Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
A victim of the zeitgeist.
Chait: ...because it appeals emotionally to their inner DemocratMickey Kaus has dicussed this issue extensively. He has nothing to say about any inner-Democrat. Instead, he talks about the poltical Id. I don't even know what an Id is, but in practical terms he says that there's no way moderate and conservative Democrats will vote for a bill that dooms them electorally.Also, isn't the real problem the House because members must face reelection in a mere year? I stopped reading the article because it quickly became propaganda. So, Chait may discuss this.
It's not strange. Clearly, the hoi polloi lost their esprit de corps, while most commentators did not pay attention to the sitz en leben and ignored the elan vitale of a congressional bill. C'est la vie.
Well of course Chait thinks it is. And maybe so. We'll see what happens when they actually figure out the details.
I don't even know what an Id is, but in practical terms he says that there's no way moderate and conservative Democrats will vote for a bill that dooms them electorally.Exactly. They saw what happened in '94 to the Dems that followed Bill on tax hikes ("contributions" in Clinton-speak).
This is one I think you should write about rather than merely link to. What is problematic in the whole issue is that opponents to any health care reform have not scrupled to evade the responsibility for clear, complete, and cogent argument why we should not change how we do health insurance coverage.It has been clear from the first that opponents to this bill will not compromise and refuse to fully present or truly argue for any serious alternative besides that of doing nothing because it's "socialism" to do anything.And by truly argue I don't mean merely waving around the words "tort reform" or "selling insurance across state lines". I mean a presentation of why and how these things will deal with the problem of the uninsured and the underinsured if we do them.If the opponents believe that the problem is something different, they should state clearly what they think the problem is. And if the opponents believe that there is no problem to be dealt with, they ought to clearly and unequivocally say so.
This writer is like the writer who said there is no way Reagan could have been elected because she did not know a single person who voted for him.
That woman was a great writer, Traditional. Unlike Chait.
This is one I think you should write about rather than merely link to. What is problematic in the whole issue is that opponents to any health care reform have not scrupled to evade the responsibility for clear, complete, and cogent argument why we should not change how we do health insurance coverage.It has been clear from the first that opponents to this bill will not compromise and refuse to fully present or truly argue for any serious alternative besides that of doing nothing because it's "socialism" to do anything.Except that they have proposed alternatives, and you choose not to pay attention.Except that with 2/3rds majorities in both houses, Democrats don't need a single Republican vote to make any changes they want.
Joseph, any alternative presented (allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, for one) or questions asked (why can't we just have catastrophic coverage and pay for the rest ourselves if we choose, for one) are roundly ignored. Then you guys take out your "no alternatives" strawman and crisp it with a flamethrower.Might feel good, but bears no relation to the truth.
@joseph marshallExcept that 85% of the population is happy with their health care and 74% think what the Demoncrats (sic) are doing will make their health care worse.Basically, for most of us the Demons are promising to reduce our access and services and increase our costs.
Man soll den Tag nicht vor dem Abend loben. Il vend la peau de l'ours avant de l'avoir tué. No matter the language, Chait is counting his chickens before they hatch.Well, at least we can send him a Chicago Olympics 2016 tee shirt. It's a slam dunk!
If it's a done deal, why does Obama still feel the need to do health care dog and pony shows with doctors in lab coats?Maybe Rahm and Axelrod forgot tell the boss that this thing's in the bag.
What is problematic in the whole issue is that opponents to any health care reform have not scrupled to evade the responsibility for clear, complete, and cogent argument why we should not change how we do health insurance coverage.People who think the status quo is better than the proposed alternative are under no obligation to do anything. The choice isn't between Obamacare and nothing - it's between Obamacare and the current system. The system, by the way, which most people are happy with.
I think that the proponents of change have not clear, complete, and cogent argument about what change should be made and why those changes are the right ones.It's throwing a thousand page bill few legislators have read or understand full of random change at the "problem" and hope that some of it will stick... more or less by accident.It worked with the stimulous bill, right?
I've reached the point where I don't care. The anti-Dem tsunami is headed our way, is unstoppable and so most of these far left Obamanation laws will be repealed before the laws's effective date.Long live center-right Americans and small govt! [You libs can look on the bright side- that will bring even more job security for pundits like leftist pundits like Chait and Ezra Klein-type]wv = deniall [I am not making this up]
Its like Obama is holding everything hostage until he gets his healthcare. Postponing everything. Obama means to outlast everybody and everything.
Maybe they'll postpone a budget.. have to shut down the government .. one can dream.
So called health care reform is going to get shoved down our throats whether we want it or not. I say again, the Congress and Senate should get the same garbage health care we get. Make them subject to the laws they pass. They are the servants not the masters.
And by truly argue I don't mean merely waving around the words "tort reform" or "selling insurance across state lines". I mean a presentation of why and how these things will deal with the problem of the uninsured and the underinsured if we do them.The problem with that is that these justifications are purely pretextual. Look, with 30 million or so LEGAL uninsured, and a number of those being able to afford health care insurance, the better choice wasn't between ObamaCare and nothing, but rather, extending Medicaid, etc. to cover those uninsured who could not afford coverage. That was never on the table. 30 million is 10% of the population here, and even that number is inflated by those who can afford insurance and chose to forgo it, and those who are eligible for federal or state programs and aren't enrolled. So, we may be down to 5% of the population. So, you go out, buy onto, and then parrot, the ever shifting pretexts for what was always intended to be a massive social program, to rival the Great Society and New Deal.
Doing nothing is almost always a better choice than doing the *wrong* thing.So why is this the *right* thing?Obama gives us moral arguments about being our brother's keeper and does not even attempt to argue the merits.Something must be done! And it doesn't matter if those who's JOB it is to write the law even bother to read it! Why not? Because it matters not at all if what is done works, only that something is done so that those who are elected can say that they have *done something*. It's not moral. It's immoral.
Lem said... Its like Obama is holding everything hostage until he gets his healthcare. Postponing everything. Obama means to outlast everybody and everything.No, he's just voting 'present', the way he does with everything else.
I've reached the point where I don't care. The anti-Dem tsunami is headed our way, is unstoppable and so most of these far left Obamanation laws will be repealed before the laws's effective date.Except that Obama has over three years left of his term, and it is unlikely that the Republicans will ever have the 60 votes in the Senate to thwart the automatic filibuster that such a move would face. But, yes, there are somewhere around 80 seats in the House from districts that voted for either Bush (43) or McCain, and a lot of those are going to switch back in the near future. So, the article claims that the Democratic leadership is pushing all their moderates to stick with them on this issue because it is their signature issue. But the Blue Dogs and other moderates were never elected to enact this sort of thing, and in their districts, if they vote for this, their Congressional careers are effectively over. They lied to their constituents about being centrist, and then voted ultra-liberal, as ordered. But Pelosi, et al. don't care if she burns through their majority, guaranteeing a permanent Republican majority, if they can get this, and a couple other far left bills, passed. The moderates whose Congressional careers are being sacrificed should care. But, apparently, don't.
I think that the proponents of change have not clear, complete, and cogent argument about what change should be made and why those changes are the right ones.Of course they don't. As I noted above, it was never about the 47, then 30 million uninsured. That was pretextual. What this has always been is a naked governmental power grab. The only people who actually believed that it was for the "uninsured", or now, recently added to that talking point, "underinsured", were the dupes, their foot soldiers, who do and say exactly what they are told to do and say, parroting the approved talking points.
Are we still talking about the Baucus bill? If we're talking about the Baucus bill or something close to it, the sturm and drang will really kick in starting in 2010 when everyone starts paying for benefits that don't get delivered until 2014.Note that the Baucus plan proposes to make health care more affordable by taxing everyone who delivers it. By unleashing the punitive part of the plan first, this Congress and this President may not even be around in 2014 to preside over the health care Christmas they've been promising everyone.
Basically, for most of us the Demons are promising to reduce our access and services and increase our costs.And, Joseph Marshall thinks that the burden should be on us to justify our opposition to that. Sorry, but until the Democrats can put a credible program together for solving the problems that they have dug up, and doing so without killing off granny, reducing health care delivered to the rest of us (who actually pay for it), driving doctors out of the profession, and health care costs up, then it is plain silly to support them. Also, just plain silly, is the idea that we should just trust them, and if it doesn't work as advertised (which most of them know it won't), it can just be tweaked. And tweaked. Costing trillions more as they do it, destroying one of the best health care systems in the world while they are at it.Indeed, you know that they know it won't work as advertised, because they have exempted themselves from its mandates.
