Dispelling A Few Myths About The Healthcare Bill That Just Passed.

It’s taken over a year to get the healthcare reform bill written and through congress, and during that time republicans and conservative pundits have been making up a whole lot of stuff that isn’t in there to try to scare people.  I’m going to cite actual text from the very first draft of the healthcare bill, (House Resolution 3200) to show you that not only is this stuff not true, but it wasn’t true from the very beginning.  And you can follow the link to the bill and verify anything if you think I’m lying, as well as verifying that similar text is present in all of the following versions of the bill in the house and senate.

CLAIM: The bill would cover illegal aliens.

Not true.  From the bill:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

CLAIM: The bill would allow federal funding for abortions (a practice which has already been outlawed for decades).

Not true.  From the bill:

 ‘(c) Use of Funds- Funds awarded under a grant under this section may be used for–‘

(1–  ‘(1) may be used for–

‘(A) providing training related to the provision of comprehensive primary health services and additional health services;  

‘(2B) the management and operation of SBHC programs; 

and‘(3‘(C) the payment of salaries for health professionals and other appropriate SBHC personnel; and

‘(2) may not be used to provide abortions. (emphasis added)

CLAIM: The bill will add to, triple, quadruple, explode etc the national budget deficit.

The healthcare bill is partly designed to bring down government spending which is so high largely because of expanding healthcare costs and expanding cost of medicare and medicaid.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will reduce the deficit by 1.2 trillion dollars.  For those that don’t know that’s virtually the entire deficit.  The only problem here is that it will take years to do because it took many years of not addressing the problem of expanding healthcare costs (we pay nearly double what other countries pay for healthcare).  So basically if these sort of reforms had been allowed to pass years ago, like say before the bush administration when clinton tried to address the problem, we’d be most of the way toward fixing the federal deficit by now.

And my favorite criticism of all:

CLAIM: The bill contains “Death Panels”.

This bizarre bit of fiction started with a woman Betsy McCaughey, a healthcare industry lobbyist, who read this section of the original healthcare bill about advanced planning:

“(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.”

Now this is a bit convoluted to be sure, but it essentially says that an “advanced care planning consultation”, ie end of life care consultation, which under this law can now be billed to your insurance company, only “counts” as described in this bill if you haven’t had one in the last 5 years.  In other words, you can only bill your insurance once in a 5 year period to rap with your doctor about “what if I’m in a coma, after x amount of time what are the odds I’ll wake up?” etc.  And this way you can have a living will that spells out your wishes very specifically.

Anyway, good old Betsy reads that section of the bill and instead of seeing what a normal person would see, she sees a stipulation requiring mandatory death consultations for all seniors every 5 years designed to push them toward euthanasia.  She runs around promoting this fiction all over the airwaves.

Now it gets interesting, Sarah Palin throws her hat into the ring don’tcha know!

She said on her facebook page:

 “…my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.”

(Rank Hypocrisy Alert: Sarah Palin while she was governor of Alaska declared April 16, 2008 Healthcare Decision Day to promote the advanced care planning she later vilified as child murder.)

Her “death panel” quote (she coined the term) nevertheless prompted Rush Limbaugh to say:

“But I would suggest that anybody who doubts her intellectual heft or her ability to learn and study, go to her Facebook page, look at the notes that she’s taken — it’s right there — the study that she has done and engaged in, in order to learn about Section 1233.”

and

“He (President Obama) wants the White House, he wants the Executive Branch, to be making determinations of who lives and who dies, which will lead to the regulation of every lifestyle or life in this country.”

(Rank Hypocrisy Alert # 2: Limbaugh did ads to promote August as National “Make A Will Month” saying that a living will “lets you specify decisions about artificial life support in advance. It not only ensures your wishes will be heard, but also protects your loved ones from having to make these difficult, deeply personal choices for you.”)

