● Why Save Employers?: I’ve been debating why Obama would push off the employer mandate, but not also push off the individual mandate. There really is only one answer that keeps coming to mind: he wants to jack up the number of people in the Exchanges. Why? Well, all those “wonderful” rates you keep hearing about from the Exchanges are based on the assumption that vast numbers of healthy people will sign up for insurance. If they do, then the rates will work because those people will pay much more than they cost -- then the system might survive. But if they don’t, then the rates will skyrocket and the system is dead. How bad will it get? I would expect the rates in the Exchanges to double in 2015.
I based that on New York’s rates. It was announced this week that New York’s rates would fall 50%! Surprised? You shouldn’t be. New York already imposes the requirements Obamacare imposes on insurers, such as taking everyone and having no limits on payments. Unlike Obamacare, New York doesn’t force anyone to buy insurance. The result is that all the healthy people stay away from insurance in New York and insurance becomes MEGA-EXPENSIVE for those who are in the pool. That’s why the rates are so high. That’s also what will happen if people don’t signup for Obamacare. So if people don’t sign up, New York’s rates are what you would expect nationwide from Obamacare... and that will kill the program by making it too expensive for anyone to buy.
So how does this relate to the employer mandate? The insurance providers are already admitting that their rates assume that a sufficient number of healthy people will be forced to buy their insurance to make the rates viable. But that’s not happening. People with existing care want no part of the Exchanges and people without insurance aren’t planning to buy any. This is why Obama delayed the employer mandate. By delaying the employer mandate, Obama is hoping to prevent employers from offering insurance, which will force their employees into the Exchanges, where they can prop up the rates at their present level until the fines get high enough that people are forced into the Exchanges.
But it won’t work. Why? Well, two reasons. First, the delay isn’t going to change anything. Big companies already provide health insurance and those that don’t aren’t going to start just because of an insignificant fine -- they’re actually looking at something called "skinny plans" as a way to minimize fines. Secondly, as has been shown by companies who do offer health insurance (like McDonalds), people don’t sign up for it because they can’t afford it, not because they don’t want it, and a fine isn’t going to change that. So basically, delaying the employer mandate won’t change anyone’s mind on this issue and it won’t fill the exchanges.
● That Wasn’t The Deal Vader I: Hospitals whored themselves for Obamacare because they were promised that if they accepted slightly lower Medicare/Medicaid rates, then they would get significantly more money from newly-insured patients and all these new Medicaid patients, and they would never be faced with people who can’t pay again. Apparently, hospital companies are managed by retarded baboons because they fell for this.
Now it turns out the Medicare/Medicaid cuts were worse than expected. Plus, there were additional cuts to Medicare/Medicaid as a result of sequestration. Moreover, with Republican states not expanding Medicaid, which means more than 60% of the new people they expected to be covered by Medicaid won’t be, they’ve discovered that they aren’t going to be getting the new Medicaid patients they were promised. Because of this, hospitals have started laying off massive numbers of staff.
And it ain’t over yet. The suggestion that everyone would have insurance was always a sucker bet. First, the number of uninsureds has actually increased 14% under Obama. Secondly, the law was written in such a way that it expected most people who don’t currently have insurance will pay the fine rather than buy insurance... that’s what funds the law! How hospital managers missed that reeks of management-negligence or more retarded babooning. So no new Medicaid patients, no new insurance patients, bills still going unpaid, and compensation rates going down... 0% of promises filled. Nice trade, guys.
● That Wasn’t The Deal Vader II: Obama made two firm promises when he pimped for Obamacare: “If you like your insurance... you can keep it,” and “If you like your doctor... you can keep your doctor.” And if you believed it, then you might be an idiot. Not only are we slowly learning that tens of millions of people will be dumped from their existing insurance, but HHS admitted this week that you might not be able to keep your doctor either. This is no surprise. It will depend on the plan you pick and if your doctor is part of that plan.
