Conservatives are for small government? Yeah, sure.
Modern conservatives claim that their ideology rests on these principles: individual liberty, small government, fiscal conservatism, a strong national defence and the rule of law. I'd just like to focus on the small government part, seeing as that may as well not be in there considering the policies conservatives advocate. And with that, individual liberty and fiscal conservatism can go as well, but that's beside the point.
Modern conservatives, or neo-cons, are so statist these days that they simply provide a different flavour of leftism rather than a real ideological alternative.
They all seem to be in favour of medicare and medicaid, social security - in the UK, they're all fundamental supporters of the NHS. These are all massive government programs.
They are all in favour of the police state - grabbing the 'terrorists' by any means necessary, even if that means violating individual liberty. This incentivises government growth.
They more or less subscribe to the Keynesian dictum that government spending drives the economy. This incentivises government growth.
They support any government program that supports their views on drugs, prostitution, sexual behaviour and religion.
And finally they support military interventionism abroad, everywhere. This, above all things, incentivises government growth.
Is there anything to conclude but that conservatism is a non-ideology?Would that be the same Conservative party that is intent on destroying the NHS?
BTW, have you heard that the Royal Mail is finally being privatised?
Though I do agree that Conservatives are not for small government, look at the powers Thatcher took into government control.The NHS doesn't need any help from the Tories, it is unsustainable, and we're beginning to see that now. I bet if you ask every single Tory you'll find that 90% are fundamentally in favour, even if they want it cut.
Yes, I heard. Good.Why is it unsustainable? Our health service costs a little more than half the American system and covers everybody, not just the ones who can afford it. Again, why is it unsustainable?
Why are you so pleased that so many people are going to be put out of work and business?With reduced incentive to keep healthy, people become dependent, thus requiring the state to spend more on healthcare. At some point you run out of other people's money and it goes belly-up. It's no surprise.
It's inevitable jobs were going to be lost considering our reduced reliance on the postal service for communication. Those people should be put back to productive work in the market, but thanks to the government this is not a certainty.If that were true privatized care would cost less. Instead it is significantly more expensive. The cost under a private system in the US was more than twice the cost of the NHS for example and the UK has the most expensive public healthcare system in the world compare it with say Australia and the cost is like a quarter.
Why? Why is it more expensive?
Is a sum equal to 8 times the per person cost of medical care in Australia going to insurance companies in the US as profit?
Compared to the UK, does Australia pay their doctors and nurses a pittance, insufficient to live on? Are the hospitals wooden shacks, ready to fall down? Do the Aussies not have modern equipment - no MRI, no CAT scan, etc.? Do the Aussies refuse long term care - radiation for cancer, maybe? Do they refuse expensive care - no heart transplants or saving a 6 month preemie? Where does the other 3/4 of the money go in the UK?Considering that Australia has better life expectancies on life and all treatments except for cancer obviously it's not from lower quality care. Australia does pay it's doctors significantly less, they are still very high earners but not to the same extent as in the US, on the other hand doctors in Australia have higher job satisfaction so it can't be too bad.
Obviously there is also the profit margin not just on treatment but also on pharmaceuticals, most crucially is the fact that Australians go to the doctor much more often because it's very cheap/free depending on your income and that makes prevention easier and prevention or early treatment is MUCH cheaper than late treatment or cure. It also means that doctors can play an active role in keeping their patients healthy throughout their lives through treatment and advice which again is cheaper.
etc.
PS: In case I was not clear the Australian system is slightly more than a quarter of the American system in cost.I did misunderstand that the Aussies are 1/4 the cost of the US; I thought you meant 1/4 the cost of the UK.
Cost of doctors; outside of top specialists (and private practice plastic surgeons no doubt) most doctors aren't getting rich in the US. I don't think you could cut their income by very much and still have doctors around.
There is no profit on the care itself, but if the Aussies aren't making a profit on drugs, they aren't producing many new ones. That's where the cost is, not in making a pill, and without a profit drug companies can't do the research to find drugs. Not, anyway, under testing requirements in the US - do the Aussies not require stringent testing?
Preventive care will absolutely cut costs, even as it requires lots more doctors; doctors you say aren't paid much. It takes a LOT more physician time to see and counsel someone twice a year for life than to, say, replace a heart ruined by smoking. But because of that, costs aren't going to be cut by anywhere near a factor of 4 by providing quality preventative care.
I think you're swallowing the "estimates" of Obamacare - the only way the US could ever cut its medical care costs by a factor of 4 is to reduce the care, not double (or quadruple as people are expecting) it. That and the claims from governments; I tend to take the accounts from patients that end up in the US because they can't get the care they need at any cost as at least as indicative of the true status of health care as government claims.Well in that case have a look at patient satisfaction around the world, the US has pretty much the lowest in the first world.
Not only are all our survival and expectancy stats terrible (except cancer), not only is our care the most expensive in the world by a factor of times, not only does it have poor patient and doctor satisfaction it also does not cover a significant sector of our society. Obviously this is the best system
Whether Obamacare will replicate that I don't know, it's not really the same system, Israel has a similar system to Obamacare and even Romney commented it has been successful on his visit.Yeah - look and talk to the Canadians coming south for care because they can't get it in their own country. The country with free care.
That's the problem, Josak - the stats aren't agreeing with what people are saying. And there are other problems as well.
Tell me - why does an ER visit for a minor injury cost 10 times what a clinic visit does? Because it actually costs the hospital that much? I really, really question these "cost" numbers - not that they are being given out, but that the cost is ever there at all to BE given out.
It's a given that the US system has higher costs (beyond the value of money) because it is mostly private and there is a profit to be made. But to see figures showing it is 4 or more times, per person, than that of socialist nations...well, I just don't believe that. Profits are NOT 300% of costs. And when that is then tied to a statement of poorer care the distrust simply climbs.
No, there is something else going on with all this. The claims are simply too outrageous to be even partially true.
Personal example: I have recently had cataract surgery, with artificial lenses implanted in each eye. I went to the most skilled surgeon in a metropolitan area of around a million people. He owns his own clinic; an ophthalmology half and a surgical half. I'm guessing at 4 receptionists, a dozen nurses, an anesthesiologist and 2 other qualified ophthalmologists although he does all the surgery.
The charge (per eye) was $6,000, of which half was for the lens itself. The latest, most advanced lens in the country, and I can't imagine the production costs that went into developing that lens. I paid that $3000 happily.
The other $3,000 went to two visits, where every eye machine imaginable was available to test my eye, measure and examine it. The surgery, where the eye was cut open, the old lens removed and the fake one put in - again, an almost unimaginably delicate surgery to my mind. Six follow up visits, with a complete eye exam each time. Two additional sessions of laser surgery, a not unexpected occurrence, and two more follow up visits. All for $3,000 - I cannot believe that can be beat anywhere.
The doctor was exceedingly pleasant, and seemed genuinely pleased with the results - it made his day every time I went in for a follow up check and the results were so good. He's happy, doing what he loves doing and giving people back their sight.
So why isn't it like that everywhere in the country? Why the huge costs, the unhappy doctors? I don't have the answer, but I don't see socialized medicine making any real difference. At best it will leave this doctor untouched; at worst it will destroy his practice. It will absolutely do nothing to cut the prices he charges; that $3,000 is already paying for far more than it could reasonably be expected to.
We'd be better off to look at these private practices, away from mainstream hospital and clinic care and that are so successful, than we will be following other countries in their socialist medicine; countries that cannot match what this doctor is doing. Whatever it is that he's doing right we need to capitalize on, not add ever more bureaucracy to a system that is already in trouble.America is not a very popular place for medical tourism that is just a myth, for example tiny Caribbean island of four million people Cuba get's about a quarter of the total medical tourism we do. Relatively very few people come here for care considering this is the richest nation on earth (cancer being the exception).
Your comment boils down to the facts are these but I just don't want to or can't believe them, it's not an argument it's simply a rejection of reality.
Frankly that operation sounds nightmarish, the quality of care sounds fine etc. which is what you would expect around the world but $3000! Not only is that pretty pricy, (I believe in Aus that would cost a little less than two thirds as much so by American standards you got a good deal) but the fact that you had to pay it directly, it's probably fine for you but there are huge sectors of the population that can't just pull out three grand.
I leave the US whenever I need real medical care, I go to NZ, care is much better and far far cheaper.
These countries that can't match your doctor just don't exist in the first world.No, the US is not popular for medical tourism; it's too expensive relative to third world countries. The only reason to come here is a lack of care in the primary country (usually Canada) and that travel expenses can run the cost too high to go elsewhere. The only reason I mention it is that they are coming here because they cannot get needed care, at any cost, in Canada.
My surgery - actually very simple for me (not so much for the doctor) and with almost no recover time. I was on the road home within a half hour.
You may have missed the point about the cost, though. $3,000 is rather high for cataract surgery overseas, but that also included all follow up visits for a whole year (a complete eye exam every visit) plus two more laser surgeries on the eye as well as follow up from those. At that point it's a huge bargain.
Just looked up cataract surgery in the UK. It is $4,000; given a simple lens cost of around $1,000 that comes out about equal. BUT. It includes only one month of follow up visits, not a year, and does not include any laser adjustments. The laser (I required two such) is $700 here.
So it was considerably cheaper here, although I did have to pay cash (or take a loan through the inevitable "no interest" outfits every doctor has available). Had insurance been used, costs would have risen some 25% - between sympathy and not having the costs of fighting with insurance companies my doctor gave a significant discount for cash.
If your medical care is cheaper in NZ, I would definitely assume you aren't considering transportation or lodging costs during recuperation.
Interesting article about such surgery in Australia:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/pr … 5780972910
Doctors end up with $52 take home pay for restoring a patients sight. For going through years of medical school, followed by additional time in specialized eye surgery training and buying millions of dollars worth of specialized machinery. I'm sorry, but that is absolutely ridiculous; I very gladly paid $12,000 to restore my sight (I was nearly blind) and would have paid 3 times that if necessary - as far as I'm concerned, at my age, life isn't worth living without sight.
Australia is paying $415 for cataract surgery; after deducting for expenses and taxes the Dr gets to keep $52. I will have to say that Australia will have very few doctors capable of cataract surgery in a few years. Either that or the quality of care will decrease to near nothing as new, inexperienced, doctors try doing 50 or 100 surgeries per day to make a living. Not on my eyes, thank you.Yeah as I said the UK is the most expensive public system in the world and you got a good deal.
As for Australia, yup not only is the operation incredibly cheap it has a higher rate of success, there is no doctor shortage in Australia except for way out in the country where people with a potential high income don't really want to live and this is a policy that has been in place for decades and decades.
Doctors in Australia don't have the same expectations of payment because it never got that high. Not to mention that their education is paid for by the state as are their living expenses while they study so there is a lot less hardship to get a degree and it's a lot easier for people not from rich backgrounds to get one which brings down the cost.
The simple truth is it works, feel free to compare any healthcare stat you like with Australia (again except for cancer) and you will see they are better.Now I know you're spinning tales; cataract surgery is the most often performed surgery in the world and has an extremely high success rate everywhere. The doctor I chose was open about his own work; he has performed thousands and thousands of such surgeries and has had a failure. Once. The success rate is the same everywhere there is reasonable care - as near to 100% as you can get when working on a living organism.
And if you think Australian doctors are happy with their salary, read the article. They aren't.
The education; this is a part of why I keep saying that I question the costs. Doctors here have to cover that themselves, along with the building and machinery. It has to be built into the price the patient pays. The cost in Australia has already been paid, and paid by the same people paying for the care (everyone) but somehow it isn't counted in the cost of care. Of course it is a cost of care, just as the electricity to run the lights in the hospital is, but when comparing costs (price, to most people) it's left out. When you go to NZ for care, you won't pay that education cost and that makes it cheap to you, but someone has already paid it. Here, you will pay it when you receive care, running your price up but not the total cost of care.
It is that kind of thing that makes comparisons very difficult, and it is also that kind of thing that skews those comparisons so far out of reality that they are virtually useless. That doctor, taking home $50 for restoring sight compared to my doctor (who probably didn't take home much more overall) is a better comparison, but then we have other, similar, considerations.
The US hasn't had a private system of healthcare for nigh-on 80 years. Even before Obamacare, it was one of the most regulated, subsidised and fettered with industries in the country.
Health fraternal societies however, were paid for with a week's wages for a year, before they were essentially banned thanks to doctor license-ship.
Then how come the general health of the nation has improved since the formation of the NHS?
And who are these "other people" that are paying for the NHS - the French perhaps!
Well it's heartening to know that you think I'm not engaged in productive work! What is it that you do exactly?
