as Socialized Medicine?

    March 16, 2010 at 4:12 p.m.

  • Victore,

    I don't have all the answers. I was just pointing out that things are not always as they seem.
    Being Bi-polar is a horrible thing and most who have it cannot hold a job for very long. I cannot judge his disabilities, so I am not going to try. Although, I've never heard of anyone getting two checks, but isn't there a total amount that one can receive?

    March 16, 2010 at 2:12 p.m.

  • Victore

    I don't usually answer personal stories because they're not verifiable,too many unanswered questions; doesn't mean I don't believe it but the debate is over; we've heard all the pro and con stories.

    I think elections matter and every Democrat voting for President Obama knew that health-care reform was going to be a priority….After two years of campaigning everyone should have known that.

    When Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate 35% and cut social programs, the Democrats protested just prior to the vote but that it was forgotten soon after the vote because the GOP won the election; they got to govern. When George W. Bush gave tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare Part D ;while being engaged in two wars; same thing, the Democrats protested, the Republicans used conciliation to get their agenda passed and the Democrats let them govern...Then came the 2006 & 2008 elections the voters made their choice;as they will this November.

    I still think the conservatives think they are the rightful heirs of the presidency…. That’s just my opinion.

    I don't think conservative or liberal Democrats like this particular bill but it is their hope that it will be improved upon, as was Social Security and Medicare....History proves that the GOP will not visit this issue.

    March 16, 2010 at 2:04 p.m.

  • Waywardwind

    This is what I call selective outrage or outrage of the Day.

    I don't doubt Nancy Pelosi is devious and underhanded as any Speaker before her. It's a prerequisite for the job. She did not get to be the first woman speaker by being a shrinking violet. I remember John Boehner handing out tobacco checks to legislators just prior to a vote on tobacco legislation. I remember the same man holding up legislation until three o'clock in mornings to acquire one vote, for Medicare Part D. I believe a large contribution was promised to that legislator to be used in his son's candidacy.

    I don't know if they will use that procedure but as I said yesterday, the wavering representatives might as well vote for it, because they voted for it the first time because now it will seen as another John Kerry "I voted for it before I voted against it.”

    Now Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party's bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success.

    The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage. ... When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).
    There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively.

    Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules."

    Like I continue to say it's all about politics and the left and the right will come up with the daily outrages and villains….. There's an old political saying of what you don't want to watch, one is sausage making and the other is the inner workings of a piece of legislation… I'm paraphrasing.

    That's why I think church/religion should stay out of politics;by nature it is sleazy.

    BTW I think the back room deals is just one of the reason 75% of the people mistrust government but on the other hand this bill would have been dead if the insurance companies would have waited before their recent premium increases.This gave life to a need for health care reform and the polls are heading the other way.

    March 16, 2010 at 1:28 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 16, 2010 at 1:25 p.m.

  • Victore,

    How do you know where he got all of those things. I've bought expensive, brand new shoes at resale shops for little or nothing. The phone may have been a gift. The tooth could have been paid for by parents. Tattoos, who knows.
    You cannot judge everyone by what you see.
    Naturally there are people who cheat the system, but the majority do not.

    And putting 1/6 of the economy into big business is no better than putting it into the hands of the government.

    At least with the government, there is someone that has to answer to things, with big business, they answer to no one.

    March 16, 2010 at 1:12 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 16, 2010 at 12:50 p.m.

  • Mike..."Believe it or not the House of Representatives does not have a set of rules; it’s whatever the House Speaker and his/hers committee members say it is for that session."

    Yeah, I believe it. I also believe that your Speaker is about as devious and underhanded (crooked?) as they come. Check out the rule on the health care vote:
    From the Washington Post..."After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

    Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed."

    This would enable the bill to be passed and the congress critters who voted for the "fixes" could go back home and tell the people "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for it." It's as dishonest as anything this side of armed robbery.

    March 16, 2010 at 12:16 p.m.

  • Justataxpayer

    The VA is another government run health care system and by all standards it works pretty well.
    I agree that everyone should pay, preexisting conditions should not prevent you from having insurance, and I think it should be portable but we cannot negotiate if we take talking points for fact. We all should know that private insurance does not want the 85 -year-old patient and government run health care will mean more bureaucracy without any real power over the insurance companies..i.e. The current Senate bill will tax the Cadillac plans in a couple years but by that time, the insurance companies will not offer that Cadillac plan, so that tax will never see the light of day.

    I am not a Reaganite nor am I a Ron Paulite because I am emotionally indifferent when it comes to the rise in costs of my premium or taxes… It comes out of the same pocket.

    JimiDollar

    A bad choice of words on my part because at this stage cannot afford a number #2 pencil, so I should have said included in our budget(paid for or not).

    Patient Jimi, President George W. Bush signed a Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi prime minister to have all our troops out of Iraq by 2011, and it looks to be on schedule.

    President Obama committed to a two-year Afghanistan plan and just last week, Defense Secretary Gates said we will begin making a responsible withdrawal on schedule... I've followed this president for two years prior to the election and one year after; I have not seen anything to make me believe that he is a warmonger. I believe he still wants to bring our troops home but outside forces will always dictate the schedule.

    March 16, 2010 at 11:09 a.m.

  • Writein

    We will all know by this week end if health-care reform will pass…. The president delayed his Asian trip to sign the historic health care bill….You may be right but the odds are against you.

    Hawaii has single-payer universal health care.. Good luck, I have not heard anything about New Mexico's health care.

    March 16, 2010 at 10:42 a.m.

  • Legion357

    As I stated before the health-care reform legislation is all about politics; at this point … The president was right, we have talked, exaggerated, and pretty much everyone has had a say on their likes and dislikes of this particular bill… It's time for a vote.

    I believe the house has four options but I will lay the groundwork for the use of the "Slaughter Rule.”.. It's amazing the forefathers saw that the House of Representatives was a place where a piece of legislation would be run through the mill and then sent to a more laid-back senate, to iron out the issues. Believe it or not the House of Representatives does not have a set of rules; it’s whatever the House Speaker and his/hers committee members say it is for that session.

    I will leave you with a little homework; check out the Drier Doctrine, which is just another name for a "self- executing rule.” … These days the media will not always give you the full story.

    You are referring to Natoma Canfield, who gave up her expensive health insurance and was diagnosed with leukemia, shortly afterward… A story that is becoming commonplace.

    I think you exaggerated little bit because both have emphasized that the bill will reduce the deficit but your last sentence sounds like, staying the course(Iraq) even though Americans were against it…. As I said "right now, it’s all about politics.” The debate is over.

    March 16, 2010 at 10:08 a.m.

  • Health Care reform will NOT pass. I do not believe it will. I am against it base on the corruption and kick backs. I will in due time, hopefully, draw out my own healthcare blog. Hawaii and New Mexico should be the model for health care reform.

    March 16, 2010 at 3:22 a.m.

  • Set aside funds? Where will you find these said funds?

    I asked this same question to a Democrat over a year ago. The answer was that we will have the money becuase Obama was going to end the wars.

    Sucker!!

    March 15, 2010 at 7:37 p.m.

  • The committee will also write a rule setting the terms of debate, likely choosing one of two options.

    The first option would be to have a vote on the rule, then a vote on the original Senate bill and then a vote on the reconciliation bill.

    The second option -- dubbed the "Slaughter solution" after Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) -- would use what's called a "self-executing rule," under which the House would "deem" the original Senate bill passed after the House votes on the rule for debate.

    In other words, the House could pass the original Senate bill without lawmakers actually taking a stand-alone vote on it. Then the House would vote on the reconciliation measure.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2...
    ABC nightly news claimed this is a unprecedented action by the house.

    All fun and games, it fits Pelosi has said before "We will get this bill passed one way or another."

    Today, President Obama, citing one person personal story, which I have heard on someones blogs is only a sympathy plea, stated "We will get the votes."

    So tough luck if your a Rep. or Senator and your constituents don't like the bill, it's going to get passed, good , bad or no matter the cost, according to Pelosi and Obama.

    March 15, 2010 at 6:29 p.m.

  • Johnny
    I believe the Senate parliamentarian will decide what can pass through reconciliation… The Republicans fired the last parliamentarian and replaced him with the one we have now…. Not saying Harry Reid will fire him, if he gets an unfavorable ruling.:-)

    As I understand it(heard the President repeat it today) the final bill will have the most reasonable Republican ideas and the Democrat fixes in it….. I agree this will not be a perfect bill and we will have to amend it from time to time, as we did Social Security and Medicare…If it passes.

    I can't help thinking, that if President George W. Bush had 51 votes, this bill would been finalized in March of last year.

    March 15, 2010 at 5:40 p.m.

  • Good post John Lara

    Even if this bill does not pass; we will have to tackle the rising cost of health care… If the Republicans take control; they will try to reduce those costs by privatizing Medicare and Social Security; if they have enough votes to override a presidential veto…IMO…. That would take a November tsunami.

    Both parties are looking at the same numbers; this issue is about politics.

    This is an issue we can to longer ignore; as is the crumbling infrastructure, education, and the environment…. That can we have been kicking down the road is on his last legs of neglect.

    March 15, 2010 at 5:28 p.m.

  • As I understand it, the Republicans are crying unfair more over the size and scope of this reconciliation option more so that the application of such.

    We need healthcare reform, undoubtedly. However, this approach and this proposal will create more problems than it will fix. There are far reaching tenticles associated with healthcare reform which are not, and probably cannot, be addressed in such a singular sweeping fashion.

    March 15, 2010 at 5:24 p.m.

  • Maybe I’m just not designed like others, but right is right, in my mind; there is no compromise. I supported healthcare reform; because I understood and believed it good for our country. Abuses, corruption, and prejudices are rampant in the healthcare industry; this is common knowledge, even among those in the industry.

    True healthcare reform was never about vilifying health service personal, medical type businesses or patients; but correcting skewed and disingenuous practices. Whether by design or circumstance is irrelevant, what’s of consequence is efficiency, productivity, and purpose.

    The purpose of any business and worker, is too make money. However, industries like healthcare have a higher purpose and responsibility to society. So what, if doctors, hospitals, specialist, pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies make more money off of their patients. So what, if patients go broke or are unable to receive proper attention, because of outrageous healthcare cost. What would happen?

    If healthcare cost keep rising, inflation; or do doctors, specialist, and hospitals think that city, state, federal, and corporate entities will just absorb the lost, into their budgets to pay for health insurance?

    Fewer doctors, hospitals, and specialist; or do people think that if something cost more, that you will have more of them?

    Come on, There is only so much money to go around, the more of the pie allocated to healthcare the fewer doctors and patients. Doctors will become too expensive to have and patients will not be able to afford the ones that are around.

    There needs to be a balance.

    Unfortunately, I do not believe this will be achieve by creating more bureaucracy, which I believe is the case. Republicans and Democrats have equally failed the American people, if true healthcare reform does not come out of this.

    March 15, 2010 at 4:56 p.m.