Lion of the Blogosphere

Reminder: before Obamacare, poor people got free healthcare

I read a lot of comments like “I don’t want no Obamacare because I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for the healthcare of no poor people”

Well here’s a fact for you: before Obamacare, poor people still had free healthcare.

1. Medicaid predates Obamacare.
2. Before Obamacare, under the EMTALA passed when Reagan was president, emergency medical providers (like hospitals) must treat everyone who has an emergency medical condition or is in labor, regardless of their ability to pay.
3. Everyone 65+ had Medicare.

Obamacare expanded healthcare subsidies to those who are less poor, the working poor and yes even the middle class. Yes, those making the median household income (currently $51,759 per year) are eligible for Obamacare subsidies.

Healthcare for all makes sense for middle-class tax payers. They are already being taxed for healthcare for poor people and seniors, they might as well pay a little more tax and get the benefit themselves.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 27, 2017 at EST am

Posted in Politics

58 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. AND the self-employed.

    Why should a small-company founder who makes $100K a year have to scrounge from crappy “individual coverage” policies that bankrupt you over preexisting conditions, or ask his wife to take a corporate cube job? Why shouldn’t that guy have access to group health coverage like the cube farm worker?

    Fiddlesticks

    March 27, 2017 at EST am

    • Exactly! This is why I, on the verge of going independent, have to make plans for my friends to put me on their group plan, and to do so legally. A nasty headache instead of making money.

      Yakov

      March 27, 2017 at EST am

    • >a small-company founder who makes $100K a year have to scrounge from crappy

      Someone please think of the petit-bourgeoise!

      27 year old from sailers

      March 27, 2017 at EST am

      • Those are Trump voters. I really don’t care about Obamacare but the fact is that it helps Trump voters so we can’t touch it. Pursuing Ryancare has been devastating to Trump’s popularity.

        Otis the Sweaty

        March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Why shouldn’t that guy have access to group health coverage like the cube farm worker?”

      That was always my objection to getting health insurance through an employer. There should be some way to start a coop where people who don’t work together can go in for group rates. For all I know there may be something like that. I’ve never looked.

      destructure

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

  2. Also remember that before Obamacare, if you wanted to start a small business or become a consultant you have to purchase your own insurance. If you have a preexisting condition or someone in your family does, you simply could not find insurance. This forced people to keep working somewhere they could get employer based insurance.

    With Obamacare, you can now get insurance. This removes a road block to entrepreneurship. Republicans should see that as a benefit.

    Mike CA

    March 27, 2017 at EST am

    • True that. I couldn’t buy ANY insurance because of my wife’s preexisting condition. But my friends put me on their Blue Cross and Blue Shield group plan. If you don’t twist and turn, you can just die on the street. What are we supposed to do now? Rob banks to afford health care? Die like flies? Jump down from The Statue of Liberty? I say follow your survival instincts.

      Yakov

      March 27, 2017 at EST am

    • Now, it’s true that I could get Obamacare, but my friends have a much better plan. If you don’t have friend or are stupid Obamacare is an option, but for how long? Even if I have to pay more to my friends’ plan, I know that the boss is making sure the plan remains good for all of us, so I don’t have to worry about what the stupid Congress is gonna mess up next. I can relax and focus on making money and enjoying life, not worrying if I’m gonna be left to die in the gutter tomorrow.

      Yakov

      March 27, 2017 at EST am

    • “With Obamacare, you can now get insurance. This removes a road block to entrepreneurship. Republicans should see that as a benefit.”

      That’s a big plus, That was always my objection to employer health insurance, Of course, employers aren’t really interested in making it easy for you to leave or start your own company..

      destructure

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • If you have a preexisting condition or someone in your family does, you simply could not find insurance.

      And because anyone who is relatively healthy and modestly above poverty level cannot afford Obamacare’s insurance premiums the exchanges are set to collapse because only the sick are buying insurance off of them.

      Idiot.

      This forced people to keep working somewhere they could get employer based insurance.

      The Progressives were the ones who originally required employer’s to provide their employees insurance through their company instead of simply handing employees a check to buy insurance on their own.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • It is not true that people with pre existing conditions could not buy medical insurance.

      The insurance simply wouldn’t cover treatments for anything related to that one condition, often only for two years. The insurance was also more expensive, but you could buy it.

      no too late

      March 30, 2017 at EST pm

  3. >Healthcare for all makes sense for middle-class tax payers. They are already being taxed for healthcare for poor people and seniors, they might as well pay a little more tax and get the benefit themselves.

    Exactly. But needs to be done directly. Pay more taxes, get free healthcare. Cut the insurance company scum out of the game

    27 year old from sailers

    March 27, 2017 at EST am

    • Agree. I wrote about this a previous post.

      ttgy

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • Insurance is one of the most amazing scams out there. Not only do they soak you, year after year increasing your costs for no additional service (indeed, the more information they know about you the more they should be able to lower your bill as they refine data & risk profile), but they’ll fight you tooth and nail if you ever call on them to fulfill their end of the bargain. And if you don’t buy insurance, in many circumstances you are literally breaking the law.

      Great to have a consumer base enforced by fiat, who you can fuck over at will because there is no alternative.

      Panther of the Blogocube

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

      • Insurance companies and medical facilities employ lots and lots of women in comfortable clean offices who process and file claims. If all doctors and allied health professionals were on salary paid by the government, those jobs would disappear. Also, the multimillion dollar salaries of insurance execs would not exist.

        That is the real reason we have “health” insurance instead of medical care.

        With the money saved more people could be trained as doctors and health care workers, but they would not be the same people. Those clerks by and large cannot be trained as doctors, nurses or technicians. Some insurance executives probably could but wouldn’t want to because there is no value transference, only salary for actually physically serving other human beings.

        no too late

        March 30, 2017 at EST pm

  4. Republicans would rather have more expensive healthcare as long as the welfare queens and other assorted undesirables don’t get paid for by the tax payer. But, as Lion pointed out, the taxpayer picks up the tab regardless.

    Almost any healthcare system is better than what we have currently. How is it not obvious that “socializing” medicine will take a tremendous burden off of small business owners.

    I like Lioncare: Medicare for all plus option to buy better insurance if you want to and can afford it.

    In fact, there is no reason to even think of a new plan because other countries have done the thinking for us. Switzerland, for example, appears to have a healthcare system that is largely private, and that works well. We could just take their healthcare law, translate it to English, slap it in a bill, and there you go. Switzerland is a federation where the cantons (like our states) have a lot of autonomy.

    ASF

    March 27, 2017 at EST am

    • You illustrate what the problem is: conservative Whites don’t want non-Whites subsidized by the system.

      JayMan

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • Jayman “You illustrate what the problem is:”

      Actually, you both illustrate another problem — the tendency to ascribe incorrect motives to those whose positions one doesn’t share.

      Many people have a strong aversion to wealth redistribution. This is true even in homogeneous countries. But there are two competing concepts of fairness. One concept of fairness is equal opportunity. Everyone is given the same opportunities. This concept also holds that people have a right to keep what they earn. The other concept of fairness is equal outcome. This concept holds that inequality of outcome is unfair regardless of how honestly it was earned. The two concepts are obviously at odds.

      The two concepts also have a racial dynamic since whites earn more, on average, than blacks. Therefore, it’s not surprising more whites prefer equal opportunity while more blacks prefer equal outcome. That would be true simply from an individual interest.

      But I don’t dismiss the possibility of group motives. Note that we’re not talking about charity for people who can’t take care of themselves which most people support. But wealth redistribution to those who can take care of themselves. That’s a very different thing. Still, there are studies showing blacks are more racially motivated even when it comes to charity. So blacks would obviously be more racially motivated when it comes to wealth redistribution as well.

      https://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/WhiteAltruism.pdf

      destructure

      March 28, 2017 at EST pm

  5. ” If you have a preexisting condition or someone in your family does, you simply could not find insurance.”

    Depends on the state. NY State passed a P-e-C law 10 or so years ago.

    Another situation that the alt-right refuses to acknowledge – that the left is right about that sort of thing. They think they invented communtarianism. Lulz.

    Another thing that Obama changed was the means testing. That was a huge obstacle to Medicaid: if you had assets, but a low income, you didn’t qualify. When my mother died we had to go through a horrible case of “spending down” to qualify her for certain bennies. This used to be called rifling the grave of the poor.

    At least I think that was so. Correct me if wrong.

    gothamette

    March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • Yes, the Obamacare expansion extended Medicaid to those with low income but who had savings. Which is better. The old system punished people for doing the right thing and saving money.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

      • If doctors, teachers, and the unemployed would only work for free, America could be great again.

        cesqy

        March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Another thing that Obama changed was the means testing. That was a huge obstacle to Medicaid: if you had assets, but a low income, you didn’t qualify. When my mother died we had to go through a horrible case of “spending down” to qualify her for certain bennies. This used to be called rifling the grave of the poor.”

      I agree: I would rather die than have to sell my nice house and live in the ghetto with blacks and mexicants. But it seems that some people would rather live in the ghetto than die of a medical condition in their nice neighborhood.

      hard9bf

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

  6. Good point.

    People forget obamacare is a massive cost cutting exercise. The cbo predicts obama cuts health spending by a trillion in 10 years. Despite the subsidies.

    If trump can get a drug price reduction through – like he keeps saying- that would knock another trillion or so off.

    It cuts costs because it squeezes the grubby middleman.

    Cubans have better healthcare than americans because they arent brainwashed by the aristocracy to go fuck themselves.

    The other issue is many voters do not want handouts to blacks but as lion says they are doing it anyway.

    The Philosopher Fully Transistioned

    March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • Free markets have brought us smartphones, video games and dildos.

      Public sector the internet, the space programme, nuclear power and contintental rail.

      The cucks who are shills for the aristocrats convince lower ability people that bill gates invented the internet. When in fact, jobs and gates built upon government research.

      Liberetardation austrian low verbal ‘economics’ in not empiricial for a reason. Because everything it conjectures is a fairy tale.

      The situation is even worse in non computer scientist libertarian industries like media, industrial tooling, chemicals, telecoms, transport, post, or indeed healthcare.

      Neoliberalism is a scam. A racket. It was debunked by keynes 80 years ago and as krugman says the same zombie ideas wont die becauae its to fuckin lucrative for a some obese gamma in the caymans.

      The Philosopher Fully Transistioned

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

      • Keynsianism is the most lucrative big-government ideology on the planet.

        map

        March 27, 2017 at EST pm

      • I think neo-liberalism is different than Austrian economics. The Austrians are against all the trade deals like Nafta if that is neo-liberalism.

        I was skeptical of some of their ideas too, but I would like to just break this whole govt monstrosity down. I’m tired of the govt hassling people for taxes and arresting them for not paying. There is something just wrong with that, especially when these same people in the govt feel the need to jam every third world person into this country whether we like it or not. Then we can’t even get away from them if we want because we can’t discriminate, The Austrians are all for free- association and contrary to popular belief are not for open borders,

        However, I doubt we would have developed the bomb when we did without the massive govt expenditure. The only problem is if we didn’t do that and waited until it was developed naturally through the markets Germany or Russia would not have waited and they would have had it before us.

        I

        ttgy

        March 27, 2017 at EST pm

      • Subsidizing achievement is one thing. Subsidizing dysfunction is another.

        no too late

        March 30, 2017 at EST pm

      • Just look at the world health rankings, life expectancy etc. Its empirical.

        The Philosopher Fully Transistioned

        March 27, 2017 at EST pm

      • You don’t understand that a third world hellhole like Cuba cannot have a better healthcare system then the USA?

        Yakov

        March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Cubans have better healthcare than americans because they arent brainwashed by the aristocracy”
      Jha,jha,jha bs,you gringos are so naive. Do you also trust the Cuban government unemployment figures ? 😀
      1. Cuban “doctors” make roughly 20 USD/month
      2. Cuban “doctors” use outdated books, lack any access to modern research journals, or any modern tools/ surgical equipment.
      3. Cuban “doctors” are so awful that when Chavez started bringing the en masse to Venezuela there was practically a rebellion by medical professionals because by Venezuelan standards (3rd world standards) cuban “doctors” would only qualify as nurses. Same thing happened in Brazil
      http://cafefuerte.com/economia-y-negocios/7715-medicos-graduados-en-cuba-descalificados-en-pruebas-en-brasil/ (only 11% of cuban “doctors” passed the exam required to practice medicine in Brazil)
      4. When anyone is checked into a cuban hospital, that person has to bring all its essentials (linens, towels, toiletires,etc) there won¨t be any at the hospital.
      http://www.elmundo.es/america/2010/02/11/cuba/1265900048.html

      D.Gonzalez

      March 28, 2017 at EST am

      • The WHO does these rankings. I’m not familiar with the methdology, but I would imagine they wouldn’t just call up Fidel and ask him to shoot the breeze.

        The Philosopher Fully Transistioned

        March 28, 2017 at EST am

      • My son’s best friend aged now aged 18 was 16 when he was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He is now cancer free, and it took all if a year and a half and many rounds of chemo and auto stem cell transplants, etc. to get rid of the cancer. I do not believe for one second he would still be alive if he were in Cuba.

        no too late

        March 30, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Cubans have better healthcare than americans because they arent brainwashed by the aristocracy to go fuck themselves.”

      I’ll admit, I got a laugh out of that!

      Mike Street Station

      March 28, 2017 at EST am

  7. Another thing the naysayers are too dumb to understand is that the probability is high that they or one of their close friends or family members will need some of these benefits at some point in time. The 20 million figure from the CBO doesn’t consider these second degree ramifications. This larger group of second degree beneficiaries includes almost everyone.

    Anon

    March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • Excellent point!

      E. Rekshun

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

  8. You think ObamaCare squeezes the middleman? An insurance policy with a $300 a month payment or more and $5,000 deductible is a real benefit?

    ObamaCare is just a tax on White people.

    map

    March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • This. The Dems when they crafted 0bamaTax thought only of their constituents: brown people, single women, and wealthy people. The first two are largely on welfare(s) and already get “free” medical care, while the latter have excellent insurance or can pay out of pocket.

      hard9bf

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

  9. “I don’t want no Obamacare because I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for the healthcare of no poor people”

    This is a verbatim quote from several millionaire and multi-millionaire family members and acquaintances. I think they just hate Obama and any government subsidy that does not benefit them.

    Everyone 65+ had Medicare.

    Right, but the argument is, “I paid 2.9% (including employer’s contribution) into Medicare for XX years! and I’m still paying $100 something per month!” “And Medicare doesn’t cover everything, I still need to buy a Medicare Supplement Plan!”

    Obamacare expanded healthcare subsidies to those who are less poor, the working poor and yes even the middle class. Yes, those making the median household income (currently $51,759 per year) are eligible for Obamacare subsidies.

    RIght, but the monthly subsidy gets pretty low, down to something like $50, when your household income starts to exceed $40K (and I think AGI is the income measure).

    Healthcare for all makes sense for middle-class tax payers.

    Yes! Perfect sense!

    E. Rekshun

    March 27, 2017 at EST pm

  10. Lion,

    “Well here’s a fact for you: before Obamacare, poor people still had free healthcare.

    1. Medicaid predates Obamacare.
    2. Before Obamacare, under the EMTALA passed when Reagan was president, emergency medical providers (like hospitals) must treat everyone who has an emergency medical condition or is in labor, regardless of their ability to pay.
    3. Everyone 65+ had Medicare.”

    1) So, if everyone was already covered and receiving healthcare, and this situation did not substantially change under ObamaCare, why were so many people hit up with massive increases in costs? Because ObamaCare was simply a tax on White people, with no benefit to them beyond what they were receiving before.

    2) The so-called “20 million people” who are currently insured is a lie. If they become “uninsured” upon the repeal of ObamaCare then they would still be getting healthcare under the old system. It’s just an unsubstantial shifting in categories…nothing more.

    ObamaCare can be easily repealed without consequence, since all you are doing is rolling back a tax increase. All of the emotional appeals about pre-existing conditions is so much hot air, since such people were still getting healthcare under the old system.

    map

    March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • “ObamaCare can be easily repealed without consequence, since all you are doing is rolling back a tax increase. All of the emotional appeals about pre-existing conditions is so much hot air, since such people were still getting healthcare under the old system.”

      You’re on a roll! But there is a miniscule number of decent, working White people with preexisting conditions who couldn’t get an affordable policy and now can because 0bamaTax. There are no reliable estimates on this population, but no one claims it’s more than 500,000 souls nationwide.

      hard9bf

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

      • The number of working white people that this covers could be paid for out of general revenues without the massive increases in taxes.

        Do you not understand that $300 a month and a $5,000 deductible is not insurance? It is a complete windfall gain for anyone collecting these revenues.

        map

        March 28, 2017 at EST am

    • “ObamaCare can be easily repealed without consequence, since all you are doing is rolling back a tax increase.”

      Most of the increase in coverage under Obamacare wasn’t from the exchanges but from expanded Medicaid, and those people weren’t previously qualified for Medicaid. So there is a real, massive, reduction in coverage if Obamacare is just repealed and not replaced. So yes, there are real consequences to a straight up repeal.

      Mike Street Station

      March 28, 2017 at EST am

  11. They are already being taxed for healthcare for poor people and seniors, they might as well pay a little more tax and get the benefit themselves.

    They get no benefit because Obamacare isn’t a middle class welfare program. Obamacare minus government subsidies is very expensive, low quality, private insurance.

    Check various Obamacare plans and see how rapidly subsidies are phased as income rises above poverty level.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • That’s why we would be better off with single payer system.

      People don’t understand that they were already paying for people who weren’t covered before Obamacare.

      it was just being paid with general income taxes which were more progressive. It seems under Obamacare they may have shifted some of the cost to the masses instead of the rich.

      Healthcare costs per year per person are about 10000.00. That means there is subsidy by the wealthy already since most families aren’t contributing close to that amount.

      Employers paid about 5200.00 of the 6200.00 premium for a single person and about 12700 for a family in 2015.

      If there are 200,000,000 workers that would mean a contribution of 16000 per worker since children aren’t working.

      Let’s just get rid of insurance companies and have a big healthcare fund so we know how much we spend per year.

      It can be taxed via payroll progressively just like insurance is now. Many companies now take more out of your paycheck the more you make. Of course, the companies would still pay into the fund what they pay of in premiums.

      We could also have a sales and gas tax dedicated to the fund.

      There could also be a tax on large capital gains that the rich earn that would go into the fund.

      There could also be a certain percent tax dedicated to the fund over a certain amount earned.

      ttgy

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

      • Single payer would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs filled by women.

        no too late

        March 30, 2017 at EST pm

    • “Obamacare minus government subsidies is very expensive, low quality, private insurance.”

      Since the deductibles are so high, for most people 0bamaTax doesn’t even qualify as insurance. Most people would be financially ruined by an unexpected bill for $7,000. I used the subsidy calculator years ago and confirmed the subsidies disappear rapidly after you earn about $20,000, or approximately $10/hour.

      hard9bf

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

    • That’s why we would be better off with single payer system.

      People don’t understand that they were already paying for people who weren’t covered before Obamacare.

      The poor already have insurance. What single payer would do is knock off the middle and higher classes from their employer insurance and replace it with an inferior government funded system.

      Also you can’t get a government monopoly over medical payments without having a government monopoly over the management of health resources. Do you think a married accountant with employer sponsored insurance today will be more pleased with access to quality doctors if DC has even more power to provision what medical care he gets?

      What the middle class really needs is more market competition to bring down the inflating cost of employer provided health insurance.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 27, 2017 at EST pm

      • “What the middle class really needs is more market competition”

        There can’t be market competition because no one understands the products except for the insurance companies’ lawyers.

        Market competition requires many well-informed buyers and sellers. In the health insurance market, you have an oligopoly of few sellers, and the buyers who are totally clueless about what they are buying. That’s a recipe for insurance companies making lots of money. And indeed, health insurance stocks have skyrocketed since Bush was President.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2017 at EST pm

      • There can’t be market competition because no one understands the products except for the insurance companies’ lawyers.

        Market competition requires many well-informed buyers and sellers. In the health insurance market, you have an oligopoly of few sellers, and the buyers who are totally clueless about what they are buying.

        The products would be understandable if the government did not dictate what products insurance companies can sell.

        There is no competition because of government interference, remove the interference and health care will decline in price like the cost of plastic surgery has declined.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        March 28, 2017 at EST pm

  12. So much of this healthcare debate is moot. The national debt is not going to double again over the next eight years because that’s impossible. Medicare and medicaid are going to be slashed. We’re not going to spin up any new entitlements or agencies and we will be dismantling a lot of what we do have now.

    bobbybobbob

    March 27, 2017 at EST pm

  13. Obamacare is not really a coverage plan as such.

    Its a cost cutting exercise. That’s why most of the law has caps, mandatory employer contributions, forced R&D spending, public health investment, forced primary free procedures etc.

    It also deals a bit with mental health which is completely ignored by private health insurance.

    The Philosopher Fully Transistioned

    March 28, 2017 at EST am

  14. Uh Lion do your homework before these rants get printed. Obamacare didn’t replace Medicaid it expanded it. The people who pay are being royally ripped off with catastrophic health policies sold as insurance. The 10,000 and up deductibles are the kind of crap that would bankrupt anyone who doesn’t have a serious health issue. If you have to pay thousands out of pocket, you may as well just pay out of pocket and join the underground economy. Anyone White should just get off of Uncle Sham’s looting hamster wheel and enjoy the freedom of not having crooks living off you. All you suckers have about ten or twenty dependents living off you that these assholes won’t let you deduct already.

    Joshua Sinistar

    March 28, 2017 at EST am

    • An important benefit of having insurance with a deductible is that the doctors bill you the insurance company rate (known in the industry as the “allowed amount”) which can be a LOT lower than the uninsured person’s rate.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 28, 2017 at EST am

      • It’s becoming increasingly feasible to negotiate sane upfront cash prices for services. https://surgerycenterok.com/

        Flying overseas also makes sense for many things.

        If you don’t expect to actually use medical services in any given year it makes more and more sense to opt out of any available insurance. Now that Trump has said he won’t enforce the uninsured penalties it makes zero sense to buy insurance if you don’t have a chronic illness and have $20K+ in savings.

        bobbybobbob

        March 28, 2017 at EST am

  15. I read a lot of comments like “I don’t want no Obamacare because I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for the healthcare of no poor people”

    You sound like a liberal, portraying people you disagree with as stupid by putting double negatives in their mouths. You know very well that readers of your blog know that this quote really means “I do want some Obamacare because I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for the health care of some poor people,” which makes no sense.

    Hermes

    March 28, 2017 at EST pm

  16. That’s the french system for healthcare, and it works. We have a 2000 bn GDP. Healthcare spend 160 bn. Get 155 bn (from taxes). Deficit is only 5 bn. Thats 11% of GDP. World Health Org say healthcare is N°1 in the world in average quality. [Our problem is that this system doesnt work for unemployment, retirement, social benefits …. It’s too expensive and too poorly.] Almost 35% of GDP is social taxes transfers. We are 5% of OCDE countries people and GDP and represents 25% of all social transfers in the world ….. I understand that people worried – even if it works for health – in socializing entire field of social life and economy. You know how it starts, but not when and where it ends.

    Bruno from Paris

    March 30, 2017 at EST pm

  17. in 2013, French GDP in dollars were 2500 bn and Healthcare total spending was at 260 bn (11%) with a deficit of 5 bn a year. In the USA, it’s 17% of GDP, wich is crazy, because the results aren’t really good at all.

    Bruno from Paris

    March 30, 2017 at EST pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: