Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Disastrous News.

Recs

15

December 21, 2009 – Comments (28) | RELATED TICKERS: UNH , ANTM , AET

These fears are well-grounded. The various health-care proposals represent atrocious legislation. To be sure, they would provide insurance to 30 million or more Americans by 2019. People would enjoy more security. But even these gains must be qualified. Some of the newly insured will get healthier, but how many and by how much is unclear. The uninsured now receive 50 to 70 percent as much care as the insured. The administration argues that today's system has massive waste. If so, greater participation in the waste by the newly insured may not make them much better off.

- Robert Samuelson

Absolutely atrocious that some Americans will live healthier more secure lives, due to the actions of their Government.

The rest of the comic skit.

 

 

28 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 21, 2009 at 11:46 PM, ajm101 (32.88) wrote:

A editorialist paid by a bankrupt newspaper run by a tax exempt religion lecturing us about the free market.   Merry Christmas!

Report this comment
#2) On December 22, 2009 at 12:14 AM, fmahnke (88.19) wrote:

Say it ain't so devo,

I didn't think you could happy with this.  Maybe you   won't to defend your president and his not so democratic party.

Seems like adovates of universal care love to criticize the opponnents of this legislation as unsympathetic to the plight of the uninsured,  Harry Reid;s (oops another one bites the dust speech the other day) was a classic good vs evil example of this approach,

Of course I don;t see it this way,  Good government doesn't impose a cost to the vast majority to benefit a few, at least not in a fiscally irresponsible way, My guess is that the collective burden of higher premuims and  taxes will far exceed the cost of insurance for 30M people, (of course the CBO doesn't include the burdens required through the states passed on to the citizens). and this Can issues/amendment sounds unbleiveable, although I don't fully understand it. But I donlt prentend to be able to quanity the ultimate financial outcomes, but guess it will be more expensive because that how big gov't works (or not?)

But I would certaintly agree that their are somethings that are more important than money, Our president believes he has achieved a great historic victory, a legacy   History will be ultimately judge this, but no matter what the outcome, I don't think the current crop of voters will even give him time to see the benefits,

Because what they will remember are the bribes, and broken promises,  They'll bitch about higher premiums, taxes, but I think they will bothered most by the lying,  Open, bipartisan negoiitations, free of the influences of lobbysist, he declared when asking the people for their most important vote,

BHO's legacy with voters will be one of  lies and further distrust of big government and their wasteful spending ways,  Everyone (and that's saying something) seems to agree that this could have been in a much better way with a much better results.

So I wonder why all of those doing the victory dance over this bill donlt seen to care re about the fact that the real cost of this bill is that most of the American people who had faith in their president/gov't  have lost it  Maybe they are OK with it because they knew all along he shouldn't be trusted all along,  Now we all know and it is Disastrous News

Aren't you glafd to hear from me ? 

Ron Paul in 2012

 

Report this comment
#3) On December 22, 2009 at 12:20 AM, tonylogan1 (28.24) wrote:

3 years they'll tax you for nothing.

Then it will get rolled back after the next election, or if not then, 7 years later.

Best case (I suppose) is it just gets repealed right along with the "raise your taxes on your supposed 401k's to 70% in 2030 tax"

anyone celebrating this bill is an idiot. Period.

If you are a fan of universal care, this is weak / pathetic effort by a 60 seat senate that could have passed something worth a damn. Obviously if you are a fan of fiscal sanity then I need make no argument.

Report this comment
#4) On December 22, 2009 at 1:01 AM, starbucks4ever (97.89) wrote:

Devoish, I am a fan of universal healthcare as much as the next guy, but this bill has nothing to do with universal healthcare. Its sole purpose is to provide HMOs with paying customers who would pay extortionate rates without complaint. Willing customers are nowhere to be found, not the rates they currently charge. Enter Obama. The 30 million uninsured get an offer they cannot refuse. HMOs get 30 million docile customers who pay premiums because they know that they will be fined or jailed if they don't. Maybe they will get slightly more coverage as a result, but at a price that's unacceptably high. In all likelihood the insurance they are forced to purchase will quickly be watered down as a result of price hikes by HMOs. It will cover an annual blood test and a box of Tylenol pills, and the rest will again become an unaccessible dream for these newly-insured. Eight years later a new Democratic presidential candidate will propose a $2 trillion plan to provide  coverage for the 30 million insured whose insurance is not worth the paper it was written on.

Report this comment
#5) On December 22, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Lienbuster (95.30) wrote:

Waiting for "death boards" to be announced, a la UK.

Report this comment
#6) On December 22, 2009 at 4:15 AM, ResearchLover (27.82) wrote:

In democracy we trust. Or is that Democrats?  Better than some dream of a bipartisan push to really make right what once went wrong (preexisting condition clauses and payout caps?), for the benefit of all Americans, and our productivity, too.

 Am I being facetious?  Only insofar as Barack H. Obama is incapacitated by his sincerety to involve all sides in the political process, albeit unsuccessfully, thus watering down the effects of his vision for America; there is a possible waiver of this clause should he be reelected despite the public's capriceousness and unwillingness to be a part of the process, except in a negative sense.  Then he best let all that giving-right-leaning-speeches-to-the-Nobel-committee-when-they-were-hoping-for-something-more-Gandi-esque-(but-it's-not-his-duty-to-say-what-they-want-to-hear) give way to some serious vision-chasing and wholehearted enforcement of the less watered down, hard hitting, game-changing country-building laws that have not been overturned in the previous 8 years.

 The worst decade (for American principles) indeed.  What makes the sincere push for bipartisan law-crafting a handicap?  The unspoken rule of the political pendulum which has Republicans vying for their turn up next, where it (the push of those in power to drive the American independent voter from her indifferent stance) swings ever further from left to right, thanks in large part to Karl Rove, the master of polarization.  Don't worry, ye who are unhappy:  in 4 (or 8, public-willing) years, it is the other decideds who will be weeping... 

Report this comment
#7) On December 22, 2009 at 9:20 AM, devoish (96.28) wrote:

ResearchLover,

I agree. Despite the constant politicizing of the healthcare bill as "Obamacare" it is not his. It is an act of Congress and a Presidential veto is still a very unlikely option.

More than anything else this process helped restore the proper balance of power between Congress and a President who is not a king.

It is my fondest hope that the politicians who supported the displaying of guns at healthcare debates, who supported town hall disruptions over calm discussion will pay dearly for their attempts to bully America, rather than lead her, in the next election.

Tonylogan,

and the rest of you who imagine this legislation to be "fiscal insanity". For the first time in thirty years, legislation is being paid for with taxes. NOT increased debt, or hope. Paying the bills IS the principle that kept America out of debt its first 100 years, and kept the financial industry from having a stranglehold on the Federal Gov't.

Senator John Kerry once voted against a bill that contained an amendment to include its spending in the budget. When it failed to pass with that amendment, it was brought up again without the amendment to budget the spending, and he voted against it, yet now it had enough votes to pass. Somehow that fiscal conservatism worked against him in the Presidential election.

fmahnke,

Good government doesn't impose a cost to the vast majority to benefit a few, at least not in a fiscally irresponsible way,

This legislation benefits the majority of Americans. When the benefits arrive Americans will no longer be chained to their employers desk for health benefits. Or at least the chains will be weaker. It also caps what the insured will pay in healthcare costs, not the insurer. The last story of an American who has health insurance being impoverished because the bill exceeded a limit imposed by his insurer has been written. The last story of an American with health insurance being impoverished because she lost her job when she got sick and could not make payments has been written.

Because the ability to pay for healthcare will not yet reach every American more work needs to be done, but we have moved closer to that goal. I will get sick of hearing about "death panels" with every cost containment measure taken but the option to buy more expensive insurance that does not contain those costs still exists.

The work of balancing providing healthcare vs maximizing profit is the Achilles heel of this legislation and that "uniquely American" way of doing things. The work of watchdogging insurers will go on forever with failures and successes and likely cost far more than having just Nationalized healthcare ever would have. But the opportunity for honest profit also provides the opportunity for dishonest profit, and that is the "American Way".

The greatest financial risk to Americans of the "private insurance" healthcare system is the guarantee supporting the private insurers provided by the Federal gov't through the States which provides a backstop for health and life insurance policys guaranteeing your policy will be paid if your insurer fails.