Restore the Damn Constitution.That these idiots in Congress are even thinking about burdoning this bankrupted government with yet another unlawful Federal Government usurptation of power is just intolerable.The Democrats are systematically destroying our national institutionsThey are doing everything they can to increase unemployment. They are laying the ground work for a massive disillusionment with traditional America.It's called the Cloward Piven plan.
Note that the Baucus plan proposes to make health care more affordable by taxing everyone who delivers it.It is like money grows on trees, and taxing the health care providers isn't really raising taxes on everyone. Somehow a naive belief that people do not react to tax increases and either pass through the increased taxes, or just go John Galt. Money doesn't grow on trees, when the Fed prints it, it causes inflation, and the Chinese can only lend us so much money. Besides, thanks in a great part to the reckless spending of this Congress and President, there is a serious move right now to dethrone the Dollar as the world wide reserve currency, and to start pricing goods and services (notably oil) in a market basket of currencies. Which, as one side effect, makes it even less likely that the Chinese, et al. are going to lend us all the trillions that the Democrats are squandering right now, and long into the future.
If you ever wonder why the Democrats push this sort of stuff, look at the graphs of For Whom Do The 47% Who Pay No Income Tax Vote?Any guesses on for whom do those who don't pay taxes vote? And, no, the article doesn't have any surprises in it.
Nothing says "Will of the American people" more than a massive bill being passed behind closed doors where nobody can see it.Really.
"Obama gives us moral arguments about being our brother's keeper and does not even attempt to argue the merits."Hell, he won't even literally be his brother's keeper, so I flatly reject any argument he makes to that effect, whether it be explicit or implicit.
In other words, the debate has been a charade.Chait may be right. Certainly the Dems have the votes to do this, if the right arms are twisted in the most painful ways. Who cares if we haven't persuaded you? Here it is anyway, suckers.Then come the next elections. We'll see how they turn out.I think mainly they are counting on the fact that the whole mess does not "take effect" until 2013.
I HATE Jonathan Chait. Hate him.
Shh, no one's supposed to know!
Until they actually schedule the votes I'm going to take any guarantee with a grain of salt.For now I'm just waiting for the CBO's upcoming report. That should make predictions a bit more certain.
But the government LOVES us. Why are we so worried?
It might be helpful for BHO opponents to review what their leaders told them to do, and whether it was effective or not.As it turns out, throwing tantrums at townhalls was slightly effective, but it only went so far. Those tantrums didn't raise the level of discourse in the U.S., they didn't reveal the flaws in the plans, and they didn't undercut the MSM.Take a look at who told you to go to townhalls and just act out, and then ask why your leaders weren't suggesting doing things like this.Write your leaders and suggest they do things that are effective. Even better, ditch your incompetent or corrupt leaders.
Huh?"It might be helpful for BHO opponents to review what their leaders told them to do, and whether it was effective or not."I'm curious as to on what planet in what alternate universe these "leaders" exist.
Joseph -- the uninsured and underinsured are not reason to destroy what works for the majority of the people.Reducing everyone (except of course, the helpful unions, federal employees, including Congress the other branches) to mediocrity over the next decade is not the solution.Can there be improvements? Sure. I would like to see increased competiton across state lines, catastrophic coverage offered and yes, tort reform. (How do you think John Edwards built his 28,000 square foot house?)There are ideas out there. And there could be more. But the blinders in place on the Democrats allow no really innovative solutions near. Instead of ramming a bill through that they will not ALLOW the citizens who elected them to read -- and even now do not know what is really in it and the consequences -- they need to step back, take many deep breaths, and STOP.Aren't there times when that is the best -- and right -- thing to do? There will be many consequences. Not all are good, or desired by American citizens. Indeed, many might not be good. I spent some time recently with a friend who works for the NHS in UK. There is rationing and waiting lists in the UK. It is not as responsive as even the US system in its supposedly terrible state.I am a health professional and know from my experience that having the Federal government control the health industry would be a terrible mistake. Mediocrity is guaranteed.
And by truly argue I don't mean merely waving around the words "tort reform" or "selling insurance across state lines". I mean a presentation of why and how these things will deal with the problem of the uninsured and the underinsured if we do them.You present the situation as if Obamacare is a straightforward, clear solution, and all other alternatives are either red herrings or a political smokescreen. The exact opposite is true.This bill that's supposed to solve all our problems is over 1000 pages of inscrutable legal language that is perpetually being revised and added to. I challenge you to explain how a document that's virtually incomprehensible in places can be properly implemented by bureaucrats.Opponents have come up with 5-10 common-sense solutions that are comprehensible even to non-lawyers. None of them is a magic bullet, but if several of them were implemented, they could make a big difference. See John Mackey's WSJ editorial; it's a great round-up of a lot of them.People who want Obamacare pretend like these solutions haven't been presented. If you have made it this far into the debate and haven't encountered them, you're either too stupid or too partisan to be capable of it.
I'm curious as to on what planet in what alternate universe these "leaders" exist.LOL. Lonewacko has his narrative, and he's sticking to it.
So today, on the very same radio newscast, they ran a clip of Obama talking to those white coated doctors, saying his usual line about how the time for debate is over, it's time to act and do this now --- and then, like two stories later, the newscaster, with absolutely not a hint of self-awareness, reported on the white house spokesperson vowing that Obama would not be pressured into a rushed decision on Afghanistan.You know, because the health care debate is an EMERGENCY that requires immediate action, but that whole war thing, hey, let's sit back and discuss this calmly for a few months, let's see what axelrod makes of the political fall-out before we decide on anything rash -- i mean, it's not like those ten soldiers who died this weekend were killed by some evil insurance company or something, things aren't always so black and white, people!
Synova: some of the leaders I'm referring to are Glenn Reynolds, Freedomworks, and others who promoted the tea parties and similar acting out events. That includes lower-level hacks like EricOdom and the guy in the TomPaine costume.Some people have the "cheap stunt" gene that makes them think that things like sending tea bags would be effective. Me, I want to have logically-sound, no-holds-barred, detailed debates about vital issues. Some obviously don't want that but just want to play around and put on a show.
I am afraid we are being told the truth. If it's any consolation, it was probably the Swedes in Minnesota that sealed our fate. That and a 'macaca moment' in Virginia. What's the world coming to anyway if you can't feel racial superiority in Virginia briefly? And of course corruptly rolling a patronage politician in Alaska didn't help either. The Democrats are showing mercy you have to admit (while hoping they don't curare tip the lawyers' arrows). No public option; not specifying the number of bathroom breaks doctors can have per 4 hour shift. It could be worse.
Some people have the "cheap stunt" gene that makes them think that things like sending tea bags would be effective. Me, I want to have logically-sound, no-holds-barred, detailed debates about vital issues. Some obviously don't want that but just want to play around and put on a show.Fine, then debate. Talking about tea-baggers and how certain pundits helped the phenomenon along isn't helpful to the debate. Rather, it is indicia that you would prefer changing the subject. So, surprise us, and put out some good points.
You know, because the health care debate is an EMERGENCY that requires immediate action, but that whole war thing, hey, let's sit back and discuss this calmly for a few months, let's see what axelrod makes of the political fall-out before we decide on anything rash -- i mean, it's not like those ten soldiers who died this weekend were killed by some evil insurance company or something, things aren't always so black and white, people!The emergency has absolutely nothing to do with health care, and everything to do with the fact that Pelosi, et al. have already sacrificed the seats of most of those first and second term Democrats who are sitting in seats held by Republicans three years ago, and they know that they are unlikely to hold the House in the next Congress, and highly likely to lose enough seats that even if they don't lose absolute control, they will lose effective control to the "Blue Dog" Democrats. And, they are also highly likely to lose their veto proof majority in the Senate (though I think everyone expects them to retain their majority). You can tell that the hurry is not due to an actual crisis, since they did exactly the same sort of thing with Cap and Trade, which, to the extent that there is an effect, it is at least a decade in the future - except there there may have been the added hurry to pass the law before enough science came out to rebut "Global Warming". And, of course, they also had to pass the "Stimulus" bill immediately, despite almost all of the infrastructure spending, that was so urgent, not being spent this year, but rather, over the next ten years. As I have noted before here, the Administration and the Democrats running Congress right now have yelled "wolf" so many times since the the first of this year, that no one really believes them any more, when they try to ram legislation through, etc. due to some imagined crisis or another.
