100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: No Excuses | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Oh and by the way, for the young people here. It's going to blow your mind how fast you get from where you are to my age, 59. Make sure you know what you are against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said before.
It's one thing what Obama is saying he wants to to. But what congress is puting in tis bill isn't all what he is saying , some of it contradicts what he is saying. He even said himself he doesn't know all what is in the bill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to Boo's Original post: It is obvious that John Stossel many of the posters on this thread are not paying attention to what the President is saying. People have ideas stuck in their heads and can't seem to listen. People are spreading fear and propaganda. Don't be afraid. Aloha  All I hear is one side saying: "This is in the plan and it is terrible" or the other side saying: "Things cannot continue as they are." If anyone can clearly explain Obama's plan, I think that would go a long way to reaching an accord. Obama is trying to explain but he is fighting those that want to keep it the way it is, it's like screaming in the middle of a concert, no one can hear over opposition. Ya go ahead and tell young basically healthy people that old people are stealing from them, and watch them over react and jump on the bandwagon of those in oposition, because it's far easier than doing their own listening to. If you want to know Obama's plan than for heaven sakes tune into it on cspan or find the transcript. Listen to him answer the fears that are out there. I was actually hoping that you would be able to articulate what you liked about the plan, other than saying it is good. I recognize that health care in America must change, I am an avid viewer of documentaries and have seen the figures showing the impact on our economy in the near future. I would recommend the film "IOUSA". I have heard the reports that the plan will create doctor shortages and ridiculous limitations; but I am unwilling to spend 2 hours finding a legitimate government document and then days to read through the thousands of pages -- not that I am lazy, but I am one of those people who are easily confused by "legal-speak". If no one is willing to state what is in the plan and then debate what is right or wrong with those specific ideas, then all you are doing is contributing to the confusion that you hope to battle. I am with TJN and Crick on one thing though... I do not trust Obama, so listening to him sell his plan isn't as important to me as knowing what is in the plan itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said before. It's one thing what Obama is saying he wants to to. But what congress is puting in tis bill isn't all what he is saying , some of it contradicts what he is saying. He even said himself he doesn't know all what is in the bill. I give up |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
boo2u
on
Thu 07/30/09 09:30 AM
|
|
Back to Boo's Original post: It is obvious that John Stossel many of the posters on this thread are not paying attention to what the President is saying. People have ideas stuck in their heads and can't seem to listen. People are spreading fear and propaganda. Don't be afraid. Aloha All I hear is one side saying: "This is in the plan and it is terrible" or the other side saying: "Things cannot continue as they are." If anyone can clearly explain Obama's plan, I think that would go a long way to reaching an accord. Obama is trying to explain but he is fighting those that want to keep it the way it is, it's like screaming in the middle of a concert, no one can hear over opposition. Ya go ahead and tell young basically healthy people that old people are stealing from them, and watch them over react and jump on the bandwagon of those in oposition, because it's far easier than doing their own listening to. If you want to know Obama's plan than for heaven sakes tune into it on cspan or find the transcript. Listen to him answer the fears that are out there. I was actually hoping that you would be able to articulate what you liked about the plan, other than saying it is good. I recognize that health care in America must change, I am an avid viewer of documentaries and have seen the figures showing the impact on our economy in the near future. I would recommend the film "IOUSA". I have heard the reports that the plan will create doctor shortages and ridiculous limitations; but I am unwilling to spend 2 hours finding a legitimate government document and then days to read through the thousands of pages -- not that I am lazy, but I am one of those people who are easily confused by "legal-speak". If no one is willing to state what is in the plan and then debate what is right or wrong with those specific ideas, then all you are doing is contributing to the confusion that you hope to battle. I am with TJN and Crick on one thing though... I do not trust Obama, so listening to him sell his plan isn't as important to me as knowing what is in the plan itself. I don't have the time repeat an hours worth of his speech. Find the transcript if there is one, or find the repeat on cspan. Aren't you asking me to do what you should be doing for yourself. You don't like Obama so it's not worth it to you to listen? It's just important to know what's in it? If you don't care enough to listen, yet you expect me to do the work for you, how is that responsible? I didn't like or trust Bush but it was my responsibility to listen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
PoisonSting
on
Thu 07/30/09 09:39 AM
|
|