We should all be familiar with the risk such a guarantee brings to the Federal govt. Think very carefully when you hear someone say there is too much regulation of insurers.

Report this comment
#8) On December 22, 2009 at 9:28 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.93) wrote:

I can't see why progressives are celebrating this terrible healthcare legislation coming out of the Senate.  It's a lobbyist-enrichment package; not "universal health coverage." Howard Dean is 100% correct. 

What has it really accomplished?  

Lower middle income earners still can't afford to buy health insurance.  The only difference is now they will be *FORCED* to buy it or face heavy fines.   

The CBO has repeatedly seen the costs as much greater than the Administration.  I trust the CBO over partisan organizations.  

If the Republicans had proposed this, progressives and Democrats would be outraged and would have called it "phony reform" --- and they would have been correct --- but since Obama proposed it and the Democratic Party has mostly gotten behind it, progressives have mindlessly supported it.  

The Democrats ought to change their name to "the Plutocrats".  With a few exceptions (e.g. Howard Dean), I have no plans to vote for the Democratic Party any time soon.  Between them and the Republicans, I have no real preference any more.  Both parties are only out to enrich their clients (i.e. lobbyists and the organizations they represent).  

 

I think the American political system needs a lot of reform to be healthy again. Obamacare is not a sign that "progress" is being made --- it's a sympton of a dysfunctional system where Congress takes from the middle class and gives to the wealthy.  

 

Report this comment
#9) On December 22, 2009 at 9:46 AM, wrparks (69.40) wrote:

Heavy fines?  Didn't I hear it was 2% of your income? 

At $100,000 income, that's only $2000 dollars with the guaranteed right to buy insurance any time you need it.  I don't think they thought this through very well, though I admit I could have the fine amount wrong or some other detail.

If what I have heard is correct, cancelling your insurance makes sense from a financial perspective.

Report this comment
#10) On December 22, 2009 at 9:55 AM, devoish (96.28) wrote:

Jakila,

You are correct that this healthcare legislation is a symptom of dysfunctional Gov't. Less dysfunctional than four years ago though.

I put two positive accomplishments of this legislation right above your post.

The "forced" purchase of insurance comes with low income subsidies to pay for being forced. Think of it as increase to minimum wage without the work requirement. As long as it paid for with taxes it is functional legislation.

Does the US gov't have the right to take what the private insurers have built? Anyone who has read my posts should know that I believe so, because of how consistantly private insurers have lied and misrepresented the policys they have sold to Americans. Most often thievery is not done at the point of a gun. However I am not the ruler of this Country. WE are, for better or worse. And this legislation is one result of that truth.

I learned in elementary school that Americans have the right to elect a Communist gov't, but it would be the last election ever. We also have the right to surrender the vote to financial wealth. By far that is the greater risk.

 

Report this comment
#11) On December 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM, devoish (96.28) wrote:

For a very short five minute description of what is in the healthcare legislation you can listen to Air America here;

http://airamerica.com/liveinwashingtonwithjackrice/blog/12-21-2009/listen-health-care-bill-explained-5-minutes/ 

For a much longer, more detailed discussion you can listen to NPR here;

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/12/21.php#31013 

Seeing what The Post is saying in my OP tells me what value they offer.

Report this comment
#12) On December 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.93) wrote:

The "forced" purchase of insurance comes with low income subsidies to pay for being forced. Think of it as increase to minimum wage without the work requirement. As long as it paid for with taxes it is functional legislation.

Being someone who grew up in a lower-middle income household and who spend most of his life in that income range, I can almost guarantee you that these "low income subsidies" only apply to the poorest of the poor.  For the person who makes $20K per year and is working their way through school, this legislation might effectively kill their chance for a future. 

If this legislation were passed in 2003, I would still be slaving away slightly-below-minimum-wage.  I would've never escaped because the $3000/year the Federal government decide to take away from me to redistribute to shareholders of insurance companies would've effectively kept me in a lower-middle income state. 

I would not have been able to afford moving to find a better job.  I would not have been able to afford supporting myself through grad school.  I would not have had the money to buy a new (used) car when my last car broke down.  

This legislation is regressive; not progressive.  