● That Wasn’t The Deal Vader III: Hoo boy, the unions are furious. And they have good reason. Obamacare seems designed to kill the unions. With labor laws being what they are, there isn’t really a lot of point to labor unions anymore. In fact, the only real selling point they have left is that unions can provide cheap access to good healthcare. Without that, private sector unions will probably die off. This is why they’ve opposed universal coverage for a long time, actually. Well, Obamacare wasn’t supposed to be a threat because it doesn’t provide anything like universal coverage and it was supposed to basically allow the unions to keep working outside the system. But now they realize that’s not true. Now they realize that Obamacare makes it very easy for employers with union employees (especially small/mid-size companies) to dump their expensive health plans by pushing their employees toward the Exchanges. Unlike everyone else, however, union employees can’t get subsidies, so the Exchanges are too expensive to use no matter what happens to the rates.
Hence, Obamacare has taken what was the unions’ only real reason to exist and turned it into a point to avoid unions. Are we sure Obama isn’t a plant?
69 comments:
Assclown.Obama be thy name
Short, accurate, powerful observation. :D
what I am trying to figure out, Andrew, is where this will lead. It is such a mess, but in politics, I have learned the hard way, it is so hard to predict final outcomes. It appears it should collapse under it's own bloated weight, but it takes a long time for things to sort out anymore.
Jed, That's a really good question. I've been trying to figure that out myself, but it's just too complex. If I had to guess, I would say this happens:
1. They report that all is well, but few people sign up with the Exchanges and most of those will be "uninsurables." That will lead to a massive hike in rates in 2015.
2. With the rates doubling in 2015, people are even less likely to signup, so the number of new signups falls in 2015. Leading to even greater rate hikes in 2016 and talks of needing to raise the subsidies significantly.
3. If conservatives don't destroy their House majority, as they are trying very hard to do, then no new money gets added. A majority of the insurers back out, leaving just a couple of the most expensive plans. Union membership crashes. Employers issue "skinny plans" that no one wants and a record number of people end up without healthcare.
4. The key requirements of the law are relaxed in 2016 and then reworked in 2017 to basically gut the law.
On the other hand, if conservatives kill themselves in the House, then the Democrats will vote new money for Obamacare and it will survive. They will also exempt the unions so they survive.
That would be my guess.
Things like Obamacare make people in general appreciate the intelligence of fiscal conservatism. However, they will first demand it of the Democrats who are ideologically incapable of providing it. They won't turn to Republicans because--and we're all blue in the face with this--the GOP does it's best to come off as hateful and exclusive whenever given the chance. Until the GOP realizes that people would rather bleed to death being nice than to stay alive being nasty, we'll just keep bleeding and bleeding as a country.
And yes, people are generally too short sighted to realize that the real nastiness doesn't even begin until the state is bled dry. Yes also, people dislike "tough love" policies, which is why it is stupid to sell a plan based on who gets hurt--unless it's eeevil 1%ers* (*large donors to the DNC are exempt). But no, it doesn't all boil down to tough love b/c Republicans seem to revel in telling the base that their ideas will hurt this group or that, which makes it all too easy to believe when Democrats add to the list.
tryanmax, This should be a huge opening for conservatives to sweep into power to fix the problems Obama has caused, but you are right. Conservatism is no longer a viable alternative with voters because of its hateful rhetoric. I'm kind of frustrated with that, but I have no idea how to change it.
So, for Obamacare supporters its going a lot like this: LINK
Andrew,
What are conservatives doing in the House?
Andrew.....It appears that the repubs are refusing to play along with the dems on obamacare. As happens a lot it seems, the dems pass a f'ed up legislation and then the repubs come in and "improve" it, usually by approving scads more money for it that was originally intended. The basic b.s. law remains on the books and becomes part of our national fabric.
Why can't the repubs continue to state that they refuse to play along with the dens games anymore because they are tired of being played? (Amnesty first then border control! 1986) My fear is once these laws become more pervasive, they then must be funded forever by either increased taxes, borrowed debt, or exemptions. (Medi...; Soc Sec; Part D)
What harm is it for the repubs to flatly state..."We had nothing to do with this law, the American people don't want it, and we will continue our efforts to put healthcare decisions back in the hands of the people and not the gov't?"
As for NY, yes, we have had an "employer" mandate since the late '90's. I think that any employer with 20 or more employees must provide some kind of insurance. NY also has THE most draconian insurance laws in the country which is why few insurance companies of ANY KIND stay here long. One reason (no offense) is the NY Trial Lawyers Association and the unfettered cost of liability, but that is whole 'nother issue.
