April 28, 2009

And They Chose an Insurance Commissioner, To Lead Them
— Dave in Texas

Sebelius confirmed for HHS.

"It is essential for the health of the nation that President Obama has in place, and the nation has in place, a strong secretary of HHS to make sure our federal efforts on this potential pandemic are able to coordinate," said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).

I feel better already.

Interesting to see the NYT reinforce a point I offered in the comments a day or so ago, that federal funding for influenza preparedness didn't start with Obama's budget proposal, even though the piece is fluffed with how precisely the Obama administration is handling this just so, not like Bush screwed up Katrina, not overreacting, not underreacting, no, it's PERFECT.

Other public health experts also endorsed the administration’s response to the outbreak that emerged from Mexico. They gave much of the credit to President Bush, whose administration did extensive planning for such an emergency.

“We’re seeing a payoff of the original investment made in pandemic preparedness by the Bush administration,” said Jeffrey W. Levi, executive director of Trust for America’s Health. The term pandemic refers to a widespread outbreak of an infectious disease.

But he's a just lucky stupid cowboy, who got rattled by SARS and bird flu, and also hates black people.

From now on, the bug stops over there wherever the buck stops.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 01:25 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

1
Way to go opposition party!

I forgot your name, what is it again? Re-...rep-....Replicators?...Repudiators?...Raptors?...Rasputins?

Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 01:32 PM (etilY)

2
The Gone Fishin' party.

Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 01:33 PM (etilY)

3 Ah she is such a devout Catholic lady.As devout as our blessed speaker of the house.

Posted by: steevy at April 28, 2009 01:34 PM (dzIYr)

4
A failure as a governor and a tax cheat, but the Republicans can't make any political hay out of it?

Nothing?

Nada?

Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 01:35 PM (etilY)

5 It will be interesting to see when the inevitable turn to "Bush fucked up" comes in from the indisputable fact taht Bush built up our preparedness

Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at April 28, 2009 01:36 PM (5r0Tz)

6
I have no doubt if, say, terrorist William Ayers joins Obama's cabinet tomorrow, the Republicans would not say a word.


Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 01:37 PM (etilY)

7
But they'll fight for Freedom...




...



Fries!

Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 01:37 PM (etilY)

8

Another tax cheat being confirmed.If she's Catholic,that'a very good term.

8 month old fetuses better go into hiding.Damn fetuses!

Posted by: chicocano at April 28, 2009 01:40 PM (P2bg4)

9 I had completely forgotten that Bush hates black people.

Posted by: km at April 28, 2009 01:40 PM (mrk0R)

10 Crissy Mathews even says Scare Force One was stupid - he has harder coverage re Obama than any of the networks or CNN/MSNBC

his guest:

"one of the most boneheaded moves in recent political history"

"tin ear"

matthews:

"dozens of people had to be involved in planning this" and noone objected

but of course conclusion:

"i dont think anyone in the West Wing knew..."

Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at April 28, 2009 01:41 PM (5r0Tz)

11 And They Chose an Insurance Commissioner, To Lead ThemYou guys are hard to figure out. I'd have thought you'd like that. Doesn't it figure that she'll be more protective of the status quo.



Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 01:42 PM (hOPQH)

12
Remember during the transition when nominee after nominee were dropping out and the rump-swabs in the press wrote harsh criticism for Obama's team, mostly for the disservice they were providing the new plastic messiah by not vetting the nominees.

They cried, "Don't they realize how much this hurts Obama?"

Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 01:44 PM (etilY)

13 Wait wait wait, I thought the big gripe from libs for years is that our insurance industry was causing uncontrolled health care prices thus we must have nationalized health care.  So, they now want someone from the insurance industry to be HHS?  Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.

Posted by: BTMinSTL at April 28, 2009 01:45 PM (kGDTD)

14

Will someone please edit out "posted by: honest cloud" for "posted by: cocksucker"?

Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 01:46 PM (etilY)

15 Funny, that horse manure smells familiar to me ... oh yeah, now I remember ... we desperately needed Timmy the Tax Cheat to restore confidence in the financial sector, and that worked so well

Posted by: Gerry at April 28, 2009 01:46 PM (BuEgl)

16 Maybe she'll bring her buddy Dr. Meng....I mean Tiller, over as an assistant.

Posted by: George Costanza at April 28, 2009 01:50 PM (dzIYr)

17 Looks like Obama is ready to party tonight, crab is served:

EVENING PLANS: Obama has a couple big items on the agenda this evening -- he'll be present at Secretary Sebelius's swearing-in ceremony in the Oval, and he and the first lady will host a reception for administration bigwigs.What's being served?- Asian spring roll with ginger and chili dip

- Miniature BLT’s

- Wild mushroom taquitos with roasted tomato salsa

- Mini crabcakes with remoulade


Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at April 28, 2009 01:50 PM (5r0Tz)

18 DAMN that sockpupet.Costanzaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Posted by: steevy at April 28, 2009 01:55 PM (dzIYr)

19 #17

Meanwhile I eat meat from a can.  I should have joined the union, that way I could own a company and the government would always give me money.

And as for this...in all honesty, I expected it.  Once we got all the other crap, I figured this was a shoe in.  I'm gonna have to call a couple of friends tonight and warn them about this.  They're gonna be pretty pissed.

Posted by: Ack at April 28, 2009 01:56 PM (Pdl+z)

20 Will someone please edit out "posted by: honest cloud" for "posted by: cocksucker"?

Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 06:46 PM (etilY)

Are we officially back to using profanity?  I'd prefer that we are but I don't want to endanger Ace's potential revenue flow.

Posted by: Captain Hate at April 28, 2009 01:58 PM (dYNX5)

21

Wait, it's not Wednesday already is it? Or does this mean they are now partying every night?

And I know I certainly feel better knowing that such an honest, forthright, and moral woman is at the reins of HHS now. I am comforted in this time of tribulation that this great lady will be able to steer us on a course through these dark times and into a new, enlightened age of health care for all.

/sarc on that last paragraph obv.

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at April 28, 2009 02:01 PM (AJ4xq)

22 Captain Hate we never stopped.Ace asked for a 20% reduction.So cut out 2 out of every 10 "fucknozzles" or what have you and your golden.

Posted by: steevy at April 28, 2009 02:01 PM (dzIYr)

23 Profanity was not banned, just certain demeaning words.  Just use good fucking judgment, we don't want to endanger Ace's chinese hacker sponsors.

Posted by: BTMinSTL at April 28, 2009 02:01 PM (kGDTD)

24 "13 Wait wait wait, I thought the big gripe from libs for years is that our insurance industry was causing uncontrolled health care prices"

I've always believed that. Yet I trust Obama to get done what he says he would get done.

And the fact she was an insurance commission could mean a lot of different things. Time will tell but you guys certainly seem scared shitless.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 02:05 PM (hOPQH)

25 "It is essential for the health of the nation that President Obama has in place, and the nation has in place, a strong secretary of HHS to make sure our federal efforts on this potential pandemic are able to coordinate," said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).

Now, isn't that convenient?  Sebelius was facing some tough questions that she didn't want to answer - so...presto.  Instant crisis.  And she's the ONLY person who can take care of the Swine Flu epidemic.  Kind of like Tim Geithner was the ONLY person who could handle the financial crisis.  Look how well that's going.

Posted by: antisocialist at April 28, 2009 02:06 PM (zAlmc)

26 Cafeteria Catholics-pick and choose,no strict diet(pun intended).Sibelius,Bella Pelosi,Ted the swimmer,ole lyin Joe.Quite a line up.It gets better.The messiah at  Notrte Dame commencement.More priests and little boys.Nancy gets no endorsement from the papal visit.Gonna be an entertaining summer.

Posted by: chicocano at April 28, 2009 02:07 PM (P2bg4)

27 Ok guys; thanks for the advice.  I know that using the c*** word was specifically mentioned and, even though I don't mind giving it up, I've been amused elsewhere on the intertubez where crones that drop eff bombs with regularity get sand up their vags, hot flashes and other reminders that they aren't as edgy as they like to think of themselves when somebody uses it. 

In other words, I really like pissing them off.

Posted by: Captain Hate at April 28, 2009 02:08 PM (dYNX5)

28
Right, because Obama has a long track record of experience and accomplishments.


Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 02:08 PM (etilY)

29 Wait, it's not Wednesday already is it? Or does this mean they are now partying every night?

No can do Wednesday night...that's the night "Obama Idol" is on. 
Remember, he's giving another Prime Time Press Conference and Love Fest tomorrow night.

Posted by: antisocialist at April 28, 2009 02:11 PM (zAlmc)

30 Yet I trust Obama to get done what he says he would get done.

Like that net spending cut. How's that coming along, fuckwit?

Posted by: Waterhouse at April 28, 2009 02:11 PM (9Dw9r)

31 Honest Cloud is a pedophile.

Posted by: jaleach at April 28, 2009 02:13 PM (gHrZU)

32 So with Czar silliness in - now will they stop with pandemic pandemonia? My bet all of a sudden all will be cured. Mexico will heal itself with this new cabinet head.  Wednesday at the press conference dear leader will walk on water. I want to throw up now.

Posted by: paranoid polly at April 28, 2009 02:14 PM (YLNjm)

33
Time will tell, indeed it will.

In 2012, when people are asked, "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?," the answer will be a resounding no.

Obama the Holy Community Organizer only knows ho to do one thing: throw away taxpayer's money.

He's nothing more than a typical Democrat who attempts to fix every problem by throwing money at it. And when that doesn't work...throw more money at it.


Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 02:14 PM (etilY)

34 Oh, shoot that's right, I forgot about us getting a talking to again tomorrow night by President Hip. Guess they can't do cocktails before or he'd be tripping over the teleprompter. And they can't do cocktails after because 9pm is his bedtime.

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at April 28, 2009 02:16 PM (AJ4xq)

35 23 Profanity was not banned, just certain demeaning words.  Just use good fucking judgment, we don't want to endanger Ace's chinese hacker sponsors.

Posted by: BTMinSTL at April 28, 2009 07:01 PM (kGDTD)


LOL

Posted by: Anti-Harkonnen Freedom Fighter at April 28, 2009 02:19 PM (5r0Tz)

36 There is a guy on CNBC now who came out punching.  He bought up the fact that Murphy won in a Republican district because he said he was behind BO.  He also blamed the entire mess on the last eight years of GWB.  Why do the dems ignore the stuff about BF and the CT guy and all the other dems involved in trouncing any regulation?

Posted by: muffy at April 28, 2009 02:21 PM (zplc6)

37 Get fucked, honest clot.

Posted by: aubrey at April 28, 2009 02:22 PM (vJZ+j)

38 "Time will tell but you guys certainly seem scared shitless." You trust Obama to get done what he said he would. And yes, the prospect of Obama getting things done on health care does scare me. Obama's idea of getting things done likely means those without insurance will be the beneficiaries at the expense of everyone else. He will not control costs without eventual rationing.

Posted by: bunny boy at April 28, 2009 02:23 PM (YsSn7)

39 I think we need a fourth branch of government, the people.

Posted by: muffy at April 28, 2009 02:23 PM (zplc6)

40 Wasn't Bush the one that insensitively went golfing while there was a war going on? Good thing Obama would never go golfing during a war, or during an economic crisis, or during a pirate crisis, or during a pandemic crisis... NO! WAIT!!!

Posted by: CoolCzech at April 28, 2009 02:27 PM (iafWn)

41 Obama's idea of getting things done likely means those without insurance will be the beneficiaries at the expense of everyone else.

Posted By: bunny boy

Hate to break the news to you bunny boy but that is exactly the system that is place today.

And I'm open to find a way to get those folks to pay.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 02:30 PM (hOPQH)

42 Honest Cloud-

You and I have gone back and forth in the not-too-distant past when you would post thoughtful opposing things and there would be an actual discussion. Regrettably, of late you've been more of the typical troll template, but I'll give it a run here.

Why am I concerned about Sebelius as HHS? Frankly, I'm not. What I'm worried about is the overall drift as it applies to health care. I'm trying to get into medical school, and right now, the overall mission is pretty simple- protect life.

If, as a physician, I'm required by law to provide on demand abortions, then I'm not protecting life. Should federally managed health care go through- and Wednesday's vote on the Senate floor will be the beginning of many- one of the eventual things that will come to pass (as it has in other nations with subsidized health care) is the denial of service to the elderly and infirm- known as rationing.

Subsidized health care as Clinton and Daschle had in mind was tried in Tennessee and called TennCare. It nearly bankrupted the state withing Phil Bredesen (Democrat)'s first term. He had to put the brakes on it something fierce.

I, for one, do not think that the same group of career politicians who have made such a mess (of both stripes) in my lifetime can be counted on to handle health care in particular, but the economy as well while we're at it. I ask you to tell me why I should trust any of the 500+ members of Congress or the executive branch on this.

tmi3rd

Posted by: tmi3rd at April 28, 2009 02:31 PM (8j7GP)

43 Oh, shoot that's right, I forgot about us getting a talking to again tomorrow night by President Hip.

Over the past several months, I've been fucking with the automatic ratings measuring on DirectTV by tuning in FNC (muted) by default. Sometimes CSPAN, but tuning into FNC pisses off all the right people. I hardly watch the boobtube anymore, but I do my part to mess with the sat TV ratings.

I'll have to tune in to Fox (muted) during the speech....while I play Ghost Recon in the other room.


Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 28, 2009 02:32 PM (kLZ8u)

44 Wastes energy, too, ITC.  Good job, the globe is too damn chilly.

Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009 02:35 PM (MMC8r)

45 Fox has decided not to even carry The One's speech on the network.  That is pure ball-dripping awesomeness.

Posted by: BTMinSTL at April 28, 2009 02:37 PM (kGDTD)

46 I think Obama appointed the stupidest people around him, so that he looks smart.

Posted by: MizzouGal at April 28, 2009 02:41 PM (vg3cT)

47 Why am I concerned about Sebelius as HHS? Frankly, I'm not. What I'm worried about is the overall drift as it applies to health care. I'm trying to get into medical school, and right now, the overall mission is pretty simple- protect life.

If, as a physician, I'm required by law to provide on demand abortions, then I'm not protecting life. Should federally managed health care go through- and Wednesday's vote on the Senate floor will be the beginning of many- one of the eventual things that will come to pass (as it has in other nations with subsidized health care) is the denial of service to the elderly and infirm- known as rationing.

Subsidized health care as Clinton and Daschle had in mind was tried in Tennessee and called TennCare. It nearly bankrupted the state withing Phil Bredesen (Democrat)'s first term. He had to put the brakes on it something fierce.

I, for one, do not think that the same group of career politicians who have made such a mess (of both stripes) in my lifetime can be counted on to handle health care in particular, but the economy as well while we're at it. I ask you to tell me why I should trust any of the 500+ members of Congress or the executive branch on this.

tmi3rd

QFT and ditto to all.

Posted by: anctrekker at April 28, 2009 02:43 PM (kclNB)

48 The whole HHS nomination process represents precisely what is wrong with the GOP - that the Republicans in the Senate voted along strict party lines because of her stance on abortion. It clearly defines just how beholden the GOP is to religious conservatives, and shows in no uncertain terms how hard it is to be a moderate Republican. 31 GOP Senators voted against her strictly because she is Pro-Choice. I would venture a guess that the Senators who voted for her did not do so because she is Pro-Choice, but instead because she is qualified and believe that she will do a good job. The defection of Arlen Specter further demonstrates the problem at hand - you can't be a moderate Republican anymore - you will be pushed out of the party by fringe-right conservatives. How is this inclusive? How is this supposed to grow the Republican Party? How is this going to satisfy anyone but the hard-core right and religious fanatics? That is what the GOP is turning itself into, and that is why more and more people are turning away from it. Social issues once used to be the business of pussy little Democrats, and Republicans used to say "Sorry, we simply don't care about your stance on social issues. We care about limited government and low taxes - and that inherently excludes us giving two damp steamy shits about social issues." That GOP is DEAD, and died somewhere in the mid-90's, when they feared permanent control by Bill Clinton. And sold themselves to the religious right to regain control. The GOP isn't dead, but it is certainly on life support at this point. And you fucking freakwings that frequent this site are helping to shovel on the dirt on the coffin. I am a LIBERAL - but i believe in the need for a rational, reasonable Republican Party, because the ideals of Barry Goldwater and others of his kind are important to this country. It's just too bad that the GOP has turned to the darkside - the darkside that consists almost solely of people holding up signs of dead babies, who fear-monger over homosexuals, and televangelist preachers who in their spare time smoke methamphetamines and have sex with male prostitutes. I know there are some reasonable Republicans left out there, but they are now represented by the Sean Hannity's and Ted Haggarts of the world. All of you pig-fucking neo-con goons can eat my centrist dick.

Posted by: idrinkwhiskey at April 28, 2009 02:48 PM (JTYYx)

49 41: That's exactly the system we have in place today? Explain, please. You may want to find a way to make these people pay, but Obama doesn't. He's gonna tax the rich and middle class. Please don't tell me you think this guy is gonna make the poor pay for anything.

Posted by: bunny boy at April 28, 2009 02:49 PM (YsSn7)

50 @48, the libs do the exact same thing.  The far left has controlled that party for years and years, hence you have Obama, Pelosi and Reid in charge, the left of the left.

Posted by: BTMinSTL at April 28, 2009 02:51 PM (kGDTD)

51 Posted by: tmi3rd at April 28, 2009

I appreciate your thoughtful approach but to be honest I don't know what you are asking me.

Other than this.

"I ask you to tell me why I should trust any of the 500+ members of Congress or the executive branch on this."

And my answer is because that is the best we have got. To me, we have entrusted our health care system to the private sector. And we are the only country in the world that does it that way. And we have the most expensive health care system in the world by double.

And if we don't like the system our leaders enact. Vote the c*cksuckers out. Unlike today when if you don't like the way insurers treat us, we've got no say.

I'm saying we've got to try something different. Even if we don't get it right the first try.

I hope that helps.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 02:51 PM (hOPQH)

52 What is a neo con?

Posted by: answer please at April 28, 2009 02:51 PM (zplc6)

53 41: That's exactly the system we have in place today? Explain, please.

Emergency rooms.

And I've got to do some research on trees. Be back in a while.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 02:52 PM (hOPQH)

54 #48


-10.  You forgot to stick in a reference to the Joooooooos.

Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009 02:56 PM (MMC8r)

55 53: Emergency rooms are a far cry from the level of comprehensive care Obama is promising.

Posted by: bunny boy at April 28, 2009 02:56 PM (YsSn7)

56 idrinkcum,

Did you miss any stereotypes?

Posted by: Captain Hate at April 28, 2009 02:57 PM (dYNX5)

57 And if we don't like the system our leaders enact. Vote the c*cksuckers out.

You can't possibly be that fucking stupid. Well, maybe you can.

Posted by: Waterhouse at April 28, 2009 02:58 PM (9Dw9r)

58 Cloud-

Thanks for the honest answer. To advance the discussion, is it worth doing the wrong thing and breaking the things that work correctly purely for the sake of doing something? Let me clarify the question:

The Canadian doctors to whom I've spoken have come south of the border to practice because of having to ration care. They openly say that the money is certainly better down here, but if they choose to donate their care to sick people, they do it of their own volition down here. These doctors did not have that option in Canada.

Implicit in the Daschle approach is denial of life-prolonging care to particularly senior citizens with life-threatening illnesses. Nothing of the proposals I've seen before Congress indicate that the doctors providing care will have the option of countermanding the governmental denial of care.

By the way, to clarify the previous post, I was detailing why I distrust the government's ability to oversee health care. The question I asked, you answered, and I appreciate it. As to your answer- growing up in Louisiana, I never encountered a problem that was not made much worse by governmental involvement. I submit to you that while the current situation in health care is untenably bad, getting career bureaucrats involved can only make it worse.

Again, thanks for your reply.

tmi3rd

Posted by: tmi3rd at April 28, 2009 03:00 PM (8j7GP)

59 Honest Cloud, I don't know if you were responding to me, but if you were, i am certainly not saying i trust the Dems to do anything - I am not a Democrat. but the GOP has about eaten itself at this point, and I certainly don't want our country run by a one-party system. That is what will lead to things like Germany in the 1930's. we need the GOP to be strong and healthy, and not prevent people from aligning themselves with it because of who represents it. How are younger people and moderates supposed to join a party that only caters to either A.) the Super-Rich, or B.) the uber religious-right? All these people who showed up at tea parties were great, I'm happy they exressed themselves - but where were they protesting massive government expansion, rampant government spending, and erosion of civil rights for the 8 years of the Bush Administration? All of these things add up to a weakened and discredited GOP by the centrists of America. I'm sure I'm getting ripped right now by the Neo-Cons on this site, but those people aren't going to elect the next POTUS. The moderates are. And fewer and fewer moderates want to be a part of the GOP. Now, if you weren't talking to me I look like an ass. No matter though, I'm getting ripped anyway. I knew I would.

Posted by: idrinkwhiskey at April 28, 2009 03:00 PM (JTYYx)

60 Looks like I'm an ass. But I stand by my statements. Fringe-right lunatics are helping the Democrats as much as anyone. They (most of you here) are the reason that Obama got elected. But they keep on keepin' on, shouting their looney ideas and demonizing anyone slightly to the left of them, which gets everyone exactly nowhere. Why am I talking to you assfucks?

Posted by: idrinkwhiskey at April 28, 2009 03:03 PM (JTYYx)

61
a party that only caters to either A.) the Super-Rich, or B.) the uber religious-right?

This is why you're an asshole. Neither of those charactersisitcs apply to anyone here, so your sterortype of Republicans is completely wrong. You're a boob; you don't think for yourself.

Shithead. Go back to watching Colbert.

Posted by: D-ling at April 28, 2009 03:04 PM (etilY)

62 Why am I talking to you assfucks?

Beats me. Fuck off.

Posted by: Waterhouse at April 28, 2009 03:05 PM (9Dw9r)

63 "Why am I talking to you assfucks?" Because your mommy didn't show you enough attention. And because your daddy showed you too much, IYKWIMAITYD.

Posted by: bunny boy at April 28, 2009 03:07 PM (YsSn7)

64 Vapid Vapor said: "And we are the only country in the world that does it that way. And we have the most expensive health care system in the world by double."

It's also the greatest healthcare the world has ever known.  You fucking Libs. kill me.


Posted by: Toad at April 28, 2009 03:07 PM (RZhpS)

65 To me, we have entrusted our health care system to the private sector. And we are the only country in the world that does it that way. And we have the most expensive health care system in the world by double. Huh? How are you exactly calculating "most expensive"? Further, you do realize America has the most innovative health care system in the world and when people really need life saving medical treatment they don't go to Canada or Great Britain, right?

Posted by: Jay at April 28, 2009 03:09 PM (iy1Xt)

66 To me, we have entrusted our health care system to the private sector.

No, we haven't.
 
As you yourself point out earlier, many many people get free care and never pay a dime. They get that free care because the government orders private caregivers to give away their product without requiring payment-- that's not the free market.

Neither is medicaid, or medicare, which imposes arbitrary, cut-rate prices on service-providers.  This is not the free-market, either.

And both the shortfalls in payment get shifted to the people who do try to take care of themselves, spiraling the only costs that ever actually get paid.

And what happens when you let people get healthcare for free?  It disincentivises them from paying money for their own in a vicious spiral-- free care/less reason to try to pay/less people try/more free care.

And let's not get into the amount of money that gets poured into the medical and insurance systems and into the pockets of the legal profession, treating no one.

Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009 03:17 PM (MMC8r)

67 Emergency rooms are a far cry from the level of comprehensive care Obama is promising.

Posted by: bunny boy at April 28, 2009

You are mistaken. Don't know your experience with ER's but the uninsured and Medicaid use them as their primary care. And it's horribly inefficient and costly.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 03:18 PM (hOPQH)

68 Well, why would any conservative dislike having someone like idrinkwhiskey in the party?  I mean, after all, I can see how tolerant and gracious he is.

Arlen Specter is welcome to leave the party.  I don't care that he was a moderate.  I care that he has been MEETING WITH HARRY REID FOR FIVE YEARS.  I am absolutely convinced that Specter sat through Republican caucus meetings and then carried that information to Reid.   He has functioned as a mole and a spy, and he has no honor.

I fully support Snowe and Collins, irritating as they sometimes are, because I know they are the best we can do in Maine.  I was happy to support Norm Coleman, who was a moderate but stuck with us on the war and pro-life issues and pushed for the Oil for Food investigation.

I even voted for John McCain, and although I get irritated with him, I know that he will constantly harrass Obama over his spending.

But Arlen Specter, a former democrat who became a Republican during the Reagan Revolution (decidedly a NON-liberal time in GOP history) and has proceeded to use the GOP to remain in office while voting as a democrat on most issues, is beyond the pale.  He has done a great deal of harm and I don't regret his leaving one bit.

Posted by: Miss Marple at April 28, 2009 03:20 PM (Vli7s)

69 To me, we have entrusted our health care system to the private sector.

No, we haven't.

Most but not all.
 
"As you yourself point out earlier, many many people get free care and never pay a dime. They get that free care because the government orders private caregivers to give away their product without requiring payment-- that's not the free market."

That is true. So what are we gonna do about it? Let them die. Or let them be harbors of disease to spread to the rest of us.

"Neither is medicaid, or medicare, which imposes arbitrary, cut-rate prices on service-providers.  This is not the free-market, either."

No it is not. And Medicare works reasonably well.

"And both the shortfalls in payment get shifted to the people who do try to take care of themselves, spiraling the only costs that ever actually get paid."

So very true. So what do you propose we do about it?

"And what happens when you let people get healthcare for free?  It disincentivises them from paying money for their own in a vicious spiral-- free care/less reason to try to pay/less people try/more free care."

No one is proposing a system with free care. And you know as well as I that nothing is free.

"And let's not get into the amount of money that gets poured into the medical and insurance systems and into the pockets of the legal profession, treating no one."

The leagal system gets less than 1% of our health care costs. And the insurance companies are the biggest problem. IMO..

Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009 08:17 PM (MMC8r)

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 03:23 PM (hOPQH)

70 "How are you exactly calculating "most expensive"? "

Both as a percentage of GNP and per capita.  We're tops. No one is even close.

And for the same level of care.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 03:26 PM (hOPQH)

71 Posted by: tmi3rd at April 28, 2009 08:00 PM (8j7GP)

"To advance the discussion, is it worth doing the wrong thing and breaking the things that work correctly purely for the sake of doing something?"

Yes, it's not working. And other health care systems are working fine for half the cost.

"The Canadian doctors to whom I've spoken have come south of the border to practice because of having to ration care. They openly say that the money is certainly better down here, but if they choose to donate their care to sick people, they do it of their own volition down here. These doctors did not have that option in Canada."

Canada is a very poor example. The U.K. is the worse. Their system certainly leaves a lot to be desired but they cover everyone for half of what we pay. Take a look at Taiwan or Germany. Or France.

"Implicit in the Daschle approach is denial of life-prolonging care to particularly senior citizens with life-threatening illnesses. Nothing of the proposals I've seen before Congress indicate that the doctors providing care will have the option of countermanding the governmental denial of care."

Bullshit. Daschle is out. And their are no proposals in front of Congress.

"By the way, to clarify the previous post, I was detailing why I distrust the government's ability to oversee health care. The question I asked, you answered, and I appreciate it. As to your answer- growing up in Louisiana, I never encountered a problem that was not made much worse by governmental involvement. I submit to you that while the current situation in health care is untenably bad, getting career bureaucrats involved can only make it worse."

I 100% disagree. The systems that work the best are a combination of private insurance/universal(everyone has equal access to basic care).

This crisis has gone on long enough. It is crippling business, both big and small.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 03:34 PM (hOPQH)

72
You are mistaken. Don't know your experience with ER's but the uninsured and Medicaid use them as their primary care. And it's horribly inefficient and costly.

It strains credulity to suggest that expanding the health care opportunities of those w/o coverage is going to be some kind of money saver.  The only way it will save is if the feds do what they do with Meidcare/caid and force the provider to take patients at a set price.  If that happens, costs rise for everyone on private plans.  If the private plans get squeezed out of business, rationing or cost increases will follow.  It just amazes me that you can't seem to see a possible downside here.  There is no magic formula.  You can't get something for nothing. 

Posted by: bunny boy at April 28, 2009 03:35 PM (YsSn7)

73 "It strains credulity to suggest that expanding the health care opportunities of those w/o coverage is going to be some kind of money saver."

Complete and utter bullshit.

So you think it's in our best interest to let a swine flu infected to go undiagnosed and untreated and continue to interact.

Or tuberculosis? Or strep?

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 03:40 PM (hOPQH)

74 "You can't get something for nothing."

Sure you can.  Just have the magical unicorns print more money.  Simple.  Don't worry, Barry's working overtime trying to find a way for those unicorns to generate more doctors.  Right after they figure out 'free' electricity. 

Posted by: GarandFan at April 28, 2009 03:40 PM (C3okI)

75

73:  Strawman much?

Posted by: bunny boy at April 28, 2009 03:42 PM (YsSn7)

76 "There is no magic formula."

Agreed. There is no magic involved. All that is needed is to borrow from the systems that are far superior to ours.

 "You can't get something for nothing."

No shit, buddy. Master of the obvious.


Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 03:43 PM (hOPQH)

77 Sorry if it's been asked, but how the holy hell did KANSAS elect this moonbat?

Posted by: , at April 28, 2009 03:44 PM (C4e+v)

78

76:  There are no systems far superior to ours.  And I'm not your buddy.


Posted by: bunny boy at April 28, 2009 03:47 PM (YsSn7)

79 So what are we gonna do about it? Let them die. Or let them be harbors of disease to spread to the rest of us.

First of all, we stop the price-shifting that spirals costs. De-incentivize being a deadbeat, by making it a less-appealling option. If someone assumes your costs, what incentive do you have to pay them?

Reduce the deadbeat rolls that way first. Let pro-bono care do more of it, as many hospitals and doctors already do. Even state/local free clinics, if citizens choose to fund them.

But they're so crowded, you say? Hard to get? It should be an unappealing option-- otherwise, again, what incentive is there to do anything else?

"Neither is medicaid, or medicare, which imposes arbitrary, cut-rate prices on service-providers. This is not the free-market, either."

No it is not. And Medicare works reasonably well.

It sets below-market prices for care, leading either to doctors shifting costs to their paying patients or refusing to take more or any Medicare patients. Same problem as the deadbeats, just with gummint picking up part of the bill (the part THEY decide). Not the free market at all.

"And what happens when you let people get healthcare for free? It disincentivises them from paying money for their own in a vicious spiral-- free care/less reason to try to pay/less people try/more free care."

No one is proposing a system with free care. And you know as well as I that nothing is free.

But it is! right now, people get free care all the time. Are you going to tax these people who can't afford health insurance? Then why don't they take the money you're going to tax from them and buy insurance??

"And let's not get into the amount of money that gets poured into the medical and insurance systems and into the pockets of the legal profession, treating no one."

The leagal system gets less than 1% of our health care costs. And the insurance companies are the biggest problem. IMO..

I'd like to see a cite for that 1% figure. I'd like to know if that is just court awards, or if it includes settlements to nuisance cases without merit but too expensive to litigate, the cost of over-the-top procedures and methods of operation designed to eliminate any possibility of something a trial lawyer could exploit to contrive a nuisance case, the increased legal costs to hospitals of endless lawyers on retainer, court fees, paperwork nightmares related to recordkeeping designed to limit indemnity, and the ballooning costs of malpractice insurance that get passed on to each and every patient because of our litigious society.



Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009 03:51 PM (MMC8r)

80 And for the same level of care.

You're such a fucking pathetic liar. Ever heard of waiting lists, for instance, fuckwit? Guess who gets the most timely care? The US. Guess who gets the second-most timely care? Switzerland, which with mandated universal care but a market-oriented system, pays close to the same as the US as a percentage of GDP (despite your other fucking lie). What about physician choice? Guess who ranks highest there?

Not to mention the far higher survival rate in the US for a whole range of diseases. Is that included in your "same level of care" lie?

Posted by: Waterhouse at April 28, 2009 03:53 PM (9Dw9r)

81 "De-incentivize being a deadbeat, by making it a less-appealling option. Reduce the deadbeat rolls that way first."

And how in the fuck do you plan to do that.

I'm all ears.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 03:55 PM (hOPQH)

82 McCloud wouldn't have so much experience with ERs if he'd buy some damn health insurance.

Posted by: toby928 at April 28, 2009 04:01 PM (PD1tk)

83 Honest cloud some of us have worked in healthcare all our lives, but what the fuck do we know next to CPA. And if you think Medicaid works fairly well then, yes, universal healthcare will be right up your ally dumb ass.

Posted by: Toad at April 28, 2009 04:02 PM (GzhjM)

84

Looks like Presidente Zero is batting 100% for selecting people as dishonest and stupid as he is.

 

Even my dog Slugo has more intelligence than Obama and his combined cabinet of horrors.

Posted by: Vladmir Putin at April 28, 2009 04:02 PM (0Qynq)

85 Hey tob,

Nice to hear from the peanut gallery. I have and always have had insurance. My experience with ER's comes from my neighbor who is an ER doctor and my best friend, also an ER doctor.


Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 04:04 PM (hOPQH)

86 You fucking losers here are EXACTLY why the democrats are going to tell the wingnuts to fuck off and implement the promise that was made to the voters who elected them.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 04:07 PM (hOPQH)

87 And how in the fuck do you plan to do that.

I'm all ears.

It was very clear.  You stop giving them the free ride.  You stop giving them ERs to breeze into with no obligations.

You provide other options (charities, pro-bono, free/lowpay state/local clinics, etc.), but they should be the minimal, and not something that simply shifts the costs they don't pay over to those that do.  Give people something free, as in the current arrangement, and you'll always have an eager and growing consumer base...who wants it free.

And let's not let this get away from the initial point--  a law requiring treatment(ie, spending other people's money) is not the free market.

But there's plenty more in that previous post.  Don't ignore the rest of it.

Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009 04:10 PM (MMC8r)

88 Nice to hear from the peanut gallery.

Your welcome.  Its always my pleasure to point out your lies.

Posted by: toby928 at April 28, 2009 04:15 PM (PD1tk)

89 "It was very clear.  You stop giving them the free ride.  You stop giving them ERs to breeze into with no obligations."

You are a stupid fuck. They have obligations to the ER's.

And how in the fuck are these free clinics going to magically appear? And pro bono? You have got to be fucking kidding. Do you know of a lot of doctors, a lot, that want to star working for free.

You are an unbelievably stupid fucking jackass. On one hand you think a public health system wouldn't pay doctors enough and your solution is to have them work for free.

I have truly seen it all. Un fucking believable.

You did bring up some valid points in the rest of your post, I agree. But the answer is NOT to do nothing.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 04:18 PM (hOPQH)

90 #70 We have the highest as part of GDP because 1) our services are "on demand", 2) we shift costs through insurance 3) we don't ration expensive treatments 4) we're one of the few countries who innovates new treatments which is very expensive Case in point, I live in Houston and right down the street from me is MD Anderson. This hospital services cancer patients and is one of the leading research hospitals in all of the world. At any given day you can find europeans and canadians in the lobby awaiting treatment for services they couldn't or wouldn't get in their country. (Funny how even expensive procedures seem cheap when the other option is death) I know all this because my mom has had a rare from of cancer for the last 15 years. When she was diagnosed, (at a different hospital) they told her to go home and die peacefully, she had just months to live. She went to MD Anderson and because of her rare type of cancer was given experimental drugs (very expensive) to help fight the disease along with difficult (and once again expensive) surguries. None of this would be an option under universal health care. The result of this is that she is alive and now the medical profession has new drugs and methods of dealing with cancer. In time, the costs will lower as the processes are refined benefiting all of mankind. In this sense, buried in the costs you cited is the problem of the social healthcare systems being "free riders;" that is using the knowledge gained at US facilities for their own use, rising our cost and lowering theirs. Another fun fact is that one of my moms last doctors was a surgeon from sweden. A problem of the artificially capped structure is brain drain. The talented will leave to other places leaving only the worst to stay and practice under the system.

Posted by: jollyroger at April 28, 2009 04:20 PM (+tHhv)

91 As a lawyer, there are a lot of pro-bono lawyers out there. Usually, right out of college granted, but better than nothing. Why not make it part of residency kind of like an apprentiseship or give class credit. Lots of attorneys forgo working for serious money to go clerk for judges for almost nothing. Its actually very competitive.

Posted by: jollyroger at April 28, 2009 04:25 PM (+tHhv)

92 You are a stupid fuck.

Ah, again with the ad hominems.  They don't enhance your point, they simply make you look less rational and more like you're losing the argument.

They have obligations to the ER's.

ERs are required to provide care without consideration as to ability to pay.

And how in the fuck are these free clinics going to magically appear? And pro bono? You have got to be fucking kidding. Do you know of a lot of doctors, a lot, that want to star working for free.

Many many doctors take indigent cases, do clinic work, etc.  Many have told you this on other threads concerning medicare patients that I read here in the past few days.  Hospitals do charity cases as well, even open clinics designed to keep problem cases from clogging the emergency rooms. 

You are an unbelievably stupid fucking jackass.

Once again, see point one.

On one hand you think a public health system wouldn't pay doctors enough and your solution is to have them work for free.

Take cases for free.  By their choice.  As many already do.

I also said nothing about what a public health system would pay doctors.  That is a straw man.

I have truly seen it all. Un fucking believable.

See point one, again.

You did bring up some valid points in the rest of your post, I agree. But the answer is NOT to do nothing.

What I suggested is not to 'do nothing.'  It is to change the current conditions that have led us to the excessive cost problems we're facing now.

Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009 04:29 PM (MMC8r)

93

Indianapolis-based health insurance giant WellPoint is jumping into the emerging world of "medical tourism" -- the practice in which U.S. patients cross international borders in search of cheaper medical care.

WellPoint, which provides health coverage for about 35 million people nationwide..

"It allows the customers to have choice," said Dr. Razia Hashmi, chief medical officer of Anthem National Accounts for WellPoint. "Certainly, the cost difference is striking enough for some procedures."

... now the company finds itself looking to export certain care overseas in a search for cost savings.

Hashmi said a knee replacement in the U.S. could have a price tag of $60,000 to $70,000 for the procedure, initial rehabilitation and other costs. In India, total medical costs might run $8,000 to $10,000 for a 15-day stay.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 04:31 PM (hOPQH)

94 "ERs are required to provide care without consideration as to ability to pay."

That is true. But they are also 100% entitled to go after payment(your house) in the event you have any assets and happened to be uninsured.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 04:34 PM (hOPQH)

95 #95 What's worse, live and try to pay for a service you received or die?

Posted by: jollyroger at April 28, 2009 04:37 PM (+tHhv)

96 "Many many doctors take indigent cases, do clinic work, etc.""Hospitals do charity cases as well, even open clinics designed to keep problem cases from clogging the emergency rooms."

Again an utterly preposterous solution that we simply need more docs and hospitlas doing work for free. Good fucking grief.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 04:37 PM (hOPQH)

97 That is true. But they are also 100% entitled to go after payment(your house) in the event you have any assets and happened to be uninsured.

If they A) have any such assets,  and if B) a $100-$1000 medical bill is worth the legal bills (not likely).  Which is why the costs just get shifted to the paying customers.  Which is why we keep having spiraling costs.

Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009 04:38 PM (MMC8r)

98 #98 This is true, costs are shifted to those who can pay. Sometimes it appears as something like "Service Fee" on the bill or can be added to all the other services in the forms of markups. People complain because the poor can't pay for healthcare because its too expensive and its expensive because the poor can't pay for healthcare so the cost is distributed. Its a vicious cycle.

Posted by: jollyroger at April 28, 2009 04:42 PM (+tHhv)

99 I also said nothing about what a public health system would pay doctors.  That is a straw man.

I have truly seen it all. Un fucking believable.


Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009

No it is not. And Medicare works reasonably well.

It sets below-market prices for care, leading either to doctors shifting costs to their paying patients or refusing to take more or any Medicare patients. Same problem as the deadbeats, just with gummint picking up part of the bill (the part THEY decide). Not the free market at all.

Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009

Your post claims Medicare sets below market prices and your solution is to have doctors provide pro bono work.

Get your fucking story straight. Jackass.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 04:48 PM (hOPQH)

100 In any case, the necessary element is to stop the cost shifting from those who do not pay to those that do (as well as limit non-medical drains on the system that have to be funded with healthcare dollars).

Removing cost shifting means that each bill doesn't bill for services provided plus the cost of someone else's care. This will bring down the actual cost each paying customer pays-- it brings prices down, so that more of the non-paying can afford to pay their own way, too.

Me?  I'd like to see a system where simple check-ups DON'T cost an arm and a leg, where we don't play a 'billable/non-billable' game with insurance companies, where insurance is the necessity for catastrophic care, not everyday expenses and costs come down to actual cost of services received, not the endless layers of bureaucracy that have to be funded out of the same pot (all those 'hidden' costs).

All those hidden costs and bureaucracy will be there in socialized medicine in spades, and the only thing that will actually get cut is medical care itself.

Now, wife wants me in bed, and that's a better offer than anyone on the Internet is going to make me tonight.

Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009 04:52 PM (MMC8r)

101 OK.  How about this: Legal care is actually a bona fide right.  So why don't we do this?  Why don't we have Universal Legal Care?  We'll do it just like Obama wants to do health care. 

After all, we have far more lawyers per capita than any country in the world and we must spend more on legal care than anybody else.

Why should we have different levels of legal care and why should the poor be denied the same care as the rich?

I think the model will work just fine.  Just fine indeed.  And I'm sure all the lawyers in the Democrat party and among Obama's buddies will love it.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 28, 2009 05:18 PM (bZ9KY)

102 "In any case, the necessary element is to stop the cost shifting from those who do not pay to those that do"

Mostly agree. Though it will be tough to get much from those who have nothing. And because of the nature of infectious disease, it is in the best  interest of all Americans to have us all healthy. And I will go to my grave believing that every child gets treated regardless of how poor their family is. And though it's nice to say they can take them to the emergency room that ain't reality. If Mom and Dad think they could lose whatever assets they might have, the kids are often just let to wait it out. Sometimes with catastrophic consequences.

"(as well as limit non-medical drains on the system that have to be funded with healthcare dollars)."

Agreed. And Obama's proposal is intended to address that specific issue.

"Me?  I'd like to see a system where simple check-ups DON'T cost an arm and a leg, where we don't play a 'billable/non-billable' game with insurance companies, where insurance is the necessity for catastrophic care, not everyday expenses and costs come down to actual cost of services received, not the endless layers of bureaucracy that have to be funded out of the same pot (all those 'hidden' costs)."

Agreed. And Obama's plan is meant to address these specific issues.

"All those hidden costs and bureaucracy will be there in socialized medicine in spades, and the only thing that will actually get cut is medical care itself."

This is where I 100% disagree. One, it is not socialized medicine and two the main focus is to eliminate these hidden costs and bureaucracy.

I'm glad to see you back off of your claim for more pro bono work. It was a ridiculous suggestion.

Posted by: nickless at April 28, 2009

Peace and good health to you.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 05:44 PM (hOPQH)

103 102 OK.  How about this: Legal care is actually a bona fide right.

Posted by: AmishDude

Only when you have no assets.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 05:46 PM (hOPQH)

104 You fucking losers here are EXACTLY why the democrats are going to tell the wingnuts to fuck off and implement the promise that was made to the voters who elected them.

The net spending cut? Good fucking luck, you lying sack of shit.

Posted by: Waterhouse at April 28, 2009 06:49 PM (9Dw9r)

105 You know, mr. h. clod, there are some mighty intelligent people here at AoShq that post routinely.  They are inquisitive, irreverent, bawdy, humorous, and given their longevity in posting, accepted as part of the diaspora.

You, however, are a recent  interloper.  Never to be truly a part of, constantly squirming and biting.  A curiosity.  Tiresome.  My brother would call you Al.  Alfred.
 Alfred was strange.


Good day.

Posted by: Derak at April 28, 2009 06:55 PM (QIsMa)

106 "106 You know, mr. h. clod, there are some mighty intelligent people here at AoShq that post routinely.  They are inquisitive, irreverent, bawdy, humorous, and given their longevity in posting, accepted as part of the diaspora."

Can't wait to meet them.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 28, 2009 07:17 PM (hOPQH)

107 And how does Obama's proposal propose to address the deficiencies in the healthcare system? All his plan will do is bankrupt private insures and spread the cost of healthcare for all persons to the ever shrinking number of taxpayers. You'll still be paying a shitload for medical care (assuming you work) but it will just be hidden. And for other people. And rationing will necessarily follow. Hawaii tried this idea last year for the kids. Google that and see how it worked out for them. By the way, you think illegal immigration is bad now, wait until we incentivize it further. A social welfare state with open borders is unsustainable.

Posted by: Jollyroger at April 28, 2009 07:35 PM (+tHhv)

108 Oh and I forgot, what the government gives it can take away. Universal healthcare will allow government to regulate smoking, exercise, eating, drinking, etc., habits for all Americans under the premise of promoting the general welfare or some horseshit using the commerce clause. Hope you don't like Big Macs or Marlboros...

Posted by: Jollyroger at April 28, 2009 07:39 PM (+tHhv)

109 Ever since the swine flu "potential pandemic" achieved 24/7 "crisis coverage" in the media, many of us predicted that Obama was going to use this to shove Sebelius down our throats.

We were right.

Even scarier is that he might use this "crisis" to fast-track nationalized health care.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at April 28, 2009 07:51 PM (Oh2SG)

110 Tieing up a loose end H Cloud, you are a true believer, I'll give you that. The tape doesn't lie though. Obama's plan is government (socialized) health care by another name. See for yourself http://tinyurl.com/d5bnmh Listen to the man in his speeches, you'd think he was a reincarnation of Reagan. Something about being around a bunch of liberals has the effect of truth serum on these asshats.

Posted by: Jollyroger at April 28, 2009 08:00 PM (+tHhv)

111

I'm from Alberta-3.5 million people on a 27 billion budget.40% of it is medicare and rising.DON T DO  IT.Grandma doesn't need her third hip replacement.

Posted by: chicocano at April 28, 2009 09:17 PM (P2bg4)

112 @102: Fine, and let those of us who defend med mal claims get paid the same as the doctors we represent.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at April 28, 2009 10:28 PM (8MuSQ)

113 My last word for our furry little troll... Obama is dealing with a bunch of competing interests as he tries to get something done. Doctors, the tort system, private insurers, and taxpayers for starters. If his plan is to save money, someone is going to have to take a haircut. You think tort reform is going to be part of the plan? Will he limit physician salaries when we already face the prospect of a shortage? Will private insurers really be able to survive under Obama-care? This is not France. There are a lot of reasons to believe we will never see the cost savings Obama trumpets. And that's before we even get into the subject of government inefficiencies. I think you are underestimating (ignoring) how messy this will get.

Posted by: bunny boy at April 29, 2009 12:38 AM (YsSn7)

Posted by: zonda at July 05, 2010 07:12 PM (HXTxl)

Posted by: tulang at July 21, 2010 12:34 AM (HGD7E)

116 love blog very much my friend

Posted by: info Bisnis at June 19, 2011 07:15 AM (TuB+L)

117 Thank you for your analysis and sharing, from your article I learned more.

Posted by: doudoune ralph lauren at November 10, 2011 11:16 AM (E5A7m)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
151kb generated in CPU 0.13, elapsed 1.1274 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0264 seconds, 353 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.