All I asked for you to tell me was what you liked about it. If you don't want to, I am cool with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen his speech. But he isn't the one wrighting the bill. All his speech is what he wants the bill to do. Congress is wrighting the bill and while some of it has the provisions Obama wants, there is a lot more to it than just what he is saying. And thats all he wants you to know is what he is saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said before. It's one thing what Obama is saying he wants to to. But what congress is puting in tis bill isn't all what he is saying , some of it contradicts what he is saying. He even said himself he doesn't know all what is in the bill. Think about this. Pres. Obama has an ideal... Get health care for all. (I applaud this - great ideal). Obama has but a few years playing in the big sandbox... Congress has taken that ideal (we ARE talking the largest thieves guild in the world)... and twisted it to allow them and those they actually serve (in dark rooms and shadows) control over the monies... Wonder if they will give Obama time to read the thing with a room full of lawyers....? Wonder if he has the balls to do what he needs to after he reads the entire thing... and realises that he and his ideals might have been used. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:
* Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government * Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs * Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans * Invest in prevention and wellness * Improve patient safety and quality of care * Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans * Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job * End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions" -- Still not sure how this is going to be accomplished. *reducing health care costs for everyone is great. Would love that. How? Will the government impose a cap on how much hospitals and doctors can charge an insurance company per individual per year? Will the government regulate how much providers can charge per procedure? *protect families from debt. Meaning what exactly? That hospitals will be unable to recover the monies owed to them? Place a cap on total treatment costs of each individual? If my job was running a hospital or a doctor in private practice, I think I would be updating my resume'. * Guarantee choice of doctor. This is good too. We largely have this now; if your favorite doctor is outside your plan you might get screwed but this seems to be more of an assurance that the positive things we already have will not be lost. *Invest in prevention and wellness. Again, something we already have. Insurance companies are in business to make money and the more they spend on you the less they make. The already try to get people to make healthy life style choices; will the government do the same thing they are already doing or will they try something else? In New York, they are adding fees to soft drinks (a tax) to discourage consumption. Additionally, taxes on cigarettes make tobacco products prohibitively expensive. Will the governments prevention component be a carrot or a stick?? *Improve patient care. Would love to see this! If you don't want to get sick, don't go to a hospital. There are more infections and diseases floating around there than anywhere (search MERSA in your free time). Once more, how? Stricter regulations and another bureaucracy to monitor the new regulations? All this costs more money. Besides strict regulations are already in place. *Assure affordable health coverage for all Americans. THIS one makes me worry. What is "affordable"? Will it vary from state to state? City to city? Or will the people in heartland America have to pay what New York City (or Beverly Hills or South Beach or Long Island...) pay? How will this actually be accomplished? Will the government cut a check to your favorite insurance company to cover the difference between their idea of "affordable" and the companies actual rates? I think the insurance companies would love that. Or will the government impose a cap on premiums? If so, insurance companies and hospitals will be limited in what they can charge to provide their service, but will be unable to control their expenditures due to the other provisions. *Maintain coverage between jobs. This is a good one. But there will have to be some sort of time limit put on it. Any time limit would necessarily be arbitrary, but it is a good idea for the millions of people who require sustained medical treatments. However, the fact remains... those treatments cost money and that money must be paid by someone. Demanding the insurance companies cover your medical expenses when they are receiving no payments is ludicrous. They will simply shuffle the cost around in a mount of paperwork to insure that any forseeable costs that they will be required to pay will be covered by someone else. *End barriers for pre-existing conditions. This is a good one too. There should be some REASONABLE way that an individual with a pre-existing condition can get treatment. I am unfamiliar with how insurance companies treat pre-existing conditions so I can't comment too much on that. I would be interested to know how this will work with the 4th point (prevention). As a smoker, would that be considered a pre-existing condition that would cause me to lose coverage by engaging in a potentially hazardous behavior? I think all of these are really good ideas... but I still want to know HOW they will be accomplished. Owning a car is a really good idea to me as well, but picking out one I like and killing the driver to get it is not. (Just trying to illustrate that HOW something is done is important too). I followed most of the links on the pages you cited, but I didn't see anything there that will tell me how. Any clues on where I can look? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All I asked for you to tell me was what you liked about it. If you don't want to, I am cool with that. Ah ok, what I liked about it. Well I liked a lot about it. The fact that he wants to allow people to keep what they have if they are happy with it, but have an public option that keeps the current insurers from gouging and keeps the costs down by the competition. I like the idea of people not being penalized for pre-existing illness. I like the idea that doctors should share the original tests instead of making people pay for tests by each specialist, that should be common sense, but hell if doc can get paid for doing the same test again, why care if the patient has to pay for it again and again. There's too much to post all at once, it would be easier if you read the transcripts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should: * Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government * Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs * Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans * Invest in prevention and wellness * Improve patient safety and quality of care * Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans * Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job * End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions" -- Still not sure how this is going to be accomplished. *reducing health care costs for everyone is great. Would love that. How? Will the government impose a cap on how much hospitals and doctors can charge an insurance company per individual per year? Will the government regulate how much providers can charge per procedure? *protect families from debt. Meaning what exactly? That hospitals will be unable to recover the monies owed to them? Place a cap on total treatment costs of each individual? If my job was running a hospital or a doctor in private practice, I think I would be updating my resume'. * Guarantee choice of doctor. This is good too. We largely have this now; if your favorite doctor is outside your plan you might get screwed but this seems to be more of an assurance that the positive things we already have will not be lost. *Invest in prevention and wellness. Again, something we already have. Insurance companies are in business to make money and the more they spend on you the less they make. The already try to get people to make healthy life style choices; will the government do the same thing they are already doing or will they try something else? In New York, they are adding fees to soft drinks (a tax) to discourage consumption. Additionally, taxes on cigarettes make tobacco products prohibitively expensive. Will the governments prevention component be a carrot or a stick?? *Improve patient care. Would love to see this! If you don't want to get sick, don't go to a hospital. There are more infections and diseases floating around there than anywhere (search MERSA in your free time). Once more, how? Stricter regulations and another bureaucracy to monitor the new regulations? All this costs more money. Besides strict regulations are already in place. *Assure affordable health coverage for all Americans. THIS one makes me worry. What is "affordable"? Will it vary from state to state? City to city? Or will the people in heartland America have to pay what New York City (or Beverly Hills or South Beach or Long Island...) pay? How will this actually be accomplished? Will the government cut a check to your favorite insurance company to cover the difference between their idea of "affordable" and the companies actual rates? I think the insurance companies would love that. Or will the government impose a cap on premiums? If so, insurance companies and hospitals will be limited in what they can charge to provide their service, but will be unable to control their expenditures due to the other provisions. *Maintain coverage between jobs. This is a good one. But there will have to be some sort of time limit put on it. Any time limit would necessarily be arbitrary, but it is a good idea for the millions of people who require sustained medical treatments. However, the fact remains... those treatments cost money and that money must be paid by someone. Demanding the insurance companies cover your medical expenses when they are receiving no payments is ludicrous. They will simply shuffle the cost around in a mount of paperwork to insure that any forseeable costs that they will be required to pay will be covered by someone else. *End barriers for pre-existing conditions. This is a good one too. There should be some REASONABLE way that an individual with a pre-existing condition can get treatment. I am unfamiliar with how insurance companies treat pre-existing conditions so I can't comment too much on that. I would be interested to know how this will work with the 4th point (prevention). As a smoker, would that be considered a pre-existing condition that would cause me to lose coverage by engaging in a potentially hazardous behavior? I think all of these are really good ideas... but I still want to know HOW they will be accomplished. Owning a car is a really good idea to me as well, but picking out one I like and killing the driver to get it is not. (Just trying to illustrate that HOW something is done is important too). I followed most of the links on the pages you cited, but I didn't see anything there that will tell me how. Any clues on where I can look? Ah now we are cooking. I want more information too, I am about to read the links that Winx gave me and see if I missed anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" * No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
* Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history. * No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays * Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses. * No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care * Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics. * No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill * Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill. * No Gender Discrimination * Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender. * No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage * Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive. * Extended Coverage for Young Adults * Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26. * Guaranteed Insurance Renewal * Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. I am posting this so that others who were like me can get a summation of ideas. I REALLY like the last idea. If you are paying a company money to protect you against misfortune, then if misfortune strikes you should not have to worry about them refusing you. But I would caution you to read the first point carefully. You might not be refused coverage, but it doesn't have to be at the same rate as someone who is healthy. I think this needs to be done this way. You cannot ask an insurance company to cover someone who will have expensive treatments for the rest of their lives at the same rate as someone who is healthy. Then again... there is the whole "affordable" guarantee that I mentioned in my previous post. This has a very real chance of strangling the companies that we have grown to require. Force too many out of business and there won't be any healthy competition. (and the whole discrimination thing seems a little ridiculous to me, but I have babbled long enough) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" * No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions * Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history. * No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays * Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses. * No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care * Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics. * No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill * Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill. * No Gender Discrimination * Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender. * No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage * Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive. * Extended Coverage for Young Adults * Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26. * Guaranteed Insurance Renewal * Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. I am posting this so that others who were like me can get a summation of ideas. I REALLY like the last idea. If you are paying a company money to protect you against misfortune, then if misfortune strikes you should not have to worry about them refusing you. But I would caution you to read the first point carefully. You might not be refused coverage, but it doesn't have to be at the same rate as someone who is healthy. I think this needs to be done this way. You cannot ask an insurance company to cover someone who will have expensive treatments for the rest of their lives at the same rate as someone who is healthy. Then again... there is the whole "affordable" guarantee that I mentioned in my previous post. This has a very real chance of strangling the companies that we have grown to require. Force too many out of business and there won't be any healthy competition. (and the whole discrimination thing seems a little ridiculous to me, but I have babbled long enough) Ok fair enough, let's do look at the first. I am lucky to be healthy, however I don't know what next year will bring even though I go out of my way to stay relatively healthy via viamins, mostly vegetarian diet, excercise etc. So if I find out that i have some rare illness next year, should I be charged more, and how much more? I should have to pay more because I was not lucky enough to be as healthy as someone else? Seriously, if someone is born with a disease, do they automatically have to pay more because they were not lucky enough to be born free of disease? And if we only insure the healthy or charge those unfortunates more, then why bother changing anything, we have that now don't we? What am I missing? Ok for the second. The companies we have grown to require do quite well finacially right now, do you think they can't possibly find a way to compete? This is a very good scare tactic is it not. Let people think that their company can't compete and they immediately think only of themselves and their welfare. Of course we could make it easy on them and do nothing as we have done for 3o some years. But have they shown themselves to care for human beings or the bottom line. And as for doctors, when is enough money enough money? The discrimination seems ridiculous until you find out that it's being used by some insurers and doctors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, if you develop a serious condition (according to the last point) your carrier cannot force you out of your coverage. In short, when you get your policy you are forming a contract. You pay them money while you are healthy, if something bad happens they have to live up to their side. Like I said, I like that.
If you do not have coverage and develop a serious condition, should you be able to demand coverage at the same rate as someone who is not sick? I don't think you should be able to. The first point from what I see agrees with that. Insurance companies cannot slam the door in your face, but they can charge you a reasonable rate (again, reasonable is a vague term). Honestly, how much money someone makes is not a valid argument. You seem to believe that they make "too much money". I do not believe there is any such thing as too much money. The more they make, the better -- Provided that the money they make is made fairly (I am a laissez-faire capitalist). But it is important to maintain a business environment that is fair. I believe it is wrong to make unfair demands against either individuals or businesses. You cannot demand a business provide a service while preventing them from fair payment. Insurance works by evaluating averages and making a profit from that. By minimizing costs and increasing profits they make more money. For the government to impose costs and cap profits on a business would be the same thing as demanding that you buy a new car every year (to help the autoworkers) but freezing your salary. So to demand that a company provide a service for all individuals (even those who can be expected to need costly treatments) at the same rate is not right. HOWEVER, if the individual had coverage before their condition develops (non-pre-existing) then they cannot be denied the coverage that they have already paid for. Children would be included in their parents status. What would this mean? It would mean that it is in your best interest to get health coverage and to maintain it. If a situation develops your coverage will be locked in -- should be good news for the insurance companies. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Gumbyvs
on
Thu 07/30/09 01:23 PM
|
|
" * No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Mo discrimination, but they'd be charged out the a$$, just like now. * No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays Exorbitant out of pocket for who? Someone making minimum wage or someone making 200K a year? Caps on anything is a bad idea. Caps do absolutely nothing for healthy people and everything for sick people. So the reward for being healthy should be lower premiums. Caps above everything else in this plan will destroy public insurance and put the gov't in charge of healthcare solely, which IS something to be scared about. * No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care Meh, most plans cover this now. * No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill No dropping of coverage clauses will be a laugh riot. * No Gender Discrimination Gender wars! Yea, discriminating by gender is so 1950s. * Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender. Hmmm, if men could ever have babies, this would be amusing. * No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage So what's the incentive to insure someone with a serious illness that can live 5-10-15-20 years with extensive medical care? * Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26. Why not just make it 45, that's still a young adult, if they live to 122? * Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. Ok guarantee renewal, say you get seriously ill, and you plan comes up for renewal and you were paying say 250 a month and your plan renews at 2500 a month. Its the same as refusing insurance, which is against one of the other points. All of this leads to health care being run into the ground, because under these ideas, no insurance company will survive. Unless they are completely subsidized by the government, which IS what gov't wants, and rational, sane people do NOT want. What Obama wants and he gets are gonna be different, probably drastically. But then again, Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under 250K a year, but he's already raised taxes on cigarettes and is proposing raising taxes on soda and beer. Promising one thing and doing another, sounds like a career politician, not someone looking for change. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
That's probably because children are in college at that age. I remember being in college and not having insurance because I worked part-time jobs while in school. I was too old to be a dependent on my parent's policies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Thu 07/30/09 01:47 PM
|
|
" * No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions * Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history. * No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays * Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses. * No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care * Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics. * No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill * Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill. * No Gender Discrimination * Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender. * No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage * Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive. * Extended Coverage for Young Adults * Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26. * Guaranteed Insurance Renewal * Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. I am posting this so that others who were like me can get a summation of ideas. I REALLY like the last idea. If you are paying a company money to protect you against misfortune, then if misfortune strikes you should not have to worry about them refusing you. But I would caution you to read the first point carefully. You might not be refused coverage, but it doesn't have to be at the same rate as someone who is healthy. I think this needs to be done this way. You cannot ask an insurance company to cover someone who will have expensive treatments for the rest of their lives at the same rate as someone who is healthy. Then again... there is the whole "affordable" guarantee that I mentioned in my previous post. This has a very real chance of strangling the companies that we have grown to require. Force too many out of business and there won't be any healthy competition. (and the whole discrimination thing seems a little ridiculous to me, but I have babbled long enough) Actually, people are quite often turned down for pre-existing conditions. I don't consider preventing that part of discrimination to be ridiculous at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, if you develop a serious condition (according to the last point) your carrier cannot force you out of your coverage. In short, when you get your policy you are forming a contract. You pay them money while you are healthy, if something bad happens they have to live up to their side. Like I said, I like that. If you do not have coverage and develop a serious condition, should you be able to demand coverage at the same rate as someone who is not sick? I don't think you should be able to. The first point from what I see agrees with that. Insurance companies cannot slam the door in your face, but they can charge you a reasonable rate (again, reasonable is a vague term). Honestly, how much money someone makes is not a valid argument. You seem to believe that they make "too much money". I do not believe there is any such thing as too much money. The more they make, the better -- Provided that the money they make is made fairly (I am a laissez-faire capitalist). But it is important to maintain a business environment that is fair. I believe it is wrong to make unfair demands against either individuals or businesses. You cannot demand a business provide a service while preventing them from fair payment. Insurance works by evaluating averages and making a profit from that. By minimizing costs and increasing profits they make more money. For the government to impose costs and cap profits on a business would be the same thing as demanding that you buy a new car every year (to help the autoworkers) but freezing your salary. So to demand that a company provide a service for all individuals (even those who can be expected to need costly treatments) at the same rate is not right. HOWEVER, if the individual had coverage before their condition develops (non-pre-existing) then they cannot be denied the coverage that they have already paid for. Children would be included in their parents status. What would this mean? It would mean that it is in your best interest to get health coverage and to maintain it. If a situation develops your coverage will be locked in -- should be good news for the insurance companies. Ok I see what you are saying now. I do believe there is such a thing as too much money when it comes to health care and the basic nessessities of life. But the world has become more and more about money now, one can only hope they have it when the time comes, because human beings today will have no mercy on you. |
|
|
|
|