And the Democratic Party is now a wealthy, social liberal organization that serves the interests of lobbyists and survives by courting the votes of a bunch of naive, good-willed Yuppies who think they are "helping the poor" by voting for them.  

 

 

Does the US gov't have the right to take what the private insurers have built? Anyone who has read my posts should know that I believe so, because of how consistantly private insurers have lied and misrepresented the policys they have sold to Americans. Most often thievery is not done at the point of a gun. However I am not the ruler of this Country. WE are, for better or worse. And this legislation is one result of that truth.

I have yet to hear anyone articulate a clear and coherent statement as to why this legislation is beneficial.  Every statement I have heard has been about how bad the current system is or how greedy the insurance companies are.

This legislation takes a bad system and makes it even worse. It does not fix any of the problems and only sweeps one of the current problems (e.g. the fact that many Americans can't afford insurance) under the rug.

Report this comment
#13) On December 22, 2009 at 11:15 AM, ease1 (90.13) wrote:

"It is my fondest hope that the politicians who supported the displaying of guns at healthcare debates, who supported town hall disruptions over calm discussion will pay dearly for their attempts to bully America, rather than lead her, in the next election" 

Yes, yes, those who supported these rather terrible things, these things that are part of our heritage (i.e. the right to bear arms, and free speech), should be punished for their attempts to save america.  Indeed we should reward those willing to sell her down the river for a pocket lined with money.  Yes, yes, we should encourage and reward senators like those who represent Nebraska.  Those who were paid for their vote, who break down to special interest.  Yes, yes, this is the way to lead america

"For the first time in thirty years, legislation is being paid for with taxes".

I have to say this is the quote of the century.  This leads me to believe your are so wrapped up in the cause that you can't see the raping and fleecing that is going to occur right before your eyes. 

Disastrous news indeed.

Report this comment
#14) On December 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"For the first time in thirty years, legislation is being paid for with taxes".

"I have to say this is the quote of the century.  This leads me to believe your are so wrapped up in the cause that you can't see the raping and fleecing that is going to occur right before your eyes."

I agree.  The president may claim that they've come up with a deficit neutral solution, but that is not the case.  CBO reports confirm that...and their estimates are probably overly optimistic.  Even if the costs were covered 100% by taxes on corporations and the wealthy, it would certainly be an unconstitutional transfer of wealth.  Based on what I've seen of the contents of the current bill, this could easily cause more pain for those currently uninsured...and it opens doors for abuse and increased costs for everyone.  Not all uninsured Americans are low income, and this also imposes an extra financial burden on millions that are already living on the edge and could lose homes, etc... because of new mandates/fines.  I agree 100% that reform is needed, but the current bill includes very little that will actually help...the current administration will proclaim that this is the most historic legislation in the history of the world, but "tonylogan" is probably right...it will be repealed and we'll have to start over when Congress could try to discuss real reform now and get it right.  There have been too many delays with healthcare reform and passage of this legislation will be one of the biggest disasters ever as the real issues get put on the back burner as the system continues to break down.

Report this comment
#15) On December 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM, topsecret09 (44.31) wrote:

 I have run out of words that would describe the debacle that they call a health care bill that was duct taped together In the Senate. I am truly ashamed for the Democrats that think they need to pass this bill,American People be damned,just to say they passed It. This Is Congress at It's absolute low point In history.......   The CBO attached fantasy numbers to this legislation to get It passed. Taxes begin as soon as the bill Is signed,and the benefits do not begin until 4 years later. The 400 billion that they are supposed to take out of Medicare to help pay for this new entitlement will never happen,which means that this bill will RAISE taxes, and put the Federal Government In deeper debt.  They will force people like ME,that have so called "CADILLAC PLANS" to pay for someone elses Insurance. I have worked and paid Into my plan for over 25 years,why should I give my benefits to somebody else ? I do not dispute that we need some kind of healthcare reform,but we do not need the PARTISAN PLAN with 60 DEMOCRATS for It,and all 40 REPUBLICANS against It. The congress can do better than this. And by the way,whats the rush? If the benefits do not start for FOUR YEARS,why not slow this thing down and get It right the first time ? A majority of American citizens DO NOT FAVOR this bill In It's current form,and even many of the usual supporters of the Democratic party are upset with this bill,Including Move-On,and the AFL-CIO. These two groups alone had a big hand In Obama's Presidential win....  This Is not over yet,and the American People still could prevail......  TS

Report this comment
#16) On December 22, 2009 at 12:04 PM, starbucks4ever (97.89) wrote:

"The "forced" purchase of insurance comes with low income subsidies to pay for being forced. Think of it as increase to minimum wage without the work requirement."