By the way, Royal Mail posted greatly improved profits for last year, not bad for reduced reliance. In fact it is many years since RM made a loss, although the bottom line isn't the be all and end all of a public service.The general health of the nation was improving before the NHS too, thanks to the joys of the market making medicine cheaper and more abundant. It continued under the NHS but we've hit a kind of wall where people have been born under it and know that almost any health problem can be solved for free. Of course other people are paying for it. If it was true that we all got together and chipped in, it would not be necessary to enforce taxation. Let's call it what it is: healthcare funded by theft.
Is it or is it not true that there has been less reliance on the postal service since the expansion of the internet and email? A business can still be profitable whilst being too expensive, especially in a statist system where it's hard to know whether you're providing a real service. In a free-market, you know you're providing a public service if it is profitable.I contest your claim that the nations health was improving as rapidly before the NHS as it has since.
And who are these other people who are paying for it? We all benefit and we all pay, even little kiddies spending their £1 pocket money pay.
Is car insurance protection by theft? Everybody who drives has to have it.
No, it is not true that there is less reliance on the postal service since the expansion of the internet and e mail. The pattern of use has changed but it is only in recent years when the postman has had to start using a hand cart to carry his daily walk - many fewer letters, but many more packages.
As for knowing that you are providing a public service if you are profitable, I take it you think drug dealers and con men and the like are providing a valuable public service!Here's government statistics:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm … 99-111.pdf
Use Crtl + F to find 'Infant Mortality' and you'll see that from 1900 to 1950, infant mortality dropped from 140 deaths per thousand to around 30, and from 1950 to around 2000 it dropped to around 10. The NHS was founded in 1948. In your universe, what magical force allowed this astonishing increase in the health of the populace without a government health service in place?
John, if taxation is enforced, that is proof in and of itself that there are some people that would not pay it otherwise. These are the 'other people'.
So what is your explanation for the privatisation of the post office?
Yes, drug dealers do provide a valuable public service. Drugs are valuable to many people, and drug dealers supply them. Con men are not free-marketers.
They are all in favour of the police state - grabbing the 'terrorists' by any means necessary, even if that means violating individual liberty. This incentivises government growth.
It incentives private sector growth. They get the contracts, your beloved freemarketeers!This is fascism, not the free market. The free market is not made so by the presence of some private businesses with special government privileges. The free market is absolute respect for property right and competition.
You appear to view the "free market" as some form of entity which is above mere mortals. The free market is made of individual men and women, each with flaws and also an agenda. The agenda is profit, that's it.
Perhaps when you view the free market for what it is; a collective of individuals with one aim, you'll be more realistic. Free marketeers are not morally superior to govt. reps or private enterprise.I don't at all. The 'free-market' is no entity, but a state in which property rights are largely respected, and is made up of voluntary transaction only. That's all it is.
But your point about self-interest is exactly the point I try to make to statists: what makes you think politicians are more altruistic than the average person? The truth is that individuals are largely out for their self-interest, so we have to create a system that makes self-interest beneficial to society rather than a detriment. Government, as a monopoly of aggression, makes that self-interest more dangerous than the market ever would. In the market, individuals have to provide for consumers in order to survive and thrive.
Think about it. Businesses cannot, by themselves, regulate smaller businesses out of the market, declare war for resources, force people to buy their products and ban competing substances/products to get an advantage. At the moment, all they need to do is lobby the government to do that for them. With no government to lobby, advantage can only come from making better products and services that consumers willingly buy. And what's wrong with that?
Leftists are all about reducing corporate power, but have little to no interest in cutting government. Why not? You'll be surprised how much you have issue with is down to government enforced corporate privileges. The free-market does not produce corporate subsidies, enforced monopolies, bail-outs and large-scale wars of aggression that only benefits the munitions industry. Why is that? Simply because most people don't want that, and therefore there is no market for businesses to exploit. Only by force can they succeed in this regard.Do you never take any notice of what I, and many others, say?
You claim that you're not about big government, but are in favour of every regulation under the sun, central banking, government healthcare, education and military. I'm afraid that means you are for big government.
As I thought, you haven't read a word I've written.
I'm opposed to central banking, credit unions would be fine by me.
I'm for state education, an educated nation is far less open to exploitation.
Military should be used for national defence only, not offence.
I am for government by the people which is the opposite of big government.That's right, Josak is the one who wants central banking.
Other than that, my point stands. State education, state healthcare and state military require big government to function, there's no way around that.There are, if you used your imagination, plenty of ways round that.
The only one of those that you mention that needs to be big is healthcare and only because big is the only effective way of having experts who can treat rare ailments.
State education does not need big government and does Switzerland have big government? It has the sort of military that rings my bell, firstly with a policy of none intervention and no imperialism and secondly having all fit members of society in the military. when was the last time the Swizz went to war?I take it you did not support the US "invasion" of Kuwait, after Iraq went in with tanks and set the country on fire?
Nonintervention covers a lot of ground.Perhaps if April Glaspie had not managed to convince Saddam Hussain that he was Americas golden boy he might not have felt so confident in invading Kuwait.
I don't at all. The 'free-market' is no entity, but a state in which property rights are largely respected, and is made up of voluntary transaction only. That's all it is.
But your point about self-interest is exactly the point I try to make to statists: what makes you think politicians are more altruistic than the average person? The truth is that individuals are largely out for their self-interest, so we have to create a system that makes self-interest beneficial to society rather than a detriment. Government, as a monopoly of aggression, makes that self-interest more dangerous than the market ever would.
The free market is made up of individuals! What makes you think that the free market are more altruistic than govt, or the average person? Because you clearly do, you believe that the free market should have free reign without any restrictions whatsoever, and we should trust implicitly this "state"
For crying out loud is everyone really that blinkered.
Playing the partisan game is fun and all but it genuinely seems like people don't understand the other side at all.
Libertarianism says it wants liberty and freedom, the truth is every single major system (before being corrupted anyway) strives for exactly that. The question is what provides more freedom.
Anarchists believe that liberty is achieved by having no oppressive non voluntary state, however states with such oppressive governments can easily overwhelm them militarily due to their superior military machine and can enslave or simply oppress the conquered people thus no liberty and the breakdown of law is a serious concern for liberty in an anarchic system as proven by many small and larger scale example throughout history. The person being murdered or raped has no liberty
Libertarians claim that most freedom is achieved by having a state to manage the military, the legal system and other such essentials but nothing else with a minimum of the tyranny of taxation. However this system has several problems, first it actually doesn't fix that problem since corrupting a military or police force is very achievable and from the force they wield total tyranny is possible. Second because of the disadvantaged, the child born into an incredibly poor family who is given up at birth with no state system to support it has no freedom either, in such systems children are given to private charities who raise them past infancy and then there is nothing to do, they end up street children and rarely live past the age of twelve. I was born into exactly that situation and was saved from such a fate only by the opening of a state funded orphanage, the child dying at twelve on the street certainly has no liberty.
To address that problem we get Conservatism, it argues that the state should do what the libertarians state does plus also look after children, schools and also provide some moral legislation on who people can marry etc. but keep the tyranny of taxation to an otherwise minimum. This now has a tax burden which is a pretty hefty burden on the idea of liberty, it still has problems with the lack of liberty for the poor (in as for example it's hard for a poor person to get through college in such a system) and now it has the problem of an oppressive state that legislates morality.
Skip all the way to socialism
Socialism attempts to achieve liberty by creating equal opportunity and removing the lack of freedom that is generally borne by those born poor, no one starves, medical bills are cared for so no one becomes subject to the tyranny of a disease and generally people have a lot more freedom on what to do with their lives in the main (as in it's easy to go to the free college where accommodation and food are paid for etc. and even a very poor person can quite easily become say a doctor.) But Socialism still has the taxation problem and it's larger state has a perhaps greater chance of becoming tyrannous (although all of these states do since they control force ie. police and military.).
All of these systems attempt (amongst other things) to create freedom and liberty and all do but with problems that also limit liberty, which has been the most successful? Well I am sure everyone will have different opinions and proofs on that and there is no solid answer.
So there is no ideology of freedom or liberty and conservatism is n ideology of midling government, with the aim of creating the greatest liberty, on a relative scale it's neither big nor small.
They also believe that only the rich are people, and they alone should have nice things.
Yes, this is exactly what we believe. Exactly! LOL
I'd honestly like to hear your retort.
As well as Wilderness' - WHERE ARE YOUUUUU"They also believe that only the rich are people, and they alone should have nice things."
Your statement is an extremist's stereotype, assuming only wealthy people are conservative or that poor conservatives look down upon themselves. Would you care to provide a source, or shall we file this in the opinion column?
Jack Cafferty, of CNN, bashed republicans by saying that most of the poorest 10 states voted republican in the last presidential election. Why would the voters within these states believe that they are not people and that they should not have nice things? Your statement is ridiculous at best.
I'm a conservative republican who is not rich. I'm a teacher. I believe I deserve nice things, and the last time I looked, I was a person. What are you thinking?I hate to break it to you, but you've been trained by the Religious Right to vote against your own best interests.
If you're not rich, why would you vote for the party that backs only the rich?
If you believe you deserve nice things, why would you vote for the party that constantly places the tax burden on you--the middle class--instead of onto the rich, who can afford to bear that burden?
If you are, indeed, a person, why would you vote for the party that tries to tear away your freedom of speech, your freedom from self-incrimination, your freedom of privacy, and your freedom of expression?Your argument is ludicrous. Shall I tell you that you have been trained by the Lazy Left. They want wealth redistribution for doing nothing.
No, I did not get trained. Republicans and conservatives do not need to be re-educated. Nice try.
Obama doesn't place the tax burden on the middle class? Yeah, right. Both republicans and democrats place the burden on the middle class.
Neither side seems too interested in freedom of speech, privacy, and expression. Don't put the blame on one side. Obama voted to renew the Patriot Act. He flies drones over his own people, and has a kill list with Americans on it. I bet the press really feels its freedom of speech is safe. Remember the AP scandal? Neither democrats nor republicans can claim their side is really great when it comes to protecting first-amendment rights.No, but I see your training is well on too.
"but I see your training is well on too."
Huh? NevermindHow do you equate " They want wealth redistribution for doing nothing." with a basic socialist tenet that those who do not work shall not eat?
Ah, coming from a socialist, thanks comrade.
At least get the terms right, comrade is the communist term, socialists call each other brother and sister.
I knew comrade was communist, but I did not know about the brother and sister thing. Using brother and sister sounds so Christian. LOL
I know right? Same principle, an international brotherhood of mankind united by mutual compassion, respect and purpose irrespective of borders, race or nationality. The difference of course is that in the socialist sense it's also irrespective of faith, not so in the Christian sense.
In many places socialism is closely tied to the church. I am not religious myself but there is no contradiction between socialism and faith.
Republicans don't need to be re-educated because most of them haven't had an education to begin with
*Bazinga*
Oh and remember when a reporter went to jail during Bush's watch? Makes the AP scandal look like an interesting story by comparison.The funniest part of your "joke" is when you used "bazinga." If you have to have a cue to tell people it's a joke, it probably wasn't that funny in the first place. Still, "bazinga" is funny.
Yeah, I don't remember the Bush incident. IF it happened under Bush, it wasn't right then either.
Related Discussions
- 11
Does James Madison Think Gov't Should Change With the Times?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison made the following point during debate on the length of Senator's terms:"In framing a system which we wish to last the ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which the ages will produce."The "system" he is talking about,...
- 162
To all Republicans and Conservatives out there, what do YOU wish and
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
hope for this country and for this government?
- 37
Government shutdown
by Kathleen Cochran 3 hours ago
There are two ways to increase our revenue stream. Spend less - usually impacting the most vulnerable among us - and increase taxes - usually impacting the least vulnerable among us. Which choice says who we are as Americans?
- 79
So how is this small government stuff going to work then?
by kirstenblog 12 years ago
Seems to me the biggest aim of the tea party is a smaller government, right?Well now how does that work then? I have always thought that folks want the government to be hands off when it comes to them. When it comes to those that they don't approve of, well why the hell isn't the government doing...
- 141
Is Western Conservatism Founded on Religion Rather Than Reason?
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
In researching my new book "Conservatism in America: Theory and Reality" I ran across this comment by Russell Kirk about the father of conservatism - Edmund Burke. It says:"Revelation, reason, and assurance beyond the senses tell that the Author of our being exists, and that He...
- 98
Freedom of choice or government entitlements and regulations?
by SportsBetter 11 years ago
Freedom of choice or government entitlements and regulations?