What our dear Gov Cuomo failed to include in his joyful announcement of that "50%" reduction in premiums is that premiums have gone UP dramatically since 2009. About 25-35% rise in premiums combined with about a 15-25% reduction in services covered. So I don't see that I will be any better off at all even with my employer provided healthcare. And the stripped down mandated options w/subsidies are still more than anyone can afford if they have limited income. Especially within 100 miles of NYC. People making $100-200K are barely scraping by and not because they are frivolously frittering away their income. The average rents in NYC have just hit a new high of over $3K for small crappy one bedroom. So, imagine someone who just makes less than that who can't cover the rent, utilities, AND food all in the same month NOW has to add an addition $100-200 for insurance?
On a side note: I am not sure whether the Republicans should be trying to repeal Obamacare or not. In one way, passing 35 bills with no action from the Senate/Harry Reid looks silly, however they also can say...we tried to stop it, but the Dems did not want to.
Question Two that is coming up in a big way - This is a new issue that has come up with Obama who tends to overstep his Constitution authority on a regular basis. Just another "unprecedented" action.
Does the President (ANY President) have the authority to change any part of a law including the implementation date of legilsation by "executive order" of duly mandated legislation signed into law, especially one in which the Supreme Court has deemed constitutional? Not to mention one in which the President lobbied for and signed with great relish into law?
****NEWS FLASH******
I am sure this is news you have all been waiting for! Kate is labor...repeat...Kate, Duchess of Cambridge wife of Prince William/son of Prince Charles/grandson of Queen Elizabeth II (God Bless the Queen!) will be deliverying a new little future king or queen of England into the royal House of Windsor any minute now! I will keep you posted on this most auspicious event!!
****END NEWS FLASH*****
Kit, For some of them. Most don't realize it yet, but the ones who made the proverbial deal with the devil are now starting to realize they've been had.
Kit, What aren't they doing? First, they are pandering to a lunatic, hateful fringe which has already decided they won't actually vote for the Republicans. So they are turning off everyone in the country, including a great many conservatives, all to win the fickle votes of retards. Secondly, they are planning to "primary" about 20+ members... always a good way to lose seats. Third, they've done nothing worth voting for. Why should anyone vote for them? Fourth, they've showed they've learned nothing from the election.
So even with this being an off-year election, it will be hard for them to keep their majority, whereas they should be gaining massive numbers of seats. And if anything sparks the public to turn out, they will get tossed out. Then the Democrats can do what they want.
But don't worry, they're already trying to blame Rubio and the RINOS. So it's all good.
Patriot, That's exactly what they've done on Obamacare.
Look, despite the delusional push by talk radio that the House is packed with secret RINOs ready to give up, they've passed NOTHING... 0.0... since 2010. Their agenda is (1) symbolic vote on Obamacare, (2) symbolic vote on abortion, (3) do nothing else. That's exactly what our lunatic fringe wants (apart from repealing the federal government itself and putting Obama in prison) and that's what they're delivering.
Of course, that combined with their hateful rhetoric is pissing everyone else off, but that's what the fringe wants and that's what they're delivering. Talk radio land should be pleased.
Bev, Insurance rates in NY are more than double the national average. And you've put your finger on why.
What I still don't understand is how poor people manage to live in NYC? I just don't see how the math works out, even if they live in groups.
Bev, The problem isn't the constant symbolic votes. Those are a joke and they just show that the Republican base suffers from ADD and needs constant reminders. The real problem is (1) the total inaction on governing and (2) the hate. The House Republicans (and their talk radio squad) seem determined to be go issue by issue and just sh*t on as many people as possible... "guh, guh, guh, we gonna get them lazy unemployed next!" If you made them into movie villains, no one would believe it.
On Obama, the answer is... it depends. IF the law says, "this will take effect on January 1, 2014," then he can't change it without an act of Congress. But if it says "on Jan 1 or as soon as possible thereafter" or something like "once X has been established," then he would have leeway to choose the implementation schedule.
Bev, Yes, that is exactly what we've been waiting for... proof that British people do have sex.
"Yes, that is exactly what we've been waiting for... proof that British people do have sex."
Andrew, I am sorry. So, so sorry... but I couldn't resist!
LINK
The above link is probably NSFW.
You're a rotten man, Kit.
LOL!
"Yes, that is exactly what we've been waiting for... proof that British people do have sex."