Limbaugh’s support prompts Americans For Prosperity (a lobbying organization funded by an oil billionaire to support conservative candidates and pro-corporate legislation) to say at one of it’s rallies:

“Part of this process is called end of life counseling and part of the end of life counseling can be an end of life order. Let me repeat that, part of this end of life counseling on line 429 of HR 3200 deals with an end of life order. What does that mean? End of life. Another word for that is death. Order. What’s another word for that? A sentence. Now, you folks review with me a little bit as I recall Stalin in 1920 issued about 20 million end of life orders for his fellow Russians. Pol Pot did it during the Vietnam war. He issued about two million end of life orders. It’s being done in Africa today, Mugabi is doing it every day. Adolph Hitler issued 6 million end of life orders. He called his program the final solution.  I kind of wonder what we’re going to call ours.”

And here we are.

So yeah, I hope I’ve cleared up some of the insanity.

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Dispelling A Few Myths About The Healthcare Bill That Just Passed.

  1. asrial86 says:

    @dikdoktor – Truly, you’re right.  I’ll laugh with you.  lol

  2. Finity says:

    I’m very grateful for people who know how to READ.Thanks for posting this.

  3. But I think you might have missed most of the argument in this post.  It is an either or situation.  Either taxes will be raised and other programs will be cut, or this will increase the deficit.  It can’t be both.  Simply moving money around and cutting excesses in other programs will not reduce the deficit.  So they have to gain money in order to pay for it.  So they must reduce other programs like social security or medicare to pay for it or they have to raise taxes.  We can continue this conversation in a few years.  I am 38 years old.  My guess is that my taxes increase as a direct result of this.  My guess is that the company I work for will be fined for my “premium insurance plan” (By premium it simply means they actually pay for stuff like surgeries and medical emergencies).  My bet is my employer passes on some of that cost to me.  My bet is that I will pay more in taxes next year. I am not the rich.  I am an ordinary American with a wife and three kids.  My next door neighbor is a nurse.  She has a boyfriend who has been unemployed for a few years for most of the time.  He used the government to get job training into one field and then found out he couldn’t work that job because of a previous criminal record.  He then used government assistance to train into a new program and then was fired within a month or two of starting there.  He is now unemployed.  Under Obamacare, he will probably qualify in a few years for medical care.   What does he do?  Nothing.  I believe unemployment is $390 a week and can be drawn for 2 years.  So he can make about $20,000 a year and sign up for the next government assistance program to “further” his education.All of this while I am working six days a week and I have a wife and three children.  My money will be taken from me and it will be handed over to him.  It is that simple.  My money will eventually pay for his medical insurance.  I bet I see a tax increase this year.  Again, I am not rich.  I am one of the regular people.Remember back in the 90s when people were abusing food stamps?  You had women with 3-4 children that had government housing, food stamps and all kinds of benefits that allowed them to stay at home.  Then you had men who lived with this women and had full time jobs that didn’t indicate they were living with these women.  Finally, in 1994 things sort of changed.  There was this little election where the regular people decided they were tired of the government expanding.  The regular people didn’t want tax increases and a large deficit.  I wouldn’t worry about the rich.  They are small in number.  I wouldn’t worry about the Tea Party crowd.  They are off the wall.  I think I would worry that the regular people might show up to the election in November.

  4. I haven’t read the bill, or looked at their numbers to see how they saythis bill will reduce the deficit. I’m just always wary of claims likethat because in my experience whenever the government gets involved, itcosts more money, not less. I saw a report last night where they weretrying to explain the answers to people’s questions on this. One waswhether premiums would go up or down for people like me who alreadyhave insurance. All they could say was that it was ‘unclear at thispoint.’  That’s just avoiding the question. To me that’s governmentspeak for ‘of course they will go up, but we don’t want to tell youthat yet!’

  5. I’m always baffled at how vitriolic this discussion is, as if no system requires time to be in practice and modified based on realistic practice. We are so obsessed with “theory” we won’t give things a chance.

  6. squeakysoul says:

    @agnophilo – I really wanted to rec your post because I thought it had some interesting information. I’m still deciding about this thing and tend to lean toward your side on some issues, but calling @UnworthyofHisgrace names isn’t cool. He may disagree with you and may never see your POV but he is a very nice man and deserving of respect. No one’s mind will be opened by your calling them names, it just makes you look bad. When people on the right resort to this kind of behavior, it just lowers my opinion of them and their position. What do you suppose namecalling conveys to the other side?I’d love it if everyone calmed down and talked about this factually and civilly. We might all learn something!

  7. agnophilo says:

    @Teletheus – Apparently you’re sort of right.  The bill states:”ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED- The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.”In other words whatever abortions are allowed to be funded now, probably in the case of rape/incest or when it’s medically necessary to save the life of the mother.Interestingly the bill also allows states to opt out of that requirement on a state by state basis, which is a good policy I think.  A lot of people have been saying abortion is something the states should decide.But yeah thanks.  Apparently I’ve been misinformed.@MutantChameleon – Actually the supreme court did that (the corporate donation limit thing).@SpAnKyLiCiOuS – Yeah there are countries where the tax rate is 50% or more and they’re happy with it because they get a lot for their money.@haloed – Welcs : )@dikdoktor – Um, yes? : )

  8. notjus4ne1 says:

    I think so much fear and too many lies have been flying about what’s actually in the bill…that you have some people wholeheartedly believe it and buying into it.  We needed something done for those who aren’t insured, period.  For those who insurance companies have dropped because they could in that person’s greatest time of need.  I’d like to know what alternative solution would those who are against this bill would offer?  

  9. agnophilo says:

    @ItsWhatEyeKnow – Thanks.@Finity – Welcs : )@TheTheologiansCafe – No, neither you nor your employer will be fined.  Only if you don’t have “acceptable” health insurance, and ALL previous health insurance is grandfathered in and considered “acceptable”.  So far as your money being taken away and given to someone on unemployment insurance, you know that when you have a job you pay into unemployment insurance, right?  It probably doesn’t automatically pay for 100% of it so yes others’ fees have to pay for it, but that is how all insurance works.  If you have an expensive surgery other people with your insurance will be paying for it with their premiums.  Does that make you some kind of pimple on the ass of society?  Or is that more the point of insurance?All government assistance programs need to be not dismantled, but designed with a system of incentives to get off of them.  And they usually are.@WakeUpLaughing – If your premiums go up it’s because of the insurance companies price gouging you while they can.  Protections in this bill specify that something like 80-85% of what insurees pay in premiums has to be spent on medical treatment, meaning that if they do jack your rates up, they can’t use the cash to give themselves a round of bonuses, which takes away their incentive to do so.@NoGraySunflowers – Yup.  All this polarized politics really annoys the crap out of me.@squeakysoul – I agree actually.  Just sometimes people bug the shit out of me and I stop caring about being civil.  I usually don’t insult people though.

  10. agnophilo says:

    @notjus4ne1 – The republicans offered an alternative bill actually, and it cost more and insured 1/10th as many people.

  11. @agnophilo – The money for this isn’t going to come out of thin air. I can’t comprehend how the government subsidizing people who can’t afford health insurance is going to be paid for without raising my taxes. When they say it’s actually going to lower the deficit, it just means to me that it’s going to come from another place. How can it not? I’ve never seen an instance where the gov’t caused anything it was involved in to cost less money…it just takes from one place and puts it in another. And I’m not ‘pro-insurance company’ by any means, but they’re just like any other business and have got to make money or go bankrupt. Making them cover more people and more medical issues, and also deal with gov’t red tape and paperwork while regulating what they can charge doesn’t make any sense to me either. Again, the money has to come from somewhere. I’m not an economist, so maybe I just don’t understand it. But no one has really explained clearly where the money is coming from and how it’s really supposed to save money. 

  12. agnophilo says:

    @WakeUpLaughing – Yes, there are new taxes for ppl without insurance, which exempt people with low incomes.

  13. @agnophilo – You said, No, neither you nor your employer will befined.  Only if you don’t have ‘acceptable’ health insurance, and ALLprevious health insurance is grandfathered in and considered ‘acceptable.'”“In 2018, the tax on so-called ‘Cadillac health plans’ takes effect.Employers who provide insurance policies worth more than $10,200 perindividual or $27,500 per family will pay a tax of 40 percent of thevalue of the plan above the thresholds, indexed for inflation.”  Here is the link:  LinkIf you have a good insurance plan that covers 5 people and actually covers everything, you will experience a tax on your insurance plan.You said, So far as your money being taken away andgiven to someone on unemployment insurance, you know that when you havea job you pay into unemployment insurance, right?  It probably doesn’tautomatically pay for 100% of it so yes others’ fees have to pay forit, but that is how all insurance works.” There is no probably about it. Of course I understand that people pay into unemployment and I am in favor of them getting back anything they paid into it.  But you realize the government puts money into it right?  Here is the link:  LinkPeople are against the government getting more money because they feel like they spend it unwisely.  Take retirement for example.  I have been paying into Social Security since I was 15 years old.  Each company I have worked for has paid into Social Security since I was 15.  That is at a rate that has been around 14-15% in my lifetime.  Half came from me, half came from my employer.  When I retired, I will get a check of $1500-2000 a month.  So about $24,000 a year.  I started investing in my retirement when I was in my 20s.  When I retire, the amount of money that I will draw from those investments will dwarf what Social Security will pay me.  Yet, I put less money into my retirement and started almost 10 years later than Social Security did.  In other words, the government actually spent some of that money for my social security on someone else or spent it on other programs. 

  14. Teletheus says:

    @agnophilo – Thanks for clearing that up.  I’ve tried to stay as informed on this issue as I possibly can, but with all of the drafts that have been flying back and forth, it’s been exceedingly difficult to keep abreast of what’s actually in the current bill.  I’ve been too busy with work to sit down and read the bill that just passed in any detail, and Obama didn’t give us the five days he promised during his campaign (which I find frustrating on a number of levels, but I suppose that’s to be expected).I could be wrong (as I said, I don’t have all the context here), but it sounds like if they expand the law on what abortions can be funded by federal money — as late as June of this year — they could be financed by this plan as early as next year, right?  That’s really concerning to me.  I’m glad there’s a state opt-out on that, though.One more thing that I find somewhat troubling, off the top of my head:”If your premiums go up it’s because of the insurance companies price gouging you while they can.  Protections in this bill specify that something like 80-85% of what insurees pay in premiums has to be spent on medical treatment, meaning that if they do jack your rates up, they can’t use the cash to give themselves a round of bonuses, which takes away their incentive to do so.”I certainly understand the idea behind something like this, but… what about the expenses of running the insurance companies?  The profit margin for the health insurance companies, as I understand it, wasn’t that huge to begin with — something like 6%.  If 80-85% of the premiums have to be spent on medical treatment, what happens if the insurance company needs, say, 25% of the premium just to operate?  I must admit, I don’t know the numbers on this, but this seems to be one of those ideas that sounds good in theory but could be disastrous if the numbers aren’t right.

  15. agnophilo says:

    @TheTheologiansCafe – “In 2018, the tax on so-called ‘Cadillac health plans’ takes effect.Employers who provide insurance policies worth more than $10,200 per individual or $27,500 per family will pay a tax of 40 percent of the value of the plan above the thresholds, indexed for inflation.”  Here is the link:  Link”I searched the final version of the healthcare bill, the numbers 10,200 and 27,500 don’t exist anywhere in the bill, and the two instances of “40 percent” don’t refer to a tax on “cadillac” healthcare plans.  I believe this is something that was proposed, and if it’s in the bill at all it’s apparently not in the bill in the form that article claims.”If you have a good insurance plan that covers 5 people and actually covers everything, you will experience a tax on your insurance plan.”I don’t think that is the case.  I think the tax proposed was on extremely high-end insurance plans that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.”There is no probably about it. Of course I understand that people pay into unemployment and I am in favor of them getting back anything they paid into it.  But you realize the government puts money into it right?  Here is the link:  Link”Those are emergency expansions done because we’re in a huge recession and 1 in 10 americans are unemployed and can’t find a job however hard they look.  That isn’t the norm.”People are against the government getting more money because they feel like they spend it unwisely.  Take retirement for example.  I have been paying into Social Security since I was 15 years old.  Each company I have worked for has paid into Social Security since I was 15.  That is at a rate that has been around 14-15% in my lifetime.  Half came from me, half came from my employer.  When I retired, I will get a check of $1500-2000 a month.  So about $24,000 a year.  I started investing in my retirement when I was in my 20s.  When I retire, the amount of money that I will draw from those investments will dwarf what Social Security will pay me.  Yet, I put less money into my retirement and started almost 10 years later than Social Security did.”Okay first of all if I’m not mistaken you’ve been paying for the social security of current recipients, and future generations will pay for your SS checks.  Second, the government cannot decide how much money to pay you per month based on how much you put in with absolute precision simply because they don’t know when you will die.  It’s an approximation based on a sliding scale of overall income throughout your life.  Third, and most importantly, social security covers a helluva lot more than just retirement income.  It’s also unemployment insurance, disability insurance, payments to the spouses of the elderly, TANF, and medicare just to name a few things it pays for.  If you were paralyzed tomorrow and needed to be cared for by a nurse for the rest of your life or had health problems as you got older it would be paid for regardless of your income.  Yeah, you probably won’t get paralyzed etc and so you might feel ripped off, but that’s how insurance works.”In other words, the government actually spent some of that money for my social security on someone else or spent it on other programs.”Probably.  But SS effects you more later in life, so for all you know you still might be a disproportionately high recipient for your average income level.

  16. If you want to prohibit health insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, you have to mandate participation by everyone (with a fine to enforce it). Otherwise, people would wait until they are sick or older to purchase health insurance. This is like buying life insurance when you know you are going to die soon. It’s not a fiscally viable model!

  17. The Repubican health care bill of 2004 also cost $1.2 trillion dollars over 10 years. And they did not pay for it–just added this amount amount to the deficit. Perhaps you don’t remember this bill–because it didn’t do very much. It added (inadequate) drug coverage for Medicare, and prohibited negotiation with drug companies for pricing–a huge $$$ giveaway to big pharmaceutical companies.

  18. agnophilo says:

    @SamsPeeps – : )@Teletheus – “Thanks for clearing that up.  I’ve tried to stay as informed on this issue as I possibly can, but with all of the drafts that have been flying back and forth, it’s been exceedingly difficult to keep abreast of what’s actually in the current bill.  I’ve been too busy with work to sit down and read the bill that just passed in any detail, and Obama didn’t give us the five days he promised during his campaign (which I find frustrating on a number of levels, but I suppose that’s to be expected).”Actually that’s not accurate.  He said he wouldn’t sign a bill that wasn’t available on the whitehouse website to be read and commented on for 5 days.  The bill has been online since before the vote.  Don’t buy the hype : )”I could be wrong (as I said, I don’t have all the context here), but it sounds like if they expand the law on what abortions can be funded by federal money — as late as June of this year — they could be financed by this plan as early as next year, right?  That’s really concerning to me.  I’m glad there’s a state opt-out on that, though.”It would also expand the amount of power states have on limiting abortion coverage in the private sector.  So the door swings both ways.”I certainly understand the idea behind something like this, but… what about the expenses of running the insurance companies?  The profit margin for the health insurance companies, as I understand it, wasn’t that huge to begin with — something like 6%.  If 80-85% of the premiums have to be spent on medical treatment, what happens if the insurance company needs, say, 25% of the premium just to operate?”  I’m not up on the specifics of this section, but these companies bring in huge sums of money and if 1 in 4 dollars is administrative costs they need to either cut the pay of their executives or they outright deserve to fail.  It’s not like they’re a factory that has to buy materials and manufacture and distribute a product.”I must admit, I don’t know the numbers on this, but this seems to be one of those ideas that sounds good in theory but could be disastrous if the numbers aren’t right.”True, but I doubt they’re anything but charitable to the health insurance industry.

