Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Presidential Election 2020

1…8586889091…306

Comments

  • #2612
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    sid waddell wrote: »
    Who exactly "likes" shelling out thousands for health insurance or having massive deductibles which could leave you broke or a plan you could easily lose if you lose your job?

    People who recognize that heath care is very expensive and don't expect it to be free? Most employee sponsored plans are not outrageously expensive and do not have "massive" deductibles. People who lose their jobs legally get Cobra insurance for a year and if they are truly in need qualify for Medicare.

    As I said it's a trade off. People who pay 12% income tax don't like the idea of paying 40%. We already pay towards Medicare/Medicaid through a separate payroll tax, most people would have no issue paying a bit more to cover more people who are uninsured or under insured.

    Everyone who can afford to should pay health insurance or contribute towards health care costs imo. It needs to be dedicated to health care though, increasing income tax doesn't cut it because government will always find a way to spend the added revenue on something else.


  • #2613
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    briany wrote: »
    I don't think the lower taxes thing is misunderstood at all. The question is what you get for your money. If you pay lower taxes, but end up offsetting that gain by paying out the @rse in private insurance, then it raises the question as to whether you're better off.

    Yes, but most people have choice when it comes to private health insurance. A younger person might choose a high deductible plan which is quite cheap, a married couple with kids a higher premium plan with lower deductibles, etc.

    I think the majority of people are agreed that improvements need to be made, mainly in the area of insuring the uninsured, making sure pre existing conditions are covered, tackling costs and protecting people from bankruptcy. Expanding Obamacare and/or Medicare basically.


  • #2614
    Godot.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Godot.


    Biden win please. We need an Irish-American in the White House in case the Brits attempt to go for No Deal and effectively tear up the GFA by implementing a border.


  • #2615
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    People who recognize that heath care is very expensive and don't expect it to be free? Most employee sponsored plans are not outrageously expensive and do not have "massive" deductibles. People who lose their jobs legally get Cobra insurance for a year and if they are truly in need qualify for Medicare.

    As I said it's a trade off. People who pay 12% income tax don't like the idea of paying 40%. We already pay towards Medicare/Medicaid through a separate payroll tax, most people would have no issue paying a bit more to cover more people who are uninsured or under insured.

    Everyone who can afford to should pay health insurance or contribute towards health care costs imo. It needs to be dedicated to health care though, increasing income tax doesn't cut it because government will always find a way to spend the added revenue on something else.
    But you're telling us that people like paying all this money towards health insurance plans which are usually crap.

    The story about the Culinary Union in Nevada and their supposed fantastic healthcare plan was framed in this way. Well guess what, their members overwhelmingly sided with Sanders, which is entirely unsurprising because he's offering them something that's far and away superior than they would ever get even under union-negotiated health insurance.


  • #2616
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    Yes, but most people have choice when it comes to private health insurance. A younger person might choose a high deductible plan which is quite cheap, a married couple with kids a higher premium plan with lower deductibles, etc.

    You mean lack of choice in reality?

    The word "choice" is a classic corporate, right-wing canard.

    It's designed to frame a disastrous system in the clothes of positivity.


  • Advertisement
  • #2617
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,835 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Pete is dropping out. Thought all the rest would wait until after Super Tuesday.


  • #2618
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    Corporate Pete is withdrawing from the race, to help Biden no doubt.


  • #2619
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    sid waddell wrote: »
    You mean lack of choice in reality?

    The word "choice" is a classic corporate, right-wing canard.

    It's designed to frame a disastrous system in the clothes of positivity.

    No, I mean choice, as in I personally and most people I know would like to have some decision making over their health care, rather than the government deciding for me. Nothing right wing about it.

    Obamacare takes care of the affordable aspect of health insurance. Under a certain level of income the government pays some or even all of your health care premiums. It is perfectly reasonable to build upon something that was working and make it better. Expand medicare to a higher income threshold and expand Obamacare to cover more people.

    All very achievable, as most of it was done already under Obama/Biden 2008-2016. A lot more realistic than a grand plan that was tried in Bernie's home state Vermont and was abandoned after four years due to the tax burden it placed on both employees and employers.


  • #2620
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    sid waddell wrote: »
    But you're telling us that people like paying all this money towards health insurance plans which are usually crap.

    The story about the Culinary Union in Nevada and their supposed fantastic healthcare plan was framed in this way. Well guess what, their members overwhelmingly sided with Sanders, which is entirely unsurprising because he's offering them something that's far and away superior than they would ever get even under union-negotiated health insurance.

