There is a war going on. The war I’m talking about is not thousands of miles of away. It is right here in our backyard – The war on The American Healthcare System.
Tom Brokaw asked Obama and McCain a question in the debate that is so relevant to the healthcare debate, he might have had a crystal ball. He asked if the candidates thought healthcare was a right, privilege, or responsibility. This question is the crux of the healthcare debate. Debating this question has caused the most divisive political environment we’ve seen since Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let’s try to dig into the question a bit and try to understand the ideologies of each side and try and separate facts from myth.
If you are Blue, you most likely believe access to health is a right
I will state at the onset I most definitely squarely in the Blue side of this debate. I believe access to healthcare is as much of a right to free access to water. Being in good health should be like drinking from a water fountain; if I’m thirsty, I should be able to quench my basic human need for free. I am not always thirsty, but I know that whenever I am, I can get a drink. Humans can survive weeks without food, but we can’t go longer than a few days without water. I realize I could pay for premium water (Aquafina is by far my favorite) and there may be times when I want or need to do so. I also expect to pay for some kind of maintenance – I pay a quarterly water bill like most Americans. However generally speaking, being thirsty is rarely a concern I ever have because I know I have access whenever I need it.
Analogies aside, the other critical issue from the Blue point of view is there needs to be more emphasis on preventative measures. Everything from regular checkups to wearing condoms, to having medicine to treat diseases before they become major problems is an important aspect of Blue agenda. Preventative measures will ultimately cost the system far less, and also serve to make the emergency rooms more efficient because they will be treating real emergencies, not a bad case of the sniffles.
If you are Red, you most likely believe access to health is a responsibly
You work hard. You earn a paycheck. You raise a family. The fruits of your labor should be yours to enjoy. If healthcare is important to you, then you will go shopping for different providers, make an informed decision, and buy your own plan with your own money. The problem with people is they want things for free, and people who want and get things for free are less likely to work. Thus your hard earned paycheck is going to help some loafer who doesn’t do anything to help his own situation. But you have a heart. There is a local hospital you donate money to. You run the 5K race for cancer to help raise awareness and to do your part to contribute to your local community.
The critical issue for you is the feeling of losing the moral fiber of this country. “Obamacare” is a socialist plan that will kick start a series of big legislation that will turn this country to the United States of Sweden. You are not just fighting for your paycheck, but also for your way of life. Moreover, you have an natured or nurtured distrust for the government. We’ve watched our last President squandered a surplus. We’ve watched governors send their states straight to financial ruin. And a quick look at C-Span reveals many of our elected officials are spineless nincompoops whose head would fall off if it weren’t attached to their neck. So if the government is largely ineffective, then how the hell can they run the healthcare system?
If you think access to healthcare is a privilege, you are (hopefully) wealthy and will likely have to fund this program
I say hopefully because the word privilege would imply some people deserve healthcare while others may not. Because I’m a blogger, I do not need to abide my rules of objectivity; if this is your stance I think you are pretty heartless, and I’m dying to hear how you could possibly defend that stance. Unless…
…you are rich. If you make over $250,000 per year, your increased taxes will go toward paying for this plan. If you are paying a significant amount of money to fund a program, I think it is understandable to not want to give away your hear earned dollars to just anybody. However, if you make $250,000 or more, then you should’ve been seeing this coming all long because Obama made no secret about coming after your tax dollars. Therefore, if you voted for Obama and you choose not to believe what Glen Beck says, then you probably fall into the Blue camp. Conversely, if you voted for McCain or have been completely turned off by the democrat’s lack of focus on the issue, you stand with team Red.
The only thing I think most people can agree on is the system needs reform. That’s a start, but the problem with this debate, more so than most debates is we’ve hit a political stalemate because there is no middle ground here. If you think healthcare is a responsibility, there is no midpoint; I have to convince you it is a right all Americans should enjoy. Likewise I believe access to health is a right, and there is nothing you can say to change my mind. I got high fives from the right in my last post when I stated my displeasure with Obama to seize control of the problem, using a fire extinguisher to put out the fire in the living room while the whole house is on fire. While I love high fives, let me be clear, I still very much think every American should have healthcare.
That’s why the healthcare fight is so dirty. It’s an all or nothing bill. Each side is pulling out all the stops to push their agendas, and each side is pulling dirty, low-blow tactics. Right wing media has Glen Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O’Reily as their champions, controlling the message, feeding the lies, misinformation, and conspiracy theories to delegitimize our President and his plan. Left wing media has Keith Olbermann, Chris Mathews, broadcast news, and NPR as their champions, controlling the message, hiding the true costs, future implications, and asserting their omnipresence to paint the right wing as crazy (which I still the far right is legitimately crazy), using the President’s popularity and conservative’s unpopularity to propagandize the effectiveness of this bill.
What is missing from this debate is the debate on the ISSUES! Read the blogs, watch cable news, look at the Daily Show or Dennis Miller, listen to the radio, read the paper… there is no good news to be found. Neither side can argue their point without resorting to a shouting match. Even the calm, cool, collected Obama has raised his voice in frustration during town halls.
If you read my blog, I think it is a fair statement that I try very hard to find middle ground in all the 70 debates we’ve had here. I am going to break character here and not find middle ground on healthcare. I’m going to state my case on healthcare, not on the grounds of costs, effectiveness, or deficits, but rather on the philosophy that access to healthcare is a right. I’m going to devote the next couple of debates convincing you, dear reader that healthcare is indeed a right. Bring your A game, because I’m bringing mine. If I do convince you however, then the question should be not whether we should have free access to healthcare, but how do we do that in a cost effective and American way. Let the debate begin.
19 comments: on "Episode 71: Red vs. Blue: Healthcare"
It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people (honestly where can they go with a pre-condition). And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait, Medicare and Medicaid and our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.
How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a “lynch mob” advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types AKA “screamers” are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.
@Paul, I agree with you... the same faceless bureaucrats are present in private enterprise as well. The only difference is people have very limited means of controlling free enterprise.
While I also agree republican fear mongering and misinformation spreading does not add to the debate, the democrats aren't doing any better. Once again, there is a lack of quality political discourse because neither side really has a clue how to make this work. And when people run out of ideas, it seems to be human nature to hide ignorance by slinging mud at each other. I think we can do better here in the blogosphere.
I agree wholeheartedly that health care is a right. And I am more than willing to pay for it.
The Law - Eegads, here we go! I can't peruse here, comment; without writing a 'post'. I agree with Truth 101 in that I am willing to pay for health care. The caveat being for me that it must be of my own volition.
I summed it up at LCR - I agree a lot with what you say. Shouting over and drowning out debate is never a solution. Violent messages and rhetoric in not a solution either. I condone and support none of these.
I disagree however, in the assertion that these shenanigans disprove and blanket the liberty crowd, the town hall protester folks.
Most are peaceful and afraid, coherent and law-abiding. They may be angry but it is only because current, (Obamanation), and past (GWB), administrations have left them without a voice and stranded high and dry. They feel, (as I do), that we do not even have a voice any more and that our Constitutionally-restrained, rule of law government is simply 'treading on us'.
You may be surprised by just how 'centrist' I could be, offered the right choices, like your health care initiative at your site. However, when I and other Americans are offered the 'all or nothting' State-directed alternative, it is no wonder that we become incensed about it. We are more polarized than ever, really and I can thank the current president and the previous one for this, I really can.
I would rather any day to have an expensive medical system that we may or may not be able to afford, than to have a socialized system run by cronies today and despots tomorrow, left or right; that would bankrupt us morally and economically.
It is sad and pathetic that it has come to this, but to tell you the truth, I would much rather just have the status quo than what is being proposed.
Also, I don't agree with Paul above in shutting down debate - I want it to be rigorous and honest. We aren't getting that from Obama, my side is incensed and in some cases irrational because of that. What a debate!
You nailed the crux of the matter for me - The problem with people is they want things for free, and people who want and get things for free are less likely to work. Thus your hard earned paycheck is going to help some loafer who doesn’t do anything to help his own situation. But you have a heart. There is a local hospital you donate money to. You run the 5K race for cancer to help raise awareness and to do your part to contribute to your local community.
That is me my friend......
BTW as well, I love the new look of your site, how did you assemble it?
LCR
I started with a template, and then modified the code to match the theme of the site. This kind of this has really helped my to understand CSS coding better. I also make all the art in photoshop, like the banner and some of the post pictures. This code was very tricky so I had it in beta on a dummy blog for a few days until I got it working. glad you like it!!
The Law: Great post, again. I apologize for this LONG comment – something about your blog gets me a-writin. I have some feedback for you, but first I need to say...
Paul: You said, "Medicare and Medicaid and our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government." I have to disagree with your statement here. Medicare and Medicaid are terrible to deal with, and is in no way, not by a long shot, comparable with the coverage Congress receives. I’m curious to know your personal experience with Medicare, Medicaid, or Military medicine. If you’ve have good ones, consider yourself lucky. For many using Medicare, certain prescriptions are not covered, and if you can get something covered, it is usually after hours of arguing with someone on the other end of an 800 number and only if your doctor is willing to go to bat for you as well. The military isn't really any better, unless you are the family of an 'O' rank. Most enlisted men/women and their families are required to go to overcrowded, old military hospitals and are not able to choose their own doctor. In some cases, women cannot choose an MD for prenatal care/childbirth - they can only have a Nurse Practitioner. (I'm not knocking Nurse Practitioners, I see one myself and am quite happy, but I'd like to be able to make that decision.) I think one of the HUGE misconceptions made by many who support HR3200, is that the public will receive the same care that Congress does. In fact, Congress and all union employees are exempt from participating in Obamacare. It really WOULD be great if we were getting the care Congress does, but we won't. You’re upset about the past eight years - the past eight years have not been the only time in history where our government has failed us. Social Security is a great example, or the Department of Energy, designed in 1977 to reduce our dependence on Foreign Oil (which now costs approx. $24 billion a year.) Shame it's not working so much. The issue with Republicans and Independents is that the government really doesn't have a great track record for enacting highly successful programs that save money. They always, always, always cost more - MUCH more.
So anywho, The Law: (I felt a little less obnoxious posting two shorter comments rather than a novel and a half...)
I think healthcare should be accessible to all Americans, yes, if they want it. But I wouldn't say it's a "right". A "right" indicates to me something inalienable. Healthcare is objective, because it’s based on the expertise and professional opinion of a human being. When we start saying it’s a “right”, we get into weird territory. Doctors who don’t diagnose fast enough, or make a bad call, or prescribe the wrong meds will not just be faced with the ethical or medical consequence of the error, but they will have “violated” a ‘right’. We Americans, are protective of our “rights”. To me, that’s shaky ground and one that would inevitably lead to many lawsuits, thus higher costs for all, even the government. However, ‘responsibility’ and ‘privilege’ seem a bit harsh – many Americans have their hands tied, many have them tied with Medicaid. I’m not sure what the best word is yet, I’ll have to get back to you…
Today there was a day-long clinic in Inglewood, CA (outside of LA) that was initiated by a non-profit group who usually aids in countries such as India. Thousands of people were serviced, doctors volunteered their time, and people left with root canals completed and new lenses in their glasses. People who really needed help, and seriously couldn't afford their co pays, or didn't have insurance at all, got what they needed. All without HR3200. It's amazing.
Wouldn't it be great if there was an incentive program for doctors to volunteer their time in such a way? What about tax breaks for hospitals who sponsor these events? What about tax incentives for non-profits who will specialize in getting healthcare to the people who really need it in the US, not in India? How about addressing the real issues and getting the care to people who need it. Today.
So, it got me thinking about whether this healthcare bill is really about healthcare at all. If organizations like this can pull off a successful event like the one in Inglewood today, why can't this be nationwide?
Give me a bill similar to the one you've written, or one that provides incentive to provide actual care without 1000 pages of provisions, and I’ll gladly support it.
@Kate, please feel free to write a whole essay if you wish! I read every comment, and put a good amount of thought into my response, so don't ever feel the need to shorten your thought process for the sake of me =)
(actually, much consideration when designing the look of this blog went into offering lots of room for longer comments)
That said, you rasied some really good arguments:
I think healthcare should be accessible to all Americans, yes, if they want it. But I wouldn't say it's a "right". A "right" indicates to me something inalienable. Healthcare is objective, because it’s based on the expertise and professional opinion of a human being. When we start saying it’s a “right”, we get into weird territory. Doctors who don’t diagnose fast enough, or make a bad call, or prescribe the wrong meds will not just be faced with the ethical or medical consequence of the error, but they will have “violated” a ‘right’. We Americans, are protective of our “rights”.
There is actually a system in place already to protect doctors from the very concern to raise here called the U.S. Patients' Bill of Rights. You can probably find it on the wall in the waiting room or your examination room in most facilities. This document enumerates the responsibilites of the caregiver and the rights to privacy and such for the patient. Universal healthcare would do nothing to change this.
When I say healthcare is a right for all Americans, I should clarify my stance here to say that the access to healthcare is a right. I think it falls under the "life" part of our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and happiness. Every American citizen should not have to fear getting treatment beause it costs too much. Ultimately many people fail to do preventative measures to keep them out of the emergency room because they are afraid of not having the money for treatment. Then they wind up in the ER for a sickness that winds up costing more up front that a series of preventative medicine on the front end. Having almost died from routine appendicitis because I didn't realize I had health insurance under my mom (happened in my first semester of undergrad college... young and stupid back then lol), and I was afraid of having a massive bill (that without insurance wouldve cost more than tuition for 4 years!)
When I was living in CA, I did make use of the free clinic. I am very greatful for the people who volunteer their time to provide me free healthcare because I just could not afford it at all. Still, you get what you pay for... I had an appointment at 11am, and wasn't seen 'til 4pm. The doctor (who was very nice) was fresh out of med school, so he is still learning his trade. Still a universal plan would lessen the burden on establishments like those and ensure that all Americans can be healthy.
So, it got me thinking about whether this healthcare bill is really about healthcare at all. If organizations like this can pull off a successful event like the one in Inglewood today, why can't this be nationwide?
Great question. And I'd say on the shell, it is about healthcare, but I think the heart of the matter is this administration is trying to gut out corporate America because they have, for so long been benefitting by cheating the system. I think the big picture idea we can take from this debate is Obama is trying to change our psychology on the way things work in this country. For far too long through republican and democratic administartions, big business was very used to getting their way in Washington. Cutting the legs from under them by instituting a government competitor offers a much needed checks and balances against the coporations. We can hold politicians accountable by not voting for them. There is little power we have over big business.
The reason I propose a 4% payroll tax with the single payer plan I submitted was so everyone contributed. While the personal responsibilty side of me says nobody should be required to participate, the realist knows that eventually those that chose not to participate will end up using the system they did not helped with their contributions. If you have a broken leg, heart attack, hundreds of other events that require a doctor's care, you're going to the doctor. And it wouldn't be humane to turn you away and say suffer cheapskate.
Those without jobs will get jobs eventually. We can address undocumented aliens and malpractice reform also. The main concern is that we cover everyone and everyone capable contributes.
If I may add a side note to Left Coast Rebel TL. You have a great blog sir. I admire your intellect and your integrity. Continued success to you and to you as well TL.
@Truth, Reading into the single payer system, it seems like a plan that could work. Am I correct that such a system would work a lot like student loans, in that there are only two parties involved in the process - the bank (who would be the taxpayers in the healthcare plan) and the school (which would be the doctors and hospitals), so money is simply budgeted and transfered between the parties?
That makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. I think the Student Loan program (stafford, pell, etc) are some of the most efficient government programs we have, and as long as I fill out my forms by the due date, my money is ready by the first day of school. Likewise, there should be a stright forward beaurucratic process, and using the 4% payroll tax, bush roll backs, and budgeted funds, we could probably save a lot of money. I still need to research all the terms associate dwith this plan so I understand it better, but it seems very promising.
Thanks so much for the kind words, and thanks for reading!!
Another site gave me the idea of doing this as a regulated monopoly. Much like the old AT&T and power companies. It would be a great stock for those that like steady dividend payments. Issuing of stock would be another revenue source for funding.
No one is arguing that the current Health Care System is in crisis. The arguement is how to fix it.
No one is arguing that everyone should have access to health care. The arguement is who should control it.
No one is arguing the current system is expensive. The arguement is who going to pay for it.
No one is arguing that there are inequalities in the current system. The arguement is should the current system be overhauled or totally replaced.
Can we agree on these points.
BrotherJ
Hello and Welcome Brother J. Can we agree on these points? Of course we can... I've been making that point one way or another all along!
The latter half of each of your points is where all the trouble is because the solution involves diametrically opposed poltical and social philosophies.
For example, re: who should control it - conservatives say healthcare should lie squarely in the private sector while liberals say it should combine private and government options. When liberals think corporations are evil and conservatives think government is evil, how do you find the solution here?
Re: who will pay for it - all the tax cuts in the world won't pay for such a program. To do this plan without the government, big pharma would have to step in and say "hey,we're willing to decrease our profits from $45 Billion to $25 Billion to help you afford this program. That will never happen. Or we can raise all taxes. No one wants that.
Re: Overhaul - Sure we can gut out the system, but what will we replace it with? A single payer system? Oh no, that is socialist and we're red blooded Americans! More regulations for private enterprise? Oh no, that will make them drive up the costs!
So as you can see, the healthcare debate is like a team in a high school gym class, we are playing on the same team, and we hve the same goals, but we're not really playing together.
Thanks for your points of view.
Unfortunately your first point does not jive with the legislation. Under the current legislation proposed, Private Insurance Companies would have to meet all the government regulations that will be imposed upon them. In a majority of cases, most people will not have a choice of private insurance but will be forced to take the government option. They will also be forced to except the plan that the government chooses for them. As you should know government never follows its own rules. Within the legislation there is usually a "get out of jail free card" that exempts the government from doing so while private insurance companies will be heavily regulated.
Since the government already owes billions of dollars to the health care system and Obama has publicly admitted that Medicare is unsustainable
where it all the money going to come from?
Those that make over $250,000.00/year. I rather doubt it. There are 6.6 million millionaires in California alone and yet the state has gone broke.
This will also dig into the pensions plans of seniors because pension payments are taxed as income.
Once government has control over health care there is nothing stopping them from lowering or
doing away with social security.
I'm sorry, but I grew up during a time when there was no health insurance at all and people survived without it. It just another part of the monthly household budget.
I'm sorry but there are things that can be done with the current system with throwing the "baby out with the bath water".
States currently control which health insurance companies can operate within it borders. Remove the controls and let people decide which health insurance company they would like to pay into.
Why should I pay higher cost to a helth in isurance company in NY if I can get the same coverage at a lower cost from a company in Virginia.
The federal government needs to step to the plate and pay off its debts. That would go along way to lowering the cost within the health care system.
If Medicare is the problem than trash Medicare.
There are those of us who are quite happy with
out current health care.
Allow seniors on Medicare to carry suplimental insurance to cover costs that Medicare does not.
There are tons of suggestions and ideas out in the marketplace
But this is not about Health Care. If you think that the legislators care about your health and whether you live or die they would have made the vetrans thier first priority. Yeet they have done nothering except made a bunch of empty promises during the election.
Its about power and control. If government holds your health care in thier hands they basically control your life and how you live your life. That's the problem.
I see your points John. But here's something that I believe to be the most fascinaing part about this debate. Read your comment back and replace every instance of "government" with "private insurance." Then you'll understand the liberal point of view! Here's and example:
Your statement reads:
"There are tons of suggestions and ideas out in the marketplace. But this is not about Health Care. If you think that the legislators care about your health and whether you live or die they would have made the vetrans thier first priority. Yeet they have done nothering except made a bunch of empty promises during the election. Its about power and control. If government holds your health care in thier hands they basically control your life and how you live your life. That's the problem.
My statement would read:
"There are tons of suggestions and ideas out in the marketplace. But this is not about Health Care. If you think that the private insurers and CEOs care about your health and whether you live or die they would have made their customers - the American people. Yet they have done nothing except made a bunch of empty promises and raise premium to make larger profits
Its about power and control. If private insurers hold your health care in thier hands they basically control your life and how you live your life. That's the problem.
It is not often in a debate where ideologies are so polarized. It's the government vs. the corporation in a battle unlike anything we've seen before. And while I lean toward private insurance primarily bearing the responsibility of healthcare, I think the government can also play a role in its structure to provide a large scale infrastructer, regulations and compatability between all the private insurers to decrease inefficiencies in the system. Rather than labeling gov't as inefficient, let's find ways to make ALL entities as efficient as possible.
Change is never easy. Every couple years employers change either health care providers or reduce benefits and raise deductibles to control their costs. The insured have to live with it and we all get used to it.
I also like the consistency adn security that a single payer system would provide. As it stands now, most workers are employed by small business. When a small business' insurer decides to either drop it, or goes out of business, finding another insurer is a nightmare depending on the claims history. With single payer this problem is also solved. The only duty the employer has is to deduct the 4% from your check that goes into the system. (4% is my estimate of the cost to each person) After that, the employer does not have to devote any resources to administering employee health insurance. The cost and administrative expense is no longer a burden on employers. Health care providers only have one party that needs to be billed instead of dozens of different insurance companies and their bureacracies in each area.
L,
You have a every valid argument. No one is
giving the insurance companies a free pass. They should be held to task. Denial of services due to a prior condition is a real concern. But I assure you it does not take 1200 pages to deal with. I can do it in one sentence. "Health Insurance or care shall not be denied to anyone due to a previous illness or injury including medical conditions the may reoccur over time."
I have worked within the health care industry
for almost 40 years as an Advanced Emergency Medical Technician. I know the inner workings of the system. I can tell you that every time the state, local, or federal government adds a new regulation or fee (another word for tax)the insurance companies pass the cost along to their customers.
Most of the regulations are worthless, stupid, and have nothing to do with health care. All it does is give a bunch of bureaucrats something else to control with another Czar or what-ya-call it.
That is why I wrote about removing the state control and allowing national (or since everyone is talking about how we live in a global society) international competition. Trust me, it is easier to control the insurance companies through competition and reasonable regulation than it is to control government with their "get out of jail free card".
Since you brought up the point, I have never been denied health care by any of the Health insurance companies or health systems I have belonged to. I have had a couple try it but usually the mention of an attorney gets their attention.
Yes my premiums have gone up but it is usually because of a new regulation imposed by government. Here is an interesting tidbit for you to maul over. Your local volunteer ambulance that you donate money to or may pay local taxes for, due to a loophole in the Medicare regulations, are allowed to double dip and bill Medicare for services they provide.
Cool huh???
It costs millions of dollars and years of research and testing to get a drug approved through the FDA, even on drugs that other countries have been using for 20 years. They already have done the research and have loads of data. But the research and data is no good in the US. The FDA requires that they start from scratch.
The federal government makes hundreds of thousand of dollars in fees to approve a drug for use.
Finally what about the politicians themselves.
Federal and state legislators and their families, once elected, no matter whether its one term or twenty receive health insurance benefits for the rest of their lives. On top of their 6 figure salaries and pensions.
What a deal!! Just think you are going to spend your hard earned money to provide the very best health care to George Bush and his family for the rest of their lives.
So why doesn't Congress form a government health co-op and run their own health care system?
I can tell you why!!! It would be broke in a week and the taxpayers would be bailing them out just like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and everybody else that has their hand out,saying "where is mine?"
Better yet, once out of office, they have to give up their health care and live like the rest of the private sector does. Like that will happen real soon.
I'll even make you a deal. Once I see Congress "belly up to bar" and put something in the kitty, I'll think about government controlled health care. Right now they have nothing at risk or to lose.
I could nоt гesist сommenting. Pеrfectly written!
My wеb blοg ... Bucket Truck Industry
Visit my web blog using a bucket truck
Post a Comment