  19. Teletheus says:

    @agnophilo – Here’s the exact quote to which I’m referring:”And when there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you — the public — will have five days to look online to find out what’s in it before I sign it so that you know what your government’s doing.”The Senate bill that the House just approved wasn’t on his desk until Sunday night (at the earliest).  Now, if he meant what you said — “he wouldn’t sign a bill that wasn’t available on the whitehouse website to be read and commented on for 5 days” — then he should have said that.  The whole point is that this bill has gone through so many iterations and so many changes that we need time to figure out what actually made it through.  The whole abortion clause we discussed is evidence enough that the process has confused that issue a great deal.”I’m not up on the specifics of this section, but these companies bring in huge sums of money and if 1 in 4 dollars is administrative costs they need to either cut the pay of their executives or they outright deserve to fail.  It’s not like they’re a factory that has to buy materials and manufacture and distribute a product.”I suppose that depends on what you mean by “huge sums of money.”  They’re certainly not making the billions upon billions of dollars that so many people think they’re making.  If you actually look at net profit, some of them are right at the $1 billion range; others are well below that.  And have we really come to a point where we can dictate how much money a company should be able to make?  That concept is troublesome to me as well.I’m all for cutting the abuses in the system, but there are ways of doing that without government takeover.  Some of the potential solutions, such as eviscerating the antitrust laws that prevent greater competition in the industry, would force the industry to be more consumer-focused, especially right now (when all eyes are on the industry).  But some of the answers in the current bill — requiring people to buy coverage whether they want it or not, for example — are deeply troubling on an ideological level.  Why should the government have the right to tell me that I absolutely have to buy health insurance?  How is the pre-existing conditions issue not like buying fire insurance for a house that’s already on fire or like buying life insurance when you’re already dying of cancer?  These are the issues that give me a great deal of apprehension about this bill.(Caveat:  The inevitable auto insurance comparison is not really analogous to what we’re dealing with here.  First, nobody is technically required to buy auto insurance; it’s a requirement for using public roads, not an obligation you incur by merely being alive.  Second, you have the choice to buy a cheaper policy that only covers the harm you incur on others, not the harm you incur on yourself.  Third, people can and do go without auto insurance — illegally — all the time, but they’re only punished for it if and when they do something where that insurance is required, like violate traffic laws or cause an accident.  They don’t get fined or jailed if they don’t consistently keep coverage.)

  20. @YouTOme - Sure, people are never denied emergency care – it wouldn’t make any sense if they were. But what about people with chronic health conditions who lack health insurance because they were denied, due to pre-existing conditions? Also, there are lifetime limits on the current health insurance policies, meaning that those who are very, very sick will eventually start wracking up more bills that insurance companies don’t want to cover.  It’s not just about people running to the ER to get treated for the sniffles. It’s much bigger than that.

  21. Teletheus says:

    @theonlyexceptions – How do you think health insurance pays for people’s health expenses?  You can’t buy fire insurance when your house is already on fire because it’s not a risk then — it’s a reality.  You can’t buy life insurance when you’re already dying because it’s not a risk then — it’s a reality.Insurance is the distribution of risk among many people, so that everyone who’s paying premiums pays less than they would have to pay if they actually got sick, or if their house actually caught on fire, or whatever.  It’s essentially betting against yourself; you pay less money now in case you have to pay more later, but if you don’t have to pay more later, you lose that money you already paid.I really think people expect insurance to be some sort of a collective, where the healthy people pay more to support the people that are already sick.  If that’s what you want, then call it that — but it’s not insurance at that point.EDIT:  You can buy policies that don’t have lifetime limits on benefits.  They’re also a lot more expensive — because the insurance company is taking the risk that they’re going to have to pay a lot more if something goes wrong.

  22. YouToMe says:

    @theonlyexceptions - oh i know. It is very unsettling.

  23. Bit harsh that businesses are going to suffer if they dont take health insurance i mean i can see the idea behind it, but you might as well force everyone to take health insurance because not many businesses are going to opt to pay more taxes over health insurance. 

  24. Gavin says:

    The chap is completely right, and there’s no skepticism. 5 4 1. Hey, there’s a great deal of effective info here! web 8 check. So, I do not really imagine this is likely to have success. here check 3. Really worthwhile data, much thanks for your article.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s