Will to power.If they say it's a done deal, it'll be a done deal.
"It’s just quietly turned into a fait accompli."This is how things tend to happen in Washington, so we shouldn't be surprised if our legislators do as they've always done.I wouldn't count on any "quiet" times thereafter. Taxpayers aren't into being quiet any longer.Test us. Go ahead, we dare you.
well lots of our pols didn't react well to the tea parties. what about the old saying that it is a democracy if the pols fear the voters? but noone should be terribly surprise with the large majorities and a telegenic Prez.the danger is Momentum. For Cap/trade, VAT, card checkand who knows what they have planned for 2011.
"...85% of the population is happy with their health care and 74% think what the Demoncrats (sic) are doing will make their health care worse."I don't know if your assertion is accurate or not, but granting for argument's sake it is, it does not demonstrate a resistance to health care reforms. Several recent polls show a varying majority of those polled in favor of a public option.More to the point, one can hold the views above and still be in favor of health care reform. I'm happy with my health care and I'm fearful that whatever botched, compromised bill the Democrats may make health care worse, or no better, or more expensive. That is, I could be considered to hold the views you state are held by so many. Yet, I am a fervent proponent of single payer, or "universal" health care, that is, health care available to all, and paid for by the government, via tax revenues. a la the UK or Canadian systems.Questions asked will determine the answers given, but they don't necessarily reveal the full spectrum of what people actually think: I'm happy with my health care because I'm lucky enough to have a job where I have access to a good (so far) plan. However, I don't want to have to be dependent on this job to have good health care. What if I lose my job or want to leave it to go elsewhere? I may have trouble finding a job; there's a financial catastrophe going on right now, if you hadn't noticed. Or, if I find a job elsewhere, it may offer no health insurance or a poorer plan than I have now. Many working people are in this situation: they have no employer provided plan, or they cannot afford what is offered, or they have health care but it offers mediocre coverage and benefits. If I wanted to buy insurance on my own, I could not, as, aside from the financial concerns, I would be rejected for having had a life-threatening illness some years ago, what they call a "pre-existing condition," (i.e., an excuse to reject someone from coverage).As for my fear the Dems will pass a bill that will not help, but hurt, this derives from my conviction that only single payer will actually be a reform worthy of the name. The half-way measures being discussed in Washington will serve to pour more money into the coffers of the insurance companies while not really giving much to the public, and possibly taking away. In short, the Dems, led by Obama, are in the pockets of the health care industry and will likely deliver something that purports to help us but really is a gift to the corporations.So you see, the views you assert are held by so many Americans, even if accurate, does not prove there is antipathy to health care reform. To the contrary, polls do show a majority in favor of health care reform. But what we want is real and effective reform, which we will not necessarily (or likely) get in any Dem plan currently being discussed in Washington.
So what is this about. You don't mind paying absurd premiums to the health insurers and you want to keep the system going that closes hospitals and makes ERs primary family care clinics. An ER room is a very expensive proposition in any hospital yet you want to keep that as the place where the poor and uninsured go to when they get sick? You think that is smart?We have a great technological health care infrastructure and some of the best physicians in the world and as a nation our health care results are just above 2nd world status and far down the list of first world countries. so why wouldn't you want to change that.Somedays I wonder about some of you people. Are you that scared of change? You are beaten over the head by baseball bat and your only solution is to get a bigger bat?How can you justify this? It is just crazy.
And a real life case in point is that I switched health care plans due to a merger of companies. It turns out that what looked like a sprained ankle now is a much more serious problem that will require surgery.guess who isn't covered for this due to a "pre-existing" condition? So I make my payroll contribution to a health care provider who won't cover this injury because it happened before I involuntarily switched to a new provider.Now someone explain to me why we don't need to tackle this problem of health care.
An ER room is a very expensive proposition in any hospital yet you want to keep that as the place where the poor and uninsured go to when they get sick? You think that is smart?It's a hell of a lot cheaper than what Obama and Congress are planning. Ask the Congressional Budget Office.We have a great technological health care infrastructure and some of the best physicians in the world and as a nation our health care results are just above 2nd world status and far down the list of first world countries. so why wouldn't you want to change that.One reason is that we count all babies born dead as "dead babies", and no other industrialized nations do that.
And a real life case in point is that I switched health care plans due to a merger of companies. It turns out that what looked like a sprained ankle now is a much more serious problem that will require surgery.guess who isn't covered for this due to a "pre-existing" condition? So I make my payroll contribution to a health care provider who won't cover this injury because it happened before I involuntarily switched to a new provider.Now someone explain to me why we don't need to tackle this problem of health care.If the government hadn't tied health benefits to jobs sixty years ago, you wouldn't have been forced to switch health care plans.
Depending on the state, you may well could have kept your existing plan. It's not unusual for the law to require guaranteed issue of an individual plan when someone leaves a group, with a cap on premium increases.What you lose is the employer subsidy of your health care plan, though.
hdhouse:HIPPA has prevented such a situation since about 1996. There are no "pre-existing condition" exclusions allowed, assuming you had continuous creditable coverage for the twelve months before the switch. If what you described is truly what happened, remind your HR about HIPPA.
If Teddy Kennedy hadn't opposed Nixon's universal health care program in 1971, you wouldn't have had to worry about employer-linked health care now.MY QUESTION: and it's a fair one.If health care is a RIGHT - as I keep hearing - then why isn't it being defined as such in the bill? Then if the government denies me health care for rationing or any other purpose, I can sue them for violating my civil rights.Hmmm?
@robert cook.all the problems you raise are easily addressed way short of an IRS-administered government takeover of health care. as with all statist, centralized planning solutions, you identify only the problems you think would be fixed by your draconian proposal, while remaining blithely ignorant of all the problems that would be created by government-run health care--like rationing via long wait-lists, a sharp decline in research and innovation, and a precipitous drop in the numbers and quality of individuals entering the health care professions.check the polls. you are very much in a small minority in wanting a single-payer system.
hdhouse,ditto what rosebud said. If you had coverage non-stop, your new provider has to treat you.Pre-existing condition exclusions exist to prevent people from buying insurance only when they become ill. That doesn't apply to people in your situation.You're either completely clueless or making up your sob-story.
I'm concerned Obama/Rahm/Axelrod will try to use Afghanistan as a bargaining chip to get GOP votes for health care.I'm hoping if that happens, the Congressmen will expose it rather than bend to it.
hd: ...You don't mind paying absurd premiums to the health insurers...I'd rather pay absurd premiums to the health insurers than really absurd premiums to the the health insurers and the government too.The current health care bills lock in all the most egregious cost-promoting aspects of the current system. AND they tax the current providers of health care to pay for it.What we are looking at is a huge increase in costs above the current absurd level.
Wow! Where have the original, libertarian-leaning Democrats from Jefferson to Cleveland gone? All that seems to be left are Marxists who want to bring America back into the Old World fold, where poverty and tyranny are the custom, as cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS (Amazon.com) or www.claysamerica.com.
We have a great technological health care infrastructure and some of the best physicians in the world and as a nation our health care results are just above 2nd world status and far down the list of first world countries. so why wouldn't you want to change that.Let me repeat. Life expectancy has little to do with quality of health care. And that is what you are trying to equate there.I would rather be a white male of my age here in the U.S. than pretty much anywhere else in the world. My life expectancy if I get any of the normal things that I might expect to see throughout the rest of my life is second to none. Survival rates for various cancers, heart conditions, etc. are some of the best in the world. But where it would suck is to be an 18 year old Black male born into a fatherless family. As pointed out yesterday, this demographic is filled those whose lives were short and brutish, or were in prison for killing such. Life expectancy is lower here than in many other countries because of a number of factors, and one very big one is the level of violence. That shortened life expectancy doesn't mean we have shitty health care, but rather, that we have a lot of gang bangers driving around capping each other, and also that we count as a live birth premies that would not be counted throughout the rest of the world. And, the solution to the gang bangers driving around capping each other is not another big socialistic program, because much of their violence is a natural consequence of a previous generation of socialist Utopian programs - in their case, the War on Poverty, which almost single handedly destroyed the family structure in our under classes (and esp. in the Black community).
Is it even proper to say "sturm and drang"? I thought when using phrases from foreign languages, one isn't supposed to randomly translate words. I guess it at least shows knowledge of the language, indicating that the author would not make such mistakes as the ubiquitous "and etc", but it seems rather silly to partially translate a phrase.
Post a Comment