Subsidies can work when you are subsidizing consumption. But this bill doesn't subsidize consumption. It subsidizes rate hikes. The reason prices are so high - and the reason is the existence of HMOs - hasn't been addressed. Therefore it's a mistake to think that your tax $$$ will help the poor buy coverage. The right way to think of it is, your tax $$$ will help HMOs charge premiums that they wouldn't have been able to charge otherwise.  

Report this comment
#17) On December 22, 2009 at 12:07 PM, bigpeach (27.64) wrote:

No, the Republican congress during the Bush administration was the the "absolute low point in history". Never before, and hopefully never again, had a congress so dociley followed a president, utterly incapable of thinking for themselves.

But I'm with Zloj. Fully nationalize healthcare. This bill could be a small improvement over the current mess, but it still blows.

Report this comment
#18) On December 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM, AvianFlu (21.31) wrote:

This bill is nothing more than the outrageous further erosion of our personal freedoms. More evidence of our decay...

Report this comment
#19) On December 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM, outoffocus (23.49) wrote:

Good comments all.  As an independant and  consumer who is well aware of the issues in our healthcare system and wants true reform, I am very disappointed with that trashheap that Congress is trying to pass as healthcare reform.  The current bill is nothing but one big, expensive, dirty, oozing bandaid over the stabwound of a cancer patient. That bill will ultimately hurt more than it helps and make our currently ailing healthcare system much worse.

I really wish we could get some legislators that actually know the difference between a symptom and a cause and have enough common sense to propose solutions to the actual causes (rather than ointment for the symptoms).  I also want an American people that are not so lazy and ignorant, so they can look past what they hear on MSNBC and Fox News and find out whats really wrong with this country, face it, and then elect officials that are willing to fix it (rather than turn a blind eye to them and elect people to only temporary solutions to get votes and leave the problems for the next administration). 

All this "wait til my party gets in office" crap is getting real old.  Until the American people truly wake up (hint: the mass media is supplying us the sleeping pills) any legislation passed in the coming years will be ineffective and plunge us into further debt and economic malaise.

Report this comment
#20) On December 22, 2009 at 1:00 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"No, the Republican congress during the Bush administration was the the "absolute low point in history". Never before, and hopefully never again, had a congress so dociley followed a president, utterly incapable of thinking for themselves."

Never again?  Can't you see what is happening now?  Nothing has changed...it's just become worse.  Never before has a President tried to remove all checks and balances from the system...to deliberately and openly exclude the opposing party from all discussion because he doesn't need them to push forward his agenda.  During the time that we had a Republican congress under Bush, most Americans were behind the administration...approval ratings for Bush and congress tanked after the Democrats controlled congress.  Never before have so many un-read 1,000+ page bills been passed.  Never before have so many votes been bought just to ensure complete party-line voting.  The current congress passed a bill before all of this that made it mandatory that no bill would be voted on until the final version of the bill was available for review for 72 hours...they obviously have no respect for the American people as they can't even adhere to the laws they impose on themselves.  There is not a single lifetime politician, Democrat, Republican or Independant, that is not corrupt.  There's a reason that the approval rating for congress is so low...they don't listen to their constituents...if they did, their own and the president's approval ratings would be much higher.

Report this comment
#21) On December 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM, bigpeach (27.64) wrote:

davejh, surely you're not serious. The polarizing of America and Congress was always present, but was taken to an extreme by the Republican political machine during the Bush years, led of course by Karl Rove. This isn't really disputable since they have stated in the press that was their strategy. The documentation surrounding centralization of power is also out there if you haven't read it. You may recall warrantless wiretapping (clearly illegal at the time), use of signing statements to circumvent the law, the (dare I say it) blatant lying and covering up of facts in the lead up to the Iraq war, etc. Openly excluding the other party was commonplace during the Bush years. They even went so far as to push for abolishment of the Filibuster, which would be nothing more than a way to exclude the minority even more effectively. Take a look at the voting records. There are far more members of the Democratic party that vote against their party's position than in the Republican party. Sadly, it's the presence of dissenters that would gain the Republican party more respect than it currently has. The policy of the last 10 years to mindlessy vote with the party is a major contributor to recent election losses. I could go on endlessly, but I don't see the point.

Don't think I'm trying to make a political cat fight out of this. Frankly I dislike both parties equally. But you can't ignore reality.

Report this comment
#22) On December 22, 2009 at 1:37 PM, bigpeach (27.64) wrote:

Another good example is the effort to put all expenses on budget, rather than rely on "extraordinary spending" to fund your wars. The latter was employed by Republicans and is obviously an attempt to deceive the public into thinking you're spending less than you really are. I have more respect for the person who comes out and tells me honestly "this is how much we're spending..... it's a lot."

Report this comment
#23) On December 22, 2009 at 1:54 PM, bigpeach (27.64) wrote:

During the time that we had a Republican congress under Bush, most Americans were behind the administration...approval ratings for Bush and congress tanked after the Democrats controlled congress.

This is just factually incorrect, nothing more to say about it.

Report this comment
#24) On December 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"Don't think I'm trying to make a political cat fight out of this. Frankly I dislike both parties equally."

We can at least agree on this.  Just saying that there's a reason that congress has a dismal approval rating...they're passing bills on illegal votes that a small minority of the American public favor.  That's a fact.  I blame congress for our government's failures, not former or current presidents...and I believe that ALL lifetime politicians are corrupt.

Report this comment
#25) On December 22, 2009 at 2:19 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

It's a fact that the Christmas eve vote for the healthcare bill will be illegal as the final version of the bill is not currently available for review.

Report this comment
#26) On December 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM, ease1 (90.13) wrote:

"this is how much we're spending..... it's a lot."

So how is this any different than the BO administration?  Their current bag of tricks has us believing that health care won't ding the deficit, but we know that can't be possible.  They've claimed to created 650k jobs, but we don't know where or if they are sustainable.  They've spent billions of dollars on the banks, only to have those same banks make billions more off that money and pay bonuses.  

I can hear BO now "we're gonna, we're gonna save those banks, and we're gonna, we're gonna make sure their not too big to fail, and at the same time we're gonna insure 30 million americans with affordable health care, and we're gonna, etc..."

What BO's not telling you, what you want him to tell you but you don't want to hear is "We're gonna, we're gonna tax the hell out of you".  I heard one of his senior advisors say the other day, "when we're done with health care, we're going after amnesty for 30 million migrant workers".  The party just getting started. 

I think really the issue is that the current admin is just continuing where the last one left off.  Only this time they are going for broke.. 

Report this comment
#27) On December 22, 2009 at 3:59 PM, wrparks (69.40) wrote:

I heard one of his senior advisors say the other day, "when we're done with health care, we're going after amnesty for 30 million migrant workers".  The party just getting started.

 

I'll call bull on that one without some kind of proof.  No way that wouldn't be picked up by now and this is the first time I've heard that.  I could have missed it I suppose, but I'd like a transcript for it for sure. 

 

 

(Not that I oppose amnest per se)

Report this comment
#28) On December 22, 2009 at 4:27 PM, ease1 (90.13) wrote:

Fair enough.

http://www.globalvisas.com/news/us_immigration_reform_is_progressing_says_white_house_advisor1816.html

or

http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/blog/blog/update-president%E2%80%99s-senior-advisor-says-immigration-reform-advancing/

Disclaimer:  I don't read these sites in particular and I actually heard this on a radio news channel, but google picked these up pretty quickly when I searched.

Interesting that Axlerod has since backed down from his story, but how is it that the comments seems to indicated that both sides of the isle are working together to look at this.  As opposed to locked door, middle of the night politics of health care reform?

Either way you slice it, BO is looking at this at some point in time and you can bet it will be more of what we've seen thus far (less of what america wants, and more of what stinks [BO]). 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement