I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!

VINNY GOOMBA · May 2009

decides2dream wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I forgot to mention education... Eliminate the Department of Ed. What good are they? None. The states have their own standards as is. As far as public education, it's an option, but is it a cheaper option? Who knows!? The lottery in my criminal state is supposed to pay for education, and with the billions it raises a year, why am I still paying $10,000 in school and property taxes to live on less than half an acre?

Nonetheless, the sticker price on Private Schools are probably higher. But at least there's options here. This is what I want. I'm not against public schooling, aside from the fact that everything they teach you in history and social studies has a very statist agenda.

well thereya go. i AM saying, we already have public and private ed....we can have the same with healthcare. in many other countries, private healthcare still does exist.

See my last post, about using the states to pull this all off with health care.

inmytree · May 2009

decides2dream wrote:

it's a moot point in any case, b/c NO one suggested doctors get paid 'civil service salaries'...and nor would they. being a doctor would still be a high-paying career choice. mention all this above...^^^ it's not about the actual doctors, nurses, etc...not making a good living.......it's about cutting out the big corps who's stockholders make the profits off of healthcare. THERE's the real savings, not at the expense of those educated and dedicated to healthcare.

hey, quit making sense....

norm · May 2009

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

On a federal level - defense. Emphasis on DEFENSE, not offense. Anything else they want to dabble in should be paid for by the people who want it from them ONLY, and should be provided at the state level. This is consistent with what you and everyone else have been telling JLew -- that providing for more people isn't a big deal, and it should work on a slide-rule. Taxes should consistent with the number of people that actually expect that service. Whatever it costs, the people pay it. No profit involved, if that is at all possible with the government (which it could be if it doesn't form no-bid partnerships with their buddies).

Now imagine this-- "buying" your healthcare from different states in the union. You live in New York, but want to buy Montana's plan... why not? You live in Connecticut, have an Arkansas plan, and fall down while visiting your aunt in California and break your leg... You're paying into Arkansas regardless, let them pick up the tab-- we have the technology!

Couple that with private insurance companies who are now forced to compete against the states, how much are their costs going to come down?

Choices is where it's at.

As for everything else-- police, fire, roads, all work pretty well when localized. I'm not against the government serving the people especially at local and state levels where the people have SOME control over in how these institutions operate. I'm against the Federal government getting involved in much of this stuff. It's Unconstitutional for a reason-- it was so the states could do their thing as they see fit.

i want to put this on a t-shirt

well done vinny

decides2dream · May 2009

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I forgot to mention education... Eliminate the Department of Ed. What good are they? None. The states have their own standards as is. As far as public education, it's an option, but is it a cheaper option? Who knows!? The lottery in my criminal state is supposed to pay for education, and with the billions it raises a year, why am I still paying $10,000 in school and property taxes to live on less than half an acre?

Nonetheless, the sticker price on Private Schools are probably higher. But at least there's options here. This is what I want. I'm not against public schooling, aside from the fact that everything they teach you in history and social studies has a very statist agenda.

well thereya go. i AM saying, we already have public and private ed....we can have the same with healthcare. in many other countries, private healthcare still does exist.

See my last post, about using the states to pull this all off with health care.

i did.
and i said i did see where you were going....but we have different perspectives.

i personally think it is 'easier and better'...for lack of better terms...for the fed to control. i think leaving it at a state level could be far more complex, and also inconsistent level of care. it's also why i approve on keeping abortion legal on a fed level....why i wish at a fed level gay marriage would be put into effect....etc. there are many things i think ALL americans should have, regardless of what state they live in. also, sometimes too many choices...anre just too many choices....:P i think we ALL should have equal access, and equal quality of care. obviously, it IS quite complex...all of it...to create & implement...and i certainly don't have the expertise to have the *answers*...i am painting broad strokes merely to illustrate, it Is possible...to afford...to have quality care....to maintain innovative medical care and standards. b/c...IT IS. HOW we ultimately decide to go about it, more than likely...will make none of us 100% happy, but hopefully most of us at least covered, and partially happy. tis the nature of change and compromise. i am just tired of reading 'we can't, we can't, we can't...it can't work....we can't have quality care'....etc. we CAN.

jlew24asu · May 2009

decides2dream do you live in America?

slightofjeff · May 2009

inmytree wrote:

you act as if gov't employees are simpletons...

I find it sad that, for some, the only motivator in life is money and profit...

Not for some. For most. That's why capitalism works.

And government workers aren't simpletons. They are just chronically underpaid.

slightofjeff · May 2009

decides2dream wrote:

alrighty, i said i'm out...but seriously...i had to address this. who has ever even suggested THIS? um, senators, congressmen, and yea...the president...all are 'government workers'...and i believe they all make pretty good salaries.

Those people are elected officials. Their compensation is prescribed in the Consitution. I'm talking about civil servants. There's a difference.

Under this new and glorious system, doctors would be glorified postal workers.

There's no shame in being a postal worker. But, as someone whose mother in law is one, they are chronically underpaid. Because they can be. The government runs on cheap labor.

If you think we can have UHC, AND doctors can continue to average the salaries they are averaging now (or, hell, even the salary of a junior congressman) ... then add a couple more trillion to the tax bill.

decides2dream · May 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream do you live in America?

just for you......

que?
:?

what part of ANY of my posts suggest otherwise? and most especially, what part of this:

decides2dream wrote:

alrighty, i said i'm out...but seriously...i had to address this. who has ever even suggested THIS? um, senators, congressmen, and yea...the president...all are 'government workers'...and i believe they all make pretty good salaries. oh, and they get healthcare for life, go figure. someone from france chimed in MUCH earlier and said docotrs there are still pretty well-off, rich by standards...so no one is saying to take away the doctors incentive to become doctors.

yes, i am oversimplifying here b/c of course there is more to it...but really, here we go:
firstly, there are MANY w/o insurance simply b/c they cannot afford it ALL on their own. they could afford some of it, like most of us who contribute to an employer's plan while the employer picks up the rest of the tab....but not all employers offer health insurance. so then, with UHC, these people can afford, and will contribute to healthcare tax. many employers (tho not all, obviously some small businesses will need exemptions) but overall, most employers who currently do not offer health insurance to the bulk of their employees.....now they will make a contribution towards UHC thru tax. yes, it will cut into their profits, but yes...i believe they should all contribute to the health of americans since they are profiting from americans, making their profits - which they still will make - from being here. then there's the vast rest of us, who already pay in to health insurance, as do our employers.....so let's start adding:

people currently uncovered but employed, now will contribute to healthcare = more $$$ for UHC
(most) employers who currently don't offer coverage to all employees, now will contribute towards healthcare = more $$$ for UHC
all employees currently paying towards health insurance = same contribution towards UHC
employers currently paying towards health insurance for their employees = same contribution towards UHC

now, add in a few other BIG things:

NO MORE PROFIT.....probably save billions a year....as healthcare is simply for the health of citizens, not for stockholders to earn dividends = more $$$ towards UHC
overall streamlining of health care = lower costs, overall = more $$$ for UHC
more people receiving PREVENTATIVE healthcare which is proven to be far most cost effective, means less costly disease, less $$$ spent = more $$$ for UHC

as to the 'argument' that without profit there is no innovation....i disagree. firstly, a VAST amount of current medical research, both here and abroad, is done by the GOVERNMENT. government sponsored research. a HUGE amount of grants are offered, annually. so yea....we already pay for a lot of it. secondly, the ACTUAL innovators, you know...the doctors and scientists who do the RESEARCH......still getting paid, so where do they lose their motivation? whether the govt pays em or some big corp, they're still going to be innovative and research. the only one who 'loses' is the big corp making a profit for their stockholders.

so again, none of this automatically points to higher costs...if anything, lesser......and it certainly does not point to lesser care for all. we ALREADY pay in towards the healthcare of others to some degree. yes, it is a flawed system, but it is also the old model, and working within, overall, a for profit model. if we CHANGE the model, develop a NEw model.....it can be done.

suggest otherwise?
you know, this innovative country filled with smart people, caring people...people proud to be americans......what makes me any different than the vast majority of my fellow citizens? i may not think like you...but it doesn't mean i think alone...and it certainly doesn't make me a non-american. thanks for the shot at humor tho.

i get it jlew...we see it VERY differently. however.....perhaps i can get others to see it's possible, and dare i say it...even desirable.

have a great day and stay healthy!

slightofjeff · May 2009

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

you act as if gov't employees are simpletons...

um, no. but he makes a very valid point, one that you dont seem to understand.

inmytree wrote:

I find it sad that, for some, the only motivator in life is money and profit...

sad but true. and its not the ONLY motivator, but it sure is a damn good one. Doctors become Doctors to help people AND for the high pay. there is a reason Doctors aren't paid minimum wage.

again with the dickishness...not surprising...yeah, I said it and don't care...and yes, I understand, I see your money grubbing ass doesn't....

I guess for me, if my doctor only gives a fuck about money and doesn't have my best interest at heart, I'll find a new doctor...I see you don't think highly of those in the helping profession...again, no surprise there...

You do realize that most doctors have a shit-ton of college loans to pay off, that they typically start their practices up to their assholes in debt, right?

That's part of the reason they have to make that kind of money. It doesn't make them assholes. It doesn't mean they don't care about you. It means they have bills to pay that those of us that go into other professions don't have.

And, by the way, ask your doctor if he'd be willing to work for you for minimum wage. Get back to me when he stops laughing. I'll bet you'll find he's not the altruistic saint you think he is.

decides2dream · May 2009

slightofjeff wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

alrighty, i said i'm out...but seriously...i had to address this. who has ever even suggested THIS? um, senators, congressmen, and yea...the president...all are 'government workers'...and i believe they all make pretty good salaries.

Those people are elected officials. Their compensation is prescribed in the Consitution. I'm talking about civil servants. There's a difference.

Under this new and glorious system, doctors would be glorified postal workers.

There's no shame in being a postal worker. But, as someone whose mother in law is one, they are chronically underpaid. Because they can be. The government runs on cheap labor.

If you think we can have UHC, AND doctors can continue to average the salaries they are averaging now (or, hell, even the salary of a junior congressman) ... then add a couple more trillion to the tax bill.

if you actually read the rest of the post...you'd see there IS room in there for medical staff to be quite well paid. will they be AS well paid as they are now? idk. maybe, maybe not. however, the BIG point is, there is a VAST difference between the average govt workers salary and say a senator. meaning - it's not simply a choice of one or the other salary. again, it CAN be done. doctors can still be RICH. perhaps not AS rich as they currently are....but certainly rich enough to still make wanting to become a doctor a VERY viable and desirable choice. that was all.

it's sad to see this 'can't be done' attitude. truly. if you don;t want to see the possibilities, or you don't want to...fair enough, but really, there ARe many possibilities that could well be worked out for the overall benefit...of us all.

slightofjeff · May 2009

decides2dream wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

alrighty, i said i'm out...but seriously...i had to address this. who has ever even suggested THIS? um, senators, congressmen, and yea...the president...all are 'government workers'...and i believe they all make pretty good salaries.

Those people are elected officials. Their compensation is prescribed in the Consitution. I'm talking about civil servants. There's a difference.

Under this new and glorious system, doctors would be glorified postal workers.

There's no shame in being a postal worker. But, as someone whose mother in law is one, they are chronically underpaid. Because they can be. The government runs on cheap labor.

If you think we can have UHC, AND doctors can continue to average the salaries they are averaging now (or, hell, even the salary of a junior congressman) ... then add a couple more trillion to the tax bill.

if you actually read the rest of the post...you'd see there IS room in there for medical staff to be quite well paid. will they be AS well paid as they are now? idk. maybe, maybe not. however, the BIG point is, there is a VAST difference between the average govt workers salary and say a senator. meaning - it's not simply a choice of one or the other salary. again, it CAN be done. doctors can still be RICH. perhaps not AS rich as they currently are....but certainly rich enough to still make wanting to become a doctor a VERY viable and desirable choice. that was all.

it's sad to see this 'can't be done' attitude. truly. if you don;t want to see the possibilities, or you don't want to...fair enough, but really, there ARe many possibilities that could well be worked out for the overall benefit...of us all.

If you will go back and read my posts, never once do I flatly say "this can't be done." I freely admit that there needs to be some way to cover the poorest of the poor, people who can't afford it. But it has to be done without screwing up what is currently working for 260 million people, too. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, that sort of thing.

I haven't seen a plan yet that doesn't have some some serious baby-throwing-out attached to it.

It's nice to have hope, but there is a fine line between hope and naivete. I could stand on the observation deck of the Empire State Building and have hope I can fly. That's all well and good until ... splat.

decides2dream · May 2009

slightofjeff wrote:

If you will go back and read my posts, never once do I flatly say "this can't be done." I freely admit that there needs to be some way to cover the poorest of the poor, people who can't afford it. But it has to be done without screwing up what is currently working for 260 million people, too. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, that sort of thing.

I haven't seen a plan yet that doesn't have some some serious baby-throwing-out attached to it.

It's nice to have hope, but there is a fine line between hope and naivete. I could stand on the observation deck of the Empire State Building and have hope I can fly. That's all well and good until ... splat.

and if you read over my many posts.....you will see, clearly, it is NOT just 'the poorest of the poor' who cannot afford it. 44 million people. that's a whole helluva LOT of americans, and they are not all the poorest of the poor. if your current employer did away with any coverage of healthcare benefits and you had to carry that burden ALL on your own, could you honestly afford it? now i know there are many people who can...but the vast majority of us cannot. that doesn't make us poor, it makes us average. this is the situation MANY people find themselves in, people like you and me. someone on this very board, married to an architect....works full time....a fucking architect......within a firm...no insurance, and the burden of cost is crippling. educated people and not so educated....but people who work, who work hard, just happen to not get employer sponsored insurance. and it is easy to say, get another job! but getting that other job, not always so easy.

i know many dismiss it, why idk...but i think many foreign models of UHC, good place to start...and hardly seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. there IS an inbetween...it's not going to be easy to change, to create and implement.....but it's possible. it's not all one way or the other. maybe the 'best plan' hasn't quite been worked out just yet. doesn't mean it can't be thought up and put into action, that's all...

btw - i personally do not see our current system as 'working properly' even for those of us insured. there are still many issues, even for us. i suddenly lose my job, don't find a new one fast enough, have a catastrophic accident...now up to my eyeballs in medical debt for gawd knows how many years. i've listed many such what-if scenarios, all quite possible, and probably happen more often than we know. i'd hardly call that a system that 'works' for us.

slightofjeff · May 2009

decides2dream wrote:

and if you read over my many posts.....you will see, clearly, it is NOT just 'the poorest of the poor' who cannot afford it. 44 million people. that's a whole helluva LOT of americans, and they are not all the poorest of the poor. if your current employer did away with any coverage of healthcare benefits and you had to carry that burden ALL on your own, could you honestly afford it? now i know there are many people who can...but the vast majority of us cannot. that doesn't make us poor, it makes us average. this is the situation MANY people find themselves in, people like you and me. someone on this very board, married to an architect....works full time....a fucking architect......within a firm...no insurance, and the burden of cost is crippling. educated people and not so educated....but people who work, who work hard, just happen to not get employer sponsored insurance. and it is easy to say, get another job! but getting that other job, not always so easy.

i know many dismiss it, why idk...but i think many foreign models of UHC, good place to start...and hardly seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. there IS an inbetween...it's not going to be easy to change, to create and implement.....but it's possible. it's not all one way or the other. maybe the 'best plan' hasn't quite been worked out just yet. doesn't mean it can't be thought up and put into action, that's all...

btw - i personally do not see our current system as 'working properly' even for those of us insured. there are still many issues, even for us. i suddenly lose my job, don't find a new one fast enough, have a catastrophic accident...now up to my eyeballs in medical debt for gawd knows how many years. i've listed many such what-if scenarios, all quite possible, and probably happen more often than we know. i'd hardly call that a system that 'works' for us.

Well, there are safety nets in place if you suddenly lose your job. Obama just pushed through legislation that makes COBRA tons more affordable, and extends it for a longer period. I'm all for that.

There are also already programs in place to provide health care to those who can't afford it. There are free and low-cost clinics. There are not-for-profit clinics, where all those do-gooder doctors who aren't in it for the money work.

There are many ideas already out there that are different than, "Let's give everybody the same crappy health care." IMO, they are better jumping off points for all of this.

Kel Varnsen · May 2009

slightofjeff wrote:

Those people are elected officials. Their compensation is prescribed in the Consitution. I'm talking about civil servants. There's a difference.

Under this new and glorious system, doctors would be glorified postal workers.

There's no shame in being a postal worker. But, as someone whose mother in law is one, they are chronically underpaid. Because they can be. The government runs on cheap labor.

If you think we can have UHC, AND doctors can continue to average the salaries they are averaging now (or, hell, even the salary of a junior congressman) ... then add a couple more trillion to the tax bill.

Why would doctors have to become government employees, they aren't in the Canadian system. If you are a doctor and you want to open up a family practice that is your company, the only connection you have to the governrment is that you bill them when you provide services to citizens. A better analogy would be that doctors offices are like private consulting firms being paid by the government.

decides2dream · May 2009

slightofjeff wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

and if you read over my many posts.....you will see, clearly, it is NOT just 'the poorest of the poor' who cannot afford it. 44 million people. that's a whole helluva LOT of americans, and they are not all the poorest of the poor. if your current employer did away with any coverage of healthcare benefits and you had to carry that burden ALL on your own, could you honestly afford it? now i know there are many people who can...but the vast majority of us cannot. that doesn't make us poor, it makes us average. this is the situation MANY people find themselves in, people like you and me. someone on this very board, married to an architect....works full time....a fucking architect......within a firm...no insurance, and the burden of cost is crippling. educated people and not so educated....but people who work, who work hard, just happen to not get employer sponsored insurance. and it is easy to say, get another job! but getting that other job, not always so easy.

i know many dismiss it, why idk...but i think many foreign models of UHC, good place to start...and hardly seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. there IS an inbetween...it's not going to be easy to change, to create and implement.....but it's possible. it's not all one way or the other. maybe the 'best plan' hasn't quite been worked out just yet. doesn't mean it can't be thought up and put into action, that's all...

btw - i personally do not see our current system as 'working properly' even for those of us insured. there are still many issues, even for us. i suddenly lose my job, don't find a new one fast enough, have a catastrophic accident...now up to my eyeballs in medical debt for gawd knows how many years. i've listed many such what-if scenarios, all quite possible, and probably happen more often than we know. i'd hardly call that a system that 'works' for us.

Well, there are safety nets in place if you suddenly lose your job. Obama just pushed through legislation that makes COBRA tons more affordable, and extends it for a longer period. I'm all for that.

There are also already programs in place to provide health care to those who can't afford it. There are free and low-cost clinics. There are not-for-profit clinics, where all those do-gooder doctors who aren't in it for the money work.

There are many ideas already out there that are different than, "Let's give everybody the same crappy health care." IMO, they are better jumping off points for all of this.

uuugggggg.....i wrote out a whole response, and lost again!
i am not writing it all out again. csuffice to say, there is a REASON why obama is doing that, it is necessary, and it's a patch-job. NO one should have to 'figure out' how they will actually get healthcare.

and you conveniently did not answer the question - if your employer stopped paying for healthcare, could you actually afford to pay for the exact coverage you have right now? maybe you could, but most people can't...and they are not 'poor'...just average, middle class people. most would cut back coverage and cross their fingers that they won't need more than they can afford. THAt is not how healthcare should be. yet, that is how it is for many....hard-working people who happen to work for firms who do not offer healthcare for them. THAt is not how it should be in america.

the whole crappy healthcare bit..i had a long response, but bottomline....you have ZERO proof that would be the case. at all. in actuality, with all i've said in other posts, truly, there is NO reason for that to occur, at all....but i am not going to spell it out again.

we CAN have UHC...and we CAN have excellent healthcare. they are not mutually exclusive.

jlew24asu · May 2009

decides2dream wrote:

the whole crappy healthcare bit..i had a long response, but bottomline....you have ZERO proof that would be the case. at all. in actuality, with all i've said in other posts, truly, there is NO reason for that to occur, at all....but i am not going to spell it out again.

we CAN have UHC...and we CAN have excellent healthcare. they are not mutually exclusive.

and what proof do you have? why is it not ok for slightof to conclude that UHC would be inferior but perfectly fine for you to say it can be great?

do you agree it CAN also be inferior?

I think it would be inferior based......

1) simple supply and demand laws
2) Medicare which has basically bankrupt and 30 Trillion underfunded.
3) the government proven track record of not supplying the people with a quality product...i.e public schools and infrastructure.
4) the governments proven track record of not being able to spend our money correctly. ie. massive budget deficits and bankrupt social security program.

slightofjeff · May 2009

and you conveniently did not answer the question - if your employer stopped paying for healthcare, could you actually afford to pay for the exact coverage you have right now? maybe you could, but most people can't...

Conviently for you, I did not answer this, because it supports my argument. Of course I couldn't. And when the government enacts its plan, my employer ceases to pay its share, and leaves the entire bill for me. Which I just said I can't afford.

So, I am forced to accept whatever the government will offer me. Which is guaranteed to be an inferior product to what I am getting now. I will still have to pay the same amount (if not more) via taxes.

Government-run health care gives me fewer options. Not more. This is why I am against it, in the form it is currently being proposed.

inmytree · May 2009

slightofjeff wrote:

You do realize that most doctors have a shit-ton of college loans to pay off, that they typically start their practices up to their assholes in debt, right?

That's part of the reason they have to make that kind of money. It doesn't make them assholes. It doesn't mean they don't care about you. It means they have bills to pay that those of us that go into other professions don't have.

And, by the way, ask your doctor if he'd be willing to work for you for minimum wage. Get back to me when he stops laughing. I'll bet you'll find he's not the altruistic saint you think he is.

yes, I realize that, thanks...and who said doctors should work for minimum wage...?

inmytree · May 2009

slightofjeff wrote:

and you conveniently did not answer the question - if your employer stopped paying for healthcare, could you actually afford to pay for the exact coverage you have right now? maybe you could, but most people can't...

Conviently for you, I did not answer this, because it supports my argument. Of course I couldn't. And when the government enacts its plan, my employer ceases to pay its share, and leaves the entire bill for me. Which I just said I can't afford.

So, I am forced to accept whatever the government will offer me. Which is guaranteed to be an inferior product to what I am getting now. I will still have to pay the same amount (if not more) via taxes.

Government-run health care gives me fewer options. Not more. This is why I am against it, in the form it is currently being proposed.

so, where you work, you have a choice of plans...? really...? how many choices do you have, if you don't mind me asking...

decides2dream · May 2009

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

the whole crappy healthcare bit..i had a long response, but bottomline....you have ZERO proof that would be the case. at all. in actuality, with all i've said in other posts, truly, there is NO reason for that to occur, at all....but i am not going to spell it out again.

we CAN have UHC...and we CAN have excellent healthcare. they are not mutually exclusive.

and what proof do you have? why is it not ok for slightof to conclude that UHC would be inferior but perfectly fine for you to say it can be great?

do you agree it CAN also be inferior?

I think it would be inferior based......

1) simple supply and demand laws
2) Medicare which has basically bankrupt and 30 Trillion underfunded.
3) the government proven track record of not supplying the people with a quality product...i.e public schools and infrastructure.
4) the governments proven track record of not being able to spend our money correctly. ie. massive budget deficits and bankrupt social security program.

i never said it wasn't *ok*......i simply suggest that to absolutely conclude, definitively, that it WILL be inferior....b/c there is no proof. i have not said it WILL be great....tho i think it well could be. i just personally dislike declarative statements, unproven. the reasons he's offered, i have countered....thus why i ask why he or others may still cling to this utter belief that it will fail. there is a difference.

1. you'd have to elaborate
2. medicare is not what UHC would be based on, and would have a far better and broader base of funds to help ustain it, and lower overall costs b/c there would be no profit built in the model ( i know medicare is not-for-profit, but it still exists and operates in a purely for profit healthcare environment)
3. while our school system is imperfect - don't know of one that is, i would hardly consider it inferior...as for infrastructure, once again, same thing...
4. yes and no.....as you would say, it's not so simple.

so go ahead and think what you like, never said otherwise! it's the statements that it can't be done, or it will be inferior....again with no true proof, that really don't 'add' to the discussion is all.

I Can't Wait For Government Run Health-Care!!!

Comments

Categories