    You're entitled to your opinion. My opinion is expanding Medicare and Obamacare is a better and more realistic way to go.


  • #2621
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    No, I mean choice, as in I personally and most people I know would like to have some decision making over their health care, rather than the government deciding for me. Nothing right wing about it.

    Obamacare takes care of the affordable aspect of health insurance. Under a certain level of income the government pays some or even all of your health care premiums. It is perfectly reasonable to build upon something that was working and make it better. Expand medicare to a higher income threshold and expand Obamacare to cover more people.

    All very achievable, as most of it was done already under Obama/Biden 2008-2016. A lot more realistic than a grand plan that was tried in Bernie's home state Vermont and was abandoned after four years due to the tax burden it placed on both employees and employers.

    What's "choice"? Most people have no choice. You're using the corporate framing of the word, not the real one.

    You might want to read this thread.

    https://twitter.com/wendellpotter/status/1206623259698974724
    When I worked in the insurance industry, we were instructed to talk about “choice,” based on focus groups and people like Frank Luntz (who wrote the book on how the GOP should communicate with Americans). I used it all the time as an industry flack. But there was a problem.

    As a health insurance PR guy, we knew one of the huge *vulnerabilities* of the current system was LACK of choice. In the current system, you can’t pick your own doc, specialist, or hospital without huge “out of network” bills. So we set out to muddy the issue of "choice."

    As industry insiders, we also knew most Americans have very little choice of their plan. Your company chooses an insurance provider and you get to pick from a few different plans offered by that one insurer, usually either a high deductible plan or a higher deductible plan

    Another problem insurers like mine had on the “choice” issue: people with employer-based plans have very little choice to keep it. You can lose it if your company changes it, or you change jobs, or turn 26 or many other ways. This is a problem for defenders of the status quo

    Knowing we were losing the "choice" argument, my pals in the insurance industry spent millions on lobbying, ads and spin doctors -- all designed to gaslight Americans into thinking that reforming the status quo would somehow give them “less choice.”

    An industry front group launched a campaign to achieve this very purpose. Its name: “My Care, My Choice.” Its job: Trick Americans into thinking they currently can choose any plan they want, and that their plan allows them to see any doctor. They've spent big in Iowa

    This isn't the only time the industry made “choice” a big talking point in its scheme to fight health reform. Soon after Obamacare was passed, it created a front group called the Choice and Competition Coalition, to scare states away from creating exchanges with better plans

    The difference is, this time *Democrats* are the ones parroting the misleading “choice” talking point. And they're even using it as a weapon against each other. Back in my insurance PR days, this would have stunned me. I bet my old colleagues are thrilled, and celebrating.

    The truth, of course, is you have little "choice" in healthcare now. Most can’t keep their plan as long as they want, or visit any doctor or hospital. Some reforms, like Medicare For All, *would* let you. In other words, M4A actually offers more choice than the status quo.

    So if a politician tells you they oppose reforming the current healthcare system because they want to preserve "choice," either they don't know what they're talking about - or they're willfully ignoring the truth. I assure you, the insurance industry is delighted either way


  • Advertisement
  • #2622
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    Let me also quote a few replies to the previous thread I quoted.
    Yep, I have the "choice" of any plan sold on the market right now for my little family of 4. My "choices" all cost well over $1900 a month for minimal coverage. My husband is self-employed. We are by no means rich yet this is the monthly price of insurance for us. That's insane.

    There is one reason for employers to control healthcare. It artificially depresses the wage. Choice to change jobs or retire or start a business are completely removed. #M4A

    I had a choice. the choice of paying over $500 a month with an over $6K annual deductible or paying over $2K a year for a mandate penalty.

    That was my choice, it felt like being robbed at gunpoint.

    530,000 people go bankrupt each year in the US because of medical bills. I guess they "love" their healthcare plans.

    Democratic congresswoman Katie Porter had her apppendix burst when campaigning in 2018. This was not a poor person, but somebody who had been a tenured professor at the University of California, and California's chief bank regulator. She had health insurance, but didn't call an ambulance because she was worried about the cost. She had someone drive her not to the closest hospital, but to the closest in-network hospital. Big difference. And then, even with the hospital in-network, the surgeon who treated her was not. She got a bill for $3,000.

    If somebody like that is refusing to call an ambulance because they fear the bills, and driving to hospitals which are further away because of the network system, then the whole health insurance system in the US is an utter joke.

    But hey, that's "choice".


  • #2623
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    sid waddell wrote: »
    What's "choice"? Most people have no choice. You're using the corporate framing of the word, not the real one.

    You might want to read this thread.

    https://twitter.com/wendellpotter/status/1206623259698974724

    I'm basing my opinion on living in the US and having had experience of several different insurance plans, talking to hundreds of fellow Americans who have had different experiences of health care plans, etc. I also know plenty people working in health care and the insurance industry, so would have a good grasp of the realities on the ground so to speak.

    How about yourself? With respect it sounds like you base your opinions on a Twitter feed, and one that supports your opinion so confirmation bias.

    Obamacare gives tremendous relief to lower income workers. You are aware that on average the upper income limit for Obamacare for a family of 3 is $85K. Someone earning $85K and paying 12% income tax can afford to buy health insurance and Obamacare makes it very affordable.

    What makes you think people would have more choice under Bernie's plan? Because Bernie says so? The same Bernie who's Medicare for all plan in his home state of Vermont was abandoned after four years? or you believe more choice because the government is running it? If you live in Ireland have a good hard think about that.

    Every western European country to my knowledge has a two tier system where people pay towards a government plan and also can buy private insurance. It makes perfect sense to me, and that's the type of choice I'm referring to. People who can afford to should purchase health insurance, and certainly should be free to do so.


  • #2624
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    I'm basing my opinion on living in the US and having had experience of several different insurance plans, talking to hundreds of fellow Americans who have had different experiences of health care plans, etc. I also know plenty people working in health care and the insurance industry, so would have a good grasp of the realities on the ground so to speak.

    How about yourself? With respect it sounds like you base your opinions on a Twitter feed, and one that supports your opinion so confirmation bias.

    Did you read the thread and the replies to it?

    Because you haven't addressed any points raised in it. It's coming from somebody who worked at a high level within the health insurance industry.

    You can throw around "confirmation bias" accusations all you like. I can do just the same to you, especially given your continued use the corporate framing of the word "choice". But it won't get us anywhere.


  • #2625
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Sid, you need to calm down.
    It is true to say that most Americans who avail of Health Insurance do not want to give it up.
    You can have any opinon you want about how bad/great the health care system is in the US, but at the end of the say, Bernie will have to convince the majority of Americans about this, when every single polls says they are not in favour of a Medicare for all, replacing private Insurance.


  • #2626
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Pete dropping out, I wonder will Warren follow suit?
    After Super Tuesday, we will be left with Sanders, Bloomberg and Biden.
    Its going to get ugly fast.


  • #2627
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    markodaly wrote: »
    Sid, you need to calm down.
    It is true to say that most Americans who avail of Health Insurance do not want to give it up.
    You can have any opinon you want about how bad/great the health care system is in the US, but at the end of the say, Bernie will have to convince the majority of Americans about this, when every single polls says they are not in favour of a Medicare for all, replacing private Insurance.

    I'm perfectly calm, but thanks for the "concern" gaslighting.

    You're looking at this the wrong way. How many Americans who have Medicare want to give it up?

    Sanders plan doesn't ban private health insurance, it makes it obsolete. Private health insurance will still be available for anything not covered under Medicare For All.

    But given that Medicare For All is far more comprehensive than pretty much all existing health insurance plans, why would you need to have health insurance then? And you get greater choice in who you want to treat you.

    This comes down to one central fact: the insurance companies are ****ting it. They've seen how the NHS works in Britain (even with the Tories and New Labour trying to destroy it for the last 30 years plus), and they know that people like it, and they know that public healthcare delivered free at the point of delivery is far more efficient than anything the private sector can ever come up with.


  • #2628
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    sid waddell wrote: »
    I'm perfectly calm, but thanks for the "concern" gaslighting.

    You're looking at this the wrong way. How many Americans who have Medicare want to give it up?

    Sanders plan doesn't ban private health insurance, it makes it obsolete. Private health insurance will still be available for anything not covered under Medicare For All.

    But given that Medicare For All is far more comprehensive than pretty much all existing health insurance plans, why would you need to have health insurance then? And you get greater choice in who you want to treat you.

    This comes down to one central fact: the insurance companies are ****ting it. They've seen how the NHS works in Britain (even with the Tories and New Labour trying to destroy it for the last 30 years plus), and they know that people like it, and they know that public healthcare delivered free at the point of delivery is far more efficient than anything the private sector can ever come up with.

    That is all well and good. However, I will repeat. Most americans with private health insurance are happy with it and DO NOT want to give it up for a medicare for all scheme.

    You can say, they are wrong, stupid, ignorant or that they dont just 'get it' but these are the people who Bernie needs to convince to vote for him, which I think is a big big ask.

    If you cannot even see the basic concern about Bernies hard nosed strategy when it comes to this topic, then I am afraid you wont get it when/if he loses the nomination or against Trump in November.


  • #2629
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    markodaly wrote: »
    That is all well and good. However, I will repeat. Most americans with private health insurance are happy with it and DO NOT want to give it up for a medicare for all scheme.

    You can say, they are wrong, stupid, ignorant or that they dont just 'get it' but these are the people who Bernie needs to convince to vote for him, which I think is a big big ask.

    If you cannot even see the basic concern about Bernies hard nosed strategy when it comes to this topic, then I am afraid you wont get it when/if he loses the nomination or against Trump in November.

    Which is superior? A comprehensive public health system or a costly insurance plan which leaves you vulnerable to bankruptcy?


  • #2630
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    sid waddell wrote: »
    Which is superior? A comprehensive public health system or a costly insurance plan which leaves you vulnerable to bankruptcy?

    It doesnt matter what I think about it. I am not voting.
    Perhaps this is your problem, you are so sure of yourself and Bernie that you cannot fathom people of a differing opinion, thus alienate them.


  • #2631
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    markodaly wrote: »
    It doesnt matter what I think about it. I am not voting.
    Perhaps this is your problem, you are so sure of yourself and Bernie that you cannot fathom people of a differing opinion, thus alienate them.

    Are you telling me you've no opinion? Why not answer? It's a very simple question.

    You've replied to me a few times here over the past 24 hours by the way. All of those replies have had a thinly veiled insult inserted into them. That isn't very persuasive.


  • Advertisement
  • #2632
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    What's the primary difference between for profit healthcare and Medicare For All?

    The clue is in the names.

    For profit healthcare has profit as it's primary aim, not the health of the patient. That means patients get screwed because they are an afterthought, very much secondary to profit.

    Public healthcare has the health of the patient, no matter their means, as its explicit aim, the only aim. And that means everybody involved the system has a vested interest in making the system work.


  • #2633
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    sid waddell wrote: »
    Did you read the thread and the replies to it?

    Because you haven't addressed any points raised in it. It's coming from somebody who worked at a high level within the health insurance industry.

    You can throw around "confirmation bias" accusations all you like. I can do just the same to you, especially given your continued use the corporate framing of the word "choice". But it won't get us anywhere.

    Yes, I read the thread, not that I really need to. I am very familiar with how the insurance industry works in the US, and know several people who work in senior management roles in the insurance industry. Also I know many people working in various levels of the health care system, including doctors and administrative managers.

    So yeah, lots of opinions to draw on, including my own experience of living and working in the US.


  • #2634
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,691 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    sid waddell wrote: »
    Who exactly "likes" shelling out thousands for health insurance or having massive deductibles which could leave you broke or a plan you could easily lose if you lose your job?

    If everyone paid health insurance noone would have to fork out that much. It's because in socialist leaning countries that ppl don't pay insurance that the ppl that do pay insurance pay a lot, and those that don't pay pay nothing besides general taxation.

    Socialist countries are having financing problems with there 'free at point of use' health care systems, not least because noone takes responsibility for their health.

    And when ppl suggest a sugar tax, which is causing huge health problems, socialist's go ballistic. It's hit's the poorest hardest they say.

    It's not mis-management of the HSE that is the problem in this country, it's the whole ethos of it that is the problem.


  • #2635
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    sid waddell wrote: »
    Are you telling me you've no opinion? Why not answer? It's a very simple question.

    My opinion and yours doesnt matter.

    What matters are votes and winning elections.
    Bernie is trying to advocate for something that is unpopular with middle America.
    Good luck to him because he will need it.


  • #2636
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    DreamsBurnDown wrote: »
    Yes, I read the thread, not that I really need to. I am very familiar with how the insurance industry works in the US, and know several people who work in senior management roles in the insurance industry. Also I know many people working in various levels of the health care system, including doctors and administrative managers.

    So yeah, lots of opinions to draw on, including my own experience of living and working in the US.
    If one was to be be cynical, or perhaps even realistic, they might say they that drawing so heavily on the views of senior managers in the insurance industry would lead to a view of the healthcare system that is biased in favour of the insurance industry.

    Canada prohibits health insurance for anything already covered under the public plan. Seems to work pretty well there.

    But you don't hear many people in the US media say that. I wonder why.