Yes, but they may not be able to watch other people do it. Click here.
Sorry I don't have anything relevant to contribute to this discussion - one of the benefits of having a mother who works in a doctor's office. :-)
(She's an assistant but can pull the occasional favor. Her access to patient info has come in handy in matters relating to her own parents' health.)
Yes, Scott, blackmail is a powerful weapon which can always come in handy. :P
As for Cameron blocking the net, well, yeah, that's idiotic, but that doesn't matter because it will make the busybodies feel like they're powerful. So it's a worthy goal of goverment.
Andrew.....Thoughts on the gov't having access to most everyone's healthcare records once O'Care is implemented?
I can see both sides of electronic access to someone's medical records, but the temptation for abuse by bureaucrats and nefarious political hacks (Axelrod; Jarrett, et al) to "punish their enemies" will be too much to resist.
Bev....The "Men of the West" await our new monarch-in-waiting.
Patriot, I don't like that at all. The government should not be allowed to have access to any information it doesn't need and it certainly does not need our healthcare records.
In fact, I'd like to see a very strong data privacy law which prevents private companies from sharing information as well.
Andrew....I'm reminded of the Pandora's Box fable. Once technology was let loose upon the world, others have been able to capture all sort of information from our use of technology.
Look at the good old telephone. Remember "party lines?"...and switchboards? The switchboard operator had the ability to listen in if they chose to. Also, telephone bills had every number you called, when, duration, etc. That metadata has been around a while.
Now with the "internets" so much more of our activities can be tracked and analyzed. Same goes with medical records. We sign HIPPA statements, yet they are about as effective as EULA agreements.
I've still got my eye on that island hut in the Caribbean, yet I'm afraid even there I'll be "on the grid." There's no escaping the ever watchful eye of Big Brother.
Patriot, Yep. But there's nothing you can do about it. The problem is that there's no one worthwhile pushing back. Opposing change you have:
1. Big business who wants to exploit this data. They are supported by knee-jerk "any regulation on business is socialism!" type conservatives.
2. Tough on crime/terrorism conservatives who consent to any power the government claims it needs if the government promises it will keep them safe.
3. Liberals... who are fine with all violations of other people's rights and always trust the government to solve problems.
4. "I have nothing to hide" types who are morons.
Then, opposing this you have:
1. The certifiable: OBAMA COLLECTS THIS INFORMATION SO HE CAN BUILD DEATH CAMPS!!
2. The even more certifiable: THE CIA LIVES IN MY HEAD!!
3. Official Libertarians... "Dave's not here man... yeah, information gathering is like... yeah... dude."
4. The handful of people who get the problem.
Those aren't great odds for change.
****NEWS FLASH******
IT'S A BOY! 8lbs, 6oz of royalty!
****END NEWS FLASH*****
Bev, I hear their calling it "Kanye Jr."
Technology cannot be suppressed. It can only be responded to with counter-technology. Those industries that specialize in protecting information are doing very well right now.
But Kanye didn't even name his baby Kanye, Jr.! That would really rude...
tryanmax, Privacy can be protected by law, but it lacks a political constituency.
Bev, I can't blame Kanye for that. Kanye is a stupid name.
Oh, yeah, like "North West" is NOT a stupid name... ;-)
Bev, I think that anything someone named Kanye is going to come with is probably stupid, but North West sounds like it beat all the likely alternatives. At least they didn't name the kid Propecia.
The best line I heard was from one of Kevin Smith's podcasts where his co-host said the baby will soon have her own reality show, clothing line, and perfume... which should be called North, so the perfume commercials will say, "North by North West."
This got groans from their audience. :-)
Scott, Wait a minute, North is a girl's name? I thought North was a boy's name and South was the girl's name? What the hell is wrong with these people! This child is going to be so confused!
BTW, that's a movie buff joke. It will never work in the age of rap. You need to lower you brow (and your pants) a few inches.
It's a movie buff joke (and normally perfect for Smith's audience) but bad puns don't play very well no matter who your audience is!
They ought to riff on the fact that Kanye couldn't find North or West on a map... you know it's true. The guy is retarded.
Andrew, I'm not sure I follow your last comment to me?
What I meant was that it would be easy to pass laws which protect privacy. For example, forbid the passing of data between companies without express written consent at the time of transfer or allow people to charge for their own data to be used. But the problem is that no one in the political system is pushing for privacy. To the contrary, both sides (left and right) are pushing for less privacy for different reasons.
ScottDS - I got the joke and it was really funny! So there, Andrew, take THAT!
You know what's NOT a joke? That "...the baby REALLY will soon have her own reality show, clothing line, and perfume... which should be called North, so the perfume commercials will [probably]say, "North by North West." and there will be NO living (OR dead)West OR Kardashian who will get the joke...
Bev, That's the problem when you combine narcissism with idiocy... they'll never see the joke.
Oh, I see. I wasn't really thinking of the political side when I made that comment. I agree that privacy could be protected by law if the will was there. However, effective counter-technologies can simply render the discussion moot.
I would say yes and no. If you see a doctor, your medical records will start to pile up. If you own a home, use a credit card, drive a car, those records starts to pile up. There are some things you can do here and there, but unless you want to live in a shack without electricity, you do pretty quickly start filling out the dossier.
Tryanmax - I agree that "counter-technologies" will render the issue moot to a point. If one has to pay for privacy who will? Of course that is what the politicians are banking on...everyone will submit without much fuss.
Not really relevent, but...
Many years ago, when the phone companies came out with the new caller ID technology, they had the brainiac idea to charge people who DIDN'T want the service (so you couldn't see the caller's ID) rather than charge people who wanted their numbers blocked from view. Why WOULDN"T everyone want to see who is calling them, right? So they had very few takers to be blocked = no $$$ made. The phone companies finally caught on and started charging people FOR the service rather not FOR NOT getting the service.
Bev, The mob does that too. It's called a protection racket.
Wait, what did the phone companies do?
When they first introduced caller ID, they charged you if you wanted to received the numbers AND if you wanted your number to show. It was an opt-in system. Then they realized they would make more money charging people to keep their names off the list, so they made people pay to keep their information from coming up... an opt out system.
No, one had to "pay to opt OUT" then they realized no one WANTED to pay to opt OUT, and many people complained why should they have to pay to NOT get a service. That's just screwy. "Ah, Hah!" Said the phone co. Execs! "More people WANT caller ID, so we should charge them to HAVE it, Not pay to NOT HAVE,it! " [really they said that!]
So, you were charged for not having Caller ID?
Kit - Yes, in order to NOT have caller ID. So if you did not want your call identified by the callee you would have to pay the phone company to remove it. As they found out, most people who call someone don't care if they are identified since they are calling someone they know. Telemarketers were about the only ones who did NOT want to be identified
And I'm back! First thought: What are these uncooked pork milkshakes you speak of, and where can I get one?
Beyond that, when you take the unilateral changes Obama executives are making to the health care law, and consider also such moves like the judge throwing out Detroit's filing for bankruptcy because it "dishonors" the president, it seems clear that the rule of law really is dead in America. It's neo-feudalism at its finest.
Welcome back. The pork shakes are coming from Washington. :P
Yeah, rule of law is certainly wounded in this country... if not dead.
Pork shakes sounds just a scintilla better than a liver pate sorbet (yes, I saw that on a menu of a blessed now-closed restaurant...)
By the way, you guys do realize that if you rearrange the letters in "Kanye" just a bit, they spell "Kenya," right? Now I'm not saying that means anything, and I don't know what it might mean....but still.
Bev, That sounds really nasty... liverwurst ice cream. Blech. Although, my dogs would love it.
T-Rav, Somehow, I doubt Kanye knows that. LOL! Besides, I prefer to think the name is an anagram for eYank... which is how you give someone an eWedgie.
Is there nothing a real bully can do that a cyber bully can't. Next thing you'll be warning me about Blu Swirlies.
LOL! Yep. Though, in my day, they were just swirlies. So they're blue now?
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 22, 1914 (99 years ago today…) -Part 1 of 2
In Berlin, a copy of the “note with a time limit” finally arrives at the office of German Foreign Minister Jagow. Unfortunately, it is incomplete and there is no accompanying information to inform the Germans that it’s already been sent to Belgrade. Jagow is thus deliberately misinformed. Chancellor Bethmann (likely due to laziness), doesn’t even bother to read it. (Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs Zimmerman does read it. He quips that “the note is too sharp.”) Austria does, however, send another note asking German officials what the best way would be to deliver the note to Serbia. In other news, the German Foreign Office is busy accepting an offer of alliance from Ottoman leader Enver Pasha.
The day in St. Petersburg begins with French President Poincare visiting the Romanov Royal Family at the Villa Alexandria. Empress Alexandria, her four daughters, and Czarevich, Prince Alexei, are there. The family’s spiritual advisor, Father Grigori Rasputin isn't to on hand; he’s recovering in a hospital after a woman recently stabbed him in the stomach, claiming he was the Antichrist. So far, Poincare has been pleased with Russia pledge to support France in the event of a continental war.
Russia has its own reasons for wanting war. Despite a century of defeats (several times against Napoleon, the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese War, etc.), Russia wants to fulfill a centuries-old desire for domination that started in the 15th century. In 1453, Constantinople fell to the Ottomans. The city had been the capital of the thousand-year-old Byzantium Empire (formerly known as the Eastern Roman Empire), and seat of the Orthodox Church. When word of this got out, Russia’s emperors declared themselves the new defenders of the faith (as well as all followers of the faith- i.e. the Slavs), and vowed to restore Constantinople to its former Orthodox status. To this effect, Russian emperors started calling themselves czars (the Russified vantage for ‘Caesar,’ the title used by emperors of both Byzantium and Rome). Over time, Russia also coveted Constantinople’s place on the Mediterranean Sea. Russia has only two major ports- Archangel and Vladivostok. The former is frozen half the year; the latter is on the wrong side of the empire on the Sea of Japan. This long-sought dream seems closer than ever, with the ‘Sick Man of Europe” (the Ottoman Empire), in rapid decline. However, in the last century, Russia has been prevented from taking the city by the British Empire. The key route to India (the ‘Jewel of the British Empire'), goes from the Indian Ocean, through the Red Sea/Suez Canal, and the Mediterranean. The British aren’t interested in seeing Russia compete for those sea routes. To that effect, they’ve supported Ottoman efforts (including the Crimean War) to stop Russian dreams of expansion. These dreams appear to be further threatened by warming relations between the Ottomans and Germany, Europe’s rapidly rising superpower.
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 22, 1914 (99 years ago today...) -Part 2 of 2
To these ends, Russia allied with France in 1892, ensuring a possible two-front war for Germany. Fifteen years later, Russia concluded the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, splitting Persia into three spheres of influence: one British, one Russian, and one buffer state in between. A lot of grief has broken out in this region between the two, as Britain has accused Russian diplomats of helping to stage small revolutions and interfere with British trade in the region, which is close to British India. (Nicholas Hartwig, before being assigned to Belgrade, nearly caused enough problems to derail the talks that led to the convention.) But for the most part, things have recently been rather stable. Although Russia would like to ally with Britain in a coming European war (the British are notoriously opposed to continental alliances), keeping them out, for once, would be enough.
A war with Germany and Austria- with French and, maybe, British support- would allow Russia to kill two birds with one stone: acquiring Constantinople at long last, and knocking out the competition (Germany) to Russian domination in Eastern Europe.
Following the meeting with the royal family, the French leaders meet with French and Russian military officers at the Peterhof Palace. They then go to a massive military review at the Krasnoe Selo parade grounds, before attending another banquet at the home of Nicholas II’s cousin (and commander-in-chief of the St. Petersburg military district), Grand Duke Nicholas. Talk of a possible war with Germany is one of the main topics of the dinner’s discussion.
Yes! I finally got the update in on the appointed day!
Please let it be known to management that I am now back on track.
Nice work Rustbelt! I'm sure management will be pleased.
Thanks, Andrew! Boy, I need some beauty sleep. Big day in the history of WWI tomorrow. Stay tuned.
Get some rest, my friend! You've earned it. No doubt tomorrow we will hear of the number of people poisoned at the Franco-Russian dinner. LOL!
Andrew, they were always blue or sometimes green, depending on which tablet was dropped in the tank. But in the internet age, you drop the "e" and they become "Blu." (I assume the dropped "e"s all get donated to various eDevices.)
tryanmax, Good point about the e's. Perhaps they are just moving around? LOL!
Related to our privacy discussion: How Protecting Your Privacy Could Make You the Bad Guy (from Wired)
Post a Comment