  • #2637
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    markodaly wrote: »
    My opinion and yours doesnt matter.

    What matters are votes and winning elections.
    Bernie is trying to advocate for something that is unpopular with middle America.
    Good luck to him because he will need it.

    But surely you have an opinion on the subject? I mean you've gone to the trouble of actually wading in here on it.

    Yet from what you say, you seem to have no opinion on it at all, or seem afraid to voice one. I find that baffling.

    What matters is making ordinary people's lives better.

    If it doesn't matter, politics and elections become completely meaningless.


  • #2638
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    AllForIt wrote: »
    If everyone paid health insurance noone would have to fork out that much. It's because in socialist leaning countries that ppl don't pay insurance that the ppl that do pay insurance pay a lot, and those that don't pay pay nothing besides general taxation.

    Socialist countries are having financing problems with there 'free at point of use' health care systems, not least because noone takes responsibility for their health.

    And when ppl suggest a sugar tax, which is causing huge health problems, socialist's go ballistic. It's hit's the poorest hardest they say.

    It's not mis-management of the HSE that is the problem in this country, it's the whole ethos of it that is the problem.
    The US has the most costly and inefficient health system in the world. That's because insurers cream off profits and the insurance system involves massive overheads. The patient sufffers as a result. You say if everybody paid health insurance nobody would have to pay much. That's actually the whole point of a public healthcare system. Everybody pays something towards it in taxes so you don't have to pay at the point of delivery. And you don't get the vast inefficiency of the private sector because there are less administration costs. And nothing can push down the cost of drugs like the massive bargaining power of a national public system.

    What happened when the NHS introduced the internal market, which was an ideological attempt to run the system on free market principles? Inefficiency and bureaucracy massively increased, there were bizarre unintended consequences including falsifying of records, and outcomes for patients got worse. The NHS internal market is widely acknowledged as a disaster.

    Your idea that under a national public system, "nobody takes responsibility for their health" is laughable nonsense.

    In the US, people routinely neglect their health to a dangerous degree because they fear the financial consequences.


  • #2639
    DreamsBurnDown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭DreamsBurnDown


    sid waddell wrote: »
    If one was to be be cynical, or perhaps even realistic, they might say they that drawing so heavily on the views of senior managers in the insurance industry would lead to a view of the healthcare system that is biased in favour of the insurance industry.

    I don't work in the insurance industry so have no bias towards it.

    Do you think senior managers in the insurance industry when they are out for a few beers or at an house party wax lyrical about how great the insurance industry is? They are well aware of the problems in the health care system, and recognize many of the problems in their own industry. Remember the insurance industry are the ones who negotiate down bills from hospitals, etc. Recognizing problems and solving them are quite different.

    Expanding Obamacare and Medicare will solve the great majority of issues with the US health care system, and people who earn decent salaries and pay very little income tax should have no problem funding it. Once again, a married couple on $80K pay 12% income tax and pay roughly 2% towards Medicare/Medicaid. It's not expecting a lot to ask them to pay a bit more for the good of society.

    Nobody should go bankrupt because of an unforeseen medical emergency. that's what catastrophic health insurance is for, and it's quite cheap. People buy car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, what's so hard about the concept of buying insurance against the unlikely event you get a catastrophic disease?


  • #2640
    markodaly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    sid waddell wrote: »
    But surely you have an opinion on the subject? I mean you've gone to the trouble of actually wading in here on it.

    Yet from what you say, you seem to have no opinion on it at all, or seem afraid to voice one. I find that baffling.

    What matters is making ordinary people's lives better.

    If it doesn't matter, politics and elections become completely meaningless.

    You want to go down the policy discussion as if it matters on an Irish internet forum.

    Im telling you, it doesnt.

    I am discussing the electoral reality of Bernies medicare for all policy. The fact you dont even want to discuss that, says alot.


  • Advertisement
  • #2641
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    markodaly wrote: »
    You want to go down the policy discussion as if it matters on an Irish internet forum.

    Im telling you, it doesnt.

    I am discussing the electoral reality of Bernies medicare for all policy. The fact you dont even want to discuss that, says alot.

    You're "telling me". Thanks for that attempt at a lecture.

    So what you're telling me is policy doesn't matter a jot while at the same time saying it does matter, and then you point blank refuse to discuss the actual policy in question, perhaps because you have no opinion on it, but we know that's not true, because it's very clear from your posts that you have a very negative view of it. But why, we don't know. You won't tell us.

    That's a very weak response indeed, reminiscent of an amateur political spin doctor, a very amateur one.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement